The URL can be used to link to this page

03.07.24 City Council Agenda M ayor Aaron Brockett Council M e mbe rs Taishya Adams Matt Benjamin Lauren Folkerts Tina Marquis Ryan Schuchard Nicole Speer Mark Wallach Tara Winer Council Chambers 1777 Broadway Boulder, CO 80302 March 7, 2024 6:00 PM City M anage r Nuria Rivera-Vandermyde City Attorne y Teresa Taylor Tate City Cle rk Elesha Johnson AGE NDA FOR T HE REGULAR MEET ING OF T HE BOULDER CIT Y COUNCIL 1.Call to Order and Roll C all A.B oulder M edical C enter 75th Anniversary Declaration P resented by M ayor Pro Tem S peer 5 M in 2.O pen C omment 3.Consent Agenda A.Consideration of a motion to accept the February 8th S tudy Session S ummary regarding Homelessness S trategy Updates B.Consideration of a motion authorizing the C ity M anager to convey the permanently affordable housing unit at 3250 Oneal Cir Unit #J 35, Boulder, C O to eligible buyers and sign all associated agreements C.Consideration of a motion to authorize the city manager to execute P rogram Agreement documents to satisfy the historic preservation requirements of the C olorado S tate Historic Preservation Office and the US Department of Housing and Urban D evelopment D.Consideration of a motion to approve a request by P ublic S ervice Company of Colorado (dba X cel E nergy) and on behalf of Comcast/Xfinity, CenturyL ink/L umen and the City of Boulder Innovation and Technology Department, to use certain C ity of Boulder open space lands to install and maintain subsurface electric and telecommunication utilities via open trenching or boring pursuant to the disposal procedures of Article X I I, Section 177 of the City of Boulder C harter E .Introduction, first reading, and consideration of a motion to order published by title only Ordinance 8624 adopting wetlands mapping and functional evaluations for a property generally located on a 308.15-acre parcel and generally known as C U S outh at 4886 and Packet Page 1 of 523 5278 Table M esa Drive, 718 M arshall Road, 0 Hwy 36 (2 parcels) and 4745 W. M oorhead; and setting forth related details F.S econd reading and consideration of a motion to adopt Ordinance 8620 amending T itle 9, "L and Use C ode," B.R.C . 1981 to fix errors, clarify existing code sections, update graphics, and improve the clarity of the code, and setting forth related details 4.Call-Up C heck-In A.S ite Review Amendment including a Height M odification request to allow for up to seven feet six inches of additional height with a pitched roof or alternatively, up to four feet of additional height with or without a pitched roof for each townhome building within the approved S hining M ountain Waldorf S chool development at 0 Violet Ave. (L UR2023-00050) B.Consideration of a Standard Stream, Wetland and Water B ody P rotection Permit for the proposed renovation of the C hapman Drive T railhead and construction of a pedestrian bridge over B oulder Creek generally located at 38474 Boulder C anyon Drive in B oulder County (WE T 2023-00020) 5.P ublic Hearings A.C oncept Review proposal to redevelop the 448,668 sq. ft. site at 2952 Baseline Rd. with a mixed-use development consisting of residential, commercial, hotel, and restaurant uses. T he existing buildings on site would be demolished and replaced with six new 4-5 story buildings containing retail, restaurant and hotel uses as well as approximately 610 new dwelling units, and a mix of structured and underground parking. T he unit type mix would include market rate units and student housing units. Reviewed under case number L UR2023-00038 105 min - 30 min staff presentation / 75 min public hearing and Council discussion 6.M atters from the City M anager A.Progress Update on the Implementation of the East B oulder Subcommunity Plan: Zoning Update 90 min - 30 min staff presentation / 60 min Council discussion 7.M atters from the City Attorney 8.M atters from the M ayor and M embers of C ouncil 9.Discussion Items 10.Debrief 11.Adjournment Packet Page 2 of 523 4:20 hrs Additional M aterials P resentations Item Updates Information Items A.2024 Annual O S M P P rairie Dog C onservation and M anagement Update B.Boulder S ocial Streets - Updates and Next S teps C.Community C onnectors-in-Residence Update Boards and C ommissions A.J anuary 10, 2024 E nvironmental Advisory B oard M eeting M inutes Declarations A.National Women's History M onth D eclaration Heads Up! E mail This meeting can be viewed at www.bouldercolorado.gov/city-council. Meetings are aired live o n Municipal Channel 8 and the city's we bsite and are re-cablecast at 6 p.m. Wednesdays and 11 a.m. Fridays in the two we eks following a regular counc il meeting. Boulder 8 TV (Comc ast channels 8 and 880) is now providing c losed c aptioning for all live meetings that are aired on the channels. The c losed captioning service operates in the same manner as similar services offered by broadc ast channels, allowing viewers to turn the closed c aptioning on or off with the television remote c ontrol. Closed captioning also is available on the live HD stream on Boulder Channel8.com. To ac tivate the captioning service for the live stream, the "C C" button (whic h is located at the bottom of the video player) will be illuminated and available whenever the channel is providing captioning servic es. The council chambers is equipped with a T-Coil assisted listening loop and portable assisted listening devic es. I ndividuals with hearing or speec h loss may contact us using Relay Colorado at 711 or 1-800-659-3656. Anyone requiring spec ial pac ket preparation such as Braille, large print, or tape recorded versions may contac t the City C lerk's Office at 303-441-4222, 8 a.m. - 5 p.m. Monday through Friday. Please request special packet preparation no later than 48 hours prior to the meeting. I f you need Spanish interpretation or other language-related assistance for this meeting, please call (303) 441-1905 at least three business days prior to the meeting. Si usted necesita interpretacion o cualquier otra ay uda c on relacion al idioma para esta junta, por favor c omuniquese al (303) 441-1905 por lo menos 3 negocios dias antes de la junta. Packet Page 3 of 523 Send elec tronic presentations to email address: CityClerkS taff@bouldercolorado.gov no later than 2 p.m. the day of the meeting. Packet Page 4 of 523 C OVE R SH E E T ME E T I N G D AT E March 7, 2024 AG E N D A I T E M Boulder Medical C enter 75th Anniversary Declaration Presented by Mayor Pro Tem Speer P RI MARY STAF F C ON TAC T Megan Valliere, Assistant to City C ouncil AT TAC H ME N T S: Description B oulder Medical Center 75th Anniv ersary Declaration Packet Page 5 of 523 Packet Page 6 of 523 C OVE R SH E E T ME E T I N G D AT E March 7, 2024 AG E N D A I T E M C onsideration of a motion to accept the February 8th Study Session Summary regarding Homelessness Strategy Updates P RI MARY STAF F C ON TAC T Vicki Ebner/Operations and Homelessness Senior Manager RE Q U E ST E D AC T I ON O R MOT I ON L AN GU AG E Motion to accept the February 8th Study Session regarding Homelessness Strategy Updates AT TAC H ME N T S: Description I tem 3A - Consideration of a motion to accept the F ebruary 8th Study Session regarding Homelessness Strategy Updates Packet Page 7 of 523 CITY OF BOULDER CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM MEETING DATE: March 7, 2024 AGENDA TITLE Consideration of a motion to accept the February 8, 2024 study session summary regarding homelessness strategy updates. PRESENTER(S) Nuria Rivera-Vandermyde, City Manager Jeff Cahn, Interim Presiding Municipal Judge Teresa Taylor Tate, City Attorney Chris Meschuk, Deputy City Manager Mark Woulf, Assistant City Manager Steve Redfearn, Interim Police Chief Michael Calderazzo, Fire Chief Kurt Firnhaber, Housing and Human Services Director Joe Taddeucci, Utilities Director Ali Rhodes, Parks and Recreation Director Cris Jones, Community Vitality Director Joanna Bloom, Deputy Utilities Director Chris Reynolds, Deputy City Attorney Carl Castillo, Chief Policy Advisor Vicki Ebner, Operations and Homelessness Strategy Senior Manager Megan Newton, Homelessness Policy Advisor Daniel Reinhard, Senior Data Analyst Nicolia Eldred-Skemp, Senior Data Analyst Lynette Badasarian, Homelessness Program Manager Item 3A: Consideration of a motion to accept the February 8, 2024 study session regarding homelessness strategy updates. Page 1 Packet Page 8 of 523 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This agenda item provides a summary of the Feb. 8 study session on homelessness strategy. The purpose of this item was for council to provide input on collaborative efforts and initiatives. STAFF RECOMMENDATION COMMUNITY SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENTS AND IMPACTS •Economic – Homelessness is associated with multiple economic impacts. First, homelessness is at its heart a housing issue, primarily caused by an individual’s inability to access or maintain housing. Individuals experiencing homelessness are often faced with barriers that impact their ability to obtain and maintain gainful employment. In addition to economic impacts to the individuals experiencing homelessness, unsheltered homelessness can impact the business community. Community responses to homelessness can also be costly, affecting available resources needed for other community initiatives. •Environmental – Homelessness, particularly unsheltered homelessness in or near waterways or areas that are environmentally vulnerable, disproportionately creates harmful levels of debris, water contamination, or other negative impacts. •Social – While BIPOC people experiencing homelessness are overrepresented in the overall homeless community, they are also over-represented in homelessness exits. The SAMPS program continues to embrace outreach efforts that lead to successful exits from homelessness. People experiencing homelessness are often over-represented in underserved communities including people of color, LGBTQ+, non-binary persons, older adults, and people dealing with disabling conditions. Suggested Motion Language: Staff requests council consideration of this matter and action in the form of the following motion: Motion to accept the study session summary from Feb. 8, 2024, on Homelessness Strategy. Item 3A: Consideration of a motion to accept the February 8, 2024 study session regarding homelessness strategy updates. Page 2 Packet Page 9 of 523 OTHER IMPACTS •Fiscal – Sustaining some of the programs and initiatives will require sustained and increasing financial commitment. •Staff time –The Homelessness Policy Advisor continues to be the lead for adult homelessness responses and supervises the Homelessness Program Manager, who coordinates shelter and outreach work. The HHS Operations and Homelessness Strategy Senior Manager supports this work and also oversees the logistics of the Safe and Managed Public Spaces team. The Chief Policy Advisor leads the High Utilizer Leadership Team. QUESTIONS TO COUNCIL Study Session questions were: •Does council have questions or feedback on the overall homelessness strategy and/or system gaps as outlined in the memo? •After considering the overall approach to homelessness, including High Utilizers, does council have questions or input on the funding priorities to address identified program gaps? •Does council have questions or need additional information related to the High Utilizers Program? •Does council support the continued efforts to formally develop and seek funding for a High Utilizer program with the city’s regional partners and through philanthropic support? BOARD AND COMMISSION FEEDBACK None PUBLIC FEEDBACK This is a complex topic and engenders significant feedback from members of the community. BACKGROUND •The Homelessness Strategy Update was provided on Feb. 8, 2024. ATTACHMENT(S) A.Summary of the Feb. 8. 2024, Study Session on Homelessness Strategy. Item 3A: Consideration of a motion to accept the February 8, 2024 study session regarding homelessness strategy updates. Page 3 Packet Page 10 of 523 ATTACHMENT A Feb. 8, 2024 Study Session Summary Homelessness Strategy PRESENT City Council: Mayor Aaron Brockett, Study Session Facilitator Matt Benjamin, Mayor Pro Tem Nicole Speer, Taiysha Adams, Lauren Folkerts, Tina Marquis, Ryan Schuchard, Mark Wallach, Tara Winer. Staff: Nuria Rivera-Vandermyde, City Manager, Jeff Cahn, Interim Presiding Municipal Judge, Teresa Taylor Tate, City Attorney, Chris Meschuk, Deputy City Manager, Mark Woulf, Assistant City Manager, Steve Redfearn, Interim Police Chief, Kurt Firnhaber, Housing and Human Services Director, Joe Taddeucci, Utilities Director, Chris Reynolds, Deputy City Attorney, Carl Castillo, Chief Policy Advisor, Vicki Ebner, Operations and Homelessness Strategy Senior Manager, Megan Newton, Homelessness Policy Advisor, Daniel Reinhard, Senior Data Analyst, Nicolia Eldred-Skemp, Senior Data Analyst OVERVIEW The study session provided the opportunity for council members to receive an update and discuss success metrics, collaborative activities and challenges. SUMMARY OF PRESENTATION & DISCUSSION High Utilizer Program Carl Castillo and Vicki Ebner provided an overview of the High Utilizer program and proposal. •Characteristics and challenges of high system utilizers •Costs associated with high system utilization •Structure of the High Utilizer taskforce •Components of the proposal •Fundraising and next steps Interim Police Chief Stephen Redfearn, District Attorney Michael Dougherty, and Boulder Community Health Foundation CEO Grant Besser spoke to the need for the proposal. Interim Municipal Court Judge Jeff Cahn, Megan Newton, Carl Castillo, and Nicolia Eldred Skemp answered questions about the details of the proposed program of services. Council requested information about high utilizer programs in other communities. While staff provided some information in the memo (see page 50, “Converting High Utilizers into Lower Utilizers,” staff will be happy to provide any additional information as needed. Item 3A: Consideration of a motion to accept the February 8, 2024 study session regarding homelessness strategy updates. Page 4 Packet Page 11 of 523 Council would like further information about potential cost sharing and further conversations with the Boulder County commissioners. Homelessness Strategy Megan Newton and Kurt Firnhaber provided an overview of the city’s homelessness strategy including: • National, regional and local Point in Time Counts • System client inflow and outflow • Sheltering programs • Day services and respite • Permanent supportive housing programs • Retention services • Prevention • Family Homelessness • System coordination • Investments and unfunded programs • System gaps and funding priorities Kurt Firnhaber, Joe Taddeucci, Megan Newton, and Vicki Ebner answered questions about the information presented. NEXT STEPS Council requested further conversation about the high utilizer program and overall homelessness funding prioritization. Council requested information related to funding and outcomes that can be highlighted in future reporting. Council discussed the role of Boulder County and desired for more conversation amongst county and city elected officials with the aim of increasing the city’s voice in system level decision making. Item 3A: Consideration of a motion to accept the February 8, 2024 study session regarding homelessness strategy updates. Page 5 Packet Page 12 of 523 C OVE R SH E E T ME E T I N G D AT E March 7, 2024 AG E N D A I T E M C onsideration of a motion authorizing the City Manager to convey the permanently affordable housing unit at 3250 Oneal Cir Unit #J 35, Boulder, C O to eligible buyers and sign all associated agreements P RI MARY STAF F C ON TAC T Eli Urken/Housing Investment Senior Project Manager RE Q U E ST E D AC T I ON O R MOT I ON L AN GU AG E Motion authorizing the C ity Manager to convey the permanently affordable housing unit at 3250 Oneal Cir Unit #J 35, Boulder, C O to eligible buyers and sign all associated agreements. AT TAC H ME N T S: Description I tem 3B - Consideration of a motion authorizing the City Manager to conv ey a permanently affordable housing unit Packet Page 13 of 523 CITY OF BOULDER CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM MEETING DATE: March 7, 2024 AGENDA TITLE Consideration of a motion authorizing the City Manager to convey the permanently affordable home at 3250 Oneal Cir Unit #J35, Boulder, CO to eligible buyers and sign all associated agreements. PRESENTER/S Nuria Rivera-Vandermyde, City Manager Kurt Firnhaber, Director of Housing & Human Services Jay Sugnet, Housing & Human Services Senior Manager Eli Urken, Housing Investment Sr Project Manager EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Approval from City Council is required to dispose of City property. The City, through its Housing & Human Services Department, purchased the home at 3250 Oneal Cir Unit #J35, Boulder, CO in February 2024. The home was purchased with the intention of providing homeownership opportunities to middle income buyers. The homeownership program seeks approval to sell the property to a program qualified buyer. This will allow the home to be added to the City’s Permanently Affordable Homeownership Program. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Suggested Motion Language: Staff requests council consideration of this matter and action in the form of the following motion: Motion to authorize the City Manager to dispose of the permanently affordable home at 3250 Oneal Cir Unit #J35, Boulder, CO to an eligible buyer and sign all associated agreements. Item 3B: Consideration of a motion authorizing the City Manager to convey a permanently affordable housing unit Page 1 Packet Page 14 of 523 COMMUNITY SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENTS AND IMPACTS •Economic – The City of Boulder Permanently Affordable Homeownership Program is committed to making homes in our community available to a variety of people. We offer opportunities for homeownership to those with low, moderate, and middle incomes throughout the city. Authorizing the City Manager to dispose of 3250 Oneal Cir Unit #J35 to certified applicants, through the Permanently Affordable Homeownership Program Fair Selection Process, will provide properties for permanently affordable homeownership in the City of Boulder. •Social - The sale of these homes will give income qualified applicants the opportunity to purchase an affordable home in Boulder. OTHER IMPACTS Fiscal – The purchase and sale of this property will have a net cost of approximately $150,000. The majority of this represents the subsidy needed to convert the home from market rate to permanently affordable. To make it affordable the price needed to be lowered. In addition, some of the systems in the home were in need of maintenance or replacement. The net cost was anticipated and budgeted for within the new Housing & Human Services initiative that creates middle-income affordable homes. Table A – Property Purchase, Rehabilitation and Resale Costs 3250 Oneal Cir Unit #J35 Purchase Amount ($370,000.00) Rehabilitation Costs ≈ ($10,000.00) Resale Costs ≈ ($10,000.00) Total Costs ≈ ($390,000.00) Table B – Property Sale Property Resale Amount $240,000.00 Total Costs ≈ ($390,000.00) Community Housing Assistance Program Fund (CHAP) ≈ $150,000 •Staff time - Staff time needed to facilitate the property sale would be a part of the normal work plan. No additional staff resources would be required. BACKGROUND To build the inventory of permanently affordable homes available to middle-income earners (80-120% AMI), the Housing and Human Service department established a new initiative in 2021 called Scattered Site Acquisitions. The goal of this initiative is to buy homes at market prices and resell them at lower prices that are in line with the Permanently Affordable Program specific to middle-income. A permanently affordable covenant is attached to the property with the goal of maintaining affordability in Item 3B: Consideration of a motion authorizing the City Manager to convey a permanently affordable housing unit Page 2 Packet Page 15 of 523 perpetuity. 3250 Oneal Cir Unit #J35 was purchased at market rate with the intention to convert it to a permanently affordable home. ANALYSIS The Housing & Human Service’s mission is to preserve and provide safe, quality and affordable housing opportunities through collaborative community planning and funding of programs. The purchase and resale of these properties upholds the mission of the program. The disposal of these properties will afford certified applicants’ opportunities to own a home in the city. These properties will serve applicants who earn up to 120% of the Area Median Income. Approval from City Council is required to dispose of City property, § 2-2-8(a) “Conveyance of Real Property Interests,” B.R.C. 1981. Item 3B: Consideration of a motion authorizing the City Manager to convey a permanently affordable housing unit Page 3 Packet Page 16 of 523 C OVE R SH E E T ME E T I N G D AT E March 7, 2024 AG E N D A I T E M C onsideration of a motion to authorize the city manager to execute Program Agreement documents to satisfy the historic preservation requirements of the Colorado State Historic Preservation Office and the US Department of Housing and Urban Development P RI MARY STAF F C ON TAC T Vicki Ebner/Operations and Homelessness Senior Manager RE Q U E ST E D AC T I ON O R MOT I ON L AN GU AG E Motion to authorize the city manager to execute Program Agreement documents to satisfy the historic preservation requirements of the C olorado State Historic Preservation Office and the US Department of Housing and Urban Development. AT TAC H ME N T S: Description I tem 3C: historic preserv ation requirements of the Colorado State Historic P reserv ation Office and the U S Department of H U D Packet Page 17 of 523 CITY OF BOULDER CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM MEETING DATE: March 7, 2024 AGENDA TITLE Consideration of a motion to authorize the city manager to execute Program Agreement documents to satisfy the historic preservation requirements of the Colorado State Historic Preservation Office and the US Department of Housing and Urban Development. PRESENTER(S) Nuria Rivera-Vandermyde, City Manager Teresa Taylor Tate, City Attorney Erin Poe, Deputy City Attorney Kurt Firnhaber, Director of Housing & Human Services Vicki Ebner, HHS Operations and Homelessness Strategy Sr. Manager Shelly Conley, Housing Senior Compliance Manager EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Staff request that council authorizes the city manager to execute the attached (Attachment A) Programmatic Agreement (PA). Implementation of HUD Programs may include activities, such as rehabilitation, demolition, and new construction, which may have an effect on properties included in or eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. This PA is a normal and regular requirement of the Colorado State Historic Preservation Office and the US Department of Housing and Urban Development. The PA allows for a streamlined review of the impact of a federally funded project on historically relevant properties. It is a requirement of the Environmental Review process, to which all federally funded projects are subject. The PA will apply to programs and projects assisted entirely or in part by federally funded projects. The assisted projects are Item 3C - Historic preservation requirements of the Colorado State Historic Preservation Office and the US Department of HUD Page 1 Packet Page 18 of 523 subject to compliance with 24 CFR Part 58.17, that involve new construction, rehabilitation of existing residential, commercial or institutional buildings. STAFF RECOMMENDATION COMMUNITY SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENTS AND IMPACTS •Economic – Use of Community Development Block Grant and Home Investment Partnerships Grant promotes a diverse and sustainable economy that supports needs of all segments of the community, particularly the low to moderate income sectors of the community. •Environmental – Environmental Review, and the associated historic preservation review, ensures that the projects and initiatives undertaken with federal funds do not substantially harm the built or natural environment. •Social – The Historic Preservation review process protects the historic value of buildings and sites within the city, consults with tribal authorities to guard against impacts to important tribal lands, and provides a mechanism by which historic buildings can be maintained and used by the community. OTHER IMPACTS •Fiscal – This Programmatic Agreement (PA) does not have any direct financial impacts. However, use of federal funds for otherwise eligible projects is dependent on and subject to compliance with Environmental Review and Colorado State Historic Preservation Office requirements. •Staff time – This process is a normal Housing and Human Services staff work plan component. RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS FROM COUNCIL AGENDA COMMITTEE None Suggested Motion Language: Staff requests council consideration of this matter and action in the form of the following motion: Motion to authorize the city manager to enter into an agreement with the Colorado State Historic Preservation Office to satisfy historic preservation requirements as part of the city’s Environmental Review Record requirements and to authorize the city manager to execute such agreements in future five-year required intervals. Item 3C - Historic preservation requirements of the Colorado State Historic Preservation Office and the US Department of HUD Page 2 Packet Page 19 of 523 BOARD AND COMMISSION FEEDBACK None PUBLIC FEEDBACK None BACKGROUND The City of Boulder is an entitlement community for Home Investment Partnership Grant (HOME) and Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds. As a function of the receipt of these funds, the city must ensure that all federally funded projects require an Environmental Review. As part of the Environmental Review, the city must evaluate each proposed project’s potential impact on historic preservation. If implementation of HUD Programs includes activities, such as rehabilitation, demolition, and new construction, which may have an effect on properties included in or eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places, the city will be required to comply with 24 CFR Part 58.17, concerning new construction, rehabilitation of existing residential, commercial or institutional buildings. Consultation with federally-recognized tribes is required when a project includes activities that have the potential to affect historic properties of religious and cultural significance to tribes. These types of activities include: ground disturbance (digging), new construction in undeveloped natural areas, introduction of incongruent visual, audible, or atmospheric changes, work on a building or structure with significant tribal association, or transfer, lease or sale of historic properties of religious and cultural significance. ANALYSIS In 2002, in accordance with 36 CFR §800.14(b), the city executed a program agreement with the Colorado State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), which is a standard requirement of the Environmental Review process. Every five years, the city must meet an administrative requirement to renew or update this program agreement. A Programmatic Agreement (PA) offers a more streamlined process for the city to satisfy its historic preservation requirements with minimum or no consultation with the SHPO based on the type of activity that is being undertaken. The PA allows certain types of projects to be exempt from SHPO consultation. It's important to note that all demolition and new construction activities require consultation with the SHPO and tribes. This PA has been signed by the SHPO, and authorizing the city manager to sign this PA will allow the city to remain in compliance with its Environmental Review and Historic Preservation requirements. As this is largely an administrative process, staff requests that the city manager be authorized to execute renewal agreements for each five-year period following this PA. Item 3C - Historic preservation requirements of the Colorado State Historic Preservation Office and the US Department of HUD Page 3 Packet Page 20 of 523 ATTACHMENT(S) A – Program Agreement Item 3C - Historic preservation requirements of the Colorado State Historic Preservation Office and the US Department of HUD Page 4 Packet Page 21 of 523 PROGRAMMATIC AGREEMENT BY AND AMONG THE CITY OF BOULDER AND THE COLORADO STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER REGARDING THE ADMINISTRATION OF U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS This Programmatic Agreement (hereinafter referred to as “Agreement”) is made this 24th day of October 2023, by and among the City of Boulder (hereinafter referred to as “the City”) and the Colorado State Historic Preservation Officer (hereinafter referred to as “SHPO”. WHEREAS, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (hereinafter referred to as “HUD”) provides formula grant funding to cities and counties in Colorado and to the State of Colorado; and WHEREAS, the City of Boulder (hereinafter referred to as the “City” is an Entitlement Community in Colorado; and WHEREAS, due to its acceptance of federal environmental review responsibility, in accordance with Section 104(g) of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 [42 U.S.C. 5304(g)], the City has assumed federal agency responsibility for compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended [16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.] (Section 106); and WHEREAS, the City now, or in the future, administers HUD grant programs which include, but are not limited to, the following HUD Programs: •Community Development Block Grant Program •Community Development Block Grant Recovery Act (CDBG-DR) •Community Development Block Grant Cares Act (CDBG-CV) •HOME Investment Partnership Program •HOME Investment Partnership Program America Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) WHEREAS, there is an existing programmatic agreement among the parties executed in January 2002, December 2012, and January 9, 2018, that the parties desire to rescind and substitute with this Agreement; and WHEREAS, the City has determined that implementation of the HUD Programs may include activities, such as rehabilitation, demolition, and new construction, which may have an effect on properties included in or eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places (Historic Properties); and WHEREAS, the City has determined that certain activities funded by the HUD Programs have limited potential to affect Historic Properties and has consulted with Colorado State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) pursuant to 36 C.F.R. 800.14 of the regulations implementing section 106, and Item 3C - Historic preservation requirements of the Colorado State Historic Preservation Office and the US Department of HUD Page 5 Attachment A – Program Agreement Packet Page 22 of 523 2 WHEREAS, the City acknowledges the importance of compliance with 36 C.F.R. Part 800, et al. regarding mandatory consulting and has implemented the policies and procedures contained herein regarding such consultation including consultation with SHPO; and WHEREAS, pursuant to 36 C.F.R. 800.14(b), the City has notified the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) of its intention to prepare a Programmatic Agreement and has submitted this Agreement for review and consultation; and WHEREAS, pursuant to 36 C.F.R. 800.14(b), the City has submitted this Agreement for review and consultation to the Indian Tribes that attach traditional religious and cultural significance to historic properties that may be affected by the City’s undertakings and has received responses that have been used to revise this Agreement. The City recognizes the unique legal and political relationship the United States Government has with federally- recognized Indian Tribes, including government-to-government relationships, and consultation responsibilities as set forth in 36 C.F.R. Part 800, et al. NOW, THEREFORE, the City and the SHPO agree that HUD Programs shall be administered in accordance with the following stipulations to satisfy the Section 106 responsibilities of the City, HUD and Landmarks Board, superseding any programmatic agreements that have been in place before. STIPULATIONS The City ensures that the following stipulations will be carried out: I. EXEMPTED ACTIVITIES NOT REQUIRING SHPO REVIEW The following proposed undertakings have limited potential to affect historic properties and may be approved by the City and/or Landmarks Board without further consultation with SHPO, Indian Tribes or ACHP. For the purposes of this Agreement, the term "in-kind replacement" is defined as the installation of a new element that duplicates the material, dimensions, configuration, and detailing of the original element, as explained and codified by the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation (36.CFR.67.7) A. General 1) Rehabilitation of mobile and manufactured homes. 2) Projects on buildings less than fifty years old; 3) Projects on buildings fifty years old or older but that have been determined by SHPO within five years as not eligible for the National Register of Historic Places; Item 3C - Historic preservation requirements of the Colorado State Historic Preservation Office and the US Department of HUD Page 6 Attachment A – Program Agreement Packet Page 23 of 523 3 4) Refinancing; or 5) Leasing without rehabilitation of construction B. Site Work (in the event of discovery of historic or prehistoric archaeological resources during ground-disturbing activities, work should stop immediately and the SHPO consulted. See Exhibit A for contact information.) 1) Installation or repair of retaining walls, driveways, curbs and gutters, and parked areas. However, repair of existing rock retaining walls is NOT an exempt undertaking; 2) Installation or in-kind repair/replacement of brick or stone sidewalks and alleys; 3) In-kind repair/replacement of site improvements, including, fences, retaining walls, landscaping and steps not attached to any building; 4) Installation, repair or replacement of gas, sanitary and storm sewer, water, electrical, cable or underground utilities within previously developed land and public right-of-way; 5) Installation, repair or replacement of park and playground equipment, excluding buildings; or 6) Installation of temporary construction-related structures such as scaffolding, screening, fences, protective walkways or dust hazard containment enclosures. 7) Removal and disposal of superficial on-site abandoned debris and personal property less than fifty (50) years old. 8) Site clean-up including trimming trees or other plantings and planting native grasses, shrubs, bushes, and trees, provided that such activity does not change the characteristic size or shape of the tree(s) or planting(s), and replacement of dead trees or other plantings with in-kind species in accordance with any approved planting plan. 9) In-kind replacement or repair of hardscaping such as paving, driveways, parking lots, walkways, planters, trellises, irrigation systems, and lighting following the existing or historic configuration and with in-kind material. 10) In -kind replacement or repair of fencing and other freestanding exterior walls not 50-years old or older. 11) Resurfacing of recreational facilities (e.g. tennis courts, basketball courts or street hockey arenas). Item 3C - Historic preservation requirements of the Colorado State Historic Preservation Office and the US Department of HUD Page 7 Attachment A – Program Agreement Packet Page 24 of 523 4 12) Repair or replacement of existing wires, anchors, cross -arms and other miscellaneous hardware on existing overhead lines, and of existing poles when conducted at or immediately adjacent to the old pole locations. 13) Relocation of existing overhead lines or cables resulting from highway reconstruction or improvement adjacent to the new highway easement. 14) Repair or replacement of subsurface water, sewer, natural gas, electric or telecommunications lines within previously road rights-of-way or utility corridors. C. Exterior Rehabilitation 1) Installation of exterior storm windows and storm doors, provided they conform to the shape and size of the historic windows and doors, and that the meeting rails of storm windows coincide with that of existing sash; 2) Removal of exterior paint by non-destructive means, provided that the removal method on buildings and components is consistent with provisions of HUD Office of Healthy Homes and Lead Hazard Controls (24 C.F.R. Part 35) and EPA’s Lead-Based Paint Renovation, Repair and Painting Program – RRP (40 C.F.R. Part 745); 3) Application of exterior paint and caulking, other than on previously unpainted masonry; 4) All lead paint abatement or mitigation that does not involve removal or alteration of exterior features and/or windows (24 CFR.35 and 40 CFR.745); 5) Repair, installation, or partial in-kind replacement (or adding of matching, in- kind elements for safety/code requirements) of existing porch elements such as columns, flooring, floor joists, ceilings, railings, balusters and balustrades, ramps and lattice. 6) Maintenance, repair and in-kind replacement to code of roof shingles, roof cladding and sheeting gutters, soffits, and downspouts with no change in roof pitch or configuration; 7) Placement and installation of exterior HVAC mechanical units, vents and exterior electrical and plumbing modifications not on the front elevation; 8) Installation, replacement, or repair of basement bulkhead doors; 9) Installation of additional decorative or security lights (e.g. sensors, alarms) as long as the installation does not damage historic material; Item 3C - Historic preservation requirements of the Colorado State Historic Preservation Office and the US Department of HUD Page 8 Attachment A – Program Agreement Packet Page 25 of 523 5 10) In accordance with Preservation Brief 31: Securing or mothballing a property by boarding over window and door openings, making temporary roof repairs, and/or ventilating the building. 11) Weatherizing of historic doors and windows, including caulking, insulation and weather stripping of existing frames, and installation of clear glass in existing sashes. 12) Testing for removal of any hazardous materials such as lead paint and asbestos provided it does not involve the removal or destruction of character- defining features. 13) Construction of temporary wooden ramps to one entrance of a given structure. The ramps shall not be attached to the selected building, and the ramps shall not damage the existing material. 14) Installation of wheelchair ramps on secondary elevations meeting code as long as ramps can be easily removed and are not permanently affixed to the building. Stairs and railings may not be removed to construct a ramp. 15) Strengthening of foundations and the addition of foundation bolts, provided that visible new work is in kind replacement. 16) Power washing of exterior features if performed at no more than 600 psi with mild detergent. Refer to National Park Service ("NPS") "Preservation Brief #6: Dangers of Abrasive Cleaning to Historic 17) In-kind replacement, repair, or strengthening of roofing, gutters or downspouts. 18) Installation of ridge vents or louver-type soffit vents, provided existing styles, dimensions, materials, colors and sheens are maintained. 19) Fascia/soffit repair or replacement when the new fascia/soffit will be of the same dimensions, configuration, design and material as the original. 20) In-kind replacement or reconstruction of concrete/masonry walls, parapets, fireplaces, chimneys or cornices including comparable brick and mortar that matches the color, strength, content, rake and joint width. Bracing and reinforcing of chimneys and fireplaces, provided the bracing and reinforcing are either concealed from exterior view or removable in the future. 21) In-kind replacement or repair of historic door and window hardware. 22) Installation of wood storm windows and doors that match the dimensions and arrangement of the primary sashes and/or doors Item 3C - Historic preservation requirements of the Colorado State Historic Preservation Office and the US Department of HUD Page 9 Attachment A – Program Agreement Packet Page 26 of 523 6 23) Repair of windows including caulking and weather stripping of existing window frames and installation of new, clear glass in existing sashes. 24) Windows and doors will be repaired whenever possible, in accordance with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation. 25) Installation of security devices such as dead bolts, door locks, window latches and door peepholes. 26) Repair of existing, deteriorated materials with sound material of like species, grade, dimension, composition, and finish in a manner which duplicates the existing design of the deteriorated feature. 27) Repair or replacement of roofing material with like materials or substantiated historic materials. 28) Repainting painted surfaces with chemically compatible paint in the historic colors. Placement and installation of solar panels on elevations not visible from the public right-of-way. D. Interior Rehabilitation 1) Installation, replacement, upgrade or repair of plumbing (including non- historic bath and kitchen fixtures, cabinetry, and appliances), HVAC systems and units, electrical and fire protection systems— provided no structural alterations are involved; 2) Repair or partial in-kind replacement of historical interior surface treatment, such as floors, walls, ceilings, plaster and woodwork. If covering historic features, such as wood floors, carpet and other flooring shall be installed in reversible manner, either through tacking or with an underlayment so historic floors shall not be irreversibly damaged; 3) Blown-in insulation in ceilings and attic spaces or interior insulation of basement or crawlspace areas; 4) Restroom improvements for handicapped access, including doorways, provided the work is contained within the existing restroom walls; 5) Installation or repair of concrete basement floor in an existing basement; 6) In accordance with the Secretary of Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation, structural repairs to sustain the existing structure that does not alter the existing building configuration; Item 3C - Historic preservation requirements of the Colorado State Historic Preservation Office and the US Department of HUD Page 10 Attachment A – Program Agreement Packet Page 27 of 523 7 7) Lead, asbestos or other hazardous material abatement, remediation or mitigation that does not involve removal or alteration of interior historic features; 8) Correcting structural deficiencies in basements, crawl spaces, and beneath porches, 9) Interior lead paint abatement when it is limited to washing, scraping and repainting, wallpapering, and chemical stripping of lead-painted surfaces. Installation of new window jambs or jamb liners, installation of metal panning in window wells and replacement of non-significant flat stock trim. Exterior lead paint abatement that includes scraping and repainting of exterior wood and masonry surfaces. 10) Installation of grab bars and other minor interior modifications for accessibility. 11) Installation of temporary structures for such uses as classrooms or offices, provided they are not placed adjacent to a listed or eligible property or in a historic district. 12) In-kind replacement of insulation systems, provided that decorative interior plaster, woodwork, or exterior siding is not altered. Installation of insulation in the attic, basement, crawl space, under floor, and around pipes and ducts in such cases where the installation can be accomplished without permanent visual changes to character defining features of the exterior or interior. Refer to NPS "Preservation Bulletin #3: Conserving Energy in Historic Buildings". 13) Repairing, in-kind replacing, retaining, preserving, protecting, or maintaining of materials or features of historic interior floors, walls, ceilings, stairs, plaster and wallboard: floor refinishing and the replacement of non-historic flooring materials. 14) Repairing and retaining non-significant interior historic trim including moldings, doors, baseboards, chair rails, wainscoting, paneling, cornice trim, fireplace mantels, stair balusters, newel posts, window and door casings and other decorative features or replacement of non-significant flat stock trim. 15) Repair, replacement, and installation of the following systems provided that such work does not affect decorative interior plaster, woodwork, and other historic materials. 16) Installation of carbon monoxide, fire, or smoke detectors. Item 3C - Historic preservation requirements of the Colorado State Historic Preservation Office and the US Department of HUD Page 11 Attachment A – Program Agreement Packet Page 28 of 523 8 II. PROGRAMS AND PROJECTS APPLICABLE TO THIS AGREEMENT The PA applies to programs and projects assisted entirely or in part by federally funded projects. The assisted projects are subject to compliance with 24 CFR Part 58.17, that involve new construction, rehabilitation of existing residential, commercial or institutional buildings. Any federally assisted undertaking not qualified for review under the terms of this PA is subject to review in accordance with 36 CFR Part 800. III. DISCOVERIES AND UNFORSEEN EFFECTS If during the implementation of these programs, a previously unidentified property that may be eligible for inclusion in the National Register is encountered, or a known National Register historic property may be affected in an unanticipated manner, the City will consult with SHPO pursuant to 36 CFR Part 800.13(b). When dealing with unexpected discoveries of cultural resources and human remains, Colorado Revised Statutes 24-80-1301 will be followed. 1) "Commission" means the commission of Indian affairs. 2) "Disturb" means to move, open, expose, dig up, disinter, excavate, remove, carry away, damage, injure, deface, desecrate, loot, vandalize, mutilate, or destroy. 3)"Human remains" means any part of the body of a deceased human being in any stage of decomposition. 4) "Land" means all lands, including submerged lands, located within the state of Colorado which are owned by the state or its political subdivisions, agencies, or instrumentalities or by any private person. 5) "Person" means an individual, limited liability company, corporation, unincorporated association, partnership, proprietorship, or governmental entity. 6) "Unmarked human burial" means any interment of human remains for which there exists no grave marker or any other historical documentation providing information as to the identity of the deceased. IV. EMERGENCY SITUATIONS As defined in 36 C.F.R. Part 800.12, emergencies are separated into two categories: A. Per the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act 42.USC.68 and the Colorado Disaster Emergency Act 24-33.5-704, disasters or emergencies declared by the President, a tribal government, or the Governor of a State or which respond to other immediate threats to life or property. These occurrences can require emergency highway system and facility repairs that are necessary to 1) protect the life, safety, or health of the public; 2) minimize the extent of damage to the highway system and facility; 3) protect remaining highway facilities; and/or 4) restore essential traffic. In situation where this definition applies: Item 3C - Historic preservation requirements of the Colorado State Historic Preservation Office and the US Department of HUD Page 12 Attachment A – Program Agreement Packet Page 29 of 523 9 1. Repairs can occur regardless of funding category, and regardless of declarations made by federal, state, or local agencies. These emergency repairs, including temporary traffic operations, are typically undertaken during or immediately following the occurrence that necessitated the action. 2. For repairs initiated within the first thirty (30) days of the declaration, the processing of environmental documentation will happen concurrently or after the fact. In these cases, the City shall comply to the extent possible with the stipulations of this Agreement, but reviews will likely be conducted after the emergency work is completed. For projects taking longer than thirty (30) days to initiate the repair, this Section of the Agreement will not apply. 3. Notification in writing or electronic mail (when appropriate) of an emergency action shall be provided to the SHPO within forty-eight (48) hours of the initial report. The notification will be clearly identified as an emergency situation and shall include an explanation of how the action meets the requirements for emergency situation and shall include an explanation of how the action meets the requirements for emergency as defined herein. The notification shall also Include a brief description of the resources(s) involved, the anticipated effect of the emergency action on the resource(s), and the anticipated time frame available for comment. 4. Work required to restore a damaged resource or facility to its original condition that is beyond the scope of the emergency repair will comply with the procedures of this Agreement. In these situations, the City may request an expedited review by the SHPO and consulting parties. B. In accordance with 36 C.F.R. Part 800.12(d), emergencies that are defined by immediate rescue and salvage operations conducted to preserve life or property such as necessitated by natural disaster or other catastrophic events are exempt from the provisions of Section 106 and this Agreement. V. NON-EXEMPT ACTIVITIES REQUIRING REVIEW All activities not identified in Section, I. A., of this Agreement must be reviewed in accordance with 36 CFR Part 800. VI. ANNUAL REPORT By March 31st of every year, the City will file a report on projects completed in the previous year to the SHPO which will include Project Address, Year Built, Nature of Work and referencing appropriate exempt activity as detailed in Stipulations I., A of this Agreement. Failure to timely file an annual report will result in automatic termination of this Agreement. Item 3C - Historic preservation requirements of the Colorado State Historic Preservation Office and the US Department of HUD Page 13 Attachment A – Program Agreement Packet Page 30 of 523 10 VII. AMENDMENT Any party may request an amendment to this Agreement, whereupon the SHPO will consult with the other parties in accordance with 36 CFR Part 800.14(b) to consider an amendment. Amendments will only be considered if made in writing and must be approved in writing by all parties to this Agreement to go into effect. VIII. TERMINATION Any Party to this Agreement may terminate the participation by providing thirty (30) days written notice to all other parties. In the event of termination, the terminating party will comply with 36 C.F.R. Part 800.3 through 800.7 with respect to individual undertakings covered by this Agreement. Termination by the SHPO will nullify this Agreement, and any future obligations contained in the Agreement, upon all parties. IX. NOTIFICATION Notification or other communication between parties to this Agreement should be made in care of the addresses provided in Exhibit A. X. DISPUTE RESOLUTION Should any signatory or concurring party to this Agreement object at any time to any actions proposed or the manner in which the terms of this Agreement are implemented, the City shall consult with such party to resolve the objection. If the City determines that such an objection cannot be resolved, the City will: A. Forward all documentation relevant to the dispute, including the City’s proposed resolution, to the ACHP. The ACHP shall provide the City with its advice on the resolution of the objection within 30 days of receiving adequate documentation. Prior to reaching a final decision on the dispute, the City shall prepare a written response that takes into account any timely advice or comments regarding the dispute from the ADHP, signatories and concurring parties, and provide them a copy of this written response. The City will then proceed according to its final decision. B. If the ACHP does not provide its advice regarding the dispute within the thirty (30) day time period, the City may make a final decision on the dispute and proceed accordingly. Prior to reaching such a final decision, the City shall prepare a written response that takes into account any timely comments regarding the dispute from the signatories and concurring parties to the MOA, and provide them and the ACHP with a copy of such written response. C. The City’s responsibilities to carry out all other actions subject to the terms of this MOA that are not the subject of the dispute remain unchanged. XI. TERMS OF THE AGREEMENT Following signature by the City and the SHPO, this Agreement will be binding on a party upon the date of its signature and shall be in force for a term of five (5) years thereafter, unless the parties agree to extend it. Item 3C - Historic preservation requirements of the Colorado State Historic Preservation Office and the US Department of HUD Page 14 Attachment A – Program Agreement Packet Page 31 of 523 11 SIGNATURE PAGE FOLLOWS Signed by: CITY OF BOULDER By: Date: Aaron Brockett, Mayor CITY OF BOULDER By: Date: Nuria Rivera-Vandermyde, City Manager ATTEST: City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney’s Office COLORADO STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER Dr. Holly Kathryn Norton Digitally signed by Dr. Holly Kathryn Norton By: Date: 2023.10.24 16:27:43 -06'00' Date: Dawn DiPrince, State Historic Preservation Officer Item 3C - Historic preservation requirements of the Colorado State Historic Preservation Office and the US Department of HUD Page 15 Attachment A – Program Agreement Packet Page 32 of 523 12 ATTACHMENT A MAILING ADDRESSES OF SIGNATORIES & CONTACTS City of Boulder Nuria Rivera-Vandermyde, City Manager 1777 Broadway Boulder, CO. 80302 History Colorado Dawn DiPrince, State Historic Preservation Officer 1200 Broadway Denver, CO. 80203 303-866-2776 Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 401 F Street NW, Suite 308 Washington, D.C. 20001-2637 achp@achp.gov U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Jerimiah Sanders, Regional Environmental Officer 1670 Broadway 25th Floor Denver, CO. 80202-4801 Jerimiah.J.Sanders@hud.gov Contact Information if Archaeological Resources are Encountered: Dr. Holly Norton, State Archaeologist Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation 1200 Broadway Denver, CO. 80203 holly.norton@state.co.us 303-866-2736 Item 3C - Historic preservation requirements of the Colorado State Historic Preservation Office and the US Department of HUD Page 16 Attachment A – Program Agreement Packet Page 33 of 523 C OVE R SH E E T ME E T I N G D AT E March 7, 2024 AG E N D A I T E M C onsideration of a motion to approve a request by Public Service Company of C olorado (dba Xcel Energy) and on behalf of Comcast/Xfinity, CenturyLink/Lumen and the City of Boulder Innovation and Technology Department, to use certain City of Boulder open space lands to install and maintain subsurface electric and telecommunication utilities via open trenching or boring pursuant to the disposal procedures of Article XII, Section 177 of the C ity of Boulder C harter P RI MARY STAF F C ON TAC T Nuria Rivera-Vandermyde, City Manager Dan Burke, Director, Open Space and Mountain Parks Bethany C ollins, Senior Manager, Real Estate, Open Space and Mountain Parks RE Q U E ST E D AC T I ON O R MOT I ON L AN GU AG E C onsideration of a motion to approve a request by Public Service Company of C olorado (dba Xcel Energy) and on behalf of Comcast/Xfinity, CenturyLink/Lumen and the City of Boulder Innovation and Technology Department, to use certain City of Boulder open space lands to install and maintain subsurface electric and telecommunication utilities via open trenching or boring pursuant to the disposal procedures of Article XII, Section 177 of the C ity of Boulder C harter AT TAC H ME N T S: Description I tem 3D - Chautauqua Utilities Disposal Request Packet Page 34 of 523 CITY OF BOULDER CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM MEETING DATE: March 7, 2024 AGENDA TITLE Consideration of a motion to approve a request by Public Service Company of Colorado (dba Xcel Energy) and on behalf of Comcast/Xfinity, CenturyLink/Lumen and the City of Boulder Innovation and Technology Department, to use certain City of Boulder open space lands to install and maintain subsurface electric and telecommunication utilities via open trenching or boring pursuant to the disposal procedures of Article XII, Section 177 of the City of Boulder Charter. PRESENTER(S) Nuria Rivera-Vandermyde, City Manager Dan Burke, Director, Open Space and Mountain Parks Bethany Collins, Senior Manager, Real Estate, Open Space and Mountain Parks EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This agenda item is the consideration of a request received by the Open Space and Mountain Parks Department (OSMP) from Public Service Company (dba Xcel Energy) and on behalf of Comcast/Xfinity, CenturyLink/Lumen and the City of Boulder’s Innovation and Technology (IT) Department to approve utility agreements for the use of portions of the city-owned Batchelder Open Space property (“OSMP Property” shown on Attachment A), which is managed by OSMP, to install and maintain subsurface electric and telecommunication utilities via open trenching or boring. The utility project would entail a phased approach to wholesale underground of all existing overhead utilities, as well as new city-owned broadband fiber, via joint trenching/co-location within the same corridors in the Chautauqua area. This proposal includes removal of the existing overhead utilities and connectivity to the city-owned Enchanted Mesa Water Tank; emergency radio tower used by OSMP rangers; and OSMP Ranger Cottage as well as the greater Chautauqua campus, and approval of this request would replace the previously approved alignment for IT installation of broadband fiber under Enchanted Mesa Trail/Road. The proposed utility corridors are conceptually depicted on Attachment A and are requested in alignments which generally have existing utility, trail, fencing and other infrastructure, and Item 3D - Chautauqua Utilities Disposal Request Page 1 Packet Page 35 of 523 which have been selected to minimize environmental, resource and visitor impacts. Benefits associated with undergrounding the overhead utilities at Chautauqua and co-locate electric and telecommunication infrastructure together, include enhanced reliability, wildfire protection, improved aesthetics, preservation of historic viewsheds, mitigation of overall impacts, and preparation for electrification and electrical vehicle adoption. The corridors would be 10’-wide except for an area along the eastern alignment where there would be 20’x20’ area to accommodate a new electric cabinet. In some areas the utility corridors may overlap the Colorado Chautauqua Association (CCA) leasehold or private property with existing utility easements, with less than 10’ on the OSMP Property. The IT service connection to the Enchanted Mesa Water Tank is still being analyzed and may require a separate tie-in as conceptually depicted on Attachment A. While some of the installation may occur via boring, it most will likely require open trenching due to the topography and geological conditions. The total surface disturbance for installation via trenching is anticipated to total under one acre. See Attachment B for a typical joint trench design. OSMP program staff have not expressed concern with the request and have not identified any sensitive or rare resources in the proposed alignments. Anticipated visitor impacts will be mitigated via coordinated timing, detours, informational signage, and on-site personnel during the construction. Because the utility installation involves ground disturbance, the utility providers will be required to coordinate a cultural resource survey prior to installation, and work with OSMP staff to adjust alignments if warranted. Authorizing uses of open space land by a utility provider or another city department must be consistent with Article XII, sections 175(a) and 177 which require an Open Space Board of Trustees (OSBT) approval and recommendation to City Council, and City Council approval. If approved by City Council, OSMP staff will work with the City Attorney’s Office (CAO) to draft the utility agreements and will monitor and enforce their terms which will include provisions related to construction/reconstruction disturbance, restoration (including revegetation and weed control), and ongoing maintenance access. STAFF RECOMMENDATION COMMUNITY SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENTS AND IMPACTS •Economic – Increased and more reliable electrical and telecommunication connectivity will allow improved services to city residents and the open space system, which supports Staff requests council consideration of this matter and action in the form of the following motion: Motion to approve the use of the Batchelder Open Space property lands by the Public Service Company of Colorado (dba Xcel Energy) and on behalf of Comcast/Xfinity, CenturyLink/Lumen and the City of Boulder Innovation and Technology Department to install and maintain subsurface electric and telecommunication utilities via open trenching or boring in the general alignments depicted on Attachment A pursuant to the disposal procedures of Article XII, Section 177 of the City of Boulder Charter. Item 3D - Chautauqua Utilities Disposal Request Page 2 Packet Page 36 of 523 the city’s quality of life, attracts visitors and helps businesses recruit and retain quality employees. •Environmental – The upgraded, buried utilities will enhance reliability and provide wildfire protection, improved aesthetics, and preservation of historic viewsheds which helps OSMP staff preserve, protect and enhance the values of the city’s open space system, and impacts can be mitigated and restored effectively. •Social – Increased connectivity and communications will provides benefits community- wide as well as enhanced operation and monitoring of important utility infrastructure and allowing OSMP staff to better communicate safety issues to city residents during emergencies or natural disasters affecting OSMP facilities. OTHER IMPACTS •Fiscal – The overall value of the transfer of this land interest is generally included in the city’s franchise framework with PSCo and considered to be net-neutral due to the benefits to OSMP of having future connectivity and use of the emergency communications framework this infrastructure will provide. There is no cost to the open space fund for the installation or maintenance of the utilities. •Staff time – Staff time towards this project is part of the normal 2024 work plan for the OSMP Real Estate Services workgroup. BOARD AND COMMISSION FEEDBACK At its Feb. 14, 2024, meeting Harmon Zuckerman moved the Open Space Board of Trustees to approve and recommend that City Council approve the use of the Batchelder Open Space property lands by the Public Service Company of Colorado (dba Xcel Energy) and on behalf of Comcast/Xfinity, CenturyLink/Lumen and the City of Boulder Innovation and Technology Department to install and maintain subsurface electric and telecommunication utilities via open trenching or boring in the general alignments depicted on Attachment A pursuant to the disposal procedures of Article XII, Section 177 of the City of Boulder Charter. Michelle Estrella seconded. This motion passed unanimously 4-0. Jon Carroll was absent. PUBLIC FEEDBACK This item was heard as part of the Feb. 14, 2024 OSBT public meeting advertised in the Daily Camera on Feb. 11, 2024. One public comment was received in favor of the disposal request. A Notice of Disposal of Open Space Lands was published in the Daily Camera on Feb. 2, 2024 and Feb. 3, 2024 pursuant to Section 177 of the Boulder City Charter. ANALYSIS OSMP staff have reviewed and support the request to allow the undergrounding and colocation of multiple utilities via joint trenching or boring. OSMP program staff have not expressed concern with the request and have not identified any sensitive or rare resources in the proposed alignments. This collaborative approach to construction and use will limit impacts, closures and user impacts during construction and ongoing access for operation and repair. Additionally, the undergrounding will support wildfire mitigation objectives and improve the aesthetics and viewshed in the scenic Chautauqua Park area. OSMP staff has and will continue to work onsite Item 3D - Chautauqua Utilities Disposal Request Page 3 Packet Page 37 of 523 with the stakeholders and their contractors to finalize alignments, construction methods and timing, and ensure restoration to the same or better condition. CONCLUSION If this request is approved, OSMP staff will work with CAO to the appropriate utility agreements for the electric and telecommunication infrastructure with terms and conditions related to disturbance, restoration and ongoing access. The agreements will also include provisions for reversion and termination of the use if the infrastructure is removed or abandoned. ATTACHMENT(S) •Attachment A: Property Map with Utility Corridors •Attachment B: Typical Joint Trench Design Item 3D - Chautauqua Utilities Disposal Request Page 4 Packet Page 38 of 523 #* #*EnchantedMesaEnchantedM esaBatchelder Austin - Russell Enchanted Mesa N. I. S. T. CE Baseline Rd Baseline RdBaseline Rd Bellevue Dr12th StSumac Dr Kinnikinnic RdGoldenrod DrChautauquaP arkR dColumbine Ave M esaCanyonDrWild Rose RdAstor Ln 13th StClematis Dr BluebellAve11th StPrimrose Rd Gaillardia Ln M orningGloryDr Lupine Ln Mar iposaAve10th St13th StKinniki nnicRdCl e m a tisDrUser: cassidyj Date: 1/8/2024 Document Path: E:\MapFiles\Property\Chautauqua Area Properties\Location_ChautauquaBoardMap.mxd Attachment A-Property Map and Utility Corridors I 0 150 300 450 600Feet Legend 10'-wide-Utility Corridor 10'-wide Broadband Fiber Service Connection #*Transformer #*Switch Cabinet Hiking Trail Properties Managed by COB Parks and Recreation OSMP Ownership OSMP Easement Attachment A - Property Map and Utility Cooridors Item 3D - Chautauqua Utilities Disposal Request Page 5 Packet Page 39 of 523 Attachment B: Typical Trench Design Attachment B - Typical Trench Design Item 3D - Chautauqua Utilities Disposal Request Page 6 Packet Page 40 of 523 C OVE R SH E E T ME E T I N G D AT E March 7, 2024 AG E N D A I T E M Introduction, first reading, and consideration of a motion to order published by title only Ordinance 8624 adopting wetlands mapping and functional evaluations for a property generally located on a 308.15-acre parcel and generally known as C U South at 4886 and 5278 Table Mesa Drive, 718 Marshall Road, 0 Hwy 36 (2 parcels) and 4745 W. Moorhead; and setting forth related details P RI MARY STAF F C ON TAC T Kristofer J ohnson, Senior C omprehensive Planning Manager AT TAC H ME N T S: Description I tem 3E - 1st Rdg Ord 8624 Adopting Wetlands at C U South Packet Page 41 of 523 CITY OF BOULDER CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM MEETING DATE: March 7, 2024 AGENDA TITLE Introduction, first reading, and consideration of a motion to order published by title only Ordinance 8624 adopting wetlands mapping and functional evaluations for a property generally located on a 308.15-acres parcel and generally known as CU South at 4886 and 5278 Table Mesa Drive, 718 Marshall Road, 0 Highway 36 (2 parcels) and 4745 W. Moorehead; and setting forth related details Applicant: City of Boulder and The Regents of the University of Colorado Owner: The Regents of the University of Colorado (CU) PRESENTERS Nuria Rivera-Vandermyde, City Manager Brad Mueller, Director Planning & Development Services Kristofer Johnson, Comprehensive Planning Senior Manager Edward Stafford, Civil Engineering Senior Manager EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this agenda item is for the City Council to consider Proposed Ordinance 8624 (Attachment A) which includes the wetland boundary determination mapping and functional evaluations of the wetlands that exist on the CU Boulder South property. The CU Boulder South property is located south of Table Mesa Drive near the intersection of US Highway 36. It was annexed into the city during the summer of 2021. One of the objectives of the annexation was to bring the property into the city in Item 3E - 1st Rdg Ord 8624 Adopting Wetlands at CU South Page 1 Packet Page 42 of 523 alignment with the CU South Guiding Principles (“Guiding Principles”) that were adopted and incorporated in the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan in 2017. The Guiding Principles have served to guide agreements between the city and CU that specify future uses, services, utilities, and planning for CU Boulder South. Presently, the Flood Control and Stormwater Management Utility is in the process of seeking the necessary approvals and permits to allow the construction of a flood management project that is intended to reduce the potential for flooding along South Boulder Creek which is downstream from the flood management project. This area is north of US Highway 36 and is often called the “West Valley.” Typically, wetland mapping is done at the time of annexation. Given the complexity of the overall annexation agreement between the city and CU, wetland mapping was deferred until after the effective date of the annexation. Paragraph 16.g. of the annexation agreement provides: Wetlands. Prior to any activity occurring on the prior that is regulated under Section 9-3-9, “stream, Wetlands, and Water Body Protection.” B.R.C. 1981, the parties will share the cost to cause all stream, wetland and water bodies and buffer areas on the Property to be mapped and functionally evaluated, meeting the requirements for such mapping and evaluation in Section 9-3-9, B.R.C. 1981. The City may adopt the wetland Mapping by ordinance following the Effective Date of Annexation. . . The wetlands map and functional evaluations are required prior to the construction of the flood management project, as specified in the annexation agreement. The mapping and functional evaluations need to be adopted as the regulatory area prior to any city Stream, Wetland and Water Body Protection permit applications for the project. Thereafter, the city will comply with all of the regulatory requirements of the wetland ordinance for the project and CU will comply with the requirements as detailed in the annexation agreement. The purpose of this agenda item is to seek approval of the wetland mapping as anticipated by the annexation agreement. The city has secured the services of Corvus Environmental Consulting (“Corvus”) to complete the wetland mapping and functional evaluations of the wetlands. The city’s development review staff in Planning and Development Services have reviewed this work and concluded that it meets city standards. Item 3E - 1st Rdg Ord 8624 Adopting Wetlands at CU South Page 2 Packet Page 43 of 523 STAFF RECOMMENDATION Suggested Motion Language Staff requests council consideration of this matter and action in the form of the following motion: Motion to introduce and order published by title only Ordinance 8624 adopting wetlands mapping and functional evaluations for a property generally located on a 308.15-acres parcel and generally known as CU South at 4886 and 5278 Table Mesa Drive, 718 Marshall Road, 0 Highway 36 (2 parcels) and 4745 W. Moorehead; and setting forth related details COMMUNITY SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENTS AND IMPACTS • Economic – None identified. • Environmental – The city seeks to preserve, protect, restore, and enhance the quality and diversity of wetlands and water bodies along with associated buffer areas. The preservation of streams, wetlands, and water bodies is consistent with the goal of wetland protection set forth in the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan. The city regulates development activities in streams, wetlands, water bodies, and associated buffer areas that may adversely affect functional values of the wetland. • Social – None identified. OTHER IMPACTS • Fiscal – No change in the city’s fiscal responsibility is expected as the area proposed for wetland mapping has been anticipated. Any further wetland permit processing will be completed as part the ongoing services provided by the city’s Planning and Development Services Department. All activities are part the South Boulder Creek flood mitigation project and are part of the Utilities Department’s stormwater work plan. • Staff time – The application was reviewed under standard staff review time. BOARD AND COMMISSION FEEDBACK The Planning Board will review the proposed wetland mapping and functional evaluation and provide the City Council with its recommendations at its March 5, 2024, meeting. The Planning and Development Services Department staff will provide the council with the Planning Board’s recommendation(s) as a part of the second reading packet for this ordinance. Item 3E - 1st Rdg Ord 8624 Adopting Wetlands at CU South Page 3 Packet Page 44 of 523 PUBLIC FEEDBACK Required public notice was given in the form of written notification mailed to all property owners within 300 feet of the subject property and a sign posted on the property for at least 10 days prior to the public hearing. All notice requirements of Section 9-4-3, B.R.C. 1981, have been met. BACKGROUND South Boulder Creek Flood Mitigation Project An estimated 600 structures and 3,500 people are in the South Boulder Creek floodplain within city limits. Over the last 80 years, South Boulder Creek has significantly flooded six times, with overtopping of US Highway 36 happening in 1969 and 2013. A flood mitigation plan for South Boulder Creek was approved by the City Council in 2015. The plan includes three phases with the first phase being a regional detention facility upstream of US Highway 36 on and near the property commonly referred to as “CU South” (the “Project”). The Project will protect approximately 2,300 residents and 260 structures from a 100-year flood (1% chance of flooding each year) on South Boulder Creek. The Project will include a dam and flood storage that requires use of a portion of the CU Boulder South property and the city-owned land adjacent to US Highway 36 for the construction of a floodwall and spillway. The proposed Project area also includes approximately 4.1 acres of the Van Vleet Open Space property for the permanent location of the Project and a temporary construction access area, and adjacent US Highway 36 right-of-way. The annexation and wetland mapping of this area is being pursued concurrently with Ordinance 8623. ANALYSIS The city routinely maps streams, water bodies, and wetlands, together with buffer areas, within the city limits and in the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan planning area on city owned property. The city regulates these areas within city limits. on city owned property outside city limits and on city led or funded projects outside of the city limits. Within the regulated areas, the city reviews development, or other controlled activities, to ensure that the activities and improvements are minimized to avoid impacts to the stream, wetland and water bodies that are in the regulated areas. If an applicant is not able to avoid impacts to the wetland, then regulations require the applicant to mitigate direct and indirect impacts to the wetland area in another way. All activities within the regulated and buffer area are also required to follow a set of adopted best management practices to protect the wetlands during construction. The city requires accurate maps and functional assessments to implement its regulatory program. Thus, the purposes of wetland mapping boundary determinations are to 1) delineate the wetland boundaries on the property, and 2) perform a functional evaluation Item 3E - 1st Rdg Ord 8624 Adopting Wetlands at CU South Page 4 Packet Page 45 of 523 of each wetland mapped on the property to determine the quality of the wetland. This is typically done at the time of annexation. Pursuant to Paragraph 16.g. of the annexation agreement, the parties agreed that the property would be subsequently mapped for wetlands, prior to any development on the property. The process and criteria for boundary determination and mapping is in Subsection 9-3- 9(k), B.R.C. 1981. The primary mapping criteria is to follow the procedures in the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. The functional evaluations are reviewed using Subsection 9-3-9(l), B.R.C. 1981, which the primary criteria is following the procedures used in the “City of Boulder, Comprehensive Wetlands Remapping Project" by Land Stewardship Consulting, October 18, 2004. More details about both of these criteria is provided below. The city’s flood project team engaged the services of Corvus. This firm has experience in helping clients develop projects in compliance with wetland permitting requirements as well as design for wetland and riparian mitigation and restoration. Corvus provided the city with a memorandum regarding the “Functional Evaluation of Wetlands for the South Boulder Creek Flood Plain Mitigation Project – University of Colorado Boulder Property Annexation” dated February 22, 2024, which is included as Attachment B (the “Wetland Mapping and Functional Evaluation Report” or the “Report”). The Report includes both wetland boundary mapping for the Project as well as functional evaluations of 19 identified wetland area which total 54.01 acres of land. Wetland Mapping The regulated areas are broken down into two zones. The first is the actual wetland, stream, or body of water. The other zone is a buffer area around the wetland, stream, or body of water. Depending on the quality of the wetland, the buffer area may be split into inner and outer buffer zones. High quality wetlands have a 50 ft. buffer zone and low quality wetlands have a 25 ft. buffer zone. Subsection 9-3-9(k), B.R.C. 1981, provides guidance for stream, wetland and water body boundary mapping. Streams are measured to the bank-full width of the channel, water bodies are measured to the ordinary high water mark, and wetland boundary determinations are completed in accordance with the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (the “Wetlands Delineation Manual” or the “Manual”). The objectives of the Manual are to present technical guidelines for identifying wetlands and distinguishing them from aquatic habitats and other non-wetlands and to provide methods for applying the technical guidelines. In mapping wetlands, the consultant typically begins with preliminary data gathering and synthesis. This includes making a wetland determination based on available vegetation, soils, and hydrology data for the area. This data comes from many different sources including field work, previous mapping, surveys, or other reports on hydrology, soils, and vegetation. The following is a summary of the steps described in the Manuel: Item 3E - 1st Rdg Ord 8624 Adopting Wetlands at CU South Page 5 Packet Page 46 of 523 1.Determine whether available data are sufficient for the entire project area. Examine the summarized data and determine whether the vegetation, soils, and hydrology of the entire project area are adequately characterized. 2. Determine whether hydrophytic vegetation is present. 3. Determine whether wetland hydrology is present. 4.Determine whether the soils parameter must be considered. 5.Determine whether hydric soils are present. 6. Wetland determination based on evidence of the existence of hydrophytic vegetation and hydric soils, and has confirmed wetland hydrology. 7. Determine wetland boundary. The Corvus Report provides an evaluation of soils, hydrology, and vegetation for 19 assessment areas on the property. Table 1 of the Report provides a summary description of each of the 19 locations and includes the land area covered by the wetland together with a description of the stream, wetland and waterbodies, and the characteristics of the soils, hydrology, and vegetation. Maps of the 19 wetland areas are shown in Attachment A of the Report on pages 14 to 24. Staff have reviewed these findings in accordance with the criteria in 9-3-9(k), B.R.C. 1981, and found that the identification and boundary determinations of the wetland areas on the property is accurate and reflects existing conditions. Since these delineations meet the criteria they are proposed as the regulatory mapped wetlands for this property. Functional Evaluations Functional evaluations are performed in accordance with the procedure described in the Report entitled: “City of Boulder Comprehensive Wetland Remapping Project” by Land Stewardship Consulting, Inc., October 18, 2004, (the “Wetlands Remapping Report, 2004”), as noted in Section 9-3-9(l), B.R.C. 1981.All wetlands covered by the city’s protection regulations are required to have a functional assessment. The evaluation procedure for functional assessments is a qualitative process which assess eleven specific functions of wetlands. The evaluation process considers the functions described below for each wetland and based on a list of indicators for that each function., which are ranked on a scale of 1 to 5. A rank of 1 is “low” and a rank of 5 is “very high.” The ranking also includes a confidence level rating for the assessment . A rating of “a” is least confident, while a rank of “c” is most confident. The eleven functional area that are assess include:: 1. Groundwater Recharge 2. Groundwater Discharge 3. Floodflow Alteration and Flood Storage 4.Shoreline Stabilization 5. Sediment Trapping and Retention 6. Nutrient Retention (Long and Short Term) 7. Short-Term Nutrient Retention Item 3E - 1st Rdg Ord 8624 Adopting Wetlands at CU South Page 6 Packet Page 47 of 523 8. Food Chain Support (Export and Within Basin) 9. Fish Habitat/Aquatic Habitat. 10. Wildlife Habitat 11. Active and Passive Recreation / Heritage Functional evaluations for each of the 19 wetland areas were completed by Corvus and can be found in the Report. Based on the results of the functional assessment, 17 of the wetlands contain high-functioning wetland communities and two of the areas contain low functioning wetlands (Report, Table 2, page 6). Summary descriptions of each wetland area can be found on pages 8-12 of the Report. More detailed information is in the functional assessment worksheets in Attachment C of the Report, which is the data that was collected and assessed to form the conclusions to the Report for each of the identified wetlands. Based on the results of the functional assessment, the CU Boulder South property subset of the Project area contains mostly high-functioning and a few low functioning wetland communities. Functional categories with the overall highest rating for wetlands onsite include groundwater discharge, flood alteration, short-term nutrient retention, wildlife habitat, and passive recreation/uniqueness. Functional categories consistently rating low include shoreline anchoring, food chain export, fish/aquatic habitat, and active recreation. Many of the wetland communities reflect a moderate to high functional score for passive recreation/heritage value as these communities contain suitable Ute Ladies’-tresses orchid habitat and host a reference population of this federally protected orchid. For this functional category, the score was dependent on the prevalence and volume of orchid species present, with large, high-density population reflecting higher function and scattered/low density orchid populations scoring as moderate. Based on Section 9-3-9(l)(3), B.R.C. 1981, a 50 ft. wetland buffer will be applied to each of the high functioning communities, including a 25 ft. inner buffer and a 25 ft. outer buffer. A 25 ft. wetland buffer will be applied to the two low functioning communities. Staff have reviewed and found that the functional evaluations of the mapped wetlands on the property are accurate, reflect existing conditions and meet the criteria required in 9-3- 9(l), B.R.C. 1981. CONCLUSIONS, FINDINGS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS Corvus has reviewed the wetland areas in accordance with the city requirements and made conclusions about each of them in the report. Staff finds that the conclusions and proposed mapping of the wetlands and the functional evaluations as show in Attachment B, “Wetland Mapping and Functional Evaluation Report,” are accurate and consistent with the requirements of Section 9-3-9, B.R.C. 1981, for the mapping of wetlands and the determination of the functional values of the wetlands. Staff recommends that the council pass Ordinance 8624 on first reading, together with the wetlands map amendments and the functional evaluations of each mapped wetland. Item 3E - 1st Rdg Ord 8624 Adopting Wetlands at CU South Page 7 Packet Page 48 of 523 NEXT STEPS In the future, all regulated activity on the property will require compliance with the city’s stream, wetlands, and water body protection requirements and the annexation agreement for the CU Boulder South property. ATTACHMENTS A – Proposed Ordinance 8624 B – Wetland Mapping and Functional Evaluation Report Item 3E - 1st Rdg Ord 8624 Adopting Wetlands at CU South Page 8 Packet Page 49 of 523 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ORDINANCE 8624 AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING WETLANDS MAPPING AND FUNCTIONAL EVALUATIONS FOR A PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED ON A 308.15- ACRES PARCEL AND GENERALLY KNOWN AS CU SOUTH AT 4886 AND 5278 TABLE MESA DRIVE, 718 MARSHALL ROAD, 0 HWY 36 (2 PARCELS) AND 4745 W. MOOREHEAD; AND SETTING FORTH RELATED DETAILS. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BOULDER, COLORADO FINDS: A.The Regents of the University of Colorado, a body corporate, is the owner of the parcels which comprise the real property more particularly described in Exhibit A attached hereto (the "Property"). B.A stream, wetland, water body and buffer area determination was completed for the Property and its vicinity in accordance with the standards and procedures of Subsection 9-3-9(k), “Stream, Wetland and Water Body Boundaries,” B.R.C. 1981, and in accordance with the procedures specified in the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual and the definitions of a stream, wetland and water body as set forth in Subsection 9-16-1(c) “Stream,” “Wetland,” or “Water Body,” B.R.C. 1981. The City Council may adopt any wetlands mapped on the Property and its vicinity and the associated wetlands evaluations to update the city’s regulatory maps. C.When the Property was annexed into the City, the City of Boulder and the University of Colorado anticipated, pursuant to Paragraph 16.g. of the Annexation Agreement, recorded at Reception Number 03916406 on September 27, 2021 with the office of the Boulder County Clerk and Recorder, that the City would adopt the wetland mapping by ordinance Attachment A – Proposed Ordinance 8624 Item 3E - 1st Rdg Ord 8624 Adopting Wetlands at CU South Page 9 Packet Page 50 of 523 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 following the effective date of the annexation. Said annexation is effective and the city intends to adopt amendments, by this ordinance, to the city’s stream, wetland, and water body boundary mapping and evaluations. D. The City Council has jurisdiction and the legal authority to adopt amendments to the city’s stream, wetland, and water body boundary mapping and evaluations. BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BOULDER, COLORADO: Section 1. Section 9-3-9, “Stream, Wetland and Water Body Protection,” B.R.C. 1981, and the stream, wetland and water body maps adopted therein, and as amended from time to time, be, and hereby are, amended to include the mapping shown in Exhibit B attached hereto and incorporated herein. Section 2. Section 9-3-9, “Stream, Wetland and Water Body Protection,” B.R.C. 1981, and the functional evaluations of all regulated stream, wetland and water bodies adopted therein, and as amended from time to time, be, and hereby are, amended to include the functional evaluation shown in Exhibit C attached to this ordinance and incorporated herein by reference. Section 3. The City Council adopts the recitals in this ordinance and incorporates them herein by this reference. Section 4. The City Council deems it appropriate that this ordinance be published by title only and orders that copies of this ordinance be made available in the office of the city clerk for public inspection and acquisition. Attachment A – Proposed Ordinance 8624 Item 3E - 1st Rdg Ord 8624 Adopting Wetlands at CU South Page 10 Packet Page 51 of 523 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 INTRODUCED, READ ON FIRST READING, AND ORDERED PUBLISHED BY TITLE ONLY this 7th day of March 2024. __________________________ Aaron Brockett Mayor Attest: ________________________________ Elesha Johnson City Clerk READ ON SECOND READING, PASSED AND ADOPTED this 21st day of March 2024. ______________________________ Aaron Brockett Mayor Attest: _______________________ Elesha Johnson City Clerk Attachment A – Proposed Ordinance 8624 Item 3E - 1st Rdg Ord 8624 Adopting Wetlands at CU South Page 11 Packet Page 52 of 523 EXHIBIT A LEGAL DESCRIPTION A PARCEL OF LAND IN SECTIONS 9 AND 16 OF TOWNSHIP ONE SOUTH OF RANGE SEVENTY WEST OF THE SIXTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, COUNTY OF BOULDER, STATE OF COLORADO, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE SOUTH LINE OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF SECTION 9, TOWNSHIP 1 SOUTH, RANGE 70 WEST OF THE 6TH P.M., WHENCE THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID SECTION 9 BEARS NORTH 89°25'00" EAST, 1330 FEET, SAID POINT BEING ON THE WESTERLY LINE OF THE PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED ON FILM 1017 AS RECEPTION NO. 287026; THENCE ALONG THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED ON FILM 1017 AS RECEPTION NO. 287026, THE FOLLOWING THREE COURSES: THENCE SOUTH 53°57'00" WEST, 439.99 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 20°10'00" WEST, 530.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 00°01'52" EAST, ALONG A LINE PARALLEL TO THE WEST LINE OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 16, 577.97 FEET TO A POINT ON THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID NORTHWEST 1/4 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4; THENCE SOUTH 89°55'15" WEST, ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE, 752.64 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID NORTHWEST 1/4 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4; THENCE NORTH 00°01'52" WEST, ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID NORTHWEST 1/4 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4, 1322.13 FEET TO THE 1/4 CORNER COMMON TO SAID SECTIONS 9 AND 16; THENCE NORTH 89°36'36" WEST, ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF THE EAST 1/2 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 9, 1340.57 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID EAST 1/2 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4; THENCE NORTH 00°05'17" EAST, ALONG THE WEST LINE OF THE EAST 1/2 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 9, 2631.36 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID EAST 1/2 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4; THENCE NORTH 89°46'26" EAST, ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID EAST 1/2 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4, 213.64 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED IN BOOK 1287 AT PAGE 5 OF THE SAID BOULDER COUNTY RECORDS, FROM WHICH POINT THE CENTER 1/4 CORNER OF SAID SECTION 9 BEARS NORTH 89°46'25" EAST, 1120.70 FEET; THENCE NORTH 00°16'56" EAST, ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID PARCEL, 1489.55 FEET TO A POINT FROM WHICH THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF A PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED IN BOOK 953 AT PAGE 413 BEARS NORTH 00°16'56" EAST, 41.50 FEET; THEN FOLLOWING THE SOUTHERLY AND EASTERLY LINES OF THE PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED ON FILM 1023 AS RECEPTION NO. 294102 FOR THE FOLLOWING FIVE COURSES: THENCE NORTH 89°36'37" EAST, 0.48 FEET TO A POINT OF CURVATURE TO THE LEFT; THENCE NORTHEASTERLY, ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE CONCAVE NORTHWESTERLY, 338.55 FEET TO A POINT OF TANGENCY, SAID ARC OF CURVE HAVING A RADIUS OF 402.73 FEET, AN INTERIOR ANGLE OF 48°09'54" AND A CHORD BEARING NORTH 65°31'42" EAST, 328.67 FEET; THENCE NORTH 41°26'43" EAST, 79.42 FEET TO A POINT ON A NON-TANGENT CURVE; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY, ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE CONCAVE NORTHEASTERLY, 622.66 FEET TO A POINT OF TANGENCY, SAID ARC OF CURVE HAVING A RADIUS OF 1152.56 FEET, AN INTERIOR ANGLE OF 30°57'14" AND A CHORD BEARING NORTH 33°04'38" WEST, 615.12 FEET; THENCE NORTH 17°36'22" WEST, 42.98 FEET TO A POINT ON THE EAST LINE OF THE AFOREMENTIONED PARCEL DESCRIBED IN BOOK 953 AT PAGE 413; THEN FOLLOWING THE SOUTHWESTERLY LINE OF THE PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED ON FILM 1023 AS RECEPTION NO. 294101 FOR THE FOLLOWING ONE COURSE: THENCE CONTINUING NORTH 17°36'22" WEST, 321.87 FEET TO A POINT ON THE SOUTH LINE OF THE PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED ON FILM 804 AS RECEPTION NO. 051988; THENCE NORTH 89°36'30" EAST, ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED ON FILM 804 AS RECEPTION NO. 051988, 98.72 FEET TO A POINT ON THE EAST LINE OF THE AFOREMENTIONED PARCEL DESCRIBED IN BOOK 953 AT PAGE 413; Attachment A – Proposed Ordinance 8624 Item 3E - 1st Rdg Ord 8624 Adopting Wetlands at CU South Page 12 Packet Page 53 of 523 THENCE NORTH 00°15'30" EAST, ALONG SAID EAST PARCEL LINE, 41.00 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED IN BOOK 1287 AT PAGE 5, A POINT ON THE SOUTH LINE OF THE PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED IN BOOK 880 AT PAGE 92; THEN FOLLOWING THE SOUTH LINES OF THE PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED IN BOOK 880 AT PAGE 92 FOR THE FOLLOWING THREE COURSES: THENCE NORTH 89°36'30" EAST, 476.96 FEET TO AN ANGLE POINT IN THE SOUTH LINE OF THE SAID PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED IN BOOK 880 AT PAGE 92; THENCE SOUTH 80°40'06" EAST, 118.04 FEET TO AN ANGLE POINT ON THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED IN BOOK 880 AT PAGE 92; THENCE SOUTH 58°57'21" EAST, 265.94 FEET TO THE MOST NORTHERN POINT OF THE PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED ON FILM 763 AS RECEPTION NO. 010051; THEN FOLLOWING THE WESTERLY AND SOUTHERLY LINES OF SAID PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED ON FILM 763 AS RECEPTION NO. 010051 FOR THE FOLLOWING SIX COURSES: THENCE SOUTH 02°34'39" WEST, 153.50 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 21°21'36" EAST, 169.90 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE LEFT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 673.00 FEET, A DISTANCE OF 610.74 FEET (THE CHORD OF THIS ARC BEARS SOUTH 46°41'21" EAST, 590.00 FEET); THENCE NORTH 88°40'54" EAST, 324.50 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 87°41'21" EAST, 81.60 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 84°49'06" EAST, 164.21 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED ON FILM 1017 AS RECEPTION NOS. 287022 AND 287025; THENCE SOUTH 00°45'27" EAST, ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED ON FILM 1017 AS RECEPTION NOS. 287022 AND 287025, 329.40 FEET TO THE EAST LINE OF THAT TRACT OF LAND RECORDED ON FILM 602 AS RECEPTION NO. 846200; THENCE SOUTH 00°21'10" EAST, CONTINUING ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED ON FILM 1017 AS RECEPTION NOS. 287022 AND 287025, 59.98 FEET TO A POINT ON THE SOUTH LINE OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 9; THENCE ALONG THE WESTERLY LINE OF THE PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED ON FILM 1017 AS RECEPTION NO. 287025, THE FOLLOWING 6 COURSES: THENCE SOUTH 00°06'17" EAST, 1110.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 33°06'00" EAST, 180.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 69°12'08" EAST, 143.79 FEET TO A POINT ON THE SOUTH LINE OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 9, WHENCE THE EAST 1/4 CORNER OF SAID SECTION 9 BEARS NORTH 89°44'39" EAST, 1636.25 FEET; THENCE NORTH 89°44'39" EAST, ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 9, 728.83 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 43°34'47" EAST, 340.44 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 10°34'47" EAST, 400.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 12°15'08" WEST, ALONG THE WESTERLY LINE OF THE PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED ON FILM 1017 AS RECEPTION NO. 287025 AND THE WESTERLY LINE OF THE PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED ON FILM 1017 AS RECEPTION NO. 287026, 1349.94 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE WESTERLY LINE OF THE PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED ON FILM 1017 AS RECEPTION NO. 287026, THE FOLLOWING 2 COURSES: THENCE SOUTH 24°55'00" WEST, 500.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 47°55'00" WEST, 340.00 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. Attachment A – Proposed Ordinance 8624 Item 3E - 1st Rdg Ord 8624 Adopting Wetlands at CU South Page 13 Packet Page 54 of 523 EXHIBIT B WETLAND MAP Attachment A – Proposed Ordinance 8624 Item 3E - 1st Rdg Ord 8624 Adopting Wetlands at CU South Page 14 Packet Page 55 of 523 A B C D E F GH FIGURE 1: WETLAND MAP CITY OF BOULDER AND UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO BOULDER PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 718 MARSHALL RD Overview Boulder, Boulder County Map Date: 2/13/2024 Service Layer Credits: Light Gray Reference: Esri Community Maps Contributors, UCB CAD/GIS Office, City of Boulder, Boulder County, © OpenStreetMap, Microsoft, Esri, TomTom, Garmin, SafeGraph, GeoTechnologies, Inc, METI/NASA, USGS, EPA, NPS, US Census Bureau, USDA, USFWS Light Gray Base: Esri Community Maps Contributors, UCB CAD/GIS Office, City of Boulder, Boulder County, © OpenStreetMap, Microsoft, Esri, TomTom, Garmin, SafeGraph, GeoTechnologies, Inc, METI/NASA, USGS, EPA, NPS, US Census Bureau, USDA, USFWS Additional: CO Office of Information Technology LiDAR data - Boulder County. DEM. 5-foot contours. Wetlands (CU Property) High Quality Wetland Buffer: Inner 25' High Quality Wetland Buffer: Outer 25' Low Quality Wetland Buffer: Outer 25' South Boulder Creek Floodplain Mitigation 0 470 940 Feet Document Path: C:\CORVUS Dropbox\Team\Clients\RJH\SBC Regional Detention Project - 60% Design\ArcMap\ArcPro\City of Boulder Wetland Functional Assessment\City of Boulder Wetland Functional Assessment2.aprx1:9,000 ¤ Page 1 of 9 Attachment A – Proposed Ordinance 8624 Item 3E - 1st Rdg Ord 8624 Adopting Wetlands at CU South Page 15 Packet Page 56 of 523 01 02 02 18 18 18 18 03 04 17 FIGURE 1: WETLAND MAP CITY OF BOULDER AND UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO BOULDER PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 718 MARSHALL RD A Boulder, Boulder County Map Date: 2/13/2024 Service Layer Credits: Light Gray Reference: Esri Community Maps Contributors, UCB CAD/GIS Office, City of Boulder, Boulder County, © OpenStreetMap, Microsoft, Esri, TomTom, Garmin, SafeGraph, GeoTechnologies, Inc, METI/NASA, USGS, EPA, NPS, US Census Bureau, USDA, USFWS Light Gray Base: Esri Community Maps Contributors, UCB CAD/GIS Office, City of Boulder, Boulder County, © OpenStreetMap, Microsoft, Esri, TomTom, Garmin, SafeGraph, GeoTechnologies, Inc, METI/NASA, USGS, EPA, NPS, US Census Bureau, USDA, USFWS Additional: CO Office of Information Technology LiDAR data - Boulder County. DEM. 5-foot contours. Wetlands (CU Property) High Quality Wetland Buffer: Inner 25' High Quality Wetland Buffer: Outer 25' Low Quality Wetland Buffer: Outer 25' South Boulder Creek Floodplain Mitigation 0 130 260 Feet Document Path: C:\CORVUS Dropbox\Team\Clients\RJH\SBC Regional Detention Project - 60% Design\ArcMap\ArcPro\City of Boulder Wetland Functional Assessment\City of Boulder Wetland Functional Assessment2.aprx1:2,500 ¤ Page 2 of 9 Attachment A – Proposed Ordinance 8624 Item 3E - 1st Rdg Ord 8624 Adopting Wetlands at CU South Page 16 Packet Page 57 of 523 08 09 09 09 09 11 03 04 04 05 06 0606 07 FIGURE 1: WETLAND MAP CITY OF BOULDER AND UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO BOULDER PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 718 MARSHALL RD B Boulder, Boulder County Map Date: 2/13/2024 Service Layer Credits: Light Gray Reference: Esri Community Maps Contributors, UCB CAD/GIS Office, City of Boulder, Boulder County, © OpenStreetMap, Microsoft, Esri, TomTom, Garmin, SafeGraph, GeoTechnologies, Inc, METI/NASA, USGS, EPA, NPS, US Census Bureau, USDA, USFWS Light Gray Base: Esri Community Maps Contributors, UCB CAD/GIS Office, City of Boulder, Boulder County, © OpenStreetMap, Microsoft, Esri, TomTom, Garmin, SafeGraph, GeoTechnologies, Inc, METI/NASA, USGS, EPA, NPS, US Census Bureau, USDA, USFWS Additional: CO Office of Information Technology LiDAR data - Boulder County. DEM. 5-foot contours. Wetlands (CU Property) High Quality Wetland Buffer: Inner 25' High Quality Wetland Buffer: Outer 25' Low Quality Wetland Buffer: Outer 25' South Boulder Creek Floodplain Mitigation 0 130 260 Feet Document Path: C:\CORVUS Dropbox\Team\Clients\RJH\SBC Regional Detention Project - 60% Design\ArcMap\ArcPro\City of Boulder Wetland Functional Assessment\City of Boulder Wetland Functional Assessment2.aprx1:2,500 ¤ Page 3 of 9 Attachment A – Proposed Ordinance 8624 Item 3E - 1st Rdg Ord 8624 Adopting Wetlands at CU South Page 17 Packet Page 58 of 523 05 05 05 06 06 06 06 07 07 FIGURE 1: WETLAND MAP CITY OF BOULDER AND UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO BOULDER PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 718 MARSHALL RD C Boulder, Boulder County Map Date: 2/13/2024 Service Layer Credits: Light Gray Reference: Esri Community Maps Contributors, UCB CAD/GIS Office, City of Boulder, Boulder County, © OpenStreetMap, Microsoft, Esri, TomTom, Garmin, SafeGraph, GeoTechnologies, Inc, METI/NASA, USGS, EPA, NPS, US Census Bureau, USDA, USFWS Light Gray Base: Esri Community Maps Contributors, UCB CAD/GIS Office, City of Boulder, Boulder County, © OpenStreetMap, Microsoft, Esri, TomTom, Garmin, SafeGraph, GeoTechnologies, Inc, METI/NASA, USGS, EPA, NPS, US Census Bureau, USDA, USFWS Additional: CO Office of Information Technology LiDAR data - Boulder County. DEM. 5-foot contours. Wetlands (CU Property) High Quality Wetland Buffer: Inner 25' High Quality Wetland Buffer: Outer 25' Low Quality Wetland Buffer: Outer 25' South Boulder Creek Floodplain Mitigation 0 130 260 Feet Document Path: C:\CORVUS Dropbox\Team\Clients\RJH\SBC Regional Detention Project - 60% Design\ArcMap\ArcPro\City of Boulder Wetland Functional Assessment\City of Boulder Wetland Functional Assessment2.aprx1:2,500 ¤ Page 4 of 9 Attachment A – Proposed Ordinance 8624 Item 3E - 1st Rdg Ord 8624 Adopting Wetlands at CU South Page 18 Packet Page 59 of 523 10 10 05 05 05 05 06 06 06 06 06 06 06 19 19 07 07 FIGURE 1: WETLAND MAP CITY OF BOULDER AND UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO BOULDER PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 718 MARSHALL RD D Boulder, Boulder County Map Date: 2/13/2024 Service Layer Credits: Light Gray Reference: Esri Community Maps Contributors, UCB CAD/GIS Office, City of Boulder, Boulder County, © OpenStreetMap, Microsoft, Esri, TomTom, Garmin, SafeGraph, GeoTechnologies, Inc, METI/NASA, USGS, EPA, NPS, US Census Bureau, USDA, USFWS Light Gray Base: Esri Community Maps Contributors, UCB CAD/GIS Office, City of Boulder, Boulder County, © OpenStreetMap, Microsoft, Esri, TomTom, Garmin, SafeGraph, GeoTechnologies, Inc, METI/NASA, USGS, EPA, NPS, US Census Bureau, USDA, USFWS Additional: CO Office of Information Technology LiDAR data - Boulder County. DEM. 5-foot contours. Wetlands (CU Property) High Quality Wetland Buffer: Inner 25' High Quality Wetland Buffer: Outer 25' Low Quality Wetland Buffer: Outer 25' South Boulder Creek Floodplain Mitigation 0 130 260 Feet Document Path: C:\CORVUS Dropbox\Team\Clients\RJH\SBC Regional Detention Project - 60% Design\ArcMap\ArcPro\City of Boulder Wetland Functional Assessment\City of Boulder Wetland Functional Assessment2.aprx1:2,500 ¤ Page 5 of 9 Attachment A – Proposed Ordinance 8624 Item 3E - 1st Rdg Ord 8624 Adopting Wetlands at CU South Page 19 Packet Page 60 of 523 10 10 10 12 11 05 05 06 06 06 06 19 19 FIGURE 1: WETLAND MAP CITY OF BOULDER AND UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO BOULDER PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 718 MARSHALL RD E Boulder, Boulder County Map Date: 2/13/2024 Service Layer Credits: Light Gray Reference: Esri Community Maps Contributors, UCB CAD/GIS Office, City of Boulder, Boulder County, © OpenStreetMap, Microsoft, Esri, TomTom, Garmin, SafeGraph, GeoTechnologies, Inc, METI/NASA, USGS, EPA, NPS, US Census Bureau, USDA, USFWS Light Gray Base: Esri Community Maps Contributors, UCB CAD/GIS Office, City of Boulder, Boulder County, © OpenStreetMap, Microsoft, Esri, TomTom, Garmin, SafeGraph, GeoTechnologies, Inc, METI/NASA, USGS, EPA, NPS, US Census Bureau, USDA, USFWS Additional: CO Office of Information Technology LiDAR data - Boulder County. DEM. 5-foot contours. Wetlands (CU Property) High Quality Wetland Buffer: Inner 25' High Quality Wetland Buffer: Outer 25' Low Quality Wetland Buffer: Outer 25' South Boulder Creek Floodplain Mitigation 0 130 260 Feet Document Path: C:\CORVUS Dropbox\Team\Clients\RJH\SBC Regional Detention Project - 60% Design\ArcMap\ArcPro\City of Boulder Wetland Functional Assessment\City of Boulder Wetland Functional Assessment2.aprx1:2,500 ¤ Page 6 of 9 Attachment A – Proposed Ordinance 8624 Item 3E - 1st Rdg Ord 8624 Adopting Wetlands at CU South Page 20 Packet Page 61 of 523 09 09 12 12 12 12 12 12 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 05 13 13 14 15 FIGURE 1: WETLAND MAP CITY OF BOULDER AND UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO BOULDER PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 718 MARSHALL RD F Boulder, Boulder County Map Date: 2/13/2024 Service Layer Credits: Light Gray Reference: Esri Community Maps Contributors, UCB CAD/GIS Office, City of Boulder, Boulder County, © OpenStreetMap, Microsoft, Esri, TomTom, Garmin, SafeGraph, GeoTechnologies, Inc, METI/NASA, USGS, EPA, NPS, US Census Bureau, USDA, USFWS Light Gray Base: Esri Community Maps Contributors, UCB CAD/GIS Office, City of Boulder, Boulder County, © OpenStreetMap, Microsoft, Esri, TomTom, Garmin, SafeGraph, GeoTechnologies, Inc, METI/NASA, USGS, EPA, NPS, US Census Bureau, USDA, USFWS Additional: CO Office of Information Technology LiDAR data - Boulder County. DEM. 5-foot contours. Wetlands (CU Property) High Quality Wetland Buffer: Inner 25' High Quality Wetland Buffer: Outer 25' Low Quality Wetland Buffer: Outer 25' South Boulder Creek Floodplain Mitigation 0 130 260 Feet Document Path: C:\CORVUS Dropbox\Team\Clients\RJH\SBC Regional Detention Project - 60% Design\ArcMap\ArcPro\City of Boulder Wetland Functional Assessment\City of Boulder Wetland Functional Assessment2.aprx1:2,500 ¤ Page 7 of 9 Attachment A – Proposed Ordinance 8624 Item 3E - 1st Rdg Ord 8624 Adopting Wetlands at CU South Page 21 Packet Page 62 of 523 08 09 09 09 09 09 09 09 09 12 12 11 04 05 06 06 07 16 16 14 15 FIGURE 1: WETLAND MAP CITY OF BOULDER AND UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO BOULDER PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 718 MARSHALL RD G Boulder, Boulder County Map Date: 2/13/2024 Service Layer Credits: Light Gray Reference: Esri Community Maps Contributors, UCB CAD/GIS Office, City of Boulder, Boulder County, © OpenStreetMap, Microsoft, Esri, TomTom, Garmin, SafeGraph, GeoTechnologies, Inc, METI/NASA, USGS, EPA, NPS, US Census Bureau, USDA, USFWS Light Gray Base: Esri Community Maps Contributors, UCB CAD/GIS Office, City of Boulder, Boulder County, © OpenStreetMap, Microsoft, Esri, TomTom, Garmin, SafeGraph, GeoTechnologies, Inc, METI/NASA, USGS, EPA, NPS, US Census Bureau, USDA, USFWS Additional: CO Office of Information Technology LiDAR data - Boulder County. DEM. 5-foot contours. Wetlands (CU Property) High Quality Wetland Buffer: Inner 25' High Quality Wetland Buffer: Outer 25' Low Quality Wetland Buffer: Outer 25' South Boulder Creek Floodplain Mitigation 0 130 260 Feet Document Path: C:\CORVUS Dropbox\Team\Clients\RJH\SBC Regional Detention Project - 60% Design\ArcMap\ArcPro\City of Boulder Wetland Functional Assessment\City of Boulder Wetland Functional Assessment2.aprx1:2,500 ¤ Page 8 of 9 Attachment A – Proposed Ordinance 8624 Item 3E - 1st Rdg Ord 8624 Adopting Wetlands at CU South Page 22 Packet Page 63 of 523 09 09 09 09 18 12 12 11 17 17 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 14 14 14 14 14 15 FIGURE 1: WETLAND MAP CITY OF BOULDER AND UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO BOULDER PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 718 MARSHALL RD H Boulder, Boulder County Map Date: 2/13/2024 Service Layer Credits: Light Gray Reference: Esri Community Maps Contributors, UCB CAD/GIS Office, City of Boulder, Boulder County, © OpenStreetMap, Microsoft, Esri, TomTom, Garmin, SafeGraph, GeoTechnologies, Inc, METI/NASA, USGS, EPA, NPS, US Census Bureau, USDA, USFWS Light Gray Base: Esri Community Maps Contributors, UCB CAD/GIS Office, City of Boulder, Boulder County, © OpenStreetMap, Microsoft, Esri, TomTom, Garmin, SafeGraph, GeoTechnologies, Inc, METI/NASA, USGS, EPA, NPS, US Census Bureau, USDA, USFWS Additional: CO Office of Information Technology LiDAR data - Boulder County. DEM. 5-foot contours. Wetlands (CU Property) High Quality Wetland Buffer: Inner 25' High Quality Wetland Buffer: Outer 25' Low Quality Wetland Buffer: Outer 25' South Boulder Creek Floodplain Mitigation 0 130 260 Feet Document Path: C:\CORVUS Dropbox\Team\Clients\RJH\SBC Regional Detention Project - 60% Design\ArcMap\ArcPro\City of Boulder Wetland Functional Assessment\City of Boulder Wetland Functional Assessment2.aprx1:2,500 ¤ Page 9 of 9 Attachment A – Proposed Ordinance 8624 Item 3E - 1st Rdg Ord 8624 Adopting Wetlands at CU South Page 23 Packet Page 64 of 523 EXHIBIT C FUNCTIONAL EVALUATIONS Attachment A – Proposed Ordinance 8624 Item 3E - 1st Rdg Ord 8624 Adopting Wetlands at CU South Page 24 Packet Page 65 of 523 Wetland #1 Former Cooper #NA Location: Boulder, CO. Investigator: Mshields Date 8-Feb-24 Centroid Coordinates: 39.98494695, -105.23382902 Observation method: Onsite Water Source:Groundwater, overland flow.History: Ratings: 1=no, 2=low, 3=medium,4=high, 5=very high Confidence:a=low, b=medium, c=high Function Indicators Comments GROUNDWATER RECHARGE X Surface water inflow exceeds outflow Not permanently flooded/extremely variable water Located high in watershed &/or at local topo. high point X Presence of porous underlying strata Dense vegetated basin slows flow X Outlet constricted &/or dammed Irreg. shape w/ high wetland edge:area ratio Indicated by available groundwater data OVERALL GROUNDWATER RECHARGE FUNCTION Rating 3 Confiden b Previous GROUNDWATER DISCHARGE Seeps or springs present X Low location in watershed &/or local topographic low Geologically diverse such as geologic contact No inlet, but outlet present &/or downstream of dam X Permanently flooded/saturated No signif. accumulation of fine sediments/silts Indicated by available groundwater data OVERALL GROUNDWATER DISCHARGE FUNCTION Rating 4 Confiden b Previous FLOOD STORAGE/FLOODFLOW ALTERATION Located along stream X Outflow restricted High water mark shows periodic flooding Flat topography &/or low gradient X Porous substrate allows infiltration for subsurface storag Rough surface & depressions for aboveground storage Dense veg. basin slows flow X Coarse woody debris present OVERALL FLOOD ALTERATION FUNCTION Rating 4 Confiden b Previous SHORELINE ANCHORING/STABILIZATION Erosional forces/high water velocity/unsheltered loc. Dense vegetation/good water-veg. interspersion Veg. w/strong dense root mass e.g. woody coverage Little evidence of recent erosion Rubble substrate present OVERALL SHORELINE ANCHORING FUNCTION Rating 3 Confiden c Previous SEDIMENT TRAPPING/RETENTION X Constricted outlet/water flow slows Low water velocity/surface water input exceeds output Visible reduction in particulates between inflow/outflow Evidence of sediment/organic matter deposits Dense vegetation present Flat topography &/or gently sloping wetland edges Source of sediments from upstream/offsite activities X Absence of disturbances to re-suspend sediments OVERALL SEDIMENT TRAPPING FUNCTION Rating 3 Confiden c Previous Pond is a stormwater feature that functions to trap stormwater events, has no outlet for downstream sediment dispersal. However, lack of inlet means sediment influx is likely low. WETLAND FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT FORM (p. 1 of 3) Pond and fringe community regularly interface with groundwater. Pond has no inlet or outlet, so additional hydrologic inputs for groundwater recharge is limited. Pond is groundwater fed and exhibits year-round inundation. Water level fluctuates with time of year. Pond and surrounded wetland community have high potential to hold stormwater/flood flows. Mixture of herbaceous and woody vegetation surrounds the shore, area along southwest bank has very little vegetation/provides weak stabilization. Attachment A – Proposed Ordinance 8624 Item 3E - 1st Rdg Ord 8624 Adopting Wetlands at CU South Page 25 Packet Page 66 of 523 Ratings: 1=no, 2=low, 3=medium,4=high, 5=very high Confidence:a=low, b=medium, c=high Function Indicators Comments NUTRIENT RETENTION (long-term) X Permanently flooded/saturated High plant productivity X Presence of woody plants Organic soils present OVERALL NUTRIENT RETENTION (long-term) FUNCTION Rating 3 Confiden b Previous NUTRIENT RETENTION (short-term) X Low water velocity Highly variable water/seasonally flooded High plant productivity Fine mineral soils present OVERALL NUTRIENT RETENTION (short -term) FUNCTION Rating 3 Confiden b Previous FOOD CHAIN SUPPORT (downstream/production export) Presence of outlet High plant productivity/overhanging veg. Seasonal flooding Good flushing flows/high erosion potential Non-acidic water Substrate w/ accumulated organic matter OVERALL FOOD CHAIN EXPORT FUNCTION Rating 1 Confiden c Previous FOOD CHAIN SUPPORT (within basin) High plant productivity X Absence of outlet Low erosion potential/absence of high flows OVERALL FOOD CHAIN SUPPORT (w/in basin) FUNCTION Rating 2 Confiden c Previous FISH HABITAT/AQUATIC DIVERSITY X Some deep open water Non-acidic, clear water No barriers to migration/movement Minimal variation in flow (artificial) X Streambank/edges provide partial cover/cool temps Well-mixed water/adequate oxygen OVERALL FISH/AQUATIC HABITAT FUNCTION Rating 2 Confiden c Previous WILDLIFE HABITAT X Signs of different animals -- scat,prints,shelter X Adjacent wooded area or veg. >20ft wide X Large/ sinuous, irregular basin/with islands X High veg. diversity/good food sources Minimal variation in flow (artificial) X Some open water X Connects to offsite habitat Not channelized or farmed OVERALL WILDLIFE HABITAT FUNCTION Rating 3 Confiden c Previous ACTIVE RECREATION Direct evidence of actual use X Convenient public access Good habitat for animals/fish & high diversity OVERALL ACTIVE RECREATION FUNCTION Rating 1 Confiden c Previous Small wetland fringe around pond may provide some nutrient retention before entering the pond; however, regular interaction between the pond and groundwater mean nutrients that enter the pond likely enter groundwater as well. Small wetland fringe around pond may provide some nutrient retention before entering the pond; however, regular interaction between the pond and groundwater mean nutrients that enter the pond likely enter groundwater as well. No flows/downstream outlet associated with this community. High prevalence of weedy species around/within wetland, but lack of outlet restricts movement of resources out of the community. Pond contains some areas of deeper water; however, a lack of inlet/outlet restricts fish moment to/from the community. Wetland #1 WETLAND FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT FORM (page 2 of 3) Dense woody/weedy vegetation in some portions of this community provide excellent cover for wildlife species. Open water provides a drinking source. However, proximity to development (surrounded on three sides) limits wildlife use. No aquatic recreation opportunities, stormwater pond. Attachment A – Proposed Ordinance 8624 Item 3E - 1st Rdg Ord 8624 Adopting Wetlands at CU South Page 26 Packet Page 67 of 523 Ratings: 1=no, 2=low, 3=medium,4=high, 5=very high Confidence:a=low, b=medium, c=high Function Indicators Comments PASSIVE RECREATION/HERITAGE VALUE High ranked occurrence of plant community Presence of rare plants or animals Landscape diversity Rare or unusual wetland types Natural setting OVERALL PASSIVE RECREATION/UNIQUENESS Rating 2 Confiden c Previous OVERALL FUNCTIONAL INTEGRITY Low degree of disturbance Naturalness of hydrology Diversity of plant community OVERALL FUNCTIONAL INTEGRITY Rating 2 Confiden c Notes: Small habitat oasis in otherwise urban landscape provides a low level of passive recreational value (education, science). Pond in urban setting with moderate weedy encroachment. Wetland #1 WETLAND FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT FORM (page 3 of 3)Attachment A – Proposed Ordinance 8624 Item 3E - 1st Rdg Ord 8624 Adopting Wetlands at CU South Page 27 Packet Page 68 of 523 Wetland #2 Former Cooper #NA Location: Boulder, Colorado.Investigator: Mshields Date 8-Feb-24 Centeroid coordinates: 39.98522474, -105.23574056 Observation method: Onsite Water Source:Overland flow History: Ratings: 1=no, 2=low, 3=medium,4=high, 5=very high Confidence:a=low, b=medium, c=high Function Indicators Comments GROUNDWATER RECHARGE Surface water inflow exceeds outflow X Not permanently flooded/extremely variable water Located high in watershed &/or at local topo. high point Presence of porous underlying strata Dense vegetated basin slows flow Outlet constricted &/or dammed Irreg. shape w/ high wetland edge:area ratio Indicated by available groundwater data OVERALL GROUNDWATER RECHARGE FUNCTION Rating 2 Confiden b Previous GROUNDWATER DISCHARGE X Seeps or springs present X Low location in watershed &/or local topographic low Geologically diverse such as geologic contact No inlet, but outlet present &/or downstream of dam Permanently flooded/saturated No signif. accumulation of fine sediments/silts Indicated by available groundwater data OVERALL GROUNDWATER DISCHARGE FUNCTION Rating 3 Confiden b Previous FLOOD STORAGE/FLOODFLOW ALTERATION Located along stream Outflow restricted High water mark shows periodic flooding X Flat topography &/or low gradient Porous substrate allows infiltration for subsurface storag Rough surface & depressions for aboveground storage X Dense veg. basin slows flow Coarse woody debris present OVERALL FLOOD ALTERATION FUNCTION Rating 2 Confiden c Previous SHORELINE ANCHORING/STABILIZATION Erosional forces/high water velocity/unsheltered loc. Dense vegetation/good water-veg. interspersion Veg. w/strong dense root mass e.g. woody coverage Little evidence of recent erosion Rubble substrate present OVERALL SHORELINE ANCHORING FUNCTION Rating 1 Confiden c Previous SEDIMENT TRAPPING/RETENTION Constricted outlet/water flow slows Low water velocity/surface water input exceeds output Visible reduction in particulates between inflow/outflow Evidence of sediment/organic matter deposits Dense vegetation present X Flat topography &/or gently sloping wetland edges Source of sediments from upstream/offsite activities Absence of disturbances to re-suspend sediments OVERALL SEDIMENT TRAPPING FUNCTION Rating 2 Confiden c Previous WETLAND FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT FORM (p. 1 of 3) Roadside swale containing PEM wetland community. Fully vegetated swale slows flow. Drainage swale exhibits ephemeral flow, at best, as evidenced by no defined OHWM. Main hydrology source provided by groundwater seep. Community/associated depression is small and shallow, does not have high flood storage capacity or flood flow capacity. Community located within roadside swale; however, no open water is present, and vegetation is herbaceous (provides less root-based stability than woody communities). Wetland community is part of a roadside swale isolated within a the upland community. Sediment inputs are low in general. Dense herbaceous vegetation present. Attachment A – Proposed Ordinance 8624 Item 3E - 1st Rdg Ord 8624 Adopting Wetlands at CU South Page 28 Packet Page 69 of 523 Ratings: 1=no, 2=low, 3=medium,4=high, 5=very high Confidence:a=low, b=medium, c=high Function Indicators Comments NUTRIENT RETENTION (long-term) Permanently flooded/saturated High plant productivity Presence of woody plants Organic soils present OVERALL NUTRIENT RETENTION (long-term) FUNCTION Rating 2 Confiden b Previous NUTRIENT RETENTION (short-term) X Low water velocity X Highly variable water/seasonally flooded High plant productivity Fine mineral soils present OVERALL NUTRIENT RETENTION (short -term) FUNCTION Rating 2 Confiden b Previous FOOD CHAIN SUPPORT (downstream/production export) Presence of outlet High plant productivity/overhanging veg. X Seasonal flooding Good flushing flows/high erosion potential Non-acidic water Substrate w/ accumulated organic matter OVERALL FOOD CHAIN EXPORT FUNCTION Rating 1 Confiden c Previous FOOD CHAIN SUPPORT (within basin) High plant productivity X Absence of outlet Low erosion potential/absence of high flows OVERALL FOOD CHAIN SUPPORT (w/in basin) FUNCTION Rating 2 Confiden c Previous FISH HABITAT/AQUATIC DIVERSITY Some deep open water Non-acidic, clear water No barriers to migration/movement Minimal variation in flow (artificial) Streambank/edges provide partial cover/cool temps Well-mixed water/adequate oxygen OVERALL FISH/AQUATIC HABITAT FUNCTION Rating 1 Confiden c Previous WILDLIFE HABITAT Signs of different animals -- scat,prints,shelter Adjacent wooded area or veg. >20ft wide Large/ sinuous, irregular basin/with islands High veg. diversity/good food sources Minimal variation in flow (artificial) X Some open water X Connects to offsite habitat X Not channelized or farmed OVERALL WILDLIFE HABITAT FUNCTION Rating 2 Confiden c Previous ACTIVE RECREATION Direct evidence of actual use X Convenient public access Good habitat for animals/fish & high diversity OVERALL ACTIVE RECREATION FUNCTION Rating 1 Confiden c Previous No direct downgradient connections to other aquatic features. Seasonal ponding remains in swale and is not transported outside the feature. Community sits within a swale and is not associated with consistent flow. Infrequent ponding occurs in this community. No direct upstream or downstream connection. Swale community ocassionally hosts open water, and is connected to a larger open space area; however, it is directly adjacent and parallels a paved road within an urban settings. No direct aquatic recreation potential. Wetland #2 WETLAND FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT FORM (page 2 of 3) Drainage swale is isolated with no direct connect to downgradient aquatic features to export nutrients. Swale is fully vegetated with herbaceous vegetation and semi-permanantely saturated. Flow in swale is best described as ephemeral, and is very infrequent, based largely around large rainfall events. Swale is fully vegetated with herbaceous vegetation and semi-permanantely saturated. Attachment A – Proposed Ordinance 8624 Item 3E - 1st Rdg Ord 8624 Adopting Wetlands at CU South Page 29 Packet Page 70 of 523 Ratings: 1=no, 2=low, 3=medium,4=high, 5=very high Confidence:a=low, b=medium, c=high Function Indicators Comments PASSIVE RECREATION/HERITAGE VALUE High ranked occurrence of plant community Presence of rare plants or animals Landscape diversity Rare or unusual wetland types X Natural setting OVERALL PASSIVE RECREATION/UNIQUENESS Rating 2 Confiden c Previous OVERALL FUNCTIONAL INTEGRITY Low degree of disturbance Naturalness of hydrology Diversity of plant community OVERALL FUNCTIONAL INTEGRITY Rating 2 Confidence Notes: Common wetland community in historically disturbed environment. Groundwater driven wetland community in an urban setting. Wetland #2 WETLAND FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT FORM (page 3 of 3)Attachment A – Proposed Ordinance 8624 Item 3E - 1st Rdg Ord 8624 Adopting Wetlands at CU South Page 30 Packet Page 71 of 523 Wetland #3 Former Cooper #NA Location: Boulder, CO Investigator: Mshields Date 8-Feb-24 Centroid coordinates: 39.98369393, -105.23213564 Observation method: Onsite Water Source:Viele Channel, Groundwater History: Ratings: 1=no, 2=low, 3=medium,4=high, 5=very high Confidence:a=low, b=medium, c=high Function Indicators Comments GROUNDWATER RECHARGE Surface water inflow exceeds outflow Not permanently flooded/extremely variable water Located high in watershed &/or at local topo. high point Presence of porous underlying strata X Dense vegetated basin slows flow X Outlet constricted &/or dammed Irreg. shape w/ high wetland edge:area ratio Indicated by available groundwater data OVERALL GROUNDWATER RECHARGE FUNCTION Rating 2 Confiden b Previous GROUNDWATER DISCHARGE X Seeps or springs present X Low location in watershed &/or local topographic low Geologically diverse such as geologic contact No inlet, but outlet present &/or downstream of dam X Permanently flooded/saturated No signif. accumulation of fine sediments/silts Indicated by available groundwater data OVERALL GROUNDWATER DISCHARGE FUNCTION Rating 3 Confiden c Previous FLOOD STORAGE/FLOODFLOW ALTERATION X Located along stream Outflow restricted High water mark shows periodic flooding X Flat topography &/or low gradient Porous substrate allows infiltration for subsurface storag Rough surface & depressions for aboveground storage X Dense veg. basin slows flow X Coarse woody debris present OVERALL FLOOD ALTERATION FUNCTION Rating 3 Confiden c Previous SHORELINE ANCHORING/STABILIZATION X Erosional forces/high water velocity/unsheltered loc. X Dense vegetation/good water-veg. interspersion X Veg. w/strong dense root mass e.g. woody coverage Little evidence of recent erosion Rubble substrate present OVERALL SHORELINE ANCHORING FUNCTION Rating 2 Confiden c Previous SEDIMENT TRAPPING/RETENTION Constricted outlet/water flow slows Low water velocity/surface water input exceeds output Visible reduction in particulates between inflow/outflow X Evidence of sediment/organic matter deposits X Dense vegetation present Flat topography &/or gently sloping wetland edges Source of sediments from upstream/offsite activities Absence of disturbances to re-suspend sediments OVERALL SEDIMENT TRAPPING FUNCTION Rating 3 Confiden c Previous WETLAND FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT FORM (p. 1 of 3) Groundwater exchange within ponded setting. Groundwater provides year-round hydrology to pond within topographic low area along drainage swale. Pond permanently flooded. Located along Viele Channel and within the SBC floodway. Drainage swale comprised of dense cattail community with a coyote willow fringe. Bent vegetation communities provides evidence of flooding/high flow events. Low gradients along this drainage coupled with high vegetation cover provides moderate flood flow storage. Dense woody vegetation on both banks of Viele Channel. Channel filled with dense vegetation but still hosts evidence of flow events and small pockets of open water. No evidence of recent erosion. Dense cattail community proficient at capturing sediment. However, large flow events likely move some sediment through this system. Attachment A – Proposed Ordinance 8624 Item 3E - 1st Rdg Ord 8624 Adopting Wetlands at CU South Page 31 Packet Page 72 of 523 Ratings: 1=no, 2=low, 3=medium,4=high, 5=very high Confidence:a=low, b=medium, c=high Function Indicators Comments NUTRIENT RETENTION (long-term) X Permanently flooded/saturated High plant productivity X Presence of woody plants X Organic soils present OVERALL NUTRIENT RETENTION (long-term) FUNCTION Rating 3 Confiden b Previous NUTRIENT RETENTION (short-term) Low water velocity Highly variable water/seasonally flooded High plant productivity Fine mineral soils present OVERALL NUTRIENT RETENTION (short -term) FUNCTION Rating 3 Confiden b Previous FOOD CHAIN SUPPORT (downstream/production export) X Presence of outlet X High plant productivity/overhanging veg. X Seasonal flooding X Good flushing flows/high erosion potential Non-acidic water X Substrate w/ accumulated organic matter OVERALL FOOD CHAIN EXPORT FUNCTION Rating 4 Confiden c Previous FOOD CHAIN SUPPORT (within basin) X High plant productivity Absence of outlet Low erosion potential/absence of high flows OVERALL FOOD CHAIN SUPPORT (w/in basin) FUNCTION Rating 2 Confiden b Previous FISH HABITAT/AQUATIC DIVERSITY Some deep open water Non-acidic, clear water No barriers to migration/movement Minimal variation in flow (artificial) X Streambank/edges provide partial cover/cool temps Well-mixed water/adequate oxygen OVERALL FISH/AQUATIC HABITAT FUNCTION Rating 2 Confiden c Previous WILDLIFE HABITAT X Signs of different animals -- scat,prints,shelter X Adjacent wooded area or veg. >20ft wide Large/ sinuous, irregular basin/with islands X High veg. diversity/good food sources Minimal variation in flow (artificial) X Some open water X Connects to offsite habitat Not channelized or farmed OVERALL WILDLIFE HABITAT FUNCTION Rating 3 Confiden c Previous ACTIVE RECREATION Direct evidence of actual use Convenient public access Good habitat for animals/fish & high diversity OVERALL ACTIVE RECREATION FUNCTION Rating 1 Confiden c Previous Wetland #3 WETLAND FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT FORM (page 2 of 3) Area permanently saturated with ocassional flooding. Dense vegetation including woody plants is prevalent throughout the feature, organic soils likely present. Area permanently saturated with ocassional flooding. Dense vegetation including woody plants is prevalent throughout the feature. Downstream culvert provides continued food chain support within Viele Channel and it's associated communities. Large flow events in the channel help facilitate this movement. Community exhibits high plant productivity that maintains food chain support in-basin, especially in drought years with low, infrequent flow events. Open waters are scattered throughout this community but are transient based on sediment deposition and frequency of flushing flows. Observed avian use in this community. Diversity of dense vegetation stratum provides wildlife security, while the channel itself provides a water source. Wildlife habitat limited due to proximity to trail/roadway, and general urban setting. No aquatic recreation opportunities. Attachment A – Proposed Ordinance 8624 Item 3E - 1st Rdg Ord 8624 Adopting Wetlands at CU South Page 32 Packet Page 73 of 523 Ratings: 1=no, 2=low, 3=medium,4=high, 5=very high Confidence:a=low, b=medium, c=high Function Indicators Comments PASSIVE RECREATION/HERITAGE VALUE High ranked occurrence of plant community Presence of rare plants or animals Landscape diversity Rare or unusual wetland types Natural setting OVERALL PASSIVE RECREATION/UNIQUENESS Rating 2 Confiden c Previous OVERALL FUNCTIONAL INTEGRITY Low degree of disturbance Naturalness of hydrology X Diversity of plant community OVERALL FUNCTIONAL INTEGRITY Rating 2 Confiden c Notes: Wetland #3 WETLAND FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT FORM (page 3 of 3) Community doesn't have continual physical disturbance (pedestrian use) and exhibits veg. communitiy diversity, but is located in an urban setting, with hydrologic inputs modified by increasing impervious surface area. Community hosts a diverse vegetation palette, but has weedy encroachment from the uplands. Attachment A – Proposed Ordinance 8624 Item 3E - 1st Rdg Ord 8624 Adopting Wetlands at CU South Page 33 Packet Page 74 of 523 Wetland #4 Former Cooper #NA Location: Boulder, CO Investigator: Mshields Date 8-Feb-24 Centroid coordinates: 39.98161864, -105.23018274 Observation method: Onsite Water Source:Groundwater, overland flow, drainage swales History: Ratings: 1=no, 2=low, 3=medium,4=high, 5=very high Confidence:a=low, b=medium, c=high Function Indicators Comments GROUNDWATER RECHARGE Surface water inflow exceeds outflow Not permanently flooded/extremely variable water Located high in watershed &/or at local topo. high point Presence of porous underlying strata X Dense vegetated basin slows flow X Outlet constricted &/or dammed Irreg. shape w/ high wetland edge:area ratio Indicated by available groundwater data OVERALL GROUNDWATER RECHARGE FUNCTION Rating 3 Confiden b Previous GROUNDWATER DISCHARGE X Seeps or springs present X Low location in watershed &/or local topographic low Geologically diverse such as geologic contact No inlet, but outlet present &/or downstream of dam X Permanently flooded/saturated No signif. accumulation of fine sediments/silts Indicated by available groundwater data OVERALL GROUNDWATER DISCHARGE FUNCTION Rating 3 Confiden c Previous FLOOD STORAGE/FLOODFLOW ALTERATION Located along stream Outflow restricted High water mark shows periodic flooding X Flat topography &/or low gradient X Porous substrate allows infiltration for subsurface storag Rough surface & depressions for aboveground storage X Dense veg. basin slows flow X Coarse woody debris present OVERALL FLOOD ALTERATION FUNCTION Rating 4 Confiden c Previous SHORELINE ANCHORING/STABILIZATION Erosional forces/high water velocity/unsheltered loc. Dense vegetation/good water-veg. interspersion X Veg. w/strong dense root mass e.g. woody coverage Little evidence of recent erosion X Rubble substrate present OVERALL SHORELINE ANCHORING FUNCTION Rating 3 Confiden b Previous SEDIMENT TRAPPING/RETENTION X Constricted outlet/water flow slows X Low water velocity/surface water input exceeds output Visible reduction in particulates between inflow/outflow Evidence of sediment/organic matter deposits X Dense vegetation present X Flat topography &/or gently sloping wetland edges Source of sediments from upstream/offsite activities Absence of disturbances to re-suspend sediments OVERALL SEDIMENT TRAPPING FUNCTION Rating 4 Confiden c Previous WETLAND FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT FORM (p. 1 of 3) Groundwater & drainage fed pond that recieves additional hydrology from overland flow/drainage canals. Located in previous excavated gravel mine. Pond is located in low area along east end of previously excavated gravel mine. Hydrology provided partially from upgradient seeps, partially from high groundwater table. Pond and associated PEM/PSS communities are located in a topographically flat area previously exacavated for mining activities. Community/pond is located within the SBC floodway. Dense veg. encompasses much of the area surrounding the pond feature; however, a large segment on the southwest side of the pond is bare from pedestrian use. Small, fully vegetated outlet to pond. Wetland swale continues north and is constricted again by a culvert. Inconsistent flow in drainage swale with no open channel. Cattail community dominates much of the PEM communities present. Attachment A – Proposed Ordinance 8624 Item 3E - 1st Rdg Ord 8624 Adopting Wetlands at CU South Page 34 Packet Page 75 of 523 Ratings: 1=no, 2=low, 3=medium,4=high, 5=very high Confidence:a=low, b=medium, c=high Function Indicators Comments NUTRIENT RETENTION (long-term) X Permanently flooded/saturated X High plant productivity X Presence of woody plants Organic soils present OVERALL NUTRIENT RETENTION (long-term) FUNCTION Rating 3 Confiden c Previous NUTRIENT RETENTION (short-term) X Low water velocity Highly variable water/seasonally flooded X High plant productivity Fine mineral soils present OVERALL NUTRIENT RETENTION (short -term) FUNCTION Rating 3 Confiden c Previous FOOD CHAIN SUPPORT (downstream/production export) X Presence of outlet X High plant productivity/overhanging veg. Seasonal flooding Good flushing flows/high erosion potential Non-acidic water Substrate w/ accumulated organic matter OVERALL FOOD CHAIN EXPORT FUNCTION Rating 2 Confiden c Previous FOOD CHAIN SUPPORT (within basin) X High plant productivity Absence of outlet X Low erosion potential/absence of high flows OVERALL FOOD CHAIN SUPPORT (w/in basin) FUNCTION Rating 3 Confiden c Previous FISH HABITAT/AQUATIC DIVERSITY X Some deep open water Non-acidic, clear water No barriers to migration/movement Minimal variation in flow (artificial) X Streambank/edges provide partial cover/cool temps Well-mixed water/adequate oxygen OVERALL FISH/AQUATIC HABITAT FUNCTION Rating 2 Confiden c Previous WILDLIFE HABITAT X Signs of different animals -- scat,prints,shelter Adjacent wooded area or veg. >20ft wide Large/ sinuous, irregular basin/with islands High veg. diversity/good food sources Minimal variation in flow (artificial) X Some open water Connects to offsite habitat Not channelized or farmed OVERALL WILDLIFE HABITAT FUNCTION Rating 2 Confiden c Previous ACTIVE RECREATION X Direct evidence of actual use X Convenient public access Good habitat for animals/fish & high diversity OVERALL ACTIVE RECREATION FUNCTION Rating 3 Confiden b Previous Dense vegetation and lack of consistent flows keep resources mainly in the wetland/basin. Outlet present but dense with a cattail dominated PEM community that likely retains much of the nutrients/resources. Pond hosts some deeper pockets but lacks a defined channel upstream and downstream to connect fish populations. Dense, varied vegetation communities provide wildlife cover, and open water provides water source; however, prolific pedestrian use likely deters consistent wildlife use. Community is surrounded by disturbance on all sides (trails, fencing, building). Community located directly adjacent to a trail. The pond segment of this community is used as a dog park (swimming). Wetland #4 WETLAND FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT FORM (page 2 of 3) Area is permanently flooded and contains dense, varied vegetation communities (mix of PEM/PSS). Area is permanently flooded and contains dense, varied vegetation communities (mix of PEM/PSS). Community and pond not located on a natural watercourse, doesn't receive flushing flows. Attachment A – Proposed Ordinance 8624 Item 3E - 1st Rdg Ord 8624 Adopting Wetlands at CU South Page 35 Packet Page 76 of 523 Ratings: 1=no, 2=low, 3=medium,4=high, 5=very high Confidence:a=low, b=medium, c=high Function Indicators Comments PASSIVE RECREATION/HERITAGE VALUE High ranked occurrence of plant community Presence of rare plants or animals Landscape diversity Rare or unusual wetland types Natural setting OVERALL PASSIVE RECREATION/UNIQUENESS Rating 2 Confiden c Previous OVERALL FUNCTIONAL INTEGRITY Low degree of disturbance Naturalness of hydrology Diversity of plant community OVERALL FUNCTIONAL INTEGRITY Rating 2 Confiden c Notes: Highly disturbed in some areas, more natural in others. A large portion of this community is highly disturbed by pedestrian use. Vegetated swale portion of community hosts typical PEM/PSS wetland communities dominated by cattail and coyote willow. Educational value still present for hobbies like bird watching. Wetland #4 WETLAND FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT FORM (page 3 of 3)Attachment A – Proposed Ordinance 8624 Item 3E - 1st Rdg Ord 8624 Adopting Wetlands at CU South Page 36 Packet Page 77 of 523 Wetland #5 Former Cooper #NA Location: Boulder, CO Investigator: Mshields Date 8-Feb-24 Centroid coordinates: 39.97346173, -105.22763275 Observation method: Onsite Water Source:Groundwater seeps, overland flow History: Ratings: 1=no, 2=low, 3=medium,4=high, 5=very high Confidence:a=low, b=medium, c=high Function Indicators Comments GROUNDWATER RECHARGE Surface water inflow exceeds outflow Not permanently flooded/extremely variable water Located high in watershed &/or at local topo. high point X Presence of porous underlying strata X Dense vegetated basin slows flow Outlet constricted &/or dammed X Irreg. shape w/ high wetland edge:area ratio Indicated by available groundwater data OVERALL GROUNDWATER RECHARGE FUNCTION Rating 2 Confiden C Previous GROUNDWATER DISCHARGE X Seeps or springs present Low location in watershed &/or local topographic low Geologically diverse such as geologic contact No inlet, but outlet present &/or downstream of dam X Permanently flooded/saturated No signif. accumulation of fine sediments/silts Indicated by available groundwater data OVERALL GROUNDWATER DISCHARGE FUNCTION Rating 5 Confiden c Previous FLOOD STORAGE/FLOODFLOW ALTERATION Located along stream Outflow restricted High water mark shows periodic flooding Flat topography &/or low gradient Porous substrate allows infiltration for subsurface storag Rough surface & depressions for aboveground storage X Dense veg. basin slows flow X Coarse woody debris present OVERALL FLOOD ALTERATION FUNCTION Rating 2 Confiden c Previous SHORELINE ANCHORING/STABILIZATION Erosional forces/high water velocity/unsheltered loc. X Dense vegetation/good water-veg. interspersion X Veg. w/strong dense root mass e.g. woody coverage Little evidence of recent erosion Rubble substrate present OVERALL SHORELINE ANCHORING FUNCTION Rating 2 Confiden b Previous SEDIMENT TRAPPING/RETENTION X Constricted outlet/water flow slows X Low water velocity/surface water input exceeds output Visible reduction in particulates between inflow/outflow Evidence of sediment/organic matter deposits X Dense vegetation present Flat topography &/or gently sloping wetland edges Source of sediments from upstream/offsite activities Absence of disturbances to re-suspend sediments OVERALL SEDIMENT TRAPPING FUNCTION Rating 2 Confiden c Previous WETLAND FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT FORM (p. 1 of 3) Community contains areas where groundwater breaches the surface and flows downgradient. Some lower areas may pond and recharge groundwater but for the most part these appear to discharge from belowground and flow downgradient. Primary source of hydrology for these communities is a series of groundwater seeps. Historic exacavation has brought the ground surface elevation of many areas of the site below the water table. Communities permanently saturated, with flowing surface water at times (no channel). Dense vegetation comprises this PEM/PSS community. Drainage swales are present but do not contain OHWM/exhibit consistent flow. No open water present, but overland flow occurs in these communities. Slow water velocities from groundwater seeps, but no large source of sediment (no stream/river). Attachment A – Proposed Ordinance 8624 Item 3E - 1st Rdg Ord 8624 Adopting Wetlands at CU South Page 37 Packet Page 78 of 523 Ratings: 1=no, 2=low, 3=medium,4=high, 5=very high Confidence:a=low, b=medium, c=high Function Indicators Comments NUTRIENT RETENTION (long-term) X Permanently flooded/saturated X High plant productivity X Presence of woody plants Organic soils present OVERALL NUTRIENT RETENTION (long-term) FUNCTION Rating 3 Confiden c Previous NUTRIENT RETENTION (short-term) X Low water velocity Highly variable water/seasonally flooded X High plant productivity Fine mineral soils present OVERALL NUTRIENT RETENTION (short -term) FUNCTION Rating 3 Confiden b Previous FOOD CHAIN SUPPORT (downstream/production export) Presence of outlet X High plant productivity/overhanging veg. Seasonal flooding Good flushing flows/high erosion potential Non-acidic water Substrate w/ accumulated organic matter OVERALL FOOD CHAIN EXPORT FUNCTION Rating 2 Confiden C Previous FOOD CHAIN SUPPORT (within basin) X High plant productivity Absence of outlet X Low erosion potential/absence of high flows OVERALL FOOD CHAIN SUPPORT (w/in basin) FUNCTION Rating 3 Confiden c Previous FISH HABITAT/AQUATIC DIVERSITY Some deep open water Non-acidic, clear water No barriers to migration/movement Minimal variation in flow (artificial) Streambank/edges provide partial cover/cool temps Well-mixed water/adequate oxygen OVERALL FISH/AQUATIC HABITAT FUNCTION Rating 1 Confiden c Previous WILDLIFE HABITAT X Signs of different animals -- scat,prints,shelter X Adjacent wooded area or veg. >20ft wide X Large/ sinuous, irregular basin/with islands X High veg. diversity/good food sources X Minimal variation in flow (artificial) Some open water X Connects to offsite habitat X Not channelized or farmed OVERALL WILDLIFE HABITAT FUNCTION Rating 4 Confiden c Previous ACTIVE RECREATION Direct evidence of actual use Convenient public access Good habitat for animals/fish & high diversity OVERALL ACTIVE RECREATION FUNCTION Rating 1 Confiden c Previous Wetland #5 WETLAND FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT FORM (page 2 of 3) Seeps provide hydrology, keeping communities saturated. Woody plants (SAEX) present spordically along this community. Seeps provide hydrology, keeping communities saturated. Woody plants (SAEX) present spordically along this community. No flushing flows as this community is not along a natural channel. High plant productivity. Low gradient/lack of flow. Not along natural stream course, any food chain production likely stays within the community/basin. No open water present. Mosaic of weltand seeps in an otherwise upland community provides resources for wildlife including avians and amphibians. Deer observed using willow stands for cover. High wetland boundary roughness. Area as a whole is used as a dog park/pedestrian recreation area which may deter wildlife use to a degree. No aquatic recreation potential. Attachment A – Proposed Ordinance 8624 Item 3E - 1st Rdg Ord 8624 Adopting Wetlands at CU South Page 38 Packet Page 79 of 523 Ratings: 1=no, 2=low, 3=medium,4=high, 5=very high Confidence:a=low, b=medium, c=high Function Indicators Comments PASSIVE RECREATION/HERITAGE VALUE X High ranked occurrence of plant community X Presence of rare plants or animals X Landscape diversity X Rare or unusual wetland types Natural setting OVERALL PASSIVE RECREATION/UNIQUENESS Rating 5 Confiden c Previous OVERALL FUNCTIONAL INTEGRITY Low degree of disturbance X Naturalness of hydrology X Diversity of plant community OVERALL FUNCTIONAL INTEGRITY Rating 3 Confiden b Notes: Wetland #5 WETLAND FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT FORM (page 3 of 3) Seep hydrology driven by previous excavation/mining activities. Area hosts a diverse, rare plant population. Groundwater seep communities host federally-protected orchid species in otherwise upland enviornment. Attachment A – Proposed Ordinance 8624 Item 3E - 1st Rdg Ord 8624 Adopting Wetlands at CU South Page 39 Packet Page 80 of 523 Wetland #6 Former Cooper #NA Location: Boulder, CO Investigator: Mshields Date 8-Feb-24 Centroid coordinates: 39.97401491, -105.22633615 Observation method: Onsite Water Source:Drainage canals, overland flow History: Ratings: 1=no, 2=low, 3=medium,4=high, 5=very high Confidence:a=low, b=medium, c=high Function Indicators Comments GROUNDWATER RECHARGE Surface water inflow exceeds outflow Not permanently flooded/extremely variable water Located high in watershed &/or at local topo. high point Presence of porous underlying strata Dense vegetated basin slows flow Outlet constricted &/or dammed Irreg. shape w/ high wetland edge:area ratio Indicated by available groundwater data OVERALL GROUNDWATER RECHARGE FUNCTION Rating 2 Confiden c Previous GROUNDWATER DISCHARGE X Seeps or springs present X Low location in watershed &/or local topographic low Geologically diverse such as geologic contact No inlet, but outlet present &/or downstream of dam X Permanently flooded/saturated No signif. accumulation of fine sediments/silts Indicated by available groundwater data OVERALL GROUNDWATER DISCHARGE FUNCTION Rating 2 Confiden c Previous FLOOD STORAGE/FLOODFLOW ALTERATION X Located along stream Outflow restricted High water mark shows periodic flooding X Flat topography &/or low gradient Porous substrate allows infiltration for subsurface storag Rough surface & depressions for aboveground storage X Dense veg. basin slows flow X Coarse woody debris present OVERALL FLOOD ALTERATION FUNCTION Rating 2 Confiden b Previous SHORELINE ANCHORING/STABILIZATION Erosional forces/high water velocity/unsheltered loc. X Dense vegetation/good water-veg. interspersion X Veg. w/strong dense root mass e.g. woody coverage X Little evidence of recent erosion Rubble substrate present OVERALL SHORELINE ANCHORING FUNCTION Rating 3 Confiden c Previous SEDIMENT TRAPPING/RETENTION Constricted outlet/water flow slows Low water velocity/surface water input exceeds output Visible reduction in particulates between inflow/outflow Evidence of sediment/organic matter deposits X Dense vegetation present Flat topography &/or gently sloping wetland edges Source of sediments from upstream/offsite activities Absence of disturbances to re-suspend sediments OVERALL SEDIMENT TRAPPING FUNCTION Rating 2 Confiden c Previous WETLAND FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT FORM (p. 1 of 3) PEM wetland fringe along manmade drainage canals east of an earthen berm including Dry Creek No. 2 and South Boulder and Bear Creek Ditches. Dense vegetation adjacent to the ditches and within the OHWM in places. Groundwater recharge may occur in low-lying wetland communities adjacent to these drainages that host gravelly/porous substrates, but is likely infrequent in this community. Groundwater seeps are present in the area and may provide overland flow to these drainages; however, the seeps are not the primary source of hydrology. Located along constructed, low gradient drainges ditches that are diversion controlled. PSS communities located along these ditches in select areas. Dense vegetation present in some segments of these ditches. A large portion of this community is located within the SBC floodway. Constructed channels, no erosion observed. Dense vegetation along both banks. Dense vegetation present in some portions of the drainages, but overall remain clear and flowing. Flow in ditches is controlled via upstream diversion from SBC. Attachment A – Proposed Ordinance 8624 Item 3E - 1st Rdg Ord 8624 Adopting Wetlands at CU South Page 40 Packet Page 81 of 523 Ratings: 1=no, 2=low, 3=medium,4=high, 5=very high Confidence:a=low, b=medium, c=high Function Indicators Comments NUTRIENT RETENTION (long-term) Permanently flooded/saturated X High plant productivity X Presence of woody plants Organic soils present OVERALL NUTRIENT RETENTION (long-term) FUNCTION Rating 3 Confiden b Previous NUTRIENT RETENTION (short-term) X Low water velocity Highly variable water/seasonally flooded X High plant productivity Fine mineral soils present OVERALL NUTRIENT RETENTION (short -term) FUNCTION Rating 3 Confiden b Previous FOOD CHAIN SUPPORT (downstream/production export) X Presence of outlet X High plant productivity/overhanging veg. Seasonal flooding Good flushing flows/high erosion potential Non-acidic water X Substrate w/ accumulated organic matter OVERALL FOOD CHAIN EXPORT FUNCTION Rating 4 Confiden c Previous FOOD CHAIN SUPPORT (within basin) X High plant productivity Absence of outlet X Low erosion potential/absence of high flows OVERALL FOOD CHAIN SUPPORT (w/in basin) FUNCTION Rating 3 Confiden b Previous FISH HABITAT/AQUATIC DIVERSITY Some deep open water Non-acidic, clear water No barriers to migration/movement Minimal variation in flow (artificial) X Streambank/edges provide partial cover/cool temps Well-mixed water/adequate oxygen OVERALL FISH/AQUATIC HABITAT FUNCTION Rating 3 Confiden c Previous WILDLIFE HABITAT X Signs of different animals -- scat,prints,shelter X Adjacent wooded area or veg. >20ft wide Large/ sinuous, irregular basin/with islands X High veg. diversity/good food sources Minimal variation in flow (artificial) X Some open water X Connects to offsite habitat Not channelized or farmed OVERALL WILDLIFE HABITAT FUNCTION Rating 4 Confiden c Previous ACTIVE RECREATION Direct evidence of actual use X Convenient public access Good habitat for animals/fish & high diversity OVERALL ACTIVE RECREATION FUNCTION Rating 2 Confiden c Previous Wetland #6 WETLAND FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT FORM (page 2 of 3) Diverse PEM/PSS community fringe present along the drainage ditches. Plant communities not fully woody. Low velocities in drainage ditch coupled with dense vegetation cover allow for nutrient retention. Through-flow in drainage ditches allows export of nutrients/sediment to downstream communities. Organic accumulation in fringe communities. Flow in drainage ditches maintains food resource export, but lack of large/flood events keeps some resources in the adjacent wetland communities. Flow controlled by diversion and passes through multiple constriction points (culverts). Observations of aquatic-dependent species including northern leopard frog made in this community. Adjcaent to open spaces along much of the community; however, social trails dissect habitat in some locations. Drainage ditches provide limited aquatic recreation opportunities. Public access provided by trails. Dogs observed in these ditches. Attachment A – Proposed Ordinance 8624 Item 3E - 1st Rdg Ord 8624 Adopting Wetlands at CU South Page 41 Packet Page 82 of 523 Ratings: 1=no, 2=low, 3=medium,4=high, 5=very high Confidence:a=low, b=medium, c=high Function Indicators Comments PASSIVE RECREATION/HERITAGE VALUE X High ranked occurrence of plant community X Presence of rare plants or animals Landscape diversity Rare or unusual wetland types Natural setting OVERALL PASSIVE RECREATION/UNIQUENESS Rating 4 Confiden c Previous OVERALL FUNCTIONAL INTEGRITY Low degree of disturbance Naturalness of hydrology X Diversity of plant community OVERALL FUNCTIONAL INTEGRITY Rating 3 Confiden c Notes: Wetland #6 WETLAND FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT FORM (page 3 of 3) Hydrology unnatural (drainage ditches with flow diverted from SBC), but wetland communities are diverse in species and strata, and host rare plant species. Although the environmental setting in these communities is unnatural (from diversion fed canals), a small number of federally-protected orchid are present in the area. Attachment A – Proposed Ordinance 8624 Item 3E - 1st Rdg Ord 8624 Adopting Wetlands at CU South Page 42 Packet Page 83 of 523 Wetland #7 Former Cooper #NA Location: Boulder, CO Investigator: Mshields Date 8-Feb-24 Centroid coordinates: 39.97487241, -105.22532846 Observation method: Onsite Water Source:Groundwater, overland flow History: Ratings: 1=no, 2=low, 3=medium,4=high, 5=very high Confidence:a=low, b=medium, c=high Function Indicators Comments GROUNDWATER RECHARGE Surface water inflow exceeds outflow Not permanently flooded/extremely variable water Located high in watershed &/or at local topo. high point X Presence of porous underlying strata X Dense vegetated basin slows flow X Outlet constricted &/or dammed Irreg. shape w/ high wetland edge:area ratio Indicated by available groundwater data OVERALL GROUNDWATER RECHARGE FUNCTION Rating 2 Confiden b Previous GROUNDWATER DISCHARGE X Seeps or springs present X Low location in watershed &/or local topographic low Geologically diverse such as geologic contact X No inlet, but outlet present &/or downstream of dam Permanently flooded/saturated No signif. accumulation of fine sediments/silts Indicated by available groundwater data OVERALL GROUNDWATER DISCHARGE FUNCTION Rating 4 Confiden c Previous FLOOD STORAGE/FLOODFLOW ALTERATION Located along stream X Outflow restricted High water mark shows periodic flooding X Flat topography &/or low gradient Porous substrate allows infiltration for subsurface storag X Rough surface & depressions for aboveground storage X Dense veg. basin slows flow X Coarse woody debris present OVERALL FLOOD ALTERATION FUNCTION Rating 3 Confiden c Previous SHORELINE ANCHORING/STABILIZATION Erosional forces/high water velocity/unsheltered loc. Dense vegetation/good water-veg. interspersion Veg. w/strong dense root mass e.g. woody coverage Little evidence of recent erosion Rubble substrate present OVERALL SHORELINE ANCHORING FUNCTION Rating 1 Confiden c Previous SEDIMENT TRAPPING/RETENTION X Constricted outlet/water flow slows Low water velocity/surface water input exceeds output Visible reduction in particulates between inflow/outflow Evidence of sediment/organic matter deposits X Dense vegetation present Flat topography &/or gently sloping wetland edges Source of sediments from upstream/offsite activities Absence of disturbances to re-suspend sediments OVERALL SEDIMENT TRAPPING FUNCTION Rating 2 Confiden b Previous WETLAND FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT FORM (p. 1 of 3) Groundwater fed PEM wet meadow community in the SBC floodway. Area is fully vegetated with no drainageways. Downgradient of earthen berm that separates the excavated mine area from the SBC floodplain. Community is not located along a stream course; however, it is located within the SBC floodway and may receive flood flows during large events. Variable vegetation, low gradients, and microtopography indicate a moderate level of above-ground flood storage capacity. No open waters present. Although this community is densely vegetated, there are no channels/streams present within to carry sediment into or out of this community. Attachment A – Proposed Ordinance 8624 Item 3E - 1st Rdg Ord 8624 Adopting Wetlands at CU South Page 43 Packet Page 84 of 523 Ratings: 1=no, 2=low, 3=medium,4=high, 5=very high Confidence:a=low, b=medium, c=high Function Indicators Comments NUTRIENT RETENTION (long-term) Permanently flooded/saturated X High plant productivity X Presence of woody plants Organic soils present OVERALL NUTRIENT RETENTION (long-term) FUNCTION Rating 3 Confiden b Previous NUTRIENT RETENTION (short-term) Low water velocity Highly variable water/seasonally flooded X High plant productivity Fine mineral soils present OVERALL NUTRIENT RETENTION (short -term) FUNCTION Rating 3 Confiden b Previous FOOD CHAIN SUPPORT (downstream/production export) Presence of outlet High plant productivity/overhanging veg. X Seasonal flooding Good flushing flows/high erosion potential Non-acidic water Substrate w/ accumulated organic matter OVERALL FOOD CHAIN EXPORT FUNCTION Rating 2 Confiden c Previous FOOD CHAIN SUPPORT (within basin) High plant productivity X Absence of outlet Low erosion potential/absence of high flows OVERALL FOOD CHAIN SUPPORT (w/in basin) FUNCTION Rating 3 Confiden c Previous FISH HABITAT/AQUATIC DIVERSITY Some deep open water Non-acidic, clear water No barriers to migration/movement Minimal variation in flow (artificial) Streambank/edges provide partial cover/cool temps Well-mixed water/adequate oxygen OVERALL FISH/AQUATIC HABITAT FUNCTION Rating 1 Confiden c Previous WILDLIFE HABITAT Signs of different animals -- scat,prints,shelter X Adjacent wooded area or veg. >20ft wide X Large/ sinuous, irregular basin/with islands X High veg. diversity/good food sources Minimal variation in flow (artificial) Some open water X Connects to offsite habitat Not channelized or farmed OVERALL WILDLIFE HABITAT FUNCTION Rating 4 Confiden c Previous ACTIVE RECREATION Direct evidence of actual use Convenient public access Good habitat for animals/fish & high diversity OVERALL ACTIVE RECREATION FUNCTION Rating 1 Confiden c Previous No channel to convey nutrients/resources downstream. There may be rare flooding events from SBC as this community is partially within the SBC floodway. No outlet, resources stay within the community except in rare large flood events along SBC. No open water present. Varied vegetation strata provide habitat for wildlife with large adjacent undeveloped meadow. Directly adjacent riparian corridors include tree cover. No aquatic recreation potential. Wetland #7 WETLAND FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT FORM (page 2 of 3) Soils often, although not permanently, saturated. Dense, varied herbaceous cover with ocassional PSS/PFO communities. Soils often, although not permanently, saturated. Dense, varied herbaceous cover with ocassional PSS/PFO communities. Attachment A – Proposed Ordinance 8624 Item 3E - 1st Rdg Ord 8624 Adopting Wetlands at CU South Page 44 Packet Page 85 of 523 Ratings: 1=no, 2=low, 3=medium,4=high, 5=very high Confidence:a=low, b=medium, c=high Function Indicators Comments PASSIVE RECREATION/HERITAGE VALUE High ranked occurrence of plant community X Presence of rare plants or animals Landscape diversity X Rare or unusual wetland types Natural setting OVERALL PASSIVE RECREATION/UNIQUENESS Rating 4 Confiden c Previous OVERALL FUNCTIONAL INTEGRITY X Low degree of disturbance X Naturalness of hydrology X Diversity of plant community OVERALL FUNCTIONAL INTEGRITY Rating 4 Confiden c Notes: Communities have nautral, seep-driven hydrology with lack of disturbance and a diverse wet meadow community. Minor weedy encroachment in limited areas. Community hosts uncommon seep wetlands that host federally protected orchid species. Wetland #7 WETLAND FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT FORM (page 3 of 3) Attachment A – Proposed Ordinance 8624 Item 3E - 1st Rdg Ord 8624 Adopting Wetlands at CU South Page 45 Packet Page 86 of 523 Wetland #8 Former Cooper #NA Location: Boulder, CO Investigator: Mshields Date 8-Feb-24 Centroid coordinates: 39.97829981, -105.23077349 Observation method: Onsite Water Source:History: Ratings: 1=no, 2=low, 3=medium,4=high, 5=very high Confidence:a=low, b=medium, c=high Function Indicators Comments GROUNDWATER RECHARGE X Surface water inflow exceeds outflow Not permanently flooded/extremely variable water Located high in watershed &/or at local topo. high point X Presence of porous underlying strata Dense vegetated basin slows flow X Outlet constricted &/or dammed Irreg. shape w/ high wetland edge:area ratio Indicated by available groundwater data OVERALL GROUNDWATER RECHARGE FUNCTION Rating 3 Confiden b Previous GROUNDWATER DISCHARGE Seeps or springs present Low location in watershed &/or local topographic low Geologically diverse such as geologic contact No inlet, but outlet present &/or downstream of dam X Permanently flooded/saturated No signif. accumulation of fine sediments/silts Indicated by available groundwater data OVERALL GROUNDWATER DISCHARGE FUNCTION Rating 4 Confiden c Previous FLOOD STORAGE/FLOODFLOW ALTERATION Located along stream X Outflow restricted High water mark shows periodic flooding X Flat topography &/or low gradient X Porous substrate allows infiltration for subsurface storag Rough surface & depressions for aboveground storage Dense veg. basin slows flow Coarse woody debris present OVERALL FLOOD ALTERATION FUNCTION Rating 2 Confiden c Previous SHORELINE ANCHORING/STABILIZATION Erosional forces/high water velocity/unsheltered loc. Dense vegetation/good water-veg. interspersion X Veg. w/strong dense root mass e.g. woody coverage Little evidence of recent erosion X Rubble substrate present OVERALL SHORELINE ANCHORING FUNCTION Rating 3 Confiden c Previous SEDIMENT TRAPPING/RETENTION X Constricted outlet/water flow slows Low water velocity/surface water input exceeds output Visible reduction in particulates between inflow/outflow Evidence of sediment/organic matter deposits Dense vegetation present Flat topography &/or gently sloping wetland edges Source of sediments from upstream/offsite activities X Absence of disturbances to re-suspend sediments OVERALL SEDIMENT TRAPPING FUNCTION Rating 2 Confiden b Previous WETLAND FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT FORM (p. 1 of 3) Pond and fringe community regularly interface with groundwater. Pond has no inlet or outlet, so additional hydrologic inputs for groundwater recharge is limited. Pond is groundwater fed and exhibits year-round inundation. Water level fluctuates with time of year. Pond and wetland fringe community not located along a stream/channel that would receive flood flows, nor is it in the SBC floodplain. Scattered woody vegetation along the banks, but also large areas of no vegetation/annual herbaceous vegetation. No erosional forces as no inlet/outlet for flow. Gravel/small cobble substrates. No inflow/outflow to this community. Attachment A – Proposed Ordinance 8624 Item 3E - 1st Rdg Ord 8624 Adopting Wetlands at CU South Page 46 Packet Page 87 of 523 Ratings: 1=no, 2=low, 3=medium,4=high, 5=very high Confidence:a=low, b=medium, c=high Function Indicators Comments NUTRIENT RETENTION (long-term) X Permanently flooded/saturated High plant productivity X Presence of woody plants Organic soils present OVERALL NUTRIENT RETENTION (long-term) FUNCTION Rating 3 Confiden b Previous NUTRIENT RETENTION (short-term) X Low water velocity Highly variable water/seasonally flooded High plant productivity Fine mineral soils present OVERALL NUTRIENT RETENTION (short -term) FUNCTION Rating 3 Confiden b Previous FOOD CHAIN SUPPORT (downstream/production export) Presence of outlet High plant productivity/overhanging veg. Seasonal flooding Good flushing flows/high erosion potential Non-acidic water Substrate w/ accumulated organic matter OVERALL FOOD CHAIN EXPORT FUNCTION Rating 1 Confiden c Previous FOOD CHAIN SUPPORT (within basin) High plant productivity X Absence of outlet X Low erosion potential/absence of high flows OVERALL FOOD CHAIN SUPPORT (w/in basin) FUNCTION Rating 3 Confiden c Previous FISH HABITAT/AQUATIC DIVERSITY X Some deep open water Non-acidic, clear water No barriers to migration/movement Minimal variation in flow (artificial) X Streambank/edges provide partial cover/cool temps Well-mixed water/adequate oxygen OVERALL FISH/AQUATIC HABITAT FUNCTION Rating 2 Confiden c Previous WILDLIFE HABITAT X Signs of different animals -- scat,prints,shelter X Adjacent wooded area or veg. >20ft wide Large/ sinuous, irregular basin/with islands X High veg. diversity/good food sources Minimal variation in flow (artificial) X Some open water X Connects to offsite habitat Not channelized or farmed OVERALL WILDLIFE HABITAT FUNCTION Rating 3 Confiden c Previous ACTIVE RECREATION Direct evidence of actual use X Convenient public access Good habitat for animals/fish & high diversity OVERALL ACTIVE RECREATION FUNCTION Rating 1 Confiden b Previous No flows/downstream outlet associated with this community. No inlet/outlet, resources stay in wetland/basin. Pond contains some areas of deeper water; however, a lack of inlet/outlet restricts fish moment to/from the community. Dense vegetation, including woody species provide cover for wildlife species. Open water provides a water source. No aquatic recreation opportunities. Wetland #8 WETLAND FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT FORM (page 2 of 3) Small wetland fringe around pond may provide some nutrient retention before entering the pond; however, regular interaction between the pond and groundwater mean nutrients that enter the pond likely enter groundwater as well. Small wetland fringe around pond may provide some nutrient retention before entering the pond; however, regular interaction between the pond and groundwater mean nutrients that enter the pond likely enter groundwater as well. Attachment A – Proposed Ordinance 8624 Item 3E - 1st Rdg Ord 8624 Adopting Wetlands at CU South Page 47 Packet Page 88 of 523 Ratings: 1=no, 2=low, 3=medium,4=high, 5=very high Confidence:a=low, b=medium, c=high Function Indicators Comments PASSIVE RECREATION/HERITAGE VALUE High ranked occurrence of plant community Presence of rare plants or animals Landscape diversity Rare or unusual wetland types Natural setting OVERALL PASSIVE RECREATION/UNIQUENESS Rating 2 Confiden c Previous OVERALL FUNCTIONAL INTEGRITY Low degree of disturbance Naturalness of hydrology X Diversity of plant community OVERALL FUNCTIONAL INTEGRITY Rating 3 Confiden c Notes: Excavated, groundwater-driven pond (historic gravel mining) with multi- strata fringe. Small pond in an upland landscape setting within disturbed historic gravel mine footprint, with common wetland communities. Wetland #8 WETLAND FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT FORM (page 3 of 3) Attachment A – Proposed Ordinance 8624 Item 3E - 1st Rdg Ord 8624 Adopting Wetlands at CU South Page 48 Packet Page 89 of 523 Wetland #9 Former Cooper #NA Location: Boulder, CO Investigator: Mshields Date 8-Feb-24 Centroid coordinates: 39.97920902, -105.23188154 Observation method: Onsite Water Source:Groundwater, overland flow History: Ratings: 1=no, 2=low, 3=medium,4=high, 5=very high Confidence:a=low, b=medium, c=high Function Indicators Comments GROUNDWATER RECHARGE Surface water inflow exceeds outflow X Not permanently flooded/extremely variable water Located high in watershed &/or at local topo. high point Presence of porous underlying strata Dense vegetated basin slows flow X Outlet constricted &/or dammed Irreg. shape w/ high wetland edge:area ratio Indicated by available groundwater data OVERALL GROUNDWATER RECHARGE FUNCTION Rating 2 Confiden b Previous GROUNDWATER DISCHARGE X Seeps or springs present X Low location in watershed &/or local topographic low Geologically diverse such as geologic contact No inlet, but outlet present &/or downstream of dam Permanently flooded/saturated No signif. accumulation of fine sediments/silts Indicated by available groundwater data OVERALL GROUNDWATER DISCHARGE FUNCTION Rating 3 Confiden c Previous FLOOD STORAGE/FLOODFLOW ALTERATION Located along stream X Outflow restricted High water mark shows periodic flooding X Flat topography &/or low gradient X Porous substrate allows infiltration for subsurface storag X Rough surface & depressions for aboveground storage X Dense veg. basin slows flow Coarse woody debris present OVERALL FLOOD ALTERATION FUNCTION Rating 2 Confiden c Previous SHORELINE ANCHORING/STABILIZATION Erosional forces/high water velocity/unsheltered loc. Dense vegetation/good water-veg. interspersion Veg. w/strong dense root mass e.g. woody coverage Little evidence of recent erosion Rubble substrate present OVERALL SHORELINE ANCHORING FUNCTION Rating 1 Confiden c Previous SEDIMENT TRAPPING/RETENTION X Constricted outlet/water flow slows Low water velocity/surface water input exceeds output Visible reduction in particulates between inflow/outflow Evidence of sediment/organic matter deposits X Dense vegetation present Flat topography &/or gently sloping wetland edges Source of sediments from upstream/offsite activities Absence of disturbances to re-suspend sediments OVERALL SEDIMENT TRAPPING FUNCTION Rating 2 Confiden b Previous WETLAND FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT FORM (p. 1 of 3) Series of isolated groundwater-fed swales. Lack of additional hydrology sources limits recharge potential. Series of isolated groundwater-fed swales. Wetland communities within isolated swales with no direct connection to a channel/drainage. Potential for flood flows accessing these features is low. No open waters present. Isolated swales lack upstream sediment source. Sediment from overland flow that enters swales remains in community. Attachment A – Proposed Ordinance 8624 Item 3E - 1st Rdg Ord 8624 Adopting Wetlands at CU South Page 49 Packet Page 90 of 523 Ratings: 1=no, 2=low, 3=medium,4=high, 5=very high Confidence:a=low, b=medium, c=high Function Indicators Comments NUTRIENT RETENTION (long-term) Permanently flooded/saturated High plant productivity Presence of woody plants Organic soils present OVERALL NUTRIENT RETENTION (long-term) FUNCTION Rating 2 Confiden b Previous NUTRIENT RETENTION (short-term) Low water velocity Highly variable water/seasonally flooded High plant productivity Fine mineral soils present OVERALL NUTRIENT RETENTION (short -term) FUNCTION Rating 2 Confiden b Previous FOOD CHAIN SUPPORT (downstream/production export) Presence of outlet High plant productivity/overhanging veg. Seasonal flooding Good flushing flows/high erosion potential Non-acidic water Substrate w/ accumulated organic matter OVERALL FOOD CHAIN EXPORT FUNCTION Rating 1 Confiden c Previous FOOD CHAIN SUPPORT (within basin) High plant productivity X Absence of outlet X Low erosion potential/absence of high flows OVERALL FOOD CHAIN SUPPORT (w/in basin) FUNCTION Rating 3 Confiden b Previous FISH HABITAT/AQUATIC DIVERSITY Some deep open water Non-acidic, clear water No barriers to migration/movement Minimal variation in flow (artificial) Streambank/edges provide partial cover/cool temps Well-mixed water/adequate oxygen OVERALL FISH/AQUATIC HABITAT FUNCTION Rating 1 Confiden c Previous WILDLIFE HABITAT Signs of different animals -- scat,prints,shelter X Adjacent wooded area or veg. >20ft wide Large/ sinuous, irregular basin/with islands High veg. diversity/good food sources Minimal variation in flow (artificial) Some open water Connects to offsite habitat Not channelized or farmed OVERALL WILDLIFE HABITAT FUNCTION Rating 3 Confiden c Previous ACTIVE RECREATION Direct evidence of actual use Convenient public access Good habitat for animals/fish & high diversity OVERALL ACTIVE RECREATION FUNCTION Rating 1 Confiden c Previous No continuous downstream/downgradient connect to other aquatic features or flow events to drive materials export. Low erosion potential as these swales do not host frequent flow (no OHWM) and are fully vegetated. Nutrients/resources produced in the wetland remain in the wetland. No open water present in the community. Swales isolated and, in some cases, next to development which likely deters some wildlife use. Communities are adjacent to a large area of upland habitat, and nearby other wetland habitats. No aquatic recreation potential. Wetland #9 WETLAND FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT FORM (page 2 of 3) Swales saturated frequently enough to host PEM community, but do not appear inundated (based on aerial imagery review). Swales saturated frequently enough to host PEM community, but do not appear inundated (based on aerial imagery review). Attachment A – Proposed Ordinance 8624 Item 3E - 1st Rdg Ord 8624 Adopting Wetlands at CU South Page 50 Packet Page 91 of 523 Ratings: 1=no, 2=low, 3=medium,4=high, 5=very high Confidence:a=low, b=medium, c=high Function Indicators Comments PASSIVE RECREATION/HERITAGE VALUE High ranked occurrence of plant community Presence of rare plants or animals Landscape diversity Rare or unusual wetland types Natural setting OVERALL PASSIVE RECREATION/UNIQUENESS Rating 2 Confiden c Previous OVERALL FUNCTIONAL INTEGRITY Low degree of disturbance Naturalness of hydrology Diversity of plant community OVERALL FUNCTIONAL INTEGRITY Rating 2 Confiden c Notes: Swale features relic of historic mining operations, and primary hydrology (groundwater) present due to previous exacavation of the area. Common wetland community type adjacent to anthropogenic infrastructure. Potential for scientific/education value. Wetland #9 WETLAND FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT FORM (page 3 of 3) Attachment A – Proposed Ordinance 8624 Item 3E - 1st Rdg Ord 8624 Adopting Wetlands at CU South Page 51 Packet Page 92 of 523 Wetland #10 Former Cooper #NA Location: Boulder, CO Investigator: Mshields Date 8-Feb-24 Centroid coordinates: 39.96963001, -105.2301957 Observation method: Onsite Water Source:Groundwater, overland flow History: Ratings: 1=no, 2=low, 3=medium,4=high, 5=very high Confidence:a=low, b=medium, c=high Function Indicators Comments GROUNDWATER RECHARGE Surface water inflow exceeds outflow X Not permanently flooded/extremely variable water Located high in watershed &/or at local topo. high point X Presence of porous underlying strata Dense vegetated basin slows flow Outlet constricted &/or dammed Irreg. shape w/ high wetland edge:area ratio Indicated by available groundwater data OVERALL GROUNDWATER RECHARGE FUNCTION Rating 2 Confiden b Previous GROUNDWATER DISCHARGE X Seeps or springs present X Low location in watershed &/or local topographic low Geologically diverse such as geologic contact No inlet, but outlet present &/or downstream of dam X Permanently flooded/saturated No signif. accumulation of fine sediments/silts Indicated by available groundwater data OVERALL GROUNDWATER DISCHARGE FUNCTION Rating 4 Confiden c Previous FLOOD STORAGE/FLOODFLOW ALTERATION Located along stream X Outflow restricted High water mark shows periodic flooding Flat topography &/or low gradient X Porous substrate allows infiltration for subsurface storag Rough surface & depressions for aboveground storage X Dense veg. basin slows flow X Coarse woody debris present OVERALL FLOOD ALTERATION FUNCTION Rating 4 Confiden c Previous SHORELINE ANCHORING/STABILIZATION Erosional forces/high water velocity/unsheltered loc. Dense vegetation/good water-veg. interspersion Veg. w/strong dense root mass e.g. woody coverage Little evidence of recent erosion Rubble substrate present OVERALL SHORELINE ANCHORING FUNCTION Rating 1 Confiden c Previous SEDIMENT TRAPPING/RETENTION Constricted outlet/water flow slows Low water velocity/surface water input exceeds output Visible reduction in particulates between inflow/outflow Evidence of sediment/organic matter deposits Dense vegetation present Flat topography &/or gently sloping wetland edges Source of sediments from upstream/offsite activities Absence of disturbances to re-suspend sediments OVERALL SEDIMENT TRAPPING FUNCTION Rating 2 Confiden c Previous WETLAND FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT FORM (p. 1 of 3) Groundwater-driven wetland communities within the footprint of an old gravel pit. Groundwater-driven wetland communities within the footprint of an old gravel pit. Community contains dense vegetation in topographic depression with groundwater interaction within the SBC floodway. No open water present. No inflow/outflow paths for sediment to enter community. Small amount of sediment movement may occur during large overland or flood events. Attachment A – Proposed Ordinance 8624 Item 3E - 1st Rdg Ord 8624 Adopting Wetlands at CU South Page 52 Packet Page 93 of 523 Ratings: 1=no, 2=low, 3=medium,4=high, 5=very high Confidence:a=low, b=medium, c=high Function Indicators Comments NUTRIENT RETENTION (long-term) X Permanently flooded/saturated High plant productivity Presence of woody plants Organic soils present OVERALL NUTRIENT RETENTION (long-term) FUNCTION Rating 3 Confiden b Previous NUTRIENT RETENTION (short-term) Low water velocity Highly variable water/seasonally flooded X High plant productivity Fine mineral soils present OVERALL NUTRIENT RETENTION (short -term) FUNCTION Rating 3 Confiden b Previous FOOD CHAIN SUPPORT (downstream/production export) Presence of outlet High plant productivity/overhanging veg. Seasonal flooding Good flushing flows/high erosion potential Non-acidic water Substrate w/ accumulated organic matter OVERALL FOOD CHAIN EXPORT FUNCTION Rating 1 Confiden b Previous FOOD CHAIN SUPPORT (within basin) High plant productivity X Absence of outlet X Low erosion potential/absence of high flows OVERALL FOOD CHAIN SUPPORT (w/in basin) FUNCTION Rating 4 Confiden b Previous FISH HABITAT/AQUATIC DIVERSITY Some deep open water Non-acidic, clear water No barriers to migration/movement Minimal variation in flow (artificial) Streambank/edges provide partial cover/cool temps Well-mixed water/adequate oxygen OVERALL FISH/AQUATIC HABITAT FUNCTION Rating 1 Confiden c Previous WILDLIFE HABITAT X Signs of different animals -- scat,prints,shelter X Adjacent wooded area or veg. >20ft wide X Large/ sinuous, irregular basin/with islands High veg. diversity/good food sources Minimal variation in flow (artificial) Some open water X Connects to offsite habitat Not channelized or farmed OVERALL WILDLIFE HABITAT FUNCTION Rating 3 Confiden c Previous ACTIVE RECREATION Direct evidence of actual use Convenient public access Good habitat for animals/fish & high diversity OVERALL ACTIVE RECREATION FUNCTION Rating 1 Confiden c Previous Wetland #10 WETLAND FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT FORM (page 2 of 3) Vegetation communities contain saturated soils long enough to form hydric soil indicators and wetland vegetation, with no outlet, nutrients made onsite through decaying plant material stay onsite. Soils remain saturated long enough to form hydric soil indicators and host wetland vegetation. No downstream/downgradient outlet means that nutrients made onsite through decaying plant material stay onsite. No outflow path to transport nutirents/resources to downstream communities No flow path through features. Resources created in these communities has no route for export. Prevalence of organic material in wetland communities. No open water aquatic habitats present. Large depressional features host multi-strata vegetation communities that provide shelter/cover for wildlife. Adjacent wet meadow communities to east provide wildlife use buffers. Pedestrian use/trails transect the area which may deter wildlife use. No aquatic recreation opportunities. Attachment A – Proposed Ordinance 8624 Item 3E - 1st Rdg Ord 8624 Adopting Wetlands at CU South Page 53 Packet Page 94 of 523 Ratings: 1=no, 2=low, 3=medium,4=high, 5=very high Confidence:a=low, b=medium, c=high Function Indicators Comments PASSIVE RECREATION/HERITAGE VALUE High ranked occurrence of plant community X Presence of rare plants or animals Landscape diversity Rare or unusual wetland types Natural setting OVERALL PASSIVE RECREATION/UNIQUENESS Rating 3 Confiden c Previous OVERALL FUNCTIONAL INTEGRITY Low degree of disturbance Naturalness of hydrology X Diversity of plant community OVERALL FUNCTIONAL INTEGRITY Rating 3 Confiden c Notes: Wetland #10 WETLAND FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT FORM (page 3 of 3) Area of historic mining disturbance and modified hydrology from mining excavation activities that exposed areas of groundwater. Presence of rare plants and multi-strata communities provides a moderate level of functional integrity. Typical wetland community dominated by cattail and coyote willow; however, this community also hosts habitat for a federally protected orchid species. Has potential for scientific/educational value including (but not limited to) wetlands, riparian corridors, avian species, or mine reclamation. Attachment A – Proposed Ordinance 8624 Item 3E - 1st Rdg Ord 8624 Adopting Wetlands at CU South Page 54 Packet Page 95 of 523 Wetland #11 Former Cooper #NA Location: Boulder, CO Investigator: Mshields Date 8-Feb-24 Centroid coordinates: 39.9757822, -105.23306583 Observation method: Onsite Water Source:Groundwater seeps, overland flow History: Ratings: 1=no, 2=low, 3=medium,4=high, 5=very high Confidence:a=low, b=medium, c=high Function Indicators Comments GROUNDWATER RECHARGE Surface water inflow exceeds outflow Not permanently flooded/extremely variable water Located high in watershed &/or at local topo. high point X Presence of porous underlying strata X Dense vegetated basin slows flow Outlet constricted &/or dammed X Irreg. shape w/ high wetland edge:area ratio Indicated by available groundwater data OVERALL GROUNDWATER RECHARGE FUNCTION Rating 3 Confiden b Previous GROUNDWATER DISCHARGE X Seeps or springs present Low location in watershed &/or local topographic low Geologically diverse such as geologic contact No inlet, but outlet present &/or downstream of dam X Permanently flooded/saturated No signif. accumulation of fine sediments/silts Indicated by available groundwater data OVERALL GROUNDWATER DISCHARGE FUNCTION Rating 5 Confiden c Previous FLOOD STORAGE/FLOODFLOW ALTERATION Located along stream Outflow restricted High water mark shows periodic flooding Flat topography &/or low gradient Porous substrate allows infiltration for subsurface storag Rough surface & depressions for aboveground storage X Dense veg. basin slows flow X Coarse woody debris present OVERALL FLOOD ALTERATION FUNCTION Rating 2 Confiden c Previous SHORELINE ANCHORING/STABILIZATION Erosional forces/high water velocity/unsheltered loc. X Dense vegetation/good water-veg. interspersion X Veg. w/strong dense root mass e.g. woody coverage Little evidence of recent erosion Rubble substrate present OVERALL SHORELINE ANCHORING FUNCTION Rating 2 Confiden b Previous SEDIMENT TRAPPING/RETENTION X Constricted outlet/water flow slows X Low water velocity/surface water input exceeds output Visible reduction in particulates between inflow/outflow Evidence of sediment/organic matter deposits X Dense vegetation present X Flat topography &/or gently sloping wetland edges Source of sediments from upstream/offsite activities Absence of disturbances to re-suspend sediments OVERALL SEDIMENT TRAPPING FUNCTION Rating 2 Confiden c Previous WETLAND FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT FORM (p. 1 of 3) Community contains areas where groundwater breaches the surface and flows downgradient. Some lower areas exhibit ponding and recharge groundwater but for the most part these appear to discharge from belowground and flow downgradient. Primary source of hydrology for these communities is a series of groundwater seeps. Historic exacavation has brought the ground surface elevation of many areas of the site below the water table. Communities permanently saturated, with flowing surface water at times (no channel). Dense vegetation comprises these PEM/PSS communities. Drainage swales are present but do not contain OHWM/exhibit consistent flow. No connection to natural channel/stream that would provide flood flows. Small pond present with dense vegetation on banks, accounts for a small portion of the community. No evidence of recent erosion. Slow water velocities from groundwater seeps, but no large source of sediment (no stream/river). Small channel associated with pond, but has no outlet. Attachment A – Proposed Ordinance 8624 Item 3E - 1st Rdg Ord 8624 Adopting Wetlands at CU South Page 55 Packet Page 96 of 523 Ratings: 1=no, 2=low, 3=medium,4=high, 5=very high Confidence:a=low, b=medium, c=high Function Indicators Comments NUTRIENT RETENTION (long-term) X Permanently flooded/saturated X High plant productivity X Presence of woody plants Organic soils present OVERALL NUTRIENT RETENTION (long-term) FUNCTION Rating 3 Confiden b Previous NUTRIENT RETENTION (short-term) X Low water velocity Highly variable water/seasonally flooded X High plant productivity Fine mineral soils present OVERALL NUTRIENT RETENTION (short -term) FUNCTION Rating 3 Confiden b Previous FOOD CHAIN SUPPORT (downstream/production export) Presence of outlet X High plant productivity/overhanging veg. Seasonal flooding Good flushing flows/high erosion potential Non-acidic water Substrate w/ accumulated organic matter OVERALL FOOD CHAIN EXPORT FUNCTION Rating 2 Confiden C Previous FOOD CHAIN SUPPORT (within basin) X High plant productivity Absence of outlet X Low erosion potential/absence of high flows OVERALL FOOD CHAIN SUPPORT (w/in basin) FUNCTION Rating 3 Confiden c Previous FISH HABITAT/AQUATIC DIVERSITY Some deep open water Non-acidic, clear water No barriers to migration/movement Minimal variation in flow (artificial) Streambank/edges provide partial cover/cool temps Well-mixed water/adequate oxygen OVERALL FISH/AQUATIC HABITAT FUNCTION Rating 2 Confiden c Previous WILDLIFE HABITAT X Signs of different animals -- scat,prints,shelter X Adjacent wooded area or veg. >20ft wide X Large/ sinuous, irregular basin/with islands X High veg. diversity/good food sources X Minimal variation in flow (artificial) Some open water X Connects to offsite habitat X Not channelized or farmed OVERALL WILDLIFE HABITAT FUNCTION Rating 4 Confiden c Previous ACTIVE RECREATION Direct evidence of actual use X Convenient public access Good habitat for animals/fish & high diversity OVERALL ACTIVE RECREATION FUNCTION Rating 1 Confiden c Previous No flushing flows as this community is not along a natural channel. High plant productivity. Low gradient/lack of consistent flow. Not along natural stream course, any food chain production likely stays within the community/basin. Small, isolated pond present within this community making fish passage to/from pond unlikely. Mosaic of weltand seeps in an otherwise upland community provides resources for wildlife including avians and amphibians. High wetland boundary roughness. Area as a whole is used as a dog park/pedestrian recreation area which may deter wildlife use to a degree. No aquatic recreation potential. Community located adjacent to gravel road. Wetland #11 WETLAND FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT FORM (page 2 of 3) Seeps provide hydrology, keeping communities saturated. Woody plants (SAEX) present spordically along this community. Seeps provide hydrology, keeping communities saturated. Woody plants (SAEX) present spordically along this community. Attachment A – Proposed Ordinance 8624 Item 3E - 1st Rdg Ord 8624 Adopting Wetlands at CU South Page 56 Packet Page 97 of 523 Ratings: 1=no, 2=low, 3=medium,4=high, 5=very high Confidence:a=low, b=medium, c=high Function Indicators Comments PASSIVE RECREATION/HERITAGE VALUE High ranked occurrence of plant community Presence of rare plants or animals X Landscape diversity X Rare or unusual wetland types Natural setting OVERALL PASSIVE RECREATION/UNIQUENESS Rating 3 Confiden c Previous OVERALL FUNCTIONAL INTEGRITY Low degree of disturbance Naturalness of hydrology X Diversity of plant community OVERALL FUNCTIONAL INTEGRITY Rating 3 Confiden b Notes: Seep hydrology driven by previous excavation/mining activities. Area hosts a diverse plant population with habitat for a protected species. Groundwater seep communities hosts habitat for a federally protected orchid species; however, no orchid species have been observed here. Uncommon wetland type. Wetland #11 WETLAND FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT FORM (page 3 of 3) Attachment A – Proposed Ordinance 8624 Item 3E - 1st Rdg Ord 8624 Adopting Wetlands at CU South Page 57 Packet Page 98 of 523 Wetland #12 Former Cooper #NA Location: Boulder, CO Investigator: Mshields Date 8-Feb-24 Centroid coordinates: 39.97414376, -105.23407016 Observation method: Onsite Water Source:Overland flow, groundwater History: Ratings: 1=no, 2=low, 3=medium,4=high, 5=very high Confidence:a=low, b=medium, c=high Function Indicators Comments GROUNDWATER RECHARGE Surface water inflow exceeds outflow X Not permanently flooded/extremely variable water Located high in watershed &/or at local topo. high point Presence of porous underlying strata X Dense vegetated basin slows flow Outlet constricted &/or dammed Irreg. shape w/ high wetland edge:area ratio Indicated by available groundwater data OVERALL GROUNDWATER RECHARGE FUNCTION Rating 2 Confiden b Previous GROUNDWATER DISCHARGE X Seeps or springs present X Low location in watershed &/or local topographic low Geologically diverse such as geologic contact No inlet, but outlet present &/or downstream of dam X Permanently flooded/saturated No signif. accumulation of fine sediments/silts Indicated by available groundwater data OVERALL GROUNDWATER DISCHARGE FUNCTION Rating 3 Confiden c Previous FLOOD STORAGE/FLOODFLOW ALTERATION Located along stream X Outflow restricted High water mark shows periodic flooding X Flat topography &/or low gradient X Porous substrate allows infiltration for subsurface storag Rough surface & depressions for aboveground storage X Dense veg. basin slows flow Coarse woody debris present OVERALL FLOOD ALTERATION FUNCTION Rating 2 Confiden c Previous SHORELINE ANCHORING/STABILIZATION Erosional forces/high water velocity/unsheltered loc. Dense vegetation/good water-veg. interspersion Veg. w/strong dense root mass e.g. woody coverage Little evidence of recent erosion Rubble substrate present OVERALL SHORELINE ANCHORING FUNCTION Rating 1 Confiden c Previous SEDIMENT TRAPPING/RETENTION X Constricted outlet/water flow slows Low water velocity/surface water input exceeds output Visible reduction in particulates between inflow/outflow Evidence of sediment/organic matter deposits X Dense vegetation present Flat topography &/or gently sloping wetland edges Source of sediments from upstream/offsite activities Absence of disturbances to re-suspend sediments OVERALL SEDIMENT TRAPPING FUNCTION Rating 2 Confiden b Previous WETLAND FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT FORM (p. 1 of 3) Series of isolated PEM wetland filled swales that derive hydrology from groundwater seeps. Lack of additional hydrology sources limits recharge potential. Series of isolated groundwater-fed drainage swales. Wetland communities within isolated swales with no direct connection to a downstream channel/drainage. Potential for flood flows accessing these features is low. Community is within an area of minimal flood hazard. No open waters present. Isolated swales lack upstream sediment source. Sediment from overland flow that enters swales remains in community as flow power is low. Attachment A – Proposed Ordinance 8624 Item 3E - 1st Rdg Ord 8624 Adopting Wetlands at CU South Page 58 Packet Page 99 of 523 Ratings: 1=no, 2=low, 3=medium,4=high, 5=very high Confidence:a=low, b=medium, c=high Function Indicators Comments NUTRIENT RETENTION (long-term) Permanently flooded/saturated High plant productivity Presence of woody plants Organic soils present OVERALL NUTRIENT RETENTION (long-term) FUNCTION Rating 2 Confiden b Previous NUTRIENT RETENTION (short-term) Low water velocity Highly variable water/seasonally flooded High plant productivity Fine mineral soils present OVERALL NUTRIENT RETENTION (short -term) FUNCTION Rating 2 Confiden b Previous FOOD CHAIN SUPPORT (downstream/production export) Presence of outlet High plant productivity/overhanging veg. Seasonal flooding Good flushing flows/high erosion potential Non-acidic water Substrate w/ accumulated organic matter OVERALL FOOD CHAIN EXPORT FUNCTION Rating 1 Confiden c Previous FOOD CHAIN SUPPORT (within basin) High plant productivity X Absence of outlet X Low erosion potential/absence of high flows OVERALL FOOD CHAIN SUPPORT (w/in basin) FUNCTION Rating 3 Confiden b Previous FISH HABITAT/AQUATIC DIVERSITY Some deep open water Non-acidic, clear water No barriers to migration/movement Minimal variation in flow (artificial) Streambank/edges provide partial cover/cool temps Well-mixed water/adequate oxygen OVERALL FISH/AQUATIC HABITAT FUNCTION Rating 1 Confiden c Previous WILDLIFE HABITAT Signs of different animals -- scat,prints,shelter X Adjacent wooded area or veg. >20ft wide Large/ sinuous, irregular basin/with islands High veg. diversity/good food sources Minimal variation in flow (artificial) Some open water Connects to offsite habitat Not channelized or farmed OVERALL WILDLIFE HABITAT FUNCTION Rating 3 Confiden c Previous ACTIVE RECREATION Direct evidence of actual use Convenient public access Good habitat for animals/fish & high diversity OVERALL ACTIVE RECREATION FUNCTION Rating 1 Confiden c Previous Wetland #12 WETLAND FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT FORM (page 2 of 3) Swales saturated frequently enough to host PEM community, but do not appear inundated (based on aerial imagery review). Swales saturated frequently enough to host PEM community, but do not appear inundated (based on aerial imagery review). No continuous downstream/downgradient connection to other aquatic features or flow events to drive materials export. Low erosion potential as these swales do not host frequent flow (no OHWM) and are fully vegetated. Nutrients/resources produced in the wetland remain in the wetland. No open water present in the community. Swales isolated and, in some areas is located next to established trail which likely deters some wildlife use. Communities are adjacent to a large area of upland habitat, and nearby other wetland habitats. No aquatic recreation potential. Attachment A – Proposed Ordinance 8624 Item 3E - 1st Rdg Ord 8624 Adopting Wetlands at CU South Page 59 Packet Page 100 of 523 Ratings: 1=no, 2=low, 3=medium,4=high, 5=very high Confidence:a=low, b=medium, c=high Function Indicators Comments PASSIVE RECREATION/HERITAGE VALUE High ranked occurrence of plant community Presence of rare plants or animals Landscape diversity Rare or unusual wetland types Natural setting OVERALL PASSIVE RECREATION/UNIQUENESS Rating 2 Confiden c Previous OVERALL FUNCTIONAL INTEGRITY Low degree of disturbance Naturalness of hydrology Diversity of plant community OVERALL FUNCTIONAL INTEGRITY Rating 2 Confiden c Notes: Wetland #12 WETLAND FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT FORM (page 3 of 3) Area disturbed from historic mining excavation, and primary hydrology (groundwater) present due to previous exacavation of the area. Common wetland community type adjacent to anthropogenic infrastructure (trails). Potential for scientific/education value. Attachment A – Proposed Ordinance 8624 Item 3E - 1st Rdg Ord 8624 Adopting Wetlands at CU South Page 60 Packet Page 101 of 523 Wetland #13 Former Cooper #NA Location: Boulder, CO Investigator: Mshields Date 8-Feb-24 Centroid coordinates: 39.97555014, -105.23524007 Observation method: Onsite Water Source:Groundwater seeps, overland flow History: Ratings: 1=no, 2=low, 3=medium,4=high, 5=very high Confidence:a=low, b=medium, c=high Function Indicators Comments GROUNDWATER RECHARGE X Surface water inflow exceeds outflow X Not permanently flooded/extremely variable water X Located high in watershed &/or at local topo. high point X Presence of porous underlying strata X Dense vegetated basin slows flow Outlet constricted &/or dammed X Irreg. shape w/ high wetland edge:area ratio Indicated by available groundwater data OVERALL GROUNDWATER RECHARGE FUNCTION Rating 3 Confiden b Previous GROUNDWATER DISCHARGE X Seeps or springs present Low location in watershed &/or local topographic low Geologically diverse such as geologic contact X No inlet, but outlet present &/or downstream of dam Permanently flooded/saturated No signif. accumulation of fine sediments/silts Indicated by available groundwater data OVERALL GROUNDWATER DISCHARGE FUNCTION Rating 4 Confiden c Previous FLOOD STORAGE/FLOODFLOW ALTERATION Located along stream Outflow restricted High water mark shows periodic flooding Flat topography &/or low gradient X Porous substrate allows infiltration for subsurface storag Rough surface & depressions for aboveground storage X Dense veg. basin slows flow X Coarse woody debris present OVERALL FLOOD ALTERATION FUNCTION Rating 2 Confiden b Previous SHORELINE ANCHORING/STABILIZATION Erosional forces/high water velocity/unsheltered loc. Dense vegetation/good water-veg. interspersion Veg. w/strong dense root mass e.g. woody coverage Little evidence of recent erosion Rubble substrate present OVERALL SHORELINE ANCHORING FUNCTION Rating 1 Confiden c Previous SEDIMENT TRAPPING/RETENTION Constricted outlet/water flow slows Low water velocity/surface water input exceeds output Visible reduction in particulates between inflow/outflow Evidence of sediment/organic matter deposits X Dense vegetation present Flat topography &/or gently sloping wetland edges Source of sediments from upstream/offsite activities X Absence of disturbances to re-suspend sediments OVERALL SEDIMENT TRAPPING FUNCTION Rating 2 Confiden c Previous WETLAND FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT FORM (p. 1 of 3) Seep-driven hydrology provides evidence of porous substrates. Wetland community is located on a hillside which serves as a topographic high point for the entire site (the seep isn't at the top, but still higher that most features on the site). The area is densely vegetated and has a high wetland edge to SA ratio. Seep-driven hydrology with discharge onto hillside. No stream flows through feature, no inlet present. Swale features with no OHWM. This community is not located along a natural stream feature that has the potential to supply flood flows. In addition, the community is along a hillside and hyrology flows downgradient, outside of the community. No open water features present in this community. No inflow stream feature present to provide source of external sediment. Local sediment movement into the community through overland flow may occur and would likely trap sediment due to dense vegetation. Attachment A – Proposed Ordinance 8624 Item 3E - 1st Rdg Ord 8624 Adopting Wetlands at CU South Page 61 Packet Page 102 of 523 Ratings: 1=no, 2=low, 3=medium,4=high, 5=very high Confidence:a=low, b=medium, c=high Function Indicators Comments NUTRIENT RETENTION (long-term) Permanently flooded/saturated High plant productivity X Presence of woody plants Organic soils present OVERALL NUTRIENT RETENTION (long-term) FUNCTION Rating 2 Confiden b Previous NUTRIENT RETENTION (short-term) Low water velocity Highly variable water/seasonally flooded High plant productivity Fine mineral soils present OVERALL NUTRIENT RETENTION (short -term) FUNCTION Rating 3 Confiden b Previous FOOD CHAIN SUPPORT (downstream/production export) X Presence of outlet X High plant productivity/overhanging veg. Seasonal flooding Good flushing flows/high erosion potential Non-acidic water Substrate w/ accumulated organic matter OVERALL FOOD CHAIN EXPORT FUNCTION Rating 2 Confiden c Previous FOOD CHAIN SUPPORT (within basin) X High plant productivity Absence of outlet X Low erosion potential/absence of high flows OVERALL FOOD CHAIN SUPPORT (w/in basin) FUNCTION Rating 3 Confiden c Previous FISH HABITAT/AQUATIC DIVERSITY Some deep open water Non-acidic, clear water No barriers to migration/movement Minimal variation in flow (artificial) Streambank/edges provide partial cover/cool temps Well-mixed water/adequate oxygen OVERALL FISH/AQUATIC HABITAT FUNCTION Rating 1 Confiden c Previous WILDLIFE HABITAT X Signs of different animals -- scat,prints,shelter X Adjacent wooded area or veg. >20ft wide X Large/ sinuous, irregular basin/with islands X High veg. diversity/good food sources Minimal variation in flow (artificial) Some open water Connects to offsite habitat Not channelized or farmed OVERALL WILDLIFE HABITAT FUNCTION Rating 3 Confiden c Previous ACTIVE RECREATION Direct evidence of actual use Convenient public access Good habitat for animals/fish & high diversity OVERALL ACTIVE RECREATION FUNCTION Rating 1 Confiden c Previous Community has two swales that provide connection to downgradient features; however, these swales are fully vegetated and contain no OHWM, indicating that substantial flow in this channel is uncommon. During large rainfall events, some resources may get exported out of the community, aided by the hillslope associated with the wetland, but this is not a common occurrence. Lack of defined flow path through feature capable of moving resources out of the site. Nutrients/resources created onsite through decomposition processes likely remain onsite. No open water habitats. Dense vegetation provides shelter, dense/varied vegetation provides food resources. Heard large animal in vegetation but did not observe. Wetland contains varied habitat pockets/islands. Area surrounded by pedestrian trails that may deter wildlife use. No active aquatic recreation opportunities. Wetland #13 WETLAND FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT FORM (page 2 of 3) No permanent flooding. Some local areas may see permanent saturation closer to the seep exit. Presence of woody vegetation aids in sediment retention, but the community has low sediment inputs due to the lack of inflow route. High plant productivity from dense PEM/PSS community. Some local areas may see permanent saturation closer to the seep exit. Attachment A – Proposed Ordinance 8624 Item 3E - 1st Rdg Ord 8624 Adopting Wetlands at CU South Page 62 Packet Page 103 of 523 Ratings: 1=no, 2=low, 3=medium,4=high, 5=very high Confidence:a=low, b=medium, c=high Function Indicators Comments PASSIVE RECREATION/HERITAGE VALUE High ranked occurrence of plant community Presence of rare plants or animals Landscape diversity X Rare or unusual wetland types Natural setting OVERALL PASSIVE RECREATION/UNIQUENESS Rating 3 Confiden c Previous OVERALL FUNCTIONAL INTEGRITY Low degree of disturbance Naturalness of hydrology X Diversity of plant community OVERALL FUNCTIONAL INTEGRITY Rating 2 Confiden c Notes: Diverse vegetation community with altered hydrology from historic mining excavation. Uncommon wetland type (seep). Scientific/educational value. Wetland #13 WETLAND FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT FORM (page 3 of 3) Attachment A – Proposed Ordinance 8624 Item 3E - 1st Rdg Ord 8624 Adopting Wetlands at CU South Page 63 Packet Page 104 of 523 Wetland #14 Former Cooper #NA Location: Boulder, CO Investigator: Mshields Date 8-Feb-24 Centroid coordinates: 39.97764235, -105.23409418 Observation method: Onsite Water Source:Overland flow History: Ratings: 1=no, 2=low, 3=medium,4=high, 5=very high Confidence:a=low, b=medium, c=high Function Indicators Comments GROUNDWATER RECHARGE Surface water inflow exceeds outflow Not permanently flooded/extremely variable water Located high in watershed &/or at local topo. high point Presence of porous underlying strata Dense vegetated basin slows flow X Outlet constricted &/or dammed Irreg. shape w/ high wetland edge:area ratio Indicated by available groundwater data OVERALL GROUNDWATER RECHARGE FUNCTION Rating 1 Confiden c Previous GROUNDWATER DISCHARGE Seeps or springs present X Low location in watershed &/or local topographic low Geologically diverse such as geologic contact No inlet, but outlet present &/or downstream of dam Permanently flooded/saturated No signif. accumulation of fine sediments/silts Indicated by available groundwater data OVERALL GROUNDWATER DISCHARGE FUNCTION Rating 1 Confiden c Previous FLOOD STORAGE/FLOODFLOW ALTERATION Located along stream X Outflow restricted High water mark shows periodic flooding X Flat topography &/or low gradient Porous substrate allows infiltration for subsurface storag X Rough surface & depressions for aboveground storage Dense veg. basin slows flow X Coarse woody debris present OVERALL FLOOD ALTERATION FUNCTION Rating 2 Confiden c Previous SHORELINE ANCHORING/STABILIZATION Erosional forces/high water velocity/unsheltered loc. Dense vegetation/good water-veg. interspersion Veg. w/strong dense root mass e.g. woody coverage Little evidence of recent erosion Rubble substrate present OVERALL SHORELINE ANCHORING FUNCTION Rating 1 Confiden c Previous SEDIMENT TRAPPING/RETENTION X Constricted outlet/water flow slows X Low water velocity/surface water input exceeds output Visible reduction in particulates between inflow/outflow Evidence of sediment/organic matter deposits Dense vegetation present X Flat topography &/or gently sloping wetland edges Source of sediments from upstream/offsite activities Absence of disturbances to re-suspend sediments OVERALL SEDIMENT TRAPPING FUNCTION Rating 2 Confiden c Previous WETLAND FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT FORM (p. 1 of 3) Salt meadow situated in a topographic depression with shallow, rocky soils. Bedrock identified at ~6" below ground surface. Wetland community situated within a topographic depression. Primary hydrology likely from overland flow (from adjacent groundwater discharges) that perches on clay/loam substrates over bedrock. No direct inflow/outflow path to convey flood events into this community. Located in an area of minimal flood hazard. Can retain localized overland flooding events due to topography/lack of outlet. No open water features present. Salt meadow community situated in topographic depression with no outlet. Community lacks inflow route to import sediment; however, heavy precipitation events may provide a low level of localized sediment input that would be trapped onsite. Attachment A – Proposed Ordinance 8624 Item 3E - 1st Rdg Ord 8624 Adopting Wetlands at CU South Page 64 Packet Page 105 of 523 Ratings: 1=no, 2=low, 3=medium,4=high, 5=very high Confidence:a=low, b=medium, c=high Function Indicators Comments NUTRIENT RETENTION (long-term) Permanently flooded/saturated High plant productivity Presence of woody plants Organic soils present OVERALL NUTRIENT RETENTION (long-term) FUNCTION Rating 1 Confiden b Previous NUTRIENT RETENTION (short-term) Low water velocity Highly variable water/seasonally flooded High plant productivity X Fine mineral soils present OVERALL NUTRIENT RETENTION (short -term) FUNCTION Rating 1 Confiden b Previous FOOD CHAIN SUPPORT (downstream/production export) Presence of outlet High plant productivity/overhanging veg. Seasonal flooding Good flushing flows/high erosion potential Non-acidic water Substrate w/ accumulated organic matter OVERALL FOOD CHAIN EXPORT FUNCTION Rating 1 Confiden c Previous FOOD CHAIN SUPPORT (within basin) High plant productivity X Absence of outlet Low erosion potential/absence of high flows OVERALL FOOD CHAIN SUPPORT (w/in basin) FUNCTION Rating 2 Confiden c Previous FISH HABITAT/AQUATIC DIVERSITY Some deep open water Non-acidic, clear water No barriers to migration/movement Minimal variation in flow (artificial) Streambank/edges provide partial cover/cool temps Well-mixed water/adequate oxygen OVERALL FISH/AQUATIC HABITAT FUNCTION Rating 1 Confiden c Previous WILDLIFE HABITAT Signs of different animals -- scat,prints,shelter Adjacent wooded area or veg. >20ft wide Large/ sinuous, irregular basin/with islands High veg. diversity/good food sources Minimal variation in flow (artificial) Some open water Connects to offsite habitat Not channelized or farmed OVERALL WILDLIFE HABITAT FUNCTION Rating 2 Confiden c Previous ACTIVE RECREATION Direct evidence of actual use Convenient public access Good habitat for animals/fish & high diversity OVERALL ACTIVE RECREATION FUNCTION Rating 1 Confiden c Previous No outlet or flow path present int his community to transport resources to downgradient/downstream communities. Low plant densities, no organic matter accumulation, and infrequent/short duration saturation events provide evidence that nutrient creation onsite is low. No open water features present in this community. Low density vegetation provides sparse cover for wildlife and meager food supply. No active aquatic recreation opportunities in this community. Wetland #14 WETLAND FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT FORM (page 2 of 3) Low plant densities, no organic matter accumulation, and presence of mineral based substrates with infrequent, short duration flooding/saturation events. Low plant densities, no organic matter accumulation, and presence of mineral based substrates with infrequent, short duration flooding/saturation events. Attachment A – Proposed Ordinance 8624 Item 3E - 1st Rdg Ord 8624 Adopting Wetlands at CU South Page 65 Packet Page 106 of 523 Ratings: 1=no, 2=low, 3=medium,4=high, 5=very high Confidence:a=low, b=medium, c=high Function Indicators Comments PASSIVE RECREATION/HERITAGE VALUE High ranked occurrence of plant community Presence of rare plants or animals Landscape diversity X Rare or unusual wetland types Natural setting OVERALL PASSIVE RECREATION/UNIQUENESS Rating 3 Confiden c Previous OVERALL FUNCTIONAL INTEGRITY Low degree of disturbance X Naturalness of hydrology Diversity of plant community OVERALL FUNCTIONAL INTEGRITY Rating 3 Confiden c Notes: Historic mining distubance in area has created a modified landscape. Despite saline conditions, vegetation community is common. Salt meadows are an uncommon wetland type. Provide education/science opportunities. Wetland #14 WETLAND FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT FORM (page 3 of 3) Attachment A – Proposed Ordinance 8624 Item 3E - 1st Rdg Ord 8624 Adopting Wetlands at CU South Page 66 Packet Page 107 of 523 Wetland #15 Former Cooper #NA Location: Boulder, CO Investigator: Mshields Date 8-Feb-24 Centroid coordinates: 39.97696789, -105.23364875 Observation method: Onsite Water Source:Groundwater seeps, overland flow History: Ratings: 1=no, 2=low, 3=medium,4=high, 5=very high Confidence:a=low, b=medium, c=high Function Indicators Comments GROUNDWATER RECHARGE X Surface water inflow exceeds outflow Not permanently flooded/extremely variable water X Located high in watershed &/or at local topo. high point X Presence of porous underlying strata Dense vegetated basin slows flow Outlet constricted &/or dammed Irreg. shape w/ high wetland edge:area ratio Indicated by available groundwater data OVERALL GROUNDWATER RECHARGE FUNCTION Rating 2 Confiden b Previous GROUNDWATER DISCHARGE X Seeps or springs present Low location in watershed &/or local topographic low Geologically diverse such as geologic contact No inlet, but outlet present &/or downstream of dam Permanently flooded/saturated No signif. accumulation of fine sediments/silts Indicated by available groundwater data OVERALL GROUNDWATER DISCHARGE FUNCTION Rating 4 Confiden c Previous FLOOD STORAGE/FLOODFLOW ALTERATION Located along stream Outflow restricted High water mark shows periodic flooding Flat topography &/or low gradient X Porous substrate allows infiltration for subsurface storag Rough surface & depressions for aboveground storage X Dense veg. basin slows flow Coarse woody debris present OVERALL FLOOD ALTERATION FUNCTION Rating 1 Confiden b Previous SHORELINE ANCHORING/STABILIZATION Erosional forces/high water velocity/unsheltered loc. Dense vegetation/good water-veg. interspersion Veg. w/strong dense root mass e.g. woody coverage Little evidence of recent erosion Rubble substrate present OVERALL SHORELINE ANCHORING FUNCTION Rating 1 Confiden c Previous SEDIMENT TRAPPING/RETENTION Constricted outlet/water flow slows Low water velocity/surface water input exceeds output Visible reduction in particulates between inflow/outflow Evidence of sediment/organic matter deposits X Dense vegetation present Flat topography &/or gently sloping wetland edges Source of sediments from upstream/offsite activities X Absence of disturbances to re-suspend sediments OVERALL SEDIMENT TRAPPING FUNCTION Rating 2 Confiden c Previous WETLAND FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT FORM (p. 1 of 3) Seep-driven hydrology provides evidence of porous substrates. Wetland community is located on a hillside which serves as a local topographic high point. Seep-driven hydrology with discharge onto hillside. No stream flows through feature, no inflow/outflow. This community is not located along a natural stream feature that has the potential to supply flood flows. In addition, the community is located on a hillside. No open water features present in this community. No inflow stream feature present to provide source of external sediment. Local sediment movement into the community through overland flow may occur and would likely trap sediment due to dense vegetation. Attachment A – Proposed Ordinance 8624 Item 3E - 1st Rdg Ord 8624 Adopting Wetlands at CU South Page 67 Packet Page 108 of 523 Ratings: 1=no, 2=low, 3=medium,4=high, 5=very high Confidence:a=low, b=medium, c=high Function Indicators Comments NUTRIENT RETENTION (long-term) Permanently flooded/saturated High plant productivity X Presence of woody plants Organic soils present OVERALL NUTRIENT RETENTION (long-term) FUNCTION Rating 2 Confiden b Previous NUTRIENT RETENTION (short-term) Low water velocity Highly variable water/seasonally flooded High plant productivity Fine mineral soils present OVERALL NUTRIENT RETENTION (short -term) FUNCTION Rating 3 Confiden b Previous FOOD CHAIN SUPPORT (downstream/production export) X Presence of outlet X High plant productivity/overhanging veg. Seasonal flooding Good flushing flows/high erosion potential Non-acidic water Substrate w/ accumulated organic matter OVERALL FOOD CHAIN EXPORT FUNCTION Rating 1 Confiden c Previous FOOD CHAIN SUPPORT (within basin) X High plant productivity Absence of outlet X Low erosion potential/absence of high flows OVERALL FOOD CHAIN SUPPORT (w/in basin) FUNCTION Rating 3 Confiden c Previous FISH HABITAT/AQUATIC DIVERSITY Some deep open water Non-acidic, clear water No barriers to migration/movement Minimal variation in flow (artificial) Streambank/edges provide partial cover/cool temps Well-mixed water/adequate oxygen OVERALL FISH/AQUATIC HABITAT FUNCTION Rating 1 Confiden c Previous WILDLIFE HABITAT Signs of different animals -- scat,prints,shelter X Adjacent wooded area or veg. >20ft wide Large/ sinuous, irregular basin/with islands X High veg. diversity/good food sources Minimal variation in flow (artificial) Some open water Connects to offsite habitat Not channelized or farmed OVERALL WILDLIFE HABITAT FUNCTION Rating 2 Confiden c Previous ACTIVE RECREATION Direct evidence of actual use Convenient public access Good habitat for animals/fish & high diversity OVERALL ACTIVE RECREATION FUNCTION Rating 1 Confiden c Previous Wetland #15 WETLAND FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT FORM (page 2 of 3) No permanent flooding. Some local areas may see permanent saturation closer to the seep exit. Presence of woody vegetation aids in sediment retention, but the community has low sediment inputs due to lack of inflow route. Community lacks through-flow. Nutrients created onsite (through decomposition) likely remain onsite. Community has no outlets connecting it to downstream aquatic features. During large rainfall events, some resources may get exported out of the community, aided by the hillslope associated with the wetland, but this is not a common occurrence. Lack of defined flow path through feature capable of moving resources out of the site. Nutrients/resources created onsite through decomposition processes likely remain onsite. No open water habitats. Dense/varied vegetation in this community provides shelter and food resources. The wetland community is also adjacent to a pedestrian trail that may deter wildlife use. No active aquatic recreation opportunities. Attachment A – Proposed Ordinance 8624 Item 3E - 1st Rdg Ord 8624 Adopting Wetlands at CU South Page 68 Packet Page 109 of 523 Ratings: 1=no, 2=low, 3=medium,4=high, 5=very high Confidence:a=low, b=medium, c=high Function Indicators Comments PASSIVE RECREATION/HERITAGE VALUE High ranked occurrence of plant community Presence of rare plants or animals Landscape diversity X Rare or unusual wetland types Natural setting OVERALL PASSIVE RECREATION/UNIQUENESS Rating 3 Confiden c Previous OVERALL FUNCTIONAL INTEGRITY Low degree of disturbance Naturalness of hydrology X Diversity of plant community OVERALL FUNCTIONAL INTEGRITY Rating 2 Confiden c Notes: Wetland #15 WETLAND FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT FORM (page 3 of 3) Diverse PEM vegetation community with altered hydrology from historic mining excavation. Uncommon wetland type (groundwater seep). Scientific/educational value. Attachment A – Proposed Ordinance 8624 Item 3E - 1st Rdg Ord 8624 Adopting Wetlands at CU South Page 69 Packet Page 110 of 523 Wetland #16 Former Cooper #NA Location: Boulder, CO Investigator: Mshields Date 8-Feb-24 Centroid coordinates: 39.97870431, -105.23463114 Observation method: Onsite Water Source:Groundwater, overland flow History: Ratings: 1=no, 2=low, 3=medium,4=high, 5=very high Confidence:a=low, b=medium, c=high Function Indicators Comments GROUNDWATER RECHARGE Surface water inflow exceeds outflow Not permanently flooded/extremely variable water Located high in watershed &/or at local topo. high point X Presence of porous underlying strata X Dense vegetated basin slows flow Outlet constricted &/or dammed X Irreg. shape w/ high wetland edge:area ratio Indicated by available groundwater data OVERALL GROUNDWATER RECHARGE FUNCTION Rating 2 Confiden b Previous GROUNDWATER DISCHARGE X Seeps or springs present X Low location in watershed &/or local topographic low Geologically diverse such as geologic contact No inlet, but outlet present &/or downstream of dam Permanently flooded/saturated X No signif. accumulation of fine sediments/silts Indicated by available groundwater data OVERALL GROUNDWATER DISCHARGE FUNCTION Rating 4 Confiden c Previous FLOOD STORAGE/FLOODFLOW ALTERATION Located along stream X Outflow restricted High water mark shows periodic flooding X Flat topography &/or low gradient Porous substrate allows infiltration for subsurface storag Rough surface & depressions for aboveground storage X Dense veg. basin slows flow X Coarse woody debris present OVERALL FLOOD ALTERATION FUNCTION Rating 2 Confiden b Previous SHORELINE ANCHORING/STABILIZATION Erosional forces/high water velocity/unsheltered loc. Dense vegetation/good water-veg. interspersion Veg. w/strong dense root mass e.g. woody coverage Little evidence of recent erosion Rubble substrate present OVERALL SHORELINE ANCHORING FUNCTION Rating 1 Confiden c Previous SEDIMENT TRAPPING/RETENTION X Constricted outlet/water flow slows Low water velocity/surface water input exceeds output Visible reduction in particulates between inflow/outflow Evidence of sediment/organic matter deposits X Dense vegetation present X Flat topography &/or gently sloping wetland edges Source of sediments from upstream/offsite activities Absence of disturbances to re-suspend sediments OVERALL SEDIMENT TRAPPING FUNCTION Rating 2 Confiden b Previous WETLAND FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT FORM (p. 1 of 3) Groundwater seeps provide hydrology to these communities and also provide evidence of a porous substrates that may also recharge groundwater, given additional hydrologic inputs. Groundwater seeps host PEM/PSS wetland communities in a low basin. Densely vegetated wetland communities within a topographically low basin. No inflow channel to provide flood flows for flood storage. Located in an area of minimal flood hazard. No open waters present. No inflow/channel present to introduce sediment from offsite. Small amounts of sediment may migrate onsite in large rainfall events, but this is likely uncommon. Attachment A – Proposed Ordinance 8624 Item 3E - 1st Rdg Ord 8624 Adopting Wetlands at CU South Page 70 Packet Page 111 of 523 Ratings: 1=no, 2=low, 3=medium,4=high, 5=very high Confidence:a=low, b=medium, c=high Function Indicators Comments NUTRIENT RETENTION (long-term) Permanently flooded/saturated High plant productivity X Presence of woody plants Organic soils present OVERALL NUTRIENT RETENTION (long-term) FUNCTION Rating 2 Confiden b Previous NUTRIENT RETENTION (short-term) Low water velocity Highly variable water/seasonally flooded High plant productivity Fine mineral soils present OVERALL NUTRIENT RETENTION (short -term) FUNCTION Rating 2 Confiden b Previous FOOD CHAIN SUPPORT (downstream/production export) Presence of outlet High plant productivity/overhanging veg. Seasonal flooding Good flushing flows/high erosion potential Non-acidic water Substrate w/ accumulated organic matter OVERALL FOOD CHAIN EXPORT FUNCTION Rating 1 Confiden c Previous FOOD CHAIN SUPPORT (within basin) High plant productivity X Absence of outlet Low erosion potential/absence of high flows OVERALL FOOD CHAIN SUPPORT (w/in basin) FUNCTION Rating 3 Confiden b Previous FISH HABITAT/AQUATIC DIVERSITY Some deep open water Non-acidic, clear water No barriers to migration/movement Minimal variation in flow (artificial) Streambank/edges provide partial cover/cool temps Well-mixed water/adequate oxygen OVERALL FISH/AQUATIC HABITAT FUNCTION Rating 1 Confiden c Previous WILDLIFE HABITAT Signs of different animals -- scat,prints,shelter X Adjacent wooded area or veg. >20ft wide X Large/ sinuous, irregular basin/with islands X High veg. diversity/good food sources Minimal variation in flow (artificial) Some open water Connects to offsite habitat Not channelized or farmed OVERALL WILDLIFE HABITAT FUNCTION Rating 4 Confiden c Previous ACTIVE RECREATION Direct evidence of actual use Convenient public access Good habitat for animals/fish & high diversity OVERALL ACTIVE RECREATION FUNCTION Rating 1 Confiden c Previous No inflow/outflow channels to move materials/resources through the wetland to downstream communities. No outflow channel to move materials/resources through the wetland to downstream communities. No open waters present to host fish habitats. Community consists of many small disconnected wetland islands with high edge diversty within a landscape depression. This habitat roughness provides shelter for wildlife. Wetland seeps provide vegetation diversity for forage. No active aquatic habitat recreation opportunities. Wetland #16 WETLAND FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT FORM (page 2 of 3) Community not permanently saturated/flooded. No organic accumulation. Community not permanently saturated/flooded. Community drier than many of the other seep-driven communities. Attachment A – Proposed Ordinance 8624 Item 3E - 1st Rdg Ord 8624 Adopting Wetlands at CU South Page 71 Packet Page 112 of 523 Ratings: 1=no, 2=low, 3=medium,4=high, 5=very high Confidence:a=low, b=medium, c=high Function Indicators Comments PASSIVE RECREATION/HERITAGE VALUE High ranked occurrence of plant community Presence of rare plants or animals Landscape diversity X Rare or unusual wetland types Natural setting OVERALL PASSIVE RECREATION/UNIQUENESS Rating 3 Confiden c Previous OVERALL FUNCTIONAL INTEGRITY Low degree of disturbance Naturalness of hydrology X Diversity of plant community OVERALL FUNCTIONAL INTEGRITY Rating 2 Confiden c Notes: This wetland hosts diverse, multi-strata wetland communities that have been historically altered, including hydrology, through mining activities. Uncommon wetland type (groundwater seep). Wetland #16 WETLAND FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT FORM (page 3 of 3) Attachment A – Proposed Ordinance 8624 Item 3E - 1st Rdg Ord 8624 Adopting Wetlands at CU South Page 72 Packet Page 113 of 523 Wetland #17 Former Cooper #NA Location: Boulder, CO Investigator: Mshields Date 8-Feb-24 Centroid coordinates: 39.98052413, -105.23498868 Observation method: Onsite Water Source:Groundwater discharge, overland flow History: Ratings: 1=no, 2=low, 3=medium,4=high, 5=very high Confidence:a=low, b=medium, c=high Function Indicators Comments GROUNDWATER RECHARGE Surface water inflow exceeds outflow X Not permanently flooded/extremely variable water Located high in watershed &/or at local topo. high point X Presence of porous underlying strata Dense vegetated basin slows flow Outlet constricted &/or dammed Irreg. shape w/ high wetland edge:area ratio Indicated by available groundwater data OVERALL GROUNDWATER RECHARGE FUNCTION Rating 2 Confiden c Previous GROUNDWATER DISCHARGE X Seeps or springs present X Low location in watershed &/or local topographic low Geologically diverse such as geologic contact No inlet, but outlet present &/or downstream of dam Permanently flooded/saturated No signif. accumulation of fine sediments/silts Indicated by available groundwater data OVERALL GROUNDWATER DISCHARGE FUNCTION Rating 3 Confiden b Previous FLOOD STORAGE/FLOODFLOW ALTERATION X Located along stream Outflow restricted High water mark shows periodic flooding X Flat topography &/or low gradient Porous substrate allows infiltration for subsurface storag Rough surface & depressions for aboveground storage X Dense veg. basin slows flow X Coarse woody debris present OVERALL FLOOD ALTERATION FUNCTION Rating 3 Confiden b Previous SHORELINE ANCHORING/STABILIZATION Erosional forces/high water velocity/unsheltered loc. X Dense vegetation/good water-veg. interspersion X Veg. w/strong dense root mass e.g. woody coverage X Little evidence of recent erosion Rubble substrate present OVERALL SHORELINE ANCHORING FUNCTION Rating 2 Confiden b Previous SEDIMENT TRAPPING/RETENTION Constricted outlet/water flow slows Low water velocity/surface water input exceeds output Visible reduction in particulates between inflow/outflow Evidence of sediment/organic matter deposits X Dense vegetation present Flat topography &/or gently sloping wetland edges Source of sediments from upstream/offsite activities X Absence of disturbances to re-suspend sediments OVERALL SEDIMENT TRAPPING FUNCTION Rating 2 Confiden c Previous WETLAND FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT FORM (p. 1 of 3) Drainage swale dominated by PEM/PSS wetland community with a downstream groundwater-fed pond. No indications of permanent flooding on aerial imagery, except in the pond. Hydrology from groundwater discharge upgradient. Groundwater seeps provide primary source of hydrology. Wetland situated within drainage swale (local topographic low area). Wetland community is located within a drainge swale with low gradients, dense vegetation, and ample woody debris. No open water channel exists for much of this feature. A small channel exhibiting OHWM begins near the pond feature that contains shrub vegetation along and within the banks. Dense vegetation present throughout much of the swale. Swale that hosts this wetland community lacks the flow power to move or re- suspend sediment. Attachment A – Proposed Ordinance 8624 Item 3E - 1st Rdg Ord 8624 Adopting Wetlands at CU South Page 73 Packet Page 114 of 523 Ratings: 1=no, 2=low, 3=medium,4=high, 5=very high Confidence:a=low, b=medium, c=high Function Indicators Comments NUTRIENT RETENTION (long-term) Permanently flooded/saturated X High plant productivity X Presence of woody plants Organic soils present OVERALL NUTRIENT RETENTION (long-term) FUNCTION Rating 3 Confiden b Previous NUTRIENT RETENTION (short-term) X Low water velocity Highly variable water/seasonally flooded X High plant productivity Fine mineral soils present OVERALL NUTRIENT RETENTION (short -term) FUNCTION Rating 3 Confiden b Previous FOOD CHAIN SUPPORT (downstream/production export) Presence of outlet X High plant productivity/overhanging veg. Seasonal flooding Good flushing flows/high erosion potential Non-acidic water Substrate w/ accumulated organic matter OVERALL FOOD CHAIN EXPORT FUNCTION Rating 1 Confiden b Previous FOOD CHAIN SUPPORT (within basin) X High plant productivity Absence of outlet X Low erosion potential/absence of high flows OVERALL FOOD CHAIN SUPPORT (w/in basin) FUNCTION Rating 3 Confiden b Previous FISH HABITAT/AQUATIC DIVERSITY X Some deep open water Non-acidic, clear water No barriers to migration/movement Minimal variation in flow (artificial) X Streambank/edges provide partial cover/cool temps Well-mixed water/adequate oxygen OVERALL FISH/AQUATIC HABITAT FUNCTION Rating 2 Confiden c Previous WILDLIFE HABITAT X Signs of different animals -- scat,prints,shelter X Adjacent wooded area or veg. >20ft wide Large/ sinuous, irregular basin/with islands X High veg. diversity/good food sources Minimal variation in flow (artificial) X Some open water Connects to offsite habitat Not channelized or farmed OVERALL WILDLIFE HABITAT FUNCTION Rating 3 Confiden c Previous ACTIVE RECREATION Direct evidence of actual use X Convenient public access Good habitat for animals/fish & high diversity OVERALL ACTIVE RECREATION FUNCTION Rating 1 Confiden c Previous Wetland #17 WETLAND FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT FORM (page 2 of 3) Diverse PEM/PSS community within swale includes dense stands of coyote willow capable of long term nutrient retention. Low velocities in swale during flow events coupled with dense vegetation cover allow for short nutrient retention. Swale terminates in a groundwater-fed pond, no downstream path for continued food chain export. Low/infrequent flow in the swale doesn't export resources/materials offsite. Small segment of channel and pond have open water segments, but both features are isolated with no continuous upstream or downstream connection, severely limiting fish passage. Dense vegetation cover and a hearty tree-dominated riparian corridor provide shelter for wildlife use. Adjacent vegetation areas adjacent to the feature >20ft wide; however, area is transected with pedestrian trails which fragment habitat and deter wildlife use. No active aquatic recreation opportunities. Attachment A – Proposed Ordinance 8624 Item 3E - 1st Rdg Ord 8624 Adopting Wetlands at CU South Page 74 Packet Page 115 of 523 Ratings: 1=no, 2=low, 3=medium,4=high, 5=very high Confidence:a=low, b=medium, c=high Function Indicators Comments PASSIVE RECREATION/HERITAGE VALUE High ranked occurrence of plant community Presence of rare plants or animals Landscape diversity Rare or unusual wetland types Natural setting OVERALL PASSIVE RECREATION/UNIQUENESS Rating 2 Confiden c Previous OVERALL FUNCTIONAL INTEGRITY Low degree of disturbance Naturalness of hydrology Diversity of plant community OVERALL FUNCTIONAL INTEGRITY Rating 2 Confiden c Notes: Wetland #17 WETLAND FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT FORM (page 3 of 3) Hydrology unnatural as pond and swale are a result of historic mining activities. Community is domainted mainly by cattails and coyote willow with weedy encroachment from the uplands. Low passive recreational value in the form of (but not limited to) education, science, nature study. Attachment A – Proposed Ordinance 8624 Item 3E - 1st Rdg Ord 8624 Adopting Wetlands at CU South Page 75 Packet Page 116 of 523 Wetland #18 Former Cooper #NA Location: Boulder, CO Investigator: Mshields Date 8-Feb-24 Centroid coordinates: 39.98193978, -105.23391568 Observation method: Onsite Water Source:Groundwater, overland flow History: Ratings: 1=no, 2=low, 3=medium,4=high, 5=very high Confidence:a=low, b=medium, c=high Function Indicators Comments GROUNDWATER RECHARGE Surface water inflow exceeds outflow X Not permanently flooded/extremely variable water Located high in watershed &/or at local topo. high point Presence of porous underlying strata Dense vegetated basin slows flow X Outlet constricted &/or dammed Irreg. shape w/ high wetland edge:area ratio Indicated by available groundwater data OVERALL GROUNDWATER RECHARGE FUNCTION Rating 2 Confiden b Previous GROUNDWATER DISCHARGE X Seeps or springs present X Low location in watershed &/or local topographic low Geologically diverse such as geologic contact No inlet, but outlet present &/or downstream of dam Permanently flooded/saturated No signif. accumulation of fine sediments/silts Indicated by available groundwater data OVERALL GROUNDWATER DISCHARGE FUNCTION Rating 3 Confiden c Previous FLOOD STORAGE/FLOODFLOW ALTERATION Located along stream X Outflow restricted High water mark shows periodic flooding X Flat topography &/or low gradient X Porous substrate allows infiltration for subsurface storag X Rough surface & depressions for aboveground storage X Dense veg. basin slows flow Coarse woody debris present OVERALL FLOOD ALTERATION FUNCTION Rating 3 Confiden c Previous SHORELINE ANCHORING/STABILIZATION Erosional forces/high water velocity/unsheltered loc. Dense vegetation/good water-veg. interspersion Veg. w/strong dense root mass e.g. woody coverage Little evidence of recent erosion Rubble substrate present OVERALL SHORELINE ANCHORING FUNCTION Rating 1 Confiden c Previous SEDIMENT TRAPPING/RETENTION X Constricted outlet/water flow slows Low water velocity/surface water input exceeds output Visible reduction in particulates between inflow/outflow Evidence of sediment/organic matter deposits X Dense vegetation present Flat topography &/or gently sloping wetland edges Source of sediments from upstream/offsite activities Absence of disturbances to re-suspend sediments OVERALL SEDIMENT TRAPPING FUNCTION Rating 3 Confiden c Previous WETLAND FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT FORM (p. 1 of 3) Series of isolated groundwater-fed swales. Lack of additional hydrology sources limits recharge potential. Series of isolated groundwater-fed swales. Wetland communities within isolated swales with no direct connection to a channel/drainage. Most of these communities are located in the SBC floodway. No open waters present. Isolated swales lack upstream flow path and sediment source. Sediment from large overland flow events that enters swales remains in community due to lack of flushing flows. Community is in the SBC floodway and may receive sediment inputs from large flow events. Attachment A – Proposed Ordinance 8624 Item 3E - 1st Rdg Ord 8624 Adopting Wetlands at CU South Page 76 Packet Page 117 of 523 Ratings: 1=no, 2=low, 3=medium,4=high, 5=very high Confidence:a=low, b=medium, c=high Function Indicators Comments NUTRIENT RETENTION (long-term) Permanently flooded/saturated X High plant productivity X Presence of woody plants Organic soils present OVERALL NUTRIENT RETENTION (long-term) FUNCTION Rating 3 Confiden b Previous NUTRIENT RETENTION (short-term) Low water velocity X Highly variable water/seasonally flooded X High plant productivity Fine mineral soils present OVERALL NUTRIENT RETENTION (short -term) FUNCTION Rating 3 Confiden b Previous FOOD CHAIN SUPPORT (downstream/production export) Presence of outlet High plant productivity/overhanging veg. Seasonal flooding Good flushing flows/high erosion potential Non-acidic water Substrate w/ accumulated organic matter OVERALL FOOD CHAIN EXPORT FUNCTION Rating 1 Confiden c Previous FOOD CHAIN SUPPORT (within basin) High plant productivity X Absence of outlet X Low erosion potential/absence of high flows OVERALL FOOD CHAIN SUPPORT (w/in basin) FUNCTION Rating 3 Confiden b Previous FISH HABITAT/AQUATIC DIVERSITY Some deep open water Non-acidic, clear water No barriers to migration/movement Minimal variation in flow (artificial) Streambank/edges provide partial cover/cool temps Well-mixed water/adequate oxygen OVERALL FISH/AQUATIC HABITAT FUNCTION Rating 1 Confiden c Previous WILDLIFE HABITAT Signs of different animals -- scat,prints,shelter X Adjacent wooded area or veg. >20ft wide Large/ sinuous, irregular basin/with islands X High veg. diversity/good food sources Minimal variation in flow (artificial) Some open water Connects to offsite habitat Not channelized or farmed OVERALL WILDLIFE HABITAT FUNCTION Rating 3 Confiden c Previous ACTIVE RECREATION Direct evidence of actual use Convenient public access Good habitat for animals/fish & high diversity OVERALL ACTIVE RECREATION FUNCTION Rating 1 Confiden c Previous No continuous downstream/downgradient connect to other aquatic features or flow events to facilitate materials export. Low erosion potential as these swales do not host frequent flow (no OHWM), are fully vegetated, and have no downstream connection. Nutrients/resources produced in the wetland remain in the wetland. No open water present in the community. Swales located near pedestrian trails which likely deters some wildlife use at times. Communities are adjacent to a large area of upland habitat, and nearby other wetland habitats. Hosts dense vegetation for shelter and food source. No aquatic recreation potential. Wetland #18 WETLAND FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT FORM (page 2 of 3) Swales saturated frequently enough to host dense PEM/PSS community, but do not appear inundated (based on aerial imagery review) in any given year. Swales saturated frequently enough to host dense PEM/PSS community, but do not appear inundated (based on aerial imagery review) in any given year. Attachment A – Proposed Ordinance 8624 Item 3E - 1st Rdg Ord 8624 Adopting Wetlands at CU South Page 77 Packet Page 118 of 523 Ratings: 1=no, 2=low, 3=medium,4=high, 5=very high Confidence:a=low, b=medium, c=high Function Indicators Comments PASSIVE RECREATION/HERITAGE VALUE High ranked occurrence of plant community Presence of rare plants or animals x Landscape diversity Rare or unusual wetland types Natural setting OVERALL PASSIVE RECREATION/UNIQUENESS Rating 3 Confiden c Previous OVERALL FUNCTIONAL INTEGRITY Low degree of disturbance Naturalness of hydrology X Diversity of plant community OVERALL FUNCTIONAL INTEGRITY Rating 2 Confiden c Notes: Swale features relic of historic mining operations, and primary hydrology (groundwater) present due to previous exacavation of the area. Community does host a diversity of species and strata. Common wetland community type adjacent to pedestrian trails. Potential for scientific/education value. Wetland #18 WETLAND FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT FORM (page 3 of 3) Attachment A – Proposed Ordinance 8624 Item 3E - 1st Rdg Ord 8624 Adopting Wetlands at CU South Page 78 Packet Page 119 of 523 Wetland #19 Former Cooper #NA Location: Boulder, CO Investigator: Mshields Date 8-Feb-24 Centroid coordinates: 39.97099975, -105.22893325 Observation method: Onsite Water Source:Groundwater, overland flow History: Ratings: 1=no, 2=low, 3=medium,4=high, 5=very high Confidence:a=low, b=medium, c=high Function Indicators Comments GROUNDWATER RECHARGE X Surface water inflow exceeds outflow X Not permanently flooded/extremely variable water Located high in watershed &/or at local topo. high point X Presence of porous underlying strata X Dense vegetated basin slows flow Outlet constricted &/or dammed X Irreg. shape w/ high wetland edge:area ratio Indicated by available groundwater data OVERALL GROUNDWATER RECHARGE FUNCTION Rating 3 Confiden b Previous GROUNDWATER DISCHARGE X Seeps or springs present X Low location in watershed &/or local topographic low Geologically diverse such as geologic contact No inlet, but outlet present &/or downstream of dam X Permanently flooded/saturated No signif. accumulation of fine sediments/silts Indicated by available groundwater data OVERALL GROUNDWATER DISCHARGE FUNCTION Rating 4 Confiden c Previous FLOOD STORAGE/FLOODFLOW ALTERATION Located along stream X Outflow restricted High water mark shows periodic flooding Flat topography &/or low gradient X Porous substrate allows infiltration for subsurface storag Rough surface & depressions for aboveground storage X Dense veg. basin slows flow Coarse woody debris present OVERALL FLOOD ALTERATION FUNCTION Rating 4 Confiden b Previous SHORELINE ANCHORING/STABILIZATION Erosional forces/high water velocity/unsheltered loc. Dense vegetation/good water-veg. interspersion Veg. w/strong dense root mass e.g. woody coverage Little evidence of recent erosion Rubble substrate present OVERALL SHORELINE ANCHORING FUNCTION Rating 1 Confiden c Previous SEDIMENT TRAPPING/RETENTION X Constricted outlet/water flow slows Low water velocity/surface water input exceeds output Visible reduction in particulates between inflow/outflow X Evidence of sediment/organic matter deposits X Dense vegetation present X Flat topography &/or gently sloping wetland edges Source of sediments from upstream/offsite activities X Absence of disturbances to re-suspend sediments OVERALL SEDIMENT TRAPPING FUNCTION Rating 3 Confiden c Previous WETLAND FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT FORM (p. 1 of 3) Groundwater-driven wetland communities within the footprint of an old gravel pit. Groundwater-driven wetland communities within the footprint of an old gravel pit. Community contains dense cattail vegetation in topographic depression with groundwater interaction within the SBC floodway. No open water present. No inflow/outflow paths for sediment to enter community. A small amount of sediment movement into the community may occur during heavy rain events. Community is located in the SBC floodway and would receive/trap sediment from large flow events. Attachment A – Proposed Ordinance 8624 Item 3E - 1st Rdg Ord 8624 Adopting Wetlands at CU South Page 79 Packet Page 120 of 523 Ratings: 1=no, 2=low, 3=medium,4=high, 5=very high Confidence:a=low, b=medium, c=high Function Indicators Comments NUTRIENT RETENTION (long-term) X Permanently flooded/saturated X High plant productivity X Presence of woody plants Organic soils present OVERALL NUTRIENT RETENTION (long-term) FUNCTION Rating 3 Confiden b Previous NUTRIENT RETENTION (short-term) Low water velocity Highly variable water/seasonally flooded X High plant productivity Fine mineral soils present OVERALL NUTRIENT RETENTION (short -term) FUNCTION Rating 3 Confiden b Previous FOOD CHAIN SUPPORT (downstream/production export) Presence of outlet X High plant productivity/overhanging veg. Seasonal flooding Good flushing flows/high erosion potential Non-acidic water X Substrate w/ accumulated organic matter OVERALL FOOD CHAIN EXPORT FUNCTION Rating 1 Confiden b Previous FOOD CHAIN SUPPORT (within basin) X High plant productivity X Absence of outlet X Low erosion potential/absence of high flows OVERALL FOOD CHAIN SUPPORT (w/in basin) FUNCTION Rating 4 Confiden b Previous FISH HABITAT/AQUATIC DIVERSITY Some deep open water Non-acidic, clear water No barriers to migration/movement Minimal variation in flow (artificial) Streambank/edges provide partial cover/cool temps Well-mixed water/adequate oxygen OVERALL FISH/AQUATIC HABITAT FUNCTION Rating 1 Confiden c Previous WILDLIFE HABITAT X Signs of different animals -- scat,prints,shelter X Adjacent wooded area or veg. >20ft wide X Large/ sinuous, irregular basin/with islands High veg. diversity/good food sources Minimal variation in flow (artificial) Some open water X Connects to offsite habitat Not channelized or farmed OVERALL WILDLIFE HABITAT FUNCTION Rating 3 Confiden c Previous ACTIVE RECREATION Direct evidence of actual use Convenient public access Good habitat for animals/fish & high diversity OVERALL ACTIVE RECREATION FUNCTION Rating 1 Confiden c Previous No outflow path to transport nutirents/resources to downstream communities. No flow path through features. Resources created in these communities has no route for export. No open water aquatic habitats present. Large depressional features host multi-strata vegetation communities that provide shelter/cover for wildlife. Adjacent wet meadow communities to the east provide wildlife use buffers. Pedestrian use/trails present in the area which may deter wildlife use. No active aquatic recreation opportunities. Wetland #19 WETLAND FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT FORM (page 2 of 3) Vegetation communities contain saturated soils long enough to form hydric soil indicators and wetland vegetation; no outlet; nutrients made onsite through decaying plant material stay onsite. Soils remain saturated long enough to form hydric soil indicators and host wetland vegetation. No downstream/downgradient outlet means that nutrients made onsite through decaying plant material stay onsite. Attachment A – Proposed Ordinance 8624 Item 3E - 1st Rdg Ord 8624 Adopting Wetlands at CU South Page 80 Packet Page 121 of 523 Ratings: 1=no, 2=low, 3=medium,4=high, 5=very high Confidence:a=low, b=medium, c=high Function Indicators Comments PASSIVE RECREATION/HERITAGE VALUE High ranked occurrence of plant community X Presence of rare plants or animals Landscape diversity Rare or unusual wetland types Natural setting OVERALL PASSIVE RECREATION/UNIQUENESS Rating 4 Confiden c Previous OVERALL FUNCTIONAL INTEGRITY Low degree of disturbance Naturalness of hydrology X Diversity of plant community OVERALL FUNCTIONAL INTEGRITY Rating 3 Confiden c Notes: Area of historic mining disturbance and modified hydrology from mining excavation activities that exposed areas of groundwater. Presence of rare plants and multi-strata communities provides a moderate level of functional integrity. Typical wetland community dominated by cattail and coyote willow; however, this community also hosts a federally protected orchid species along its fringe. Has potential for scientific/educational value including (but not limited to) to wetlands, riparian corridors, avian species, rare species, or mine reclamation. Wetland #19 WETLAND FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT FORM (page 3 of 3) Attachment A – Proposed Ordinance 8624 Item 3E - 1st Rdg Ord 8624 Adopting Wetlands at CU South Page 81 Packet Page 122 of 523 CORVUSenvironmental.com 1 Memorandum Date: February 22, 2024 To: Eric Hahn (RJH Consultants) From: Maddie Shields, Tim DeMasters (CORVUS Environmental Consulting, LLC) Regarding: Functional Evaluation of Wetlands for the South Boulder Creek Floodplain Mitigation Project – University of Colorado Boulder Property. The South Boulder Creek (SBC) Floodplain Mitigation Project involves constructing several elements, including a floodwall, outlet works tunnel, soil-bentonite barrier wall, and embankment to reduce flood risk in the several neighborhoods downstream of the Project site. The SBC Floodplain Mitigation Project site is located in Section 9, Township 1 South, Range 70 West of the 6th PM and on both University of Colorado Boulder (CU) South and Boulder Open Space Mountain Parks (OSMP) properties. The subject of the wetland functional assessment detailed in this memo is a subset of the whole project area. It includes property owned by CU which was annexed into the City of Boulder (the “City”) in 2021 (“project area,” “annexed area”) (Exhibit 1). The wetland mapping is a requirement of the annexation agreement (Figure 1). Exhibit 1. Depiction of the CU annexed area (red) as a subset of the larger SBC Floodplain Mitigation project (black). Attachment B – Wetland Mapping and Functional Evaluation Report Item 3E - 1st Rdg Ord 8624 Adopting Wetlands at CU South Page 82 Packet Page 123 of 523 CORVUSenvironmental.com 2 Purpose The City regulates wetlands, streams, and waterbodies through its Wetland Protection Ordinance. Evaluation of streams, wetlands, and waterbodies is required to obtain a City of Boulder Stream, Wetland, or Water Body Permit and must follow standards and criteria listed in the Boulder Revised Code (BRC). Per the completed annexation agreement, all streams, wetlands, and waterbodies and their associated regulatory buffers on the property must be mapped and include a functional evaluation per community to meet the BRC. The below memorandum details the resulting functional evaluation of streams, wetlands, and waterbodies in a portion of the SBC Floodplain Mitigation project area that has been annexed to the City (Attachment A, Figure 1). Methods CORVUS field staff documented the site conditions yearly between 2020 and 2023, delineating Waters of the United States (WOTUS) in 2019, 2021, and 2023, including adjacent wetlands, in the SBC Floodplain Mitigation project area. The wetland determination followed methods described in the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Wetlands Delineation Manual (USACE 1987) and, where applicable, in accordance with the methods identified in the Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Great Plains (Supplement) (USACE 2010). Using methods described in the Supplement, CORVUS collected data on vegetation, soil, and hydrology characteristics that are used as the basis for wetland boundary determinations (project-wide wetland determination dataforms are available upon request). Classification of wetland system, subsystem, class, and subclass was based on Cowardin et al. (1979). CORVUS gathered field data on wetland boundaries and the ordinary high-water mark (OHWM) with sub-meter accurate global positioning system (GPS) units. Figure 2 depicts the full mapping results of the 2023 SBC Floodplain Mitigation project wetland delineation and sample points from 2019, 2021, and 2023. CORVUS completed a functional evaluation of wetland communities following guidance provided by Ms. Christin Shepherd (Private correspondence, August 2021), and per City regulation, following procedures described in the "City of Boulder Comprehensive Wetland Remapping Project" by Land Stewardship Consulting, Inc. (Land Stewardship Consulting 2004). Wetlands were categorized based on vegetation community and primary source of hydrology. Where large differences in community occurred, a new wetland number was assigned, and a separate functional assessment was completed. Each wetland was assessed for function in fourteen categories based on the functional indicators per category provided in the Appendix E worksheet and category definitions provided in Appendix 1 "Description of Wetland Functions" from Advanced Identification of Wetlands in the City of Boulder Comprehensive Planning Area (Cooper 1988). Categories assessed include groundwater recharge, groundwater discharge, flood storage/flood flow alteration, shoreline anchoring/stabilization, sediment trapping/retention, long-term nutrient retention, short-term nutrient retention, downstream food chain support, local "basin" food chain support, fish habitat/aquatic diversity, wildlife habitat, active recreation, passive recreation/heritage value, and overall functional integrity. CORVUS assigned a numeric rank to each functional category using a scale between one and five: 1 "no" function 2 "low" Attachment B – Wetland Mapping and Functional Evaluation Report Item 3E - 1st Rdg Ord 8624 Adopting Wetlands at CU South Page 83 Packet Page 124 of 523 CORVUSenvironmental.com 3 3 "moderate" 4 "high" 5 "very high" function In addition to the numeric value, CORVUS also provided a letter rank to indicate the level of confidence in assessment scoring with "a" representing least confidence, "b" representing moderate confidence, and "c" representing high confidence. After individual functions were scored for each wetland, CORVUS summed the values. Total values greater than or equal to 26 were labeled as high-functioning wetlands. Total values less than or equal to 25 were labeled as low-functioning wetlands. The exception to this was if a wetland scored with a functional value of 4 or 5 for a single category, these wetlands were also labeled as high functioning (Boulder Revised Code 9-3-9(l) "Stream, Wetland, and Water Body Functional evaluations, Designations, and Buffer Areas"). SBC Mitigation Project Landscape Setting The larger SBC Mitigation Project area hosts communities of diverse systems. The basis for the diversity of systems is the history of the site, much of which lies in the footprint of a former gravel mine left in its excavated condition, a reach of and floodplain of SBC, a historically vast relic tallgrass wet meadow, which has been bisected multiple times by transportation developments in the vicinity, including US 36, 93 and S. Boulder Road, and remnants of the agricultural past of the area, namely in the form of a network of several irrigation ditches which still function, including the Viele Channel, the Dry Creek No 2 Ditch. Vegetation along the creek is dominated by cottonwoods (Populus deltoides) and crack willow (Salix fragilis). Shrub development is variable; there are dense stands of narrowleaf willow (Salix exigua), alder Alnus incana), hawthorn (Crataegus spp.), and vines like river grape (Vitis riparia). Wet and mesic meadow vegetation occurs within the floodplain. Tallgrasses like big bluestem (Andropogon gerardii), Indian grass (Sorgastrum nutans), swichgrass (Panicum virgatum), and prairie cordgrass (Spartina pectinata) are common forming dense stands. Beaked spikerush (Eleocharis rostellata) is also present and unusual in this landscape setting. Mesic forbs are likewise common.. Unique forbs in this area include great blue lobelia (Lobelia siphilitica), winged lythrum (Lythrum alatum), and slender false foxglove (Agalinis tenuifolia). There is a significant amount of Russian olive (Elaeagnus angustifolia) and other noxious and exotic weeds in select areas (CNHP 2009). A list of species encountered in the full SBC Floodplain Mitigation project is included in Attachment B. Irrigated hay fields support an extensive bobolink (Dolichonyx oryzivorus) community. Floodplain pools provide northern leopard frog (Rana pipiens) habitat. This floodplain supports federally listed species including Preble's meadow jumping mouse (Zapus hudsonius preblei) and Ute ladies' tresses (Spiranthes diluvialis). The geology of the area is predominantly Quaternary alluvium, including Piney Creek Alluvium, which occurs in a band along the SBC, and younger alluvium, with a smaller area of Pierre shale bedrock on the western portion of the site (Green 1992). The USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service has mapped 4 soil series on the site: the Loveland, Niwot, Terrace Escarpments and Valmont clay loam soils (Soil Survey Staff 2019). A majority of the SBC Floodplain Mitigation project area on the CU Boulder property consists of a reclaimed gravel mine and the soils no longer reflect the characteristics described above, Attachment B – Wetland Mapping and Functional Evaluation Report Item 3E - 1st Rdg Ord 8624 Adopting Wetlands at CU South Page 84 Packet Page 125 of 523 CORVUSenvironmental.com 4 although the reclamation process likely included the stockpiling and replacement of topsoil to support newly seeded vegetation. Portions of the study area are within the 100- and 500- year floodplain of SBC. The site's shallow groundwater has a direct hydraulic connection with SBC and freely flows between the sands and gravel aquifer (unconfined) below the site, SBC and Dry Creek Ditch No. 2 (Lewis et al. 1977). Due to its excavated nature, much of the CU Boulder South Property lies several feet below the groundwater level, leading to an abundance of seeps (wetlands) on the property where groundwater daylights at the ground surface. Description of Wetland Assessment Areas The functional assessment included 19 assessment areas as detailed in Table 1 below and depicted in Figure 1. Table 1. Assessment Area Community Characteristics Name Acreage Community Description 1 3.64 Groundwater supported pond with PEM/PSS wetland fringe. No inlet or outlet features. Located within the SBC floodway. 2 0.03 Depressional PEM wetlands in an isolated roadside swale. Hydrology driven primarily by groundwater, with secondary inputs from overland flow from the directly adjacent roadway. 3 1.71 Viele Channel filled with PEM cattail-dominated community and adjacent coyote willow fringe. Community has a secondary flow path leading to another groundwater fed pond with small PEM/PSS wetland fringe. Located within the SBC floodway. 4 3.18 Continuation of the secondary flow path from Viele Channel leading to another groundwater fed pond. This area is highly disturbed due to pedestrian activity. The pond has a PEM/PSS fringe and is located within the SBC floodway. 5 10.40 Swale and occasional open water channel at downgradient end of old quarry dominated by a combination of PEM/PSS wetlands. Seeps along the upgradient end of the wetland provide the main source of hydrology for this wetland area. Hydrology from a series of seeps creates a continuous wetland swale in topographically low areas adjoining an earthen levee. A small portion of the northern edge of this community is located within the SBC floodway. 6 3.08 Manmade drainage channels (including Dry Creek No 2. Ditch) and associated PEM/PSS fringe wetlands east of the earthen levee. Wetland fringes were typically narrow and closely confined to the drainage channel corridor. Located within the SBC floodway. 7 2.16 Wet meadow habitats hosting sporadic pockets of PSS/PFO community. Shallow groundwater provides hydrology for these communities, and they also receive additional hydrology input as they are located in the SBC floodway. This community is interspersed within a forested riparian corridor. 8 2.05 Groundwater supported pond and associated PSS wetland fringe. Highly disturbed habitats due to pedestrian use surround this area. 9 0.25 Series of PEM communities within isolated swale features surrounded by upland habitats. Hydrology driven by groundwater and overland flow. Attachment B – Wetland Mapping and Functional Evaluation Report Item 3E - 1st Rdg Ord 8624 Adopting Wetlands at CU South Page 85 Packet Page 126 of 523 CORVUSenvironmental.com 5 Name Acreage Community Description 10 12.27 Series of stormwater detention ponds that are dominated by a dense cattail community and a fringe of PSS/PFO communities. Hydrology supported by groundwater, overland flow, and nearby drainage ditches (including Dry Creek No 2. Ditch). Located within the SBC floodway. 11 3.94 Swale containing PEM/PSS wetlands and occasional manmade, open water channels downgradient of the gravel road in the old quarry. Seeps along the upgradient end of the wetland provide the main source of hydrology for this area. Hydrology from a series of groundwater seeps creates a continuous wetland swale in topographically low areas downgradient of the road. 12 0.45 Drainage channels and associated PEM/PSS fringe wetland communities west of the gravel road. Hydrology is provided by overland flow and flow from nearby groundwater seeps. 13 1.87 Dense PSS/PEM community on the west end of the property. Hydrology driven by groundwater seeps. 14 0.73 Salt meadow situated in topographical depression containing shallow, rocky soils with bedrock ~6-8" below soil surface. Hydrology is provided by perched overland flow from adjacent areas. Salt crust was present throughout these wetland communities. This community is dominated by PEM vegetation. 15 0.09 Groundwater seep driven PEM/PSS community, forested community at upgradient end outside of wetland. 16 2.73 Series of scattered, groundwater driven PEM/PSS wetland communities. 17 0.48 Unnamed drainage swale with PEM/PSS fringe community and downgradient groundwater fed pond. Open water segments are present, but the majority of swale hosts a wetland community. 18 0.12 Isolated swales that host PEM/PSS wetland communities. Groundwater driven with supplemental hydrology from overland flow. Located partially within the SBC floodway. 19 4.84 Stormwater detention ponds that host a dense PEM community are dominated primarily by cattails, with increasing species diversity along the fringes. Hydrology is received from groundwater and overland flow. Located within the SBC floodway. Total 54.01 Attachment B – Wetland Mapping and Functional Evaluation Report Item 3E - 1st Rdg Ord 8624 Adopting Wetlands at CU South Page 86 Packet Page 127 of 523 CORVUSenvironmental.com 6 Results of the Wetland Functional Assessment Table 2 below details the resulting functional scores given per category per wetland. Table 2. Functional Scores per Assessed Wetland Functional Category Functional Rating per Wetland 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Overall groundwater recharge 3 2 2 3 2 2 2 3 2 2 3 2 3 1 2 2 2 2 3 Overall groundwater discharge 4 3 3 3 5 2 4 4 3 4 5 3 4 1 4 4 3 3 4 Flood alteration 4 2 3 4 2 2 3 2 2 4 2 2 2 2 1 2 3 3 4 Shoreline Anchoring 3 1 2 3 2 3 1 3 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 Sediment trapping 3 2 3 4 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 Long-term nutrient retention 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 2 2 1 2 2 3 3 3 Short-term nutrient retention 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 2 3 1 3 2 3 3 3 Food chain export 1 1 4 2 2 4 2 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 Food chain support (in basin) 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 4 Fish/aquatic habitat 2 1 2 2 1 3 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 Wildlife habitat 3 2 3 2 4 4 4 3 3 3 4 3 3 2 2 4 3 3 3 Active recreation 1 1 1 3 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Passive recreation/uniqueness 2 2 2 2 5 4 4 2 2 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 2 3 4 Overall functional integrity. 2 2 2 2 3 3 4 3 2 3 3 2 2 3 2 2 2 2 3 Sum 36 25 35 39 38 40 37 35 27 35 38 27 32 22 28 30 32 32 38 Functional Category High Low High High High High High High High High High High High Low High High High High High *Bold indicates a high or very high functional value. Attachment B – Wetland Mapping and Functional Evaluation Report Item 3E - 1st Rdg Ord 8624 Adopting Wetlands at CU South Page 87 Packet Page 128 of 523 CORVUSenvironmental.com 7 Wetland 1 Results – High Functioning Wetland 1 scored two categories as high functioning, six as moderate function, and six as low/no function. There were no categories reflecting very high function. This wetland indicates high function for groundwater discharge and flood storage/alteration as this is a groundwater-driven pond with no through-flow located within the SBC floodway. Notable moderate functional scores include sediment trapping and short-term nutrient retention. The lack of direct upstream inputs limits nutrient/sediment movement into the site; however, the wetland fringe along the pond provides a moderate level of short- term sediment and nutrient retention. This wetland scored low for food chain support and aquatic fish habitat, as the pond is isolated with no direct upstream or downstream connections. Poor adjacent habitat quality, including a high prevalence of weedy species, reduced passive recreation, and overall functional integrity. Wetland 2 Results – Low Functioning Wetland 2 scored no categories as high or very high function, one as moderate function, and 13 as low/no function. Wetland 2 exhibited moderate function for groundwater discharge as the primary hydrology source for this wetland is a groundwater seep. This community scored low-to-none in function for nutrient retention and food chain support due to a lack of resource export from the community (no outlet or flow) and frequent groundwater exposure. Wildlife and aquatic habitat function scored low to none, due to the size of the community in relation to the built environment and the lack of ponding or upstream/downstream connections. No aquatic recreation opportunities are present due to the lack of permanent open water, and the community has low passive recreation opportunities as this is a common wetland type. Overall functional integrity scored low due to modified hydrology and level of historic disturbance. Wetland 3 Results – High Functioning Wetland 3 scored one category as high function, six as moderate function, and seven as low/no function. There were no categories reflecting very high function. This wetland exhibited high function for downstream food chain support through the presence of varied, dense vegetation with seasonal flooding and occasional flushing flow events. The community scored moderate for groundwater discharge as groundwater provides hydrology for the ponded feature. Flood alteration also scored moderate as the wetland is located along the Viele Channel and within the SBC floodway. A low gradient along the drainage coupled with dense vegetation cover provides moderate flood flow storage. Nutrient retention was also scored as moderate as dense vegetation fills most of the channel (including woody species), limiting nutrient export; however, large flow events in the channel likely flush some of these resources downstream. There are no active aquatic recreational opportunities, and passive recreational value is limited to education/science opportunities. Overall functional integrity in this community is low due to altered hydrology (from the manmade channel and increasing surface runoff in the watershed); however, the community hosts a diversity of plant strata, including herbaceous, shrub, and forested communities. Wetland 4 Results – High Functioning Wetland 4 scored two categories as high function, seven as moderate function, and five as low/no function. There were no categories reflecting very high function. This pond and PEM/PSS wetland community provide high function for flood storage and sediment trapping due to its location in the environment, dense vegetation cover (including scrub-shrub community), and groundwater infiltration potential. Moderate groundwater discharge and recharge scores were given due to seep-provides hydrology and interaction with the water table. Nutrient retention and food chain support were rated as moderate due to position in the landscape and lack of consistent or flushing flow events. Active Attachment B – Wetland Mapping and Functional Evaluation Report Item 3E - 1st Rdg Ord 8624 Adopting Wetlands at CU South Page 88 Packet Page 129 of 523 CORVUSenvironmental.com 8 recreation was rated moderate as well due to prolific pond use for dogs, while passive recreation was ranked low due to level of disturbance. Overall functional integrity was also scored low due to level of disturbance and select areas of vegetation degradation. Wetland 5 Results – High Functioning Wetland 5 scored three categories as high or very high function, four as moderate function, and seven as low/no function. These wetland communities exhibit seep-driven hydrology and host populations of a federally protected orchid species, resulting in very high groundwater discharge and passive recreation/uniqueness scores. The dense, diverse PEM/PSS communities associated with this wetland provides high wildlife habitat function and moderate nutrient retention/in-basin food chain support. As these communities are not along a stream/drainage/channel and no open waters are present, aquatic habitats, export of resources from the site, and shoreline anchoring functions are low-to-none. The overall functional integrity was ranked as moderate as hydrology, although hosting uncommon plant species and diverse communities, results from anthropogenic landscape modification. Wetland 6 Results – High Functioning Wetland 6 scored three categories as high functioning, six as moderate function, and five as low functioning. There were no categories reflecting very high function or no function. This community consists of PEM and PSS fringe communities alongside a series of manmade drainage ditches controlled by a diversion upstream along SBC. This altered hydrology removes much of the naturalness of the stream features and results in low groundwater interaction and sediment trapping scores. Despite the unnatural hydrology, vegetation communities were dense and provides moderate scores for functional integrity, shoreline stability, and nutrient retention. Wildlife habitat scored as high function due to resource availability, continuous community corridors, and varied vegetation. Passive recreational value and uniqueness scored high as this community hosts a small, scattered population of federally protected orchid. Wetland 7 Results – High Functioning Wetland 7 scored four categories as high function, four as moderate function, and six as low/no function. There were no categories reflecting very high function. These wetland communities exhibit seep-driven hydrology and host populations of a federally protected orchid species, resulting in high groundwater discharge and passive recreation/uniqueness scores. The dense, diverse PEM wet meadow communities associated with this wetland provides high wildlife habitat function and moderate nutrient retention/in-basin food chain support. Since these communities are not along a stream/drainage/channel and no open waters are present, aquatic habitats, export of resources from the site, and shoreline anchoring functions are low to none. The overall functional integrity was ranked as high as these communities are in a mostly undisturbed meadow (a fence line runs along the property edge) with natural hydrology and host uncommon plant species and diverse vegetation communities. Wetland 8 Results – High Functioning Wetland 8 scored one category as high function, seven as moderate function, and six as low/no function. There were no categories reflecting very high function. This wetland/pond community exhibits high function for groundwater discharge as this is a groundwater-driven pond with no through-flow. This community scored low-to-none for flood alteration, sediment trapping, and nutrient export, as there is no direct inlet or outlet to the pond. Nutrient retention and in-basin food chain support reflected moderate function as the wetland fringe community retains resources made onsite. Fish/aquatic habitat scored low, as this is an isolated pond with no fish passageway upstream or downstream. Wildlife habitat was ranked moderate due to vegetation coverage and availability of resources. Functional Attachment B – Wetland Mapping and Functional Evaluation Report Item 3E - 1st Rdg Ord 8624 Adopting Wetlands at CU South Page 89 Packet Page 130 of 523 CORVUSenvironmental.com 9 integrity was ranked moderate due to unnatural hydrology (mining disturbance), but the wetland communities are varied (PEM/PSS). Wetland 9 Results – High Functioning Wetland 9 scored no categories as high or very high function, three categories as moderate function, and 11 as low/no functioning. This community comprises PEM wetland communities within isolated swales east of the gravel road that bisects the project area. Hydrology is driven by groundwater seep and scored moderately in groundwater discharge function; however, this is unnatural hydrology due to the historic excavation of the area, lowering ground elevations to below the groundwater table in places. The lack of inflow/outflow paths from these features limited sediment trapping and transport, nutrient retention, and food export, and these categories subsequently scored low-to-none. In-basin food chain support reflected moderate function as created nutrients/resources within these communities do not leave the community. Wildlife habitat scored moderate as wetland swales provide habitat diversity, and these communities are connected to larger tracts of undeveloped, open areas. The overall functional integrity of these communities was rated low due to the unnaturalness of hydrology and historical mining disturbance. Wetland 10 – High functioning Wetland 10 scored three categories as high functioning, five as moderate function, and six as low/no functioning. There were no categories reflecting very high function. This community consists of depressional wetland communities in the excavation footprint of an old gravel mine. Hydrology is provided through groundwater discharge due to historic excavation activities, and as such, groundwater discharge function in the community is high. Since the community contains dense vegetation within a topographic depression with groundwater interaction within the SBC floodway, floodplain alteration also scored high. In-basin food chain support and nutrient retention were scored high and moderate respectively, as these features have no direct downstream/downgradient connection to export resources or materials and have high prevalence of organic material. This lack of downstream connectivity also resulted in low-to-no sediment trapping and food chain export function scores. Wildlife habitat was rated as having moderate function as shelter and resources are available in the community. Still, the area is transected with pedestrian trails, fragmenting the habitat and reducing the likelihood of wildlife use. The community is in an area of historic mining disturbance and exhibits modified hydrology from excavation activities that exposed groundwater; however, rare plants and multi-strata communities provide a moderate level of functional integrity. Wetland 11 Results – High Functioning Wetland 11 scored two categories as high or very high function, six as moderate function, and six as low/no function. These wetland communities exhibit seep-driven hydrology, resulting in a very high groundwater discharge function score. Wildlife habitats scored as having high function due to the diversity of species and strata with ample coverage and resources. As no natural stream features flow through this community, import/export of sediment and shoreline stability are rated low in function. Lack of downstream outlet and high plant productivity provides evidence for moderate scores in-basin food support and nutrient retention. This community contains a small, isolated pond built on a berm; however, no upstream or downstream connections make fish passage to the feature difficult, and aquatic habitats were rated as having low function. The community is in an area of historic mining disturbance and exhibits modified hydrology from excavation activities that exposed groundwater; however, rare plant habitat and multi-strata communities provide a moderate level of functional integrity. Attachment B – Wetland Mapping and Functional Evaluation Report Item 3E - 1st Rdg Ord 8624 Adopting Wetlands at CU South Page 90 Packet Page 131 of 523 CORVUSenvironmental.com 10 Wetland 12 Results – High Functioning Wetland 12 scored no categories as high or very high functioning, three as moderate function, and 11 as low/no functioning. This community consists of PEM wetland communities within isolated swales west of the gravel road that bisects the project area. Groundwater seeps provide hydrology for this wetland and scored moderate in groundwater discharge function. The lack of inflow/outflow flow paths from these features affects sediment trapping and transport, nutrient retention, and food export, and these categories subsequently scored low/no function. In-basin food chain support scored as having moderate function as onsite-produced nutrients/resources within these communities do not have a transport method to leave the community. Wildlife habitat scored moderate as wetland swales provide habitat diversity, cover, and resources, and these communities are connected to larger tracts of undeveloped, open areas. The overall functional integrity of these communities was rated low due to the unnaturalness of hydrology and historical disturbance. Wetland 13 Results – High Functioning Wetland 13 scored one category as high function, five as moderate function, and eight as low/no function. There were no categories reflecting very high function. These wetland communities exhibit seep-driven hydrology, resulting in a high groundwater discharge function score. In-basin food chain support and short-term nutrient retention were rated moderate as no consistent flow paths are present in the wetland to export resources downstream. As no natural stream features flowed through this community, import/export of sediment and nutrients and shoreline stability were rated as having low/no function. Fish/aquatic habitat and active recreation scored as having no function as there are no open water communities in this wetland. The community is in an area of historic mining disturbance and exhibits modified hydrology from excavation activities that exposed groundwater; however, highly productive, multi-strata vegetation communities provide a moderate level of functional integrity. Wetland 14 Results – Low Functioning Wetland 14 scored no categories as high or very high functioning, two as moderate function, and 12 as low/no function. Hydrology is inconsistent and provided by overland flow events that perch on a clay/loam substrate with shallow bedrock. Due to the bedrock layer, groundwater exchange is restricted and exhibits no function. This community has no inlets or outlets, limiting resource and materials movement on and offsite, resulting in low-to-no scores for flood alteration, sediment trapping, and food chain export. Low plant densities and lack of consistent, long-duration inundation/saturation events restrict short and long-term nutrient retention. The lack of nutrients and low-density vegetation cover provides little shelter or food for wildlife use, reflecting a low functional score. Due to this community's ephemeral hydrology, salt deposits accumulate on the soil surface, creating saline conditions for vegetation and reflecting conditions typical of a salt meadow. This uncommon wetland type helped increase the community's passive recreational value to moderate. The overall functional integrity of this community is moderate as hydrology remains natural (offsite migration); however, historic mining disturbance prevents this area from achieving high functional integrity. Wetland 15 Results – High Functioning Wetland 15 scored one category as high function, three as moderate function, and ten as low/no function. There were no categories reflecting very high function. This wetland community exhibits seep- driven hydrology, resulting in a high groundwater discharge function score. In-basin food chain support and short-term nutrient retention were rated moderate, as no consistent flow paths are present in the wetland to export resources downstream. As no natural stream features flow through this community, import/export of sediment and nutrients and shoreline stability were rated as having low/no function. Fish/aquatic habitat and active recreation scored as having no function as there are no open water Attachment B – Wetland Mapping and Functional Evaluation Report Item 3E - 1st Rdg Ord 8624 Adopting Wetlands at CU South Page 91 Packet Page 132 of 523 CORVUSenvironmental.com 11 communities in this wetland. The community is in an area of historic mining disturbance and exhibits modified hydrology from excavation activities that exposed areas of groundwater. This modified hydrology and disturbance, coupled with a common wetland community type reflect a low level of functional integrity. Wetland 16 Results – High Functioning Wetland 16 scored two categories as high functioning, two as moderate function, and ten as low/no function. There were no categories reflecting very high function. This wetland community exhibits seep- driven hydrology, resulting in a high groundwater discharge function score. Wildlife habitat also scored high as wetland habitat islands in this community reflect a high habitat roughness while providing shelter and resources. In-basin food chain support reflected a moderate function score due to a lack of outflow features to carry resources to downstream communities. The lack of a channel within this wetland helped justify low-to-no function scores for food chain export, nutrient retention, sediment trapping, and flood alteration. Fish/aquatic habitat and active recreation reflect no function as this wetland has no open water features. The overall functional integrity was ranked low for this wetland despite uncommon plant species and diverse vegetation communities due to altered hydrology and the history of pervasive ground disturbance onsite. Wetland 17 Results – High Functioning Wetland 17 scored no categories as high or very high functioning, six as moderate function, and eight as low/no function. These wetland communities are located within a drainage swale with seep-driven hydrology, resulting in a moderate groundwater discharge function score. Nutrient retention also scored moderate function as lack of high-powered flow events coupled with dense woody vegetation keeps nutrients onsite. Wildlife habitat also reflected moderate function due to species diversity and strata with ample shelter and resources. The remaining functional categories scored low-to-no function due to a lack of significant flow events capable of moving materials and resources out of the community and a lack of downstream aquatic features. The overall functional integrity was ranked low for this wetland despite dense, diverse vegetation communities due to altered hydrology from past mining excavation. Wetland 18 Results – High Functioning Wetland 18 scored no categories as high or very high functioning, eight as moderate function, and six as low/no functioning. This community comprises dense PEM/PSS wetlands within isolated, disconnected drainage swales. Groundwater seeps provide hydrology for this wetland and reflect a moderate functional score for groundwater discharge. This wetland community lacks consistent connectivity to other drainage features, limiting the potential for materials and resources to enter or exit the wetland. This retention of onsite materials helps maintain a moderate level of nutrient retention and in-basin food chain support. Similarly, as site export is low, food chain export also scored low. This series of isolated wetlands lack an upstream flow path and sediment source; however, they are located in the SBC floodway and may receive and trap sediment from large but infrequent flow events. As such, sediment trapping rated as having moderate function. Wildlife habitat exhibits moderate function as the community hosts shelter and has access to food resources. There are no open water features in this community fish/aquatic habitat, and active recreation reflected no function. The overall functional integrity was ranked low for this wetland despite dense, diverse vegetation communities due to altered hydrology from past mining excavation. Wetland 19 – High functioning Wetland 19 scored four categories as high functioning, six as moderate, and four as low/no function. There were no categories reflecting very high function. This assessment area consists of depressional Attachment B – Wetland Mapping and Functional Evaluation Report Item 3E - 1st Rdg Ord 8624 Adopting Wetlands at CU South Page 92 Packet Page 133 of 523 CORVUSenvironmental.com 12 wetland communities in the excavation footprint of an old gravel mine. Groundwater discharge provides hydrology to this community due to historic excavation activities lowering the ground surface elevation, and reflects high function. Since the community contains dense vegetation within a topographic depression with groundwater interaction within the SBC floodway, flood alteration scored high. Dense, varied vegetation and lack of downstream outlet maintains moderate nutrient retention scores and high in-basin food chain support function. Sediment trapping scored moderate as no inlets provide routine sediment input. Still, the community is in a topographic depression, hosts dense vegetation, and is located in the SBC floodway. Active aquatic recreation and fish/aquatic habitats reflected no function due to the community's lack of open water features. However, passive recreation/uniqueness ranked high due to the presence of a rare, federally protected orchid species and the potential for scientific/educational value, including (but not limited to) wetlands, riparian corridors, wildlife, rare species, and mine reclamation. The community is in an area of historic mining disturbance and exhibits modified hydrology from excavation activities that exposed groundwater; however, rare plants and multi-strata communities provide a moderate level of functional integrity. Full details regarding the scoring rationale per wetland per category are included in the Wetland Functional Assessment Forms in Attachment C. These data forms also include a photo of the wetland community and a snapshot of the community mapping. Conclusions Based on the results of the functional assessment, the annexed area subset of the SBC Floodplain Mitigation project area contains mostly high-functioning and a few low functioning wetland communities. Functional categories with the overall highest rating for wetlands onsite include groundwater discharge, flood alteration, short-term nutrient retention, wildlife habitat, and passive recreation/uniqueness. Functional categories consistently rating low include shoreline anchoring, food chain export, fish/aquatic habitat and active recreation. Notably, many of the wetland communities reflect a moderate to high functional score for passive recreation/heritage value as these communities contain suitable Ute Ladies’-tresses orchid habitat and host a reference population of this federally protected orchid. For this functional category, the score was dependent on the prevalence and volume of orchid species present, with large, high-density populations reflecting higher function and scattered/low density orchid populations scoring as moderate. Based on Section 9-3-9(i)(3) of the Boulder Revised Code, a 50-ft wetland buffer was applied to high- functioning communities, including a 25-ft inner buffer and 25-ft outer buffer. Based on the summation of functional category scores, 17 of the 19 communities assessed met the criteria for high quality wetlands, and two communities (2, 14) are categorized as low functioning. Low functioning wetlands were given a single outer buffer of 25 feet. Figure 1 depicts the wetland communities and their associated buffers. Attachment B – Wetland Mapping and Functional Evaluation Report Item 3E - 1st Rdg Ord 8624 Adopting Wetlands at CU South Page 93 Packet Page 134 of 523 CORVUSenvironmental.com 13 Attachments: Attachment A – Figures Attachment B – SBC Floodplain Mitigation Site Plant List Attachment C – Wetland Functional Assessment Form References: Boulder County Municipal Code. Title 9 – Land Use Code. Chapter 3 – Overlay Districts. 9-3-9. – Stream, Wetlands, and Water Body Protection. Carpenter, Alan T and Perce, Steve. 2004. Land Stewardship Consulting, Inc. City of Boulder Comprehensive Wetland Remapping Project. Colorado Natural Heritage Program. 2009. Survey of Critical Resources in Boulder County, Colorado 2007-2008. Cooper, D. J. 1988. Advanced Identification of Wetlands in the City of Boulder Comprehensive Planning Area. Report to the United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region VIII and the City of Boulder. Thorne Ecological Institute. Cowardin, L. M., V. Carter, F. C. Golet, and E. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. FWS/OBS-79/31. US Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). National Flood Hazard Layer. County GIS Data. Firm Panels: 08013C0576J and 08013C0578J, effective 12/18/2012. Green, G.N. 1992. The Digital Geologic Map of Colorado in ArcINFO Format. OF-92-0507, US Geological Survey, Denver, Colorado Shepherd, Christin. Email Correspondence. August 2021. City of Boulder. Regarding Functional Evaluation of Wetlands for SBC Food Mitigation Project. US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 1987. Corps of Engineers wetlands delineation manual. Technical Report Y-87-1. Vicksburg (MS): USACE Environmental Laboratory, Waterways Experiment Station, Wetlands Research Program. USACE. 2010. Regional supplement to the Corps of Engineers wetland delineation manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coasts. Wakely JS, Lichvar RW, Noble CV, editors. ERDC/EL TR-08-27. Vicksburg (MS): U.S. Army. Attachment B – Wetland Mapping and Functional Evaluation Report Item 3E - 1st Rdg Ord 8624 Adopting Wetlands at CU South Page 94 Packet Page 135 of 523 Attachment A – Figures Attachment B – Wetland Mapping and Functional Evaluation Report Item 3E - 1st Rdg Ord 8624 Adopting Wetlands at CU South Page 95 Packet Page 136 of 523 A B C D E F GH FIGURE 1: WETLAND MAP CITY OF BOULDER AND UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO BOULDER PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 718 MARSHALL RD Overview Boulder, Boulder County Map Date: 2/13/2024 Service Layer Credits: Light Gray Reference: Esri Community Maps Contributors, UCB CAD/GIS Office, City of Boulder, Boulder County, © OpenStreetMap, Microsoft, Esri, TomTom, Garmin, SafeGraph, GeoTechnologies, Inc, METI/NASA, USGS, EPA, NPS, US Census Bureau, USDA, USFWS Light Gray Base: Esri Community Maps Contributors, UCB CAD/GIS Office, City of Boulder, Boulder County, © OpenStreetMap, Microsoft, Esri, TomTom, Garmin, SafeGraph, GeoTechnologies, Inc, METI/NASA, USGS, EPA, NPS, US Census Bureau, USDA, USFWS Additional: CO Office of Information Technology LiDAR data - Boulder County. DEM. 5-foot contours. Wetlands (CU Property) High Quality Wetland Buffer: Inner 25' High Quality Wetland Buffer: Outer 25' Low Quality Wetland Buffer: Outer 25' South Boulder Creek Floodplain Mitigation 0 470 940 Feet Document Path: C:\CORVUS Dropbox\Team\Clients\RJH\SBC Regional Detention Project - 60% Design\ArcMap\ArcPro\City of Boulder Wetland Functional Assessment\City of Boulder Wetland Functional Assessment2.aprx1:9,000 ¤ Page 1 of 9 Attachment B – Wetland Mapping and Functional Evaluation Report Item 3E - 1st Rdg Ord 8624 Adopting Wetlands at CU South Page 96 Packet Page 137 of 523 01 02 02 18 18 18 18 03 04 17 FIGURE 1: WETLAND MAP CITY OF BOULDER AND UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO BOULDER PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 718 MARSHALL RD A Boulder, Boulder County Map Date: 2/13/2024 Service Layer Credits: Light Gray Reference: Esri Community Maps Contributors, UCB CAD/GIS Office, City of Boulder, Boulder County, © OpenStreetMap, Microsoft, Esri, TomTom, Garmin, SafeGraph, GeoTechnologies, Inc, METI/NASA, USGS, EPA, NPS, US Census Bureau, USDA, USFWS Light Gray Base: Esri Community Maps Contributors, UCB CAD/GIS Office, City of Boulder, Boulder County, © OpenStreetMap, Microsoft, Esri, TomTom, Garmin, SafeGraph, GeoTechnologies, Inc, METI/NASA, USGS, EPA, NPS, US Census Bureau, USDA, USFWS Additional: CO Office of Information Technology LiDAR data - Boulder County. DEM. 5-foot contours. Wetlands (CU Property) High Quality Wetland Buffer: Inner 25' High Quality Wetland Buffer: Outer 25' Low Quality Wetland Buffer: Outer 25' South Boulder Creek Floodplain Mitigation 0 130 260 Feet Document Path: C:\CORVUS Dropbox\Team\Clients\RJH\SBC Regional Detention Project - 60% Design\ArcMap\ArcPro\City of Boulder Wetland Functional Assessment\City of Boulder Wetland Functional Assessment2.aprx1:2,500 ¤ Page 2 of 9 Attachment B – Wetland Mapping and Functional Evaluation Report Item 3E - 1st Rdg Ord 8624 Adopting Wetlands at CU South Page 97 Packet Page 138 of 523 08 09 09 09 09 11 03 04 04 05 06 0606 07 FIGURE 1: WETLAND MAP CITY OF BOULDER AND UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO BOULDER PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 718 MARSHALL RD B Boulder, Boulder County Map Date: 2/13/2024 Service Layer Credits: Light Gray Reference: Esri Community Maps Contributors, UCB CAD/GIS Office, City of Boulder, Boulder County, © OpenStreetMap, Microsoft, Esri, TomTom, Garmin, SafeGraph, GeoTechnologies, Inc, METI/NASA, USGS, EPA, NPS, US Census Bureau, USDA, USFWS Light Gray Base: Esri Community Maps Contributors, UCB CAD/GIS Office, City of Boulder, Boulder County, © OpenStreetMap, Microsoft, Esri, TomTom, Garmin, SafeGraph, GeoTechnologies, Inc, METI/NASA, USGS, EPA, NPS, US Census Bureau, USDA, USFWS Additional: CO Office of Information Technology LiDAR data - Boulder County. DEM. 5-foot contours. Wetlands (CU Property) High Quality Wetland Buffer: Inner 25' High Quality Wetland Buffer: Outer 25' Low Quality Wetland Buffer: Outer 25' South Boulder Creek Floodplain Mitigation 0 130 260 Feet Document Path: C:\CORVUS Dropbox\Team\Clients\RJH\SBC Regional Detention Project - 60% Design\ArcMap\ArcPro\City of Boulder Wetland Functional Assessment\City of Boulder Wetland Functional Assessment2.aprx1:2,500 ¤ Page 3 of 9 Attachment B – Wetland Mapping and Functional Evaluation Report Item 3E - 1st Rdg Ord 8624 Adopting Wetlands at CU South Page 98 Packet Page 139 of 523 05 05 05 06 06 06 06 07 07 FIGURE 1: WETLAND MAP CITY OF BOULDER AND UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO BOULDER PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 718 MARSHALL RD C Boulder, Boulder County Map Date: 2/13/2024 Service Layer Credits: Light Gray Reference: Esri Community Maps Contributors, UCB CAD/GIS Office, City of Boulder, Boulder County, © OpenStreetMap, Microsoft, Esri, TomTom, Garmin, SafeGraph, GeoTechnologies, Inc, METI/NASA, USGS, EPA, NPS, US Census Bureau, USDA, USFWS Light Gray Base: Esri Community Maps Contributors, UCB CAD/GIS Office, City of Boulder, Boulder County, © OpenStreetMap, Microsoft, Esri, TomTom, Garmin, SafeGraph, GeoTechnologies, Inc, METI/NASA, USGS, EPA, NPS, US Census Bureau, USDA, USFWS Additional: CO Office of Information Technology LiDAR data - Boulder County. DEM. 5-foot contours. Wetlands (CU Property) High Quality Wetland Buffer: Inner 25' High Quality Wetland Buffer: Outer 25' Low Quality Wetland Buffer: Outer 25' South Boulder Creek Floodplain Mitigation 0 130 260 Feet Document Path: C:\CORVUS Dropbox\Team\Clients\RJH\SBC Regional Detention Project - 60% Design\ArcMap\ArcPro\City of Boulder Wetland Functional Assessment\City of Boulder Wetland Functional Assessment2.aprx1:2,500 ¤ Page 4 of 9 Attachment B – Wetland Mapping and Functional Evaluation Report Item 3E - 1st Rdg Ord 8624 Adopting Wetlands at CU South Page 99 Packet Page 140 of 523 10 10 05 05 05 05 06 06 06 06 06 06 06 19 19 07 07 FIGURE 1: WETLAND MAP CITY OF BOULDER AND UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO BOULDER PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 718 MARSHALL RD D Boulder, Boulder County Map Date: 2/13/2024 Service Layer Credits: Light Gray Reference: Esri Community Maps Contributors, UCB CAD/GIS Office, City of Boulder, Boulder County, © OpenStreetMap, Microsoft, Esri, TomTom, Garmin, SafeGraph, GeoTechnologies, Inc, METI/NASA, USGS, EPA, NPS, US Census Bureau, USDA, USFWS Light Gray Base: Esri Community Maps Contributors, UCB CAD/GIS Office, City of Boulder, Boulder County, © OpenStreetMap, Microsoft, Esri, TomTom, Garmin, SafeGraph, GeoTechnologies, Inc, METI/NASA, USGS, EPA, NPS, US Census Bureau, USDA, USFWS Additional: CO Office of Information Technology LiDAR data - Boulder County. DEM. 5-foot contours. Wetlands (CU Property) High Quality Wetland Buffer: Inner 25' High Quality Wetland Buffer: Outer 25' Low Quality Wetland Buffer: Outer 25' South Boulder Creek Floodplain Mitigation 0 130 260 Feet Document Path: C:\CORVUS Dropbox\Team\Clients\RJH\SBC Regional Detention Project - 60% Design\ArcMap\ArcPro\City of Boulder Wetland Functional Assessment\City of Boulder Wetland Functional Assessment2.aprx1:2,500 ¤ Page 5 of 9 Attachment B – Wetland Mapping and Functional Evaluation Report Item 3E - 1st Rdg Ord 8624 Adopting Wetlands at CU South Page 100 Packet Page 141 of 523 10 10 10 12 11 05 05 06 06 06 06 19 19 FIGURE 1: WETLAND MAP CITY OF BOULDER AND UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO BOULDER PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 718 MARSHALL RD E Boulder, Boulder County Map Date: 2/13/2024 Service Layer Credits: Light Gray Reference: Esri Community Maps Contributors, UCB CAD/GIS Office, City of Boulder, Boulder County, © OpenStreetMap, Microsoft, Esri, TomTom, Garmin, SafeGraph, GeoTechnologies, Inc, METI/NASA, USGS, EPA, NPS, US Census Bureau, USDA, USFWS Light Gray Base: Esri Community Maps Contributors, UCB CAD/GIS Office, City of Boulder, Boulder County, © OpenStreetMap, Microsoft, Esri, TomTom, Garmin, SafeGraph, GeoTechnologies, Inc, METI/NASA, USGS, EPA, NPS, US Census Bureau, USDA, USFWS Additional: CO Office of Information Technology LiDAR data - Boulder County. DEM. 5-foot contours. Wetlands (CU Property) High Quality Wetland Buffer: Inner 25' High Quality Wetland Buffer: Outer 25' Low Quality Wetland Buffer: Outer 25' South Boulder Creek Floodplain Mitigation 0 130 260 Feet Document Path: C:\CORVUS Dropbox\Team\Clients\RJH\SBC Regional Detention Project - 60% Design\ArcMap\ArcPro\City of Boulder Wetland Functional Assessment\City of Boulder Wetland Functional Assessment2.aprx1:2,500 ¤ Page 6 of 9 Attachment B – Wetland Mapping and Functional Evaluation Report Item 3E - 1st Rdg Ord 8624 Adopting Wetlands at CU South Page 101 Packet Page 142 of 523 09 09 12 12 12 12 12 12 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 05 13 13 14 15 FIGURE 1: WETLAND MAP CITY OF BOULDER AND UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO BOULDER PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 718 MARSHALL RD F Boulder, Boulder County Map Date: 2/13/2024 Service Layer Credits: Light Gray Reference: Esri Community Maps Contributors, UCB CAD/GIS Office, City of Boulder, Boulder County, © OpenStreetMap, Microsoft, Esri, TomTom, Garmin, SafeGraph, GeoTechnologies, Inc, METI/NASA, USGS, EPA, NPS, US Census Bureau, USDA, USFWS Light Gray Base: Esri Community Maps Contributors, UCB CAD/GIS Office, City of Boulder, Boulder County, © OpenStreetMap, Microsoft, Esri, TomTom, Garmin, SafeGraph, GeoTechnologies, Inc, METI/NASA, USGS, EPA, NPS, US Census Bureau, USDA, USFWS Additional: CO Office of Information Technology LiDAR data - Boulder County. DEM. 5-foot contours. Wetlands (CU Property) High Quality Wetland Buffer: Inner 25' High Quality Wetland Buffer: Outer 25' Low Quality Wetland Buffer: Outer 25' South Boulder Creek Floodplain Mitigation 0 130 260 Feet Document Path: C:\CORVUS Dropbox\Team\Clients\RJH\SBC Regional Detention Project - 60% Design\ArcMap\ArcPro\City of Boulder Wetland Functional Assessment\City of Boulder Wetland Functional Assessment2.aprx1:2,500 ¤ Page 7 of 9 Attachment B – Wetland Mapping and Functional Evaluation Report Item 3E - 1st Rdg Ord 8624 Adopting Wetlands at CU South Page 102 Packet Page 143 of 523 08 09 09 09 09 09 09 09 09 12 12 11 04 05 06 06 07 16 16 14 15 FIGURE 1: WETLAND MAP CITY OF BOULDER AND UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO BOULDER PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 718 MARSHALL RD G Boulder, Boulder County Map Date: 2/13/2024 Service Layer Credits: Light Gray Reference: Esri Community Maps Contributors, UCB CAD/GIS Office, City of Boulder, Boulder County, © OpenStreetMap, Microsoft, Esri, TomTom, Garmin, SafeGraph, GeoTechnologies, Inc, METI/NASA, USGS, EPA, NPS, US Census Bureau, USDA, USFWS Light Gray Base: Esri Community Maps Contributors, UCB CAD/GIS Office, City of Boulder, Boulder County, © OpenStreetMap, Microsoft, Esri, TomTom, Garmin, SafeGraph, GeoTechnologies, Inc, METI/NASA, USGS, EPA, NPS, US Census Bureau, USDA, USFWS Additional: CO Office of Information Technology LiDAR data - Boulder County. DEM. 5-foot contours. Wetlands (CU Property) High Quality Wetland Buffer: Inner 25' High Quality Wetland Buffer: Outer 25' Low Quality Wetland Buffer: Outer 25' South Boulder Creek Floodplain Mitigation 0 130 260 Feet Document Path: C:\CORVUS Dropbox\Team\Clients\RJH\SBC Regional Detention Project - 60% Design\ArcMap\ArcPro\City of Boulder Wetland Functional Assessment\City of Boulder Wetland Functional Assessment2.aprx1:2,500 ¤ Page 8 of 9 Attachment B – Wetland Mapping and Functional Evaluation Report Item 3E - 1st Rdg Ord 8624 Adopting Wetlands at CU South Page 103 Packet Page 144 of 523 09 09 09 09 18 12 12 11 17 17 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 14 14 14 14 14 15 FIGURE 1: WETLAND MAP CITY OF BOULDER AND UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO BOULDER PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 718 MARSHALL RD H Boulder, Boulder County Map Date: 2/13/2024 Service Layer Credits: Light Gray Reference: Esri Community Maps Contributors, UCB CAD/GIS Office, City of Boulder, Boulder County, © OpenStreetMap, Microsoft, Esri, TomTom, Garmin, SafeGraph, GeoTechnologies, Inc, METI/NASA, USGS, EPA, NPS, US Census Bureau, USDA, USFWS Light Gray Base: Esri Community Maps Contributors, UCB CAD/GIS Office, City of Boulder, Boulder County, © OpenStreetMap, Microsoft, Esri, TomTom, Garmin, SafeGraph, GeoTechnologies, Inc, METI/NASA, USGS, EPA, NPS, US Census Bureau, USDA, USFWS Additional: CO Office of Information Technology LiDAR data - Boulder County. DEM. 5-foot contours. Wetlands (CU Property) High Quality Wetland Buffer: Inner 25' High Quality Wetland Buffer: Outer 25' Low Quality Wetland Buffer: Outer 25' South Boulder Creek Floodplain Mitigation 0 130 260 Feet Document Path: C:\CORVUS Dropbox\Team\Clients\RJH\SBC Regional Detention Project - 60% Design\ArcMap\ArcPro\City of Boulder Wetland Functional Assessment\City of Boulder Wetland Functional Assessment2.aprx1:2,500 ¤ Page 9 of 9 Attachment B – Wetland Mapping and Functional Evaluation Report Item 3E - 1st Rdg Ord 8624 Adopting Wetlands at CU South Page 104 Packet Page 145 of 523 36 Tan t r a D r TableMesa Dr Tab le Mesa D rS B o u lder Rd Tantra Park Tantra Park South 45th SFoothills HwyS B r o a d wa y S t Rolling Rock Ranch Mcstain / Shanahan #2 U. Of C. Gateway South Campus SouthBoulderCreekS B ould e r Rd De nve r B ou l d e r T p k e Clyncke, Mary Van Vleet - North SchearerDitchSouth BoulderCreekVan Vleet - South Church - West FIGURE 2 WETLANDS AND WATERS OF THE US Boulder, Boulder County Map Date: 1/26/2024 Service Layer Credits: Hybrid Reference Layer: Esri Community Maps Contributors, UCB CAD/GIS Office, City of Boulder, Boulder County, Esri, TomTom, 2023 Waters 2023 Wetlands 2019 Sample Point 2021 Sample Point 2023 Sample Point SOUTH BOULDER CREEK FLOODPLAIN MITIGATION 0 500 1,000250 Feet Document Path: C:\CORVUS Dropbox\Team\Clients\RJH\SBC Regional Detention Project - 60% Design\ArcMap\ArcPro\Delineation July 2023\Delineation July 2023.aprx1:9,402 ¤ Attachment B – Wetland Mapping and Functional Evaluation Report Item 3E - 1st Rdg Ord 8624 Adopting Wetlands at CU South Page 105 Packet Page 146 of 523 Attachment B – SBC Floodplain Mitigation Site Plant List Attachment B – Wetland Mapping and Functional Evaluation Report Item 3E - 1st Rdg Ord 8624 Adopting Wetlands at CU South Page 106 Packet Page 147 of 523 South Boulder Creek Floodplain Mitigation Project SBC Floodplain Species List Scientific Name Common Name Agrostis gigantea Redtop Y Agrostis scabra Rough Bentgrass Andropogon gerardii Big Bluestem Carex aquatilis Water Sedge Carex aurea Golden Sedge Carex brevoir Shortbeak Sedge Carex emoryi Emory's Sedge Carex nebrascensis Nebraska sedge Y Carex pellita (Carex lanuginosa)Woolly Sedge Y Eleocharis palustris Common Spikerush Juncus balticus Baltic Rush Juncus longistylis Longstyle Rush Y Schoenoplectus pungens Common Three-square Sorghastrum nutans Indiangrass Spartina pectinata Prairie Cordgrass Y Apocynum cannabinum Dogbane Asclepias incarnata Swamp Milkweed Y Asclepias speciosa Showy Milkweed Y Cirsium arvense Canada Thistle Y Daucus carota Wild Carrot Dipsacus fullonum Common Teasel Epilobium cillatum Fringed Willowherb Geum aleppicum Yellow Avens Iris pseudacorus Yellow Flag Iris Lobelia siphilitica Great Blue Lobelia Lotus tenuis Narrowleaf Trefoil Lycopus americanus Water horehound Mentha arvensis Wild Mint Oenothera villosa Hairy Evening Primrose Panicum virgatum Switchgrass Plantago lanceolata Narrowleaf Plantain Platanthera huronensis Green Bog Orchid Sonchus asper Spiny Sowthistle Symphyotrichum lanceolatum ssp. hesperium White Panicle Aster Thermopsis divaricarpa Golden Banner Typha angustifolia Narrowleaf Cattail Verbena hastata Swamp Verbena Y Virgulus falcatus White Prairie Aster Elaeagnus angustifolia Russian Olive Populus deltoides Eastern Cottonwood Salix amygdaloides Peach Leaf Willow Salix exigua Coyote Willow Salix fragilis Crack Willow Equisetum sp.Scouring-Rush Frequent/Dominant? Grasses/Graminoids Forbs Woody Plants Other Attachment B – Wetland Mapping and Functional Evaluation Report Item 3E - 1st Rdg Ord 8624 Adopting Wetlands at CU South Page 107 Packet Page 148 of 523 Attachment C – Wetland Functional Assessment Form Attachment B – Wetland Mapping and Functional Evaluation Report Item 3E - 1st Rdg Ord 8624 Adopting Wetlands at CU South Page 108 Packet Page 149 of 523 Wetland #1 Former Cooper #NA Location: Boulder, CO. Investigator: Mshields Date 8-Feb-24 Centroid Coordinates: 39.98494695, -105.23382902 Observation method: Onsite Water Source:Groundwater, overland flow.History: Ratings: 1=no, 2=low, 3=medium,4=high, 5=very high Confidence:a=low, b=medium, c=high Function Indicators Comments GROUNDWATER RECHARGE X Surface water inflow exceeds outflow Not permanently flooded/extremely variable water Located high in watershed &/or at local topo. high point X Presence of porous underlying strata Dense vegetated basin slows flow X Outlet constricted &/or dammed Irreg. shape w/ high wetland edge:area ratio Indicated by available groundwater data OVERALL GROUNDWATER RECHARGE FUNCTION Rating 3 Confiden b Previous GROUNDWATER DISCHARGE Seeps or springs present X Low location in watershed &/or local topographic low Geologically diverse such as geologic contact No inlet, but outlet present &/or downstream of dam X Permanently flooded/saturated No signif. accumulation of fine sediments/silts Indicated by available groundwater data OVERALL GROUNDWATER DISCHARGE FUNCTION Rating 4 Confiden b Previous FLOOD STORAGE/FLOODFLOW ALTERATION Located along stream X Outflow restricted High water mark shows periodic flooding Flat topography &/or low gradient X Porous substrate allows infiltration for subsurface storag Rough surface & depressions for aboveground storage Dense veg. basin slows flow X Coarse woody debris present OVERALL FLOOD ALTERATION FUNCTION Rating 4 Confiden b Previous SHORELINE ANCHORING/STABILIZATION Erosional forces/high water velocity/unsheltered loc. Dense vegetation/good water-veg. interspersion Veg. w/strong dense root mass e.g. woody coverage Little evidence of recent erosion Rubble substrate present OVERALL SHORELINE ANCHORING FUNCTION Rating 3 Confiden c Previous SEDIMENT TRAPPING/RETENTION X Constricted outlet/water flow slows Low water velocity/surface water input exceeds output Visible reduction in particulates between inflow/outflow Evidence of sediment/organic matter deposits Dense vegetation present Flat topography &/or gently sloping wetland edges Source of sediments from upstream/offsite activities X Absence of disturbances to re-suspend sediments OVERALL SEDIMENT TRAPPING FUNCTION Rating 3 Confiden c Previous Pond is a stormwater feature that functions to trap stormwater events, has no outlet for downstream sediment dispersal. However, lack of inlet means sediment influx is likely low. WETLAND FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT FORM (p. 1 of 3) Pond and fringe community regularly interface with groundwater. Pond has no inlet or outlet, so additional hydrologic inputs for groundwater recharge is limited. Pond is groundwater fed and exhibits year-round inundation. Water level fluctuates with time of year. Pond and surrounded wetland community have high potential to hold stormwater/flood flows. Mixture of herbaceous and woody vegetation surrounds the shore, area along southwest bank has very little vegetation/provides weak stabilization. Attachment B – Wetland Mapping and Functional Evaluation Report Item 3E - 1st Rdg Ord 8624 Adopting Wetlands at CU South Page 109 Packet Page 150 of 523 Ratings: 1=no, 2=low, 3=medium,4=high, 5=very high Confidence:a=low, b=medium, c=high Function Indicators Comments NUTRIENT RETENTION (long-term) X Permanently flooded/saturated High plant productivity X Presence of woody plants Organic soils present OVERALL NUTRIENT RETENTION (long-term) FUNCTION Rating 3 Confiden b Previous NUTRIENT RETENTION (short-term) X Low water velocity Highly variable water/seasonally flooded High plant productivity Fine mineral soils present OVERALL NUTRIENT RETENTION (short -term) FUNCTION Rating 3 Confiden b Previous FOOD CHAIN SUPPORT (downstream/production export) Presence of outlet High plant productivity/overhanging veg. Seasonal flooding Good flushing flows/high erosion potential Non-acidic water Substrate w/ accumulated organic matter OVERALL FOOD CHAIN EXPORT FUNCTION Rating 1 Confiden c Previous FOOD CHAIN SUPPORT (within basin) High plant productivity X Absence of outlet Low erosion potential/absence of high flows OVERALL FOOD CHAIN SUPPORT (w/in basin) FUNCTION Rating 2 Confiden c Previous FISH HABITAT/AQUATIC DIVERSITY X Some deep open water Non-acidic, clear water No barriers to migration/movement Minimal variation in flow (artificial) X Streambank/edges provide partial cover/cool temps Well-mixed water/adequate oxygen OVERALL FISH/AQUATIC HABITAT FUNCTION Rating 2 Confiden c Previous WILDLIFE HABITAT X Signs of different animals -- scat,prints,shelter X Adjacent wooded area or veg. >20ft wide X Large/ sinuous, irregular basin/with islands X High veg. diversity/good food sources Minimal variation in flow (artificial) X Some open water X Connects to offsite habitat Not channelized or farmed OVERALL WILDLIFE HABITAT FUNCTION Rating 3 Confiden c Previous ACTIVE RECREATION Direct evidence of actual use X Convenient public access Good habitat for animals/fish & high diversity OVERALL ACTIVE RECREATION FUNCTION Rating 1 Confiden c Previous Small wetland fringe around pond may provide some nutrient retention before entering the pond; however, regular interaction between the pond and groundwater mean nutrients that enter the pond likely enter groundwater as well. Small wetland fringe around pond may provide some nutrient retention before entering the pond; however, regular interaction between the pond and groundwater mean nutrients that enter the pond likely enter groundwater as well. No flows/downstream outlet associated with this community. High prevalence of weedy species around/within wetland, but lack of outlet restricts movement of resources out of the community. Pond contains some areas of deeper water; however, a lack of inlet/outlet restricts fish moment to/from the community. Wetland #1 WETLAND FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT FORM (page 2 of 3) Dense woody/weedy vegetation in some portions of this community provide excellent cover for wildlife species. Open water provides a drinking source. However, proximity to development (surrounded on three sides) limits wildlife use. No aquatic recreation opportunities, stormwater pond. Attachment B – Wetland Mapping and Functional Evaluation Report Item 3E - 1st Rdg Ord 8624 Adopting Wetlands at CU South Page 110 Packet Page 151 of 523 Ratings: 1=no, 2=low, 3=medium,4=high, 5=very high Confidence:a=low, b=medium, c=high Function Indicators Comments PASSIVE RECREATION/HERITAGE VALUE High ranked occurrence of plant community Presence of rare plants or animals Landscape diversity Rare or unusual wetland types Natural setting OVERALL PASSIVE RECREATION/UNIQUENESS Rating 2 Confiden c Previous OVERALL FUNCTIONAL INTEGRITY Low degree of disturbance Naturalness of hydrology Diversity of plant community OVERALL FUNCTIONAL INTEGRITY Rating 2 Confiden c Notes: Small habitat oasis in otherwise urban landscape provides a low level of passive recreational value (education, science). Pond in urban setting with moderate weedy encroachment. Wetland #1 WETLAND FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT FORM (page 3 of 3)Attachment B – Wetland Mapping and Functional Evaluation Report Item 3E - 1st Rdg Ord 8624 Adopting Wetlands at CU South Page 111 Packet Page 152 of 523 Wetland #2 Former Cooper #NA Location: Boulder, Colorado.Investigator: Mshields Date 8-Feb-24 Centeroid coordinates: 39.98522474, -105.23574056 Observation method: Onsite Water Source:Overland flow History: Ratings: 1=no, 2=low, 3=medium,4=high, 5=very high Confidence:a=low, b=medium, c=high Function Indicators Comments GROUNDWATER RECHARGE Surface water inflow exceeds outflow X Not permanently flooded/extremely variable water Located high in watershed &/or at local topo. high point Presence of porous underlying strata Dense vegetated basin slows flow Outlet constricted &/or dammed Irreg. shape w/ high wetland edge:area ratio Indicated by available groundwater data OVERALL GROUNDWATER RECHARGE FUNCTION Rating 2 Confiden b Previous GROUNDWATER DISCHARGE X Seeps or springs present X Low location in watershed &/or local topographic low Geologically diverse such as geologic contact No inlet, but outlet present &/or downstream of dam Permanently flooded/saturated No signif. accumulation of fine sediments/silts Indicated by available groundwater data OVERALL GROUNDWATER DISCHARGE FUNCTION Rating 3 Confiden b Previous FLOOD STORAGE/FLOODFLOW ALTERATION Located along stream Outflow restricted High water mark shows periodic flooding X Flat topography &/or low gradient Porous substrate allows infiltration for subsurface storag Rough surface & depressions for aboveground storage X Dense veg. basin slows flow Coarse woody debris present OVERALL FLOOD ALTERATION FUNCTION Rating 2 Confiden c Previous SHORELINE ANCHORING/STABILIZATION Erosional forces/high water velocity/unsheltered loc. Dense vegetation/good water-veg. interspersion Veg. w/strong dense root mass e.g. woody coverage Little evidence of recent erosion Rubble substrate present OVERALL SHORELINE ANCHORING FUNCTION Rating 1 Confiden c Previous SEDIMENT TRAPPING/RETENTION Constricted outlet/water flow slows Low water velocity/surface water input exceeds output Visible reduction in particulates between inflow/outflow Evidence of sediment/organic matter deposits Dense vegetation present X Flat topography &/or gently sloping wetland edges Source of sediments from upstream/offsite activities Absence of disturbances to re-suspend sediments OVERALL SEDIMENT TRAPPING FUNCTION Rating 2 Confiden c Previous WETLAND FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT FORM (p. 1 of 3) Roadside swale containing PEM wetland community. Fully vegetated swale slows flow. Drainage swale exhibits ephemeral flow, at best, as evidenced by no defined OHWM. Main hydrology source provided by groundwater seep. Community/associated depression is small and shallow, does not have high flood storage capacity or flood flow capacity. Community located within roadside swale; however, no open water is present, and vegetation is herbaceous (provides less root-based stability than woody communities). Wetland community is part of a roadside swale isolated within a the upland community. Sediment inputs are low in general. Dense herbaceous vegetation present. Attachment B – Wetland Mapping and Functional Evaluation Report Item 3E - 1st Rdg Ord 8624 Adopting Wetlands at CU South Page 112 Packet Page 153 of 523 Ratings: 1=no, 2=low, 3=medium,4=high, 5=very high Confidence:a=low, b=medium, c=high Function Indicators Comments NUTRIENT RETENTION (long-term) Permanently flooded/saturated High plant productivity Presence of woody plants Organic soils present OVERALL NUTRIENT RETENTION (long-term) FUNCTION Rating 2 Confiden b Previous NUTRIENT RETENTION (short-term) X Low water velocity X Highly variable water/seasonally flooded High plant productivity Fine mineral soils present OVERALL NUTRIENT RETENTION (short -term) FUNCTION Rating 2 Confiden b Previous FOOD CHAIN SUPPORT (downstream/production export) Presence of outlet High plant productivity/overhanging veg. X Seasonal flooding Good flushing flows/high erosion potential Non-acidic water Substrate w/ accumulated organic matter OVERALL FOOD CHAIN EXPORT FUNCTION Rating 1 Confiden c Previous FOOD CHAIN SUPPORT (within basin) High plant productivity X Absence of outlet Low erosion potential/absence of high flows OVERALL FOOD CHAIN SUPPORT (w/in basin) FUNCTION Rating 2 Confiden c Previous FISH HABITAT/AQUATIC DIVERSITY Some deep open water Non-acidic, clear water No barriers to migration/movement Minimal variation in flow (artificial) Streambank/edges provide partial cover/cool temps Well-mixed water/adequate oxygen OVERALL FISH/AQUATIC HABITAT FUNCTION Rating 1 Confiden c Previous WILDLIFE HABITAT Signs of different animals -- scat,prints,shelter Adjacent wooded area or veg. >20ft wide Large/ sinuous, irregular basin/with islands High veg. diversity/good food sources Minimal variation in flow (artificial) X Some open water X Connects to offsite habitat X Not channelized or farmed OVERALL WILDLIFE HABITAT FUNCTION Rating 2 Confiden c Previous ACTIVE RECREATION Direct evidence of actual use X Convenient public access Good habitat for animals/fish & high diversity OVERALL ACTIVE RECREATION FUNCTION Rating 1 Confiden c Previous No direct downgradient connections to other aquatic features. Seasonal ponding remains in swale and is not transported outside the feature. Community sits within a swale and is not associated with consistent flow. Infrequent ponding occurs in this community. No direct upstream or downstream connection. Swale community ocassionally hosts open water, and is connected to a larger open space area; however, it is directly adjacent and parallels a paved road within an urban settings. No direct aquatic recreation potential. Wetland #2 WETLAND FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT FORM (page 2 of 3) Drainage swale is isolated with no direct connect to downgradient aquatic features to export nutrients. Swale is fully vegetated with herbaceous vegetation and semi-permanantely saturated. Flow in swale is best described as ephemeral, and is very infrequent, based largely around large rainfall events. Swale is fully vegetated with herbaceous vegetation and semi-permanantely saturated. Attachment B – Wetland Mapping and Functional Evaluation Report Item 3E - 1st Rdg Ord 8624 Adopting Wetlands at CU South Page 113 Packet Page 154 of 523 Ratings: 1=no, 2=low, 3=medium,4=high, 5=very high Confidence:a=low, b=medium, c=high Function Indicators Comments PASSIVE RECREATION/HERITAGE VALUE High ranked occurrence of plant community Presence of rare plants or animals Landscape diversity Rare or unusual wetland types X Natural setting OVERALL PASSIVE RECREATION/UNIQUENESS Rating 2 Confiden c Previous OVERALL FUNCTIONAL INTEGRITY Low degree of disturbance Naturalness of hydrology Diversity of plant community OVERALL FUNCTIONAL INTEGRITY Rating 2 Confidence Notes: Common wetland community in historically disturbed environment. Groundwater driven wetland community in an urban setting. Wetland #2 WETLAND FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT FORM (page 3 of 3)Attachment B – Wetland Mapping and Functional Evaluation Report Item 3E - 1st Rdg Ord 8624 Adopting Wetlands at CU South Page 114 Packet Page 155 of 523 Wetland #3 Former Cooper #NA Location: Boulder, CO Investigator: Mshields Date 8-Feb-24 Centroid coordinates: 39.98369393, -105.23213564 Observation method: Onsite Water Source:Viele Channel, Groundwater History: Ratings: 1=no, 2=low, 3=medium,4=high, 5=very high Confidence:a=low, b=medium, c=high Function Indicators Comments GROUNDWATER RECHARGE Surface water inflow exceeds outflow Not permanently flooded/extremely variable water Located high in watershed &/or at local topo. high point Presence of porous underlying strata X Dense vegetated basin slows flow X Outlet constricted &/or dammed Irreg. shape w/ high wetland edge:area ratio Indicated by available groundwater data OVERALL GROUNDWATER RECHARGE FUNCTION Rating 2 Confiden b Previous GROUNDWATER DISCHARGE X Seeps or springs present X Low location in watershed &/or local topographic low Geologically diverse such as geologic contact No inlet, but outlet present &/or downstream of dam X Permanently flooded/saturated No signif. accumulation of fine sediments/silts Indicated by available groundwater data OVERALL GROUNDWATER DISCHARGE FUNCTION Rating 3 Confiden c Previous FLOOD STORAGE/FLOODFLOW ALTERATION X Located along stream Outflow restricted High water mark shows periodic flooding X Flat topography &/or low gradient Porous substrate allows infiltration for subsurface storag Rough surface & depressions for aboveground storage X Dense veg. basin slows flow X Coarse woody debris present OVERALL FLOOD ALTERATION FUNCTION Rating 3 Confiden c Previous SHORELINE ANCHORING/STABILIZATION X Erosional forces/high water velocity/unsheltered loc. X Dense vegetation/good water-veg. interspersion X Veg. w/strong dense root mass e.g. woody coverage Little evidence of recent erosion Rubble substrate present OVERALL SHORELINE ANCHORING FUNCTION Rating 2 Confiden c Previous SEDIMENT TRAPPING/RETENTION Constricted outlet/water flow slows Low water velocity/surface water input exceeds output Visible reduction in particulates between inflow/outflow X Evidence of sediment/organic matter deposits X Dense vegetation present Flat topography &/or gently sloping wetland edges Source of sediments from upstream/offsite activities Absence of disturbances to re-suspend sediments OVERALL SEDIMENT TRAPPING FUNCTION Rating 3 Confiden c Previous WETLAND FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT FORM (p. 1 of 3) Groundwater exchange within ponded setting. Groundwater provides year-round hydrology to pond within topographic low area along drainage swale. Pond permanently flooded. Located along Viele Channel and within the SBC floodway. Drainage swale comprised of dense cattail community with a coyote willow fringe. Bent vegetation communities provides evidence of flooding/high flow events. Low gradients along this drainage coupled with high vegetation cover provides moderate flood flow storage. Dense woody vegetation on both banks of Viele Channel. Channel filled with dense vegetation but still hosts evidence of flow events and small pockets of open water. No evidence of recent erosion. Dense cattail community proficient at capturing sediment. However, large flow events likely move some sediment through this system. Attachment B – Wetland Mapping and Functional Evaluation Report Item 3E - 1st Rdg Ord 8624 Adopting Wetlands at CU South Page 115 Packet Page 156 of 523 Ratings: 1=no, 2=low, 3=medium,4=high, 5=very high Confidence:a=low, b=medium, c=high Function Indicators Comments NUTRIENT RETENTION (long-term) X Permanently flooded/saturated High plant productivity X Presence of woody plants X Organic soils present OVERALL NUTRIENT RETENTION (long-term) FUNCTION Rating 3 Confiden b Previous NUTRIENT RETENTION (short-term) Low water velocity Highly variable water/seasonally flooded High plant productivity Fine mineral soils present OVERALL NUTRIENT RETENTION (short -term) FUNCTION Rating 3 Confiden b Previous FOOD CHAIN SUPPORT (downstream/production export) X Presence of outlet X High plant productivity/overhanging veg. X Seasonal flooding X Good flushing flows/high erosion potential Non-acidic water X Substrate w/ accumulated organic matter OVERALL FOOD CHAIN EXPORT FUNCTION Rating 4 Confiden c Previous FOOD CHAIN SUPPORT (within basin) X High plant productivity Absence of outlet Low erosion potential/absence of high flows OVERALL FOOD CHAIN SUPPORT (w/in basin) FUNCTION Rating 2 Confiden b Previous FISH HABITAT/AQUATIC DIVERSITY Some deep open water Non-acidic, clear water No barriers to migration/movement Minimal variation in flow (artificial) X Streambank/edges provide partial cover/cool temps Well-mixed water/adequate oxygen OVERALL FISH/AQUATIC HABITAT FUNCTION Rating 2 Confiden c Previous WILDLIFE HABITAT X Signs of different animals -- scat,prints,shelter X Adjacent wooded area or veg. >20ft wide Large/ sinuous, irregular basin/with islands X High veg. diversity/good food sources Minimal variation in flow (artificial) X Some open water X Connects to offsite habitat Not channelized or farmed OVERALL WILDLIFE HABITAT FUNCTION Rating 3 Confiden c Previous ACTIVE RECREATION Direct evidence of actual use Convenient public access Good habitat for animals/fish & high diversity OVERALL ACTIVE RECREATION FUNCTION Rating 1 Confiden c Previous Wetland #3 WETLAND FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT FORM (page 2 of 3) Area permanently saturated with ocassional flooding. Dense vegetation including woody plants is prevalent throughout the feature, organic soils likely present. Area permanently saturated with ocassional flooding. Dense vegetation including woody plants is prevalent throughout the feature. Downstream culvert provides continued food chain support within Viele Channel and it's associated communities. Large flow events in the channel help facilitate this movement. Community exhibits high plant productivity that maintains food chain support in-basin, especially in drought years with low, infrequent flow events. Open waters are scattered throughout this community but are transient based on sediment deposition and frequency of flushing flows. Observed avian use in this community. Diversity of dense vegetation stratum provides wildlife security, while the channel itself provides a water source. Wildlife habitat limited due to proximity to trail/roadway, and general urban setting. No aquatic recreation opportunities. Attachment B – Wetland Mapping and Functional Evaluation Report Item 3E - 1st Rdg Ord 8624 Adopting Wetlands at CU South Page 116 Packet Page 157 of 523 Ratings: 1=no, 2=low, 3=medium,4=high, 5=very high Confidence:a=low, b=medium, c=high Function Indicators Comments PASSIVE RECREATION/HERITAGE VALUE High ranked occurrence of plant community Presence of rare plants or animals Landscape diversity Rare or unusual wetland types Natural setting OVERALL PASSIVE RECREATION/UNIQUENESS Rating 2 Confiden c Previous OVERALL FUNCTIONAL INTEGRITY Low degree of disturbance Naturalness of hydrology X Diversity of plant community OVERALL FUNCTIONAL INTEGRITY Rating 2 Confiden c Notes: Wetland #3 WETLAND FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT FORM (page 3 of 3) Community doesn't have continual physical disturbance (pedestrian use) and exhibits veg. communitiy diversity, but is located in an urban setting, with hydrologic inputs modified by increasing impervious surface area. Community hosts a diverse vegetation palette, but has weedy encroachment from the uplands. Attachment B – Wetland Mapping and Functional Evaluation Report Item 3E - 1st Rdg Ord 8624 Adopting Wetlands at CU South Page 117 Packet Page 158 of 523 Wetland #4 Former Cooper #NA Location: Boulder, CO Investigator: Mshields Date 8-Feb-24 Centroid coordinates: 39.98161864, -105.23018274 Observation method: Onsite Water Source:Groundwater, overland flow, drainage swales History: Ratings: 1=no, 2=low, 3=medium,4=high, 5=very high Confidence:a=low, b=medium, c=high Function Indicators Comments GROUNDWATER RECHARGE Surface water inflow exceeds outflow Not permanently flooded/extremely variable water Located high in watershed &/or at local topo. high point Presence of porous underlying strata X Dense vegetated basin slows flow X Outlet constricted &/or dammed Irreg. shape w/ high wetland edge:area ratio Indicated by available groundwater data OVERALL GROUNDWATER RECHARGE FUNCTION Rating 3 Confiden b Previous GROUNDWATER DISCHARGE X Seeps or springs present X Low location in watershed &/or local topographic low Geologically diverse such as geologic contact No inlet, but outlet present &/or downstream of dam X Permanently flooded/saturated No signif. accumulation of fine sediments/silts Indicated by available groundwater data OVERALL GROUNDWATER DISCHARGE FUNCTION Rating 3 Confiden c Previous FLOOD STORAGE/FLOODFLOW ALTERATION Located along stream Outflow restricted High water mark shows periodic flooding X Flat topography &/or low gradient X Porous substrate allows infiltration for subsurface storag Rough surface & depressions for aboveground storage X Dense veg. basin slows flow X Coarse woody debris present OVERALL FLOOD ALTERATION FUNCTION Rating 4 Confiden c Previous SHORELINE ANCHORING/STABILIZATION Erosional forces/high water velocity/unsheltered loc. Dense vegetation/good water-veg. interspersion X Veg. w/strong dense root mass e.g. woody coverage Little evidence of recent erosion X Rubble substrate present OVERALL SHORELINE ANCHORING FUNCTION Rating 3 Confiden b Previous SEDIMENT TRAPPING/RETENTION X Constricted outlet/water flow slows X Low water velocity/surface water input exceeds output Visible reduction in particulates between inflow/outflow Evidence of sediment/organic matter deposits X Dense vegetation present X Flat topography &/or gently sloping wetland edges Source of sediments from upstream/offsite activities Absence of disturbances to re-suspend sediments OVERALL SEDIMENT TRAPPING FUNCTION Rating 4 Confiden c Previous WETLAND FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT FORM (p. 1 of 3) Groundwater & drainage fed pond that recieves additional hydrology from overland flow/drainage canals. Located in previous excavated gravel mine. Pond is located in low area along east end of previously excavated gravel mine. Hydrology provided partially from upgradient seeps, partially from high groundwater table. Pond and associated PEM/PSS communities are located in a topographically flat area previously exacavated for mining activities. Community/pond is located within the SBC floodway. Dense veg. encompasses much of the area surrounding the pond feature; however, a large segment on the southwest side of the pond is bare from pedestrian use. Small, fully vegetated outlet to pond. Wetland swale continues north and is constricted again by a culvert. Inconsistent flow in drainage swale with no open channel. Cattail community dominates much of the PEM communities present. Attachment B – Wetland Mapping and Functional Evaluation Report Item 3E - 1st Rdg Ord 8624 Adopting Wetlands at CU South Page 118 Packet Page 159 of 523 Ratings: 1=no, 2=low, 3=medium,4=high, 5=very high Confidence:a=low, b=medium, c=high Function Indicators Comments NUTRIENT RETENTION (long-term) X Permanently flooded/saturated X High plant productivity X Presence of woody plants Organic soils present OVERALL NUTRIENT RETENTION (long-term) FUNCTION Rating 3 Confiden c Previous NUTRIENT RETENTION (short-term) X Low water velocity Highly variable water/seasonally flooded X High plant productivity Fine mineral soils present OVERALL NUTRIENT RETENTION (short -term) FUNCTION Rating 3 Confiden c Previous FOOD CHAIN SUPPORT (downstream/production export) X Presence of outlet X High plant productivity/overhanging veg. Seasonal flooding Good flushing flows/high erosion potential Non-acidic water Substrate w/ accumulated organic matter OVERALL FOOD CHAIN EXPORT FUNCTION Rating 2 Confiden c Previous FOOD CHAIN SUPPORT (within basin) X High plant productivity Absence of outlet X Low erosion potential/absence of high flows OVERALL FOOD CHAIN SUPPORT (w/in basin) FUNCTION Rating 3 Confiden c Previous FISH HABITAT/AQUATIC DIVERSITY X Some deep open water Non-acidic, clear water No barriers to migration/movement Minimal variation in flow (artificial) X Streambank/edges provide partial cover/cool temps Well-mixed water/adequate oxygen OVERALL FISH/AQUATIC HABITAT FUNCTION Rating 2 Confiden c Previous WILDLIFE HABITAT X Signs of different animals -- scat,prints,shelter Adjacent wooded area or veg. >20ft wide Large/ sinuous, irregular basin/with islands High veg. diversity/good food sources Minimal variation in flow (artificial) X Some open water Connects to offsite habitat Not channelized or farmed OVERALL WILDLIFE HABITAT FUNCTION Rating 2 Confiden c Previous ACTIVE RECREATION X Direct evidence of actual use X Convenient public access Good habitat for animals/fish & high diversity OVERALL ACTIVE RECREATION FUNCTION Rating 3 Confiden b Previous Dense vegetation and lack of consistent flows keep resources mainly in the wetland/basin. Outlet present but dense with a cattail dominated PEM community that likely retains much of the nutrients/resources. Pond hosts some deeper pockets but lacks a defined channel upstream and downstream to connect fish populations. Dense, varied vegetation communities provide wildlife cover, and open water provides water source; however, prolific pedestrian use likely deters consistent wildlife use. Community is surrounded by disturbance on all sides (trails, fencing, building). Community located directly adjacent to a trail. The pond segment of this community is used as a dog park (swimming). Wetland #4 WETLAND FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT FORM (page 2 of 3) Area is permanently flooded and contains dense, varied vegetation communities (mix of PEM/PSS). Area is permanently flooded and contains dense, varied vegetation communities (mix of PEM/PSS). Community and pond not located on a natural watercourse, doesn't receive flushing flows. Attachment B – Wetland Mapping and Functional Evaluation Report Item 3E - 1st Rdg Ord 8624 Adopting Wetlands at CU South Page 119 Packet Page 160 of 523 Ratings: 1=no, 2=low, 3=medium,4=high, 5=very high Confidence:a=low, b=medium, c=high Function Indicators Comments PASSIVE RECREATION/HERITAGE VALUE High ranked occurrence of plant community Presence of rare plants or animals Landscape diversity Rare or unusual wetland types Natural setting OVERALL PASSIVE RECREATION/UNIQUENESS Rating 2 Confiden c Previous OVERALL FUNCTIONAL INTEGRITY Low degree of disturbance Naturalness of hydrology Diversity of plant community OVERALL FUNCTIONAL INTEGRITY Rating 2 Confiden c Notes: Highly disturbed in some areas, more natural in others. A large portion of this community is highly disturbed by pedestrian use. Vegetated swale portion of community hosts typical PEM/PSS wetland communities dominated by cattail and coyote willow. Educational value still present for hobbies like bird watching. Wetland #4 WETLAND FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT FORM (page 3 of 3)Attachment B – Wetland Mapping and Functional Evaluation Report Item 3E - 1st Rdg Ord 8624 Adopting Wetlands at CU South Page 120 Packet Page 161 of 523 Wetland #5 Former Cooper #NA Location: Boulder, CO Investigator: Mshields Date 8-Feb-24 Centroid coordinates: 39.97346173, -105.22763275 Observation method: Onsite Water Source:Groundwater seeps, overland flow History: Ratings: 1=no, 2=low, 3=medium,4=high, 5=very high Confidence:a=low, b=medium, c=high Function Indicators Comments GROUNDWATER RECHARGE Surface water inflow exceeds outflow Not permanently flooded/extremely variable water Located high in watershed &/or at local topo. high point X Presence of porous underlying strata X Dense vegetated basin slows flow Outlet constricted &/or dammed X Irreg. shape w/ high wetland edge:area ratio Indicated by available groundwater data OVERALL GROUNDWATER RECHARGE FUNCTION Rating 2 Confiden C Previous GROUNDWATER DISCHARGE X Seeps or springs present Low location in watershed &/or local topographic low Geologically diverse such as geologic contact No inlet, but outlet present &/or downstream of dam X Permanently flooded/saturated No signif. accumulation of fine sediments/silts Indicated by available groundwater data OVERALL GROUNDWATER DISCHARGE FUNCTION Rating 5 Confiden c Previous FLOOD STORAGE/FLOODFLOW ALTERATION Located along stream Outflow restricted High water mark shows periodic flooding Flat topography &/or low gradient Porous substrate allows infiltration for subsurface storag Rough surface & depressions for aboveground storage X Dense veg. basin slows flow X Coarse woody debris present OVERALL FLOOD ALTERATION FUNCTION Rating 2 Confiden c Previous SHORELINE ANCHORING/STABILIZATION Erosional forces/high water velocity/unsheltered loc. X Dense vegetation/good water-veg. interspersion X Veg. w/strong dense root mass e.g. woody coverage Little evidence of recent erosion Rubble substrate present OVERALL SHORELINE ANCHORING FUNCTION Rating 2 Confiden b Previous SEDIMENT TRAPPING/RETENTION X Constricted outlet/water flow slows X Low water velocity/surface water input exceeds output Visible reduction in particulates between inflow/outflow Evidence of sediment/organic matter deposits X Dense vegetation present Flat topography &/or gently sloping wetland edges Source of sediments from upstream/offsite activities Absence of disturbances to re-suspend sediments OVERALL SEDIMENT TRAPPING FUNCTION Rating 2 Confiden c Previous WETLAND FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT FORM (p. 1 of 3) Community contains areas where groundwater breaches the surface and flows downgradient. Some lower areas may pond and recharge groundwater but for the most part these appear to discharge from belowground and flow downgradient. Primary source of hydrology for these communities is a series of groundwater seeps. Historic exacavation has brought the ground surface elevation of many areas of the site below the water table. Communities permanently saturated, with flowing surface water at times (no channel). Dense vegetation comprises this PEM/PSS community. Drainage swales are present but do not contain OHWM/exhibit consistent flow. No open water present, but overland flow occurs in these communities. Slow water velocities from groundwater seeps, but no large source of sediment (no stream/river). Attachment B – Wetland Mapping and Functional Evaluation Report Item 3E - 1st Rdg Ord 8624 Adopting Wetlands at CU South Page 121 Packet Page 162 of 523 Ratings: 1=no, 2=low, 3=medium,4=high, 5=very high Confidence:a=low, b=medium, c=high Function Indicators Comments NUTRIENT RETENTION (long-term) X Permanently flooded/saturated X High plant productivity X Presence of woody plants Organic soils present OVERALL NUTRIENT RETENTION (long-term) FUNCTION Rating 3 Confiden c Previous NUTRIENT RETENTION (short-term) X Low water velocity Highly variable water/seasonally flooded X High plant productivity Fine mineral soils present OVERALL NUTRIENT RETENTION (short -term) FUNCTION Rating 3 Confiden b Previous FOOD CHAIN SUPPORT (downstream/production export) Presence of outlet X High plant productivity/overhanging veg. Seasonal flooding Good flushing flows/high erosion potential Non-acidic water Substrate w/ accumulated organic matter OVERALL FOOD CHAIN EXPORT FUNCTION Rating 2 Confiden C Previous FOOD CHAIN SUPPORT (within basin) X High plant productivity Absence of outlet X Low erosion potential/absence of high flows OVERALL FOOD CHAIN SUPPORT (w/in basin) FUNCTION Rating 3 Confiden c Previous FISH HABITAT/AQUATIC DIVERSITY Some deep open water Non-acidic, clear water No barriers to migration/movement Minimal variation in flow (artificial) Streambank/edges provide partial cover/cool temps Well-mixed water/adequate oxygen OVERALL FISH/AQUATIC HABITAT FUNCTION Rating 1 Confiden c Previous WILDLIFE HABITAT X Signs of different animals -- scat,prints,shelter X Adjacent wooded area or veg. >20ft wide X Large/ sinuous, irregular basin/with islands X High veg. diversity/good food sources X Minimal variation in flow (artificial) Some open water X Connects to offsite habitat X Not channelized or farmed OVERALL WILDLIFE HABITAT FUNCTION Rating 4 Confiden c Previous ACTIVE RECREATION Direct evidence of actual use Convenient public access Good habitat for animals/fish & high diversity OVERALL ACTIVE RECREATION FUNCTION Rating 1 Confiden c Previous Wetland #5 WETLAND FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT FORM (page 2 of 3) Seeps provide hydrology, keeping communities saturated. Woody plants (SAEX) present spordically along this community. Seeps provide hydrology, keeping communities saturated. Woody plants (SAEX) present spordically along this community. No flushing flows as this community is not along a natural channel. High plant productivity. Low gradient/lack of flow. Not along natural stream course, any food chain production likely stays within the community/basin. No open water present. Mosaic of weltand seeps in an otherwise upland community provides resources for wildlife including avians and amphibians. Deer observed using willow stands for cover. High wetland boundary roughness. Area as a whole is used as a dog park/pedestrian recreation area which may deter wildlife use to a degree. No aquatic recreation potential. Attachment B – Wetland Mapping and Functional Evaluation Report Item 3E - 1st Rdg Ord 8624 Adopting Wetlands at CU South Page 122 Packet Page 163 of 523 Ratings: 1=no, 2=low, 3=medium,4=high, 5=very high Confidence:a=low, b=medium, c=high Function Indicators Comments PASSIVE RECREATION/HERITAGE VALUE X High ranked occurrence of plant community X Presence of rare plants or animals X Landscape diversity X Rare or unusual wetland types Natural setting OVERALL PASSIVE RECREATION/UNIQUENESS Rating 5 Confiden c Previous OVERALL FUNCTIONAL INTEGRITY Low degree of disturbance X Naturalness of hydrology X Diversity of plant community OVERALL FUNCTIONAL INTEGRITY Rating 3 Confiden b Notes: Wetland #5 WETLAND FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT FORM (page 3 of 3) Seep hydrology driven by previous excavation/mining activities. Area hosts a diverse, rare plant population. Groundwater seep communities host federally-protected orchid species in otherwise upland enviornment. Attachment B – Wetland Mapping and Functional Evaluation Report Item 3E - 1st Rdg Ord 8624 Adopting Wetlands at CU South Page 123 Packet Page 164 of 523 Wetland #6 Former Cooper #NA Location: Boulder, CO Investigator: Mshields Date 8-Feb-24 Centroid coordinates: 39.97401491, -105.22633615 Observation method: Onsite Water Source:Drainage canals, overland flow History: Ratings: 1=no, 2=low, 3=medium,4=high, 5=very high Confidence:a=low, b=medium, c=high Function Indicators Comments GROUNDWATER RECHARGE Surface water inflow exceeds outflow Not permanently flooded/extremely variable water Located high in watershed &/or at local topo. high point Presence of porous underlying strata Dense vegetated basin slows flow Outlet constricted &/or dammed Irreg. shape w/ high wetland edge:area ratio Indicated by available groundwater data OVERALL GROUNDWATER RECHARGE FUNCTION Rating 2 Confiden c Previous GROUNDWATER DISCHARGE X Seeps or springs present X Low location in watershed &/or local topographic low Geologically diverse such as geologic contact No inlet, but outlet present &/or downstream of dam X Permanently flooded/saturated No signif. accumulation of fine sediments/silts Indicated by available groundwater data OVERALL GROUNDWATER DISCHARGE FUNCTION Rating 2 Confiden c Previous FLOOD STORAGE/FLOODFLOW ALTERATION X Located along stream Outflow restricted High water mark shows periodic flooding X Flat topography &/or low gradient Porous substrate allows infiltration for subsurface storag Rough surface & depressions for aboveground storage X Dense veg. basin slows flow X Coarse woody debris present OVERALL FLOOD ALTERATION FUNCTION Rating 2 Confiden b Previous SHORELINE ANCHORING/STABILIZATION Erosional forces/high water velocity/unsheltered loc. X Dense vegetation/good water-veg. interspersion X Veg. w/strong dense root mass e.g. woody coverage X Little evidence of recent erosion Rubble substrate present OVERALL SHORELINE ANCHORING FUNCTION Rating 3 Confiden c Previous SEDIMENT TRAPPING/RETENTION Constricted outlet/water flow slows Low water velocity/surface water input exceeds output Visible reduction in particulates between inflow/outflow Evidence of sediment/organic matter deposits X Dense vegetation present Flat topography &/or gently sloping wetland edges Source of sediments from upstream/offsite activities Absence of disturbances to re-suspend sediments OVERALL SEDIMENT TRAPPING FUNCTION Rating 2 Confiden c Previous WETLAND FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT FORM (p. 1 of 3) PEM wetland fringe along manmade drainage canals east of an earthen berm including Dry Creek No. 2 and South Boulder and Bear Creek Ditches. Dense vegetation adjacent to the ditches and within the OHWM in places. Groundwater recharge may occur in low-lying wetland communities adjacent to these drainages that host gravelly/porous substrates, but is likely infrequent in this community. Groundwater seeps are present in the area and may provide overland flow to these drainages; however, the seeps are not the primary source of hydrology. Located along constructed, low gradient drainges ditches that are diversion controlled. PSS communities located along these ditches in select areas. Dense vegetation present in some segments of these ditches. A large portion of this community is located within the SBC floodway. Constructed channels, no erosion observed. Dense vegetation along both banks. Dense vegetation present in some portions of the drainages, but overall remain clear and flowing. Flow in ditches is controlled via upstream diversion from SBC. Attachment B – Wetland Mapping and Functional Evaluation Report Item 3E - 1st Rdg Ord 8624 Adopting Wetlands at CU South Page 124 Packet Page 165 of 523 Ratings: 1=no, 2=low, 3=medium,4=high, 5=very high Confidence:a=low, b=medium, c=high Function Indicators Comments NUTRIENT RETENTION (long-term) Permanently flooded/saturated X High plant productivity X Presence of woody plants Organic soils present OVERALL NUTRIENT RETENTION (long-term) FUNCTION Rating 3 Confiden b Previous NUTRIENT RETENTION (short-term) X Low water velocity Highly variable water/seasonally flooded X High plant productivity Fine mineral soils present OVERALL NUTRIENT RETENTION (short -term) FUNCTION Rating 3 Confiden b Previous FOOD CHAIN SUPPORT (downstream/production export) X Presence of outlet X High plant productivity/overhanging veg. Seasonal flooding Good flushing flows/high erosion potential Non-acidic water X Substrate w/ accumulated organic matter OVERALL FOOD CHAIN EXPORT FUNCTION Rating 4 Confiden c Previous FOOD CHAIN SUPPORT (within basin) X High plant productivity Absence of outlet X Low erosion potential/absence of high flows OVERALL FOOD CHAIN SUPPORT (w/in basin) FUNCTION Rating 3 Confiden b Previous FISH HABITAT/AQUATIC DIVERSITY Some deep open water Non-acidic, clear water No barriers to migration/movement Minimal variation in flow (artificial) X Streambank/edges provide partial cover/cool temps Well-mixed water/adequate oxygen OVERALL FISH/AQUATIC HABITAT FUNCTION Rating 3 Confiden c Previous WILDLIFE HABITAT X Signs of different animals -- scat,prints,shelter X Adjacent wooded area or veg. >20ft wide Large/ sinuous, irregular basin/with islands X High veg. diversity/good food sources Minimal variation in flow (artificial) X Some open water X Connects to offsite habitat Not channelized or farmed OVERALL WILDLIFE HABITAT FUNCTION Rating 4 Confiden c Previous ACTIVE RECREATION Direct evidence of actual use X Convenient public access Good habitat for animals/fish & high diversity OVERALL ACTIVE RECREATION FUNCTION Rating 2 Confiden c Previous Wetland #6 WETLAND FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT FORM (page 2 of 3) Diverse PEM/PSS community fringe present along the drainage ditches. Plant communities not fully woody. Low velocities in drainage ditch coupled with dense vegetation cover allow for nutrient retention. Through-flow in drainage ditches allows export of nutrients/sediment to downstream communities. Organic accumulation in fringe communities. Flow in drainage ditches maintains food resource export, but lack of large/flood events keeps some resources in the adjacent wetland communities. Flow controlled by diversion and passes through multiple constriction points (culverts). Observations of aquatic-dependent species including northern leopard frog made in this community. Adjcaent to open spaces along much of the community; however, social trails dissect habitat in some locations. Drainage ditches provide limited aquatic recreation opportunities. Public access provided by trails. Dogs observed in these ditches. Attachment B – Wetland Mapping and Functional Evaluation Report Item 3E - 1st Rdg Ord 8624 Adopting Wetlands at CU South Page 125 Packet Page 166 of 523 Ratings: 1=no, 2=low, 3=medium,4=high, 5=very high Confidence:a=low, b=medium, c=high Function Indicators Comments PASSIVE RECREATION/HERITAGE VALUE X High ranked occurrence of plant community X Presence of rare plants or animals Landscape diversity Rare or unusual wetland types Natural setting OVERALL PASSIVE RECREATION/UNIQUENESS Rating 4 Confiden c Previous OVERALL FUNCTIONAL INTEGRITY Low degree of disturbance Naturalness of hydrology X Diversity of plant community OVERALL FUNCTIONAL INTEGRITY Rating 3 Confiden c Notes: Wetland #6 WETLAND FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT FORM (page 3 of 3) Hydrology unnatural (drainage ditches with flow diverted from SBC), but wetland communities are diverse in species and strata, and host rare plant species. Although the environmental setting in these communities is unnatural (from diversion fed canals), a small number of federally-protected orchid are present in the area. Attachment B – Wetland Mapping and Functional Evaluation Report Item 3E - 1st Rdg Ord 8624 Adopting Wetlands at CU South Page 126 Packet Page 167 of 523 Wetland #7 Former Cooper #NA Location: Boulder, CO Investigator: Mshields Date 8-Feb-24 Centroid coordinates: 39.97487241, -105.22532846 Observation method: Onsite Water Source:Groundwater, overland flow History: Ratings: 1=no, 2=low, 3=medium,4=high, 5=very high Confidence:a=low, b=medium, c=high Function Indicators Comments GROUNDWATER RECHARGE Surface water inflow exceeds outflow Not permanently flooded/extremely variable water Located high in watershed &/or at local topo. high point X Presence of porous underlying strata X Dense vegetated basin slows flow X Outlet constricted &/or dammed Irreg. shape w/ high wetland edge:area ratio Indicated by available groundwater data OVERALL GROUNDWATER RECHARGE FUNCTION Rating 2 Confiden b Previous GROUNDWATER DISCHARGE X Seeps or springs present X Low location in watershed &/or local topographic low Geologically diverse such as geologic contact X No inlet, but outlet present &/or downstream of dam Permanently flooded/saturated No signif. accumulation of fine sediments/silts Indicated by available groundwater data OVERALL GROUNDWATER DISCHARGE FUNCTION Rating 4 Confiden c Previous FLOOD STORAGE/FLOODFLOW ALTERATION Located along stream X Outflow restricted High water mark shows periodic flooding X Flat topography &/or low gradient Porous substrate allows infiltration for subsurface storag X Rough surface & depressions for aboveground storage X Dense veg. basin slows flow X Coarse woody debris present OVERALL FLOOD ALTERATION FUNCTION Rating 3 Confiden c Previous SHORELINE ANCHORING/STABILIZATION Erosional forces/high water velocity/unsheltered loc. Dense vegetation/good water-veg. interspersion Veg. w/strong dense root mass e.g. woody coverage Little evidence of recent erosion Rubble substrate present OVERALL SHORELINE ANCHORING FUNCTION Rating 1 Confiden c Previous SEDIMENT TRAPPING/RETENTION X Constricted outlet/water flow slows Low water velocity/surface water input exceeds output Visible reduction in particulates between inflow/outflow Evidence of sediment/organic matter deposits X Dense vegetation present Flat topography &/or gently sloping wetland edges Source of sediments from upstream/offsite activities Absence of disturbances to re-suspend sediments OVERALL SEDIMENT TRAPPING FUNCTION Rating 2 Confiden b Previous WETLAND FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT FORM (p. 1 of 3) Groundwater fed PEM wet meadow community in the SBC floodway. Area is fully vegetated with no drainageways. Downgradient of earthen berm that separates the excavated mine area from the SBC floodplain. Community is not located along a stream course; however, it is located within the SBC floodway and may receive flood flows during large events. Variable vegetation, low gradients, and microtopography indicate a moderate level of above-ground flood storage capacity. No open waters present. Although this community is densely vegetated, there are no channels/streams present within to carry sediment into or out of this community. Attachment B – Wetland Mapping and Functional Evaluation Report Item 3E - 1st Rdg Ord 8624 Adopting Wetlands at CU South Page 127 Packet Page 168 of 523 Ratings: 1=no, 2=low, 3=medium,4=high, 5=very high Confidence:a=low, b=medium, c=high Function Indicators Comments NUTRIENT RETENTION (long-term) Permanently flooded/saturated X High plant productivity X Presence of woody plants Organic soils present OVERALL NUTRIENT RETENTION (long-term) FUNCTION Rating 3 Confiden b Previous NUTRIENT RETENTION (short-term) Low water velocity Highly variable water/seasonally flooded X High plant productivity Fine mineral soils present OVERALL NUTRIENT RETENTION (short -term) FUNCTION Rating 3 Confiden b Previous FOOD CHAIN SUPPORT (downstream/production export) Presence of outlet High plant productivity/overhanging veg. X Seasonal flooding Good flushing flows/high erosion potential Non-acidic water Substrate w/ accumulated organic matter OVERALL FOOD CHAIN EXPORT FUNCTION Rating 2 Confiden c Previous FOOD CHAIN SUPPORT (within basin) High plant productivity X Absence of outlet Low erosion potential/absence of high flows OVERALL FOOD CHAIN SUPPORT (w/in basin) FUNCTION Rating 3 Confiden c Previous FISH HABITAT/AQUATIC DIVERSITY Some deep open water Non-acidic, clear water No barriers to migration/movement Minimal variation in flow (artificial) Streambank/edges provide partial cover/cool temps Well-mixed water/adequate oxygen OVERALL FISH/AQUATIC HABITAT FUNCTION Rating 1 Confiden c Previous WILDLIFE HABITAT Signs of different animals -- scat,prints,shelter X Adjacent wooded area or veg. >20ft wide X Large/ sinuous, irregular basin/with islands X High veg. diversity/good food sources Minimal variation in flow (artificial) Some open water X Connects to offsite habitat Not channelized or farmed OVERALL WILDLIFE HABITAT FUNCTION Rating 4 Confiden c Previous ACTIVE RECREATION Direct evidence of actual use Convenient public access Good habitat for animals/fish & high diversity OVERALL ACTIVE RECREATION FUNCTION Rating 1 Confiden c Previous No channel to convey nutrients/resources downstream. There may be rare flooding events from SBC as this community is partially within the SBC floodway. No outlet, resources stay within the community except in rare large flood events along SBC. No open water present. Varied vegetation strata provide habitat for wildlife with large adjacent undeveloped meadow. Directly adjacent riparian corridors include tree cover. No aquatic recreation potential. Wetland #7 WETLAND FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT FORM (page 2 of 3) Soils often, although not permanently, saturated. Dense, varied herbaceous cover with ocassional PSS/PFO communities. Soils often, although not permanently, saturated. Dense, varied herbaceous cover with ocassional PSS/PFO communities. Attachment B – Wetland Mapping and Functional Evaluation Report Item 3E - 1st Rdg Ord 8624 Adopting Wetlands at CU South Page 128 Packet Page 169 of 523 Ratings: 1=no, 2=low, 3=medium,4=high, 5=very high Confidence:a=low, b=medium, c=high Function Indicators Comments PASSIVE RECREATION/HERITAGE VALUE High ranked occurrence of plant community X Presence of rare plants or animals Landscape diversity X Rare or unusual wetland types Natural setting OVERALL PASSIVE RECREATION/UNIQUENESS Rating 4 Confiden c Previous OVERALL FUNCTIONAL INTEGRITY X Low degree of disturbance X Naturalness of hydrology X Diversity of plant community OVERALL FUNCTIONAL INTEGRITY Rating 4 Confiden c Notes: Communities have nautral, seep-driven hydrology with lack of disturbance and a diverse wet meadow community. Minor weedy encroachment in limited areas. Community hosts uncommon seep wetlands that host federally protected orchid species. Wetland #7 WETLAND FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT FORM (page 3 of 3) Attachment B – Wetland Mapping and Functional Evaluation Report Item 3E - 1st Rdg Ord 8624 Adopting Wetlands at CU South Page 129 Packet Page 170 of 523 Wetland #8 Former Cooper #NA Location: Boulder, CO Investigator: Mshields Date 8-Feb-24 Centroid coordinates: 39.97829981, -105.23077349 Observation method: Onsite Water Source:History: Ratings: 1=no, 2=low, 3=medium,4=high, 5=very high Confidence:a=low, b=medium, c=high Function Indicators Comments GROUNDWATER RECHARGE X Surface water inflow exceeds outflow Not permanently flooded/extremely variable water Located high in watershed &/or at local topo. high point X Presence of porous underlying strata Dense vegetated basin slows flow X Outlet constricted &/or dammed Irreg. shape w/ high wetland edge:area ratio Indicated by available groundwater data OVERALL GROUNDWATER RECHARGE FUNCTION Rating 3 Confiden b Previous GROUNDWATER DISCHARGE Seeps or springs present Low location in watershed &/or local topographic low Geologically diverse such as geologic contact No inlet, but outlet present &/or downstream of dam X Permanently flooded/saturated No signif. accumulation of fine sediments/silts Indicated by available groundwater data OVERALL GROUNDWATER DISCHARGE FUNCTION Rating 4 Confiden c Previous FLOOD STORAGE/FLOODFLOW ALTERATION Located along stream X Outflow restricted High water mark shows periodic flooding X Flat topography &/or low gradient X Porous substrate allows infiltration for subsurface storag Rough surface & depressions for aboveground storage Dense veg. basin slows flow Coarse woody debris present OVERALL FLOOD ALTERATION FUNCTION Rating 2 Confiden c Previous SHORELINE ANCHORING/STABILIZATION Erosional forces/high water velocity/unsheltered loc. Dense vegetation/good water-veg. interspersion X Veg. w/strong dense root mass e.g. woody coverage Little evidence of recent erosion X Rubble substrate present OVERALL SHORELINE ANCHORING FUNCTION Rating 3 Confiden c Previous SEDIMENT TRAPPING/RETENTION X Constricted outlet/water flow slows Low water velocity/surface water input exceeds output Visible reduction in particulates between inflow/outflow Evidence of sediment/organic matter deposits Dense vegetation present Flat topography &/or gently sloping wetland edges Source of sediments from upstream/offsite activities X Absence of disturbances to re-suspend sediments OVERALL SEDIMENT TRAPPING FUNCTION Rating 2 Confiden b Previous WETLAND FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT FORM (p. 1 of 3) Pond and fringe community regularly interface with groundwater. Pond has no inlet or outlet, so additional hydrologic inputs for groundwater recharge is limited. Pond is groundwater fed and exhibits year-round inundation. Water level fluctuates with time of year. Pond and wetland fringe community not located along a stream/channel that would receive flood flows, nor is it in the SBC floodplain. Scattered woody vegetation along the banks, but also large areas of no vegetation/annual herbaceous vegetation. No erosional forces as no inlet/outlet for flow. Gravel/small cobble substrates. No inflow/outflow to this community. Attachment B – Wetland Mapping and Functional Evaluation Report Item 3E - 1st Rdg Ord 8624 Adopting Wetlands at CU South Page 130 Packet Page 171 of 523 Ratings: 1=no, 2=low, 3=medium,4=high, 5=very high Confidence:a=low, b=medium, c=high Function Indicators Comments NUTRIENT RETENTION (long-term) X Permanently flooded/saturated High plant productivity X Presence of woody plants Organic soils present OVERALL NUTRIENT RETENTION (long-term) FUNCTION Rating 3 Confiden b Previous NUTRIENT RETENTION (short-term) X Low water velocity Highly variable water/seasonally flooded High plant productivity Fine mineral soils present OVERALL NUTRIENT RETENTION (short -term) FUNCTION Rating 3 Confiden b Previous FOOD CHAIN SUPPORT (downstream/production export) Presence of outlet High plant productivity/overhanging veg. Seasonal flooding Good flushing flows/high erosion potential Non-acidic water Substrate w/ accumulated organic matter OVERALL FOOD CHAIN EXPORT FUNCTION Rating 1 Confiden c Previous FOOD CHAIN SUPPORT (within basin) High plant productivity X Absence of outlet X Low erosion potential/absence of high flows OVERALL FOOD CHAIN SUPPORT (w/in basin) FUNCTION Rating 3 Confiden c Previous FISH HABITAT/AQUATIC DIVERSITY X Some deep open water Non-acidic, clear water No barriers to migration/movement Minimal variation in flow (artificial) X Streambank/edges provide partial cover/cool temps Well-mixed water/adequate oxygen OVERALL FISH/AQUATIC HABITAT FUNCTION Rating 2 Confiden c Previous WILDLIFE HABITAT X Signs of different animals -- scat,prints,shelter X Adjacent wooded area or veg. >20ft wide Large/ sinuous, irregular basin/with islands X High veg. diversity/good food sources Minimal variation in flow (artificial) X Some open water X Connects to offsite habitat Not channelized or farmed OVERALL WILDLIFE HABITAT FUNCTION Rating 3 Confiden c Previous ACTIVE RECREATION Direct evidence of actual use X Convenient public access Good habitat for animals/fish & high diversity OVERALL ACTIVE RECREATION FUNCTION Rating 1 Confiden b Previous No flows/downstream outlet associated with this community. No inlet/outlet, resources stay in wetland/basin. Pond contains some areas of deeper water; however, a lack of inlet/outlet restricts fish moment to/from the community. Dense vegetation, including woody species provide cover for wildlife species. Open water provides a water source. No aquatic recreation opportunities. Wetland #8 WETLAND FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT FORM (page 2 of 3) Small wetland fringe around pond may provide some nutrient retention before entering the pond; however, regular interaction between the pond and groundwater mean nutrients that enter the pond likely enter groundwater as well. Small wetland fringe around pond may provide some nutrient retention before entering the pond; however, regular interaction between the pond and groundwater mean nutrients that enter the pond likely enter groundwater as well. Attachment B – Wetland Mapping and Functional Evaluation Report Item 3E - 1st Rdg Ord 8624 Adopting Wetlands at CU South Page 131 Packet Page 172 of 523 Ratings: 1=no, 2=low, 3=medium,4=high, 5=very high Confidence:a=low, b=medium, c=high Function Indicators Comments PASSIVE RECREATION/HERITAGE VALUE High ranked occurrence of plant community Presence of rare plants or animals Landscape diversity Rare or unusual wetland types Natural setting OVERALL PASSIVE RECREATION/UNIQUENESS Rating 2 Confiden c Previous OVERALL FUNCTIONAL INTEGRITY Low degree of disturbance Naturalness of hydrology X Diversity of plant community OVERALL FUNCTIONAL INTEGRITY Rating 3 Confiden c Notes: Excavated, groundwater-driven pond (historic gravel mining) with multi- strata fringe. Small pond in an upland landscape setting within disturbed historic gravel mine footprint, with common wetland communities. Wetland #8 WETLAND FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT FORM (page 3 of 3) Attachment B – Wetland Mapping and Functional Evaluation Report Item 3E - 1st Rdg Ord 8624 Adopting Wetlands at CU South Page 132 Packet Page 173 of 523 Wetland #9 Former Cooper #NA Location: Boulder, CO Investigator: Mshields Date 8-Feb-24 Centroid coordinates: 39.97920902, -105.23188154 Observation method: Onsite Water Source:Groundwater, overland flow History: Ratings: 1=no, 2=low, 3=medium,4=high, 5=very high Confidence:a=low, b=medium, c=high Function Indicators Comments GROUNDWATER RECHARGE Surface water inflow exceeds outflow X Not permanently flooded/extremely variable water Located high in watershed &/or at local topo. high point Presence of porous underlying strata Dense vegetated basin slows flow X Outlet constricted &/or dammed Irreg. shape w/ high wetland edge:area ratio Indicated by available groundwater data OVERALL GROUNDWATER RECHARGE FUNCTION Rating 2 Confiden b Previous GROUNDWATER DISCHARGE X Seeps or springs present X Low location in watershed &/or local topographic low Geologically diverse such as geologic contact No inlet, but outlet present &/or downstream of dam Permanently flooded/saturated No signif. accumulation of fine sediments/silts Indicated by available groundwater data OVERALL GROUNDWATER DISCHARGE FUNCTION Rating 3 Confiden c Previous FLOOD STORAGE/FLOODFLOW ALTERATION Located along stream X Outflow restricted High water mark shows periodic flooding X Flat topography &/or low gradient X Porous substrate allows infiltration for subsurface storag X Rough surface & depressions for aboveground storage X Dense veg. basin slows flow Coarse woody debris present OVERALL FLOOD ALTERATION FUNCTION Rating 2 Confiden c Previous SHORELINE ANCHORING/STABILIZATION Erosional forces/high water velocity/unsheltered loc. Dense vegetation/good water-veg. interspersion Veg. w/strong dense root mass e.g. woody coverage Little evidence of recent erosion Rubble substrate present OVERALL SHORELINE ANCHORING FUNCTION Rating 1 Confiden c Previous SEDIMENT TRAPPING/RETENTION X Constricted outlet/water flow slows Low water velocity/surface water input exceeds output Visible reduction in particulates between inflow/outflow Evidence of sediment/organic matter deposits X Dense vegetation present Flat topography &/or gently sloping wetland edges Source of sediments from upstream/offsite activities Absence of disturbances to re-suspend sediments OVERALL SEDIMENT TRAPPING FUNCTION Rating 2 Confiden b Previous WETLAND FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT FORM (p. 1 of 3) Series of isolated groundwater-fed swales. Lack of additional hydrology sources limits recharge potential. Series of isolated groundwater-fed swales. Wetland communities within isolated swales with no direct connection to a channel/drainage. Potential for flood flows accessing these features is low. No open waters present. Isolated swales lack upstream sediment source. Sediment from overland flow that enters swales remains in community. Attachment B – Wetland Mapping and Functional Evaluation Report Item 3E - 1st Rdg Ord 8624 Adopting Wetlands at CU South Page 133 Packet Page 174 of 523 Ratings: 1=no, 2=low, 3=medium,4=high, 5=very high Confidence:a=low, b=medium, c=high Function Indicators Comments NUTRIENT RETENTION (long-term) Permanently flooded/saturated High plant productivity Presence of woody plants Organic soils present OVERALL NUTRIENT RETENTION (long-term) FUNCTION Rating 2 Confiden b Previous NUTRIENT RETENTION (short-term) Low water velocity Highly variable water/seasonally flooded High plant productivity Fine mineral soils present OVERALL NUTRIENT RETENTION (short -term) FUNCTION Rating 2 Confiden b Previous FOOD CHAIN SUPPORT (downstream/production export) Presence of outlet High plant productivity/overhanging veg. Seasonal flooding Good flushing flows/high erosion potential Non-acidic water Substrate w/ accumulated organic matter OVERALL FOOD CHAIN EXPORT FUNCTION Rating 1 Confiden c Previous FOOD CHAIN SUPPORT (within basin) High plant productivity X Absence of outlet X Low erosion potential/absence of high flows OVERALL FOOD CHAIN SUPPORT (w/in basin) FUNCTION Rating 3 Confiden b Previous FISH HABITAT/AQUATIC DIVERSITY Some deep open water Non-acidic, clear water No barriers to migration/movement Minimal variation in flow (artificial) Streambank/edges provide partial cover/cool temps Well-mixed water/adequate oxygen OVERALL FISH/AQUATIC HABITAT FUNCTION Rating 1 Confiden c Previous WILDLIFE HABITAT Signs of different animals -- scat,prints,shelter X Adjacent wooded area or veg. >20ft wide Large/ sinuous, irregular basin/with islands High veg. diversity/good food sources Minimal variation in flow (artificial) Some open water Connects to offsite habitat Not channelized or farmed OVERALL WILDLIFE HABITAT FUNCTION Rating 3 Confiden c Previous ACTIVE RECREATION Direct evidence of actual use Convenient public access Good habitat for animals/fish & high diversity OVERALL ACTIVE RECREATION FUNCTION Rating 1 Confiden c Previous No continuous downstream/downgradient connect to other aquatic features or flow events to drive materials export. Low erosion potential as these swales do not host frequent flow (no OHWM) and are fully vegetated. Nutrients/resources produced in the wetland remain in the wetland. No open water present in the community. Swales isolated and, in some cases, next to development which likely deters some wildlife use. Communities are adjacent to a large area of upland habitat, and nearby other wetland habitats. No aquatic recreation potential. Wetland #9 WETLAND FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT FORM (page 2 of 3) Swales saturated frequently enough to host PEM community, but do not appear inundated (based on aerial imagery review). Swales saturated frequently enough to host PEM community, but do not appear inundated (based on aerial imagery review). Attachment B – Wetland Mapping and Functional Evaluation Report Item 3E - 1st Rdg Ord 8624 Adopting Wetlands at CU South Page 134 Packet Page 175 of 523 Ratings: 1=no, 2=low, 3=medium,4=high, 5=very high Confidence:a=low, b=medium, c=high Function Indicators Comments PASSIVE RECREATION/HERITAGE VALUE High ranked occurrence of plant community Presence of rare plants or animals Landscape diversity Rare or unusual wetland types Natural setting OVERALL PASSIVE RECREATION/UNIQUENESS Rating 2 Confiden c Previous OVERALL FUNCTIONAL INTEGRITY Low degree of disturbance Naturalness of hydrology Diversity of plant community OVERALL FUNCTIONAL INTEGRITY Rating 2 Confiden c Notes: Swale features relic of historic mining operations, and primary hydrology (groundwater) present due to previous exacavation of the area. Common wetland community type adjacent to anthropogenic infrastructure. Potential for scientific/education value. Wetland #9 WETLAND FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT FORM (page 3 of 3) Attachment B – Wetland Mapping and Functional Evaluation Report Item 3E - 1st Rdg Ord 8624 Adopting Wetlands at CU South Page 135 Packet Page 176 of 523 Wetland #10 Former Cooper #NA Location: Boulder, CO Investigator: Mshields Date 8-Feb-24 Centroid coordinates: 39.96963001, -105.2301957 Observation method: Onsite Water Source:Groundwater, overland flow History: Ratings: 1=no, 2=low, 3=medium,4=high, 5=very high Confidence:a=low, b=medium, c=high Function Indicators Comments GROUNDWATER RECHARGE Surface water inflow exceeds outflow X Not permanently flooded/extremely variable water Located high in watershed &/or at local topo. high point X Presence of porous underlying strata Dense vegetated basin slows flow Outlet constricted &/or dammed Irreg. shape w/ high wetland edge:area ratio Indicated by available groundwater data OVERALL GROUNDWATER RECHARGE FUNCTION Rating 2 Confiden b Previous GROUNDWATER DISCHARGE X Seeps or springs present X Low location in watershed &/or local topographic low Geologically diverse such as geologic contact No inlet, but outlet present &/or downstream of dam X Permanently flooded/saturated No signif. accumulation of fine sediments/silts Indicated by available groundwater data OVERALL GROUNDWATER DISCHARGE FUNCTION Rating 4 Confiden c Previous FLOOD STORAGE/FLOODFLOW ALTERATION Located along stream X Outflow restricted High water mark shows periodic flooding Flat topography &/or low gradient X Porous substrate allows infiltration for subsurface storag Rough surface & depressions for aboveground storage X Dense veg. basin slows flow X Coarse woody debris present OVERALL FLOOD ALTERATION FUNCTION Rating 4 Confiden c Previous SHORELINE ANCHORING/STABILIZATION Erosional forces/high water velocity/unsheltered loc. Dense vegetation/good water-veg. interspersion Veg. w/strong dense root mass e.g. woody coverage Little evidence of recent erosion Rubble substrate present OVERALL SHORELINE ANCHORING FUNCTION Rating 1 Confiden c Previous SEDIMENT TRAPPING/RETENTION Constricted outlet/water flow slows Low water velocity/surface water input exceeds output Visible reduction in particulates between inflow/outflow Evidence of sediment/organic matter deposits Dense vegetation present Flat topography &/or gently sloping wetland edges Source of sediments from upstream/offsite activities Absence of disturbances to re-suspend sediments OVERALL SEDIMENT TRAPPING FUNCTION Rating 2 Confiden c Previous WETLAND FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT FORM (p. 1 of 3) Groundwater-driven wetland communities within the footprint of an old gravel pit. Groundwater-driven wetland communities within the footprint of an old gravel pit. Community contains dense vegetation in topographic depression with groundwater interaction within the SBC floodway. No open water present. No inflow/outflow paths for sediment to enter community. Small amount of sediment movement may occur during large overland or flood events. Attachment B – Wetland Mapping and Functional Evaluation Report Item 3E - 1st Rdg Ord 8624 Adopting Wetlands at CU South Page 136 Packet Page 177 of 523 Ratings: 1=no, 2=low, 3=medium,4=high, 5=very high Confidence:a=low, b=medium, c=high Function Indicators Comments NUTRIENT RETENTION (long-term) X Permanently flooded/saturated High plant productivity Presence of woody plants Organic soils present OVERALL NUTRIENT RETENTION (long-term) FUNCTION Rating 3 Confiden b Previous NUTRIENT RETENTION (short-term) Low water velocity Highly variable water/seasonally flooded X High plant productivity Fine mineral soils present OVERALL NUTRIENT RETENTION (short -term) FUNCTION Rating 3 Confiden b Previous FOOD CHAIN SUPPORT (downstream/production export) Presence of outlet High plant productivity/overhanging veg. Seasonal flooding Good flushing flows/high erosion potential Non-acidic water Substrate w/ accumulated organic matter OVERALL FOOD CHAIN EXPORT FUNCTION Rating 1 Confiden b Previous FOOD CHAIN SUPPORT (within basin) High plant productivity X Absence of outlet X Low erosion potential/absence of high flows OVERALL FOOD CHAIN SUPPORT (w/in basin) FUNCTION Rating 4 Confiden b Previous FISH HABITAT/AQUATIC DIVERSITY Some deep open water Non-acidic, clear water No barriers to migration/movement Minimal variation in flow (artificial) Streambank/edges provide partial cover/cool temps Well-mixed water/adequate oxygen OVERALL FISH/AQUATIC HABITAT FUNCTION Rating 1 Confiden c Previous WILDLIFE HABITAT X Signs of different animals -- scat,prints,shelter X Adjacent wooded area or veg. >20ft wide X Large/ sinuous, irregular basin/with islands High veg. diversity/good food sources Minimal variation in flow (artificial) Some open water X Connects to offsite habitat Not channelized or farmed OVERALL WILDLIFE HABITAT FUNCTION Rating 3 Confiden c Previous ACTIVE RECREATION Direct evidence of actual use Convenient public access Good habitat for animals/fish & high diversity OVERALL ACTIVE RECREATION FUNCTION Rating 1 Confiden c Previous Wetland #10 WETLAND FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT FORM (page 2 of 3) Vegetation communities contain saturated soils long enough to form hydric soil indicators and wetland vegetation, with no outlet, nutrients made onsite through decaying plant material stay onsite. Soils remain saturated long enough to form hydric soil indicators and host wetland vegetation. No downstream/downgradient outlet means that nutrients made onsite through decaying plant material stay onsite. No outflow path to transport nutirents/resources to downstream communities No flow path through features. Resources created in these communities has no route for export. Prevalence of organic material in wetland communities. No open water aquatic habitats present. Large depressional features host multi-strata vegetation communities that provide shelter/cover for wildlife. Adjacent wet meadow communities to east provide wildlife use buffers. Pedestrian use/trails transect the area which may deter wildlife use. No aquatic recreation opportunities. Attachment B – Wetland Mapping and Functional Evaluation Report Item 3E - 1st Rdg Ord 8624 Adopting Wetlands at CU South Page 137 Packet Page 178 of 523 Ratings: 1=no, 2=low, 3=medium,4=high, 5=very high Confidence:a=low, b=medium, c=high Function Indicators Comments PASSIVE RECREATION/HERITAGE VALUE High ranked occurrence of plant community X Presence of rare plants or animals Landscape diversity Rare or unusual wetland types Natural setting OVERALL PASSIVE RECREATION/UNIQUENESS Rating 3 Confiden c Previous OVERALL FUNCTIONAL INTEGRITY Low degree of disturbance Naturalness of hydrology X Diversity of plant community OVERALL FUNCTIONAL INTEGRITY Rating 3 Confiden c Notes: Wetland #10 WETLAND FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT FORM (page 3 of 3) Area of historic mining disturbance and modified hydrology from mining excavation activities that exposed areas of groundwater. Presence of rare plants and multi-strata communities provides a moderate level of functional integrity. Typical wetland community dominated by cattail and coyote willow; however, this community also hosts habitat for a federally protected orchid species. Has potential for scientific/educational value including (but not limited to) wetlands, riparian corridors, avian species, or mine reclamation. Attachment B – Wetland Mapping and Functional Evaluation Report Item 3E - 1st Rdg Ord 8624 Adopting Wetlands at CU South Page 138 Packet Page 179 of 523 Wetland #11 Former Cooper #NA Location: Boulder, CO Investigator: Mshields Date 8-Feb-24 Centroid coordinates: 39.9757822, -105.23306583 Observation method: Onsite Water Source:Groundwater seeps, overland flow History: Ratings: 1=no, 2=low, 3=medium,4=high, 5=very high Confidence:a=low, b=medium, c=high Function Indicators Comments GROUNDWATER RECHARGE Surface water inflow exceeds outflow Not permanently flooded/extremely variable water Located high in watershed &/or at local topo. high point X Presence of porous underlying strata X Dense vegetated basin slows flow Outlet constricted &/or dammed X Irreg. shape w/ high wetland edge:area ratio Indicated by available groundwater data OVERALL GROUNDWATER RECHARGE FUNCTION Rating 3 Confiden b Previous GROUNDWATER DISCHARGE X Seeps or springs present Low location in watershed &/or local topographic low Geologically diverse such as geologic contact No inlet, but outlet present &/or downstream of dam X Permanently flooded/saturated No signif. accumulation of fine sediments/silts Indicated by available groundwater data OVERALL GROUNDWATER DISCHARGE FUNCTION Rating 5 Confiden c Previous FLOOD STORAGE/FLOODFLOW ALTERATION Located along stream Outflow restricted High water mark shows periodic flooding Flat topography &/or low gradient Porous substrate allows infiltration for subsurface storag Rough surface & depressions for aboveground storage X Dense veg. basin slows flow X Coarse woody debris present OVERALL FLOOD ALTERATION FUNCTION Rating 2 Confiden c Previous SHORELINE ANCHORING/STABILIZATION Erosional forces/high water velocity/unsheltered loc. X Dense vegetation/good water-veg. interspersion X Veg. w/strong dense root mass e.g. woody coverage Little evidence of recent erosion Rubble substrate present OVERALL SHORELINE ANCHORING FUNCTION Rating 2 Confiden b Previous SEDIMENT TRAPPING/RETENTION X Constricted outlet/water flow slows X Low water velocity/surface water input exceeds output Visible reduction in particulates between inflow/outflow Evidence of sediment/organic matter deposits X Dense vegetation present X Flat topography &/or gently sloping wetland edges Source of sediments from upstream/offsite activities Absence of disturbances to re-suspend sediments OVERALL SEDIMENT TRAPPING FUNCTION Rating 2 Confiden c Previous WETLAND FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT FORM (p. 1 of 3) Community contains areas where groundwater breaches the surface and flows downgradient. Some lower areas exhibit ponding and recharge groundwater but for the most part these appear to discharge from belowground and flow downgradient. Primary source of hydrology for these communities is a series of groundwater seeps. Historic exacavation has brought the ground surface elevation of many areas of the site below the water table. Communities permanently saturated, with flowing surface water at times (no channel). Dense vegetation comprises these PEM/PSS communities. Drainage swales are present but do not contain OHWM/exhibit consistent flow. No connection to natural channel/stream that would provide flood flows. Small pond present with dense vegetation on banks, accounts for a small portion of the community. No evidence of recent erosion. Slow water velocities from groundwater seeps, but no large source of sediment (no stream/river). Small channel associated with pond, but has no outlet. Attachment B – Wetland Mapping and Functional Evaluation Report Item 3E - 1st Rdg Ord 8624 Adopting Wetlands at CU South Page 139 Packet Page 180 of 523 Ratings: 1=no, 2=low, 3=medium,4=high, 5=very high Confidence:a=low, b=medium, c=high Function Indicators Comments NUTRIENT RETENTION (long-term) X Permanently flooded/saturated X High plant productivity X Presence of woody plants Organic soils present OVERALL NUTRIENT RETENTION (long-term) FUNCTION Rating 3 Confiden b Previous NUTRIENT RETENTION (short-term) X Low water velocity Highly variable water/seasonally flooded X High plant productivity Fine mineral soils present OVERALL NUTRIENT RETENTION (short -term) FUNCTION Rating 3 Confiden b Previous FOOD CHAIN SUPPORT (downstream/production export) Presence of outlet X High plant productivity/overhanging veg. Seasonal flooding Good flushing flows/high erosion potential Non-acidic water Substrate w/ accumulated organic matter OVERALL FOOD CHAIN EXPORT FUNCTION Rating 2 Confiden C Previous FOOD CHAIN SUPPORT (within basin) X High plant productivity Absence of outlet X Low erosion potential/absence of high flows OVERALL FOOD CHAIN SUPPORT (w/in basin) FUNCTION Rating 3 Confiden c Previous FISH HABITAT/AQUATIC DIVERSITY Some deep open water Non-acidic, clear water No barriers to migration/movement Minimal variation in flow (artificial) Streambank/edges provide partial cover/cool temps Well-mixed water/adequate oxygen OVERALL FISH/AQUATIC HABITAT FUNCTION Rating 2 Confiden c Previous WILDLIFE HABITAT X Signs of different animals -- scat,prints,shelter X Adjacent wooded area or veg. >20ft wide X Large/ sinuous, irregular basin/with islands X High veg. diversity/good food sources X Minimal variation in flow (artificial) Some open water X Connects to offsite habitat X Not channelized or farmed OVERALL WILDLIFE HABITAT FUNCTION Rating 4 Confiden c Previous ACTIVE RECREATION Direct evidence of actual use X Convenient public access Good habitat for animals/fish & high diversity OVERALL ACTIVE RECREATION FUNCTION Rating 1 Confiden c Previous No flushing flows as this community is not along a natural channel. High plant productivity. Low gradient/lack of consistent flow. Not along natural stream course, any food chain production likely stays within the community/basin. Small, isolated pond present within this community making fish passage to/from pond unlikely. Mosaic of weltand seeps in an otherwise upland community provides resources for wildlife including avians and amphibians. High wetland boundary roughness. Area as a whole is used as a dog park/pedestrian recreation area which may deter wildlife use to a degree. No aquatic recreation potential. Community located adjacent to gravel road. Wetland #11 WETLAND FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT FORM (page 2 of 3) Seeps provide hydrology, keeping communities saturated. Woody plants (SAEX) present spordically along this community. Seeps provide hydrology, keeping communities saturated. Woody plants (SAEX) present spordically along this community. Attachment B – Wetland Mapping and Functional Evaluation Report Item 3E - 1st Rdg Ord 8624 Adopting Wetlands at CU South Page 140 Packet Page 181 of 523 Ratings: 1=no, 2=low, 3=medium,4=high, 5=very high Confidence:a=low, b=medium, c=high Function Indicators Comments PASSIVE RECREATION/HERITAGE VALUE High ranked occurrence of plant community Presence of rare plants or animals X Landscape diversity X Rare or unusual wetland types Natural setting OVERALL PASSIVE RECREATION/UNIQUENESS Rating 3 Confiden c Previous OVERALL FUNCTIONAL INTEGRITY Low degree of disturbance Naturalness of hydrology X Diversity of plant community OVERALL FUNCTIONAL INTEGRITY Rating 3 Confiden b Notes: Seep hydrology driven by previous excavation/mining activities. Area hosts a diverse plant population with habitat for a protected species. Groundwater seep communities hosts habitat for a federally protected orchid species; however, no orchid species have been observed here. Uncommon wetland type. Wetland #11 WETLAND FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT FORM (page 3 of 3) Attachment B – Wetland Mapping and Functional Evaluation Report Item 3E - 1st Rdg Ord 8624 Adopting Wetlands at CU South Page 141 Packet Page 182 of 523 Wetland #12 Former Cooper #NA Location: Boulder, CO Investigator: Mshields Date 8-Feb-24 Centroid coordinates: 39.97414376, -105.23407016 Observation method: Onsite Water Source:Overland flow, groundwater History: Ratings: 1=no, 2=low, 3=medium,4=high, 5=very high Confidence:a=low, b=medium, c=high Function Indicators Comments GROUNDWATER RECHARGE Surface water inflow exceeds outflow X Not permanently flooded/extremely variable water Located high in watershed &/or at local topo. high point Presence of porous underlying strata X Dense vegetated basin slows flow Outlet constricted &/or dammed Irreg. shape w/ high wetland edge:area ratio Indicated by available groundwater data OVERALL GROUNDWATER RECHARGE FUNCTION Rating 2 Confiden b Previous GROUNDWATER DISCHARGE X Seeps or springs present X Low location in watershed &/or local topographic low Geologically diverse such as geologic contact No inlet, but outlet present &/or downstream of dam X Permanently flooded/saturated No signif. accumulation of fine sediments/silts Indicated by available groundwater data OVERALL GROUNDWATER DISCHARGE FUNCTION Rating 3 Confiden c Previous FLOOD STORAGE/FLOODFLOW ALTERATION Located along stream X Outflow restricted High water mark shows periodic flooding X Flat topography &/or low gradient X Porous substrate allows infiltration for subsurface storag Rough surface & depressions for aboveground storage X Dense veg. basin slows flow Coarse woody debris present OVERALL FLOOD ALTERATION FUNCTION Rating 2 Confiden c Previous SHORELINE ANCHORING/STABILIZATION Erosional forces/high water velocity/unsheltered loc. Dense vegetation/good water-veg. interspersion Veg. w/strong dense root mass e.g. woody coverage Little evidence of recent erosion Rubble substrate present OVERALL SHORELINE ANCHORING FUNCTION Rating 1 Confiden c Previous SEDIMENT TRAPPING/RETENTION X Constricted outlet/water flow slows Low water velocity/surface water input exceeds output Visible reduction in particulates between inflow/outflow Evidence of sediment/organic matter deposits X Dense vegetation present Flat topography &/or gently sloping wetland edges Source of sediments from upstream/offsite activities Absence of disturbances to re-suspend sediments OVERALL SEDIMENT TRAPPING FUNCTION Rating 2 Confiden b Previous WETLAND FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT FORM (p. 1 of 3) Series of isolated PEM wetland filled swales that derive hydrology from groundwater seeps. Lack of additional hydrology sources limits recharge potential. Series of isolated groundwater-fed drainage swales. Wetland communities within isolated swales with no direct connection to a downstream channel/drainage. Potential for flood flows accessing these features is low. Community is within an area of minimal flood hazard. No open waters present. Isolated swales lack upstream sediment source. Sediment from overland flow that enters swales remains in community as flow power is low. Attachment B – Wetland Mapping and Functional Evaluation Report Item 3E - 1st Rdg Ord 8624 Adopting Wetlands at CU South Page 142 Packet Page 183 of 523 Ratings: 1=no, 2=low, 3=medium,4=high, 5=very high Confidence:a=low, b=medium, c=high Function Indicators Comments NUTRIENT RETENTION (long-term) Permanently flooded/saturated High plant productivity Presence of woody plants Organic soils present OVERALL NUTRIENT RETENTION (long-term) FUNCTION Rating 2 Confiden b Previous NUTRIENT RETENTION (short-term) Low water velocity Highly variable water/seasonally flooded High plant productivity Fine mineral soils present OVERALL NUTRIENT RETENTION (short -term) FUNCTION Rating 2 Confiden b Previous FOOD CHAIN SUPPORT (downstream/production export) Presence of outlet High plant productivity/overhanging veg. Seasonal flooding Good flushing flows/high erosion potential Non-acidic water Substrate w/ accumulated organic matter OVERALL FOOD CHAIN EXPORT FUNCTION Rating 1 Confiden c Previous FOOD CHAIN SUPPORT (within basin) High plant productivity X Absence of outlet X Low erosion potential/absence of high flows OVERALL FOOD CHAIN SUPPORT (w/in basin) FUNCTION Rating 3 Confiden b Previous FISH HABITAT/AQUATIC DIVERSITY Some deep open water Non-acidic, clear water No barriers to migration/movement Minimal variation in flow (artificial) Streambank/edges provide partial cover/cool temps Well-mixed water/adequate oxygen OVERALL FISH/AQUATIC HABITAT FUNCTION Rating 1 Confiden c Previous WILDLIFE HABITAT Signs of different animals -- scat,prints,shelter X Adjacent wooded area or veg. >20ft wide Large/ sinuous, irregular basin/with islands High veg. diversity/good food sources Minimal variation in flow (artificial) Some open water Connects to offsite habitat Not channelized or farmed OVERALL WILDLIFE HABITAT FUNCTION Rating 3 Confiden c Previous ACTIVE RECREATION Direct evidence of actual use Convenient public access Good habitat for animals/fish & high diversity OVERALL ACTIVE RECREATION FUNCTION Rating 1 Confiden c Previous Wetland #12 WETLAND FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT FORM (page 2 of 3) Swales saturated frequently enough to host PEM community, but do not appear inundated (based on aerial imagery review). Swales saturated frequently enough to host PEM community, but do not appear inundated (based on aerial imagery review). No continuous downstream/downgradient connection to other aquatic features or flow events to drive materials export. Low erosion potential as these swales do not host frequent flow (no OHWM) and are fully vegetated. Nutrients/resources produced in the wetland remain in the wetland. No open water present in the community. Swales isolated and, in some areas is located next to established trail which likely deters some wildlife use. Communities are adjacent to a large area of upland habitat, and nearby other wetland habitats. No aquatic recreation potential. Attachment B – Wetland Mapping and Functional Evaluation Report Item 3E - 1st Rdg Ord 8624 Adopting Wetlands at CU South Page 143 Packet Page 184 of 523 Ratings: 1=no, 2=low, 3=medium,4=high, 5=very high Confidence:a=low, b=medium, c=high Function Indicators Comments PASSIVE RECREATION/HERITAGE VALUE High ranked occurrence of plant community Presence of rare plants or animals Landscape diversity Rare or unusual wetland types Natural setting OVERALL PASSIVE RECREATION/UNIQUENESS Rating 2 Confiden c Previous OVERALL FUNCTIONAL INTEGRITY Low degree of disturbance Naturalness of hydrology Diversity of plant community OVERALL FUNCTIONAL INTEGRITY Rating 2 Confiden c Notes: Wetland #12 WETLAND FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT FORM (page 3 of 3) Area disturbed from historic mining excavation, and primary hydrology (groundwater) present due to previous exacavation of the area. Common wetland community type adjacent to anthropogenic infrastructure (trails). Potential for scientific/education value. Attachment B – Wetland Mapping and Functional Evaluation Report Item 3E - 1st Rdg Ord 8624 Adopting Wetlands at CU South Page 144 Packet Page 185 of 523 Wetland #13 Former Cooper #NA Location: Boulder, CO Investigator: Mshields Date 8-Feb-24 Centroid coordinates: 39.97555014, -105.23524007 Observation method: Onsite Water Source:Groundwater seeps, overland flow History: Ratings: 1=no, 2=low, 3=medium,4=high, 5=very high Confidence:a=low, b=medium, c=high Function Indicators Comments GROUNDWATER RECHARGE X Surface water inflow exceeds outflow X Not permanently flooded/extremely variable water X Located high in watershed &/or at local topo. high point X Presence of porous underlying strata X Dense vegetated basin slows flow Outlet constricted &/or dammed X Irreg. shape w/ high wetland edge:area ratio Indicated by available groundwater data OVERALL GROUNDWATER RECHARGE FUNCTION Rating 3 Confiden b Previous GROUNDWATER DISCHARGE X Seeps or springs present Low location in watershed &/or local topographic low Geologically diverse such as geologic contact X No inlet, but outlet present &/or downstream of dam Permanently flooded/saturated No signif. accumulation of fine sediments/silts Indicated by available groundwater data OVERALL GROUNDWATER DISCHARGE FUNCTION Rating 4 Confiden c Previous FLOOD STORAGE/FLOODFLOW ALTERATION Located along stream Outflow restricted High water mark shows periodic flooding Flat topography &/or low gradient X Porous substrate allows infiltration for subsurface storag Rough surface & depressions for aboveground storage X Dense veg. basin slows flow X Coarse woody debris present OVERALL FLOOD ALTERATION FUNCTION Rating 2 Confiden b Previous SHORELINE ANCHORING/STABILIZATION Erosional forces/high water velocity/unsheltered loc. Dense vegetation/good water-veg. interspersion Veg. w/strong dense root mass e.g. woody coverage Little evidence of recent erosion Rubble substrate present OVERALL SHORELINE ANCHORING FUNCTION Rating 1 Confiden c Previous SEDIMENT TRAPPING/RETENTION Constricted outlet/water flow slows Low water velocity/surface water input exceeds output Visible reduction in particulates between inflow/outflow Evidence of sediment/organic matter deposits X Dense vegetation present Flat topography &/or gently sloping wetland edges Source of sediments from upstream/offsite activities X Absence of disturbances to re-suspend sediments OVERALL SEDIMENT TRAPPING FUNCTION Rating 2 Confiden c Previous WETLAND FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT FORM (p. 1 of 3) Seep-driven hydrology provides evidence of porous substrates. Wetland community is located on a hillside which serves as a topographic high point for the entire site (the seep isn't at the top, but still higher that most features on the site). The area is densely vegetated and has a high wetland edge to SA ratio. Seep-driven hydrology with discharge onto hillside. No stream flows through feature, no inlet present. Swale features with no OHWM. This community is not located along a natural stream feature that has the potential to supply flood flows. In addition, the community is along a hillside and hyrology flows downgradient, outside of the community. No open water features present in this community. No inflow stream feature present to provide source of external sediment. Local sediment movement into the community through overland flow may occur and would likely trap sediment due to dense vegetation. Attachment B – Wetland Mapping and Functional Evaluation Report Item 3E - 1st Rdg Ord 8624 Adopting Wetlands at CU South Page 145 Packet Page 186 of 523 Ratings: 1=no, 2=low, 3=medium,4=high, 5=very high Confidence:a=low, b=medium, c=high Function Indicators Comments NUTRIENT RETENTION (long-term) Permanently flooded/saturated High plant productivity X Presence of woody plants Organic soils present OVERALL NUTRIENT RETENTION (long-term) FUNCTION Rating 2 Confiden b Previous NUTRIENT RETENTION (short-term) Low water velocity Highly variable water/seasonally flooded High plant productivity Fine mineral soils present OVERALL NUTRIENT RETENTION (short -term) FUNCTION Rating 3 Confiden b Previous FOOD CHAIN SUPPORT (downstream/production export) X Presence of outlet X High plant productivity/overhanging veg. Seasonal flooding Good flushing flows/high erosion potential Non-acidic water Substrate w/ accumulated organic matter OVERALL FOOD CHAIN EXPORT FUNCTION Rating 2 Confiden c Previous FOOD CHAIN SUPPORT (within basin) X High plant productivity Absence of outlet X Low erosion potential/absence of high flows OVERALL FOOD CHAIN SUPPORT (w/in basin) FUNCTION Rating 3 Confiden c Previous FISH HABITAT/AQUATIC DIVERSITY Some deep open water Non-acidic, clear water No barriers to migration/movement Minimal variation in flow (artificial) Streambank/edges provide partial cover/cool temps Well-mixed water/adequate oxygen OVERALL FISH/AQUATIC HABITAT FUNCTION Rating 1 Confiden c Previous WILDLIFE HABITAT X Signs of different animals -- scat,prints,shelter X Adjacent wooded area or veg. >20ft wide X Large/ sinuous, irregular basin/with islands X High veg. diversity/good food sources Minimal variation in flow (artificial) Some open water Connects to offsite habitat Not channelized or farmed OVERALL WILDLIFE HABITAT FUNCTION Rating 3 Confiden c Previous ACTIVE RECREATION Direct evidence of actual use Convenient public access Good habitat for animals/fish & high diversity OVERALL ACTIVE RECREATION FUNCTION Rating 1 Confiden c Previous Community has two swales that provide connection to downgradient features; however, these swales are fully vegetated and contain no OHWM, indicating that substantial flow in this channel is uncommon. During large rainfall events, some resources may get exported out of the community, aided by the hillslope associated with the wetland, but this is not a common occurrence. Lack of defined flow path through feature capable of moving resources out of the site. Nutrients/resources created onsite through decomposition processes likely remain onsite. No open water habitats. Dense vegetation provides shelter, dense/varied vegetation provides food resources. Heard large animal in vegetation but did not observe. Wetland contains varied habitat pockets/islands. Area surrounded by pedestrian trails that may deter wildlife use. No active aquatic recreation opportunities. Wetland #13 WETLAND FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT FORM (page 2 of 3) No permanent flooding. Some local areas may see permanent saturation closer to the seep exit. Presence of woody vegetation aids in sediment retention, but the community has low sediment inputs due to the lack of inflow route. High plant productivity from dense PEM/PSS community. Some local areas may see permanent saturation closer to the seep exit. Attachment B – Wetland Mapping and Functional Evaluation Report Item 3E - 1st Rdg Ord 8624 Adopting Wetlands at CU South Page 146 Packet Page 187 of 523 Ratings: 1=no, 2=low, 3=medium,4=high, 5=very high Confidence:a=low, b=medium, c=high Function Indicators Comments PASSIVE RECREATION/HERITAGE VALUE High ranked occurrence of plant community Presence of rare plants or animals Landscape diversity X Rare or unusual wetland types Natural setting OVERALL PASSIVE RECREATION/UNIQUENESS Rating 3 Confiden c Previous OVERALL FUNCTIONAL INTEGRITY Low degree of disturbance Naturalness of hydrology X Diversity of plant community OVERALL FUNCTIONAL INTEGRITY Rating 2 Confiden c Notes: Diverse vegetation community with altered hydrology from historic mining excavation. Uncommon wetland type (seep). Scientific/educational value. Wetland #13 WETLAND FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT FORM (page 3 of 3) Attachment B – Wetland Mapping and Functional Evaluation Report Item 3E - 1st Rdg Ord 8624 Adopting Wetlands at CU South Page 147 Packet Page 188 of 523 Wetland #14 Former Cooper #NA Location: Boulder, CO Investigator: Mshields Date 8-Feb-24 Centroid coordinates: 39.97764235, -105.23409418 Observation method: Onsite Water Source:Overland flow History: Ratings: 1=no, 2=low, 3=medium,4=high, 5=very high Confidence:a=low, b=medium, c=high Function Indicators Comments GROUNDWATER RECHARGE Surface water inflow exceeds outflow Not permanently flooded/extremely variable water Located high in watershed &/or at local topo. high point Presence of porous underlying strata Dense vegetated basin slows flow X Outlet constricted &/or dammed Irreg. shape w/ high wetland edge:area ratio Indicated by available groundwater data OVERALL GROUNDWATER RECHARGE FUNCTION Rating 1 Confiden c Previous GROUNDWATER DISCHARGE Seeps or springs present X Low location in watershed &/or local topographic low Geologically diverse such as geologic contact No inlet, but outlet present &/or downstream of dam Permanently flooded/saturated No signif. accumulation of fine sediments/silts Indicated by available groundwater data OVERALL GROUNDWATER DISCHARGE FUNCTION Rating 1 Confiden c Previous FLOOD STORAGE/FLOODFLOW ALTERATION Located along stream X Outflow restricted High water mark shows periodic flooding X Flat topography &/or low gradient Porous substrate allows infiltration for subsurface storag X Rough surface & depressions for aboveground storage Dense veg. basin slows flow X Coarse woody debris present OVERALL FLOOD ALTERATION FUNCTION Rating 2 Confiden c Previous SHORELINE ANCHORING/STABILIZATION Erosional forces/high water velocity/unsheltered loc. Dense vegetation/good water-veg. interspersion Veg. w/strong dense root mass e.g. woody coverage Little evidence of recent erosion Rubble substrate present OVERALL SHORELINE ANCHORING FUNCTION Rating 1 Confiden c Previous SEDIMENT TRAPPING/RETENTION X Constricted outlet/water flow slows X Low water velocity/surface water input exceeds output Visible reduction in particulates between inflow/outflow Evidence of sediment/organic matter deposits Dense vegetation present X Flat topography &/or gently sloping wetland edges Source of sediments from upstream/offsite activities Absence of disturbances to re-suspend sediments OVERALL SEDIMENT TRAPPING FUNCTION Rating 2 Confiden c Previous WETLAND FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT FORM (p. 1 of 3) Salt meadow situated in a topographic depression with shallow, rocky soils. Bedrock identified at ~6" below ground surface. Wetland community situated within a topographic depression. Primary hydrology likely from overland flow (from adjacent groundwater discharges) that perches on clay/loam substrates over bedrock. No direct inflow/outflow path to convey flood events into this community. Located in an area of minimal flood hazard. Can retain localized overland flooding events due to topography/lack of outlet. No open water features present. Salt meadow community situated in topographic depression with no outlet. Community lacks inflow route to import sediment; however, heavy precipitation events may provide a low level of localized sediment input that would be trapped onsite. Attachment B – Wetland Mapping and Functional Evaluation Report Item 3E - 1st Rdg Ord 8624 Adopting Wetlands at CU South Page 148 Packet Page 189 of 523 Ratings: 1=no, 2=low, 3=medium,4=high, 5=very high Confidence:a=low, b=medium, c=high Function Indicators Comments NUTRIENT RETENTION (long-term) Permanently flooded/saturated High plant productivity Presence of woody plants Organic soils present OVERALL NUTRIENT RETENTION (long-term) FUNCTION Rating 1 Confiden b Previous NUTRIENT RETENTION (short-term) Low water velocity Highly variable water/seasonally flooded High plant productivity X Fine mineral soils present OVERALL NUTRIENT RETENTION (short -term) FUNCTION Rating 1 Confiden b Previous FOOD CHAIN SUPPORT (downstream/production export) Presence of outlet High plant productivity/overhanging veg. Seasonal flooding Good flushing flows/high erosion potential Non-acidic water Substrate w/ accumulated organic matter OVERALL FOOD CHAIN EXPORT FUNCTION Rating 1 Confiden c Previous FOOD CHAIN SUPPORT (within basin) High plant productivity X Absence of outlet Low erosion potential/absence of high flows OVERALL FOOD CHAIN SUPPORT (w/in basin) FUNCTION Rating 2 Confiden c Previous FISH HABITAT/AQUATIC DIVERSITY Some deep open water Non-acidic, clear water No barriers to migration/movement Minimal variation in flow (artificial) Streambank/edges provide partial cover/cool temps Well-mixed water/adequate oxygen OVERALL FISH/AQUATIC HABITAT FUNCTION Rating 1 Confiden c Previous WILDLIFE HABITAT Signs of different animals -- scat,prints,shelter Adjacent wooded area or veg. >20ft wide Large/ sinuous, irregular basin/with islands High veg. diversity/good food sources Minimal variation in flow (artificial) Some open water Connects to offsite habitat Not channelized or farmed OVERALL WILDLIFE HABITAT FUNCTION Rating 2 Confiden c Previous ACTIVE RECREATION Direct evidence of actual use Convenient public access Good habitat for animals/fish & high diversity OVERALL ACTIVE RECREATION FUNCTION Rating 1 Confiden c Previous No outlet or flow path present int his community to transport resources to downgradient/downstream communities. Low plant densities, no organic matter accumulation, and infrequent/short duration saturation events provide evidence that nutrient creation onsite is low. No open water features present in this community. Low density vegetation provides sparse cover for wildlife and meager food supply. No active aquatic recreation opportunities in this community. Wetland #14 WETLAND FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT FORM (page 2 of 3) Low plant densities, no organic matter accumulation, and presence of mineral based substrates with infrequent, short duration flooding/saturation events. Low plant densities, no organic matter accumulation, and presence of mineral based substrates with infrequent, short duration flooding/saturation events. Attachment B – Wetland Mapping and Functional Evaluation Report Item 3E - 1st Rdg Ord 8624 Adopting Wetlands at CU South Page 149 Packet Page 190 of 523 Ratings: 1=no, 2=low, 3=medium,4=high, 5=very high Confidence:a=low, b=medium, c=high Function Indicators Comments PASSIVE RECREATION/HERITAGE VALUE High ranked occurrence of plant community Presence of rare plants or animals Landscape diversity X Rare or unusual wetland types Natural setting OVERALL PASSIVE RECREATION/UNIQUENESS Rating 3 Confiden c Previous OVERALL FUNCTIONAL INTEGRITY Low degree of disturbance X Naturalness of hydrology Diversity of plant community OVERALL FUNCTIONAL INTEGRITY Rating 3 Confiden c Notes: Historic mining distubance in area has created a modified landscape. Despite saline conditions, vegetation community is common. Salt meadows are an uncommon wetland type. Provide education/science opportunities. Wetland #14 WETLAND FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT FORM (page 3 of 3) Attachment B – Wetland Mapping and Functional Evaluation Report Item 3E - 1st Rdg Ord 8624 Adopting Wetlands at CU South Page 150 Packet Page 191 of 523 Wetland #15 Former Cooper #NA Location: Boulder, CO Investigator: Mshields Date 8-Feb-24 Centroid coordinates: 39.97696789, -105.23364875 Observation method: Onsite Water Source:Groundwater seeps, overland flow History: Ratings: 1=no, 2=low, 3=medium,4=high, 5=very high Confidence:a=low, b=medium, c=high Function Indicators Comments GROUNDWATER RECHARGE X Surface water inflow exceeds outflow Not permanently flooded/extremely variable water X Located high in watershed &/or at local topo. high point X Presence of porous underlying strata Dense vegetated basin slows flow Outlet constricted &/or dammed Irreg. shape w/ high wetland edge:area ratio Indicated by available groundwater data OVERALL GROUNDWATER RECHARGE FUNCTION Rating 2 Confiden b Previous GROUNDWATER DISCHARGE X Seeps or springs present Low location in watershed &/or local topographic low Geologically diverse such as geologic contact No inlet, but outlet present &/or downstream of dam Permanently flooded/saturated No signif. accumulation of fine sediments/silts Indicated by available groundwater data OVERALL GROUNDWATER DISCHARGE FUNCTION Rating 4 Confiden c Previous FLOOD STORAGE/FLOODFLOW ALTERATION Located along stream Outflow restricted High water mark shows periodic flooding Flat topography &/or low gradient X Porous substrate allows infiltration for subsurface storag Rough surface & depressions for aboveground storage X Dense veg. basin slows flow Coarse woody debris present OVERALL FLOOD ALTERATION FUNCTION Rating 1 Confiden b Previous SHORELINE ANCHORING/STABILIZATION Erosional forces/high water velocity/unsheltered loc. Dense vegetation/good water-veg. interspersion Veg. w/strong dense root mass e.g. woody coverage Little evidence of recent erosion Rubble substrate present OVERALL SHORELINE ANCHORING FUNCTION Rating 1 Confiden c Previous SEDIMENT TRAPPING/RETENTION Constricted outlet/water flow slows Low water velocity/surface water input exceeds output Visible reduction in particulates between inflow/outflow Evidence of sediment/organic matter deposits X Dense vegetation present Flat topography &/or gently sloping wetland edges Source of sediments from upstream/offsite activities X Absence of disturbances to re-suspend sediments OVERALL SEDIMENT TRAPPING FUNCTION Rating 2 Confiden c Previous WETLAND FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT FORM (p. 1 of 3) Seep-driven hydrology provides evidence of porous substrates. Wetland community is located on a hillside which serves as a local topographic high point. Seep-driven hydrology with discharge onto hillside. No stream flows through feature, no inflow/outflow. This community is not located along a natural stream feature that has the potential to supply flood flows. In addition, the community is located on a hillside. No open water features present in this community. No inflow stream feature present to provide source of external sediment. Local sediment movement into the community through overland flow may occur and would likely trap sediment due to dense vegetation. Attachment B – Wetland Mapping and Functional Evaluation Report Item 3E - 1st Rdg Ord 8624 Adopting Wetlands at CU South Page 151 Packet Page 192 of 523 Ratings: 1=no, 2=low, 3=medium,4=high, 5=very high Confidence:a=low, b=medium, c=high Function Indicators Comments NUTRIENT RETENTION (long-term) Permanently flooded/saturated High plant productivity X Presence of woody plants Organic soils present OVERALL NUTRIENT RETENTION (long-term) FUNCTION Rating 2 Confiden b Previous NUTRIENT RETENTION (short-term) Low water velocity Highly variable water/seasonally flooded High plant productivity Fine mineral soils present OVERALL NUTRIENT RETENTION (short -term) FUNCTION Rating 3 Confiden b Previous FOOD CHAIN SUPPORT (downstream/production export) X Presence of outlet X High plant productivity/overhanging veg. Seasonal flooding Good flushing flows/high erosion potential Non-acidic water Substrate w/ accumulated organic matter OVERALL FOOD CHAIN EXPORT FUNCTION Rating 1 Confiden c Previous FOOD CHAIN SUPPORT (within basin) X High plant productivity Absence of outlet X Low erosion potential/absence of high flows OVERALL FOOD CHAIN SUPPORT (w/in basin) FUNCTION Rating 3 Confiden c Previous FISH HABITAT/AQUATIC DIVERSITY Some deep open water Non-acidic, clear water No barriers to migration/movement Minimal variation in flow (artificial) Streambank/edges provide partial cover/cool temps Well-mixed water/adequate oxygen OVERALL FISH/AQUATIC HABITAT FUNCTION Rating 1 Confiden c Previous WILDLIFE HABITAT Signs of different animals -- scat,prints,shelter X Adjacent wooded area or veg. >20ft wide Large/ sinuous, irregular basin/with islands X High veg. diversity/good food sources Minimal variation in flow (artificial) Some open water Connects to offsite habitat Not channelized or farmed OVERALL WILDLIFE HABITAT FUNCTION Rating 2 Confiden c Previous ACTIVE RECREATION Direct evidence of actual use Convenient public access Good habitat for animals/fish & high diversity OVERALL ACTIVE RECREATION FUNCTION Rating 1 Confiden c Previous Wetland #15 WETLAND FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT FORM (page 2 of 3) No permanent flooding. Some local areas may see permanent saturation closer to the seep exit. Presence of woody vegetation aids in sediment retention, but the community has low sediment inputs due to lack of inflow route. Community lacks through-flow. Nutrients created onsite (through decomposition) likely remain onsite. Community has no outlets connecting it to downstream aquatic features. During large rainfall events, some resources may get exported out of the community, aided by the hillslope associated with the wetland, but this is not a common occurrence. Lack of defined flow path through feature capable of moving resources out of the site. Nutrients/resources created onsite through decomposition processes likely remain onsite. No open water habitats. Dense/varied vegetation in this community provides shelter and food resources. The wetland community is also adjacent to a pedestrian trail that may deter wildlife use. No active aquatic recreation opportunities. Attachment B – Wetland Mapping and Functional Evaluation Report Item 3E - 1st Rdg Ord 8624 Adopting Wetlands at CU South Page 152 Packet Page 193 of 523 Ratings: 1=no, 2=low, 3=medium,4=high, 5=very high Confidence:a=low, b=medium, c=high Function Indicators Comments PASSIVE RECREATION/HERITAGE VALUE High ranked occurrence of plant community Presence of rare plants or animals Landscape diversity X Rare or unusual wetland types Natural setting OVERALL PASSIVE RECREATION/UNIQUENESS Rating 3 Confiden c Previous OVERALL FUNCTIONAL INTEGRITY Low degree of disturbance Naturalness of hydrology X Diversity of plant community OVERALL FUNCTIONAL INTEGRITY Rating 2 Confiden c Notes: Wetland #15 WETLAND FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT FORM (page 3 of 3) Diverse PEM vegetation community with altered hydrology from historic mining excavation. Uncommon wetland type (groundwater seep). Scientific/educational value. Attachment B – Wetland Mapping and Functional Evaluation Report Item 3E - 1st Rdg Ord 8624 Adopting Wetlands at CU South Page 153 Packet Page 194 of 523 Wetland #16 Former Cooper #NA Location: Boulder, CO Investigator: Mshields Date 8-Feb-24 Centroid coordinates: 39.97870431, -105.23463114 Observation method: Onsite Water Source:Groundwater, overland flow History: Ratings: 1=no, 2=low, 3=medium,4=high, 5=very high Confidence:a=low, b=medium, c=high Function Indicators Comments GROUNDWATER RECHARGE Surface water inflow exceeds outflow Not permanently flooded/extremely variable water Located high in watershed &/or at local topo. high point X Presence of porous underlying strata X Dense vegetated basin slows flow Outlet constricted &/or dammed X Irreg. shape w/ high wetland edge:area ratio Indicated by available groundwater data OVERALL GROUNDWATER RECHARGE FUNCTION Rating 2 Confiden b Previous GROUNDWATER DISCHARGE X Seeps or springs present X Low location in watershed &/or local topographic low Geologically diverse such as geologic contact No inlet, but outlet present &/or downstream of dam Permanently flooded/saturated X No signif. accumulation of fine sediments/silts Indicated by available groundwater data OVERALL GROUNDWATER DISCHARGE FUNCTION Rating 4 Confiden c Previous FLOOD STORAGE/FLOODFLOW ALTERATION Located along stream X Outflow restricted High water mark shows periodic flooding X Flat topography &/or low gradient Porous substrate allows infiltration for subsurface storag Rough surface & depressions for aboveground storage X Dense veg. basin slows flow X Coarse woody debris present OVERALL FLOOD ALTERATION FUNCTION Rating 2 Confiden b Previous SHORELINE ANCHORING/STABILIZATION Erosional forces/high water velocity/unsheltered loc. Dense vegetation/good water-veg. interspersion Veg. w/strong dense root mass e.g. woody coverage Little evidence of recent erosion Rubble substrate present OVERALL SHORELINE ANCHORING FUNCTION Rating 1 Confiden c Previous SEDIMENT TRAPPING/RETENTION X Constricted outlet/water flow slows Low water velocity/surface water input exceeds output Visible reduction in particulates between inflow/outflow Evidence of sediment/organic matter deposits X Dense vegetation present X Flat topography &/or gently sloping wetland edges Source of sediments from upstream/offsite activities Absence of disturbances to re-suspend sediments OVERALL SEDIMENT TRAPPING FUNCTION Rating 2 Confiden b Previous WETLAND FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT FORM (p. 1 of 3) Groundwater seeps provide hydrology to these communities and also provide evidence of a porous substrates that may also recharge groundwater, given additional hydrologic inputs. Groundwater seeps host PEM/PSS wetland communities in a low basin. Densely vegetated wetland communities within a topographically low basin. No inflow channel to provide flood flows for flood storage. Located in an area of minimal flood hazard. No open waters present. No inflow/channel present to introduce sediment from offsite. Small amounts of sediment may migrate onsite in large rainfall events, but this is likely uncommon. Attachment B – Wetland Mapping and Functional Evaluation Report Item 3E - 1st Rdg Ord 8624 Adopting Wetlands at CU South Page 154 Packet Page 195 of 523 Ratings: 1=no, 2=low, 3=medium,4=high, 5=very high Confidence:a=low, b=medium, c=high Function Indicators Comments NUTRIENT RETENTION (long-term) Permanently flooded/saturated High plant productivity X Presence of woody plants Organic soils present OVERALL NUTRIENT RETENTION (long-term) FUNCTION Rating 2 Confiden b Previous NUTRIENT RETENTION (short-term) Low water velocity Highly variable water/seasonally flooded High plant productivity Fine mineral soils present OVERALL NUTRIENT RETENTION (short -term) FUNCTION Rating 2 Confiden b Previous FOOD CHAIN SUPPORT (downstream/production export) Presence of outlet High plant productivity/overhanging veg. Seasonal flooding Good flushing flows/high erosion potential Non-acidic water Substrate w/ accumulated organic matter OVERALL FOOD CHAIN EXPORT FUNCTION Rating 1 Confiden c Previous FOOD CHAIN SUPPORT (within basin) High plant productivity X Absence of outlet Low erosion potential/absence of high flows OVERALL FOOD CHAIN SUPPORT (w/in basin) FUNCTION Rating 3 Confiden b Previous FISH HABITAT/AQUATIC DIVERSITY Some deep open water Non-acidic, clear water No barriers to migration/movement Minimal variation in flow (artificial) Streambank/edges provide partial cover/cool temps Well-mixed water/adequate oxygen OVERALL FISH/AQUATIC HABITAT FUNCTION Rating 1 Confiden c Previous WILDLIFE HABITAT Signs of different animals -- scat,prints,shelter X Adjacent wooded area or veg. >20ft wide X Large/ sinuous, irregular basin/with islands X High veg. diversity/good food sources Minimal variation in flow (artificial) Some open water Connects to offsite habitat Not channelized or farmed OVERALL WILDLIFE HABITAT FUNCTION Rating 4 Confiden c Previous ACTIVE RECREATION Direct evidence of actual use Convenient public access Good habitat for animals/fish & high diversity OVERALL ACTIVE RECREATION FUNCTION Rating 1 Confiden c Previous No inflow/outflow channels to move materials/resources through the wetland to downstream communities. No outflow channel to move materials/resources through the wetland to downstream communities. No open waters present to host fish habitats. Community consists of many small disconnected wetland islands with high edge diversty within a landscape depression. This habitat roughness provides shelter for wildlife. Wetland seeps provide vegetation diversity for forage. No active aquatic habitat recreation opportunities. Wetland #16 WETLAND FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT FORM (page 2 of 3) Community not permanently saturated/flooded. No organic accumulation. Community not permanently saturated/flooded. Community drier than many of the other seep-driven communities. Attachment B – Wetland Mapping and Functional Evaluation Report Item 3E - 1st Rdg Ord 8624 Adopting Wetlands at CU South Page 155 Packet Page 196 of 523 Ratings: 1=no, 2=low, 3=medium,4=high, 5=very high Confidence:a=low, b=medium, c=high Function Indicators Comments PASSIVE RECREATION/HERITAGE VALUE High ranked occurrence of plant community Presence of rare plants or animals Landscape diversity X Rare or unusual wetland types Natural setting OVERALL PASSIVE RECREATION/UNIQUENESS Rating 3 Confiden c Previous OVERALL FUNCTIONAL INTEGRITY Low degree of disturbance Naturalness of hydrology X Diversity of plant community OVERALL FUNCTIONAL INTEGRITY Rating 2 Confiden c Notes: This wetland hosts diverse, multi-strata wetland communities that have been historically altered, including hydrology, through mining activities. Uncommon wetland type (groundwater seep). Wetland #16 WETLAND FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT FORM (page 3 of 3) Attachment B – Wetland Mapping and Functional Evaluation Report Item 3E - 1st Rdg Ord 8624 Adopting Wetlands at CU South Page 156 Packet Page 197 of 523 Wetland #17 Former Cooper #NA Location: Boulder, CO Investigator: Mshields Date 8-Feb-24 Centroid coordinates: 39.98052413, -105.23498868 Observation method: Onsite Water Source:Groundwater discharge, overland flow History: Ratings: 1=no, 2=low, 3=medium,4=high, 5=very high Confidence:a=low, b=medium, c=high Function Indicators Comments GROUNDWATER RECHARGE Surface water inflow exceeds outflow X Not permanently flooded/extremely variable water Located high in watershed &/or at local topo. high point X Presence of porous underlying strata Dense vegetated basin slows flow Outlet constricted &/or dammed Irreg. shape w/ high wetland edge:area ratio Indicated by available groundwater data OVERALL GROUNDWATER RECHARGE FUNCTION Rating 2 Confiden c Previous GROUNDWATER DISCHARGE X Seeps or springs present X Low location in watershed &/or local topographic low Geologically diverse such as geologic contact No inlet, but outlet present &/or downstream of dam Permanently flooded/saturated No signif. accumulation of fine sediments/silts Indicated by available groundwater data OVERALL GROUNDWATER DISCHARGE FUNCTION Rating 3 Confiden b Previous FLOOD STORAGE/FLOODFLOW ALTERATION X Located along stream Outflow restricted High water mark shows periodic flooding X Flat topography &/or low gradient Porous substrate allows infiltration for subsurface storag Rough surface & depressions for aboveground storage X Dense veg. basin slows flow X Coarse woody debris present OVERALL FLOOD ALTERATION FUNCTION Rating 3 Confiden b Previous SHORELINE ANCHORING/STABILIZATION Erosional forces/high water velocity/unsheltered loc. X Dense vegetation/good water-veg. interspersion X Veg. w/strong dense root mass e.g. woody coverage X Little evidence of recent erosion Rubble substrate present OVERALL SHORELINE ANCHORING FUNCTION Rating 2 Confiden b Previous SEDIMENT TRAPPING/RETENTION Constricted outlet/water flow slows Low water velocity/surface water input exceeds output Visible reduction in particulates between inflow/outflow Evidence of sediment/organic matter deposits X Dense vegetation present Flat topography &/or gently sloping wetland edges Source of sediments from upstream/offsite activities X Absence of disturbances to re-suspend sediments OVERALL SEDIMENT TRAPPING FUNCTION Rating 2 Confiden c Previous WETLAND FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT FORM (p. 1 of 3) Drainage swale dominated by PEM/PSS wetland community with a downstream groundwater-fed pond. No indications of permanent flooding on aerial imagery, except in the pond. Hydrology from groundwater discharge upgradient. Groundwater seeps provide primary source of hydrology. Wetland situated within drainage swale (local topographic low area). Wetland community is located within a drainge swale with low gradients, dense vegetation, and ample woody debris. No open water channel exists for much of this feature. A small channel exhibiting OHWM begins near the pond feature that contains shrub vegetation along and within the banks. Dense vegetation present throughout much of the swale. Swale that hosts this wetland community lacks the flow power to move or re- suspend sediment. Attachment B – Wetland Mapping and Functional Evaluation Report Item 3E - 1st Rdg Ord 8624 Adopting Wetlands at CU South Page 157 Packet Page 198 of 523 Ratings: 1=no, 2=low, 3=medium,4=high, 5=very high Confidence:a=low, b=medium, c=high Function Indicators Comments NUTRIENT RETENTION (long-term) Permanently flooded/saturated X High plant productivity X Presence of woody plants Organic soils present OVERALL NUTRIENT RETENTION (long-term) FUNCTION Rating 3 Confiden b Previous NUTRIENT RETENTION (short-term) X Low water velocity Highly variable water/seasonally flooded X High plant productivity Fine mineral soils present OVERALL NUTRIENT RETENTION (short -term) FUNCTION Rating 3 Confiden b Previous FOOD CHAIN SUPPORT (downstream/production export) Presence of outlet X High plant productivity/overhanging veg. Seasonal flooding Good flushing flows/high erosion potential Non-acidic water Substrate w/ accumulated organic matter OVERALL FOOD CHAIN EXPORT FUNCTION Rating 1 Confiden b Previous FOOD CHAIN SUPPORT (within basin) X High plant productivity Absence of outlet X Low erosion potential/absence of high flows OVERALL FOOD CHAIN SUPPORT (w/in basin) FUNCTION Rating 3 Confiden b Previous FISH HABITAT/AQUATIC DIVERSITY X Some deep open water Non-acidic, clear water No barriers to migration/movement Minimal variation in flow (artificial) X Streambank/edges provide partial cover/cool temps Well-mixed water/adequate oxygen OVERALL FISH/AQUATIC HABITAT FUNCTION Rating 2 Confiden c Previous WILDLIFE HABITAT X Signs of different animals -- scat,prints,shelter X Adjacent wooded area or veg. >20ft wide Large/ sinuous, irregular basin/with islands X High veg. diversity/good food sources Minimal variation in flow (artificial) X Some open water Connects to offsite habitat Not channelized or farmed OVERALL WILDLIFE HABITAT FUNCTION Rating 3 Confiden c Previous ACTIVE RECREATION Direct evidence of actual use X Convenient public access Good habitat for animals/fish & high diversity OVERALL ACTIVE RECREATION FUNCTION Rating 1 Confiden c Previous Wetland #17 WETLAND FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT FORM (page 2 of 3) Diverse PEM/PSS community within swale includes dense stands of coyote willow capable of long term nutrient retention. Low velocities in swale during flow events coupled with dense vegetation cover allow for short nutrient retention. Swale terminates in a groundwater-fed pond, no downstream path for continued food chain export. Low/infrequent flow in the swale doesn't export resources/materials offsite. Small segment of channel and pond have open water segments, but both features are isolated with no continuous upstream or downstream connection, severely limiting fish passage. Dense vegetation cover and a hearty tree-dominated riparian corridor provide shelter for wildlife use. Adjacent vegetation areas adjacent to the feature >20ft wide; however, area is transected with pedestrian trails which fragment habitat and deter wildlife use. No active aquatic recreation opportunities. Attachment B – Wetland Mapping and Functional Evaluation Report Item 3E - 1st Rdg Ord 8624 Adopting Wetlands at CU South Page 158 Packet Page 199 of 523 Ratings: 1=no, 2=low, 3=medium,4=high, 5=very high Confidence:a=low, b=medium, c=high Function Indicators Comments PASSIVE RECREATION/HERITAGE VALUE High ranked occurrence of plant community Presence of rare plants or animals Landscape diversity Rare or unusual wetland types Natural setting OVERALL PASSIVE RECREATION/UNIQUENESS Rating 2 Confiden c Previous OVERALL FUNCTIONAL INTEGRITY Low degree of disturbance Naturalness of hydrology Diversity of plant community OVERALL FUNCTIONAL INTEGRITY Rating 2 Confiden c Notes: Wetland #17 WETLAND FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT FORM (page 3 of 3) Hydrology unnatural as pond and swale are a result of historic mining activities. Community is domainted mainly by cattails and coyote willow with weedy encroachment from the uplands. Low passive recreational value in the form of (but not limited to) education, science, nature study. Attachment B – Wetland Mapping and Functional Evaluation Report Item 3E - 1st Rdg Ord 8624 Adopting Wetlands at CU South Page 159 Packet Page 200 of 523 Wetland #18 Former Cooper #NA Location: Boulder, CO Investigator: Mshields Date 8-Feb-24 Centroid coordinates: 39.98193978, -105.23391568 Observation method: Onsite Water Source:Groundwater, overland flow History: Ratings: 1=no, 2=low, 3=medium,4=high, 5=very high Confidence:a=low, b=medium, c=high Function Indicators Comments GROUNDWATER RECHARGE Surface water inflow exceeds outflow X Not permanently flooded/extremely variable water Located high in watershed &/or at local topo. high point Presence of porous underlying strata Dense vegetated basin slows flow X Outlet constricted &/or dammed Irreg. shape w/ high wetland edge:area ratio Indicated by available groundwater data OVERALL GROUNDWATER RECHARGE FUNCTION Rating 2 Confiden b Previous GROUNDWATER DISCHARGE X Seeps or springs present X Low location in watershed &/or local topographic low Geologically diverse such as geologic contact No inlet, but outlet present &/or downstream of dam Permanently flooded/saturated No signif. accumulation of fine sediments/silts Indicated by available groundwater data OVERALL GROUNDWATER DISCHARGE FUNCTION Rating 3 Confiden c Previous FLOOD STORAGE/FLOODFLOW ALTERATION Located along stream X Outflow restricted High water mark shows periodic flooding X Flat topography &/or low gradient X Porous substrate allows infiltration for subsurface storag X Rough surface & depressions for aboveground storage X Dense veg. basin slows flow Coarse woody debris present OVERALL FLOOD ALTERATION FUNCTION Rating 3 Confiden c Previous SHORELINE ANCHORING/STABILIZATION Erosional forces/high water velocity/unsheltered loc. Dense vegetation/good water-veg. interspersion Veg. w/strong dense root mass e.g. woody coverage Little evidence of recent erosion Rubble substrate present OVERALL SHORELINE ANCHORING FUNCTION Rating 1 Confiden c Previous SEDIMENT TRAPPING/RETENTION X Constricted outlet/water flow slows Low water velocity/surface water input exceeds output Visible reduction in particulates between inflow/outflow Evidence of sediment/organic matter deposits X Dense vegetation present Flat topography &/or gently sloping wetland edges Source of sediments from upstream/offsite activities Absence of disturbances to re-suspend sediments OVERALL SEDIMENT TRAPPING FUNCTION Rating 3 Confiden c Previous WETLAND FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT FORM (p. 1 of 3) Series of isolated groundwater-fed swales. Lack of additional hydrology sources limits recharge potential. Series of isolated groundwater-fed swales. Wetland communities within isolated swales with no direct connection to a channel/drainage. Most of these communities are located in the SBC floodway. No open waters present. Isolated swales lack upstream flow path and sediment source. Sediment from large overland flow events that enters swales remains in community due to lack of flushing flows. Community is in the SBC floodway and may receive sediment inputs from large flow events. Attachment B – Wetland Mapping and Functional Evaluation Report Item 3E - 1st Rdg Ord 8624 Adopting Wetlands at CU South Page 160 Packet Page 201 of 523 Ratings: 1=no, 2=low, 3=medium,4=high, 5=very high Confidence:a=low, b=medium, c=high Function Indicators Comments NUTRIENT RETENTION (long-term) Permanently flooded/saturated X High plant productivity X Presence of woody plants Organic soils present OVERALL NUTRIENT RETENTION (long-term) FUNCTION Rating 3 Confiden b Previous NUTRIENT RETENTION (short-term) Low water velocity X Highly variable water/seasonally flooded X High plant productivity Fine mineral soils present OVERALL NUTRIENT RETENTION (short -term) FUNCTION Rating 3 Confiden b Previous FOOD CHAIN SUPPORT (downstream/production export) Presence of outlet High plant productivity/overhanging veg. Seasonal flooding Good flushing flows/high erosion potential Non-acidic water Substrate w/ accumulated organic matter OVERALL FOOD CHAIN EXPORT FUNCTION Rating 1 Confiden c Previous FOOD CHAIN SUPPORT (within basin) High plant productivity X Absence of outlet X Low erosion potential/absence of high flows OVERALL FOOD CHAIN SUPPORT (w/in basin) FUNCTION Rating 3 Confiden b Previous FISH HABITAT/AQUATIC DIVERSITY Some deep open water Non-acidic, clear water No barriers to migration/movement Minimal variation in flow (artificial) Streambank/edges provide partial cover/cool temps Well-mixed water/adequate oxygen OVERALL FISH/AQUATIC HABITAT FUNCTION Rating 1 Confiden c Previous WILDLIFE HABITAT Signs of different animals -- scat,prints,shelter X Adjacent wooded area or veg. >20ft wide Large/ sinuous, irregular basin/with islands X High veg. diversity/good food sources Minimal variation in flow (artificial) Some open water Connects to offsite habitat Not channelized or farmed OVERALL WILDLIFE HABITAT FUNCTION Rating 3 Confiden c Previous ACTIVE RECREATION Direct evidence of actual use Convenient public access Good habitat for animals/fish & high diversity OVERALL ACTIVE RECREATION FUNCTION Rating 1 Confiden c Previous No continuous downstream/downgradient connect to other aquatic features or flow events to facilitate materials export. Low erosion potential as these swales do not host frequent flow (no OHWM), are fully vegetated, and have no downstream connection. Nutrients/resources produced in the wetland remain in the wetland. No open water present in the community. Swales located near pedestrian trails which likely deters some wildlife use at times. Communities are adjacent to a large area of upland habitat, and nearby other wetland habitats. Hosts dense vegetation for shelter and food source. No aquatic recreation potential. Wetland #18 WETLAND FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT FORM (page 2 of 3) Swales saturated frequently enough to host dense PEM/PSS community, but do not appear inundated (based on aerial imagery review) in any given year. Swales saturated frequently enough to host dense PEM/PSS community, but do not appear inundated (based on aerial imagery review) in any given year. Attachment B – Wetland Mapping and Functional Evaluation Report Item 3E - 1st Rdg Ord 8624 Adopting Wetlands at CU South Page 161 Packet Page 202 of 523 Ratings: 1=no, 2=low, 3=medium,4=high, 5=very high Confidence:a=low, b=medium, c=high Function Indicators Comments PASSIVE RECREATION/HERITAGE VALUE High ranked occurrence of plant community Presence of rare plants or animals x Landscape diversity Rare or unusual wetland types Natural setting OVERALL PASSIVE RECREATION/UNIQUENESS Rating 3 Confiden c Previous OVERALL FUNCTIONAL INTEGRITY Low degree of disturbance Naturalness of hydrology X Diversity of plant community OVERALL FUNCTIONAL INTEGRITY Rating 2 Confiden c Notes: Swale features relic of historic mining operations, and primary hydrology (groundwater) present due to previous exacavation of the area. Community does host a diversity of species and strata. Common wetland community type adjacent to pedestrian trails. Potential for scientific/education value. Wetland #18 WETLAND FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT FORM (page 3 of 3) Attachment B – Wetland Mapping and Functional Evaluation Report Item 3E - 1st Rdg Ord 8624 Adopting Wetlands at CU South Page 162 Packet Page 203 of 523 Wetland #19 Former Cooper #NA Location: Boulder, CO Investigator: Mshields Date 8-Feb-24 Centroid coordinates: 39.97099975, -105.22893325 Observation method: Onsite Water Source:Groundwater, overland flow History: Ratings: 1=no, 2=low, 3=medium,4=high, 5=very high Confidence:a=low, b=medium, c=high Function Indicators Comments GROUNDWATER RECHARGE X Surface water inflow exceeds outflow X Not permanently flooded/extremely variable water Located high in watershed &/or at local topo. high point X Presence of porous underlying strata X Dense vegetated basin slows flow Outlet constricted &/or dammed X Irreg. shape w/ high wetland edge:area ratio Indicated by available groundwater data OVERALL GROUNDWATER RECHARGE FUNCTION Rating 3 Confiden b Previous GROUNDWATER DISCHARGE X Seeps or springs present X Low location in watershed &/or local topographic low Geologically diverse such as geologic contact No inlet, but outlet present &/or downstream of dam X Permanently flooded/saturated No signif. accumulation of fine sediments/silts Indicated by available groundwater data OVERALL GROUNDWATER DISCHARGE FUNCTION Rating 4 Confiden c Previous FLOOD STORAGE/FLOODFLOW ALTERATION Located along stream X Outflow restricted High water mark shows periodic flooding Flat topography &/or low gradient X Porous substrate allows infiltration for subsurface storag Rough surface & depressions for aboveground storage X Dense veg. basin slows flow Coarse woody debris present OVERALL FLOOD ALTERATION FUNCTION Rating 4 Confiden b Previous SHORELINE ANCHORING/STABILIZATION Erosional forces/high water velocity/unsheltered loc. Dense vegetation/good water-veg. interspersion Veg. w/strong dense root mass e.g. woody coverage Little evidence of recent erosion Rubble substrate present OVERALL SHORELINE ANCHORING FUNCTION Rating 1 Confiden c Previous SEDIMENT TRAPPING/RETENTION X Constricted outlet/water flow slows Low water velocity/surface water input exceeds output Visible reduction in particulates between inflow/outflow X Evidence of sediment/organic matter deposits X Dense vegetation present X Flat topography &/or gently sloping wetland edges Source of sediments from upstream/offsite activities X Absence of disturbances to re-suspend sediments OVERALL SEDIMENT TRAPPING FUNCTION Rating 3 Confiden c Previous WETLAND FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT FORM (p. 1 of 3) Groundwater-driven wetland communities within the footprint of an old gravel pit. Groundwater-driven wetland communities within the footprint of an old gravel pit. Community contains dense cattail vegetation in topographic depression with groundwater interaction within the SBC floodway. No open water present. No inflow/outflow paths for sediment to enter community. A small amount of sediment movement into the community may occur during heavy rain events. Community is located in the SBC floodway and would receive/trap sediment from large flow events. Attachment B – Wetland Mapping and Functional Evaluation Report Item 3E - 1st Rdg Ord 8624 Adopting Wetlands at CU South Page 163 Packet Page 204 of 523 Ratings: 1=no, 2=low, 3=medium,4=high, 5=very high Confidence:a=low, b=medium, c=high Function Indicators Comments NUTRIENT RETENTION (long-term) X Permanently flooded/saturated X High plant productivity X Presence of woody plants Organic soils present OVERALL NUTRIENT RETENTION (long-term) FUNCTION Rating 3 Confiden b Previous NUTRIENT RETENTION (short-term) Low water velocity Highly variable water/seasonally flooded X High plant productivity Fine mineral soils present OVERALL NUTRIENT RETENTION (short -term) FUNCTION Rating 3 Confiden b Previous FOOD CHAIN SUPPORT (downstream/production export) Presence of outlet X High plant productivity/overhanging veg. Seasonal flooding Good flushing flows/high erosion potential Non-acidic water X Substrate w/ accumulated organic matter OVERALL FOOD CHAIN EXPORT FUNCTION Rating 1 Confiden b Previous FOOD CHAIN SUPPORT (within basin) X High plant productivity X Absence of outlet X Low erosion potential/absence of high flows OVERALL FOOD CHAIN SUPPORT (w/in basin) FUNCTION Rating 4 Confiden b Previous FISH HABITAT/AQUATIC DIVERSITY Some deep open water Non-acidic, clear water No barriers to migration/movement Minimal variation in flow (artificial) Streambank/edges provide partial cover/cool temps Well-mixed water/adequate oxygen OVERALL FISH/AQUATIC HABITAT FUNCTION Rating 1 Confiden c Previous WILDLIFE HABITAT X Signs of different animals -- scat,prints,shelter X Adjacent wooded area or veg. >20ft wide X Large/ sinuous, irregular basin/with islands High veg. diversity/good food sources Minimal variation in flow (artificial) Some open water X Connects to offsite habitat Not channelized or farmed OVERALL WILDLIFE HABITAT FUNCTION Rating 3 Confiden c Previous ACTIVE RECREATION Direct evidence of actual use Convenient public access Good habitat for animals/fish & high diversity OVERALL ACTIVE RECREATION FUNCTION Rating 1 Confiden c Previous No outflow path to transport nutirents/resources to downstream communities. No flow path through features. Resources created in these communities has no route for export. No open water aquatic habitats present. Large depressional features host multi-strata vegetation communities that provide shelter/cover for wildlife. Adjacent wet meadow communities to the east provide wildlife use buffers. Pedestrian use/trails present in the area which may deter wildlife use. No active aquatic recreation opportunities. Wetland #19 WETLAND FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT FORM (page 2 of 3) Vegetation communities contain saturated soils long enough to form hydric soil indicators and wetland vegetation; no outlet; nutrients made onsite through decaying plant material stay onsite. Soils remain saturated long enough to form hydric soil indicators and host wetland vegetation. No downstream/downgradient outlet means that nutrients made onsite through decaying plant material stay onsite. Attachment B – Wetland Mapping and Functional Evaluation Report Item 3E - 1st Rdg Ord 8624 Adopting Wetlands at CU South Page 164 Packet Page 205 of 523 Ratings: 1=no, 2=low, 3=medium,4=high, 5=very high Confidence:a=low, b=medium, c=high Function Indicators Comments PASSIVE RECREATION/HERITAGE VALUE High ranked occurrence of plant community X Presence of rare plants or animals Landscape diversity Rare or unusual wetland types Natural setting OVERALL PASSIVE RECREATION/UNIQUENESS Rating 4 Confiden c Previous OVERALL FUNCTIONAL INTEGRITY Low degree of disturbance Naturalness of hydrology X Diversity of plant community OVERALL FUNCTIONAL INTEGRITY Rating 3 Confiden c Notes: Area of historic mining disturbance and modified hydrology from mining excavation activities that exposed areas of groundwater. Presence of rare plants and multi-strata communities provides a moderate level of functional integrity. Typical wetland community dominated by cattail and coyote willow; however, this community also hosts a federally protected orchid species along its fringe. Has potential for scientific/educational value including (but not limited to) to wetlands, riparian corridors, avian species, rare species, or mine reclamation. Wetland #19 WETLAND FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT FORM (page 3 of 3) Attachment B – Wetland Mapping and Functional Evaluation Report Item 3E - 1st Rdg Ord 8624 Adopting Wetlands at CU South Page 165 Packet Page 206 of 523 C OVE R SH E E T ME E T I N G D AT E March 7, 2024 AG E N D A I T E M Second reading and consideration of a motion to adopt Ordinance 8620 amending Title 9, "Land Use C ode," B.R.C . 1981 to fix errors, clarify existing code sections, update graphics, and improve the clarity of the code, and setting forth related details P RI MARY STAF F C ON TAC T Lisa Houde, Senior Planner RE Q U E ST E D AC T I ON O R MOT I ON L AN GU AG E Motion to adopt Ordinance 8620 amending Title 9, "Land Use C ode," B.R.C . 1981 to fix errors, clarify existing code sections, update graphics, and improve the clarity of the code, and setting forth related details AT TAC H ME N T S: Description I tem 3F - 2nd Rdg Ord 8620 Title 9 Code Section I mprov ements Packet Page 207 of 523 CITY OF BOULDER CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM MEETING DATE: March 7, 2024 AGENDA TITLE Second reading and consideration of a motion to adopt Ordinance 8620 amending Title 9, “Land Use Code,” B.R.C. 1981, to clarify existing code sections, update graphics, and improve the clarity of the code, and setting forth related details. REQUESTING DEPARTMENT / PRESENTERS Nuria Rivera-Vandermyde, City Manager Brad Mueller, Director of Planning & Development Services Charles Ferro, Senior Planning Manager Karl Guiler, Senior Policy Advisor Lisa Houde, Senior City Planner EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Staff has identified a list of proposed changes to clarify the Land Use Code, fix errors, simplify language, and codify existing practices. The city periodically corrects technical errors to avoid confusion and to ensure that the Land Use Code is administered and enforced in a manner consistent with the intent and department practices. The last ordinance addressing similar “clean-up” issues was adopted in 2020. A draft annotated version of the ordinance with footnotes describing the purpose of each change is in Attachment A and Ordinance 8620, without footnotes and in official ordinance format, can be found in Attachment B Item 3F - 2nd Rdg Ord 8620 Title 9 Code Section Improvements Page 1 Packet Page 208 of 523 STAFF RECOMMENDATION Suggested Motion Language: Staff requests council consideration of this matter and action in the form of the following motion: Motion to adopt Ordinance 8620 amending Title 9, “Land Use Code,” B.R.C. 1981, to clarify existing code sections, update graphics, and improve the clarity of the code, and setting forth related details. COMMUNITY SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENTS AND IMPACTS •Economic – Ordinance 8620 is intended to clarify code language and correct errors in the code, which may ease processing of development review applications. •Environmental – These updates are not anticipated to have direct environmental impacts. •Social – The changes are not expected to have direct social impact. OTHER IMPACTS •Fiscal – This project is being completed using existing resources. •Staff time – This project is being completed using existing staff resources. Clarifying and correcting these parts of the code may reduce staff time by ensuring the code language is accurate and interpretations are more predictable for applicants. BOARD AND COMMISSION FEEDBACK Planning Board – Ordinances changing the Land Use Code require Planning Board recommendation to City Council. On February 6, 2024, Planning Board reviewed Ordinance 8620 and recommended approval of the ordinance, with some changes, to City Council with the following motion: ml Robles made a motion seconded by K. Nordback to recommend that City Council adopt ordinance 8620, amending Title 9, “Land Use Code,” to clarify existing code sections, update graphics, and improve the clarity of the code, and setting forth related details. The planning board voted 6-0. Motion passed, as amended by ml Robles’ motion to amend. ml Robles made a motion to amend seconded by M. McIntyre to amend the motion to include an addition to 9-16-1, general definitions, to include a definition of “roof overhang”. The planning board voted 6-0. Motion passed. Item 3F - 2nd Rdg Ord 8620 Title 9 Code Section Improvements Page 2 Packet Page 209 of 523 Staff believes the addition of this definition and how it would impact other definitions and standards related to architectural features will require more time for analysis, so it has not been included in Ordinance 8620. Staff is committed to further studying this issue and plans to approach it in a future code change project. PUBLIC FEEDBACK Staff sent out an update in the Planning & Development Services newsletter informing the community of the upcoming code changes. As the changes are primarily focused on clarifying existing language, fixing errors, and aligning the code with existing practices, this code change project is implementing an “inform” level of public engagement. BACKGROUND The proposed changes were identified during previous land use review processes where implementation of the code raised questions about interpretation and issues of clarity, where code language resulted in unintended consequences, or where mistakes were found. Staff compiles a list of these issues and every few years drafts an ordinance to update the code accordingly. SUMMARY OF PROPOSED CHANGES IN ORDINANCE 8620 The ordinance can be found in Attachment B. An annotated version of the ordinance with footnotes provided to describe the purpose of each change is included in Attachment A. The updates generally consist of: • Corrections. Corrects inaccuracies, such as incorrect citations or typographical errors. • Clarifications. Updates that make the code language clearer. • Graphics. Changes to graphics to address common misunderstandings. (Note that Attachment C includes higher resolution versions of the graphics.) • Consistency. Updates to ensure consistency with state or other requirements or existing city practices. ANALYSIS Staff has identified the following key issues for the City Council’s consideration: 1. Does the City Council find that the proposed ordinance implements the adopted policies of the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan? 2. Does the City Council suggest any modifications to the proposed ordinance? Staff finds that the proposed ordinance implements the adopted policies of the comprehensive plan. The following analysis is provided to demonstrate how the project objective is met through the proposed ordinance. Attachment A includes the ordinance and includes detailed footnotes that describe the rationale of each proposed change. Item 3F - 2nd Rdg Ord 8620 Title 9 Code Section Improvements Page 3 Packet Page 210 of 523 What is the reason for the ordinance and what public purpose will be served? This ordinance fixes errors in the code, clarifies common issues of interpretation, and updates graphics to improve communication of code requirements. The changes will improve the accuracy of the code by correcting typographical errors and by providing clarity where existing provisions have been misinterpreted. How is the ordinance consistent with the purpose of the zoning districts or code chapters being amended? The ordinance would affect many different code sections. The changes will improve the comprehension of the code overall, both for customers and code administrators and may ease review of development applications. Are there consequences in not passing this ordinance? If this ordinance is not passed, clerical errors in the code would not be corrected and improvements in code clarity would not be adopted. Misunderstandings of current code language or graphics would continue. What adverse effects may result with the adoption of this ordinance? Adverse effects are not anticipated as a result of this amendment. Staff has intentionally included only minor changes like fixing errors, clarifying existing language, or ensuring consistency with state or other requirements or existing city practices. What factors are influencing the timing of the proposed ordinance? Why? While many of the proposed code corrections are relatively minor fixes, the ordinance does include corrections that should be completed as soon as practical to avoid confusion among code users. Some of the changes involve issues with recently adopted ordinances. Staff aims to ensure these corrections are adopted prior to code change projects that may be more comprehensive and substantive. How does the ordinance compare to practices in other cities? As the limited changes are primarily minor clarifications and corrections, comparisons to other communities are not instructive in this circumstance. All communities have an interest in keeping their code updated, clear, and accurate. How will this ordinance implement the comprehensive plan? The ordinance will implement the following applicable policy from the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan. Local Governance & Community Engagement Policy 10.01: High-Performing Government The city and county strive for continuous improvement in stewardship and sustainability of financial, human, information and physical assets. In all business, the city and county seek to enhance and facilitate transparency, accuracy, efficiency, effectiveness and quality customer Item 3F - 2nd Rdg Ord 8620 Title 9 Code Section Improvements Page 4 Packet Page 211 of 523 service. The city and county support strategic decision-making with timely, reliable and accurate data and analysis. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Annotated Ordinance Attachment B: Ordinance 8620 Attachment C: Graphics – Higher Resolution Item 3F - 2nd Rdg Ord 8620 Title 9 Code Section Improvements Page 5 Packet Page 212 of 523 Attachment A : Annotated Ordinance 8620 NOTE: This version of the draft ordinance includes footnotes that help to describe all of the proposed changes as well as the redlined tracked changes to existing code language. See Attachment B for the official ordinance. 2-3-12. BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT AND BUILDING APPEALS (b)The board's functions are to: (1)Review and decide at the request of any interested person any question of interpretation by the city manager of Chapters 9-6, "Use Standards," 9-7, "Schedule of Form and Bulk Standards," and 9-8, "Intensity Standards," B.R.C. 1981; (2)Hear and decide to grant or deny applications for variances from the setback requirements of Section 9-7-1, "Schedule of Form and Bulk Standards," B.R.C. 1981, and the size requirements for accessory dwelling units of Subparagraph 9-6-3(n) B.R.C. 1981; (3)Hear and decide applications for exceptions under the solar access ordinance, Section 9 -9-17, "Solar Access," B.R.C. 1981; (4)Hear and decide to grant or deny applications for variances, and to hear and decide appeals of orders from the city manager under the sign code, Section 9-9-21, "Signs," B.R.C. 1981;1 (5)Sit as the Board of Building Appeals pursuant to Section 2 -3-4, "Board of Building Appeals," B.R.C. 1981; and (6)Hear and decide such other matters as the city council may by ordinance provide. 6-14-2. DEFINITIONS Mixed -use development means a building, or a project, or a development, which may consist of one or multiple lots or parcels, that contains one or more nonresidential use and one or more dwelling units in any zone district.2 Residential zone district means any district in the residential classification of Table 5-1 in Section 9-5-2, B.R.C., 19813 6-14-7. LOCATIONS OF MEDICAL MARIJUANA BUSINESSES (c)No Medical Marijuana Business in Building with Residences or Residential Zone Districts. It shall be unlawful to operate a medical marijuana business in a building which contains a residence, or within a dwelling unit within any zone district, or within a residential zone district, or within a mixed -use development that includes a residence. This restriction shall not apply to a medical marijuana wellness center that had submitted an application or held a license from the city on October 22, 2013. 4 6-16-2. DEFINITIONS Mixed use development means a building, or a project, or a development, which may consist of one or multiple lots or parcels, that contains one or more nonresidential use and one or more dwelling units in any zone district. 5 1 The authority for BOZA to review sign variances is not described in Title 2, but is listed in Title 9. This change reconciles that difference. 2 Change to licensing part of code - Clarifies applicability of multi-lot mixed use development location requirements for medical and recreational marijuana. 3 Change to licensing part of code - Clarifies applicability of multi-lot mixed use development location requirements for medical and recreational marijuana. 4 Change to licensing part of code - Clarifies applicability of multi-lot mixed use development location requirements for medical and recreational marijuana. 5 Change to licensing part of code - Clarifies applicability of multi-lot mixed use development location requirements for medical and recreational marijuana. Attachment A - Annotated Ordinance 8620 Item 3F - 2nd Rdg Ord 8620 Title 9 Code Section Improvements Page 6 Packet Page 213 of 523 Residential zone district means any district in the residential classification of Table 5-1 in Section 9-5-2, B.R.C., 19816 6-16-5. APPLICATION; MODIFICATION OF PREMISES (a) Application Requirements. An application for a recreational marijuana business license shall be made to the city on forms provided by the city manager for that purpose. The applicant shall use the application to demonstrate its compliance with this chapter and any other applicable law, rule, or regulation. In addition to the information required by Chapter 4-1, "General Licensing Provisions," B.R.C. 1981, the application shall include the following information: … (9) A zoning confirmation form from the city, to ascertain within a radius of one-quarter mile from the boundaries of the property upon which the recreational marijuana business is located, the proximity of the property to any school or other facility identified in this chapter, or state licensed child care center, to any other marijuana business or to any residential zone district or a mixed- use development containing one or more residences.7 … 6-16-7. LOCATIONS OF RECREATIONAL MARIJUANA BUSINESSES (c) No Recreational Marijuana Business in Building With Residences or Residential Zone Districts. It shall be unlawful to operate a recreational marijuana business in a building which contains a residence, or within a dwelling unit within any zone district, or within a residential zone district, or within a mixed -use development that includes a residence.8 9-2-1. TYPES OF REVIEWS … (b) Summary Chart: TABLE 2-1: REVIEW PROCESSES SUMMARY CHART I. ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEWS II. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW AND BOARD ACTION Affordable housing design review pursuant to Section 9-13-4, B.R.C. 1981 Building permits Change of address Change of street name Conditional uses, as noted in Table 6-1: Use Table Demolition, moving, and removal of buildings with no historic or architectural significance, per Section 9-11-23, "Review of Permits for Demolition, On-Site Relocation, and Off-Site Relocation of Buildings Not Designated," B.R.C. 1981 Easement vacation Extension of development approval/staff level Annexation/initial zoning BOZA variances Concept plans Demolition, moving, and removal of buildings with potential historic or architectural significance, per Section 9-11-23, "Review of Permits for Demolition, On-Site Relocation, and Off-Site Relocation of Buildings Not Designated," B.R.C. 1981 Form-based code review Geophysical exploration permit Landmark alteration certificates other than those that may be approved by staff per Section 9-11-14, "Staff Review of Application for Landmark Alteration Certificate," B.R.C. 1981 6 Change to licensing part of code - Clarifies applicability of multi-lot mixed use development location requirements for medical and recreational marijuana. 7 Change to licensing part of code - Clarifies applicability of multi-lot mixed use development location requirements for medical and recreational marijuana. 8 Change to licensing part of code - Clarifies applicability of multi-lot mixed use development location requirements for medical and recreational marijuana. Attachment A - Annotated Ordinance 8620 Item 3F - 2nd Rdg Ord 8620 Title 9 Code Section Improvements Page 7 Packet Page 214 of 523 Landmark alteration certificates (staff review per Section 9-11-14, "Staff Review of Application for Landmark Alteration Certificate," B.R.C. 1981) Landscape standards variance Minor modification to approved site plan Minor modification to approved form-based code review Noise barriers along major streets per Paragraph 9-9-15(c)(7), B.R.C. 1981 Nonconforming use (extension, change of use (incl. parking)) Parking deferral per Subsection 9-9-6(e), B.R.C. 1981 Parking reduction of up to fifty 25 percent per Subsection 9-9-6(f), B.R.C. 19819 Parking reductions and modifications for bicycle parking per Paragraph 9-9-6(g)(6), B.R.C. 1981 Parking stall variances Public utility Rescission of development approval Revocable permit Right-of-way lease Setback variance Site access variance Solar exception Zoning verification Lot line adjustments Lot line elimination Minor Subdivisions Out of city utility permit Rezoning Site review Subdivisions Use review Vacations of street, alley, or access easement 9-2-3. VARIANCES AND INTERPRETATIONS (c) Administrative Variances: The city manager may grant a variance from: … (8) The city manager may also grant variances or refer variance requests to the BOZA to allow development not in conformance with the provisions of this title which otherwise would result in a violation of federal or state legislation, including but not limited to the Federal Fair Housing Act or the Americans with Disabilities Act. 10 9-2-14. SITE REVIEW (c) Modifications to Development Standards: The following development standards of B.R.C. 1981 may be modified under the site review process set forth in this section: (1) 9-7-1, "Schedule of Form and Bulk Standards" and standards referred to in that section except that the standards referred to as "FAR Requirements" may not be modified under this paragraph and are subject to Section 9-8-2, B.R.C. 1981, and the maximum height or conditional height for 9 To align with Ordinance 8599 and the parking reduction regulations that have been implemented for years, this table clarifies that parking reductions are only allowed up to 25% as Administrative Reviews. 10 Change recommended by City Attorney’s Office to modify applicability to include violations of state legislation as well as federal legislation. Attachment A - Annotated Ordinance 8620 Item 3F - 2nd Rdg Ord 8620 Title 9 Code Section Improvements Page 8 Packet Page 215 of 523 principal buildings or uses may be modified only as permitted in Paragraph 9-2-14(b)(1)(E), B.R.C. 1981.11 … (20) 9-9-17, "Solar Access."," provided the modification meets the exception criteria in 9-9-17(f)(6).12 … (d) Application Requirements: An application for approval of a site plan may be filed by any person having a demonstrable property interest in land to be included in a site review on a form provided by the city manager that includes, without limitation:13 (1) All materials and information required by Subsection 9-2-6(a), B.R.C. 1981;. (2) A site plan with a north arrow showing the major details of the proposed development, prepared on a scale of not less than one inch equals one hundred feet providing sufficient detail to evaluate the features of the development required by this section. The site plan shall contain, insofar as applicable, the information set forth in this subsection ;. (3) The existing topographic character of the land, showing contours at two-foot intervals;. (4) The site and location of proposed uses with dimensions indicating the distance from lot lines ;. (5) The location and size of all existing and proposed buildings, structures and improvements, and the general location of adjacent streets, structures and properties;. (6) The maximum height of all buildings and building elevations showing exterior colors and materials;. (7) The density and type of uses;. (8) The internal traffic and circulation systems, off-street parking areas, service areas, loading areas and major points of access to public rights-of-way;. (9) The location, height and size of proposed signs, lighting and advertising devices ;. (10) The areas that are to be conveyed, dedicated or reserved as parks, recreation areas, playgrounds, outlots or open space and as sites for schools and other public buildings ;. (11) The areas that are to be conveyed, dedicated or reserved for streets, alley and utility easements ;. (12) The areas subject to the one hundred-year flood as defined in Chapter 9-16, "Definitions," B.R.C. 1981, and any area of the site that is within a designated space conveyance zone or high hazard zone;. (13) A general landscaping plan at the time of initial submission to be followed by a detailed landscaping plan prior to or as a condition of approval, showing the spacing, sizes, specific types of landscaping materials, quantities of all plants and whether the plant is coniferous or deciduous. 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 shall be shown on the landscaping plan. (14) A shadow analysis depicting shadows on December 21, as described in the solar analysis instructions provided by the city manager, and depicting shadows calculated pursuant to Subsection 9-9-17(d), B.R.C. 1981, for those buildings that affect adjacent properties;. (15) A written statement containing the following information: 11 Clarifies that height modifications may also be requested for accessory buildings. 12 Clarifies that modifications must still meet the existing exception criteria. 13 Makes punctuation in list consistent. Attachment A - Annotated Ordinance 8620 Item 3F - 2nd Rdg Ord 8620 Title 9 Code Section Improvements Page 9 Packet Page 216 of 523 (A) A statement of the current ownership and a legal description of all of the land included in the project; (B) An explanation of the objectives to be achieved by the project, including, without limitation, building descriptions, sketches or elevations that may be required to describe the objectives; (C) A development schedule indicating the approximate date when construction of the project or phases of the project can be expected to begin and be completed; and (D) Copies of any special agreements, conveyances, restrictions or covenants that will govern the use, maintenance and continued protection of the goals of the project and any related parks, recreation areas, playgrounds, outlots or open space;. (16) Materials required by the City of Boulder Design and Construction Standards, including, without limitation, a traffic study, master utility plan, utility report and storm water report and plan for any application that proposes to construct or have an impact on public improvements; and. … (h) Criteria: No site review application shall be approved unless the approving agency finds that the project is consistent with the following criteria: … (2) Site Design Criteria: The project creates safe, convenient, and efficient connections for all modes of travel, promotes safe pedestrian, bicycle, and other modes of alternative travel with the goal of lowering motor vehicle miles traveled. Usable open space is arranged to be accessible; designed to be functional, encourage use, and enhance the attractiveness of the project; and meets the needs of the anticipated residents, occupants, tenants, and visitors to the project. Landscaping aesthetically enhances the project, minimizes use of water, is sustainable, and improves the quality of the environment. Operational elements are screened to mitigate negative visual impacts. In determining whether this is met, the approving agency will consider the following factors: … (B) Open Space: … (iii) If the project includes more than 50 dwelling units, including the addition of units that causes a project to exceed this threshold, and is more than one mile walking distance to a public park with any of the amenities described herein, at least 30 percent of the required outdoor open space is designed for active recreational purposes.14 9-2-17. ANNEXATION REQUIREMENTS (c) Annexation Agreement: Owners of land petitioning the city for annexation of their property shall enter into an annexation agreement with the city stating any terms and conditions imposed on said property, prior to the first reading of the annexation ordinance. Upon annexation, such agreements shall be recorded to provide notice to future purchasers of said property. Where the annexation agreement provides that the city may install public improvements and that the owners of the annexed property will pay for such improvements, the costs of such improvements constitute an assessment against the annexed property as they accrue. If, after notice, any such assessment is not paid when due, the city manager shall certify the amount of the principal, interest, and penalties due and unpaid, together with ten percent of the delinquent amount for costs of collection to the county treasurer to be assessed and 14 Drafting error. Attachment A - Annotated Ordinance 8620 Item 3F - 2nd Rdg Ord 8620 Title 9 Code Section Improvements Page 10 Packet Page 217 of 523 collected in the same manner as general taxes are assessed and collected as provided by Section 2-2-12, "City Manager May Certify Taxes, Charges and Assessments to County Treasurer for Collection," B.R.C. 1981. (d) Hearing: The planning board shall hear a request for annexation at a public hearing and make a recommendation for approval or denial to the city council. After considering the planning board's recommendation, the city council shall make the final determination on a request for annexation. 15 9-4-2. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCEDURES (a) Development Review Authority: Table 4-1 of this section summarizes the review and decision-making responsibilities for the administration of the administrative and development review procedures described in this chapter. The table is a summary tool and does not describe all types of decisions made under this code. Refer to sections referenced for specific requirements. Form and bulk standards may also be modified by site review. Additional procedures that are required by this code but located in other chapters are: (1) "Historic Preservation," chapter 9-11; (2) "Inclusionary Housing," chapter 9-13; and (3) "Residential Growth Management System," chapter 9-14. TABLE 4-1: SUMMARY OF DECISION AUTHORITY BY PROCESS TYPE Standard or Application Type Staff/City Manager BOZA Planning Board City Council Parking Building height, conditional SECTION 9-7-616 D — — — … 9-4-3. PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS (a) Process and Options: When a process or procedure identified in this title requires public notice, the city manager shall provide such notice according to Table 4-2 of this section. If a code section does not reference a specific method, the city manager shall determine the most appropriate notification method to be used. TABLE 4-2: PUBLIC NOTICE OPTIONS Public Notice Type Type of Application, Meeting or Hearing Mailed Notice Posted Notice 1 Administrative Reviews (except those identified below) none none 2 Subdivisions Preliminary Plats and Minor Subdivisions17 To adjacent property owners and mineral rights owners a minimum of 10 days before final action and mineral rights owners a Post property a minimum of 10 days from receipt of 15 In Table 4-1, Planning Board is identified as “Recommendation only” for annexations. However, the code requirements in 9-2 do not reference the Planning Board’s role in annexations. This proposed language has been modeled to mirror language in 9-2-19 regarding rezoning applications. 16 Fixes a typo, which is intended to state “building height, conditional” and has been in the code for several years. 17 Public notice requirements for preliminary plats are somewhat unclear currently. In 9-12-7, “Staff Review and Approval of Preliminary Plat,” (b) specifies that notice of surface estate and mineral state is required. However, Table 4-2 is relatively unclear as it does not specifically Attachment A - Annotated Ordinance 8620 Item 3F - 2nd Rdg Ord 8620 Title 9 Code Section Improvements Page 11 Packet Page 218 of 523 minimum of 30 days before initial hearing or decision application and prior to final action or any hearing 3 Good neighbor meetings To property owners within 600 feet of subject property a minimum of 10 days before meeting none 4 Solar exceptions, solar access permits To adjacent property owners a minimum of 10 days before final action Post property a minimum of 10 days from receipt of application and prior to final action or any hearing 5 Applications requiring BOZA action, wetland permit and boundary determination To property owners within 300 feet of subject property a minimum of 10 days before final action Post property a minimum of 10 days from receipt of application and prior to final action or any hearing 6 Development Review Applications (site review, use review, annexation, rezoning, concept plans) To property owners within 600 feet of subject property and any mineral rights owners a minimum of 10 days before final action and mineral rights owners a minimum of 30 days before initial hearing or decision Post property a minimum of 10 days from receipt of application and prior to final action or any hearing 7 Form-based code review To property owners and all addresses within 600 feet of the subject property and any mineral rights owners a minimum of 10 days before final action and mineral rights owners a minimum of 30 days before initial hearing or decision Post property a minimum of 10 days from receipt of application and prior to final action or any hearing 8 Use review applications for oil and gas operations To property owners, all addresses, and the local government designee of any local government within 5,280 feet (one mile) of the subject property and any mineral rights owners upon finding an application complete and a minimum of 10 days before final action and any mineral rights owners at that time and a minimum of 30 days before initial hearing Post property a minimum of 10 days from receipt of application and prior to final action or any hearing … (e) Notice - Mineral Estate: The purpose of this notice provision is to comply with the notification of surface development requirements in article 24 -65.5, C.R.S. The city manager will waive the notice requirements for mineral estate owners under this subsection for use review applications that will not result in the construction of a new building. The applicant shall:18 (1) At least thirty days before any initial hearing or, if none, before a final decision on a development review application, send notice, by first classcertified mail, return receipt requested, or by a nationally recognized overnight courier, to the mineral estate owner. (2) Provide in the notice a statement about how the decision will be made, rights of appeal, the location of the property that is the subject of the application, and the name of the applicant, the City of Boulder as the approving authority, and the name an d address of the mineral estate owner. (3) Identify the mineral estate holder in a manner consistent with § 24 -65.5-103, C.R.S. reference preliminary plats. Additionally, the references to mineral rights owners have been updated to meet notification requirements under state law. 18 The references to mineral rights owners have been updated to meet notification requirements under state law. Attachment A - Annotated Ordinance 8620 Item 3F - 2nd Rdg Ord 8620 Title 9 Code Section Improvements Page 12 Packet Page 219 of 523 (4) Certify, in a form acceptable to the city manager, that such notice has been provided to the mineral estate owner. The certification shall identify the name and address of the mineral estate owners to whom notices were sent. This certification is a condition of approval. 9-5-2. ZONING DISTRICTS. (c) Zoning District Purposes: (2) Mixed Use Districts: (A) Mixed Use - 1: Mixed use areas which are primarily intended to have a mix of residential and nonresidential land uses within close proximity to each other and where complementary business uses may be permitted. (B) Mixed Use - 2: Mixed use residential areas adjacent to a redeveloping main street area, which are intended to provide a transition between a main street commercial area and established residential districts. Residential areas are intended to develop in a pedestrian-oriented pattern, with buildings built up to the street; with residential, office, and limited retail uses; and where complementary uses may be allowed. (C) Mixed Use - 3: Areas of the community that are changing to a mixture of residential and complementary nonresidential uses, generally within the same building. (D) Mixed Use - 4: Mixed use residential areas generally intended for residential uses with neighborhood-serving retail and office uses; and where complementary uses may be allowed. It is anticipated that development will occur in a pedestrian-oriented pattern, with buildings built up to the street. (3) Business Districts19 (EA) 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. (FB) Business - Main Street: Business areas generally anchored around a main street that are intended to serve the surrounding residential neighborhoods. It is anticipated that development will occur in a pedestrian-oriented pattern, with buildings built up to the street; retail uses on the first floor; residential and office uses above the first floor; and where complementary uses may be allowed. (GC) Business - Community 1 and Business - Community 2: Business areas containing retail centers serving a number of neighborhoods, where retail-type stores predominate. (HD) Business - Commercial Services: Commercial areas primarily used to provide to the community a wide range of retail and commercial uses including repair, service, and small-scale manufacturing uses and where complementary uses may be allowed. (IE) Business - Regional 1 and Business - Regional 2: Business centers of the Boulder Valley, containing a wide range of retail and commercial operations, including the largest regional-scale businesses, which serve outlying residential development; and where t he goals of the Boulder Urban Renewal Plan are implemented. (34) Downtown Districts: … (45) Industrial Districts: … (56) Public Districts: … (67) Agricultural Districts: … 19 Correct erroneous listing of Business districts within the Mixed Use classification to align with table. Attachment A - Annotated Ordinance 8620 Item 3F - 2nd Rdg Ord 8620 Title 9 Code Section Improvements Page 13 Packet Page 220 of 523 (78) Flex Districts: A combination of use, form, and intensity standards not reflected in any existing zoning district. Rezoning to a flex district may only be initiated by the planning board or city council as part of an annexation, rezoning after concept review, or area plan, and upon the determination that the flex zone would implement the goals of the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan. When rezoning to a flex district, the rezoning ordinance shall identify the specific use, form, and intensity modules which shall be identified on the official zoning map. Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent city council from creating new zoning districts. 9-6-3. SPECIFIC USE STANDARDS – RESIDENTIAL USES. (a) Residential Uses: … (2) Residential Uses in the IG and IM Zoning Districts: The following standards apply in the IG and IM zoning districts to residential uses that may be approved pursuant to a use review: (B) Floor Area Ratios (FAR): Residential floor area is limited to a 1.0 FAR on a lot or parcel and non-residential floor area is limited to a 0.5 FAR in the IG zone and 0.4 FAR in the IM zone. If at least 0.3 FAR of light industrial manufacturing or research and development use is on the lot or parcel, the residential FAR may be increased to 1.25 FAR in each zone. 20 9-6-5. SPECIFIC USE STANDARDS - COMMERCIAL USES. (d) Mobile Food Vehicle: (1) The following applies to any mobile food vehicle use: (A) Standards: Mobile food vehicle sales on private property, public property, or in the public right-of-way are allowed by right if the use meets the following standards: … (v) No person shall operate a mobile food vehicle sales use without a permit or in violation of the conditions of a permit. The permit will be valid for twelve consecutive monthsup to two years, or such other time as the city manager may by rule designate. Such application shall meet the following requirements: 21 … 9-7-1. SCHEDULE OF FORM AND BULK STANDARDS. The purpose of this chapter is to indicate the requirements for lot dimensions and building form, bulk, location and height for all types of development. All primary and accessory structures are subject to the dimensional standards set forth in Table 7-1 of this section with the exception of structures located in an area designated in Appendix L, "Form-Based Code Areas," subject to the standards of Appendix M, "Form-Based Code." No person shall use any land within the City authorized by Chapter 9-6, "Use Standards," B.R.C. 1981, except according to the following form and bulk requirements unless modified through a use review under Section 9 -2-15, "Use Review," B.R.C. 1981, or a site review under Section 9-2-14, "Site Review," B.R.C. 1981, or granted a variance under Section 9-2-3, 20 Correct error from Ordinance 8599 to make use type consistent with terminology in use table. 21 City licensing staff would like to update the licensing term to two years. This change had previously been passed in another ordinance, but was inadvertently not included in a later update to the chapter. The original change was not reviewed by the Planning Board, which is required to review all changes to the land use code. This change would modify the licensing term and provide required notice to Planning Board of this change. Attachment A - Annotated Ordinance 8620 Item 3F - 2nd Rdg Ord 8620 Title 9 Code Section Improvements Page 14 Packet Page 221 of 523 "Variances and Interpretations," B.R.C. 1981, or as approved under the provisions of Section 9 -2-16, "Form-based code review," B.R.C. 1981. TABLE 7-1: FORM AND BULK STANDARDS Zoning District A RR-1 RR-2 RE RH-2 RH-5 P RL-1 RM-2 RMX-1 BT-2 BT-1 BC BR IS-1 IS-2 IG IM RL-2 RM-1 RH-4 MU-1 RM-3 RH-1 RH-6 RMX-2 RH-3 RH-7 BCS MU-3 BMS MU-4 DT-1 DT-2 DT-3 DT-5 DT-4 MU-2 IMS MH Form module a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s Maximum cumulative coverage of all accessory buildings regardless of location (m) For residential uses - no greater than coverage of the principal building22 Wall length articulation standards for side walls over 14' in height within 20' ofand less than 14' from the side property line23 See Section 9-7- 10 n/a See Section 9-7-10 n/a See Section 9-7- 10 n/a … Footnotes to Table 7-1, Form and Bulk Standards: In addition to the foregoing, the following miscellaneous form and bulk requirements apply to all development in the city: … (e) For other setback standards regarding garages, open parking areas, and flagpoles, see Paragraph 9 -7-2(b)(8d), B.R.C. 1981.24 (f) Where a rear yard backs on a street, see Paragraph 9-7-2(b)(7c), B.R.C. 1981.25 … 9-7-2. SETBACK STANDARDS. (b) Side Yard Setback Standards: (1) Setbacks for Upper Floors in Non-Residential Zoning Districts: A principal building constructed with a side yard setback of zero for the first story above grade in the BC -2, BR-1, DT-1, DT-2, DT- 3, DT-4, DT-5, IS-1, IG or IM zoning districts, where the side yard setback is noted as "0 or 12," will be allowed tomay have upper stories set back stories either five feet or the distance required by Chapter 10-5 "Building Code,” B.R.C. 1981, whichever is greater. above the first story that is at or above the finished grade the greater of five feet or the distance required by Chapter 10 -5, "Building Code," B.R.C. 1981. 26 9-7-5. BUILDING HEIGHT 22 The code already dictates building coverage limits, making this unnecessarily duplicative and punitive. 23 Drafting error from previous code change. 24 Fixing inaccurate references. 25 Fixing inaccurate references. 26 This is clearer language about this requirement. Attachment A - Annotated Ordinance 8620 Item 3F - 2nd Rdg Ord 8620 Title 9 Code Section Improvements Page 15 Packet Page 222 of 523 27 … (e) Height Calculations for Attached Buildings: … (2) Separate buildings in compliance with Paragraph (de)(1) of this section, and which exceed the maximum permitted height allowed by Section 9-7-1, "Schedule of Form and Bulk Standards," B.R.C. 1981, may be considered by the planning board pursuant to Section 9 -2-14, "Site Review," B.R.C. 1981.28 9-7-6. BUILDING HEIGHT, CONDITIONAL (a) High Density Residential District Administrative Review Criteria: In the RH zones, principal building height may be increased to forty feet if: 29 27 This graphic has been updated to provide more clarity about the steps to measure height. See Attachment C for higher resolution. 28 Fix inaccurate reference. 29 This is not an administrative review; this reference has been updated to reflect current practice. Attachment A - Annotated Ordinance 8620 Item 3F - 2nd Rdg Ord 8620 Title 9 Code Section Improvements Page 16 Packet Page 223 of 523 9-7-10. SIDE YARD WALL ARTICULATION. … 30 … 9-9-6. PARKING STANDARDS (d) Motor Vehicle Parking Design Standards: … (5) Parking Design Details: … (B) With the exception of parking areas for detached dwelling units, All all parking areas are shall be paved with asphalt, concrete, or other similar permanent, hard surface except for parking areas for detached dwelling units. Parking areas for detached dwelling units shall be surfaced with materials capable of sustaining the weight and impacts of the associated vehicle usage. 31 ... 30 This graphic has been updated to provide more clarity on what counts towards side yard wall articulation. See Attachment C for higher resolution. 31 This reflects current practice regarding surface treatment for parking areas but the land use code does not specify required surfacing for detached dwelling units. This change specifies that the city manager has discretion over those areas to avoid maintenance challenges in the future. Attachment A - Annotated Ordinance 8620 Item 3F - 2nd Rdg Ord 8620 Title 9 Code Section Improvements Page 17 Packet Page 224 of 523 (f) Motor Vehicle Parking Reductions: … (3) Alternative administrative parking reductions by land use: The parking requirements in Section 9- 9-6, “Parking Standards,” B.R.C. 1981, may be reduced if the following standards are met. These standards shall not be permitted to be combined with the parkin g reduction standards in Subparagraphs (f)(2) of this section. … (B) Mixed Use Developments: The city manager may reduce the amount of required parking in a mixed-use development by up to ten percent in the BMS, IMS, MU-1, MU-2, MU-3 and RMX-2 zoning districts, or in all other nonresidential zoning districts in Section 9-5- 2, “Zoning Districts,” B.R.C. 1981, by up to a twenty -five-percent parking reduction if the following requirements are met:32 9-9-11. USEABLE OPEN SPACE (f) Special Open Space Requirements Applicable to Residential Uses: Useable open space for residential uses also includes: (1) Individual bBalconies, decks, porches, and patio areas associated with an individual dwelling unit or common open spaces on a roof or elevated above the first story, that are not intended or designed to be enclosed, if the minimum size of such individual balcony, deck or patiothe applicable open space is not less than thirty-six36 square feet and not less than forty-eight48 inches in any dimension or porches that meet the requirements of section 9-7-4, "Setback Encroachments for Front Porches," B.R.C. 1981. Such areas shall count for no more than twenty- five25 percent of the required useable open space. 33 9-9-12. LANDSCAPING AND SCREENING STANDARDS (d) General Landscaping and Screening Requirements: … (2) Landscape and Screening Planting, Maintenance, and Replacement: (i) Planting: Required landscaping and screening shall be planted between March 1 and October 15. Bare root stock shall be planted between March 1 and April 30 or prior to plants leafing out. Stock, other than container-grown stock, shall be planted between March 1 and June 1 or between September 1 and October 15. The city manager may approve planting at different times based on weather conditions that allow for successful planting. 34 (ii) Maintenance and Replacement: The property owner shall maintain all required landscaping and provide for replacement of plant materials that have died or have otherwise been damaged or removed, and maintenance of all non -live landscaping materials, including, but not limited to, fencing, paving, irrigation systems, and retaining walls from the issuance of a certificate of occupancy or certificate of completion. 9-10-2. CONTINUATION OR RESTORATION OF NONCONFORMING USES AND NONSTANDARD BUILDINGS, STRUCTURES, AND LOTS (b) Damage by Fire, Flood, Wind, or Other Calamity or Act of God and Unsafe Buildings: A nonstandard building or structure, a building or structure that contains a nonconforming use, or a building or structure 32 Correct typo from recent Ordinance 8599. 33 These changes clarifies language in this section to be more flexible for porches, rather than rigidly applying 9-7-4 standards. 34 This language is similar to text in the Design and Construction Standards to address successful times of year for planting. This reflects landscaping inspection practice that has been underway for years. Attachment A - Annotated Ordinance 8620 Item 3F - 2nd Rdg Ord 8620 Title 9 Code Section Improvements Page 18 Packet Page 225 of 523 on a nonstandard lot, that has been damaged by fire, flood, wind, or other calamity or act of God may be restored to its original condition, or any building declared unsafe under the building code or any other applicable safety or health code may be restored to a safe condition, provided that such work is consistent with the requirements of Section 9-3-3, "Regulations Governing the One Hundred-Year Floodplain," B.R.C. 1981, started within twelve monthstwo years of such event, and completed within twenty-four monthsthree years of the date on which the restoration commenced. 35 9-12-5. MINOR SUBDIVISION (b) Limitations: The provisions of this section shall not apply to a replat that: (1) Requires any variations modifications to section 9-12-12, "Standards for Lots and Public Improvements," B.R.C. 1981; 36 9-12-7. STAFF REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF PRELIMINARY PLAT (b) Notice of Surface Estate: The city manager shall notify tenants of the property and abutting property owners by first class mail that the subdivision is proposed and that any questions or comments thereon may be directed to the planning department of planning and community development. 37 (c) Notice of Mineral Estate: The purpose of this notice provision is to comply with the notification of surface development requirements in article 24 -65.5, C.R.S. The applicant shall: 38 (1) At least thirty days before any initial hearing or, if none, beforea final decision on an application for development, send notice, by first classcertified mail, return receipt requested, or by a nationally recognized overnight courier to the mineral estate owner; (2) Provide in the notice a statement about how the decision will be made, rights of appeal, the location of the property that is the subject of the application, and the name of the applicant, the City of Boulder as the approving authority and the name and address of the mineral estate owner; (3) Identify the mineral estate holder in a manner consistent with § 24 -65.5-103, C.R.S.; and (4) Certify, in a form acceptable to the city manager, that such notice has been provided to the mineral estate owner. The certification shall identify the name and address of the mineral estate owners to whom notices were sent. This certification is a condition of approval. 9-12-8. FINAL PLAT (b) In order to obtain city manager review of a final plat, the subdivider shall submit a final plat that conforms to the approved preliminary plat, includes all changes required by the manager or the planning board, and includes the following information: … (4) Accurate dimensions for all lines, angles and curves used to describe boundaries, public improvements, easements, areas to be reserved for public use and other important features. (All curves shall be circular arcs and shall be defined by the radius, central angle, tangent, arc and chart distances. All dimensions, both linear and angular, are to be determined by an accurate 35 In many recent cases of calamity events, beginning work within twelve months has been difficult. This change would provide more flexibility for properties to begin and complete work after calamities occur. 36 The code was updated to consistently use the term “modifications” rather than variations several years ago; this remains due to a drafting error. 37 This is an outdated reference to the department name. Throughout the land use code, “planning department” is the consistently used term. 38 The references to mineral rights owners have been updated to meet notification requirements under state law. Attachment A - Annotated Ordinance 8620 Item 3F - 2nd Rdg Ord 8620 Title 9 Code Section Improvements Page 19 Packet Page 226 of 523 control survey in the field that must balance and close within a limit of one in ten thousand. No final plat showing plus or minus dimensions will be approved.); 39 9-12-9. LOT LINE AND BOUNDARY VERIFICATION The subdivider shall provide to the City a computer check to assure ensure that the exterior lines of the subdivision on the final plat close. In the absence of such verification, the City shall obtain such computer check and the subdivider shall pay the fee therefor prescribed by Subsection 4-20-43(a), B.R.C. 1981, before recording the plat. 40 9-12-12. STANDARDS FOR LOTS AND PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS (c) Private Utilities and Improvements: If the subdivider installs private utilities or improvements, including, without limitation, streets or water, wastewater and storm drain utilities, the subdivider shall provide mutual covenants in the deeds of all property owners of the subdivision for the continued and perpetual maintenance of the utilities or improvements. The city manager may require creation of a unit owners association formed pursuant to the Colorado Common Interest Ownership Act to own and maintain common private utilities and improvements. 41 9-13-10. OPTIONS FOR SATISFACTION OF INCLUSIONARY HOUSING REQUIREMENT (a) Purpose: In order to create a significant amount of permanently affordable units, to the extent permitted by this chapter, developers may satisfy the inclusionary housing requirement through any combination of the following alternate means: (1) Cash-in-Lieu Contribution: Developers may satisfy permanently affordable housing requirements by making cash contributions to the city’s affordable housing fund. The cash-in-lieu contribution will be based on the residential square footage of the development creating the inclusionary housing requirement and the applicable rate will be determined annually by the city manager. The city manager may consider the number of units in the development, the size and type of units which created the obligation, the amount that would incentivize on-site construction of permanently affordable units, and the affordability gap between market rate and permanently affordable unit prices when determining the cash-in-lieu calculation. (A) Annual Cash-in-lieu Escalator: The city manager is authorized to adjust the cash -in-lieu contribution annually on July January 1 of each year.42 39 Surveyors sometimes use “more or less” calculations on plats and the City Attorney’s Office has interpreted this as acceptable. Surveyors have indicated that it is standard practice to use “more or less” terminology for dimensions as monuments can slightly move or other surveyors may have slightly different measurements in the future. This change aligns with standard surveying practice and the City Attorney’s Office interpretation. 40 Removing the second sentence of this section because the subsection no longer references the City doing this work, this was language that was redacted in 2000 and has been incorrectly included since that time. 41 This has been added to clarify that subdividers must create a unit owners association that owns common facilities, as is already the city’s long-term practice. 42 In Ordinance 8601 that was adopted in 2023, significant changes were made to the Inclusionary Housing program. Additionally, Housing & Human Services staff updated the administrative regulations that accompany the code. The administrative regulations were updated to align the timing to update Cash-in-Lieu amounts in January, but the ordinance language was not updated accordingly. This change aligns with the intent and the administrative regulations. Attachment A - Annotated Ordinance 8620 Item 3F - 2nd Rdg Ord 8620 Title 9 Code Section Improvements Page 20 Packet Page 227 of 523 K:\PLCU\o-8620 2nd rdg Title 9 Clean-Up-.docx 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ORDINANCE 8620 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 9, “LAND USE CODE,” B.R.C. 1981, TO FIX ERRORS, CLARIFY EXISTING CODE SECTIONS, UPDATE GRAPHICS, AND IMPROVE THE CLARITY OF THE CODE, AND SETTING FORTH RELATED DETAILS. BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BOULDER, COLORADO: Section 1. Section 2-3-12, “Board of Zoning Adjustment and Building Appeals,” B.R.C. 1981, is amended to read as follows: 2-3-12. Board of Zoning Adjustment and Building Appeals. (a) The City of Boulder Board of Zoning Adjustment and Building Appeals consists of five members appointed by the city council for five-year terms. (b) The board's functions are to: (1) Review and decide at the request of any interested person any question of interpretation by the city manager of Chapters 9-6, "Use Standards," 9-7, "Schedule of Form and Bulk Standards," and 9-8, "Intensity Standards," B.R.C. 1981; (2) Hear and decide to grant or deny applications for variances from the setback requirements of Section 9-7-1, "Schedule of Form and Bulk Standards," B.R.C. 1981, and the size requirements for accessory dwelling units of Subparagraph 9-6- 3(n) B.R.C. 1981; (3) Hear and decide applications for exceptions under the solar access ordinance, Section 9-9-17, "Solar Access," B.R.C. 1981; (4) Hear and decide to grant or deny applications for variances, and to hear and decide appeals of orders from the city manager under the sign code, Section 9-9- 21, "Signs," B.R.C. 1981; (5) Sit as the Board of Building Appeals pursuant to Section 2-3-4, "Board of Building Appeals," B.R.C. 1981; and (6) Hear and decide such other matters as the city council may by ordinance provide. Attachment B - Ordinance 8620 Item 3F - 2nd Rdg Ord 8620 Title 9 Code Section Improvements Page 21 Packet Page 228 of 523 K:\PLCU\o-8620 2nd rdg Title 9 Clean-Up-.docx 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Section 2. Section 6-14-2, “Definitions,” B.R.C. 1981, is amended to read as follows: 6-14-2. Definitions. The following words and phrases used in this chapter have the following meanings unless the context clearly indicates otherwise: … Mixed -use development means a building, or a project, or a development, which may consist of one or multiple lots or parcels, that contains one or more nonresidential uses and one or more dwelling units in any zone district. … Produce or production means: (i) combining marijuana with any other substance for distribution, including storage and packaging for resale; or (ii) preparing, compounding, processing, encapsulating, packaging, or repackaging, labeling, or relabeling of marijuana or its derivatives, whether alone or mixed with any amount of any other substance. Production shall not include packaging or repackaging, labeling, or relabeling of a usable form of marijuana if no production has occurred and such packaging and labeling qualify as cultivation. Residential zone district means any district in the residential classification of Table 5-1 in Section 9-5-2, B.R.C., 1981 Restricted area means the portion of a medical marijuana business location within which the licensee defines on its application it intends to cultivate, distribute, possess, or produce medical marijuana and which area is clearly identified as the restricted area on the floor plan submitted with the medical marijuana business license application for the business. … Section 3. Section 6-14-7, “Locations of Medical Marijuana Businesses,” B.R.C. 1981, is amended to read as follows: 6-14-7. Locations of Medical Marijuana Businesses. (a) Fixed Location Required. It shall be unlawful to operate a medical marijuana business or to grow medical marijuana outside of an enclosed building. All medical marijuana business licenses shall be issued for a specific fixed location within an enclosed building. The portion of such premises upon which the floor plan shows medical marijuana may be produced, dispensed, or possessed shall be considered the "restricted area" portion of the business premises. … Attachment B - Ordinance 8620 Item 3F - 2nd Rdg Ord 8620 Title 9 Code Section Improvements Page 22 Packet Page 229 of 523 K:\PLCU\o-8620 2nd rdg Title 9 Clean-Up-.docx 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 (c) No Medical Marijuana Business in Building with Residences or Residential Zone Districts. It shall be unlawful to operate a medical marijuana business in a building which contains a residence, or within a dwelling unit within any zone district, or within a residential zone district, or within a mixed -use development that includes a residence. This restriction shall not apply to a medical marijuana wellness center that had submitted an application or held a license from the city on October 22, 2013. … Section 4. Section 6-16-2, “Definitions,” B.R.C. 1981, is amended to read as follows: 6-16-2. Definitions. The following words and phrases used in this chapter have the following meanings unless the context clearly indicates otherwise: … Mixed use development means a building, or a project, or a development, which may consist of one or multiple lots or parcels, that contains one or more nonresidential uses and one or more dwelling units in any zone district. … Recreational marijuana plant means a marijuana seed that is germinated and all parts of the growth therefrom, including, without limitation, roots, stalks, and leaves, so long as the flowers, roots, stalks, and leaves are all connected and in a growing medium. Recreational marijuana plant shall include immature plants except where specifically excepted in this code. For purposes of this chapter, any part of the plant removed is considered harvested and no longer part of a recreational marijuana plant, but marijuana. Residential zone district means any district in the residential classification of Table 5-1 in Section 9-5-2, B.R.C., 1981 Restricted area means the portion of a recreational marijuana business premises within which the licensee defines on its application it intends to cultivate, distribute, possess, or produce recreational marijuana and which area is clearly identified as the restricted area on the floor plan submitted with the recreational marijuana business license application for the business. … Section 5. Section 6-16-5, “Application; Modification of Premises,” B.R.C. 1981, is amended to read as follows: Attachment B - Ordinance 8620 Item 3F - 2nd Rdg Ord 8620 Title 9 Code Section Improvements Page 23 Packet Page 230 of 523 K:\PLCU\o-8620 2nd rdg Title 9 Clean-Up-.docx 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 6-16-5. Application; Modification of Premises. (a) Application Requirements. An application for a recreational marijuana business license shall be made to the city on forms provided by the city manager for that purpose. The applicant shall use the application to demonstrate its compliance with this chapter and any other applicable law, rule, or regulation. In addition to the information required by Chapter 4-1, "General Licensing Provisions," B.R.C. 1981, the application shall include the following information: … (9) A zoning confirmation form from the city, to ascertain within a radius of one- quarter mile from the boundaries of the property upon which the recreational marijuana business is located, the proximity of the property to any school or other facility identified in this chapter, or state licensed child care center, to any other marijuana business or to any residential zone district or a mixed- use development containing one or more residences. … Section 6. Section 6-16-7, “Locations of Recreational Marijuana Businesses,” B.R.C. 1981, is amended to read as follows: 6-16-7. Locations of Recreational Marijuana Businesses. (a) Fixed Location Required. It shall be unlawful to operate a recreational marijuana business or to grow recreational marijuana outside of a locked enclosed space within a building. All recreational marijuana business licenses shall be issued for a specific fixed location within an enclosed building. The portion of such premises upon which the floor plan shows recreational marijuana may be produced, dispensed, or possessed shall be considered the "restricted area" portion of the business premises. … (c) No Recreational Marijuana Business in Building With Residences or Residential Zone Districts. It shall be unlawful to operate a recreational marijuana business in a building which contains a residence, or within a dwelling unit within any zone district, or within a residential zone district, or within a mixed -use development that includes a residence. … Section 7. Section 9-2-1, “Types of Reviews,” B.R.C. 1981, is amended to read as follows: 9-2-1. Types of Reviews. (a) Purpose: This section identifies the numerous types of administrative and development review processes and procedures. The review process for each of the major review types is summarized in Table 2-1 of this section. Attachment B - Ordinance 8620 Item 3F - 2nd Rdg Ord 8620 Title 9 Code Section Improvements Page 24 Packet Page 231 of 523 K:\PLCU\o-8620 2nd rdg Title 9 Clean-Up-.docx 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 (b) Summary Chart: TABLE 2-1: REVIEW PROCESSES SUMMARY CHART I. ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEWS II. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW AND BOARD ACTION Affordable housing design review pursuant to Section 9-13-4, B.R.C. 1981 Building permits Change of address Change of street name Conditional uses, as noted in Table 6-1: Use Table Demolition, moving, and removal of buildings with no historic or architectural significance, per Section 9-11-23, "Review of Permits for Demolition, On-Site Relocation, and Off-Site Relocation of Buildings Not Designated," B.R.C. 1981 Easement vacation Extension of development approval/staff level Landmark alteration certificates (staff review per Section 9-11-14, "Staff Review of Application for Landmark Alteration Certificate," B.R.C. 1981) Landscape standards variance Minor modification to approved site plan Minor modification to approved form-based code review Noise barriers along major streets per Paragraph 9-9-15(c)(7), B.R.C. 1981 Nonconforming use (extension, change of use (incl. parking)) Parking deferral per Subsection 9-9-6(e), B.R.C. 1981 Parking reduction of up to fifty 25 percent per Subsection 9-9-6(f), B.R.C. 1981 Annexation/initial zoning BOZA variances Concept plans Demolition, moving, and removal of buildings with potential historic or architectural significance, per Section 9-11-23, "Review of Permits for Demolition, On-Site Relocation, and Off-Site Relocation of Buildings Not Designated," B.R.C. 1981 Form-based code review Geophysical exploration permit Landmark alteration certificates other than those that may be approved by staff per Section 9-11- 14, "Staff Review of Application for Landmark Alteration Certificate," B.R.C. 1981 Lot line adjustments Lot line elimination Minor Subdivisions Out of city utility permit Rezoning Site review Subdivisions Use review Vacations of street, alley, or access easement Attachment B - Ordinance 8620 Item 3F - 2nd Rdg Ord 8620 Title 9 Code Section Improvements Page 25 Packet Page 232 of 523 K:\PLCU\o-8620 2nd rdg Title 9 Clean-Up-.docx 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Parking reductions and modifications for bicycle parking per Paragraph 9-9-6(g)(6), B.R.C. 1981 Parking stall variances Public utility Rescission of development approval Revocable permit Right-of-way lease Setback variance Site access variance Solar exception Zoning verification Section 8. Section 9-2-3, “Variances and Interpretations,” B.R.C. 1981, is amended to read as follows: 9-2-3. Variances and Interpretations. (a) Purpose: This section identifies those standards that can be varied by either the city manager or the Board of Zoning Adjustment (BOZA). Some standards can be varied by the city manager through an administrative Review process, others by BOZA by another level of administrative Review. The city manager may defer any administrative decision pursuant to this section to BOZA. This section also identifies which city manager interpretations of this title may be appealed to BOZA and establishes a process for such appeals. … (c) Administrative Variances: The city manager may grant a variance from: … (8) The city manager may also grant variances or refer variance requests to the BOZA to allow development not in conformance with the provisions of this title which otherwise would result in a violation of federal or state legislation or regulation, including but not limited to the Federal Fair Housing Act or the Americans with Disabilities Act. Section 9. Section 9-2-14, “Site Review,” B.R.C. 1981, is amended to read as follows: Attachment B - Ordinance 8620 Item 3F - 2nd Rdg Ord 8620 Title 9 Code Section Improvements Page 26 Packet Page 233 of 523 K:\PLCU\o-8620 2nd rdg Title 9 Clean-Up-.docx 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 9-2-14. Site Review. (a) Purpose: The purpose of site review is to allow flexibility in design, to encourage innovation in land use development, to promote the most appropriate use of land, to improve the character and quality of new development, to facilitate the adequate and economical provision of streets and utilities, to preserve the natural and scenic features of open space, to ensure compatible architecture, massing and height of buildings with existing, approved, and known to be planned or projected buildings in the immediate area, to ensure human scale development, to promote the safety and convenience of pedestrians, bicyclists and other modes within and around developments and to implement the goals and policies of the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan and other adopted plans of the community. Review criteria are established to achieve the following: … (c) Modifications to Development Standards: The following development standards of B.R.C. 1981 may be modified under the site review process set forth in this section: (1) 9-7-1, "Schedule of Form and Bulk Standards" and standards referred to in that section except that the standards referred to as "FAR Requirements" may not be modified under this paragraph and are subject to Section 9-8-2, B.R.C. 1981, and the maximum height or conditional height for principal buildings or uses may be modified only as permitted in Paragraph 9-2-14(b)(1)(E), B.R.C. 1981. … (20) 9-9-17, "Solar Access."," provided the modification meets the exception criteria in Paragraph 9-9-17(f)(6). … (d) Application Requirements: An application for approval of a site plan may be filed by any person having a demonstrable property interest in land to be included in a site review on a form provided by the city manager that includes, without limitation: (1) All materials and information required by Subsection 9-2-6(a), B.R.C. 1981;. (2) A site plan with a north arrow showing the major details of the proposed development, prepared on a scale of not less than one inch equals one hundred feet providing sufficient detail to evaluate the features of the development required by this section. The site plan shall contain, insofar as applicable, the information set forth in this subsection;. (3) The existing topographic character of the land, showing contours at two-foot intervals;. (4) The site and location of proposed uses with dimensions indicating the distance from lot lines;. Attachment B - Ordinance 8620 Item 3F - 2nd Rdg Ord 8620 Title 9 Code Section Improvements Page 27 Packet Page 234 of 523 K:\PLCU\o-8620 2nd rdg Title 9 Clean-Up-.docx 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 (5) The location and size of all existing and proposed buildings, structures and improvements, and the general location of adjacent streets, structures and properties;. (6) The maximum height of all buildings and building elevations showing exterior colors and materials;. (7) The density and type of uses;. (8) The internal traffic and circulation systems, off-street parking areas, service areas, loading areas and major points of access to public rights-of-way;. (9) The location, height and size of proposed signs, lighting and advertising devices;. (10) The areas that are to be conveyed, dedicated or reserved as parks, recreation areas, playgrounds, outlots or open space and as sites for schools and other public buildings;. (11) The areas that are to be conveyed, dedicated or reserved for streets, alley and utility easements;. (12) The areas subject to the one hundred-year flood as defined in Chapter 9-16, "Definitions," B.R.C. 1981, and any area of the site that is within a designated space conveyance zone or high hazard zone;. (13) A general landscaping plan at the time of initial submission to be followed by a detailed landscaping plan prior to or as a condition of approval, showing the spacing, sizes, specific types of landscaping materials, quantities of all plants and whether the plant is coniferous or deciduous. 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 shall be shown on the landscaping plan. (14) A shadow analysis depicting shadows on December 21, as described in the solar analysis instructions provided by the city manager, and depicting shadows calculated pursuant to Subsection 9-9-17(d), B.R.C. 1981, for those buildings that affect adjacent properties;. (15) A written statement containing the following information: (A) A statement of the current ownership and a legal description of all of the land included in the project; (B) An explanation of the objectives to be achieved by the project, including, without limitation, building descriptions, sketches or elevations that may be required to describe the objectives; (C) A development schedule indicating the approximate date when construction of the project or phases of the project can be expected to begin and be completed; and (D) Copies of any special agreements, conveyances, restrictions or covenants that will govern the use, maintenance and continued protection of the Attachment B - Ordinance 8620 Item 3F - 2nd Rdg Ord 8620 Title 9 Code Section Improvements Page 28 Packet Page 235 of 523 K:\PLCU\o-8620 2nd rdg Title 9 Clean-Up-.docx 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 goals of the project and any related parks, recreation areas, playgrounds, outlots or open space;. (16) Materials required by the City of Boulder Design and Construction Standards, including, without limitation, a traffic study, master utility plan, utility report and storm water report and plan for any application that proposes to construct or have an impact on public improvements; and. … (h) Criteria: No site review application shall be approved unless the approving agency finds that the project is consistent with the following criteria: … (2) Site Design Criteria: The project creates safe, convenient, and efficient connections for all modes of travel, promotes safe pedestrian, bicycle, and other modes of alternative travel with the goal of lowering motor vehicle miles traveled. Usable open space is arranged to be accessible; designed to be functional, encourage use, and enhance the attractiveness of the project; and meets the needs of the anticipated residents, occupants, tenants, and visitors to the project. Landscaping aesthetically enhances the project, minimizes use of water, is sustainable, and improves the quality of the environment. Operational elements are screened to mitigate negative visual impacts. In determining whether this is met, the approving agency will consider the following factors: … (B) Open Space: … (iii) If the project includes more than 50 dwelling units, including the addition of units that causes a project to exceed this threshold, and is more than one mile walking distance to a public park with any of the amenities described herein, at least 30 percent of the required outdoor open space is designed for active recreational purposes. Section 10. Section 9-2-17, “Annexation Requirements,” B.R.C. 1981, is amended to read as follows: 9-2-17. Annexation Requirements. (a) Compliance With State Statutes and Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan: All annexations to the city shall meet the requirements of § 31-12-101 et seq., C.R.S., and shall be consistent with the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan and other ordinances of the city. Attachment B - Ordinance 8620 Item 3F - 2nd Rdg Ord 8620 Title 9 Code Section Improvements Page 29 Packet Page 236 of 523 K:\PLCU\o-8620 2nd rdg Title 9 Clean-Up-.docx 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 (b) Conditions: No annexation of land to the city shall create an unreasonable burden on the physical, social, economic, or environmental resources of the city. The city may condition the annexation of land upon such terms and conditions as are reasonably necessary to ensure that this requirement is met. Such terms and conditions may include, without limitation, installation of public facilities or improvements, dedication of land for public improvements, payment of fees incidental to annexation, or covenants governing future land uses. In annexations of hillside areas, the city council may impose conditions designed to mitigate the effects of development on lands containing slopes of fifteen percent or greater. In annexations of more than ten acres, the applicant shall provide the information necessary to enable the city to prepare an annexation impact report when required by § 31-12-108.5, C.R.S. (c) Annexation Agreement: Owners of land petitioning the city for annexation of their property shall enter into an annexation agreement with the city stating any terms and conditions imposed on said property, prior to the first reading of the annexation ordinance. Upon annexation, such agreements shall be recorded to provide notice to future purchasers of said property. Where the annexation agreement provides that the city may install public improvements and that the owners of the annexed property will pay for such improvements, the costs of such improvements constitute an assessment against the annexed property as they accrue. If, after notice, any such assessment is not paid when due, the city manager shall certify the amount of the principal, interest, and penalties due and unpaid, together with ten percent of the delinquent amount for costs of collection to the county treasurer to be assessed and collected in the same manner as general taxes are assessed and collected as provided by Section 2-2-12, "City Manager May Certify Taxes, Charges and Assessments to County Treasurer for Collection," B.R.C. 1981. (d) Hearing: The planning board shall hear a request for annexation at a public hearing and make a recommendation for approval or denial to the city council. After considering the planning board's recommendation, the city council shall make the final determination on a request for annexation. Section 11. Table 4-1: Summary of Decision Authority by Process Type in Section 9-4- 2, “Development Review Procedures,” B.R.C. 1981, is amended to read as follows: 9-4-2. Development Review Procedures. (a) Development Review Authority: Table 4-1 of this section summarizes the review and decision-making responsibilities for the administration of the administrative and development review procedures described in this chapter. The table is a summary tool and does not describe all types of decisions made under this code. Refer to sections referenced for specific requirements. Form and bulk standards may also be modified by site review. Additional procedures that are required by this code but located in other chapters are: (1) "Historic Preservation," chapter 9-11; Attachment B - Ordinance 8620 Item 3F - 2nd Rdg Ord 8620 Title 9 Code Section Improvements Page 30 Packet Page 237 of 523 K:\PLCU\o-8620 2nd rdg Title 9 Clean-Up-.docx 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 (2) "Inclusionary Housing," chapter 9-13; and (3) "Residential Growth Management System," chapter 9-14. TABLE 4-1: SUMMARY OF DECISION AUTHORITY BY PROCESS TYPE Standard or Application Type Staff/City Manager BOZA Planning Board City Council Code Interpretation SECTION 9-2-3 D CA(14) CA(30) CA Setback variance ≤20% SECTION 9-2-3 D D — — Setback variance >20% SECTION 9-2-3 — D — — Parking access dimensions SECTION 9-2-2 D — — — Parking deferral SECTION 9-2-2 D — — — Parking reduction ≤25% SECTION 9-2-2 D — — — Parking reduction >25% but ≤50% SECTION 9-2-2 D(14) — CA, D(30) CA Parking reduction >50% SUBSECTION 9-9-6(f) — — D(30) CA Parking Building height, conditional SECTION 9-7-6 D — — — Building height, less than principal or nonstandard building height max SECTION 9-2-14 D(14) — CA, D(30) CA Building height, greater than principal building height max SECTION 9-2-14 — — D(30) CA Building height SECTION 9-7-5 — — D(30) CA Conditional Use SECTION 9-2-1 D — — — Site Review SECTION 9-2-14 D(14) — CA, D(30) CA Use Review SECTION 9-2-15 D(14) — CA, D(30) CA Form-Based Code Review SECTION 9-2-16 D(14) — CA, D(30) CA Form-Based Code Review, administrative SECTION 9-2-16 D — — — Form-Based Code Review, minor modification SECTION 9-2-16 D — — — Attachment B - Ordinance 8620 Item 3F - 2nd Rdg Ord 8620 Title 9 Code Section Improvements Page 31 Packet Page 238 of 523 K:\PLCU\o-8620 2nd rdg Title 9 Clean-Up-.docx 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Annexation SECTION 9-2-17 — — R D Rezoning SECTION 9-2-19 — — R D Wetland Permit-Simple SECTION 9-3-9 D — — — Wetland Permit-Standard SECTION 9-3-9 D(14) — D(30) CA Extension of Dev't Approval ≤1 yr PARAGRAPH 9-2-12(b)(1) D — — — Extension of Dev't Approval >1 yr PARAGRAPH 9-2-12(b)(2) — — D(30) CA Rescission of Dev't Approval SUBSECTION 9-2-12(e) D — — — Creation of Vested Rights >3 yrs SECTION 9-2-20 — — R D Floodplain Dev't Permit SECTION 9-3-6 D(14) — CA(30) CA Wetland Boundary change- Standard SUBSECTION 9-3-9(e) — — R D Geophysical Exploration Permit SECTION 9-6-7(b) D(14) — CA(30) CA Substitution of Nonconforming Use SECTION 9-10-3 D — — — Expansion of Nonconforming Use SECTION 9-10-3 D(14) — CA(30) CA Subdivision, prelim plat SECTION 9-12-7 D — — — Subdivision, final plat SECTION 9-12-8 D(14) — CA — Subdivision, minor SECTION 9-12-5 D(14) — CA(30) CA Subdivision, LLA or LLE SECTIONS 9-12-3 and 9-12-4 D — — — Solar Exception SUBSECTION 9-9-17(f) D D — — Solar Access Permit SUBSECTION 9-9-17(h) D D — — Accessory Bldg Coverage SUBSECTION 9-7-8(a) — D — — Minor Modification of Discretionary Approval SUBSECTION 9-2-14(k) D — — — Attachment B - Ordinance 8620 Item 3F - 2nd Rdg Ord 8620 Title 9 Code Section Improvements Page 32 Packet Page 239 of 523 K:\PLCU\o-8620 2nd rdg Title 9 Clean-Up-.docx 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Minor Amendment of Discretionary Approval SUBSECTION 9-2-14(l) D(14) — CA(30) CA Amendment of Discretionary Approval not involving height SUBSECTION 9-2-14(m) D(14) — CA, D(30) CA Amendment of Discretionary Approval involving height SECTION 9-2-14 — — D(30) CA KEY: D = Decision Authority CA = Call-Up and Appeal Authority R = Recommendation only (n) = Maximum number of days for call-up or appeal Section 12. Section 9-4-3, “Public Notice Requirements,” B.R.C. 1981, is amended to read as follows: 9-4-3. Public Notice Requirements. (a) Process and Options: When a process or procedure identified in this title requires public notice, the city manager shall provide such notice according to Table 4-2 of this section. If a code section does not reference a specific method, the city manager shall determine the most appropriate notification method to be used. TABLE 4-2: PUBLIC NOTICE OPTIONS Public Notice Type Type of Application, Meeting or Hearing Mailed Notice Posted Notice 1 Administrative Reviews (except those identified below) none none 2 Subdivisions Preliminary Plats and Minor Subdivisions To adjacent property owners and mineral rights owners a minimum of 10 days before final action and mineral rights owners a minimum of 30 days before initial hearing or decision Post property a minimum of 10 days from receipt of application and prior to final action or any hearing 3 Good neighbor meetings To property owners within 600 feet of subject property a minimum of 10 days before meeting none 4 Solar exceptions, solar access permits To adjacent property owners a minimum of 10 days before final action Post property a minimum of 10 days from receipt of application and prior to final action or any hearing Attachment B - Ordinance 8620 Item 3F - 2nd Rdg Ord 8620 Title 9 Code Section Improvements Page 33 Packet Page 240 of 523 K:\PLCU\o-8620 2nd rdg Title 9 Clean-Up-.docx 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 5 Applications requiring BOZA action, wetland permit and boundary determination To property owners within 300 feet of subject property a minimum of 10 days before final action Post property a minimum of 10 days from receipt of application and prior to final action or any hearing 6 Development Review Applications (site review, use review, annexation, rezoning, concept plans) To property owners within 600 feet of subject property and any mineral rights owners a minimum of 10 days before final action and mineral rights owners a minimum of 30 days before initial hearing or decision Post property a minimum of 10 days from receipt of application and prior to final action or any hearing 7 Form-based code review To property owners and all addresses within 600 feet of the subject property and any mineral rights owners a minimum of 10 days before final action and mineral rights owners a minimum of 30 days before initial hearing or decision Post property a minimum of 10 days from receipt of application and prior to final action or any hearing 8 Use review applications for oil and gas operations To property owners, all addresses, and the local government designee of any local government within 5,280 feet (one mile) of the subject property and any mineral rights owners upon finding an application complete and a minimum of 10 days before final action and any mineral rights owners at that time and a minimum of 30 days before initial hearing Post property a minimum of 10 days from receipt of application and prior to final action or any hearing … (e) Notice - Mineral Estate: The purpose of this notice provision is to comply with the notification of surface development requirements in article 24-65.5, C.R.S. The city manager will waive the notice requirements for mineral estate owners under this subsection for use review applications that will not result in the construction of a new building. The applicant shall: (1) At least thirty days before any initial hearing or, if none, before a final decision on a development review application, send notice, by first classcertified mail, return receipt requested, or by a nationally recognized overnight courier, to the mineral estate owner. (2) Provide in the notice a statement about how the decision will be made, rights of appeal, the location of the property that is the subject of the application, and the name of the applicant, the City of Boulder as the approving authority, and the name and address of the mineral estate owner. (3) Identify the mineral estate holder in a manner consistent with § 24-65.5-103, C.R.S. Attachment B - Ordinance 8620 Item 3F - 2nd Rdg Ord 8620 Title 9 Code Section Improvements Page 34 Packet Page 241 of 523 K:\PLCU\o-8620 2nd rdg Title 9 Clean-Up-.docx 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 (4) Certify, in a form acceptable to the city manager, that such notice has been provided to the mineral estate owner. The certification shall identify the name and address of the mineral estate owners to whom notices were sent. This certification is a condition of approval. Section 13. Section 9-5-2, “Zoning Districts,” B.R.C. 1981, is amended to read as follows: 9-5-2. Zoning Districts. (a) Classification: Zoning districts are classified according to the following classifications based on the predominant character of development and current or intended use in an area of the community: … (c) Zoning District Purposes: (2) Mixed Use Districts: (A) Mixed Use - 1: Mixed use areas which are primarily intended to have a mix of residential and nonresidential land uses within close proximity to each other and where complementary business uses may be permitted. (B) Mixed Use - 2: Mixed use residential areas adjacent to a redeveloping main street area, which are intended to provide a transition between a main street commercial area and established residential districts. Residential areas are intended to develop in a pedestrian-oriented pattern, with buildings built up to the street; with residential, office, and limited retail uses; and where complementary uses may be allowed. (C) Mixed Use - 3: Areas of the community that are changing to a mixture of residential and complementary nonresidential uses, generally within the same building. (D) Mixed Use - 4: Mixed use residential areas generally intended for residential uses with neighborhood-serving retail and office uses; and where complementary uses may be allowed. It is anticipated that development will occur in a pedestrian-oriented pattern, with buildings built up to the street. (3) Business Districts (EA) 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. Attachment B - Ordinance 8620 Item 3F - 2nd Rdg Ord 8620 Title 9 Code Section Improvements Page 35 Packet Page 242 of 523 K:\PLCU\o-8620 2nd rdg Title 9 Clean-Up-.docx 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 (FB) Business - Main Street: Business areas generally anchored around a main street that are intended to serve the surrounding residential neighborhoods. It is anticipated that development will occur in a pedestrian-oriented pattern, with buildings built up to the street; retail uses on the first floor; residential and office uses above the first floor; and where complementary uses may be allowed. (GC) Business - Community 1 and Business - Community 2: Business areas containing retail centers serving a number of neighborhoods, where retail- type stores predominate. (HD) Business - Commercial Services: Commercial areas primarily used to provide to the community a wide range of retail and commercial uses including repair, service, and small-scale manufacturing uses and where complementary uses may be allowed. (IE) Business - Regional 1 and Business - Regional 2: Business centers of the Boulder Valley, containing a wide range of retail and commercial operations, including the largest regional-scale businesses, which serve outlying residential development; and where the goals of the Boulder Urban Renewal Plan are implemented. (34) Downtown Districts: … (45) Industrial Districts: … (56) Public Districts: … (67) Agricultural Districts: … (78) Flex Districts: A combination of use, form, and intensity standards not reflected in any existing zoning district. Rezoning to a flex district may only be initiated by the planning board or city council as part of an annexation, rezoning after concept review, or area plan, and upon the determination that the flex zone would implement the goals of the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan. When rezoning to a flex district, the rezoning ordinance shall identify the specific use, form, and intensity modules which shall be identified on the official zoning map. Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent city council from creating new zoning districts. Section 14. Section 9-6-3, “Specific Use Standards - Residential Uses,” B.R.C. 1981, is amended to read as follows: Attachment B - Ordinance 8620 Item 3F - 2nd Rdg Ord 8620 Title 9 Code Section Improvements Page 36 Packet Page 243 of 523 K:\PLCU\o-8620 2nd rdg Title 9 Clean-Up-.docx 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 9-6-3. Specific Use Standards – Residential Uses. (a) Residential Uses: … (2) Residential Uses in the IG and IM Zoning Districts: The following standards apply in the IG and IM zoning districts to residential uses that may be approved pursuant to a use review: (B) Floor Area Ratios (FAR): Residential floor area is limited to a 1.0 FAR on a lot or parcel and non-residential floor area is limited to a 0.5 FAR in the IG zone and 0.4 FAR in the IM zone. If at least 0.3 FAR of light industrial manufacturing or research and development use is on the lot or parcel, the residential FAR may be increased to 1.25 FAR in each zone. Section 15. Section 9-6-5, “Specific Use Standards - Commercial Uses,” B.R.C. 1981, is amended to read as follows: 9-6-5. Specific Use Standards - Commercial Uses. … (d) Mobile Food Vehicle: (1) The following applies to any mobile food vehicle use: (A) Standards: Mobile food vehicle sales on private property, public property, or in the public right-of-way are allowed by right if the use meets the following standards: … (v) No person shall operate a mobile food vehicle sales use without a permit or in violation of the conditions of a permit. The permit will be valid for twelve consecutive monthsup to two years, or such other time as the city manager may by rule designate. Such application shall meet the following requirements: … Section 16. The maximum cumulative coverage and wall length articulation lines of Table 7-1: Form and Bulk Standards in Section 9-7-1, “Schedule of Form and Bulk Standards,” B.R.C. 1981, are amended to read as follows: Attachment B - Ordinance 8620 Item 3F - 2nd Rdg Ord 8620 Title 9 Code Section Improvements Page 37 Packet Page 244 of 523 K:\PLCU\o-8620 2nd rdg Title 9 Clean-Up-.docx 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 9-7-1. Schedule of Form and Bulk Standards. The purpose of this chapter is to indicate the requirements for lot dimensions and building form, bulk, location and height for all types of development. All primary and accessory structures are subject to the dimensional standards set forth in Table 7-1 of this section with the exception of structures located in an area designated in Appendix L, "Form-Based Code Areas," subject to the standards of Appendix M, "Form-Based Code." No person shall use any land within the City authorized by Chapter 9-6, "Use Standards," B.R.C. 1981, except according to the following form and bulk requirements unless modified through a use review under Section 9-2-15, "Use Review," B.R.C. 1981, or a site review under Section 9-2-14, "Site Review," B.R.C. 1981, or granted a variance under Section 9-2-3, "Variances and Interpretations," B.R.C. 1981, or as approved under the provisions of Section 9-2-16, "Form-based code review," B.R.C. 1981. TABLE 7-1: FORM AND BULK STANDARDS Zoning District A RR- 1 RR- 2 RE RH- 2 RH- 5 P RL- 1 RM -2 RM X-1 BT- 2 BT- 1 BC BR IS-1 IS-2 IG IM RL- 2 RM -1 RH- 4 MU -1 RM -3 RH- 1 RH- 6 RM X-2 RH- 3 RH- 7 BC S MU -3 BM S MU -4 DT- 1 DT- 2 DT- 3 DT- 5 DT- 4 MU -2 IM S MH Form module a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s Maximu m cumulat ive coverag e of all accessor y building s regardle ss of location (m) For residential uses - no greater than coverage of the principal building Wall length articulat ion standard s for side walls over 14' in height See Section 9-7-10 n/a See Sect ion 9-7- 10 n/a See Section 9-7-10 n/a Attachment B - Ordinance 8620 Item 3F - 2nd Rdg Ord 8620 Title 9 Code Section Improvements Page 38 Packet Page 245 of 523 K:\PLCU\o-8620 2nd rdg Title 9 Clean-Up-.docx 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 within 20' ofand less than 14' from the side property line … Footnotes to Table 7-1, Form and Bulk Standards: In addition to the foregoing, the following miscellaneous form and bulk requirements apply to all development in the city: … (e) For other setback standards regarding garages, open parking areas, and flagpoles, see Paragraph 9-7-2(b)(8d), B.R.C. 1981. (f) Where a rear yard backs on a street, see Paragraph 9-7-2(b)(7c), B.R.C. 1981. … Section 17. Section 9-7-2, “Setback Standards,” B.R.C. 1981, is amended to read as follows: 9-7-2. Setback Standards. (a) Permitted Height: The height permitted without review within the City is set forth in Section 9-7-1, "Schedule of Form and Bulk Standards," B.R.C. 1981, except as provided in Paragraph (b)(2) of this section. Buildings greater than the permitted height may be approved under Section 9-2-14, "Site Review," B.R.C. 1981. … (b) Side Yard Setback Standards: (1) Setbacks for Upper Floors in Non-Residential Zoning Districts: A principal building constructed with a side yard setback of zero for the first story above grade in the BC-2, BR-1, DT-1, DT-2, DT-3, DT-4, DT-5, IS-1, IG or IM zoning districts, where the side yard setback is noted as "0 or 12," will be allowed tomay have upper stories set back stories either five feet or the distance required by Chapter 10-5 "Building Code,” B.R.C. 1981, whichever is greater. above the first story that is at or above the finished grade the greater of five feet or the distance required by Chapter 10-5, "Building Code," B.R.C. 1981. Attachment B - Ordinance 8620 Item 3F - 2nd Rdg Ord 8620 Title 9 Code Section Improvements Page 39 Packet Page 246 of 523 K:\PLCU\o-8620 2nd rdg Title 9 Clean-Up-.docx 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 … Section 18. Section 9-7-5, “Building Height,” B.R.C. 1981, is amended to read as follows: 9-7-5. Building Height. (a) Permitted Height: The height permitted without review within the City is set forth in Section 9-7-1, "Schedule of Form and Bulk Standards," B.R.C. 1981, except as provided in Paragraph (b)(2) of this section. Buildings greater than the permitted height may be approved under Section 9-2-14, "Site Review," B.R.C. 1981. (b) Measurement of Height: Height shall be measured as the vertical distance from the lowest point within twenty-five horizontal feet of the tallest side of the structure to the uppermost point of the roof or structure. The lowest point shall be calculated using the natural grade. The tallest side shall be that side whose lowest exposed exterior point is lower in elevation than the lowest exposed exterior point of any other side of the building (see Figure 7-3 Measurement of Height). (1) Modifications to Natural Grade: If there is evidence that a modification to the natural grade has occurred since the adoption of Charter section 84, "Height limit." B.R.C. 1981, on November 2, 1971, the city manager can consider the best available information to determine the natural grade. This may include, without limitation, interpolating what the existing grade may have been using the grade along property lines, topographic information on file with the City, or other information that may be presented to the city manager. Attachment B - Ordinance 8620 Item 3F - 2nd Rdg Ord 8620 Title 9 Code Section Improvements Page 40 Packet Page 247 of 523 K:\PLCU\o-8620 2nd rdg Title 9 Clean-Up-.docx 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Figure 7-3: Measurement of Height … Attachment B - Ordinance 8620 Item 3F - 2nd Rdg Ord 8620 Title 9 Code Section Improvements Page 41 Packet Page 248 of 523 K:\PLCU\o-8620 2nd rdg Title 9 Clean-Up-.docx 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 (e) Height Calculations for Attached Buildings: … (2) Separate buildings in compliance with Paragraph (de)(1) of this section, and which exceed the maximum permitted height allowed by Section 9-7-1, "Schedule of Form and Bulk Standards," B.R.C. 1981, may be considered by the planning board pursuant to Section 9-2-14, "Site Review," B.R.C. 1981. … Section 19. Section 9-7-6, “Building Height, Conditional,” B.R.C. 1981, is amended to read as follows: 9-7-6. Building Height, Conditional. (a) High Density Residential District Administrative Review Criteria: In the RH zones, principal building height may be increased to forty feet if: … Section 20. Section 9-7-10, “Side Yard Wall Articulation,” B.R.C. 1981, is amended to read as follows: 9-7-10. Side Yard Wall Articulation. (a) Purpose: Buildings with tall side walls may impact privacy, views or visual access to the sky on neighboring properties. The purpose of the side yard wall articulation standard is to reduce the perceived mass of a building by dividing it into smaller components, or to step down the wall height in order to enhance privacy, preserve views and visual access to the sky for lots or parcels that are adjacent to new development. … (c) Side Yard Wall Standards: Along each side yard property line, the cumulative length of any walls that exceed a height of fourteen feet shall not exceed forty feet in length, unless they are set back at least fourteen feet from the side property line (see Figure 7-14). For the purposes of this section, wall height shall be measured from finished grade as follows: (1) Sloped roofs shall be measured from adjacent finished grade to the point where the vertical wall intersects with the sloped roof. (2) Flat roofs shall be measured from adjacent finished grade to the top of the parapet. Attachment B - Ordinance 8620 Item 3F - 2nd Rdg Ord 8620 Title 9 Code Section Improvements Page 42 Packet Page 249 of 523 K:\PLCU\o-8620 2nd rdg Title 9 Clean-Up-.docx 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 (3) Window wells or door wells as described under Subparagraph 9-8-2(e)(1)(D) shall not be counted as part of the wall height. Figure 7-14: Side Yard Wall Length Articulation Examples Attachment B - Ordinance 8620 Item 3F - 2nd Rdg Ord 8620 Title 9 Code Section Improvements Page 43 Packet Page 250 of 523 K:\PLCU\o-8620 2nd rdg Title 9 Clean-Up-.docx 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 After the maximum 40 feet cumulative wall length, the wall must either be set back from the side property line by a minimum of fourteen feet (top image) or the height of the wall must reduce to fourteen feet or less (bottom image). … Section 21. Section 9-9-6, “Parking Standards,” B.R.C. 1981, is amended to read as follows: 9-9-6. Parking Standards. (a) Rationale: The intent of this section is to provide adequate off-street parking for all uses, to prevent undue congestion and interference with the traffic carrying capacity of city streets, and to minimize the visual and environmental impacts of excessive parking lot paving. … (d) Motor Vehicle Parking Design Standards: … (5) Parking Design Details: … (B) With the exception of parking areas for detached dwelling units, All all parking areas are shall be paved with asphalt, concrete, or other similar permanent, hard surface except for parking areas for detached dwelling units. Parking areas for detached dwelling units shall be surfaced with materials capable of sustaining the weight and impacts of the associated vehicle usage. ... (f) Motor Vehicle Parking Reductions: … (3) Alternative administrative parking reductions by land use: The parking requirements in Section 9-9-6, “Parking Standards,” B.R.C. 1981, may be reduced if the following standards are met. These standards shall not be permitted to be combined with the parking reduction standards in Subparagraphs (f)(2) of this section. … (B) Mixed Use Developments: The city manager may reduce the amount of Attachment B - Ordinance 8620 Item 3F - 2nd Rdg Ord 8620 Title 9 Code Section Improvements Page 44 Packet Page 251 of 523 K:\PLCU\o-8620 2nd rdg Title 9 Clean-Up-.docx 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 required parking in a mixed-use development by up to ten percent in the BMS, IMS, MU-1, MU-2, MU-3 and RMX-2 zoning districts, or in all other nonresidential zoning districts in Section 9-5-2, “Zoning Districts,” B.R.C. 1981, by up to a twenty-five-percent parking reduction if the following requirements are met: … Section 22. Section 9-9-11, “Useable Open Space,” B.R.C. 1981, is amended to read as follows: 9-9-11. Useable Open Space. (a) Purpose of Open Space: The purpose of useable open space is to provide indoor and outdoor areas for passive and active uses to meet the needs of the anticipated residents, tenants, employees, customers and visitors of a property, and to enhance the environment of a development or building. Open space can be used to: … (f) Special Open Space Requirements Applicable to Residential Uses: Useable open space for residential uses also includes: (1) Individual bBalconies, decks, porches, and patio areas associated with an individual dwelling unit or common open spaces on a roof or elevated above the first story, that are not intended or designed to be enclosed, if the minimum size of such individual balcony, deck or patiothe applicable open space is not less than thirty-six36 square feet and not less than forty-eight48 inches in any dimension or porches that meet the requirements of section 9-7-4, "Setback Encroachments for Front Porches," B.R.C. 1981. Such areas shall count for no more than twenty- five25 percent of the required useable open space. … Section 23. Section 9-9-12, “Landscaping and Screening Standards,” B.R.C. 1981, is amended to read as follows: 9-9-12. Landscaping and Screening Standards. (a) Purpose: The purpose of the landscaping and screening requirements set forth in this chapter is to: … (d) General Landscaping and Screening Requirements: … Attachment B - Ordinance 8620 Item 3F - 2nd Rdg Ord 8620 Title 9 Code Section Improvements Page 45 Packet Page 252 of 523 K:\PLCU\o-8620 2nd rdg Title 9 Clean-Up-.docx 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 (2) Landscape and Screening Planting, Maintenance, and Replacement: The property owner shall maintain all required landscaping and provide for replacement of plant materials that have died or have otherwise been damaged or removed, and maintenance of all non-live landscaping materials, including, but not limited to, fencing, paving, irrigation systems, and retaining walls from the issuance of a certificate of occupancy or certificate of completion. (i) Planting: Required landscaping and screening shall be planted between March 1 and October 15. Bare root stock shall be planted between March 1 and April 30 or prior to plants leafing out. Stock, other than container- grown stock, shall be planted between March 1 and June 1 or between September 1 and October 15. The city manager may approve planting at different times based on weather conditions that allow for successful planting. (ii) Maintenance and Replacement: The property owner shall maintain all required landscaping and provide for replacement of plant materials that have died or have otherwise been damaged or removed, and maintenance of all non-live landscaping materials, including, but not limited to, fencing, paving, irrigation systems, and retaining walls from the issuance of a certificate of occupancy or certificate of completion. … Section 24. Section 9-10-2, “Continuation or Restoration of Nonconforming Uses and Nonstandard Buildings, Structures, and Lots,” B.R.C. 1981, is amended to read as follows: 9-10-2. Continuation or Restoration of Nonconforming Uses and Nonstandard Buildings, Structures, and Lots. Nonconforming uses and nonstandard buildings and lots in existence on the effective date of the ordinance which first made them nonconforming may continue to exist subject to the following: … (b) Damage by Fire, Flood, Wind, or Other Calamity or Act of God and Unsafe Buildings: A nonstandard building or structure, a building or structure that contains a nonconforming use, or a building or structure on a nonstandard lot, that has been damaged by fire, flood, wind, or other calamity or act of God may be restored to its original condition, or any building declared unsafe under the building code or any other applicable safety or health code may be restored to a safe condition, provided that such work is consistent with the requirements of Section 9-3-3, "Regulations Governing the One Hundred-Year Floodplain," B.R.C. 1981, started within twelve monthstwo years of such event, and completed within twenty-four monthsthree years of the date on which the restoration commenced. … Attachment B - Ordinance 8620 Item 3F - 2nd Rdg Ord 8620 Title 9 Code Section Improvements Page 46 Packet Page 253 of 523 K:\PLCU\o-8620 2nd rdg Title 9 Clean-Up-.docx 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Section 25. Section 9-12-5, “Minor Subdivision,” B.R.C. 1981, is amended to read as follows: 9-12-5. Minor Subdivision. (a) Scope: A minor subdivision is a division of land that is already served by city services, will not require the extension of streets or public improvements and will not result in more than one additional lot. (b) Limitations: The provisions of this section shall not apply to a replat that: (1) Requires any variations modifications to section 9-12-12, "Standards for Lots and Public Improvements," B.R.C. 1981; … Section 26. Section 9-12-7, “Staff Review and Approval of Preliminary Plat,” B.R.C. 1981, is amended to read as follows: 9-12-7. Staff Review and Approval of Preliminary Plat. (a) City Manager Review: The city manager shall review all preliminary subdivision plats and approve those that the manager finds meet all requirements of this code and other ordinances of the City or are necessary to protect the public health, safety and welfare. The manager shall process those that include applications for site reviews under chapter 9-2, "Review Processes," B.R.C. 1981, under the requirements of that chapter and shall ensure that the conditions of the site review approval will be met within the future subdivision. The manager shall process preliminary plats that do not include applications for site reviews and provide to the subdivider a list of any deficiencies that may exist. (b) Notice of Surface Estate: The city manager shall notify tenants of the property and abutting property owners by first class mail that the subdivision is proposed and that any questions or comments thereon may be directed to the planning department of planning and community development. (c) Notice of Mineral Estate: The purpose of this notice provision is to comply with the notification of surface development requirements in article 24-65.5, C.R.S. The applicant shall: (1) At least thirty days before any initial hearing or, if none, beforea final decision on an application for development, send notice, by first classcertified mail, return receipt requested, or by a nationally recognized overnight courier to the mineral estate owner; (2) Provide in the notice a statement about how the decision will be made, rights of Attachment B - Ordinance 8620 Item 3F - 2nd Rdg Ord 8620 Title 9 Code Section Improvements Page 47 Packet Page 254 of 523 K:\PLCU\o-8620 2nd rdg Title 9 Clean-Up-.docx 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 appeal, the location of the property that is the subject of the application, and the name of the applicant, the City of Boulder as the approving authority and the name and address of the mineral estate owner; (3) Identify the mineral estate holder in a manner consistent with § 24-65.5-103, C.R.S.; and (4) Certify, in a form acceptable to the city manager, that such notice has been provided to the mineral estate owner. The certification shall identify the name and address of the mineral estate owners to whom notices were sent. This certification is a condition of approval. … Section 27. Section 9-12-8, “Final Plat,” B.R.C. 1981, is amended to read as follows: 9-12-8. Final Plat. (a) A final plat may be submitted at the same time as a preliminary plat. (b) In order to obtain city manager review of a final plat, the subdivider shall submit a final plat that conforms to the approved preliminary plat, includes all changes required by the manager or the planning board, and includes the following information: … (4) Accurate dimensions for all lines, angles and curves used to describe boundaries, public improvements, easements, areas to be reserved for public use and other important features. (All curves shall be circular arcs and shall be defined by the radius, central angle, tangent, arc and chart distances. All dimensions, both linear and angular, are to be determined by an accurate control survey in the field that must balance and close within a limit of one in ten thousand. No final plat showing plus or minus dimensions will be approved.); … Section 28. Section 9-12-9, “Lot Line and Boundary Verification,” B.R.C. 1981, is amended to read as follows: 9-12-9. Lot Line and Boundary Verification. The subdivider shall provide to the cCity a computer check to assure ensure that the exterior lines of the subdivision on the final plat close. In the absence of such verification, the City shall obtain such computer check and the subdivider shall pay the fee therefor prescribed by Subsection 4-20-43(a), B.R.C. 1981, before recording the plat. Attachment B - Ordinance 8620 Item 3F - 2nd Rdg Ord 8620 Title 9 Code Section Improvements Page 48 Packet Page 255 of 523 K:\PLCU\o-8620 2nd rdg Title 9 Clean-Up-.docx 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Section 29. Section 9-12-12, “Standards for Lots and Public Improvements,” B.R.C. 1981, is amended to read as follows: 9-12-12. Standards for Lots and Public Improvements. (a) Conditions Required: Except as provided in subsection (b) of this section, subdivision plats shall comply with Section 9-9-17, "Solar Access," B.R.C. 1981, and meet the following conditions: … (c) Private Utilities and Improvements: If the subdivider installs private utilities or improvements, including, without limitation, streets or water, wastewater and storm drain utilities, the subdivider shall provide mutual covenants in the deeds of all property owners of the subdivision for the continued and perpetual maintenance of the utilities or improvements. The city manager may require creation of a unit owners association formed pursuant to the Colorado Common Interest Ownership Act, Article 33.3, Title 38, Colorado Revised Statutes, to own and maintain common private utilities and improvements. Section 30. Section 9-13-10, “Options for Satisfaction of Inclusionary Housing Requirement,” B.R.C. 1981, is amended to read as follows: 9-13-10. Options for Satisfaction of Inclusionary Housing Requirement. (a) Purpose: In order to create a significant amount of permanently affordable units, to the extent permitted by this chapter, developers may satisfy the inclusionary housing requirement through any combination of the following alternate means: (1) Cash-in-Lieu Contribution: Developers may satisfy permanently affordable housing requirements by making cash contributions to the city’s affordable housing fund. The cash-in-lieu contribution will be based on the residential square footage of the development creating the inclusionary housing requirement and the applicable rate will be determined annually by the city manager. The city manager may consider the number of units in the development, the size and type of units which created the obligation, the amount that would incentivize on-site construction of permanently affordable units, and the affordability gap between market rate and permanently affordable unit prices when determining the cash-in- lieu calculation. (A) Annual Cash-in-lieu Escalator: The city manager is authorized to adjust the cash-in-lieu contribution annually on July January 1 of each year. … Attachment B - Ordinance 8620 Item 3F - 2nd Rdg Ord 8620 Title 9 Code Section Improvements Page 49 Packet Page 256 of 523 K:\PLCU\o-8620 2nd rdg Title 9 Clean-Up-.docx 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Section 31. This ordinance shall apply to any building permit, conditional use, use review, and site review applied for on or after the effective date of this ordinance; however, any project for which a complete building permit, site review, use review, or conditional use application has been submitted to the city or which has received a site review, use review, or conditional use approval prior to the effective date of this ordinance for a use inconsistent with the provisions of this ordinance will be permitted to establish the proposed use under the use standards of Chapter 9-6, " Use Standards,” B.R.C. 1981, in effect at the time the building permit, site review, use review, or conditional use application was submitted to the city. Such applicants shall be required to pursue such development approvals and meet all requirements deadlines set by the city manager and the Boulder Revised Code necessary to establish the proposed use. The applications for such project shall demonstrate compliance with all applicable laws. An applicant may seek extensions of a development approval granted under the use standards in effect prior to the effective date of this ordinance in accordance with the standards of Subsection 9-2-12(b), “Extensions,” B.R.C. 1981, and any initial review under Paragraph 9-2-12(b)(2), “Planning Board Level Extension,” B.R.C. 1981, shall not impose as an additional condition compliance with the use standards adopted in this ordinance provided that all other requirements of this Section 5 of this ordinance have been met. Any failure to meet requirements of the city manager or this section of this ordinance will result in a denial of such application. Any subsequent application shall meet the requirements in place at the time of such subsequent application. Section 32. If any section, paragraph, clause, or provision of this ordinance shall for any reason be held to be invalid or unenforceable, such decision shall not affect any of the remaining provisions of this ordinance. Attachment B - Ordinance 8620 Item 3F - 2nd Rdg Ord 8620 Title 9 Code Section Improvements Page 50 Packet Page 257 of 523 K:\PLCU\o-8620 2nd rdg Title 9 Clean-Up-.docx 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Section 33. This ordinance is necessary to protect the public health, safety, and welfare of the residents of the city and covers matters of local concern. Section 34. The city council deems it appropriate that this ordinance be published by title only and orders that copies of this ordinance be made available in the office of the city clerk for public inspection and acquisition. INTRODUCED, READ ON FIRST READING, AND ORDERED PUBLISHED BY TITLE ONLY this 15th day of February 2024. _____________________________ Aaron Brockett, Mayor Attest: ______________________________ Elesha Johnson, City Clerk READ ON SECOND READING, PASSED AND ADOPTED this 7th day of March 2023. _____________________________ Aaron Brockett, Mayor Attest: _____________________________ Elesha Johnson, City Clerk Attachment B - Ordinance 8620 Item 3F - 2nd Rdg Ord 8620 Title 9 Code Section Improvements Page 51 Packet Page 258 of 523 1 DETERMINE TALLEST SIDE Determine the building side with the lowest exposed exterior point. This is the tallest side per the code. When the lowest exposed exterior point is at a corner, all adjoining sides are considered the tallest side. Lowest exposed exterior point 25’ Buildings are considered to have four sides, regardless of layout or complexity of design. 2 FIND LOWEST POINT OF NATURAL GRADE 25’ Lowest point of natural grade within 25’ of the tallest side Building additions or elevated building elements like decks or porches are considered part of the building side and may impact the lowest point of natural grade. Find the lowest point of natural grade anywhere within 25’ of the tallest side. 3 MEASURE TO UPPERMOST POINT Measure the height from the lowest point of natural grade to the uppermost point of the roof or structure. BUILDING HEIGHT Uppermost point Natural grade includes depressions, but does not include features like ditches or pools. or city right-of-way. Lowest exposed exterior point Lowest point of natural grade Lowest point of natural grade Fig. 7-3: Measurement of Height Attachment C - Graphics - Higher Resolution Item 3F - 2nd Rdg Ord 8620 Title 9 Code Section Improvements Page 52 Packet Page 259 of 523 Fig. 7-14: Wall Length Articulation Building elements that contribute to the maximum side yard wall cumulative length Less than 14’ 30’ 10’ Over 14’ 14’ 30’ 10’ Over 14’ Walls less than 14’ in height located within 14’ of the side yard property line are not included in side yard wall cumulative length. Walls set back more than 14’ from the side yard property line are not included in side yard wall cumulative length. Walls above 14’ in height located within 14’ of the side yard property line are included in side yard wall cumulative length. 30’ 10’ Over 14’ >14’ Attachment C - Graphics - Higher Resolution Item 3F - 2nd Rdg Ord 8620 Title 9 Code Section Improvements Page 53 Packet Page 260 of 523 C OVE R SH E E T ME E T I N G D AT E March 7, 2024 AG E N D A I T E M Site Review Amendment including a Height Modification request to allow for up to seven feet six inches of additional height with a pitched roof or alternatively, up to four feet of additional height with or without a pitched roof for each townhome building within the approved Shining Mountain Waldorf School development at 0 Violet Ave. (LUR2023-00050) P RI MARY STAF F C ON TAC T C handler Van Schaack, Principal Planner AT TAC H ME N T S: Description I tem 4A - Call Up 999 Violet Av e Site Rev iew Packet Page 261 of 523 CITY OF BOULDER CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM MEETING DATE: March 7, 2024 AGENDA TITLE: Call up consideration of a Site Review Amendment including a Height Modification request to allow for up to seven feet six inches of additional height with a pitched roof or alternatively, up to four feet of additional height with or without a pitched roof for each townhome building within the approved Shining Mountain Waldorf School development at 0 Violet Ave. Reviewed under case number LUR2023-00050). Applicant: Erin Bagnall, Sopher Sparn Architects Owner: Shining Mountain Waldorf School REQUESTING DEPARTMENT / PRESENTERS Nuria Rivera-Vandermyde, City Manager Brad Mueller, Planning & Development Services Director Charles Ferro, Senior Development Planning Manager Chandler Van Schaack, Principal Planner EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this item is for the City Council to consider whether to call up the Planning Board’s decision on an application for a Site Review Amendment to amend the Shining Mountain Waldorf School development to allow for up to seven feet six inches of additional height with a pitched roof or alternatively, up to four feet of additional height with or without a pitched roof for each townhome building. The applicant cites interior livability, neighborhood compatibility and constraints to the buildings from the base flood elevation requirements as justification for the request. On February 6, 2024 , the Planning Board held a public hearing and voted 4-2 to approve the application with conditions as recommended by staff. Because the application included two alternative designs for the Planning Board’s consideration, the Conditions of Approval (see Attachment A) allow for both alternatives (pitched roofs at 42’6” in height or flat or pitched roofs at 39 feet in height); however, the applicant has indicated that should the approval become final they will pursue the preferred alternative (pitched roofs at 42’6” in height) for all of the townhome buildings. The Planning Board decision is subject to a 30-day City Council call Item 4A - Call Up 999 Violet Ave Site Review Page 1 Packet Page 262 of 523 up period which concludes on March 7, 2024. City Council is scheduled to consider this application for call-up at its meeting on March 7, 2024. The staff memorandum to Planning Board, recorded video, and the applicant’s submittal materials along with other related background materials are available on the Records Archive for the Planning Board. The applicant’s plan set and written statement is provided in Attachment B. The recorded video from the hearing can be found here (item begins at 24 minutes into the video). REVIEW PROCESS The purpose of this item is for the City Council to consider whether to call up the above- referenced application for review and comment at a public hearing. A site review amendment is required because the proposal includes a request for a height modification. Site review amendments are subject to the Site Review criteria in Section 9-2-14, B.R.C. 1981. Per Section 9-2-14(g), B.R.C 1981, an application for any principal or accessory building above the permitted height for principal buildings set forth in Section 9-7-1, "Schedule of Form and Bulk Standards," B.R.C. 1981 requires a staff recommendation and final decision by the Planning Board at a public hearing, subject to call-up by City Council. COMMUNITY SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENTS AND IMPACTS •Economic: None identified. •Environmental: None identified. •Social: None identified. OTHER IMPACTS •Fiscal: No fiscal impacts are anticipated. •Staff time: The application was reviewed under standard staff review time. BOARD AND COMMISSION FEEDBACK At the public hearing on Feb. 6, 2024, the Planning Board held a quasi-judicial hearing to review the proposed Site Review Amendment application described above. Following a public hearing the Planning Board approved with conditions the applications by a 4-2 vote with the following motion: On a motion by M. McIntyre and seconded by L. Kaplan, the Planning Board voted 4-2 to approve Site Review Amendment no. LUR2023-00050, including a Height Modification request to allow for up to seven feet six inches of additional height with a pitched roof or alternatively, up to four feet of additional height with or without a pitched roof for each townhome building within the approved Shining Mountain Waldorf School development, adopting the staff memorandum as findings of fact, including the attached analysis of review criteria, and subject to the recommended conditions of approval. At the hearing, the Planning Board listened to presentations from staff and the applicant, Item 4A - Call Up 999 Violet Ave Site Review Page 2 Packet Page 263 of 523 and asked questions of each. There was one public comment on the item from L. Segal. The board held a lengthy discussion on whether the proposal meets the Site Review criteria, including the additional criteria for buildings requiring height modification. Two motions were made, the first of which would have approved only the first alternative (42’6” with sloped roofs) and the second of which would have approved only the second alternative (39 feet with or without pitched roofs). Both motions failed. Ultimately, the Planning Board approved the application via the suggested motion language provided by staff, which allows for both alternatives. The Planning Board Disposition can be found in Attachment A. Refer to Attachment E for the draft meeting minutes from the Planning Board meeting. PUBLIC FEEDBACK Consistent with Section 9-4-3, “Public Notice Requirements,” B.R.C. 1981, staff provided notification to all property owners within 600 feet of the subject location of the application, and signs have been posted by the applicant. Staff received comments from several neighbors expressing concerns over the proposed project. These comments are included as Attachment D. BACKGROUND & ANALYSIS The staff memorandum to Planning Board that includes staff analysis and the applicant’s submittal materials are available on the Records Archive for Planning Board. MATRIX OF OPTIONS The City Council may call up the Site Review Amendment application within thirty days of the Planning Board’s review. Any application that it calls up, the City Council will review at a public meeting within sixty days of the call-up vote, or within such other time as the city and the applicant mutually agree. The City Council is scheduled to consider this application for call-up at its meeting on March 7, 2024. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Planning Board Notice of Disposition dated February 6, 2024 Attachment B: Submittal Materials Attachment C: Staff Analysis of Review Criteria Attachment D: Public Comments Attachment E: February 6, 2024 Draft Planning Board Minutes Item 4A - Call Up 999 Violet Ave Site Review Page 3 Packet Page 264 of 523 CITY OF BOULDER PLANNING BOARD NOTICE OF DISPOSITION You are hereby advised that on February 6, 2024 the following action was taken by the Planning Board based on the standards and criteria of the Land Use Regulations as set forth in Chapter 9 -2, B.R.C.1981, as applied to the proposed development. ACTION: APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS PROJECT NAME: SHINING MOUNTAIN WALDORF SCHOOL SITE REVIEW AMENDMENT DESCRIPTION: Site Review Amendment including a Height Modification to allow for up to seven feet six inches of additional height (42’6”) with a pitched roof or alternatively, up to four feet of additional height (39’) with or without a pitched roof for each townhome building within the approved Shining Mountain Waldorf School development at 0 Violet Ave. LOCATION: 0 VIOLET AVE. (Townhome Site) LEGAL DESCRIPTION: OUTLOT A, SHINING MOUNTAIN SUBDIVISION FILING NO. 1, CITY OF BOULDER, COUNTY OF BOULDER, STATE OF COLORADO, AS CORRECTED BY SURVEYOR’S AFFIDAVIT OF CORRECTION RECORDED JANUARY 31, 2023 UNDER RECEPTION NO. 03996067. APPLICANT: Erin Bagnall, Sopher Sparn Architects OWNER: WALDORF SCHOOL ASSOCIATION OF BOULDER, INC., D/B/A SHINING MOUNTAIN WALDORF SCHOOL APPLICATION: Site Review Amendment, LUR2023-00050 ZONING: Residential - Low 2 (RL-2) CASE MANAGER: Chandler Van Schaack VESTED PROPERTY RIGHT: No; the owner has waived the opportunity to create such right under Section 9 -2- 20, B.R.C. 1981. APPROVED MODIFICATIONS FROM THE LAND USE REGULATIONS: •Section 9-7-1, “Form and Bulk Standards - Maximum Height for Principal Buildings and Uses,” B.R.C. 1981 to allow for up to seven feet six inches of additional height (42 feet 6 inches) with a pitched roof or alternatively, up to four feet of additional height (39 feet) with or without a pitched roof for each townhome building. This decision may be called up by the City Council on or before March 7, 2024. If no call-up occurs, the decision is deemed final on March 8, 2024. FOR CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL SEE THE FOLLOWING PAGES OF THIS DISPOSITION. Attachment A - Planning Board Disposition Item 4A - Call Up 999 Violet Ave Site Review Page 4 Packet Page 265 of 523 IN ORDER FOR A BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION TO BE PROCESSED FOR THIS PROJECT, A SIGNED DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AND SIGNED FINAL PLANS MUST BE SUBMITTED TO THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT WITH DISPOSITION CONDITIONS AS APPROVED SHOWN ON THE FINAL PLANS. IF THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT IS NOT SIGNED WITHIN NINETY (90) DAYS OF THE FINAL DECISION DATE, THE PLANNING BOARD APPROVAL AUTOMATICALLY EXPIRES. Pursuant to Section 9-2-12 of the Land Use Regulations (Boulder Revised Code, 1981), the Applicant must begin and substantially complete the approved development within three years from the date of final approval or in compliance with the phasing plan if one was approved. Failure to "substantially complete" (as defined in Section 9-2-12) the development within three years or in compliance with the phasing plan, if one was approved, shall cause this development approval to expire. On February 6, 2024, the Planning Board approved the request with the following motion: On a motion by M. McIntyre and seconded by L. Kaplan, the Boulder Planning Board voted 4-2 (S. Silver and K. Nordback opposed) to approve Site Review application #LUR2023-00050, including a Height Modification request to allow for up to seven feet six inches of additional height with a pitched roof or alternatively, up to four feet of additional height with or without a pitched roof for each townhome building within the approved Shining Mountain Waldorf School development, adopting the staff memorandum as findings of fact, including the attached analysis of review criteria, and subject to the recommended conditions of approval. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1.The Applicant shall ensure that the development shall be in compliance with all plans prepared by the Applicant on December 1, 2023 and the Written Statement prepared by the Applicant on December 1, 2023, all on file in the City of Boulder Planning Department, except to the extent that the development may be modified by the conditions of this approval. 2.The Applicant shall comply with all previous conditions contained in any previous approvals, except to the extent that any previous conditions may be modified by this approval, including, but not limited to, the following: •The Development Agreement recorded at Reception No. 03908433 and the approvals listed in the Notice of Disposition attached to that Development Agreement; and •The Development Agreement recorded at Reception No. 04026236 and the approvals listed in the Notice of Disposition attached to that Development Agreement. 3.Prior to a building permit application, the Applicant shall submit, and obtain City Manager approval of, a Technical Document Review application for the following items: a.Final architectural plans, including material samples and colors, to ensure compliance with the intent of this approval, compatibility with the surrounding area, and compliance with the previously approved Locust Neighborhood Design Guidelines dated March 29, 2021 except to the extent the Guidelines are amended by this approval as it relates to maximum townhouse height and roof slopes. The architectural intent shown on the plans prepared by the Applicant on December 1, 2023 is acceptable. Planning staff will rev iew plans to assure the architectural intent is performed. Townhouses may be constructed to a height of up to 39 feet, consistent with the approved Locust Neighborhood Design Guidelines, or may exceed a height of 39 feet to allow a roof that has a pitch of 2:12 or greater, but not to exceed 42 feet and 6 inches. By: _____________________________________________ Brad Mueller, Secretary of the Planning Board Attachment A - Planning Board Disposition Item 4A - Call Up 999 Violet Ave Site Review Page 5 Packet Page 266 of 523 BLDG 1 FFE 5520' -9" BLDG 1 MAX HT 5551' -0" FFE BLDG 2 5520' -0" BLDG 2 MAX HEIGHT 5550' -0" BLDG 2 LOW PT 5515' -0" LOW PT BLDG 1 5516' -0" AS-01 BR-01MP-01 CP-01 AS-01 MP-01 MP-01 BR-01 05 04 02 01 02 06 CP-01 06 MP-01 BLDG 2 2ND FLOOR 5530' -6" BLDG 2 3RD FLOOR 5540' -6" BLDG 1 2ND FLOOR 5531' -3" BLDG 1 3RD FLOOR 5541' -3"35' - 0" MAX BLDG HT.9' - 9"10' - 0"10' - 6"4' - 9"35' - 0" MAX BLDG HT.9' - 6"10' - 0"10' - 6"5' - 0"02 02 04 05 AS-01 MP-01 CP-01 MP-01 BR-01CP-01 MP-01 SEAL NOTICE: DUTY OF COOPERATION RELEASE OF THESE DOCUMENTS CONTEMPLATES FURTHER COOPERATION AMONG THE OWNER, HIS CONTRACTOR, AND THE ARCHITECT. DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION ARE COMPLEX. ALTHOUGH THE ARCHITECT AND HIS CONSULTANTS HAVE PERFORMED THEIR SERVICES WITH DUE CARE AND DILIGENCE, THEY CANNOT GUARANTEE PERFECTION. COMMUNICATION IS IMPERFECT AND EVERY CONTINGENCY CANNOT BE ANTICIPATED. ANY ERRORS, OMISSIONS, OR DISCREPANCY DISCOVERED BY THE USE OF THESE DOCUMENTS SHALL BE REPORTED IMMEDIATELY TO THE ARCHITECT. FAILURE TO NOTIFY THE ARCHITECT COMPOUNDS MISUNDERSTANDING AND INCREASES CONSTRUCTION COSTS. A FAILURE TO COOPERATE BY SIMPLE NOTICE TO THE ARCHITECT SHALL RELIEVE THE ARCHITECT FROM RESPONSIBILITY FOR ALL CONSEQUENCES ARRIVING OUT OF SUCH CHANGES. THE DESIGNS AND PLANS ARE COPYRIGHT AND ARE NOT TO BE USED OR REPRODUCED WHOLLY OR IN PART WITHOUT THE WRITTEN PERMISSION OF SOPHER SPARN ARCHITECTS. THE DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS ARE INSTRUMENTS OF SERVICE AND SHALL REMAIN THE PROPERTY OF THE ARCHITECT WHETHER THE PROJECT FOR WHICH THEY ARE MADE IS EXECUTED OR NOT. COPYRIGHT SOPHER SPARN ARCHITECTS. DO NOT SCALE FROM DRAWING. VERIFY ALL DIMENSIONS ON SITE. JOB NO.11/29/2023 4:57:54 PMA2.00TSMWS TOWNHOMES23030 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS4395 BROADWAY ST. BOULDER, COLORADO 803041/8" = 1'-0"1 EAST ELEVATION - BROADWAY 0'4'8'16'32' SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0" NO. ISSUE DATE 1 TEC DOC 09/22/23 2 SPR AMENDMENT R01 12/01/23 EXTERIOR MATERIAL SCHEDULE MARK DESCRIPTION FINISH AS-01 ASPHALT SHINGLES CHARCOAL BR-01 BRICK BURGUNDY CP-01 FIBER CEMENT PANELS CEDAR MP-01 METAL PANEL CHARCOAL MTL-01 PAINTED FASCIA BLACK MTL-02 PAINTED METAL GARAGE DOORS CHARCOAL WN-01 RESIDENTIAL WINDOWS & DOORS CHARCOAL Keynote Legend Key Value Keynote Text 01 FULL LITE DOOR, LOW-E GLAZING 02 FIXED AND CASEMENT WINDOW, LOW-E GLAZING 04 PREFINISHED ALUMINUM GUTTER 05 PREFINISHED METAL PARAPET CAP 06 STEEL RAILING, PAINTED Attachment B - Submittal Package Item 4A - Call Up 999 Violet Ave Site Review Page 6 Packet Page 267 of 523 FFE BLDG 2 5520' -0" BLDG 2 MAX HEIGHT 5550' -0" BLDG 3 FFE 5521' -11" BLDG 3 MAX HEIGHT 5552' -0" BLDG 3 LOW PT 5517' -0" BLDG 2 LOW PT 5515' -0" MP-01MTL-01 AS-01BR-01 MP-01 CP-01 MP-01MTL-01BR-01CP-01AS-01 AS-01 02 03 05 02 01 07 04 03 01 04 03 06 BLDG 2 2ND FLOOR 5530' -6" BLDG 2 3RD FLOOR 5540' -6" BLDG 3 2ND FLOOR 5532' -5" BLDG 3 3RD FLOOR 5542' -5"35' - 0" MAX BLDG HT.9' - 6"10' - 0"10' - 6"5' - 0"35' - 0" MAX BLDG HT.9' - 7"10' - 0"10' - 6"4' - 11"CP-01 MP-01 BR-01 MP-01 BR-01 MP-01 SEAL NOTICE: DUTY OF COOPERATION RELEASE OF THESE DOCUMENTS CONTEMPLATES FURTHER COOPERATION AMONG THE OWNER, HIS CONTRACTOR, AND THE ARCHITECT. DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION ARE COMPLEX. ALTHOUGH THE ARCHITECT AND HIS CONSULTANTS HAVE PERFORMED THEIR SERVICES WITH DUE CARE AND DILIGENCE, THEY CANNOT GUARANTEE PERFECTION. COMMUNICATION IS IMPERFECT AND EVERY CONTINGENCY CANNOT BE ANTICIPATED. ANY ERRORS, OMISSIONS, OR DISCREPANCY DISCOVERED BY THE USE OF THESE DOCUMENTS SHALL BE REPORTED IMMEDIATELY TO THE ARCHITECT. FAILURE TO NOTIFY THE ARCHITECT COMPOUNDS MISUNDERSTANDING AND INCREASES CONSTRUCTION COSTS. A FAILURE TO COOPERATE BY SIMPLE NOTICE TO THE ARCHITECT SHALL RELIEVE THE ARCHITECT FROM RESPONSIBILITY FOR ALL CONSEQUENCES ARRIVING OUT OF SUCH CHANGES. THE DESIGNS AND PLANS ARE COPYRIGHT AND ARE NOT TO BE USED OR REPRODUCED WHOLLY OR IN PART WITHOUT THE WRITTEN PERMISSION OF SOPHER SPARN ARCHITECTS. THE DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS ARE INSTRUMENTS OF SERVICE AND SHALL REMAIN THE PROPERTY OF THE ARCHITECT WHETHER THE PROJECT FOR WHICH THEY ARE MADE IS EXECUTED OR NOT. COPYRIGHT SOPHER SPARN ARCHITECTS. DO NOT SCALE FROM DRAWING. VERIFY ALL DIMENSIONS ON SITE. JOB NO.11/29/2023 4:56:56 PMA2.01TSMWS TOWNHOMES23030 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS4395 BROADWAY ST. BOULDER, COLORADO 803040'4'8'16'32' SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0" NO. ISSUE DATE 1 TEC DOC 09/22/23 2 SPR AMENDMENT R01 12/01/23 1/8" = 1'-0"1 SOUTH ELEVATION - LOCUST Attachment B - Submittal Package Item 4A - Call Up 999 Violet Ave Site Review Page 7 Packet Page 268 of 523 BLDG 1 FFE 5520' -9" BLDG 1 MAX HT 5551' -0" LOW PT BLDG 1 5516' -0" BLDG 4 LOW PT 5518' -9 1/4" BLDG 4 FFE 5524' -4" BLDG 4 2ND FLOOR 5534' -10" BLDG 4 3RD FLOOR 5544' -10" BR-01MP-01 CP-01MTL-01MP-01 06 02 04 05 02 02 03 04 BLDG 1 2ND FLOOR 5531' -3" BLDG 1 3RD FLOOR 5541' -3" BLDG 4 MAX HT 5553' -9 1/4"35' - 0" MAX BLDG HT.5' - 6 3/4"10' - 6"10' - 0"8' - 11 1/4"35' - 0" MAX BLDG HT.4' - 9"10' - 6"10' - 0"9' - 9"MP-01 CP-01AS-01 AS-01BR-01 MP-01 BR-01 CP-01 SEAL NOTICE: DUTY OF COOPERATION RELEASE OF THESE DOCUMENTS CONTEMPLATES FURTHER COOPERATION AMONG THE OWNER, HIS CONTRACTOR, AND THE ARCHITECT. DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION ARE COMPLEX. ALTHOUGH THE ARCHITECT AND HIS CONSULTANTS HAVE PERFORMED THEIR SERVICES WITH DUE CARE AND DILIGENCE, THEY CANNOT GUARANTEE PERFECTION. COMMUNICATION IS IMPERFECT AND EVERY CONTINGENCY CANNOT BE ANTICIPATED. ANY ERRORS, OMISSIONS, OR DISCREPANCY DISCOVERED BY THE USE OF THESE DOCUMENTS SHALL BE REPORTED IMMEDIATELY TO THE ARCHITECT. FAILURE TO NOTIFY THE ARCHITECT COMPOUNDS MISUNDERSTANDING AND INCREASES CONSTRUCTION COSTS. A FAILURE TO COOPERATE BY SIMPLE NOTICE TO THE ARCHITECT SHALL RELIEVE THE ARCHITECT FROM RESPONSIBILITY FOR ALL CONSEQUENCES ARRIVING OUT OF SUCH CHANGES. THE DESIGNS AND PLANS ARE COPYRIGHT AND ARE NOT TO BE USED OR REPRODUCED WHOLLY OR IN PART WITHOUT THE WRITTEN PERMISSION OF SOPHER SPARN ARCHITECTS. THE DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS ARE INSTRUMENTS OF SERVICE AND SHALL REMAIN THE PROPERTY OF THE ARCHITECT WHETHER THE PROJECT FOR WHICH THEY ARE MADE IS EXECUTED OR NOT. COPYRIGHT SOPHER SPARN ARCHITECTS. DO NOT SCALE FROM DRAWING. VERIFY ALL DIMENSIONS ON SITE. JOB NO.11/29/2023 4:55:38 PMA2.02TSMWS TOWNHOMES23030 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS4395 BROADWAY ST. BOULDER, COLORADO 803040'4'8'16'32' SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0" NO. ISSUE DATE 1 TEC DOC 09/22/23 2 SPR AMENDMENT R01 12/01/23 1/8" = 1'-0"1 NORTH ELEVATION - VIOLET Attachment B - Submittal Package Item 4A - Call Up 999 Violet Ave Site Review Page 8 Packet Page 269 of 523 SEAL NOTICE: DUTY OF COOPERATION RELEASE OF THESE DOCUMENTS CONTEMPLATES FURTHER COOPERATION AMONG THE OWNER, HIS CONTRACTOR, AND THE ARCHITECT. DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION ARE COMPLEX. ALTHOUGH THE ARCHITECT AND HIS CONSULTANTS HAVE PERFORMED THEIR SERVICES WITH DUE CARE AND DILIGENCE, THEY CANNOT GUARANTEE PERFECTION. COMMUNICATION IS IMPERFECT AND EVERY CONTINGENCY CANNOT BE ANTICIPATED. ANY ERRORS, OMISSIONS, OR DISCREPANCY DISCOVERED BY THE USE OF THESE DOCUMENTS SHALL BE REPORTED IMMEDIATELY TO THE ARCHITECT. FAILURE TO NOTIFY THE ARCHITECT COMPOUNDS MISUNDERSTANDING AND INCREASES CONSTRUCTION COSTS. A FAILURE TO COOPERATE BY SIMPLE NOTICE TO THE ARCHITECT SHALL RELIEVE THE ARCHITECT FROM RESPONSIBILITY FOR ALL CONSEQUENCES ARRIVING OUT OF SUCH CHANGES. THE DESIGNS AND PLANS ARE COPYRIGHT AND ARE NOT TO BE USED OR REPRODUCED WHOLLY OR IN PART WITHOUT THE WRITTEN PERMISSION OF SOPHER SPARN ARCHITECTS. THE DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS ARE INSTRUMENTS OF SERVICE AND SHALL REMAIN THE PROPERTY OF THE ARCHITECT WHETHER THE PROJECT FOR WHICH THEY ARE MADE IS EXECUTED OR NOT. COPYRIGHT SOPHER SPARN ARCHITECTS. DO NOT SCALE FROM DRAWING. VERIFY ALL DIMENSIONS ON SITE. JOB NO.11/28/2023 5:09:29 PMA9.01TSMWS TOWNHOMES23030 3D VIEWS 4395 BROADWAY ST. BOULDER, COLORADO 80304NO. ISSUE DATE 1 TEC DOC 09/22/23 2 SPR AMENDMENT R01 12/01/23 VIEW 1 - CORNER OF BROADWAY & LOCUST AVENUE LOOKING WESTVIEW 2 - CORNER OF BROADWAY & VIOLET AVENUE LOOKING WEST VIEW 1 - CORNER OF BROADWAY & LOCUST AVENUE LOOKING WEST - SLOPEDVIEW 2 - CORNER OF BROADWAY & VIOLET AVENUE LOOKING SOUTHWEST SLOPED VIEW 1 - CORNER OF BROADWAY & LOCUST AVENUE LOOKING WEST - FLOOD HTVIEW 2 - CORNER OF BROADWAY & VIOLET AVENUE LOOKING WEST - FLOOD HT Attachment B - Submittal Package Item 4A - Call Up 999 Violet Ave Site Review Page 9 Packet Page 270 of 523 SEAL NOTICE: DUTY OF COOPERATION RELEASE OF THESE DOCUMENTS CONTEMPLATES FURTHER COOPERATION AMONG THE OWNER, HIS CONTRACTOR, AND THE ARCHITECT. DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION ARE COMPLEX. ALTHOUGH THE ARCHITECT AND HIS CONSULTANTS HAVE PERFORMED THEIR SERVICES WITH DUE CARE AND DILIGENCE, THEY CANNOT GUARANTEE PERFECTION. COMMUNICATION IS IMPERFECT AND EVERY CONTINGENCY CANNOT BE ANTICIPATED. ANY ERRORS, OMISSIONS, OR DISCREPANCY DISCOVERED BY THE USE OF THESE DOCUMENTS SHALL BE REPORTED IMMEDIATELY TO THE ARCHITECT. FAILURE TO NOTIFY THE ARCHITECT COMPOUNDS MISUNDERSTANDING AND INCREASES CONSTRUCTION COSTS. A FAILURE TO COOPERATE BY SIMPLE NOTICE TO THE ARCHITECT SHALL RELIEVE THE ARCHITECT FROM RESPONSIBILITY FOR ALL CONSEQUENCES ARRIVING OUT OF SUCH CHANGES. THE DESIGNS AND PLANS ARE COPYRIGHT AND ARE NOT TO BE USED OR REPRODUCED WHOLLY OR IN PART WITHOUT THE WRITTEN PERMISSION OF SOPHER SPARN ARCHITECTS. THE DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS ARE INSTRUMENTS OF SERVICE AND SHALL REMAIN THE PROPERTY OF THE ARCHITECT WHETHER THE PROJECT FOR WHICH THEY ARE MADE IS EXECUTED OR NOT. COPYRIGHT SOPHER SPARN ARCHITECTS. DO NOT SCALE FROM DRAWING. VERIFY ALL DIMENSIONS ON SITE. JOB NO.11/28/2023 5:08:11 PMA9.02TSMWS TOWNHOMES23030 3D VIEWS 4395 BROADWAY ST. BOULDER, COLORADO 80304NO. ISSUE DATE 1 TEC DOC 09/22/23 2 SPR AMENDMENT R01 12/01/23 VIEW 3 - ALONG LOCUST AVENUE LOOKING NORTHEASTVIEW 4 - ALONG VIOLET AVENUE LOOKING SOUTH VIEW 3 - ALONG LOCUST AVENUE LOOKING NORTHEAST - SLOPEDVIEW 4 - ALONG VIOLET AVENUE LOOKING SOUTH - SLOPED VIEW 3 - ALONG LOCUST AVENUE LOOKING NORTHEAST - FLOOD HTVIEW 4 - ALONG VIOLET AVENUE LOOKING SOUTH - FLOOD HT Attachment B - Submittal Package Item 4A - Call Up 999 Violet Ave Site Review Page 10 Packet Page 271 of 523 R 2 5' - 0 " R 2 5' - 0 " R 2 5' - 0 " R 2 5' - 0 " LOWPOINT ELEVATION (LOT 16 & 17) = 5515' LOWPOINT ELEVATION (LOT 13 -15) = 5516' LOWPOINT ELEVATION (LOTS 1 -6) = 5518.6' LOWPOINT ELEVATION (LOT 7 -12) = 5517'BROADWAYI J A C D E G LOT 13 LOT 7 LOT 1 LOT 2 LOT 3 LOT 4 LOT 5 LOT 6 LOT 8 LOT 9 LOT 10 LOT 11 LOT 12 LOT 14 LOT 15 LOT 16 LOT 17 B F H VIOLET LOCUST 5518.92 5519.00 5522.06 5519.88 5519.00 5517.06 5516.00 5515.00 5517.00 5519.02 5518.60 SEAL NOTICE: DUTY OF COOPERATION RELEASE OF THESE DOCUMENTS CONTEMPLATES FURTHER COOPERATION AMONG THE OWNER, HIS CONTRACTOR, AND THE ARCHITECT. DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION ARE COMPLEX. ALTHOUGH THE ARCHITECT AND HIS CONSULTANTS HAVE PERFORMED THEIR SERVICES WITH DUE CARE AND DILIGENCE, THEY CANNOT GUARANTEE PERFECTION. COMMUNICATION IS IMPERFECT AND EVERY CONTINGENCY CANNOT BE ANTICIPATED. ANY ERRORS, OMISSIONS, OR DISCREPANCY DISCOVERED BY THE USE OF THESE DOCUMENTS SHALL BE REPORTED IMMEDIATELY TO THE ARCHITECT. FAILURE TO NOTIFY THE ARCHITECT COMPOUNDS MISUNDERSTANDING AND INCREASES CONSTRUCTION COSTS. A FAILURE TO COOPERATE BY SIMPLE NOTICE TO THE ARCHITECT SHALL RELIEVE THE ARCHITECT FROM RESPONSIBILITY FOR ALL CONSEQUENCES ARRIVING OUT OF SUCH CHANGES. THE DESIGNS AND PLANS ARE COPYRIGHT AND ARE NOT TO BE USED OR REPRODUCED WHOLLY OR IN PART WITHOUT THE WRITTEN PERMISSION OF SOPHER SPARN ARCHITECTS. THE DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS ARE INSTRUMENTS OF SERVICE AND SHALL REMAIN THE PROPERTY OF THE ARCHITECT WHETHER THE PROJECT FOR WHICH THEY ARE MADE IS EXECUTED OR NOT. COPYRIGHT SOPHER SPARN ARCHITECTS. DO NOT SCALE FROM DRAWING. VERIFY ALL DIMENSIONS ON SITE. JOB NO.11/29/2023 2:40:12 PMG0.30TSMWS TOWNHOMES23030 SOLAR SHADING PLAN4395 BROADWAY ST. BOULDER, COLORADO 803041/16" = 1'-0"1 SOLAR ANALYSIS PLAN 0'8'16'32'64' SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0" NO. ISSUE DATE 1 TEC DOC 09/22/23 2 SPR AMENDMENT R01 12/01/23 02 - 0.00 - SOLAR SHADING ANALYSIS TABLE wttw MAIN FLOOR ELEVATION PROPERTY ZONE DISTRICT SOLAR FENCE HEIGHT HEIGHT ABOVE MAIN FLOOR ELEVATION OF ROOF ELEMENT (y) ELEVATION OF GRADE AT PROPERTY LINE (x) RELATIVE HEIGHT OF ROOF ELEMENT (h) LENGTH OF SHADOW (L) 10AM 2PM 10AM 2PM 10AM 2PM A 5524.3 RL2 25 31.0 5555.3 5522.1 5522.4 33.3 32.9 21.9 20.9 B 5524.3 RL2 25 31.0 5555.3 5521.9 5521.3 33.4 34.0 22.2 23.8 C 5524.3 RL2 25 31.0 5555.3 5521.3 5520.6 34.0 34.7 23.9 25.7 D 5524.3 RL2 25 31.0 5555.3 5519.9 5519.0 35.4 36.3 27.6 30.0 E 5520.8 RL2 25 31.5 5552.3 5519.0 5518.9 33.3 33.4 22.0 22.2 F 5520.8 RL2 25 31.5 5552.3 5517.1 35.2 27.1 G 5520.0 RL2 25 31.5 5551.5 5516.0 35.5 27.9 H 5520.0 RL2 25 21.2 5541.2 5515.9 25.3 0.8 I 5521.9 RL2 25 13.0 5534.9 5518.6 16.3 -23.1 J 5521.9 RL2 25 31.6 5553.5 5519.1 34.4 24.9 NOTE: NEGATIVE SHADOW LENGTHS INDICATE ROOF ELEMENTS WHERE THE RELATIVE HEIGHT IS LESS THAN THE SOLAR FENCE HEIGHT. Attachment B - Submittal Package Item 4A - Call Up 999 Violet Ave Site Review Page 11 Packet Page 272 of 523 R 2 5' - 0 " R 2 5' - 0 " R 2 5' - 0 " R 2 5' - 0 " LOWPOINT ELEVATION (LOT 16 -17) = 5515' LOWPOINT ELEVATION (LOT 13 -15) = 5516' LOWPOINT ELEVATION (LOTS 1 -6) = 5518.6' LOWPOINT ELEVATION (LOT 7 -12) = 5517'BROADWAYLOT 13 LOT 7 LOT 1 LOT 2 LOT 3 LOT 4 LOT 5 LOT 6 LOT 8 LOT 9 LOT 10 LOT 11 LOT 12 LOT 14 LOT 15 LOT 16 LOT 17 I J A C D E G B F H 5522.06 5522.41 5521.95 5521.32 5520.63 5519.89 5519.03 5518.92 5519.00 5517.07 5516.00 5516.00 5518.64 5519.01 BROADWAYVIOLET LOCUST 5517.00 5515.00 5516.00 5518.60 SEAL NOTICE: DUTY OF COOPERATION RELEASE OF THESE DOCUMENTS CONTEMPLATES FURTHER COOPERATION AMONG THE OWNER, HIS CONTRACTOR, AND THE ARCHITECT. DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION ARE COMPLEX. ALTHOUGH THE ARCHITECT AND HIS CONSULTANTS HAVE PERFORMED THEIR SERVICES WITH DUE CARE AND DILIGENCE, THEY CANNOT GUARANTEE PERFECTION. COMMUNICATION IS IMPERFECT AND EVERY CONTINGENCY CANNOT BE ANTICIPATED. ANY ERRORS, OMISSIONS, OR DISCREPANCY DISCOVERED BY THE USE OF THESE DOCUMENTS SHALL BE REPORTED IMMEDIATELY TO THE ARCHITECT. FAILURE TO NOTIFY THE ARCHITECT COMPOUNDS MISUNDERSTANDING AND INCREASES CONSTRUCTION COSTS. A FAILURE TO COOPERATE BY SIMPLE NOTICE TO THE ARCHITECT SHALL RELIEVE THE ARCHITECT FROM RESPONSIBILITY FOR ALL CONSEQUENCES ARRIVING OUT OF SUCH CHANGES. THE DESIGNS AND PLANS ARE COPYRIGHT AND ARE NOT TO BE USED OR REPRODUCED WHOLLY OR IN PART WITHOUT THE WRITTEN PERMISSION OF SOPHER SPARN ARCHITECTS. THE DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS ARE INSTRUMENTS OF SERVICE AND SHALL REMAIN THE PROPERTY OF THE ARCHITECT WHETHER THE PROJECT FOR WHICH THEY ARE MADE IS EXECUTED OR NOT. COPYRIGHT SOPHER SPARN ARCHITECTS. DO NOT SCALE FROM DRAWING. VERIFY ALL DIMENSIONS ON SITE. JOB NO.11/29/2023 3:44:22 PMG0.30TSMWS TOWNHOMES23030 SOLAR SHADING PLAN4395 BROADWAY ST. BOULDER, COLORADO 803041/16" = 1'-0"1 SOLAR ANALYSIS PLAN - FLOOD HEIGHT 0'8'16'32'64' SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0" NO. ISSUE DATE 1 TEC DOC 09/22/23 2 SPR AMENDMENT R01 12/01/23 02 - 0.00 - SOLAR SHADING ANALYSIS TABLE ROOF ELEMENT MAIN FLOOR ELEVATION PROPERTY ZONE DISTRICT SOLAR FENCE HEIGHT HEIGHT ABOVE MAIN FLOOR ELEVATION OF ROOF ELEMENT (y) ELEVATION OF GRADE AT PROPERTY LINE (x) RELATIVE HEIGHT OF ROOF ELEMENT (h) LENGTH OF SHADOW (L) 10AM 2PM 10AM 2PM 10AM 2PM A 5524.3 RL2 25 33.5 5557.8 5522.1 5522.4 35.8 35.4 28.5 27.6 B 5524.3 RL2 25 33.5 5557.8 5522.0 5521.3 35.9 36.5 28.8 30.4 C 5524.3 RL2 25 33.5 5557.8 5521.0 5520.6 36.8 37.2 31.3 32.3 D 5524.3 RL2 25 33.5 5557.8 5519.9 5519.0 37.9 38.8 34.2 36.5 E 5520.8 RL2 25 34.0 5554.8 5519.0 5518.9 35.8 35.9 28.6 28.8 F 5520.8 RL2 25 34.0 5554.8 5517.1 37.7 33.7 G 5520.0 RL2 25 34.0 5554.0 5516.0 38.0 34.6 H 5520.0 RL2 25 34.0 5554.0 5516.0 38.0 34.5 I 5521.9 RL2 25 25.0 5546.9 5518.6 28.3 8.7 J 5521.9 RL2 25 34.1 5556.0 5519.0 37.0 31.7 NOTE: NEGATIVE SHADOW LENGTHS INDICATE ROOF ELEMENTS WHERE THE RELATIVE HEIGHT IS LESS THAN THE SOLAR FENCE HEIGHT. Attachment B - Submittal Package Item 4A - Call Up 999 Violet Ave Site Review Page 12 Packet Page 273 of 523 BROADWAYB C D E F G H I A PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINER 2 5' - 0 " 5518.69' LOWPOINT ELEVATION (LOT 16 & 17) = 5515'R 25' - 0" R 2 5' - 0 " R 2 5' - 0 " LOWPOINT ELEVATION (LOT 13-15) = 5516' LOWPOINT ELEVATION (LOT 7-12) = 5517' LOWPOINT ELEVATION (LOT 1-6) = 5518.6' VIOLET LOCUST LOT 1 LOT 2 LOT 3 LOT 4 LOT 5 LOT 6 LOT 13 LOT 14 LOT 15 LOT 17 LOT 16 LOT 7 LOT 8 LOT 9 LOT 10 LOT 11 LOT 12 5522.77'5522.24' 5522.06' 5521.17' 5520.00' 5519.00' 5519.00' 5518.00' 5517.50' 5519.31' 5518.60' 5516.00' 5515.00' 5517.00' 5516.00' 1/16" = 1'-0"1 SOLAR ANALYSIS PLAN - SLOPED ROOFS 02 - 0.00 - SOLAR SHADING ANALYSIS TABLE wt MAIN FLOOR ELEVATION PROPERTY ZONE DISTRICT SOLAR FENCE HEIGHT HEIGHT ABOVE MAIN FLOOR ELEVATION OF ROOF ELEMENT (y) ELEVATION OF GRADE AT PROPERTY LINE (x) RELATIVE HEIGHT OF ROOF ELEMENT (h) LENGTH OF SHADOW (L) 10AM 2PM 10AM 2PM 10AM 2PM A 5524.3 RL2 25 35.7 5560.0 5522.8 5522.2 37.2 37.7 32.4 33.8 B 5524.3 RL2 25 36.4 5560.8 5522.1 5521.2 38.7 39.6 36.3 38.7 C 5524.3 RL2 25 35.7 5560.0 5520.0 5519.5 40.0 40.5 39.7 41.1 D 5520.8 RL2 25 36.9 5557.7 5519.0 5519.0 38.7 38.7 36.4 36.4 E 5520.8 RL2 25 36.9 5557.7 0.0 5518.0 5557.7 39.7 14665.2 39.0 F 5520.0 RL2 25 37.0 5557.0 0.0 5516.0 5557.0 41.0 14663.2 42.4 G 5520.0 RL2 25 37.0 5557.0 0.0 5517.5 5557.0 39.5 14663.2 38.4 H 5521.9 RL2 25 24.0 5545.9 5518.7 27.2 5.9 I 5521.9 RL2 25 35.4 5557.3 5519.3 38.0 34.4 NOTE: NEGATIVE SHADOW LENGTHS INDICATE ROOF ELEMENTS WHERE THE RELATIVE HEIGHT IS LESS THAN THE SOLAR FENCE HEIGHT. SEAL NOTICE: DUTY OF COOPERATION RELEASE OF THESE DOCUMENTS CONTEMPLATES FURTHER COOPERATION AMONG THE OWNER, HIS CONTRACTOR, AND THE ARCHITECT. DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION ARE COMPLEX. ALTHOUGH THE ARCHITECT AND HIS CONSULTANTS HAVE PERFORMED THEIR SERVICES WITH DUE CARE AND DILIGENCE, THEY CANNOT GUARANTEE PERFECTION. COMMUNICATION IS IMPERFECT AND EVERY CONTINGENCY CANNOT BE ANTICIPATED. ANY ERRORS, OMISSIONS, OR DISCREPANCY DISCOVERED BY THE USE OF THESE DOCUMENTS SHALL BE REPORTED IMMEDIATELY TO THE ARCHITECT. FAILURE TO NOTIFY THE ARCHITECT COMPOUNDS MISUNDERSTANDING AND INCREASES CONSTRUCTION COSTS. A FAILURE TO COOPERATE BY SIMPLE NOTICE TO THE ARCHITECT SHALL RELIEVE THE ARCHITECT FROM RESPONSIBILITY FOR ALL CONSEQUENCES ARRIVING OUT OF SUCH CHANGES. THE DESIGNS AND PLANS ARE COPYRIGHT AND ARE NOT TO BE USED OR REPRODUCED WHOLLY OR IN PART WITHOUT THE WRITTEN PERMISSION OF SOPHER SPARN ARCHITECTS. THE DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS ARE INSTRUMENTS OF SERVICE AND SHALL REMAIN THE PROPERTY OF THE ARCHITECT WHETHER THE PROJECT FOR WHICH THEY ARE MADE IS EXECUTED OR NOT. COPYRIGHT SOPHER SPARN ARCHITECTS. DO NOT SCALE FROM DRAWING. VERIFY ALL DIMENSIONS ON SITE. JOB NO.11/29/2023 10:27:50 AMG 0.30TSMWS TOWNHOMES23030 SOLAR SHADING PLAN4395 BROADWAY ST. BOULDER, COLORADO 803040'8'16'32'64' SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0" NO. ISSUE DATE 1 SITE REVIEW AMENDMENT 10/13/23 2 SPR AMENDMENT R01 12/01/23 Attachment B - Submittal Package Item 4A - Call Up 999 Violet Ave Site Review Page 13 Packet Page 274 of 523 Sopher Sparn Architects LLC | 2505 Walnut Street, Suite 200 | Boulder, Colorado 80302 | 303.442.4422 MEMORANDUM To: Charles Ferro, Land Use Review Manager - CITY OF BOULDER Chandler Van Schaack, Case Manager - CITY OF BOULDER From: Erin Bagnall - SOPHER SPARN ARCHITECTS LLC Project: SHINING MOUNTAIN WALDORF SCHOOL – 999 Violet Avenue Date: 13 October 2023 RV_01 December 2023 Re: SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION FOR SITE PLAN REVIEW AMENDMENT WRITTEN STATEMENT Pre-Existing Land Use Approvals LUR2019-00068 – Site Review for the phased consolidation and redevelopment of the school facilities and redevelopment of a portion of the property for future single family and townhome lots subject to design guidelines. Approved August, 2021 LUR2023-00021 - Amendment to the Shining Mountain Waldorf School Phase II Site Plan and Locust Neighborhood Design Guidelines to allow for subdivision of the approved “Townhome Lot” into 17 individual townhome lots and to modify the phasing plan to remove phasing requirements for the single-family lots. Approved September, 2023 Proposed Site Review Amendment -- Project Intent During the site review, the master plan was approved as a phased development, allowing the school to construct the high school building first, decommission the existing church on Union being used for the current high school, and then proceed into the residential Phase II (construction of the townhome and single-family homes lots). After Site Review approval, the school immediately began technical documents and permitting for Phase I. After much delay in the city process, the high school is currently under construction. (Estimated Completion February 2024) The school has been working diligently to progress with Phase II, as it is necessary for funding the completion of the high school construction. During initial conversations with city staff to kick off Phase II, it was determined that there are discrepancies in the original approval language that are obstructing the schools desire to subdivide the townhomes into individual lots (much like the single family) The recent site site review amendment (LUR2023- 00021) cleared up discrepancies to allow the school to proceed as necessary (and required) with their construction of individual lots for the townhomes. Upon further development and design of the townhome lots, it has been determined that the height of the townhomes is unduly constrained by the 100 year base flood elevation requirements. Further, the applicant is interested in providing a sloped roof design that would provide more articulated roof line and respond more appropriately to the residential neighborhoods and school architecture adjacent to the townhome site. Therefore, the applicant would like to request additional height as allowable by BRC Section 9-2-14(b)(1)(E)(i) The height modification is to allow a roof that has a pitch of 2:12 or greater in a building with three or fewer stories and the proposed height does not exceed the maximum height permitted in the zoning district by more than ten feet. We are requesting staff and Planning Board review and respond to our request for following: 1. Approve up to an additional 7’-6” of height for each townhome building, allowing for pitched roof design on the third level, an architectural concept in keeping with the residential look of the surrounding neighborhood and SMWS campus. The sloped roof design will provide a more creative and less boxy building design. As measured, changing the height of the pitched roof scenario results in a 7’ to 7’-6” maximum additional height request. This is a result of the topmost point of the ridgeline of the roof being the point of measurement when the total increase in roof form height is much less to the human eye. For this reason, height exceptions for height with sloped roofs are allowed with Planning Board Review and approval. As you can see below, the building design within the required height limit is changed more dramatically when viewed two dimensionally on the page. Attachment B - Submittal Package Item 4A - Call Up 999 Violet Ave Site Review Page 14 Packet Page 275 of 523 12/01/2023 LUR2023-00050 Page 2 of 7 Building Design within the required Height Limit Building Design with Additional Height for Sloped Roof However, when taken at a pedestrian scale from a three-dimensional view, the requested changes to the roof line become insubstantial to the view and provide a useful benefit to the homeowner. Providing a sloped roof will maintain a connection to the neighborhood, allow for a more articulated building form, and give the owner an easier maintenance liability in the future. 2. In the event the board feels an additional 7’-6” of height for each townhome is not supportable, we ask that staff consider allowing for a consolation approval of up to 4’. This request is based on BRC Section 9-2- 14(b)(1)(E)(iv) - The height modification is to allow up to the greater of two stories or the maximum number of stories permitted but no more than five feet above the maximum building height under Section 9-7-5(a) or 9- Attachment B - Submittal Package Item 4A - Call Up 999 Violet Ave Site Review Page 15 Packet Page 276 of 523 12/01/2023 LUR2023-00050 Page 3 of 7 7-6, B.R.C. 1981, in a building where the height modification is necessary because the building has to be elevated to meet the required flood protection elevation. As mentioned, the underlying reason for this height request stems from the constraints to the buildings from the base flood elevation requirements. Placing the building’s finish floor at flood protection elevation automatically puts the structure at a 5’ deficit to allowable height. In a three-story townhome this can drastically affect the functionality and ability to route structure and mechanical within a reasonable floor to floor ht. With the current height limit we will be severely constrained in the floor-to-floor height, and providing this height exemption will allow for a more realistic and standard sectional dimension, while providing minimal difference to the building design by the naked eye. As measured, changing the height to accommodate the desired floor to floor heights without changing the roof slope will results in a 2’-6” to 4’ maximum additional height request. Once more, this request will result in minimal change to the building design, and allow the applicant proper flexibility in the building design constrained by flood elevations. Seen below, the change from the required height design and the requested becomes even more insubstantial in two dimensions. Building Design within the required Height Limit Attachment B - Submittal Package Item 4A - Call Up 999 Violet Ave Site Review Page 16 Packet Page 277 of 523 12/01/2023 LUR2023-00050 Page 4 of 7 Building Design with Minimal Additional Height for flood protection elevation In addition, when taken at a pedestrian scale from a three-dimensional view, the requested changes are not discernable. BRC 9-2-14 compliance · Building Siting and Design Criteria – The Shining Mountain Townhomes are designed to be consistent with the existing neighborhood, and further, to act as a complementary transition between the MUB land use of the North Boulder Area subcommunity area to the north, the low-density residential areas directly east, the future new low density residential single-family construction to the south, and the new school construction to the west. The site design relates directly to the public realm on all street facing frontages, with front porches addressing the street, quality materials, and design that promotes a vibrant pedestrian experience. The pedestrian and right of way improvements along Broadway will help to realize the long-term vision of the North Boulder Subcommunity Action Plan and advance the community towards the future vision. The applicant believes the height request for sloped roofs in this neighborhood better reflects the single family home aesthetic in of the neighborhood, and believes that despite the seemingly large request (7’- 6”) the building benefits from a shaped roof line and allows for a more modern classic design with minimal impact to the perceived height. The sloped roof design contributes to a city skyline with a variety of roof forms and heights. Newly develped areas of the city have resulted in flat roof boxy forms because of the strict height allowances. In 2019 the Planning Board and City Council amended the code to allow for applicants to request height variances with sloped roof forms in the hopes it would provide variety and interest. The applicant believes this request to be in keeping with this vision. Attachment B - Submittal Package Item 4A - Call Up 999 Violet Ave Site Review Page 17 Packet Page 278 of 523 12/01/2023 LUR2023-00050 Page 5 of 7 · Additional Criteria for Buildings Requiring Height Modifications – As mentioned above, the building form and massing is appropriate for the existing and future vision for the North Boulder Subcommunity area. The form and massing are of appropriate scale to the pedestrian realm and will increase the quality of infrastructure and architecture along the public right of way. In addition:  No building exceeds 200’ in length  No Building exceeds 120’ in length, but nonetheless provides façade recessions and projections, front porches and entrances every 20’, and varied roof forms. The requested amendment to the approved Shining Mountain Waldorf Master plan is determined necessary for the viability of design for the townhomes. Constrained height as a result of determined base flood elevations limits the townhome buildings. Further, the desire to provide sloped roof area on the buildings for design aesthetic are the determining factors with this request. The original intent of the approval will remain, the school will continue development a new and improved campus for their aging and flood affected property, and the City of Boulder will gain 37 units of housing in a residential zone. We are hopeful this amendment will be understood as a further design development for the approved townhome site, as we believe it to be. Approved Access, Internal Circulation and Proposed Shared Connections There are no changes to access, internal circulation and proposed shared connections with this amendment. Approved Access, Internal Circulation and Proposed Shared Connections There are no changes to parking with this amendment. Approved School Design Character There are no changes to the approved school design with this amendment. Approved Schematic Residential Areas There are no changes to the approved residential design with this amendment, beyond the height request for sloped roof on the townhomes. Attachment B - Submittal Package Item 4A - Call Up 999 Violet Ave Site Review Page 18 Packet Page 279 of 523 12/01/2023 LUR2023-00050 Page 6 of 7 Approved Solar Siting and Construction There are no changes to the approved site design with this amendment. Approved Project Phasing – There are no changes to the approved phasing with this amendment. Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan Criteria Compliance The project specifically meets the following criteria and complies generally with the requirements of the BVCP: 2.27 Preservation of Historic & Cultural Resources The city and county will identify, evaluate and protect buildings, structures, objects, districts, sites and natural features of historic, architectural, archaeological or cultural significance with input from the community. The city and county will seek protection of significant historic and cultural resources through local designation when a proposal by the private sector is subject to discretionary development review. Shining Mountain Waldorf School is a cultural resource in the City of Boulder, and clearly benefits the community in countless ways. This is a case where the cultural resource itself is applying for discretionary development review. ‘Protection’ in this case, would be in support of the overall intent of the school to remain a vital part of the community through redevelopment. 2.33 Sensitive Infill & Redevelopment With little vacant land remaining in the city, most new development will occur through redevelopment in mixed-use centers that tend to be the areas of greatest change. The city will gear subcommunity and area planning and other efforts toward defining the acceptable amount of infill and redevelopment and standards and performance measures for design quality to avoid or adequately mitigate negative impacts and enhance the benefits of infill and redevelopment to the community and individual neighborhoods. The city will also develop tools, such as neighborhood design guidelines, to promote sensitive infill and redevelopment. The school is attempting to redevelop a portion of its land in a manner that mitigates any negative impact of infill housing and is sensitively weaving in new residential development into the existing housing pattern in support of the ongoing activities of the school itself. 5.05 Support for Local Business & Business Retention The city and county value the diverse mix of existing businesses, including primary and secondary employers of different sizes, in the local economy. Nurturing, supporting and maintaining a positive climate for the retention of existing businesses and jobs is a priority. The city recognizes the vital role of small, local and independent businesses and non-profits that serve the community and will balance needs of redevelopment in certain areas with strategies that minimize displacement of existing businesses and create opportunities for startups and growing businesses. The city will continue to proactively analyze trends in market forces to shape its activities, plans and policies regarding local business and business retention. The city and county will consider the projected needs of businesses and their respective employees, such as commercial and office space, when planning for transportation infrastructure, programs and housing. The school’s entire redevelopment proposal is in aid of staying in Boulder. The school recognizes that other than the educational opportunity it provides, its largest physical asset is land. The value of that land in support of redevelopment for residential use is substantial. The school values its place in the Boulder community, but it recognizes the need to support its core function. If it cannot do so in Boulder, that need for Waldorf Education would remain. It is Shining Mountain’s intent to remain in Boulder through the improvement of the facilities proposed. 7.06 Mixture of Housing Types The city and county, through their land use regulations and housing policies, will encourage the private sector to provide and maintain a mixture of housing types with varied prices, sizes and densities to meet the housing needs of the low-, moderate- and middle-income households of the Boulder Valley population. The city will encourage property owners to provide a mix of housing types, as appropriate. This may include support for ADUs/OAUs, alley houses, cottage courts and building multiple small units rather than one large house on a lot. Attachment B - Submittal Package Item 4A - Call Up 999 Violet Ave Site Review Page 19 Packet Page 280 of 523 12/01/2023 LUR2023-00050 Page 7 of 7 The housing proposed as a part of this application creates opportunity for new single family residential construction on lots that are smaller than the 7000sf standard size, thus limiting house size through FAR limits. Likewise proposed are smaller townhouse units providing a more modest housing opportunity for home ownership, in this neighborhood. These unit types provide for a transition to the denser housing types found north of Violet and Uptown Broadway neighborhood. 8.13 Support for Community Facilities The city and county recognize the importance of educational, health, cultural and non- profit community agencies that provide vital services to the residents of the Boulder Valley and will work collaboratively with these agencies to reasonably accommodate their facility needs and consider location based on transportation accessibility or other needs. Shining Mountain Waldorf School provides a unique educational opportunity for children of all ages in Boulder. No other Waldorf-based Pre-Kindergarten through High School exists in this community and offers such a complete immersion in this vital educational and cultural opportunity. The need for change and accommodation by the city is essential to its long-term health and sustainability. 8.20 Education Resources The city will seek to provide educational, cultural and literacy resources and opportunities for the community. The city will develop and maintain resources to assist learners and students of all ages, including support for formal education programs, and provide public workspaces and independent learning resources. The city will develop collaborative relationships with community educational institutions and function as a research center for residents. Shining Mountain looks to continue to enhance its place as an educational and cultural center for Boulder. Through its improved facilities, greater opportunities for community cultural events will be even more possible, once completed. The school looks forward to furthering such opportunities collaboratively with the City and other local institutions. Attachment B - Submittal Package Item 4A - Call Up 999 Violet Ave Site Review Page 20 Packet Page 281 of 523 CRITERIA CHECKLIST AND COMMENT FORM LUR2023-00050 SITE REVIEW SECTION 9-2-14 (b)(1)(E) Height Modifications: A development which exceeds the permitted height requirements of Section 9-7-5, "Building Height," or 9-7-6, "Building Height, Conditional," B.R.C. 1981, or of Paragraph 9-10-3(b)(2), "Maximum Height," B.R.C. 1981, to the extent permitted by that paragraph for existing buildings on nonstandard lots, is required to complete a site review and is not subject to the minimum threshold requirements. No standard other than height may be modified under the site review unless the project is also eligible for site review. A development that exceeds the permitted height requirements of Section 9-7-5 or 9-7-6, B.R.C. 1981, must meet any one of the following circumstances in addition to the site review criteria: (i) The height modification is to allow a roof that has a pitch of 2:12 or greater in a building with three or fewer stories and the proposed height does not exceed the maximum height permitted in the zoning district by more than ten feet. The current proposal requests a height modification to allow a roof that has a pitch of 2:12 or greater in a building with three or fewer stories and the proposed height exceeds the maximum height permitted in the zoning district by seven feet six inches. This is the preferred design proposed by the applicant. In addition, the applicant is requesting approval of an alternative design consistent with the following: (iv) The height modification is to allow up to the greater of two stories or the maximum number of stories permitted but no more than five feet above the maximum building height under Section 9-7-5(a) or 9-7-6, B.R.C. 1981, in a building where the height modification is necessary because the building has to be elevated to meet the required flood protection elevation As detailed in the Applicant’s written statement, the required flood protection elevation on this site requires elevating the first floor of the building by approximately five feet, which constrains the townhome buildings in terms of functionality and ability to route structure and mechanical within a reasonable floor to floor height. The applicant is therefore proposing an alternative design as part of the height modification request to allow for up to four feet of additional height for the townhomes in order to improve interior livability and allow for each story within the townhomes to be constructed at a standard floor to ceiling height. (h)Criteria: No site review application shall be approved unless the approving agency finds that the project is consistent with the following criteria: (1)Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP) criteria: Attachment C - Staff Analysis of Review Criteria Item 4A - Call Up 999 Violet Ave Site Review Page 21 Packet Page 282 of 523 (A) BVCP Land Use Map and Policies: The proposed project is consistent with the BVCP land use map and, on balance, with the goals and policies of the BVCP particularly those that address the built environment. In applying this, the approving authority shall consistently interpret and apply this criterion and consider whether a particular goal or policy is intended to be applied to individual development projects or is to guide city policy decisions, such as regulatory actions. The BVCP does not prioritize goals and policies, and no project must satisfy one particular goal or policy or all of them. BVCP Land Use Map Consistency: The BVCP land use map provides a sketch plan of the desired land use pattern in the Boulder Valley. Land use designations are aspirational and indicative of the broad goals of the city as compared to the regulatory aspects of zoning. “Whereas the BVCP Map provides a generalized picture of desired future uses in the Boulder Valley, the city zoning map assigns every parcel of land in the city a zoning district. This regulates allowable uses, density, …. and more.” The BVCP Land Use Designation for the site is “Low Density Residential” defined in the BVCP as follows: Characteristics and Locations: “LR is the most prevalent land use designation in the city, covering the primarily single family home neighborhoods, including the historic neighborhoods and Post-WWII neighborhoods. Uses: Uses: Consists predominantly of single-family detached units. BVCP Density/Intensity: 2 to 6 dwelling units per acre. The site plan approved through LUR2019-00068 consists of single family lots, attached single family townhomes and school facilities across 11.6 acres. With a total of 38 dwelling units (20 proposed single-family lots; one existing single family lot; and 17 townhomes) across the 11.6 acres the gross density equates to 3.28 dwelling units per acre, consistent with the anticipated density for LR. The proposed site plan does not change the approved density but allows for the townhomes to be constructed at a height of up to 42’6” with sloped roofs. BVCP Policies. The proposed project, on balance, meets a number of BVCP policies as follows: 2.03 Compact Development Pattern 2.41 Enhanced Design for All Projects 2.25 Improve Mobility Grid & Connections 2.24 Commitment to a Walkable & Accessible City 2.37 Environmentally Sensitive Urban Design 2.38 Importance of Urban Canopy, Street Trees & Streetscapes 4.07 Energy-Efficient Land Use 4.08 Energy-Efficient Building Design 6.12 Transportation Impacts Mitigated Attachment C - Staff Analysis of Review Criteria Item 4A - Call Up 999 Violet Ave Site Review Page 22 Packet Page 283 of 523 6.18 Neighborhood Streets & Alleys Connectivity 7.06 Mixture of Housing Types 8.12 Accessibility to Schools 8.13 Support for Community Facilities (B) Subcommunity and Area Plans or Design Guidelines: If the project is subject to an adopted subcommunity or area plan or adopted design guidelines, the project is consistent with the applicable plan and guidelines. While the North Boulder Subcommunity Plan identifies the area as the Union Utica Neighborhood that is west of Broadway between Yarmouth Avenue on the north to Utica Avenue on the south, there’s little in the way of defined or identifiable character expressed for the area within the subcommunity plan. Instead, within the approved Locust Neighborhood Design Guidelines, the applicant has provided an area analysis that included observations to provide a foundation for the guidelines including use of porches and garages that are set back; a mix of architectural styles but with a consistent style on each home; variation in materials and sustainable landscaping with native species. To that end, the guidelines provide a list of acceptable primary and trim materials, roof styles, window door and entry details to fit within the neighborhood but still retain elements of the time. No changes to the building design elements within the guidelines are proposed other than those elements related to the height of the townhome buildings and the allowable roof forms. Overall, given the higher intensity uses and largely flat-roofed architectural character of the existing 35 to 48-foot residential buildings along the east side of Broadway north of Violet, the proposal to allow for 42’6” townhome buildings with sloped roofs would provide both a transition in scale to the more traditional residential areas to the south and southeast of the site as well as more variety in the overall roof forms and architectural style of the area. (C) Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Any new commercial building greater than 30,000 square feet in floor area and any 30,000 square feet or greater addition to a commercial building shall either have a net site energy usage index (EUI) of zero or is designed to achieve a net site EUI that is 10 percent lower than required under the City of Boulder Energy Conservation Code. It shall be a condition of approval that the applicant demonstrate compliance with this criterion at time of building permit. For the purpose of this requirement, "commercial building" shall have the meaning defined in the City of Boulder Energy Conservation Code. Not applicable, as the proposed development is entirely residential. (D) Urban Edge Design: If the project is located within the urbanizing areas along the boundaries between Area I and Area II or III of the BVCP, the building and site design provide for a well-defined urban edge, and, if, in addition, the project is located on a major street shown in Appendix A of this title, the buildings and site Attachment C - Staff Analysis of Review Criteria Item 4A - Call Up 999 Violet Ave Site Review Page 23 Packet Page 284 of 523 design establish a sense of entry and arrival to the city by creating a defined urban edge through site and building design elements visible upon entry to the city. Not applicable, as the project is not located within the urbanizing areas along the boundaries between Area I and Area II or III of the BVCP (E) Historic or Cultural Resources: If present, the project protects significant historic and cultural resources. The approving authority may require application and good faith pursuit of local landmark designation. Not applicable, as there are no significant historic or cultural resources present on the site. (F) Housing Diversity and Bedroom Unit Types: Except in the RR, RE and RL-1 zoning districts, projects that are more than 50 percent residential by measure of floor area, not counting enclosed parking areas, meet the following housing and bedroom unit type requirements in Subsections (i) through (vi). For the purposes of this subparagraph, qualifying housing type shall mean duplexes, attached dwelling units, townhouses, live-work units, or efficiency living units, and bedroom type shall mean studios, one-bedroom units, two-bedroom units, or three-bedroom units. (i) Projects five acres or less shall include at least one qualifying housing type. In projects with efficiency living units, at least one additional qualifying housing type shall be provided consistent with the requirements of this paragraph; (ii) Projects greater than five acres shall include at least two qualifying housing types; The proposed project is an amendment to a previously approved Site Review, which includes, in addition to the Shining Mountain Waldorf School facilities, 17 townhome units and 20 detached single-family units to be developed as part of Phase II. This request does not alter the previously approved unit number or type. (G) Environmental Preservation: (i) 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 and "Species of Special Concern in Boulder County" designated by Boulder County and their habitat. The site has been developed for several decades and as such, there is little in the way of existing natural features wetlands, riparian, or special status species. The applicant intends to preserve a number of long-lived mature trees on the site including and a number of trees in poor condition and/or Ash species susceptible to Emerald Ash Borer Attachment C - Staff Analysis of Review Criteria Item 4A - Call Up 999 Violet Ave Site Review Page 24 Packet Page 285 of 523 will be removed. There is a small ephemeral ditch that runs through the main campus and feeds to a storm drain. The applicant intends to preserve this as a landscape feature. The site is within the 100 year flood zone due to the proximity of Fourmile Canyon Creek and was impacted by the 2013 flood events in Colorado. As such, the redevelopment provides the opportunity to mitigate for future flood events. The proposed Site Plan places new structures above the levels required by Floodplain Regulations and allows for the flow of water thru the open space areas on the site and around the new structures. As per the requirements for Critical Facilities, the school currently has extensive Evacuation Procedures in place, include routes for evacuation and defined safe zones for all areas of the campus. (ii) Where excavation occurs, the location and design of buildings conforms to the natural contours of the land with tiered floor plates, and the site design avoids over- engineered tabling of land. Slopes greater than 50 percent should be avoided and, to the extent practicable, any such areas shall be stabilized with vegetation. The existing site is already graded, and the proposed project conforms to the contours of the land and does not create any significant slopes or tabling. (2) Site Design Criteria: The project creates safe, convenient, and efficient connections for all modes of travel, promotes safe pedestrian, bicycle, and other modes of alternative travel with the goal of lowering motor vehicle miles traveled. Usable open space is arranged to be accessible; designed to be functional, encourage use, and enhance the attractiveness of the project; and meets the needs of the anticipated residents, occupants, tenants, and visitors to the project. Landscaping aesthetically enhances the project, minimum use of water, is sustainable, and improves the quality of the environment. Operational elements are screened to mitigate negative visual impacts. In determining whether this is met, the approving agency will consider the following factors: (A) Access, Transportation, and Mobility: (i) The project enables or provides vehicular and pedestrian connectivity between sites consistent with adopted connections plans relative to the transportation needs and impacts of the project, including but not limited to construction of new streets, bike lanes, on-street parking, sidewalks, multi-use paths, transit stops, streetscape planting strips, and dedication of public right-of-way or public access easements, as applicable considering the scope of the project. Where no adopted connections plan applies, the applicant shall, in good faith, and in coordination with the city manager, attempt to coordinate with adjacent property owners to establish, where practicable, reasonable and useful pedestrian connections or vehicular circulation connections, such as between parking lots on abutting properties, considering existing connections, infrastructure, and topography. Attachment C - Staff Analysis of Review Criteria Item 4A - Call Up 999 Violet Ave Site Review Page 25 Packet Page 286 of 523 The previously approved phasing plan includes a number of public improvements and a new street connection with the extension of Locust Avenue. As part of that extension, a new multi-use path is planned along with a detached walkway. Violet Avenue and 10th Street will also be improved with new detached walkways; with a new attached walkway on the main campus side of 10th Street. No changes to the required public improvements are proposed. (ii) Alternatives to the automobile are promoted by incorporating site design techniques, land use patterns, and infrastructure that support and encourage walking, biking, and other alternatives to the single-occupant vehicle. Inherent in a mixed use redevelopment is the integration of land uses that are compatible and support walking and biking between the uses. In addition, by providing new detached walkways on east side of 10th Street; south side of Violet Avenue; and a new street connection with a multi-use path and a detached walkway, the ability to circulate to and through the site as a pedestrian and bicyclist will be enhanced. (iii) A transportation demand management (TDM) plan will be complied with including methods that result in a significant shift away from single-occupant vehicle use to alternate modes. The existing Site Review approval includes an approved TDM and Parking Management plan. Because this request only affects the height of the approved townhome units and does not alter any of the previously approved project metrics, staff finds that a new TDM Plan is not necessary. (iv) Streets, bikeways, pedestrian ways, trails, open space, buildings, and parking areas are designed and located to optimize safety of all modes and provide connectivity and functional permeability through the site. The previously approved plans require the applicant to close the existing access drives into the existing high school site. In addition, the project plans illustrate a single access point into both the high school and townhome access drive along the north side of the Locust Avenue extension to ensure that the planned multi-use path will have limited impacts from vehicle movement in that block. The applicant is extending Locust Avenue as part of the project plans, with a detached multi-use path on the north side of the street and a detached walkway on the south side. In addition, new detached walkways are planned on the east side of 10th Street and the south side of Violet Avenue. No changes to the approved street layout or site access are proposed. (v) The design of vehicular circulation and parking areas make efficient use of the land and minimize the amount of pavement necessary to meet the circulation and parking needs of the project. Attachment C - Staff Analysis of Review Criteria Item 4A - Call Up 999 Violet Ave Site Review Page 26 Packet Page 287 of 523 Inherent in the previously approved plans is revitalization of the large school campus and the redevelopment of land owned by the school as residential. The main school campus limits the street and vehicular functions to the exterior of the large site. Then, with a shared access drive between the High School and proposed Townhome lots, there is restricted access from both Violet and Locust avenues that helps to minimize land devoted to the street system. No changes to the street system are proposed. (vi) Where practicable and needed in the area and subject to coordination with the city manager, the project provides curbside parking or loading or both consistent with city policies on curbside management. The school has an approved pick-up and drop-off plan in place that will not be affected by the current proposal. (B) Open Space: (i) Useable open space is arranged to be accessible and designed to encourage use by incorporating quality landscaping, a mixture of sun and shade, hardscape areas and green spaces for gathering. For the 17 townhome style dwelling units within the RL-2 zoning, a minimum of 6,000 square feet of open space per dwelling unit or 102,000 square-feet is required. In this case, the applicant is proposing a hierarchy of shared open spaces for the townhomes including a small private backyard space at the rear of each townhome; a shared “pocket park” space for the townhomes area; and shared open space with the school on the main campus and within the high school space facing the townhomes. While the hours for access for the entire open space are varied, with limits on hours during school days and hours, the access would be communicated and enforced through signage. With the approximately 210,453 square feet (or 4.83 acres) of open space total between the main campus, the high school and the townhomes, the open space exceeds the requirement. (ii) The open space will meet the needs of the anticipated residents, occupants, tenants, and visitors of the property. In mixed-use projects, the open space provides for a balance of private and common areas for the residential uses and includes common open space that is available for use by residents of the residential uses and their visitors and by tenants, occupants, customers, and visitors of the non-residential uses. The open space within the master plan has shared and private areas for the townhome residents. There is also common open space areas within both the high school site as well as the main campus in the plan that are intended to be shared with the surrounding residents. There are active and passive areas intended to be part of the shared open space as identified within the open space plan per LUR2019-00068, and no changes to this plan are proposed. Attachment C - Staff Analysis of Review Criteria Item 4A - Call Up 999 Violet Ave Site Review Page 27 Packet Page 288 of 523 (iii) If the project includes more than 50 dwelling units, including the addition of units that causes a project to exceed this threshold, and is more than one mile walking distance to a public park with any of the amenities described herein, at least 30 percent of the required outdoor open space is designed for active recreational purposes. Not applicable, as the project as approved includes 37 dwelling units. (iv) On-site open space is linked to adjacent public spaces, multi-use paths, city parks, or public open space if consistent with Department of Open Space and Mountain Parks or Department of Parks and Recreation plans and planning for the area, as applicable. The main school campus transitions to the 65-acre Foothills Community Park, which in turn is connected to city Open Space and Mountain Parks land to the west. (C) Landscaping and Screening: (i) The project exceeds the minimum landscaping requirements of Section 9-9-12, "Landscaping and Screening Standards," B.R.C. 1981, by at least fifteen percent in terms of planting quantities, includes a commensurate area to accommodate the additional plantings, and, where practical, preserves healthy long-lived trees. On the previously approved Landscape Plan Plant Schedule, there are 263 shrubs and 209 trees proposed within the site plan; this includes street trees within all of the rights of way planned for improvements along with new landscaping within the school and townhome sites. This exceeds the amount of plant materials required. The overall number of plants will remain the same in the current proposal. (ii) The landscaping design includes a variety of plants providing a variety of colors and contrasts in terms of texture and seasonality and high-quality hard surface materials, such as stone, flagstone, porous pavers, and decorative concrete. The plant materials are specified predominately as low and medium water adapted plants, with one focal point willow proposed on the high school grounds in a low point that would be adapted to receive drainage flows. The approved plan per LUR2019-00068 includes a number of different biomes throughout the site that exist today that are intended to be enhanced including those identified as: xeric gardens; ornamental grass gardens; permaculture; understory and swale and rock gardens along with perennial gardens. Hardscape materials include scored decorative concrete roadways, a narrow stone or rectangular paver border strip along the roads, and paver materials for sidewalks and driveways. No changes to the approved landscape plan are proposed other than a request to remove previously approved dwarf trees from the rear yards of the townhomes and replace them with alternative plantings that can work with site drainage, utilities, and building footprints. Attachment C - Staff Analysis of Review Criteria Item 4A - Call Up 999 Violet Ave Site Review Page 28 Packet Page 289 of 523 (iii) The landscaping design conserves water through use of native and adaptive plants, reduction of exotic plant materials, and landscaping within stormwater detention facilities to create bioswales or rain gardens, or other similar design strategies. See response to (ii) above. (iv) Operational elements, such as electrical transformers, trash storage and recycling areas, parking, and vehicular circulation, are screened from the public realm through design elements, such as landscaping, fencing, or placement of structures, to mitigate negative visual impacts. Operational elements are effectively screened, and no changes to the approved locations are proposed. (3) Building Siting and Design Criteria: Building siting and design are consistent with the character established in any adopted plans or guidelines applicable to the site or, if none apply, are compatible with the character of the area or improves upon that character, consistent with the intent specified in this paragraph. Buildings are positioned and oriented towards the public realm to promote a safe and vibrant pedestrian experience including welcoming, well-defined entries and facades. Building exteriors are designed with a long-lasting appearance and high-quality materials. Building design is simple and to a human scale, it creates visual interest and a vibrant pedestrian experience. Building roof design contributes to a city skyline that has a variety of roof forms and heights. In determining whether this is met, the approving agency will consider the following factors: (A) Building Siting and Public Realm Interface: (i) New buildings and, to the extent practicable, additions to existing buildings are positioned towards the street, respecting the existing conditions or the context anticipated by adopted plans or guidelines. In urban contexts, buildings are positioned close to the property line and sidewalk along a street; whereas, in lower intensity contexts, a greater landscaped setback may be provided to match the surrounding context. The existing approval includes reduced setbacks along all rights-of-way to position buildings closer to the street. No changes to the previously approved setbacks are proposed. In addition, the previously approved residential guidelines provide direction on building morphology to enhance the pedestrian experience by including the following design strategies: • A street-facing facade reinforces the entry and primary mass • Wall articulation on all facades creates variety and secondary masses within the overall form • Covered porches help articulate the entry and create space for social integration with the community • Attention to detail in the connections between the masses of the overall building form Attachment C - Staff Analysis of Review Criteria Item 4A - Call Up 999 Violet Ave Site Review Page 29 Packet Page 290 of 523 • Dormers, overhangs, and parapets add visual interest and detail to larger forms • Variety in floor plan and building location within the allowable envelope prevents commonality across adjacent development lots • Front doors must be visible from the street and large porches are strongly encouraged • Roof covers for the front door and porch must have a height that relates to the pedestrian scale of the street and fit with the overall form of the building mass • Garage doors must be set back from the entry façade • Gable roofs are a common example in residential design and allow for a variety of complimentary roof styles • Shed roofs are suitable for the entry, secondary form or for the primary mass • Wrapping porches combine social interaction with private outdoor space No changes to these requirements are proposed. (ii) Wherever practical considering the scope of the project, parking areas are located behind buildings or set back further from the streetscape than the building façade. Within the townhome site, parking areas are located behind the buildings and are screened from view from adjacent rights-of-way. (iii) Along the public realm, building entries are emphasized by windows and architectural features that include one or more of the following: increased level of detail, protruding or recessed elements, columns, pilasters, protruding bays, reveals, fins, ribs, balconies, cornices, eaves, increased window glazing, or changes in building materials or color. See response to (i) above. (iv) Defined entries connect the building to the public realm. Unless inconsistent with the context and building's use, along the public realm, one defined entry is provided every 50 feet. Buildings designed for residential or industrial uses may have fewer defined entries. See response to (i) above. (iv) If the project is adjacent to a zoning district of lower intensity in terms of allowable use, density, massing, or scale, the project is designed with an appropriate transition to the adjacent properties considering adopted subcommunity and area plans or design guidelines applicable to the site, and, if none apply, the existing development pattern. Appropriate transitions may be created through design elements such as building siting and design or open space siting and design. The proposed increase in height to allow for sloped roof forms on the townhome buildings maintains the overall character of the development and provides an appropriate transition from the higher intensity zoning to the north (RM-1 and MU-2 zoning lies across Violet to the north) to the established RL-1 zoned residential neighborhoods with predominately traditional single family building scale and style to the south and southeast of the site. Attachment C - Staff Analysis of Review Criteria Item 4A - Call Up 999 Violet Ave Site Review Page 30 Packet Page 291 of 523 (v) The building's siting and relationship to the public realm is consistent with the character established in any adopted plans or guidelines applicable to the site or, if none apply, is compatible with the character of the area or improves upon that character, consistent with the intent of Paragraph (3), Building Design Criteria. A key element of the previously approved Site Review is the Locust Neighborhood Design Guidelines that govern mass, scale, orientation and configuration for development on the residential portions of the site. The guidelines indicate intended character and design expectations in both precedent images as well as massing diagrams. Specifically, the guidelines specify roof and building form, height, scale, materials and transitions, details, and other characteristics. While the townhomes align Broadway, which is considered a state highway, there is no distinct character of the area. However, the guidelines are compatible with the North Boulder Subcommunity Plan development guidelines for the area. The current request would amend the approved design guidelines to allow for additional height for the townhome buildings and different roof forms but would maintain all of the other previously approved elements intended to ensure compatibility with the character of the area. (B) Building Design: (i) Larger floor plate buildings and projects with multiple buildings have a variety of forms and heights. The current proposal to increase the allowable height to allow sloped roofs on the townhomes, which were previously approved with a 35-foot height limit that would preclude the provision of sloped roofs on 3-story buildings due to flood constraints, would increase the overall variety in terms of building forms and heights across the Shining Mountain Waldorf School PUD. (ii) To the extent practical considering their function, mechanical appurtenances are located within or concealed by the building. If they cannot be located within or concealed by the building, their visibility from the public realm and adjacent properties is minimized. The proposed height modification request does not alter the previously approved locations for mechanical appurtenances, which are concealed by the buildings and minimally visible from adjacent properties. (iii) On each floor of the building, windows create visual interest, transparency, and a sense of connection to the public realm. In urban, pedestrian main street-built environments, it is a best practice to design at least 60 percent of each ground floor façade facing the street as window area. Otherwise, it is a best practice to design at least 20 percent of the wall on each floor of a building as window area. Blank walls along the most visible portions of the building are avoided. Attachment C - Staff Analysis of Review Criteria Item 4A - Call Up 999 Violet Ave Site Review Page 31 Packet Page 292 of 523 The proposed height modification request does not alter the previously approved fenestration on the townhome units, which incorporates large windows on all street- facing frontages and creates a high degree of transparency at the pedestrian level. (iv) Simple detailing is incorporated into the façades to create visual interest, without making the façade overly complicated. This detailing may include cornices, belt courses, reveals, alternating brick or stone patterns, expression line offsets, window lintels and sills, and offsets in window glass from surrounding materials. See response to (i) above. (v) Balconies on buildings with attached dwelling units are integrated into the form of the building in that exterior walls partially enclose the balcony. Balcony platform undersides are finished. Second floor balconies are integrated into the building forms and are partially enclosed by exterior walls. These balconies were included in the previous approval and are not being modified by the current request. (vi) The building's design, including but not limited to use of materials, color, roof forms, and style, is consistent with the character established in any adopted plans or guidelines applicable to the site or, if none apply, is compatible with the character of the area or improves upon that character, consistent with the intent of paragraph (3), Building Design Criteria. While the North Boulder Subcommunity Plan identifies the area as the Union Utica Neighborhood that is west of Broadway between Yarmouth Avenue on the north to Utica Avenue on the south, there’s little in the way of defined or identifiable character expressed for the area within the subcommunity plan. Instead, within the Locust Neighborhood Design Guidelines, the applicant has provided an area analysis that included observations to provide a foundation for the guidelines including use of porches and garages that are set back; a mix of architectural styles but with a consistent style on each home; variation in materials and sustainable landscaping with native species. To that end, the guidelines provide a list of acceptable primary and trim materials, roof styles, window door and entry details to fit within the neighborhood but still retain elements of the time. No changes to the building design elements within the guidelines are proposed. (C) Building Materials: (i) Building facades are composed of high-quality, durable, human-scaled materials. High- quality materials include brick, stone, polished concrete masonry units, wood, architectural high pressure laminate panels, cementitious or composite siding, Attachment C - Staff Analysis of Review Criteria Item 4A - Call Up 999 Violet Ave Site Review Page 32 Packet Page 293 of 523 architectural metal panels, or any combination of these materials. Split-faced concrete masonry units, stucco, vinyl siding, EIFS, and unfinished or untreated wood are not considered durable, high-quality materials, but may be used on a limited basis and not on facades facing the public realm. High quality materials are focused on the ground floor facades on all sides of a building and on all floors of facades facing the public realm, and, overall, comprise the vast majority of all building facades. The previously approved materials palette, which consists primarily of brick, metal paneling and fiber cement paneling, meets the intent of this criteria and is not being changed by this proposal. (ii) Monolithic roofing membranes, like Thermoplastic Polyolefin, are not used on roof surfaces that are visible from the street level. The current proposal includes asphalt shingle roofs for the sloped roofs. The approved flat roofs or alternative design (floor height) flat roofs would not be visible from the street level. (iii) The number of building material types is limited, and the building materials are applied to complement the building form and function. The organization of the building materials logically expresses primary building features, such as the spatial layout, building entries, private and common spaces, anchor corners, stairwells, and elevators. The previously approved plans include three primary building materials per building, and this is not being changed by the current proposal. (iv) Building cladding materials turn convex corners and continue to the inset wall. This criterion does not apply to changes that occur at an interior corner nor to detailing elements, such as cornices, belt courses, reveals, offsets in expression lines, lintels, and windowsills. Building cladding materials do not change in-plane unless there is at least a 12-inch wall offset. Criterion met. (v) Any newly constructed building that includes residential units and is located within 200 feet of a railroad, freeway, or expressway is designed to achieve an interior day-night average noise level of no more than forty-five decibels. Noise shall be measured in a manner that is consistent with the federal Housing and Urban Development's standards in Sections 24 CFR §§ 51.100 to 51.106 for the "measure of external noise environments," or similar standard adopted by the city manager in the event that such rule is repealed. The applicant shall provide written certification prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy that the sound abatement and attenuation measures were incorporated in the construction and site design as recommended by a professional engineer. Attachment C - Staff Analysis of Review Criteria Item 4A - Call Up 999 Violet Ave Site Review Page 33 Packet Page 294 of 523 Not applicable, as the units are not located within 200 feet of a railroad, freeway, or expressway. (4) Additional Criteria for Buildings Requiring Height Modification or Exceeding the Maximum Floor Area Ratio: Any building exceeding the by-right or conditional zoning district height as permitted by Section 9-2-14(b)(1)(E), B.R.C. 1981, and any building exceeding the by-right floor area limits as permitted by Section 9-2-14(h)(6)(B), B.R.C. 1981, shall meet the following requirements: (A) Building Form and Massing: The building's form and massing are consistent with the character established in any adopted plans or guidelines applicable to the site or, if none apply, are compatible with the character of the area or improves upon that character, consistent with the intent of paragraph (3), Building Design Criteria. The building's form, massing and length are designed to a human scale and to create visual permeability into and through sites. In determining whether this is met, the approving authority will consider the following factors: (i) The building does not exceed 200 feet in length along any public right-of-way. None of the townhome buildings exceeds 200 feet in length. (ii) All building facades exceeding 120 feet in length along a public street, excluding alleys, are designed to appear as at least two distinct buildings. To achieve this, façade segments vary in at least two of the following design elements: a. Type of dominant material or color, scale, or orientation of that material; b. Facade recessions and projections; c. Location of entrance and window placements; d. Roof forms; and e. Building height. No Building exceeds 120’ in length, but nonetheless provide façade recessions and projections, front porches and entrances every 20’, and varied roof forms. (B) Building and Site Design Requirements for Height Modifications: (i) Buildings requiring a height modification shall meet the following requirements: a. Height Modification Other than Height Bonus: For buildings no taller than three stories and subject to a height modification pursuant to Subparagraph 9-2-14(b)(1)(E)(i) through (vii), the building's height, mass, and scale is compatible with the character of the surrounding area. While the North Boulder Subcommunity Plan identifies the area as the Union Utica Neighborhood that is west of Broadway between Yarmouth Avenue on the north to Utica Avenue on the south, it is important to note that there’s little in the way of defined or Attachment C - Staff Analysis of Review Criteria Item 4A - Call Up 999 Violet Ave Site Review Page 34 Packet Page 295 of 523 identifiable character expressed for the area within the subcommunity plan. Instead, within the Locust Neighborhood Design Guidelines, the applicant has provided an area analysis that included observations to provide a foundation for the guidelines including use of porches and garages that are set back; a mix of architectural styles but with a consistent style on each home; variation in materials and sustainable landscaping with native species. To that end, the guidelines provide a list of acceptable primary and trim materials, roof styles, window door and entry details to fit within the neighborhood but still retain elements of the time. No changes to the building design elements within the guidelines are proposed. The proposed increase in height to allow for sloped roof forms on the townhome buildings maintains the overall character of the development and provides an appropriate transition from the higher intensity zoning to the north (RM-1 and MU-2 zoning lies across Violet to the north) to the established residential neighborhoods with predominately traditional single family building scale and style to the south and southeast of the site. b. Height Bonus: For buildings taller than three stories subject to a height modification pursuant to Subparagraph 9-2-14(b)(1)(E)(viii), B.R.C. 1981: Not applicable, as the proposed townhomes are 3-stories in height. Attachment C - Staff Analysis of Review Criteria Item 4A - Call Up 999 Violet Ave Site Review Page 35 Packet Page 296 of 523 From:Reed Summers To:Van Schaack, Chandler Subject:Notification requested Date:Monday, October 30, 2023 11:26:57 AM External Sender Notice This email was sent by an external sender. Hello, I would like to be on the notification list regarding the hearing date for the Shining mountain Waldorf school apartment block, rezoning of building height. I do have some concerns about this as a resident a block away. Thank you, Reed 805 Union ave Attachment D - Public Comments Item 4A - Call Up 999 Violet Ave Site Review Page 36 Packet Page 297 of 523 From:Dan Marcus To:Van Schaack, Chandler Subject:Review #LUR2023-00050 Date:Wednesday, November 1, 2023 6:16:24 AM External Sender Notice This email was sent by an external sender. Dear Mr. Van Schaak: I am writing in response to the City of Boulder Planning & Development Services notice dated October 19, 2023 with regards to the City's consideration of new townhomes being developed by Shining Mountain Waldorf School being allowed to reach more than 42 feet versus the 35 foot height limit. As a neighbor to the lot being developed for profit by the school, I am writing to voice my opposition to the requested variance. The reason is that this is a single- family neighborhood, hence the existing height limit. I do not believe this should be altered for the financial benefit of the developer. Additionally, I strongly believe that a condition of approval for any development here should require the permit applicant to repave the surrounding streets (i.e., Locust, Union, etc.) given their current poor condition and the impact that sewer and other utilities for the new housing development will have on the streets and traffic in our neighborhood. Please enter this letter in the record for consideration by staff and committee members. Thank you, Dan Marcus 849 Union Ave, Boulder, CO 80304 Attachment D - Public Comments Item 4A - Call Up 999 Violet Ave Site Review Page 37 Packet Page 298 of 523 From:Alison R. To:Van Schaack, Chandler Subject:Shining Mountain Development Date:Thursday, November 2, 2023 12:42:11 PM External Sender Notice This email was sent by an external sender. Hi there. I'm a neighbor on Union Avenue, and I received the notice about the Shining Mountain request for a height variance. I'm of course speaking for myself here, though I know from many conversations with neighbors that you will hear the same from them. I am firmly opposed to a height variance for Shining Mountain. We LOVE our little neighborhood here, and a big reason for that is the small, relatively simple feel of the homes. I do understand that growth happens, and while I don't love that we'll have a lot more cars crammed onto our street with the townhomes coming in, overall I'm more than happy to welcome in more neighbors. So this isn't a NIMBY argument on my part. We live in a desirable location, so I understand that more folks would want to live here. Where I do have a problem is with Shining Mountain having a height variance that will surely make it appear as though the school property is a cornerstone of our neighborhood. The reality is they are terrible neighbors - exclusionary, unwelcoming, and thoughtless about those of us who live here. They have a huge property with open fields and parks directly next to a public park, yet they yell at any child who wanders onto their property (often unaware that they aren't still at Foothills Community Park). They hold events which crowd our streets with parked cars, and never in the dozen years I've lived here have they given neighbors a heads-up or - god forbid - an invitation. (The Art House by comparison has frequently included neighbors in their events and shows, which makes us happier to have it there despite its large size.) At least twice a day, the Shining Mountain parents clog up Locust, OFTEN standing in the middle of the street chatting away, while neighbors have to wait in their cars to get home to their own kids. They park blocking neighbors' driveways or even IN neighbors' driveways, with utter disregard to the people who live here. One of my neighbors even received a complaint when her son parked his car in front of the house owned by S.M. This is a public street, so parking is allowed by anyone. Meanwhile, that same neighbor says a teacher from S.M. has parked in front of her house for the entire school year. (And no, that neighbor did not complain because, again, it's a public street.) Is this just an angry venting session that will make no difference? Possibly. But I say it because this variance request would feel entirely different if we actually felt like the school has ever been a part of our neighborhood. What it feels like in reality is a bastion of entitlement, asking for even more entitlement, to dominate the space of our sweet neighborhood. The rest of us have managed to live within the city rules and requirements, so this property should do so as well. Thank you for your time, Alison Randall Attachment D - Public Comments Item 4A - Call Up 999 Violet Ave Site Review Page 38 Packet Page 299 of 523 From:Matt Cullen To:Van Schaack, Chandler Subject:Shining Mountain Waldorf Project Date:Saturday, November 4, 2023 10:42:46 PM External Sender Notice This email was sent by an external sender. Hi Chandler, I recently received a letter about a proposed change to the Dining Mountain Waldorf School project. I am concerned about these changes and would like to be kept informed about hearings and opportunities for comment. Matt Cullen Attachment D - Public Comments Item 4A - Call Up 999 Violet Ave Site Review Page 39 Packet Page 300 of 523 From:Mike Strife To:Samantha Strife; Van Schaack, Chandler Subject:Shining Mountain Waldorf School Date:Sunday, November 12, 2023 7:46:06 PM External Sender Notice This email was sent by an external sender. Hi Chandler, My name is Mike Strife. I live at 712 Locust Ave, Boulder, CO 80304, just west of the Shining Mountain Waldorf School. I am writing as I am concerned about the increased traffic on Locust Avenue after the completion of the construction project. Once complete, Locust Ave will go directly to Broadway. My main goal with this email is to inquire about adding measures to manage speed on Locust. Locust is used by residents of this neighborhood and by citizens accessing Community Foothills Park and the nearby trails. With the change to Locust Avenue now going directly to Broadway I fear that more cars will access this road and therefore more cars will continue to speed down the slope toward the school in order to get to Broadway. Two streets to the South, Utica has a speed bump and I wonder how to get something similar onto Locust. Thanks for your help. Sincerely, Mike Strife Attachment D - Public Comments Item 4A - Call Up 999 Violet Ave Site Review Page 40 Packet Page 301 of 523 Dear planning board members, We are writing to voice our adamant opposition to the proposed height exemption for the Shining Mountain Waldorf project. There are multiple reasons that this should not be allowed. • Two years ago when asking for their zoning to be changed, the school claimed that they were only trying to do what others in the area could and put three stories in under the existing height restriction. They said that they were not trying to make them any taller. It is now evident that they weren’t telling the truth at that time. Their deceptive behavior should not be rewarded • At that time, the city referenced the wrong part of the community sub-plan when recommending that the planning board allow a third story instead of the two that were specified during the property annexation. This improper analysis was part of the reasoning used to allow the third story. One member of the planning board at the time said that it should be noted that the request to allow three stories was being allowed incorrectly • Several years ago, the city said that height limit exemptions would not be allowed for LUR2011-00071. This project was located on the north-west corner of Violet and Broadway and is in an area that was previously designated for higher density development. This sets a precedent that should be followed here and the height exemption should not be allowed in an area that was intended to have lower density development • Even without the height exemption, the scale of these buildings is well beyond that of the homes directly across the street. These are a mix of single-story and two-story homes. The proposed townhomes will be absolutely massive in comparison and are completely out of character for the neighborhood • Shining Mountain Waldorf has not involved the community in plans and has no consideration for the neighborhood as a whole. Instead they have continued over and over to ram this project through against clear neighborhood opposition to the project • If the desire is to have pitched rooves, these can be easily accommodated by making the townhomes two stories instead of three. This would be in character with the neighborhood, and would improve their affordability • The townhomes are going to block afternoon sunlight for those of us across the street and will completely obscure views of the mountains We strongly encourage you to reject this request. Best, Matt Cullen – 4365 13th St Dara DiRito – 4365 13th St Eleanor Brode – 4363 13th St Kevin Halquist – 4367 13th St Attachment D - Public Comments Item 4A - Call Up 999 Violet Ave Site Review Page 41 Packet Page 302 of 523 Tanya Halquist – 4367 13th St Attachment D - Public Comments Item 4A - Call Up 999 Violet Ave Site Review Page 42 Packet Page 303 of 523 CITY OF BOULDER PLANNING BOARD ACTION MINUTES February 6, 2024 Hybrid Meeting A permanent set of these minutes and a tape recording (maintained for a period of seven years) are retained in Central Records (telephone: 303-441-3043). Minutes and streaming audio are also available on the web at: http://www.bouldercolorado.gov/ PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Jorge Boone (virtual) Laura Kaplan Mark McIntyre Kurt Nordback ml Robles Sarah Silver, Chair PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: Alison Blaine, City Planner Senior Lisa Houde, City Planner Senior Brad Mueller, Planning & Development Services Director Charles Ferro, Planning Senior Manager Hella Pannewig, Assistant City Attorney Amanda Cusworth, Internal Operations and Board Support Manager Thomas Remke, Board Specialist Vivian Castro-Wooldridge, Planning Engagement Specialist Chandler Van Schaack, Principal Planner Edward Stafford, Civil Engineering Senior Manager 1.CALL TO ORDER Planning Board chair S. Silver declared a quorum at 6:00 p.m. and the following business was conducted. 2.PUBLIC PARTICIPATION In Person Participation: no one spoke. Virtual Participation: a.Lynn Segal 3.DISCUSSION OF DISPOSITIONS, PLANNING BOARD CALL-UPS / CONTINUATIONS A.CALL UP ITEM: Site Review to redevelop 1501 and 1509 Arapahoe Ave. with eight attached residential dwelling units with underground parking and two at-grade parking spaces behind the building. The development is proposed to be three stories in height that will not exceed the by- Attachment E - 02.06.24 Planning Board Draft Minutes Item 4A - Call Up 999 Violet Ave Site Review Page 43 Packet Page 304 of 523 right height of 38 feet. A subsequent preliminary plat under case no. LUR2023-00004 was approved to combine the two lots. The call-up period expires on Feb. 7, 2024. This item was called up by M. McIntyre. B. CALL UP ITEM: Use review to allow residential uses on the ground floor facing a street in an Industrial-Service 1 zone district. The proposal includes the redevelopment of the existing site with two new residential buildings containing 21 three-story townhouse units with private garages. The call-up period expires on Feb. 12, 2024. This item was not called up. 4. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS A. AGENDA TITLE: Public hearing and consideration of a Site Review Amendment and Height Modification request to allow for up to seven feet six inches of additional height for each townhome building within the approved Shining Mountain Waldorf School PUD, allowing for a pitched roof design on the third level. Reviewed under case number LUR2023-00050. Staff Presentation: C. Van Schaack introduced and presented the item to the board. C. Van Schaack answered questions from the board Applicant Presentation: Erin Bagnall presented to the board. Erin Bagnall answered questions from the board. Public Hearing: In Person Participation: no one spoke. Virtual Participation: a. Lynn Segal Board Comments: Key Issue #1: Is the proposed project consistent with the Site Review Criteria of the Land Use Code section 9-2-14(h) including the additional criteria for buildings requiring height modifications? J. Boone stated that this feels like a discretionary matter that should be able to be solved by code. L. Kaplan noted that she would support the applicant’s proposal to allow the pitched roofs up to an additional seven feet six inches. M. McIntyre concurred with L. Kaplan’s support of the request. He reminded his colleagues of the Attachment E - 02.06.24 Planning Board Draft Minutes Item 4A - Call Up 999 Violet Ave Site Review Page 44 Packet Page 305 of 523 history of this item and recent code changes approved by city council regarding additional height for pitched roofs. K. Nordback agreed with Laura’s analysis that the project is eligible for height modifications according to code. He commented on housing affordability, noting that increased floor-to-ceiling height may increase rental rates. M. McIntyre made a motion to approve Site Review application #LUR2023-00050, including a Height Modification request to allow for up to seven feet six inches of additional height with a pitched roof for each townhome building within the approved Shining Mountain Waldorf School development, adopting the staff memorandum as findings of fact, including the attached analysis of review criteria, and subject to the recommended conditions of approval. The motion was not seconded. Motion failed. The board discussed the suggested motion language with H. Pannewig. K. Nordback made a motion seconded by ml Robles to delete the words “up to seven feet six inches of additional height with a pitched roof or alternatively,” from the suggested motion language. The Planning Board voted 0-6. Motion failed. M. McIntyre made a motion seconded by L. Kaplan to approve Site Review application #LUR2023- 00050, including a Height Modification request to allow for up to seven feet six inches of additional height with a pitched roof or alternatively, up to four feet of additional height with or without a pitched roof for each townhome building within the approved Shining Mountain Waldorf School development, adopting the staff memorandum as findings of fact, including the attached analysis of review criteria, and subject to the recommended conditions of approval. The Planning Board voted 4-2. Motion passed. B. AGENDA TITLE: Public hearing and recommendation to City Council regarding proposed Ordinance 8620, amending Title 9, “Land Use Code,” B.R.C. 1981, to clarify existing code sections, update graphics, and improve the clarity of the code, and setting forth related details. Staff Presentation: L. Houde introduced and presented the item to the board. L. Houde, B. Mueller, K. Guiler, and H. Pannewig answered questions from the board. Public Hearing: In Person Participation: no one spoke. Virtual Participation: a. Lynn Segal Board Comments: ml Robles made a motion seconded by M. McIntyre to amend the motion to include an addition to 9-16- 1, general definitions, to include a definition of “roof overhang”. The planning board voted 6-0. Motion passed. K. Nordback made a motion seconded by L. Kaplan to strike the words “or Act of God” from BRC 9- 10-2(b). The planning board voted 3-3. Motion failed. Attachment E - 02.06.24 Planning Board Draft Minutes Item 4A - Call Up 999 Violet Ave Site Review Page 45 Packet Page 306 of 523 ml Robles made a motion seconded by K. Nordback to recommend that City Council adopt ordinance 8620, amending Title 9, “Land Use Code,” to clarify existing code sections, update graphics, and improve the clarity of the code, and setting forth related details. The planning board voted 6-0. Motion passed. C. AGENDA TITLE: Public hearing and consideration of a standard wetland permit application for the proposed renovation of the Chapman Drive Trailhead and construction of a pedestrian bridge over Boulder Creek generally located at 38474 Boulder Canyon Drive in Boulder County (WET2023-00020). Staff Presentation: E. Stafford introduced and presented the item to the board. E. Stafford answered questions from the board. Applicant Presentation: Ilene Flax presented to the board. Ilene Flax, Adam Gaylord, and Jeff Haley answered questions from the board. Public Hearing: In Person Participation: no one spoke. Virtual Participation: a. Lynn Segal Board Comments: Key Issue #1: Does the stream, wetland, and water body… K. Nordback made a motion to approve WET2023-00020, a Standard Stream, Wetland, and Water Body Protection permit to allow construction of a new bridge and trailhead improvements for the Chapman Drive Trail Head, incorporating this staff memorandum and attached criteria analysis as findings of fact and subject to the recommended conditions of approval, and with the additional condition that the plans be revised to show the South Trailer Parking and Drive Loop removed in order to reduce excavation and associated stream and wetland impacts. This motion was not seconded. Motion failed. M. McIntyre suggested that the proposed pedestrian bridge is unnecessary and is a poor use of city funds. K. Nordback felt that the Planning Board is not meeting minimization criteria, since the given data does not show a demand for horse trailer parking and turnarounds. S. Silver noted that there is not data because OSMP doesn’t track it all, and people with horses have not been able to access Chapman Drive in the past. S. Silver made a motion seconded by ml Robles to approve WET2023-00020, a Standard Stream, Wetland and Water Body Protection permit to allow construction of a new bridge and trailhead improvements for the Chapman Drive Trail Head, incorporating this staff memorandum and attached Attachment E - 02.06.24 Planning Board Draft Minutes Item 4A - Call Up 999 Violet Ave Site Review Page 46 Packet Page 307 of 523 criteria analysis as findings of fact and subject to the recommended conditions of approval. The Planning Board voted 4-2. Motion passed. 5. ADDITIONAL MATTERS FROM THE PLANNING BOARD, PLANNING DIRECTOR, AND CITY ATTORNEY A. MATTERS: SBC Flood Mitigation Project Spillway Annexation B. INFORMATION ITEM: Update on the Boulder Airport Community Conversation (no presentation) 6. DEBRIEF MEETING/CALENDAR CHECK 7. ADJOURNMENT The Planning Board adjourned the meeting at 10:10 pm . APPROVED BY Board Chair DATE Attachment E - 02.06.24 Planning Board Draft Minutes Item 4A - Call Up 999 Violet Ave Site Review Page 47 Packet Page 308 of 523 C OVE R SH E E T ME E T I N G D AT E March 7, 2024 AG E N D A I T E M C onsideration of a Standard Stream, Wetland and Water Body Protection Permit for the proposed renovation of the Chapman Drive Trailhead and construction of a pedestrian bridge over Boulder C reek generally located at 38474 Boulder C anyon Drive in Boulder C ounty (WET 2023-00020) P RI MARY STAF F C ON TAC T Edward Stafford, Civil Engineering Senior Manager AT TAC H ME N T S: Description I tem 4B - Chapman Driv e Trailhead and P edestrian Bridge Standard Wetland P ermit Packet Page 309 of 523 CITY OF BOULDER CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM MEETING DATE: March 7, 2024 AGENDA TITLE Call up consideration of a Standard Stream, Wetland and Water Body Protection Permit for the proposed renovation of the Chapman Drive Trailhead and construction of a pedestrian bridge over Boulder Creek generally located at 38474 Boulder Canyon Drive in Boulder County. Reviewed under case number WET2023-00020 Applicant: Adam Gaylord, City of Boulder OSMP Owner: City of Boulder, Open Space and Mountain Parks PRESENTER(S) Nuria Rivera-Vandermyde, City Manager Brad Mueller, Planning & Development Services Director Edward Stafford, Senior Civil Engineering Manager EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this item is for the City Council to consider whether to call up the Planning Board’s decision on an application for a Standard Stream, Wetland and Water Body Protection permit for the proposed renovation of the Chapman Drive Trailhead and construction of a pedestrian bridge over Boulder Creek located at 38474 Boulder Canyon Drive in Boulder County. On January 16, 2024 the Planning Board called up the city manager’s decision on this permit. On February 6, 2024, the Planning Board held a public hearing and approved with conditions the permit with a 4-2 vote (M. McIntyre and K. Nordbeck opposed). City Council is scheduled to consider this application for call-up at its meeting on March 7, 2024. Item 4B - Chapman Drive Trailhead and Pedestrian Bridge Standard Wetland Permit Page 1 Packet Page 310 of 523 The staff memorandum to Planning Board, recorded video, and the applicant’s submittal material are available in the city archives for Planning Board, February 2024. The applicant’s plan set and report is provided in Attachment A. The recorded video from the hearing can be found here (item begins at 2 hours 55 minutes in the video). REVIEW PROCESS The purpose of this item is for the City Council to consider whether to call up the above referenced application for review and comment at a public hearing. COMMUNITY SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENTS AND IMPACTS •Economic – None identified. •Environmental – None identified. •Social – None identified. OTHER IMPACTS •Fiscal – No fiscal impacts are anticipated. •Staff time – The application was reviewed under standard staff review time. RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS FROM COUNCIL AGENDA COMMITTEE None. BOARD AND COMMISSION FEEDBACK At the Planning Board meeting on January 16, 2024 the board considered and called up the city manager’s decision on this permit. At the public hearing on February 6, 2024 the Planning Board held a quasi-judicial hearing to review the permit described above. Following a public hearing the Planning Board approved with conditions the application by a 4-2 vote with the following motion: On a motion by S. Silver and seconded by ml. Robles, the Planning Board voted 4-2 (M. McIntyre & K. Nordback opposed) to approve WET2023-00020, a Standard Stream, Wetland and Water Body Protection permit to allow construction of a new bridge and trailhead improvements for the Chapman Drive Trail Head, incorporating the staff memorandum and attached criteria analysis as findings of fact and subject to the recommended conditions of approval. At the hearing the Planning Board listed to presentations from staff and the applicant and asked questions following each presentation. One member of the community provided testimony regarding the item. The board discussed whether the proposal met the Standard Stream, Wetland and Water Body Protection permit criteria. They focused on if the project met the criteria for minimizing impacts, including if the scope of the new pedestrian bridge was appropriate and if trailhead parking and access configuration was necessary to meet community needs at the trailhead. Those opposed to the motion stated Item 4B - Chapman Drive Trailhead and Pedestrian Bridge Standard Wetland Permit Page 2 Packet Page 311 of 523 the permit did not meet the criteria in 9-3-9 (e)(3)(A) for minimization of impacts as the project scope had not demonstrated a need for the new pedestrian bridge nor any data to demonstrate that the parking lot design needed to accommodate horse trailer access. The disposition of approval can be found in Attachment B. PUBLIC FEEDBACK Stream, Wetland and Water Body Permits require that written notification is mailed to all property owners within 300 feet of the subject property a minimum of 10 days before final action and a sign is posted on the property for at least 10 days. All notice requirements of Section 9-4-3, B.R.C. 1981 have been met. Public comments regarding the Stream, Wetland, and Water Body Permit may also be received through public hearing. No public comment has been received. BACKGROUND & ANALYSIS The staff memorandum to Planning Board that includes the staff analysis and the applicant’s submitted materials are available in the city archives for Planning Board, February 2024. NEXT STEPS The City Council may call up the Standard Stream, Wetland and Water Body Protection Permit application withing thirty days of the Planning Board’s review. Any application that it calls up, the City Council will review at a public meeting within sixty days of the call-up vote, or within such other time as the city and the applicant mutually agree. The City Council is scheduled to consider this application for call-up at its meeting on March 7, 2024. ATTACHMENT(S) A – Applicant Plan Set and Report B – Planning Board Notice of Disposition Dated February 6, 2024 Item 4B - Chapman Drive Trailhead and Pedestrian Bridge Standard Wetland Permit Page 3 Packet Page 312 of 523 W oMWO0°O WVo°R oCrWxoGrcoowpJZCOWQ2wuNpz+VE m oY4 9SgpERP"p p— i Cm w a w w a mw$oEo -V ooN LLoLLZIm . m mggggIT. 8 $ J J d J d J J J 6 R R R A da fiR Y nos LL y LLo oULL oS wmm 3 LL w m°$zrcwO mo xw w= 4pw A wsaa_ E€ 1 jA oo F; a mpammmsH mNmh.mh Z 1 s§E} 8 W Q Z N u rcwo W N 0 DwJaapoo9€ww= o '-,; ._ o Fw 3 awl€g w c=i w N W) CO o<<MI. '. m ...3 soss wwwwa-.12M uLL 69 sf=izzR Q V F g w QC a s z s <ms ms°—oemoowsa wwwwLLw wLLcc m x =k cap Q w o0azo iz z w i 3 - w om 0 3 G/' mz ° oil oo a ' a> iz J(.5 MOd 3OU w ma img o 0 9dFrcW _ w z 3 a FzQ rO o;0- o o O3¢ r _ a3 o u3 _ U W U o apz.z Eo o zoo mw I.: z.- = EU = ° -m3 U '^r' o w.>rc'.g. rymo r3z 2. z¢ __ a i; ' oozzzo- rc 'u5mi :E rc m= -m biz ¢ w u o m z rra an ¢E2gympwO2m° =w mFE w y€ rcp ,_rc wq a am grcww xoo° U wu Wy S- LL 2.iJrcQto i tW€w $ag x w E m s W =o N = ewo 000wJ 3 pm ui ro UO gyp ao FE U U3soZwzOoU FmZWM°0 wWao_R Nogmzc Wmos y o w W W =W U ZO arch _ orc U d O Q wrc m goaLL =oaw -°w_go . o° ° z. F M. ° h =5 h o 111 zzagezwziyvampO2,0x src ao a> rc a> zm > 3 ' o o' - mrc S Ywrc ~ zwV=oW z= _ - Q o w rca ' < rc Zrcorcw $wry m'a ozz zc 16 a 3£ a marwww w sowrcmo ozyww.20oO o3 au 3 ma a. os °w S. .0 Q mw uw-t.'-, wru mopw e.=01 w Ei - rc E2 O s zo s- z' Z. u __ wnwz N 2. - ya3smu ow—w Fo ¢ " o F° pz6wNz.l Iz diz.an zgQOw _ °ggOWzo-w m 2wj e _ -- Ga - u3lx -'.z.w ° z. rcaw 03 w °u" q a a6 Z ao 0 2 Um3 W --gzg wmm~ Oo ; _ 3m =J W w Y w-- wI oS _ z o t wz wozoww€ _Vz oo rci 3 x 0 joo rc i o y a,$-H °a mowz rc3rcaz V' Ko oo p w - O o6 W_ 5 Wh F - '°'m o'a sorry -zd x Sw o Q ¢3 i viF rc €w V O 0 ow w O xwOm 3y z wi' o p - -=p o -U oN o o o E o 'g a3p boo ty v amw _amm rc_rcm: .a<,mLLa f rcmrcmrcrcm3 I spa area m mm 8 rcrca F aH mom y am ww U mawla 08§ ?off eo - iwz is - u. _ rcrc w3 gz w$ uwwc a - '' w -00> E o orc z za n°a m¢ _. o-zo wp oaLL Hh, E < y w wrc =€ rpm ozoo off Ft= zFo o 3J z ° 3x a¢ N awl a owoo orcao _ €arcrc¢Qoarc Iz gg<,o oNN <opo w-u<g m3 P O w> pN _ u. z'I0 50=p 'z' 'm€ - -¢ z E wpm pd>>O wRo wCSa$ - mQ _ Wz J = how mzz maF iyw - 5a w,3zE3wnaa u R o '_ __ O o w °wEIp. g m m= s z_> w 2_o°a im wq o < o W su is ww o so rc -, o wa aw wwom,y J po °W _p' J go°k' Nn of ° z -wwza's3w o Ho O NOEa boa -rc rc _ 3o rw " 0 wg axarc 11, zaoomo¢¢ 3zHzY _ rc wzo€ 10 wa NOR o. o of mw W3w zCLL yowm 4'rcLLia Buz rc$iLLo _ o¢a rca w = 3LLo2°a 0 o2g2 °Pm8w -= O oa¢w3 Z z° s 2a v wg o wwMow €wp _ - :w'' 3p: - -w8 h o o1 w a Rz' 5 FF p€rc H. _ -' '.rcrcw oo F za rco> O o tLL aw i O - y "w mN ° _wos m o O3 ozw 'ww°a'w`.-'a - zw ° O_wa O rc m am. a rc src=m 0Ou ° mo_ .hLLmrc rcmo.m ° ¢wm rco wmoLLwm °zm HM Qow8- WHW LL o ¢ a3 w m mrc~ w w wm x w H O¢W xKµwa woizx ku mailsaNs asnos aao slsaNawsoamnswvaou oonxwwnmla ueuma oonnuonc'+eyd45'.wimwi.piAttachment AAttachment A - Applicant Plan Set and ReportItem 4B - Chapman Drive Trailhead and Pedestrian Bridge Standard Wetland PermitPage 4Packet Page 313 of 523 Y el a+Lel LY6uFdo0bZbl1E00'3D0'—Na—w xSNOUVIAMI88HONVq 06eL31s'adoa„IHIN66EL J ON3EJ31'63iON1HN3N3E)H731 tld131 O SNad N3d° R 1dtl3HllVdi3AR10NtlWdtlH nPPOOfNSW3WIl000NOIlONtlLSNOOItlNIdEZ2ZI603vzi3s \d NI—ino9dOAll0 d5pUgwwGmwwowsoB °off W J= w, _ V w 5 -Z. oi - : <E ° o3wo3 w LLo oy s3 "LLB mWhk'ak - zorc - Uw° o0o s03- " - o°wOa LL qqFam m mmm °°°°°°°° ° ww w ww wwm w¢ w 'x°xx ___x E zzz a as xa_ rcmf1am m m m o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o w w w w w w w w w m w x x x _-_ E z z z o 0 o a o a a 6 E m m mz5 w p pRd o0 o 3s m U wHEo9 ;=o33H jO az0wm° wJ I I I I I I I I oo$ i i ®d Mi i• 88 I I LJ w m ° fir a ww _ o a m Fxm: °° a 3 ""w=w =°o o t ' w map 8„ HH iw°'o .o` n-' So<2 N w o wmooa - wJ xFW=_ 0o _ yw o oH ga Npi w`=" a w=' <o pwg3m _z g x' a =%o maNao aw'ZO h waO„ °o ° Qa a,=gw =o yc aa°w < saay axo!- w N a oo'~`x 3= = 3w a N„m mnsz"t--O<W a 3NN _ gip o LL FAN u<aao«N F =m 'ws= wF w aSw A « LL m ohm° w 3 2. = F a 2za=aE m 3 0 06 00 ' a 3w< 00 w3 a_zo 2 '€ m-tea w w=who a o '°w=. a >< c Z W. w oo m _o °€=a°o`-'3<amo m=°a a 1 o o J;a_ Nw_ p 3z o J ° - wg awa a'wo t5x __ z_a=-_ g yo" N`-U_R=m mrc - -pm g£ a< o€arc ai-mks>--oq - asom m€ xax ztxV Z°YssFo5_ § - =1 wF - we oa $6a gym w o€ w _mow io $$ - o€aZwL`ia yf-m pF0 w w i n ry zi m u $ °m ca m i= FD rc —"—u° O-Fm°>O a Y= ism m = an wy - - o wo o wR<wow°go zz9 oo a ozw,z j U ° 3 „ o Q `zaw _ mow= NJFo€op 3wa xw -pwwwo - - U m -- Zo w w _ w m o"=O o3'a o-'wo«o3p8 w ° o 90 co o; a O z s° _03sx aaK o rFrc opamw m° o pro ¢ £ o =1O ° £ m oo°$ <` " moo`=w ° - 09NN -offa wo w boa - - 0 3 y o i zoHoi° 3`= w <w - ' `m Eta°opo - N w - ja m° - -21 3E°ww xo _ a3wpo" LLg p w< W8 ` _ 3w aW" wpo: Eoioo w "LLpa m p _ p_ « o w w - ° o - os iowF 'o£ -_ow2"- Uwa ow°tio °z -w SILL Z ~ pw y3 WHO o rc m =fir _a iro axw=:opo Nwrc -moo m 8Li-to€ o8m ww E - aka o smzw :aQa yawm€ono= °'3' J"°" g'w j o = — - _ €p ._ aF - -_' 63 o=s 3a ao 3 =W _m N 1. 0o o zd° w w a°a am =°w 11w xm `_ " . m ° 0. nx mam ` < 3 x aw °w mF z a w o w o o v 3Wpb az a 5 rz € oaua g ry s 300 y O >_ _ —mp >i v°iw LL _ °u F~att w Fz R Oaa i — Ng1 x _ - _ ow - g °off w9 y19 8 - S w °,0 o _ z g'z W o u "lz, o o Qp6 3o 3 g 836° ° 2W wb o m saz 0 0-1Z.p= ego S ° m -p m3 0 3Nm= s m o w- x 3 0 o$ - w Z how - _ H -s o xo m wo oz s oFwE Ty wp _ _ _w p 3 t w 0 a z - <z oF$ `LLi K m 6 9oa Sw 0- - z ao oQ _ m ORzw mix as w3 FJO ?' o 2H s Z m y€ °m mm zw mp5 "9 i ao - who o ;°m w m J66 a wF - _ z z 0 O " - o€wu - - ms 3s rc >- z z U i P. 3 - ou rc mm "- Z -iM LL _ - w e 1N z m m xo = o< Ha & o oU 4 - z '`w= zaLL p °oLL w z < y .r wz, q ° 00 0 °om o o z oLL Z o€ x x <Qz o o Wy'O° 3 rcOz F5 =z LLt ° o P zwz ow LL ¢tea o yw w =rcw 5 m W ww o 30 ov ofi wa rc =E w 5 4. oww € 3LLw°m - w a W oo p Z io ° w.9 .a aa= ° < m i ° 'a5 8 m°p < <aa <m a m S ° = r m P pa m m a NVH13'OONON-OMO'S310N lYtl3N30 OOI J\531Id133HSWtl0\100ZZ-S68ESL-pOZ1S680SL13001tlN3NJ3LS\S1 3fONd\O-Wd 906SE EZOZILZI6Attachment A - Applicant Plan Set and ReportItem 4B - Chapman Drive Trailhead and Pedestrian Bridge Standard Wetland PermitPage 5Packet Page 314 of 523 Voel Nlel 1V61+Rdo0bZ60800'3aaINN3NO3aB 8 wNV-ld O66316'adoa„1H1a6a6 oW SNOUIGNOO ONUSIX3oft R rH331VU131O °4: dtl3HllVdi 3AIUCI NtlWdtlHo4"' OfN S nO0a N0110naLSN00 VNIH SMMO dM-NnOwaNtl 30tld5 N3d0 a y 3 s va3alno—io5,3y 3ogo36 ? s!C wp Egon1N m 01 VJIl i l €I II IIliliL1I I I I 3w i_' ---__ _- i ce N y z r g K I v / v I vv 11 it y m 1 oooo OV//—, m wg 00 Nb 'OONON-0Ma'SNOIDUNO00NUS1X3001=31Hd 3HS\atl0\100ZZ56NG61 Z1568051\30a18N3NO3NU\S 3rO d\O-Nd Z1:65:EEZOVLMAttachment A - Applicant Plan Set and ReportItem 4B - Chapman Drive Trailhead and Pedestrian Bridge Standard Wetland PermitPage 6Packet Page 315 of 523 Y el a+Lel TY6uFdo0bwZoaya0a0',3 0OM0tl^1HIIIHN IN0S HOE 4 O NHId dWM S WtlINWd3tlHI N IONV1HI11NI'NOIlIlOW3 OH731VMJL31GV3HllVdi3AR0NarmWr—NOOOHOOIVNM mR w s fr, d NItl1NOOWONtl 30tld5 N3d0 a y 3 s v _H30lLIOSd0All0ZOJ6o8qqwo '0 3o 0.OR zJofIIylI V 3 I. o= 1. F s OE - n-w Z._ 1. 3 - - o w j w Z. W Q zn O H0l\ o 16 ho o Z 3-VbOMO^L Hs 00 p - 10 NbHL3'OONON-OMO'dWMS T/I11NI ONtl Ntlld NOILlOW30 ZOL-\S31Id133HS\OVO\LOOZZ-S66ESLUOZ1S680SL13001tlN3NO3LS\S103fOLd\O-Wd Sl6SE EZOZILZMAttachment A - Applicant Plan Set and ReportItem 4B - Chapman Drive Trailhead and Pedestrian Bridge Standard Wetland PermitPage 7Packet Page 316 of 523 Y el a+le11Y6uWbZ40E00'3001E1N3NO3aB 8 w M6431s'atloa„IHINs6Elo NHId dWMS ldNld 1 o ft R rH331VM131R10Odtl3HTVdi3ANtlWdVHZ)OHi' OfN SW3Wn000 NOIlOnaLSN00ltlNld EZ2ZI60 SNatld NItl1N00W ONtl 30tld5 N3d0a301n09o-owI'o M pig,wJ IIofIIIIIyl I 3 s= \`• \\ \\ — C i/—r=r,'' \ ' cHnrmnN oiuv[ \\ ,>_f,. a e ecea/ I as will w w u tl Z t WHY EH9 MENT 1 I i \ 6MIN L--o VON lit og N33aod aaolnoa 1jIg N1111J Whzop ¢ NtlH13'OONON-0M0'-8ltMld W6-O 11d133HS\Qtl LWZZ-96NSLO=968SL\3001aN3NO3gS 103rOd\:0-Wd SL69:E EZ6ZIMAttachment A - Applicant Plan Set and ReportItem 4B - Chapman Drive Trailhead and Pedestrian Bridge Standard Wetland PermitPage 8Packet Page 317 of 523 Y el wlel lY6uFdoOOOw,I '3OOIElN3NO3bB xoayaaalOmbmlinllHfSte ! NHId 311S IINOoft R rH731VM131@10NO °4: JV3HlIVdi 3AtlWdtlHPROSOfN —3-O0GNOIlOObLS lVNId EZ2ZI60 SNbtld NItl1NO0W ONtl 3JtldGb3OlfIORdOmFttO O o OR rp uU' wuwEHg,-g -Z'oa3ym It° gEE°o py o NwIIuIsail ®0i.ri iIIII I w 3w w I ua I c' y a y p> wsw pso 0 H=o e LL o yg m o w s zSxo w a GNMMOR / OFFER I / N ERE69OU a Ow lw w 30 RRIGIR WAY EASEMENT I u Z. a Z O rz N N33bJ b3O1OO5 Ua w o o a zw o 0 0 mop ° w y z a 'a m mgo R y LLWWw a iw w 3p NVH13'OONON-OMON d3DSIIAI3M0-O\531Id133HS\OVO\100ZZ966ESIU=96N9L13OOItlN3NO3bS\S 3rOd\:0-Wd ZG6S:EEZOZIAttachment A - Applicant Plan Set and ReportItem 4B - Chapman Drive Trailhead and Pedestrian Bridge Standard Wetland PermitPage 9Packet Page 318 of 523 Y el a+lel,Y6uFdo0bZ40EO0'300—NO— a wNH-ld O6e31s'atlGb„IHIN66E S W 30VNIVW1 4NV EJNl(]"E)o ft R rH731VMJL31OGV3HllI3AR1ONtlWdtlHOHi' arm SlN3W0000N0IlOn—OOItlNId EZ2ZI60 SNYtld NItl1N00WONtl 30tld5d301NO9dij8pp°a ym E a°' Z.E EW Y aJIlon w I w p"_ _ gTg wu, m p1.zw o1. 60, — g Mgtylla_ e06o-• ) e _ . = a , i a W. 8 w 30 RIGHT OF WAY Z; 8,0 u Ow o N33b0 a3G,l10A I` Z. Z. womo bF£p MdO1H0/b Ozopww H. oLL—imrcF wzl o= oo zo dm v'izm NtlH13'OON.OMO'—d 30tlNNd0ONtl ONl—SOL-O.11d133HS\Otl0\100ZZ-566ESLU0 96EE911300ltlN3NO3LS\S 3rO d%:O-Hd 1469:E EZOZM1ZMAttachment A - Applicant Plan Set and ReportItem 4B - Chapman Drive Trailhead and Pedestrian Bridge Standard Wetland PermitPage 10Packet Page 319 of 523 Yael a+lel lY6uFd°ObZbl1EOO'3001NN3NO— 8 w6e31s'atloa„IHIN66E o SllV130llnlO LOH331tlM131ORdtl3Hlltli11311ONtlWdtlH fOHi' OfN SW3WIlO00 NOIlONtlLSNOO ItlNId EZ2ZI60 SNYtld NItl1Nf10W ONtl 30tld5 N3dO a y 3 s v _tl30lfIOSd issa30 J KyZloG ° Z wg CoZ.Vim° pS" '3npw eyG wo'aw Nga i wao ono 30$ Z. o w rco Nag&' -z' a a no LL s a awe o oag- BIZ°emu,yzy v 3 .. p ap 19 mNe r n - gg g Hai O z e\ a XLLw o O o w a'y g 8a a z oaf N"p Z. F z nz s o pip a°\V n 11m U Z. I W- S n o\ am' Q11 w o mo 3w wa yw iar w0 Z a \\ Z Qa FU OW a°o SRO 6 y`rc z a Z'a z. oo a ° z NVH13'OONON-OMO S,Itl130 IIA13 W0O\S31Id133HSWtlO\100ZZ-S68gLlOM68E9113O01tlN3NO3LS\103rOd\:O-Wd5 9:S EZOZIMAttachment A - Applicant Plan Set and ReportItem 4B - Chapman Drive Trailhead and Pedestrian Bridge Standard Wetland PermitPage 11Packet Page 320 of 523 Yael a+lel lY6uFEOObZ40EOO'3001E1ND-9woa4aala+lal rw++64 31s'atl°a„IHIN66E O OfN SNYtlSd llV13 0ll0tlntlWdl5dO tlN LO3HdORH331tlM131dtl3HNWlONOONtlItlNId20M-N....NtllfO m a y 3 s fv _g'so Iw, m = mmE w LLmwwosH .pLLp ooF _ m 0 O Fr a mauomO rcp — N O ED rcs a w Wz iW2 at a a x¢Og''m swQQ o dam€Qo ws =ss° _o3E.o3LL SEE M m w g _ 0. Z s< LL 3° d6 OHS w a w s zz N 1 Z.I a R.S.0 uw h 6U m 2 Iz Izmrc g 1- z IIIIII 1.Z,LL°w it III I s Ww o Z,m w Z. m = L. z III— u a z I 3n0,0 NVH13'OONON-OMO S,Itl130 IIA13 W0 O\S31Id133HSW LOEZZ-S68gLl OM68E9113O01tlN3NO3LS\ 33—dVO WdL 9:S EZOZIMAttachment A - Applicant Plan Set and ReportItem 4B - Chapman Drive Trailhead and Pedestrian Bridge Standard Wetland PermitPage 12Packet Page 321 of 523 Voel aNel W&iAdoOOZ00000'3001UN3NO3aS wos31s'anoanlH ws oe SlIH1341021N00 a0NNOISOU3ONV3EVNIV24H331VM131Qtl3HlItl13N20NtlWdtlHNn000N011—SNO01-H L 0 SNand N-NNOW ONV 3 9 N3dOgwHawWWuUaWwOu w w W w m a ww7 3a01 z 1. _ m a z w m ° ww° m s H Z. 3 do, Ca w on p Zwn twow U so w w° a F sm w o cz s W goO sa w o J z V3o01ao a a U W II I 3 d 5 O \ \ w ioQ ULL LL i o_ Q w. 10 w mz yes F m m _ a o gm U j a O h xx Sa i o m H 3 P sgzNe $ Z. 8 ; jp O 5I Ej SwS x o' v m 3 w d 3 0 w 3dOlS UZ w oy 3 $ ao fig U gI XX p a ns 6 w $ III = m oIIIw st 3 m e sa II ww Sabxe a F 3dOlS m C3mV z NVH13'0ONON-O $11n13010a1N003xOLOS=311d133HS\O LOOZZ-96NGLl OZ156Ne L130018N3NO3N8\ 3—d%0-Wd[S-SSZOZNZI6Attachment A - Applicant Plan Set and ReportItem 4B - Chapman Drive Trailhead and Pedestrian Bridge Standard Wetland PermitPage 13Packet Page 322 of 523 Voel aNel W&iAdoOOZOOBOO'3001UN3NO3HS w M004315'OtlOtl 1lIH INS OfI SlIH1341021N00 a cD.NOISOU3 ONV 3EVNIV24H331VM131Qtl3HlItl13N20NtlWdtlHNn000N011—SNO01-H f 0 SNtltld N-NNOW ONV 3 9 N3dO g s o°ay a w =w 3 x w= p p$ UsZ- s _ QW o 6 w - w Jm aoxE o= m oxWs=¢ ZW_= myaow o` € who a":Wgwomo< o wwoowp MM H-MvdLLtz my N U W g ygy S gp U z U 4T E x 4 w a a Ie d . E iai NVH13'OONON-O $11tl1301OH N0038OLOS=311d133HS\O LOOZZ-S6NGLl OZ 6Ne L130OI8N3NO3N8\S 3rO d\0-Wd BS:65:ffZOZNZl6Attachment A - Applicant Plan Set and ReportItem 4B - Chapman Drive Trailhead and Pedestrian Bridge Standard Wetland PermitPage 14Packet Page 323 of 523 F 00'ap nog S s 1 E z(LwaS>I2]Vd NIViNnovi a.W w aNV DOVdS N3dO 2i3ainos O Am li$$ ¢ LL Wmos =Wo A s 'g oW Jo _°:fr w -_ db 3HI1b 211 '2ia N dWd dH3 - $5o 1.maPa.Qo o ff wm LL zmmLLLL "off 5= =g o30 w sa oo8YyPH °'aom H j z a o< < o w H,sssoIZSSS oss2sssaoo2Nyy »yH yyHy y I a a SF ow, w w=a° _ ff<E81- y - msep = a° § a_ 3 os oho ow M, c —o 000 0000 000 I e M52 62 o =8 w= oasue= W= x _ - eNm aswwHU"w s zo4 w zo zme° o a i ° o 3N s s yQ -F w¢ m i w Eta st °m„ g c BwNoy 55 0 3,"° z z4w ow o oo i 3 9 m°m eo=2 - o?g Z w NodW s o m No¢ w ow N' z9o g o Boa axe <w wg g g= g Ns m T 8S j Y gww8ss =€ o ¢ os NNo ° w =3 -, 12 o 5 "' F. << E w o sw ° h s $ --°5 <58 ° _ °°: o ° z O =3 «3 oo ig 3°'a Sa y W eo s o amo 3m c oyo ono Qy w= w =93w" g s o s o E- swo mew =4 o _LLo„ E ao _> ova ohs¢ so8.ssoo oF39 oo bw y 5 <°' tiEa r' - a o Szlzo o °mmBNg a = s = ° y No eo >_ ¢sN aw a two w oN _ wmSamud--3 3 W ° ° rya 'm ao 3°az 3mya ow rca¢ a a f` tz w 8go Fww axzw= m °m ° g so s w wow 8 ` w5m °8 w o = o w O O O O O w aa o a 5oo g= LL o a 2os Ng e mam o °a Y i Y i A i • _,_-_; ;_ -?_%__-_-_- -_ o ELeo N 1 \ ymeb \19/ vI I I , 4 1 1 i / N i 1 OVO mow!_wl7awa a,Gp i 1 O 1 1 1 1Attachment A - Applicant Plan Set and ReportItem 4B - Chapman Drive Trailhead and Pedestrian Bridge Standard Wetland PermitPage 15Packet Page 324 of 523 F a° 00'ap nogWaSNNVdNIViNnon a N u1mv 3OVdS N3dO 2jgm oa O Am z Ozoosewa z Jc _ fr db 3H11b 211 'Ia N dWd dH3 - $5og wk[k W02„oAc _uVQUmn Uf mn cannot ffi r—oaIsmaoo0Sg3oN - yw sit H aawl lot to wH 9 x e E o o w I Iasi p to 'a 8=°° s 1 s9 F ' awza k oim zw howwm gn ow ws o in ull 4 o w ¢ " ow$w 1 s < 2 mw °'a o" z J°°y'a J`s' $ ¢wO u/i w w yo 3 w — 4¢i olun° o "s°[ r z w Fo oFa° m hHo dhi g p w a s 9" LL w w a£ JF o s rs= ag" y Hiss"wV wO iw z yH r u H No goS . S&im aSww oSwo ° w E4 w H 9 wh oH Eg °o H 2 5m HH s L w w w° s x= s« o ova I Qam3 gs w ooEEF i 111.... 11 ....WOMEN o P OOFCFA 1 111 10 f'a FE P/ / HNf HORSE TRAILER PARKING s , / in 3 APPROXIMATE STREAM EDGE d a i i iAttachment A - Applicant Plan Set and ReportItem 4B - Chapman Drive Trailhead and Pedestrian Bridge Standard Wetland PermitPage 16Packet Page 325 of 523 W w; U s00'jepinog a wwS>I2]Vd NIViNnovi ooxINVDOVdSN3dO2jgmosOAm N a MLLzogmooSBFwy3 ¢ Jfr = 11db3H1VN-L 'NCI NVWdVH3 - $5 o gUazoOnUHmanlaml Jap34mk' z 3< I L 1i Q 8a oYll IQI L 111 11 11I IIII 111II I!',1i. Q - L I fi IIIII 1=IKIIII=1I FI-F11=III=111 1111- p s IIII a g 11111111E II=III IIIIIII w v 111=III-IIFIII-II' a FIIHII=ILFIIF x m wwa wa v 1 11=III-IIII' U a w wTKIII=III=IIKIIF 8 1 1 11=III-III= z 3 e11111=III yPH— ONI IIFi W i 12aII=II=Q m az s KITH ILII z w w o v 111 111 T1=1 s 1- 11111 s LL II IIII- Sm 1.H1s 1ze o I I ova es I I S o3w I w m3 8 IllFIL a g w O 1 Fw w 1-11 f x III= a o.s IIII Y III=1oll ry z 0' oo 1=1 1=1 z III-I 1 III1 f xH4I I I-III-I Y a III-III-I m I-III=III= m F III-III-I I-III=III- e ': 111=III=1 oLLyS o M coFI3IIIoeoJ ullllo so i°3 III m z III=III -III LL II I J I 1=1 I 1=1 11=1 11= mIIIIImySsaLLIII=TIz III -IIIitIIIII ¢ z pJII M II I w j III— LL o w m wIII-IIIIIIIF 4' III-Ill w Q._, w III= w w HIS I1=1I x 11_r_ cr u-11= Y II—III s. I C) o III-11 i II-1il- o r .IIIIIIIIII l-IiI- " ii i 1Tu a wwmAttachment A - Applicant Plan Set and ReportItem 4B - Chapman Drive Trailhead and Pedestrian Bridge Standard Wetland PermitPage 17Packet Page 326 of 523 w w; U sCOo'jepinog wwaSNi ]Vd NIViNnovi Oil NWpmwgINVDOVdSN3d02i3ainosOAmaOJazGos -8 S 88wg3 ¢LL zw db 3H- 1b 211 '2ia N dWd dH3 °O oZlw s gyk@_ 0Fo _gym gpp"a 3 ZVQOnUfmnn3E`ml J hcoz.11zoLLwwoofb > m sr wiw ` oY m N wo 0og g wou ?wwo uzo£s x ¢ Z sZffio128ygooo= 3 H s w 8 s wgs ea o II' ogga ` a g9gw gaa III o -LL E h II111 11 1 11111-E W 3 F x 0 boa 9 li s I so' oNib J N wPs F III I' m mew 11=III. ¢ III—II Z 1 k1'S. maeS x 111 Qeyotiogmi a o a eoyao ¢¢ s Sod oa'e IF m III W 3=0 a¢e.a3 " o w 'H III=x m<w ° =MEas8zssezyo ¢_m ° II m boo 3 aim y 'z o ° sa €o ow Nx3 a601 90 w. 'o-wLL°oox e 8IToogs¢MagoE€ wo =¢ g sw O x w: ah 3w, may uE"sso '= Ey Z, N, oo O o w ma3 m a m o NmsnNz y HHHH.H.H .s- tHllmhi Hsax i o a-a g of°po 6G soioo II G II i. II1L a 1III- j111- E lllllllk =¢w w o g` m -w--------------o aso 7 Imll w a fm Ill O s g6 mah e m m III III oL AsAttachment A - Applicant Plan Set and ReportItem 4B - Chapman Drive Trailhead and Pedestrian Bridge Standard Wetland PermitPage 18Packet Page 327 of 523 w w; U sUgQCoo'japinog S s,e` 1 E g® wwS>I2]Vd NIViNnovi Oil CWpmwgINVDOVdSN3dO2i3ainosOAmaOJ <Z os N°xLLzWpw db 3H- 1b 211 '2ia N dWd dH3Fo _gym gpgp"a 3 ZVQOnUfmnn3E`ml g3SIII—III— III=1 I rII=1 11=111=1 11=1 I I m1=1 1=1I-1 1=1 sho¢w zIII—OIIIIIIIweIIIq22zo 11=III=III=1I1= 1I1= 1I1=1I1=1' z a F 8 pm z LU o OU III=III=11—i O w I' w w 11=11= 11= of I111111111111—' w z 1=1I1='m 0 III—II IIIIIIIIRIP III—II IIIIIIIII IIIIIIIII 1=1 1=III—II IIIIIII IIIIIII w H III—I sir- o° III=1 IIIIIII u IIIIIII w yam s Jw IIIIIIII 9F¢ O 1=III: ow m II1= m w Illlllf w' 11- U U) Ilillllil s<s ss IIIII_ IIIIIIIII III—I I I I—III=1 IIIIIIIIIII,-LU III=III= III II O z III III=1ii III; NAttachment A - Applicant Plan Set and ReportItem 4B - Chapman Drive Trailhead and Pedestrian Bridge Standard Wetland PermitPage 19Packet Page 328 of 523 Chapman Drive Trailhead and Pedestrian Bridge City of Boulder Wetland Permit Application October 9,2023 1.0 Introduction The City of Boulder Open Space and Mountain Parks department(OSMP)plans to renovate the interim Chapman Drive Trailhead installed after the 2013 floods. The redesigned trailhead will improve visitor safety,provide additional amenities such as trailer parking,restore habitat, and increase protection of natural resources. OSMP is also partnering with Boulder County to install a pedestrian bridge originally included in the Boulder Canyon Trail Extension Project but never constructed. The pedestrian bridge will span Boulder Creek and connect the Boulder Canyon Trail to Chapman Drive Trailhead and Chapman Drive Trail. Construction of the trailhead and bridge will require impacts to regulated areas. As such, OSMP is submitting this application for a Standard Wetland Permit. 2.0 Project Area The project site is located west of the city of Boulder, southeast of the intersection of Boulder Canyon Drive and Chapman Drive, and west of Boulder Creek(Plan Set Cover Sheet). The project site is located on what was formerly a single family homesite(Photo 1).After the home was damaged by the 2013 floods,the City acquired the property,removed the home, and constructed an interim trailhead to provide access to Chapman Drive Trail Photo 2). The area south of the interim trailhead(Photos 2 and 3) is currently dominated by non-native groundcover,mostly smooth brome(Bromus inermis). Ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa) line Boulder Creek along with scattered cottonwood(Populus deltoids),Russian olive(Elaeagnus angustifolia),juniper(Juniperus scopulorum), and chokecherry(Prunus virgiana). South of the project area, an unnamed drainage flows into Boulder Creek. The south bank of this drainage is dominated by ponderosa pine trees while the north bank is mostly smooth brome with scattered chokecherry and cottonwood seedlings. a . i t h Photo 1. 2007 aerial photo of homesite damaged during 2013 floods. 1 Attachment A - Applicant Plan Set and Report Item 4B - Chapman Drive Trailhead and Pedestrian Bridge Standard Wetland Permit Page 20 Packet Page 329 of 523 r Photo 2. Interim Chapman Drive Trailhead(facing south)with Boulder Creek to the right/west and the unnamed drainage in the background(2022). Photo 3. Area south of interim Chapman Drive Trailhead(facing north)with Boulder Creek to the left(west) 2022). 2 Attachment A - Applicant Plan Set and Report Item 4B - Chapman Drive Trailhead and Pedestrian Bridge Standard Wetland Permit Page 21 Packet Page 330 of 523 3.0 Regulated Areas An OSMP ecologist surveyed the site in 2022 to map the ordinary high water mark along Boulder Creek and an ephemeral drainage south of the proposed trailhead. Both of these features are regulated under the City of Boulder's Stream,Wetland, and Water Body Protection Program, as is the 50-foot buffer surrounding them(Plan Set Sheet C-100). 4.0 Project Description OSMP is planning to reconfigure the existing trailhead to support trailer parking, improve sustainability, and provide a safer connection from the trailhead to Chapman Trail, and to install a pedestrian bridge to connect these features to Boulder Canyon Trail west of Boulder Creek. 4.1 Chapman Drive Trailhead Redesign OMSP is planning to reorient the main parking area to accommodate a trailer turn-around and designated accessible parking. Please see the attached plan set for details. The parking lot will include 14 standard parking spots, one accessible parking spot, and up to two trailer parking spaces. The parking areas and turn around will be gravel road base over compacted subgrade. To prevent direct discharge of water into Boulder Creek,the parking area will be surrounded by curb and gutter that will direct water to a bioretention area on the north end of the trailhead. From there,water will flow west through an underground pipe. Riprap will be installed at each end of the pipe to prevent erosion. OSMP will install a pedestrian path east and south of the parking area to connect Boulder Canyon Trail,the trailhead, and Chapman Drive Trail. The trail will be surfaced with crusher fines except for the north end which will be concrete. The trail will be six feet wide, and the southern section will include three sets of timber stairs leading up to Chapman Drive. To minimize impacts to the floodplain, OSMP will install a boulder retaining wall west of the path. A second boulder retaining wall be installed on the east side of the parking area to contain the steep slope up to Chapman Drive. To protect natural resources and improve visitor safety by discouraging access to the creek and ephemeral drainage, OSMP will install a fence on the west and south sides of the parking area and trail. 4.2 Chapman Drive Pedestrian Bridge At the northwest corner of the trailhead, OSMP will install a 70-foot-long prefabricated steel bridge. Please see the attached plan set for details. The bridge will be 10-feet wide and will connect the existing Boulder Canyon Trail to the redesigned trailhead and Chapman Drive Trail. The bridge deck will be sealed concrete and the abutments will be poured concrete wing walls anchored with driven steel pilings. Pedestrian railing will be installed on either side of the concrete path on both sides of the bridge. At the base of each abutment, OSMP will remove the existing riprap and replace with 24-inch angular rock mixed with soil(aka buried riprap)to stabilize the slope while allowing for plant growth,which isn't possible now with the existing riprap. The new riprap will tie into existing riprap under the vehicle bridge. 4.3 Access and Staging The project area will be accessed by the existing Chapman Drive bridge that crosses Boulder Creek north of the existing trailhead. Staging will occur outside of the 100-year floodplain within the footprint of the existing trailhead.A temporary concrete washout area and a temporary vehicle tracking control pad will also be installed within the footprint of the existing trailhead during construction. 4.4 Project Timeline Pending on-going regulatory review and permit issuance,project construction is planned to start in the Fall/Winter of 2024 and extend into early 2025, if necessary. 3 Attachment A - Applicant Plan Set and Report Item 4B - Chapman Drive Trailhead and Pedestrian Bridge Standard Wetland Permit Page 22 Packet Page 331 of 523 4.5 Best Management Practices During construction, OSMP will follow all applicable Best Management Practices outlined in Wetland Protections Program Best Management Practices(City of Boulder 1995)and OSMP's Ecological Best Management Practices(City of Boulder 2013).No dewatering will be necessary. Grading limits will be clearly marked. No equipment is expected to access the water. Should equipment need to access the water,biodegradable hydraulic fluids will be used in all equipment and machinery used in the water per the county's 2016 Storm Drainage Criteria Manual. Prior to transporting equipment to the site, all machinery will be cleaned to remove aquatic nuisance species(ANS)and weed seeds in accordance with State of Colorado ANS regulations. Cleaning will include either steam(heat) or chemical cleaning,not just power washing.A"spill kit"for emergency pollutant isolation, and written clean-up procedures,will be onsite at all times during construction activity. The city's contractor is responsible for drafting the plan and installing and maintaining erosion control practices during construction until final stabilization of the site occurs. The following general erosion control measures will be implemented: Silt fences shall be placed around the site during construction. Certified weed-free coconut fiber logs/waddles shall be installed in key locations around the site to limit runoff. Erosion control mats, filter logs,rock checks, durable mulch or a combination thereof shall be used in areas where concentrated water flow is likely to occur to prevent soil movement. Soils tracked from the site by vehicles shall be cleaned daily(or more frequently, as necessary) from paved roadway surfaces throughout the duration of construction. Other erosion control BMPs will be utilized as necessary. 5.0 Impacts to Regulated Areas The proposed project requires 3,079 square feet of permanent impacts and 4,284 square feet of temporary impacts to regulated areas (Table 1). The project will also increase the amount of impervious surface in the regulated buffers by 1,178 square feet(concrete abutments,paths, and curb/gutter). 4 Attachment A - Applicant Plan Set and Report Item 4B - Chapman Drive Trailhead and Pedestrian Bridge Standard Wetland Permit Page 23 Packet Page 332 of 523 Table 1.Proposed wetland and buffer impacts by activity e. Proposed Impacted Area(ft) Activity Wetland Inner Buffer Outer Buffer Temporary Permanent Tem ora Permanent Temporary Permanent Buildings and Additions Other Structures: Retaining Walls 0 276 New Fences 2 66 Pavement, Surface, & Trails: Cement Paths 0 288 0 459 Crusher Fine 0 0 0 1,180 Trail Trailhead 0 0 315 0 Planting Areas Curb and Gutter 0 0 0 153 Parking Area 0 0 0 500 Associated 539 0 1,689 0 Grading Landscaping& Landscape Maintenance: Stream Channel Flood Improvements: Bridge 0 0 131 0 Abutments Culvert Outlet 0 0 14 10 Abutment Riprap 1,344 397 0 0 Total 1,344 0 936 435 2,004 2,644 Note: Blank cells equate to zero square feet. 6.0 Mitigation The proposed project requires 3,079 square feet of permanent impacts and 4,284 square feet of temporary impacts to regulated areas. Temporary impacts will be restored in place. Permanent impacts will be mitigated by enhancing approximately 3,200 square feet of mostly inner buffer south of the trailhead,path, and fence(Plan Set Sheet C-103). OSMP will remove existing vegetation(a monoculture of smooth brome)and the top six inches of soil to dispose of offsite. The area will then be ripped to decompact soil, seeded with native grass and forb 5 Attachment A - Applicant Plan Set and Report Item 4B - Chapman Drive Trailhead and Pedestrian Bridge Standard Wetland Permit Page 24 Packet Page 333 of 523 species,blanketed with 100%biodegradable erosion blanket, and planted with native shrubs.Plant material will be obtained from commercial nurseries and seed suppliers or supplied by OSMP. Only local genotypes will be used. Commercial seed lots will be tested for viability and purity and seed lots contaminated with weed seed will be rejected.Native seed collected through OSMP's volunteer native seed collection program may also be used. Any willow cuttings used for the project will be harvested from OSMP land. 7.0 Monitoring OSMP will monitor the mitigation area annually for five years. OSMP proposes the following success criteria: At least 80%native vegetative cover or comparable to the surrounding area. Invasive species on the Colorado Noxious Weed Inventory list-A shall be 100%eradicated. Invasive species on the Colorado Noxious Weed Inventory list-B shall encompass no more than 10%of the total cover of the restoration area. 8.0 Alternatives Analysis OSMP examined numerous design alternatives to avoid and/or minimize impacts while still achieving the project's objectives. The following is a summary of the alternatives explored and their potential outcomes. 1. No action. This option would eliminate the impacts described above. However,without constructing the bridge,the multiuse path west of the creek would lack a connection to Chapman Drive Trail. Without redesigning the trailhead,horse and handcycle use of the area is limited because of lack of trailer parking. For these reasons,the no action alternative was rejected. 2. Creek Access OSMP considered adding infrastructure to allow access to Boulder Creek but determined that 1) conditions along this stretch of creek are not conducive to safe visitor use and 2)impacts to regulated areas were too great. 3. Larger Trailhead OSMP considered enlarging the trailhead further with more parking spots and visitor amenities. However,this option would have required additional impacts to the regulated buffer around the ephemeral drainage south of the trailhead. 9.0 Regional and Federal Clearances The proposed project requires clearances from Boulder County. 9.1 Boulder County Portions of the project are located within the Boulder County and FEMA 100-year floodplain. OSMP has been in contact with Kelly Watson,Floodplain Specialist with Boulder County Community Planning and Permitting,who confirmed that the project will require an individual Floodplain Development Permit(FDP). OSMP will submit an application for a floodplain development permit and a grading permit. 9.2 Federal Clearances Boulder Creek is jurisdictional under the Clean Water Act. The project falls under Nationwide Permit 14—Linear Transportation Project. The project will result in less than 0.1 acres of impact to Boulder Creek so no Preconstruction Notification(PCN)is required. 6 Attachment A - Applicant Plan Set and Report Item 4B - Chapman Drive Trailhead and Pedestrian Bridge Standard Wetland Permit Page 25 Packet Page 334 of 523 The project is not located within Colorado Parks and Wildlife mapped occupied range or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service(USFWS) designated critical habitat for Preble's meadow jumping mouse. Habitat impacts from the project are expected to be minimal and confined to the former homesite with no impacts to riparian trees or shrubs. OSMP contacted the USFWS and staff confirmed the proposed project does not raise any concerns for listed species or habitats. 7 Attachment A - Applicant Plan Set and Report Item 4B - Chapman Drive Trailhead and Pedestrian Bridge Standard Wetland Permit Page 26 Packet Page 335 of 523 CITY OF BOULDER PLANNING BOARD NOTICE OF DISPOSITION You are hereby advised that on February 6, 2024 the following action was taken by the Planning Board based on the standards and criteria of the Land Use Regulations as set forth in Chapter 9-3, B.R.C.1981, as applied to the proposed development. DECISION: APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS PROJECT NAME: CHAPMAN DRIVE TRAILHEAD AND PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE DESCRIPTION: Standard Stream, Wetland and Water Body Permit to renovate the interim Chapman Drive Trailhead, which was installed after the 2013 floods. The redesigned trailhead will improve visitor safety, provide additional amenities such as trailer parking, restore habitat, and increase protection of natural resources. OSMP is also partnering with Boulder County to install a pedestrian bridge originally included in the Boulder Canyon Trail Extension Project but never constructed. LOCATION: 38474 Boulder Canyon Drive (Boulder County) LEGAL DESCRIPTION: NA APPLICANT: Adam Gaylord, City of Boulder Open Space and Mountain Parks Department OWNER: City of Boulder (Open Space and Mountain Parks property) APPLICATION: Standard Stream, Wetland and Water Body Protection Permit, WET2023-00020 CASE MANAGER: Edward Stafford This decision may be called up by the City Council on or before March 7, 2024. If no call-up occurs, the decision is deemed final on March 8, 2024. At its public hearing on February 6, 2024, the Planning Board approved the request with conditions with the following motion: On a motion by S. Silver and seconded by ml. Robles, the Planning Board voted 4-2 (M. McIntyre & K. Nordback opposed) to approve WET2023-00020, a Standard Stream, Wetland and Water Body Protection permit to allow construction of a new bridge and trailhead improvements for the Chapman Drive Trail Head, incorporating the staff memorandum and attached criteria analysis as findings of fact and subject to the recommended conditions of approval. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1.The improvements shall be constructed to minimize and mitigate impacts to the existing wetlands in conformance with the conditions of the City of Boulder Wetland Permit issued for this project. 2. The restored buffer areas shall be maintained and irrigated as required to ensure seed germination, tree and shrub survival and an overall successful restoration. 3.The applicant shall obtain a site inspection and approval from the City of Boulder Floodplain and Wetlands Administrator upon completion of the project. 4.Best management practices shall be applied to all phases of the project and shall conform to the requirements of the "City of Boulder Wetlands Protection Program: Best Management Practices" adopted July, 1995; and "City of Boulder Wetlands Protection Program: Best Management Practices - Revegetation Rules" adopted July, 1998. 5.The wetland mitigation site shall be monitored annually for five years. Monitoring reports shall be submitted to the Attachment B - Planning Board Notice of Disposition Dated February 6, 2024 Item 4B - Chapman Drive Trailhead and Pedestrian Bridge Standard Wetland Permit Page 27 Packet Page 336 of 523 City of Boulder Planning and Development Services prior to September 1st of each year. If it is determined that the mitigation is not successful, then corrective measures will need to be established and implemented to ensure a successful wetland mitigation project. 6.The following success criteria shall be used for the wetland mitigation: •At least 80% native vegetative cover or comparable to the surrounding area. •Invasive species on the Colorado Noxious Weed Inventory list-A shall be 100% eradicated. •Invasive species on the Colorado Noxious Weed Inventory list-B shall encompass no more than 10% of the total cover of the restoration area. By: _________________________________________________ Brad Mueller, Secretary of the Planning Board Attachment B - Planning Board Notice of Disposition Dated February 6, 2024 Item 4B - Chapman Drive Trailhead and Pedestrian Bridge Standard Wetland Permit Page 28 Packet Page 337 of 523 C OVE R SH E E T ME E T I N G D AT E March 7, 2024 AG E N D A I T E M C oncept Review proposal to redevelop the 448,668 sq. ft. site at 2952 Baseline Rd. with a mixed-use development consisting of residential, commercial, hotel, and restaurant uses. T he existing buildings on site would be demolished and replaced with six new 4-5 story buildings containing retail, restaurant and hotel uses as well as approximately 610 new dwelling units, and a mix of structured and underground parking. T he unit type mix would include market rate units and student housing units. Reviewed under case number LUR2023-00038 P RI MARY STAF F C ON TAC T C handler van Schaack, C ity Planner Principal AT TAC H ME N T S: Description I tem 5A - 2952 B aseline Rd. Concept Rev iew Packet Page 338 of 523 CITY OF BOULDER CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM MEETING DATE: March 7, 2024 AGENDA TITLE: Public Hearing and Concept Plan Review and Comment for a proposal to redevelop the 448,668 square foot site at 2952 Baseline Rd. with a mixed- use development consisting of residential, commercial, hotel, and restaurant uses. The existing buildings on site would be demolished and replaced with six new four and five story buildings containing retail, restaurant and hotel uses as well as approximately 610 new dwelling units, and a mix of structured and underground parking. The unit type mix would include market rate units and student housing units. Reviewed under case no. LUR2023-00038. Applicants: Bill Holicky, Coburn Development Petur Williams Owner: George Williams, LLLP REQUESTING DEPARTMENT / PRESENTERS Nuria Rivera-Vandermyde, City Manager Brad Mueller, Planning & Development Services Director Charles Ferro, Development Review Manager Chandler Van Schaack, Principal Planner EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this item is for City Council to review and comment on the Concept Plan Review application. Per Section 9-2-14, B.R.C. 1981, the project requires Concept Plan review and comment prior to Site Review because the site is over 2 acres, the proposal is greater than 25,000 square feet in size and a height modification would be required (Table 2-2 of Section 9-2-14, B.R.C. 1981). As shown below in Figure 1, the approximately 9.59-acre project site encompasses the triangular area located east of Highway 36, south of Baseline Rd. and west of 30th Street, excluding the Baseline Crossing site on the northwest corner of the site (2850 Baseline Rd.) and the McDonald’s site (2920 Baseline Rd.). To the east across 30th Street is the University of Colorado (CU) Williams Village dormitory complex, containing the 12- Item 5A - 2952 Baseline Rd. Concept Review Page 1 Packet Page 339 of 523 story Darley and Stearns dormitory buildings and the six story Bear Creek Apartment buildings. Across Baseline Rd. to the north are a variety of retail, service and office uses, including a gas station, a beauty salon, a mortuary, and a medical office building. To the northeast of the intersection of Baseline and 30th Street lies the Baseline Subdivision, a single-family neighborhood that has existed since the early 1960’s. US 36 runs along the eastern boundary of the site, across which lies the Martin Acres Neighborhood. Aside from the CU buildings, all the existing buildings surrounding the site are one to three stories in height. On January 16, 2024, the Planning Board held a hybrid meeting and reviewed and commented on the proposal. The staff memorandum to Planning Board, recorded video, and the applicant’s submittal materials along with other related background materials are available in the city archives for Planning Board. The recorded video from the hearing can be found here. The applicant’s submittal package is provided in Attachment A. The draft minutes for the meeting are provided in Attachment B. On February 1, 2024, the City Council voted to call up the Concept Plan to review and comment on the proposal, as had been requested by the applicant. Concept Plan Review is intended to give the applicant feedback on the proposal and provide the applicant direction prior to more detailed planning efforts. No action is required on behalf of the City Council. Input and comments by the public, staff, Planning Board, and City Council will be documented for the applicant’s use. Generally, in a City Council discussion of a Concept Plan, the council reviews key issues that were also discussed by the Planning Board. Figure 1: Vicinity Map Item 5A - 2952 Baseline Rd. Concept Review Page 2 Packet Page 340 of 523 In addition to a public hearing at City Council, City Council has authority to refer Concept Plan Review proposals to the Design Advisory Board (DAB) and/or Transportation Advisory Board (TAB) for their respective opinions. The purpose of such a review by DAB is to encourage thoughtful, well-designed development projects that are sensitive to the existing character of an area, or the character established by adopted design guidelines or plans for the area. TAB’s opinion can be requested by council on transportation matters implicated in a Concept Plan Review proposal. COMMUNITY SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENTS AND IMPACTS •Economic: The proposed project would require a height modification, and as such the project would be subject to the adopted Community Benefit requirements of Section 9-2-14(h)(6)(C)(iv), 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 would be applied to any approved development that would ensure compliance with the community benefit regulations. The additional floor area permitted with the height modification (“bonus floor area”) would be used to determine the required number of “bonus units”, e.g., residential units above the 25% Inclusionary Housing requirement. 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 proposal would therefore provide an important community benefit by providing an in-lieu fee payment that helps fund permanently affordable housing in the city. •Environmental: The proposed project would add a significant number of student housing units within walking and biking distance of the CU Campus, add both residential and commercial space to an area designated as a “Neighborhood Center” in the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan, and convert a significant amount of currently impervious area to landscaped open space. •Social: As described above, the request for a height modification, if approved, would provide additional cash-in-lieu fees that can be leveraged by the City to fund a significant number of permanently affordable housing units elsewhere in the city. Potential impacts include the removal or replacement of existing neighborhood- serving commercial businesses as well as potential impacts related to traffic and circulation in the surrounding area. OTHER IMPACTS •Fiscal: The review of this application and a potential Site and Use Review application fall within staff’s normal scope of work, and as such do not present any unusual fiscal impacts. •Staff time: the application was completed under standard staff review time. If the proposal moves forward, staff anticipates that the review will also be completed under standard staff review time. RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS FROM COUNCIL AGENDA COMMITTEE None. Item 5A - 2952 Baseline Rd. Concept Review Page 3 Packet Page 341 of 523 BOARD AND COMMISSION FEEDBACK At the public hearing on January 16, 2024, the Planning Board heard presentations by staff and the applicant, and asked questions following each presentation. Approximately 40 residents spoke during the public comments portion of the hearing. The majority of speakers expressed opposition to the project based on concerns over the potential loss of the Dark Horse bar. Additional concerns expressed by residents opposed to the project included lack of on-site affordable units, potential traffic impacts, neighborhood compatibility issues, loss of retail space and noise spillover impacts. Several speakers expressed support for the proposal in its current form and several speakers expressed support for additional housing but wanted to see more of an effort to reduce the overall scale and preserve existing businesses on-site. The Planning Board discussed three key issues at the public hearing: 1. Is the proposed concept plan generally compatible with the goals, objectives, and recommendations of the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP)? 2.Does the Board have feedback on the conceptual site plan and building design? 3. Is the proposed building height of 55 feet in general proportion to the height of existing buildings and the proposed or projected heights of approved buildings in the area? Regarding Key Issue One, the Board was split on the extent to which the project was consistent with BVCP goals, objectives and recommendations. Three Board members found the proposal to be generally consistent with BVCP goals and policies and with the Neighborhood Center Guiding Principles outlined in the BVCP. Three Board members stated the project did not meet the intent of the Neighborhood Center designation and that the project will need to reduce the overall scale and incorporate additional retail space in order to be consistent with the Neighborhood Center designation in the BVCP. One Board member expressed a desire to see more housing types and one Board member expressed a desire for the applicant to retain existing businesses on the site to the extent possible. Regarding Key Issue Two, the Planning Board discussed a number of issues related to site and building design, with key themes including: •A desire for reduction in overall mass and scale of the buildings, greater variation in building height and size, and more building articulation; •The need to improve permeability through the site and focus on more pedestrian- friendly street design; •The need to reduce or remove ground-level residential uses along Baseline and to increase ground-level commercial space, with “more, smaller” commercial spaces being preferrable to fewer, larger spaces; •The need to improve the design and useability of on-site open spaces, including reducing the amount of rooftop and at-grade linear open space, increasing the amount of shared at-grade open space and improving access to views from open space areas; Item 5A - 2952 Baseline Rd. Concept Review Page 4 Packet Page 342 of 523 •The need to further consolidate site access points and to provide a more detailed analysis of anticipated traffic patterns Baseline Rd.; •The need to improve multi-modal connections to the site from the adjacent multi- use path; and •A desire to see the parking structure moved to the west side of the site along Baseline to create a noise buffer for residents of the development and reduce noise impacts to the Martin Acres neighborhood across US 36. Regarding Key Issue Three, three Board members expressed support for the proposed 55- foot building heights but emphasized the need for better view corridors and site permeability, more variation in mass and scale (particularly building length), and excellent building design. One Board member summarized these thoughts by saying that they are “not afraid of 55-foot buildings” in this context but that the current proposal needs improvements to “feel like a neighborhood center.” Three Board members expressed tentative support for the proposed building heights but wanted the project to provide better transitions to lower-scale buildings to the north and to increase overall consistency with the Neighborhood Center designation in the BVCP and BC-2 zoning standards. Following the Board’s discussion of the three key issues presented by staff, Board members each listed other issues that they felt should be addressed prior to Site Review submittal. These issues included: •The need for a determination by historic preservation staff and/or Landmarks Board on whether historic landmark designation will be required for the Dark Horse and/or Broker Inn as a condition of Site Review approval; •The need for a phasing plan that minimizes disruption of existing businesses during construction to the extent possible; •The need to more carefully consider how on-site housing affordability can be achieved; •A desire to potentially keep the existing Dark Horse building as-is and revise the plans to build around it; •A desire to see the parking area in front of Building A on Baseline removed or relocated; •A desire to preserve/ relocate existing businesses within the new commercial spaces to the extent possible; and •A desire for additional design consideration to be given to noise impacts to the Martin Acres neighborhood across US 36. PUBLIC FEEDBACK Required public notice was given in the form of written notification mailed to all property owners within 600 feet of the subject property. A sign was posted on the property a minimum of 10 days prior to the hearing. Staff received numerous emails from the public both in support of and in opposition to the proposed project, which are included in the Planning Board packet in Attachment B. Many of the concerns expressed in the public comments were also expressed in person at the Planning Board hearing as described under “Board and Commission Feedback” above. Item 5A - 2952 Baseline Rd. Concept Review Page 5 Packet Page 343 of 523 BACKGROUND & ANALYSIS The staff memorandum to Planning Board that includes staff analysis, neighbor comments along with the meeting audio, and the applicant’s submittal materials are available on the Records Archive for Planning Board. The call-up memo and attachments from the February 1, 2024 City Council meeting are available on the City Council Records Archive. MATRIX OF OPTIONS No action is required on behalf of the City Council. Input and comments by the public, staff, Planning Board, and City Council will be documented for the applicant’s use. Concept Plan review and comment is intended to give the applicant feedback on the proposal and provide the applicant direction prior to more detailed planning efforts. Staff recommends the same four Key Issues for discussion: 1. Is the proposed concept plan generally compatible with the goals, objectives, and recommendations of the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP)? 2.Does Council have feedback on the conceptual site plan and building design? 3. Is the proposed building height of 55 feet in general proportion to the height of existing buildings and the proposed or projected heights of approved buildings in the area? 4. Other key issues as identified by Council. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: January 16, 2024 Planning Board Packet for the Concept Plan Attachment B: Signed Minutes of January 16, 2024 Planning Board Hearing Item 5A - 2952 Baseline Rd. Concept Review Page 6 Packet Page 344 of 523 CITY OF BOULDER PLANNING BOARD MEETING DATE: January 16, 2024 AGENDA TITLE: Concept Plan Review and Comment Request for a proposal to redevelop the 448,668 square foot site at 2952 Baseline Rd. with a mixed-use development consisting of residential, commercial, hotel, and restaurant uses. The existing buildings on site would be demolished and replaced with six new four and five story buildings containing retail, restaurant and hotel uses as well as approximately 610 new dwelling units, and a mix of structured and underground parking. The unit type mix would include market rate units and student housing units. Reviewed under case no. LUR2023-00038. Applicants: Bill Holicky, Coburn Development Petur Williams Owner: George Williams, LLLP REQUESTING DEPARTMENT / PRESENTERS Brad Mueller, Director Planning & Development Services Charles Ferro, Senior Planning Manager Chandler Van Schaack, Principal Planner OBJECTIVE 1. Planning Board hears staff and applicant presentations 2. Planning Board holds Public Hearing 3. Planning Board asks questions of applicant, the public, and staff 4. Planning Board discussion and comments on Concept Plan SUMMARY Project Name: WILLIAMS VILLAGE II Location: 2952 Baseline Rd. Size of Property Approx. 9.59 acres (448,668 square feet) Zoning: BC-2 (Business - Community 2) Comprehensive Plan: Community Business (CB) and Mixed Use Business (MUB) KEY ISSUES FOR CONCEPT PLAN DISCUSSION Staff has identified the following key issues to help guide the board’s discussion: 1. Is the proposed concept plan generally compatible with the goals, objectives, and recommendations of the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP)? 2. Does the Board have feedback on the conceptual site plan and building design? Attachment A - January 16, 2024 Planning Board packet Item 5A - 2952 Baseline Rd. Concept Review Page 7 Packet Page 345 of 523 3. Is the proposed building height of 55 feet in general proportion to the height of existing buildings and the proposed or projected heights of approved buildings in the area? 4.Other key issues as identified by the Planning Board. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this item is for Planning Board to review and comment on the Concept Plan for the above reference project. Per Section 9-2-14, B.R.C. 1981, the project requires Concept Plan review and comment prior to Site Review because the site is over 2 acres, the proposal is greater than 25,000 square feet in size and a height modification would be required (Table 2-2 of Section 9-2-14, B.R.C. 1981). PUBLIC FEEDBACK Consistent with Section 9-4-3, Public Notice Requirements, B.R.C. 1981, staff provided notification to all property owners within 600 feet of the subject location of the application, and signs have been posted by the applicant indicating the review requested. Staff received several comments from neighboring property owners in opposition to the proposed project, included in Attachment C. BACKGROUND As shown below in Figure 1, the approximately 9.59-acre project site encompasses the triangular area located east of Highway 36, south of Baseline Rd. and west of 30th Street, excluding the Baseline Crossing site on the northwest corner of the site (2850 Baseline Rd.) and the McDonald’s site (2920 Baseline Rd.). To the east across 30th Street is the University of Colorado (CU) Williams Village dormitory complex, containing the 12-story Darley and Stearns dormitory buildings and the six story Bear Creek Apartment buildings. Across Baseline Rd. to the north are a variety of retail, service and office uses, including a gas station, a beauty salon, a mortuary, and a medical office building. To the northeast of the intersection of Baseline and 30th Street lies the Baseline Subdivision, a single-family neighborhood that has existed since the early 1960’s. US 36 runs along the eastern boundary of the site, across which lies the Martin Acres Neighborhood. Aside from the CU buildings, all the existing buildings surrounding the site are one to three stories in height. Figure 1: Vicinity Map Attachment A - January 16, 2024 Planning Board packet Item 5A - 2952 Baseline Rd. Concept Review Page 8 Packet Page 346 of 523 The site currently contains five existing one to three story buildings containing a variety of retail and restaurant businesses, including a Sprouts Market, the Dark Horse Saloon, Cosmos’s Pizza, a liquor store, a bank and other restaurants. There is a Conoco gas station on the northeast corner of the site off Baseline Rd. On the south corner of the site is the Boulder Broker Inn, a legal nonconforming hotel use. Both the Dark Horse and the Broker Inn have been in this location since 1974. The property is not individually landmarked or located in a historic district. However, due to the age of the buildings, historic preservation review will be required to determine whether the existing buildings are potentially eligible for landmark designation. The site area surrounding the existing buildings is primarily surface parking, with some of the parking areas meeting current city landscaping and screening requirements and other, older parking areas not meeting current standards. The Flatirons are largely visible from most locations on the site. Not including the Baseline Crossing or MacDonald’s sites, there are nine existing access points to the site, with four curb cuts on Baseline Rd. and five curb cuts along 30th Street (See Figure 2 below). Of the four existing access points on Baseline Rd., only one, located between Baseline Crossing and MacDonald’s, has full movement turn access, with the remainder being right-in, right-out only. Similarly, the existing access points on 30th Street are also right-in, right-out only with the exception of the access serving the Cosmo’s Pizza building. With only a single drive aisle providing access to westbound lanes on Baseline, the current access configuration severely limits opportunities for westbound travel from the site, with U-turns on either 30th Street or at the signaled intersection of 30th and Baseline being required for the majority of exit points from the site. Figure 2 below shows the existing site with right-only access points shown in yellow and two-way access points shown in green. Within the site, connectivity is largely circuitous and vehicle-oriented, with limited segments of sidewalk making pedestrian travel across the site difficult. There is an existing multi-use path running along US 36 which provides three access points to the site, each of which leads to either a drive lane crossing or a parking lot. There is also a multi-use path along Baseline Rd. on the northern property boundary, which crosses seven existing vehicular access points. Similarly, the existing sidewalk on the eastern property boundary along 30th Street crosses five vehicular access points and dead ends at the southern end of the site. Overall, while the multi-use path Baseline Rd. Figure 2: Existing Site Access Attachment A - January 16, 2024 Planning Board packet Item 5A - 2952 Baseline Rd. Concept Review Page 9 Packet Page 347 of 523 along US 36 provides safe north-south pedestrian and bicycle travel past the site, pedestrian and bicycle travel within the site and along both 30th and Baseline presents a number of potential conflict points with vehicles and is largely undesirable. As shown in Figure 3 below, much of the project site is affected by the regulatory floodplain of Skunk Creek, including the 100-year, Conveyance and High Hazard zones. Zoning. As shown in Figure 4 below, the site is zoned Business Community -2 (BC-2) and is adjacent to BT-1 zoning to the north across Baseline Rd. and Public (P) zoning to the east across 30th St. (Williams Village). To the west, across Highway 36, lies the 2700 Baseline site (also zoned BC-2) and the Martin Acres neighborhood, Zoned RL-1. The BC-2 zoning district is defined by section 9-5-2, B.R.C. 1981 as “Business areas containing retail centers serving a number of neighborhoods, where retail-type stores predominate.” The project site is located in a “Business Community (BC) Area Subject to Special Use Restrictions” (per Appendix N). Pursuant to the recently adopted Ordinance 8599, density/ intensity in the BC-2 zone is based on Figure 3: Regulatory Floodplain Map Figure 4: Zoning Map Attachment A - January 16, 2024 Planning Board packet Item 5A - 2952 Baseline Rd. Concept Review Page 10 Packet Page 348 of 523 a maximum FAR of 1.5 with a additional 0.5 FAR allowance for project sites located within Appendix N of the Land Use Code. Pursuant to Section 9-6-2(c), B.R.C. 1981, attached residential is allowed as a conditional use in BC-2 subject to specific use standards. Retail uses are allowed by-right. Form and bulk standards in BC-2 require a 20’ foot front yard setback, a 15’ foot side yard setback adjacent to a street, a 0’ or 12’ foot interior side yard setback and a 20 foot rear yard setback. Per Table 7-1 of the land use code, buildings are limited to three stories and 35 feet in the BC-2 zone. Land Use Designation. The Site Review criteria of the land use code section 9-2-14(h), B.R.C. 1981, will be used to evaluate the project and to make findings for any future Site Review approval. Among the findings that must be made is a project’s consistency with the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan policies and Land Use designation. As shown in Figure 5 below, the BVCP land use designation is split between Mixed Use Business (MUB) and Community Business (CB), defined in Chapter III of the 2010 Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan as follows: The BVCP land use designation for the eastern portion of the site was changed from CB to MUB during the 2000 BVCP Update, but the site has never been rezoned to reflect the MUB designation (zoning districts intended to implement the MUB land use designation typically include BMS and the MU zones). Further, The Williams Village Center is identified in the BVCP as a Neighborhood Center (see pg. 37), the intent of which is described as follows: “In addition to serving as neighborhood gathering places, these centers also provide goods and services for the day-to-day needs of nearby residents, workers and students and are easily accessible from surrounding areas by foot, bike and transit. Neighborhood centers contribute to a sense of place and the achievement of walkable (15-minute) places with a mix of uses and range of services.” The BVCP includes guiding principles for Neighborhood Centers. In terms of uses, the guiding principles state that Neighborhood Centers should “include a mix of locally serving retail (e.g., retail anchors, such as grocery stores and personal services such as hair salons or small local markets) and other activities, such as smaller-scale office uses to meet every day needs,” in buildings “at a scale and intensity lower than downtown and the regional centers, ensuring compatibility of buildings with adjacent residential uses decreasing intensity of activity around edges or “transition zones” near neighborhoods. These transition zones should encourage a diversity of low- and medium-density residential uses, such as attached single- family housing, Attachment A - January 16, 2024 Planning Board packet Item 5A - 2952 Baseline Rd. Concept Review Page 11 Packet Page 349 of 523 row homes and a variety of flats” (BVCP, pg. 45). The existing BC-2 zoning is consistent with this Neighborhood Center designation. PROCESS Concept Plan is the initial step in the Site Review process, for which the property is eligible under thresholds established in the Land Use Code section 9-2-14(b)(1)(B), B.R.C. 1981. The next step would be a required Site Review application. The mandatory Concept Plan and Site Review threshold is met by both the nine-acre size of the site which exceeds the two-acre threshold for the BC-2 zoning district as well as the proposed project net FAR of 1.9, which would exceed the 25,000 square foot floor area threshold for the BC-2 zoning district. The purpose of Concept Plan is to review a general development plan for the site, evaluate general architectural characteristics, land uses, and transportation considerations. In addition to Site Review, a Use Review is required for the proposed ground floor residential use. Subdivision (Preliminary and Final Plat) may also be required to consolidate the existing parcels into a single buildable lot. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The applicant is proposing to redevelop the site at 2952 Baseline Road as a mixed-use development made up of six four and five story buildings ranging from 43,000 square feet to 267,050 square feet in size. Based on the metrics provided with the concept review application (see Sheet CP-007 of Attachment A), the current proposal is primarily a residential project, with 610 attached residential units (285 student housing units and 325 non-student housing units) comprising roughly 82% of the total floor area of the development, 69,382 square feet of ground floor commercial uses (comprising 8% of the floor area), a 76,530 square foot hotel use (comprising 6% of the floor area), and a 7,796 square foot restaurant use (comprising 1% of the floor area). Figure 6 below shows the proposed site plan. Figure 5: BVCP Land Use Designations Attachment A - January 16, 2024 Planning Board packet Item 5A - 2952 Baseline Rd. Concept Review Page 12 Packet Page 350 of 523 Site Design. Per the applicant’s written statement (see Attachment A), “The existing superblock is proposed to be broken down with a mid-block L shaped public ROW as shown in the drawings. There are then smaller private streets designed to break the scale down further. The new rights-of-way will be retail streets with residential on the upper floors and parking hidden midblock. The existing Sprouts grocery store will be retained but moved to a new building and location on the northeast corner, bordering the street.” The current proposal appears to show seven vehicular access points, all of which would be right- in, right-out only except for the existing access point just west of MacDonald’s which would be maintained. This configuration, while an improvement compared to existing site conditions, is still not consistent with Section 9-9-5(c)(1), B.R.C. 1981 city access standards which require one access point per property “unless a site plan or traffic study, approved by the city manager, demonstrates that additional access points and curb cuts are required to adequately address accessibility, circulation, and driveway volumes, and only where additional accesses and curb cuts would not impair any public use of any public right-of-way, or create safety or operational problems, or be detrimental to traffic flow on adjacent public streets” The site plan includes a new multi-use path which enters the site mid-block on 30th Street and connects to the US 36 multi-use path at the northwest corner of the site. New detached sidewalks are also shown along 30th Street and along rights-of-way within the development. The applicant has provided a preliminary Trip Generation Report which is included as Attachment D. As shown in Figure 6 above and Figure 7 below, open space for the project is proposed as a mix of at-grade parks, plazas and landscaped setbacks as well as roof-top decks. Per the applicant’s written statement, “There will be a community plaza/amphitheater in the middle of the southwest of the site, sitting at the intersection of the two public streets and the existing bike path, providing a new gathering space and place with which the restaurant and community spaces surrounding it can engage.” Figure 6: Conceptual Site Plan Attachment A - January 16, 2024 Planning Board packet Item 5A - 2952 Baseline Rd. Concept Review Page 13 Packet Page 351 of 523 Land Use – As indicated above, the proposed project includes redevelopment of the site with a mix of attached residential, commercial, and hotel uses totaling approximately 725,989 square feet in floor area. Per the applicant’s written statement, “The existing Sprouts grocery store will be retained but moved to a new building and location on the northeast corner, bordering the street. The current retail and restaurant uses will be retained when possible, and new ones will be added.” Under the current proposal, Buildings A and B are proposed as a mix of ground floor commercial with residential units above. Buildings C and F are proposed as entirely residential (non-student). Building D is proposed as a hotel use with an attached ground floor restaurant with commercial uses above, and Building E is proposed to be entirely student housing. See Figure 8 above for proposed land use diagram. Figure 7: Aerial Rendering of Proposed Project Figure 8: Land Use Diagram Attachment A - January 16, 2024 Planning Board packet Item 5A - 2952 Baseline Rd. Concept Review Page 14 Packet Page 352 of 523 Pursuant to Section 9-6-2(c), B.R.C. 1981, attached residential is allowed as a conditional use in BC-2 subject to specific use standards (see staff’s analysis under “Concept Review Criteria” below for additional information). Retail uses are allowed by right. Because the proposed project includes ground floor residential it would not meet the conditional use standards for attached residential uses in the BC-2 zone and therefore Section 9-6-2(c)(1)(A)(iii) would apply: Use Review: A use that is not allowed by right or as a conditional use may be approved only pursuant to a use review. In addition to meeting the use review criteria, the applicant shall demonstrate that the use on the ground floor or with a combined floor area larger than ten percent of the total floor area, as applicable, will not adversely affect the intended function and character of the area as a neighborhood serving business area where retail-type stores predominate on the ground floor. In determining whether this criterion is met, the reviewing authority shall consider the location and design of the proposed use and the existing and approved uses on the lot or parcel and in the area. Hotel uses are currently prohibited in the BC-2 zone. To allow for the proposed use, one of two options would need to occur: (1) an ordinance to change the Use Table in Section 9-6-1 to allow for the proposed use in BC-2; or (2) that portion of the site would need to be subdivided and rezoned to a zone district which permits hotels. The underlying land use designation on that portion of the site is Mixed Use Business (MUB), so it would theoretically be possible to demonstrate “that the proposed rezoning is necessary to come into compliance with the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan map” per Section 9-2-19(e)(1), B.R.C. 1981; however, the only potentially viable zoning district consistent with the MUB land use designation which also allows hotel uses (through Use Review) is Business Main Street (BMS), which has a substantially lower maximum FAR of 0.67 and currently only exists in specific mixed use corridors such as the Hill, the western portion of Pearl Street and the Transit Village. Building Massing and Articulation. As noted above, all the proposed buildings are either four or five stories in height, and the project would therefore require approval of a height modification through Site Review. While the application packet does not include specific architectural elevations, the applicant has provided numerous reference images and renderings as well as massing diagrams illustrating the desired scale and style of the buildings. The applicant’s written statement notes that the location of the project site between the Williams Village towers and the raised portion of US 36 would likely reduce the perceived height of the buildings from the west; however, based on the site’s designation as a Neighborhood Center within the BVCP, staff has expressed concerns regarding the proposed scale and a desire for a more appropriate transition to the smaller scale buildings to the north at time of Site Review (see staff’s analysis of BVCP policies under Key Issues below). As shown in Figures 7 and 8 above, Building A is shown with an upper story setback, while the other buildings are generally uniform in height except for large rooftop decks. Architecture. The application packet includes several reference images to illustrate the proposed project’s architectural intent but does not provide any specific information on materials. See staff’s comments under “Concept Review Criteria” for related Site Review considerations. Figure 9 below shows reference images provided by the applicant, and Figure 10 shows some of the architectural renderings provided with the application packet. Attachment A - January 16, 2024 Planning Board packet Item 5A - 2952 Baseline Rd. Concept Review Page 15 Packet Page 353 of 523 Figure 9: Architectural Precedents Attachment A - January 16, 2024 Planning Board packet Item 5A - 2952 Baseline Rd. Concept Review Page 16 Packet Page 354 of 523 Parking. Per the applicant’s written statement, “The majority of the parking will be internal to the block in the northeast corner of the site, hidden behind buildings. This is anticipated to be a parking garage with four to five levels of parking above grade and a story below grade. Most users on site will utilize this central parking location, which is anticipated to generally follow Figure 10: Architectural Renderings of Proposed Project Attachment A - January 16, 2024 Planning Board packet Item 5A - 2952 Baseline Rd. Concept Review Page 17 Packet Page 355 of 523 SUMP principles. There will also be street parking throughout, along with a small amount of parking on the north side adjacent to the grocery store where buildings will not be allowed due to the storm water path, and the parking there will facilitate quick trips.” The parking standards are found in Section 9-9-6, B.R.C. 1981. Parking for residential uses in BC-2 is based on bedroom count. The applicant has not indicated the number of bedrooms proposed for the units but has shown a proposed parking count of one space per unit. Assuming that there will be some units that have more than one bedroom, a parking reduction will likely be required, although the extent of the reduction cannot be determined at this time. Parking for nonresidential uses in BC-2 is required at a ratio of one space per 300 square feet of floor area, so the proposed 69,382 square feet of commercial space would require 231 spaces where the application shows 148 designated commercial spaces or a parking reduction of approximately 36%. The details of the proposed parking will be required at time of Site Review, and a request for a parking reduction would need to demonstrate compliance with the review criteria in Section 9-2-14(h)(2)(E) and (h)(2)(L) of the Boulder Revised Code. CONCEPT PLAN REVIEW CRITERIA, SECTION 9-2-13(e), B.R.C. 1981 Guidelines for Review and Comment: The following guidelines will be used to guide the Planning Board’s discussion regarding the site. It is anticipated that issues other than those listed in this section will be identified as part of the Concept Plan review and comment process. The Planning Board may consider the following guidelines when providing comments on a concept plan: (1) Characteristics of the site and surrounding areas, including, without limitation, its location, surrounding neighborhoods, development and architecture, any known natural depressions, steep slopes and prominent views to and from the site; See description under “Background” above for characteristics of the site and surrounding area. (2) Community policy considerations including, without limitation, the review process and likely conformity of the proposed development with the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP) and other ordinances, goals, policies, and plans, including, without limitation, sub-community and sub-area plans; As noted above in the “Background” section, the site is designated as Mixed-Use Business and Community Business within the BVCP. In terms of conformity of the proposed development with the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan, the current proposal appears to be generally consistent with the Mixed-Use Business designation in that it consists mainly of housing with some commercial uses. Conformity with the CB land use designation is less clear, as the desired characteristics of the CB land use designation are geared more towards neighborhood-serving commercial uses than residential uses. In general, the project appears to support a number of BVCP policies related to housing, and the project’s utilization of an infill site is consistent with several policies pertaining to sustainable urban form. The current proposal raises concerns regarding several other BVCP policies. These policies are listed below with a brief description of staff’s concerns: As noted above, the Williams Village Center is identified in the BVCP as a Neighborhood Center, the intent of which is to “provide goods and services for the day-to-day needs…[including] a mix of locally serving retail (e.g., retail anchors, such as grocery stores and personal services such as hair salons or small local markets) and other activities, such as Attachment A - January 16, 2024 Planning Board packet Item 5A - 2952 Baseline Rd. Concept Review Page 18 Packet Page 356 of 523 smaller-scale office uses” in buildings “at a scale and intensity lower than downtown and the regional centers, ensuring compatibility of buildings with adjacent residential uses decreasing intensity of activity around edges or “transition zones” near neighborhoods. These transition zones should encourage a diversity of low- and medium-density residential uses, such as attached single- family housing, row homes and a variety of flats” (BVCP, pg. 45). The existing BC-2 zoning is consistent with this Neighborhood Center designation. Based on the metrics provided with the concept review application (Sheet CP-007), the current proposal is primarily a residential project, with attached residential uses (combined student and non-student housing) comprising roughly 82% of the overall floor area of the development, “commercial” uses comprising roughly 8% of the floor area, hotel comprising 6%, and restaurant uses a mere 1%. Such a percentage breakdown is arguably inconsistent with the intent of both the CB and MUB land use designations and is clearly inconsistent with the desired characteristics of Neighborhood Centers as outlined in the BVCP. Further, the current proposal does little to achieve a transition in scale to surrounding uses and neighborhoods, with the majority of the building frontages along the site’s boundary being five stories in height and all of the buildings being a minimum of four stories in height. Given that the site lies immediately across from a low-density single-family neighborhood and that the existing business across Baseline are all below 35 feet in height, the proposed building heights and massing appear to be inconsistent with several BVCP policies related to the Built Environment, including 2.33 Sensitive Infill & Redevelopment, 2.36 Physical Design for People, and elements of 2.41 Enhanced Design for All Projects. Given the somewhat unique circumstances related to the site’s land use designations and zoning (primarily that the site’s BC-2 zoning and designation as a Neighborhood Center in the BVCP are not entirely consistent with the underlying MUB land use designation which applies to the majority of the site), additional community policy considerations the Planning Board may wish to discuss could include whether the underlying MUB land use designation, which was applied in 2000, is still appropriate for the site and if so, whether the current BC-2 zoning is still appropriate for the site or whether a Mixed Use zoning district may in fact be more appropriate. . (3) Applicable criteria, review procedures, and submission requirements for a site review; Per Table 2-2, “Site Review Threshold Table,” section 9-2-14, B.R.C. 1981, Concept Plan and Site Review are required in the BC-2 zone district for properties over 2 acres in size or that include over 25,000 square feet of floor area. Therefore, if the applicant moves forward with the proposal, approval of a Site Review application would be required. Decision on the application would be based on the Site Review criteria of Section 9-2-14(h), B.R.C. 1981. Submittal requirements are based on those specified in the land use code, including but not limited, detailed site plans, landscape plans, floor plans and elevations, preliminary storm water and utility plans etc. Site Review is required due to the size of the site and proposed project and the modifications to the land use code being requested. Applicable Criteria. At the time of site review the proposed project will be evaluated for conformance with the following: • Site Review criteria in Section 9-2-14(h) of the Land Use Code; • Use Review criteria in Section 9-2-15(e) of the Land Use Code; • The land use designations in the BVCP; • All relevant policies of the BVCP; • BC-2 Zoning regulations; Attachment A - January 16, 2024 Planning Board packet Item 5A - 2952 Baseline Rd. Concept Review Page 19 Packet Page 357 of 523 • The City of Boulder Design and Construction Standards (DCS). In terms of the project’s likely consistency with the Site Review criteria, staff has provided a preliminary analysis of key criteria below. • 9-2-14(h)(2) Site Design Criteria: • (A) Access, Transportation, and Mobility: Staff has expressed significant concerns with the project’s proposed access and circulation (see staff review comments included as Attachment B). The current proposal, while reducing the overall number of existing access points, would still greatly exceed the City of Boulder access standards and would likely exacerbate traffic and safety issues both on Baseline and 30th Street. Significant consideration will need to be given to reducing the overall number of access points and allowing for additional westbound turning movements from the site. A detailed Traffic Impact Study will be required at time of Site Review to demonstrate how the project will comply with TMP requirements and improve rather than exacerbate existing traffic issues in the area. A Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan will also be required to demonstrate how the project will encourage nonauto travel modes. • (B) Open Space: As noted in the staff review comments, the current site plan/layout presented in the Illustrative Site Plan lacks functional open space areas and effective landscape areas, appearing to relegate much of the planned open space to roof decks. Plazas appear as residual spaces formed by architectural voids, nominal in size, function, and amenity. Significant changes to the open space and associated landscaping will be required for the project to meet Landscaping requirements in accordance with the City of Boulder Land Use Code, Sections 9-9-12, 9-9-13, and 9-9-14, B.R.C. 1981 in addition to Open Space, Landscaping, and Screening criteria as defined in 9-2-14, B.R.C 1981. • (C) Landscaping and Screening: As noted above, staff has significant concerns with the current proposal’s consistency with City Landscaping and Open Space Requirements. At time of site review, a summary table of landscape requirements per section 9-9-12(d)(1)(J) BRC 1981 will be required to determine the extent of required landscape improvements. In development of the landscape-related submittals for Site Review, the applicant will need to provide a landscape plan and tree inventory (9-2-14(d), B.R.C. 1981) detailing proposed landscape improvements consistent with the Landscape Site Review Criteria (9-2-14(h) (2)(C), B.R.C. 1981) as well as a detailed narrative defining how all Site Review Landscaping Criteria are being met through the proposed development application. • 9-2-14(h)(3) Building Siting and Design Criteria: • (A) Building Siting and Public Realm Interface: Again, staff has expressed significant concerns with the current project’s building siting and public realm interface. Specifically, while the project appears to appropriately deemphasize parking areas and places building frontages close to the street to create an urban context, the project does not provide a transition in scale to neighboring lower-intensity zoning districts and also presents some concerns regarding the overall length of individual four and five story building frontages along rights-of-way. • (B) Building Design: As noted above, the current application provides little in the way of architectural detail. Based on the materials provided with the application, staff’s primary concerns relate to the provision of a variety of roof forms and heights, use of fenestration and architectural detailing to create visual interest, transparency, and a sense of connection to the public realm, and ensuring that the design of the buildings will be compatible with the Attachment A - January 16, 2024 Planning Board packet Item 5A - 2952 Baseline Rd. Concept Review Page 20 Packet Page 358 of 523 character of the area or improve upon that character, consistent with the intent of paragraph (3), Building Design Criteria. • (C) Building Materials: Again, given the lack of detail provided with the application, staff cannot provide a detailed analysis of these criteria. However, based on the renderings and precedent images, it appears that the applicant has taken the Site Review criteria for building materials into consideration. At time of site review, special consideration should be given to how materials/building cladding are assigned across the buildings. Given the high visibility of the site, the applicant should consider how to incorporate high quality materials on all sides of the building in a way that meets this criterion while also being economically feasible. • It should also be noted that in addition to the general Site Review criteria listed above, the project as proposed would be required to comply with the “Additional Criteria for Buildings Requiring Height Modification” found in Section 9-2-14(h)(4) of the land use code. Currently, there are two criteria with which the proposed project appears inconsistent, including: (A)(i) The building does not exceed 200 feet in length along any public right-of-way. (A)(ii) All building facades exceeding 120 feet in length along a public street, excluding alleys, are designed to appear as at least two distinct buildings. • Height Modification. 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 BC-2 zone. A modification to Section 9-7-5, “Building Height” would be 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 only three are permitted by right. Per Section 9-2-14(g), a public hearing before Planning Board is required for an application that includes a height modification. Per Section 9-2-14(b)(1)(E) of the land use code, properties within the BC-2 zone districts are currently eligible for height modification requests. The project would be subject to the adopted Community Benefit requirements of Section 9-2-14(h)(6)(C), B.R.C. 1981 as there is floor area above a third story in a fourth and fifth floor above the zoning district height limit. Conditions of approval for the Site Review would be applied to any approved development that would ensure compliance with the community benefit regulations. The additional floor area permitted with the height modification (“bonus floor area”) would be used to determine the required number of “bonus units”, e.g., residential units above the 25% Inclusionary Housing requirement. 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 community benefit provisions of Section 9-2-14(h)(6)(C), B.R.C. 1981, were adopted to implement Policy 1.12 of the BVCP which states that the city will consider additional height (up to the City Charter 55-foot height limit) as an incentive in exchange for community benefits that further other community objectives, such as the provision of permanently affordable housing. The proposal provides an important community benefit by providing an in-lieu fee payment that helps fund permanently affordable housing in the city. Submission Requirements. At the time of site review, the following items will be required: a. Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan that outlines strategies to mitigate traffic Attachment A - January 16, 2024 Planning Board packet Item 5A - 2952 Baseline Rd. Concept Review Page 21 Packet Page 359 of 523 impacts created by the proposed development with implementable measures for promoting alternate modes of travel. b. Traffic Impact Study is required since the project’s trip generation is shown to exceed the residential development threshold of 20 vehicles trips or greater during any single hour in the peak period. c. Preliminary Storm Water Report and Plan to address storm water runoff, water quality treatment issues, and detention ponding. Existing detention ponds are present on the proposed site. d. Utility Report to establish the impacts of this project on the City of Boulder utility systems and outline water main and wastewater main construction necessary to serve the development and perpetuate the overall system. e. A water system distribution analysis in order to assess the impacts and service demands of the proposed development and to demonstrate conformance with the Treated Water Master Plan, October 2011. f. A collection system analysis to determine any system impacts based on the proposed demands of the development and to demonstrate conformance with the city’s Wastewater Collection System Master Plan, July 2016. g. A detailed tree inventory including the species, size and condition of all existing trees on the site. h. A Landscape plan that is consistent with, and exceeds, city code requirements, including a landscape requirements table as described in Section 9-9-12(d)(1)(j), B.R.C. 1981, to verify that the development is meeting and exceeding the minimum landscape requirements. The applicant is responsible for designing and implementing a comprehensive landscape plan, including a functional, efficient, and appropriate plant palette, plant layout, water conservation strategies, hardscape layout, and open space program in keeping with site review and landscape criteria outlined in the land use code. All rights of way will be required to be planted with street trees and understory shrub plantings in conforming to the site review criteria and the landscaping and screening standards and streetscape design standards in the land use code. (4) Permits that may need to be obtained and processes that may need to be completed prior to, concurrent with, or subsequent to site review approval; Historic Preservation Demolition Review application. If the building(s) are determined to be potentially eligible for designation, staff may recommend a landmark designation application be submitted as a condition of Site Review per BVCP Policy 2.27, Preservation of Historic & Cultural Resources. The designation application may be held in agreement between the owner and the City, typically until Site Review approval. If exterior changes are proposed, review through a Landmark Alteration Certificate would occur concurrent to the Site Review Process, and prior to Planning Board review. Following Site Review approval, if approved, the applicant is required to submit an application for Technical Document (TEC doc) Review prior to application for building permit. The intent in the TEC doc review is to ensure that technical details are resolved such as drainage and transportation issues that may require supplemental analyses. Because the project site is affected by the regulatory floodplain including the 100-year, Conveyance and High Hazard zones, a Floodplain Development Permit will also be required for any new development. In addition to Site Review, a Use Review is required for the proposed ground floor residential use. Subdivision (Preliminary and Final Plat) will also be required in order to consolidate the existing parcels into a single buildable lot. Attachment A - January 16, 2024 Planning Board packet Item 5A - 2952 Baseline Rd. Concept Review Page 22 Packet Page 360 of 523 The proposed layout of the site impacts the 100-year floodplain and Conveyance Zone of Skunk Creek which will alter floodway delineations and base flood elevations. Preparation and approval of a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) to the City and FEMA, that demonstrates compliance with FEMA regulations, is required to revise the current NFIP map and requires a separate floodplain development permit. In the case where the proposed project increases the base flood elevation more than 0.0 foot in a floodway or proposed to relocate a floodway, a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) is required. Engineered analysis and modeling are required for both LOMRs and CLOMRs and the review process may take more than 9 months to complete for each mapping process. If a CLOMR is required, it must be approved prior to a final staff recommendation on any Site Review application. (5) Opportunities and constraints in relation to the transportation system, including, without limitation, access, linkage, signalization, signage, and circulation, existing transportation system capacity problems serving the requirements of the transportation master plan, possible trail links, and the possible need for a traffic or transportation study; The current site presents several opportunities related to the transportation system. As mentioned above, there are currently nine access points to the site, not including the three additional access points serving the MacDonald’s and Baseline Crossing sites. Of the four existing access points on Baseline Rd., only one, located between Baseline Crossing and MacDonald’s, is a two-way turn, with the remainder being right-in right-out only. Similarly, the existing access points on 30th Street are also right-in right-out only with the exception of the access serving the Cosmo’s Pizza building. With only a single drive aisle providing access to westbound lanes on Baseline, the current access configuration severely limits opportunities for westbound travel from the site, with U-turns on either 30th Street or at the signaled intersection of 30th and Baseline being required for the majority of exit points from the site. Both 30th Street and Baseline have landscaped medians running along the majority of the site frontages, and as such would need to be modified in order to provide additional left-turn opportunities. Within the site, connectivity is largely circuitous and vehicle-oriented, with limited segments of sidewalk making pedestrian travel across the site difficult. There is an existing multi-use path running along US 36 which provides three access points to the site, each of which leads to either a drive lane crossing or a parking lot. There is also a multi-use path along Baseline Rd on the northern property boundary, which crosses seven existing vehicular access points. Similarly, the existing sidewalk on the eastern property boundary along 30th Street crosses five vehicular access points and dead ends at the southern end of the site. Overall, while the multi-use path along US 36 provides safe north-south pedestrian and bicycle travel past the site, pedestrian and bicycle travel within the site and along both 30th and Baseline presents a number of potential conflict points with vehicles and is largely undesirable. The current proposal appears to show seven vehicular access points, all of which would be right-in, right-out only except for the existing access point just west of MacDonald’s which would be maintained. This configuration, while a slight improvement compared to existing site conditions, is still not consistent with city access standards which require one access point per property “unless a site plan or traffic study, approved by the city manager, demonstrates that additional access points and curb cuts are required to adequately address accessibility, circulation, and driveway volumes, and only where additional accesses and curb cuts would not impair any public use of any public right-of-way, or create safety or operational problems, or be detrimental to traffic flow on adjacent public streets” (Section 9-9-5(c)(1), B.R.C. 1981). Please see staff’s review comments included as Attachment B for additional details. Attachment A - January 16, 2024 Planning Board packet Item 5A - 2952 Baseline Rd. Concept Review Page 23 Packet Page 361 of 523 (6) Environmental opportunities and constraints including, without limitation, the identification of wetlands, important view corridors, floodplains and other natural hazards, wildlife corridors, endangered and protected species and habitats, the need for further biological inventories of the site and at what point in the process the information will be necessary; As mentioned above, the existing site is fully developed, and as such does not include any wetlands, wildlife habitats or protected areas. The site is affected by the 100-year and conveyance flood zones, and as such the project would be required to obtain a floodplain development permit pursuant to Section 9-3-6, B.R.C. 1981. There are existing views of the flatirons from within and near the site which will need to be taken into consideration with the final site and building design. (7) Appropriate ranges of land uses; Please see staff’s analysis under “Land Use” above for a full description of the proposed land uses and associated zoning-related issues. Staff notes that the current proposal appears to remove a number of existing neighborhood-serving businesses, with the proposed amount of new commercial space being significantly lower than what currently exists on the site. While the applicant indicates their intent to relocate the Sprouts Market into a new commercial space, the proposal overall seems to be predicated on the removal of all of the other existing businesses on the site. In addition to the Dark Horse and the Broker Inn which may have historic significance, many of the existing businesses on the site are valued assets to the surrounding neighborhoods. If the applicant moves forward with a Use Review for the proposed ground floor residential, these factors will be taken into consideration. Staff encourages the applicant to provide additional information on what discussions, if any, have been had with existing tenants regarding possible retention/ relocation to new space within the project. (8) The appropriateness of or necessity for housing. Overall, given the site’s proximity and multimodal connectivity to the University of Colorado, staff finds that the project site is an appropriate location for student housing. The site’s size and location also make it appropriate for additional residential density in the form of attached units. That being said, the site presents a number of challenges, both in terms of the land use designation and zoning standards as well as the physical constraints related to transportation and the floodplain. While staff understands the applicant’s desire to maximize the development potential of the site, the current project scope likely exceeds what can feasibly be constructed. Staff encourages the applicant to rethink the project in terms of the maximum number of units that could be provided while still meeting the BVCP goals for Neighborhood Centers, meeting city access and transportation standards and floodplain development requirements, and maintaining or enhancing the character of the surrounding area. KEY ISSUE DISCUSSION Key Issue #1: Is the proposed concept plan generally compatible with the goals, objectives, and recommendations of the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP)? Please see staff’s response to Concept Review criterion #2 above for information relevant to the project’s compatibility with BVCP goals, objectives and recommendations. As mentioned above, The Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP) Land Use designation for the site is Community Business and Mixed Use Business, which are described in the BVCP as: Attachment A - January 16, 2024 Planning Board packet Item 5A - 2952 Baseline Rd. Concept Review Page 24 Packet Page 362 of 523 As noted above, the site is also designated as a Neighborhood Center in the BVCP. BVCP Policy 2.19, Neighborhood Centers, describes the desired characteristics of areas designated as Community Business: “Neighborhood centers often contain the economic, social and cultural opportunities that allow neighborhoods to thrive and for people to come together. The city will encourage neighborhood centers to provide pedestrian-friendly and welcoming environments with a mix of land uses. The city acknowledges and respects the diversity of character and needs of its neighborhood centers and will pursue area planning efforts to support evolution of these centers to become mixed-use places and strive to accomplish the guiding principles noted below.” Attachment A - January 16, 2024 Planning Board packet Item 5A - 2952 Baseline Rd. Concept Review Page 25 Packet Page 363 of 523 As discussed above, the BC-2 zone district is intended to implement the desired characteristics of neighborhood centers described in the BVCP, and includes specific conditional use requirements for attached residential uses. As noted in the Concept Review Criteria above, because the majority of the ground floor of the proposed project consists of residential floor area, staff finds that the current proposal does not meet the conditional use standards for attached residential uses in the BC-2 zone and would therefore require a Use Review to demonstrate that the use on the ground floor…will not adversely affect the intended function and character of the area as a neighborhood serving business area where retail-type stores predominate on the ground floor. In determining whether this criterion is met, the reviewing authority shall consider the location and design of the proposed use and the existing and approved uses on the lot or parcel and in the area. Key takeaways from this discussion would be whether Planning Board finds that this project complies with BVCP goals related to Community Business areas and whether there are any other BVCP goals or policies with which the board finds the project either consistent or inconsistent. Key Issue #2: Does Planning Board have feedback for the applicant on the conceptual site plan and building design? Staff’s initial assessment of the proposed site and building design is included under “Concept Review Criteria” above. As noted therein, staff finds that overall, the current proposal has numerous issues in terms of site access and circulation, building massing and scale, landscaping and open space, and impacts to the floodplain. There may also be issues related to historic preservation, which are yet undetermined. Staff has notified the applicant of the specific site review criteria that will be central to the review of the final project plans and has made clear that additional details will be required on several different project elements. Key takeaways from this discussion will be whether there are any building or site design considerations the applicant should take into account to improve or enhance the project’s consistency with the Site Review criteria and compatibility with the surrounding area. The Board may also wish to focus on the design and operating characteristics of the proposed open space, the ground-level building design along the rights-of-way, and any concerns related to the proposed access and circulation. Key Issue #3: Is the proposed building height of 55 feet in general proportion to the height of existing buildings in the area and the proposed or projected heights of buildings in the area? As discussed in the Concept Review criteria analysis above, 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 BC-2 zone. A modification to Section 9-7-5, “Building Height” would be 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 only three are permitted by right. Per Section 9-2-14(g), a public hearing before Planning Board is required for an application that includes a height modification. Attachment A - January 16, 2024 Planning Board packet Item 5A - 2952 Baseline Rd. Concept Review Page 26 Packet Page 364 of 523 Key questions for the Planning Board pertain to the Building and Site Design Requirements for Height Modifications found in the Site Review criteria and include: 1. Does the Board find that the building heights are compatible with the character of the area or improve upon that character, consistent with the intent of paragraph (3), Building Design Criteria? 2. Are the building’s form, massing and length designed to a human scale and to create visual permeability into and through sites? 3. If the Board finds the building height is not compatible with the height of buildings in the surrounding area, is the project near enough to an area of redevelopment where a higher intensity of use and similar building height is anticipated to justify the increased building height? 4. Does the project preserve and take advantage of prominent mountain views from public spaces and from common areas within the project? In determining whether this is met, the approving authority will consider the following factors: i. If there are prominent mountain views from the site, usable open spaces on the site or elevated common areas on the building are located and designed to allow users of the site access to such views; CONCLUSION No action is required by Planning Board. Planning Board, Public and staff comments will be documented for use by the applicant. Concept Plan review and comment is intended to give the applicant preliminary feedback on the development concepts, and direction for site review applications. Attachment A - January 16, 2024 Planning Board packet Item 5A - 2952 Baseline Rd. Concept Review Page 27 Packet Page 365 of 523 By: Brad Mueller, Secretary to the Planning Board Attachments: A: Applicant’s Proposed Plans and Written Statement B: DRC Review Comments C: Public Comments D: Trip Generation Report Attachment A - January 16, 2024 Planning Board packet Item 5A - 2952 Baseline Rd. Concept Review Page 28 Packet Page 366 of 523 July 10, 2023 Williams Village, Boulder, CO Concept Plan Review – Written Statement Introduction This new neighborhood for Williams Village will encompass the area bordered by Baseline, Highway 36, and 30th Street, but does not include the newer development on the northwest corner of the site or the McDonald’s site. The land is owned by the Williams family, and the intent is to transform the existing car dominated parking lot and strip mall into a vibrant, fully functioning neighborhood with a variety of uses including retail and residential. Urban Repair The area is currently auto dominated and fully paved, with no allowance for pedestrians and zero walkability. It is directly between the CU Williams Towers and the University of Colorado, and therefore sees a very large amount of daily foot traffic from the thousands of students that live to the east of the site. These pedestrians use the sidewalk along Baseline, the bike path along 36, and walk freely through the parking lot. While the paths of travel are currently neither clear nor safe, the number of pedestrians has made the retail spaces vibrant and busy. It is the aim of the site plan to repair this broken urban fabric, creating real pedestrian focused streets with outdoor rooms, engagement with retail and community areas to both augment and harness the existing pedestrian energy with on-site residential, a fully walkable urban design, and retail and community interaction. The existing superblock is proposed to be broken down with a mid-block L shaped public ROW as shown in the drawings. There are then smaller private streets designed to break the scale down further. The new rights-of-way will be retail streets with residential on the upper floors and parking hidden midblock. The existing Sprouts grocery store will be retained but moved to a new building and location on the northeast corner, bordering the street. The current retail and restaurant uses will be retained when possible, and new ones will be added. An interconnected network of open space and pedestrian ways will be added to the site. Sidewalks will be walkable throughout. A new bike/pedestrian path, shown on the drawings in green, will run east to west and connect Williams Village to the bike path through the middle of the site, provide a safe and engaging way for students to get to and from campus, energizing the streets. There will be a community plaza/amphitheater in the middle of the southwest of the site, sitting at the intersection of the two public streets and the existing bike path, providing a new gathering space and place with which the restaurant and community spaces surrounding it can engage. There will be a small parking area on the north side of the site adjacent to the grocery Attachment A - January 16, 2024 Planning Board packet Item 5A - 2952 Baseline Rd. Concept Review Page 29 Packet Page 367 of 523 store, which will allow the current flood path to remain unchanged (see below for more detail) allow a small amount of grocery and/or restaurant parking, and provide an opportunity for food trucks, outdoor markets, and other events to occur with great public visibility and engagement with the Baseline sidewalk. Community Benefits This project will satisfy a host of city goals. It will provide a large amount of student housing very near the university, reducing stress on the rest of the city’s residential units. It will provide a host of residential units for the general population near employers, mass transit and traffic corridors. It will provide a large amount of new affordable housing units, most likely by contributing a large amount of cash-in-lieu to the housing department. It will repair the current auto dominated urban fabric, create new, safer pedestrian paths, new sidewalks, and walkable streets. It will increase services to existing residential populations. It will take a parking lot and transform it into a neighborhood. Stormwater There is currently a stormwater path that runs through the site (see drawings). This plan proposes that the entrance flow and exit flow volumes and locations will remain unchanged, and that the flow paths within the site are largely left as they are now. They will be shifted slightly to line up with the proposed ROWs which will allow a normal street pattern and will allow the buildings to remain out of the conveyance zones. Some structures may touch the 100-year flood plain, and if they do, they will be compliant with the regulations for that condition. Height The buildings are proposed to be 4 and 5 stories throughout the site. As such, they will plan to contribute the community benefit fees as required for buildings asking for additional floors. It is important to note that this site is between the Williams Village towers to the east, which are quite a bit taller than the City of Boulder height limit, the existing and proposed 55’ tall student housing buildings to the north along 28th, and the raised portion of route 36 to the west. Since 36 is raised in elevation so much at this site, the bottom story or two of these buildings will be hidden from the west, greatly lowering the perceived height of the site from that side. Parking The majority of the parking will be internal to the block in the northeast corner of the site, hidden behind buildings. This is anticipated to be a parking garage with 4-5 levels of parking above grade and a story below grade. Most users on site will utilize this central parking location, which is anticipated to generally follow SUMP principles. There will also be street parking throughout, Attachment A - January 16, 2024 Planning Board packet Item 5A - 2952 Baseline Rd. Concept Review Page 30 Packet Page 368 of 523 along with a small amount of parking on the north side adjacent to the grocery store where buildings will not be allowed due to the storm water path, and the parking there will facilitate quick trips. BC-2 and the Impending Code Change As the site is BC-2, under the current code the proposed project would exceed the limitation on the number of units (this is proposed at approximately 600-650 units not including hotel rooms.) Therefore, the proposed project is contingent on the passing of the proposed ordinance change to BC-2. As currently understood, that proposed code change would allow for an unlimited number of units, an open space requirement, and an FAR limitation. The changed code requirement for open space for buildings up to 55’ is currently proposed to be 20%, and this site plan exceeds that number (see drawings). The proposal currently sits at a net FAR of 1.9, assuming that BC2 is added to the code table showing FAR adjustments and parking garages dill not count toward FAR. This is consistent with what was proposed by a council member at the last hearing for the BC zones, which was a base FAR of 1.5 and then a bonus of up to another .5 FAR for sites that are shown in Appendix N in the Land Use Code. That proposal would allow a total of up to 2.0 in these neighborhood centers that are BC zones, and this project would comply with those metrics. Concept Plan Written Statement Requirements (A) Techniques and Strategies for environmental impact avoidance, minimization, or mitigation: The current site is completely paved. The new plan will introduce landscaping, greenery, and nature into the neighborhood. It will not change the flow of stormwater on or off the site edges and will leave the flow paths largely intact with a simple shift of the current channels. The neighborhood will be highly walkable, de-emphasis the automobile, and encourage biking, lowering energy consumption. The modern buildings will be highly sustainable, lowering resource use. (B) Techniques and strategies for practical and economically feasible travel demand management techniques, including without limitation, site design, land use, covenants, transit passes, parking restrictions, information or education materials, or programs that may reduce single-occupant vehicle trip generation to and from the site: This site will complete the connection between the student housing to the east and CU to the west, allowing large numbers of pedestrians and cyclists to have safe and engaging passage between the two locations. New sidewalks, bike paths, and plazas Attachment A - January 16, 2024 Planning Board packet Item 5A - 2952 Baseline Rd. Concept Review Page 31 Packet Page 369 of 523 will allow pedestrian friendly experiences. The site is directly adjacent to many bus routes and bike paths, allowing easy access to the surrounding community without a car. The parking will be hidden mid-block, de-emphasizing the car and prioritizing alt modes. (C) Proposed land uses and, if it is a development that includes residential housing type, mix, sizes, and anticipated sale prices, the percentage of affordable units to be included; special design characteristics that may be needed to assure affordability: The drawings show the location of the proposed land uses. There is planned to be attached market rate housing, student housing, retail spaces, a boutique hotel, a grocer, neighborhood services uses and restaurants. The intent is to create a functional neighborhood with appropriate uses on the street, residential above to create energy in the public spaces, and a mix of users. The project will meet the requirements of the City of Boulder affordable housing program, but the method of compliance is not known at this time. Specific examples of consistency with the purposes and policies of the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan have been added below: 1.11 Jobs: Housing Balance: This project creates housing where there are services to support them, and additionally adds support services within the development. 1.12 Enhanced Community Benefit: The project, by virtue of asking for additional stories, will pay these fees. 1.22 Channeling Development to Areas with Adequate Infrastructure: This development would be in an area of town that already has excellent infrastructure of all types. 2.03 Compact Development Pattern: This is an urban site and the proposal reflects this with a compact, walkable development pattern, allowing the broken urban fabric of this site to be repaired. 2.05 Design of Community Edges and Gateways: Currently the site is a sea of parking. The creation of an actual urban edge will enhance the gateway to Boulder. 2.09 Neighborhoods as Building Blocks: This proposal will take an auto dominated parking lot and transform it into a functional neighborhood with a distinct and unique character, with its own services, and outdoor spaces for pedestrians. Attachment A - January 16, 2024 Planning Board packet Item 5A - 2952 Baseline Rd. Concept Review Page 32 Packet Page 370 of 523 2.14 Mix of Complementary Land Uses: The proposal would add needed residential units to what is now a strip mall. It will also bring more services to the surrounding area to be used by neighboring residential. 2.15 Compatibility of Adjacent Land Uses: The proposal will help bridge the scale between the very tall towers of Williams Village and the surrounding City fabric. 2.16 Mixed Use & Higher-Density Development: This project will provide higher density housing in an appropriate area next to strong multimodal connections and walkable destinations. 2.19 Neighborhood Centers: The proposal promotes all of the guiding principles of neighborhood centers as outlined by the BVCP · Provide services for the everyday needs of the surrounding communities (service uses, grocer, restaurants, retail, walkable connections, etc) · Ensure appropriate scale transitions (help brings the scale down toward the Williams towers to the east and helps bring the scale up from the residential to the west – especially since much of each building will be hidden on the west side by the raised roadway of highway 36.) · Encourage a richness of transportation amenities (robust bike and ped connections including a new path through the heart of the site, excellent connections to existing bike paths, and excellent bus route service, along with the alt mode methods that this project will use.) · Encourage parking management strategies (central, hidden, shared parking that is aligned with SUMP principles, and highly limited surface parking.) · Ensure comfort and safety (unimpeded connections and pedestrian enhancements throughout the site, converting the current parking lot into a real neighborhood with walkable streets.) 2.24 Commitment to a walkable city: This project will add and enhance walkable paths through a site which current is unsafe and unwelcoming for pedestrians 2.33 Sensitive Infill & Redevelopment: This project is an enhancement to the existing urban fabric in the area, repairing the currently broken condition. 2.35 Building Height: The project is intending to pay into the community benefit program due to its height. Attachment A - January 16, 2024 Planning Board packet Item 5A - 2952 Baseline Rd. Concept Review Page 33 Packet Page 371 of 523 2.36 Physical Design For People: The project puts the pedestrian and the resident first, and designs the site and buildings in a way which will support the human experience. It creates a pedestrian grid where one does not currently exist. 2.38 Importance of Urban Canopy, Street Trees, and Streetscapes: The site is currently fully paved. The addition of the street and attendant street trees will create and urban canopy for the first time. 2.41 Enhanced Design for All Projects: · Context: the project will repair the broken urban fabric and allow the surrounding areas to tie together · Relationship to the public realm: the project will create public areas on site for the first time, including plazas, streets, path and sidewalks · Transportation connections: the project will complete the street network, connect bikes paths, and create multimodal opportunities · Parking: the vast majority of the parking will be hidden on the interior of block, playing a subordinate role to the buildings and public areas · Human scale and art in public areas: the current parking lot will be replaced by an interconnected network of public spaces and locations for gathering and art · Permeability: the new streets, paths and walks will create permeability throughout the site, which currently has none · On-site open spaces: the new site plan creates a host of on-site open space, including plazas, parking that can be used for events, courtyards, and rooftop open space · Buildings: the buildings will be designed around the pedestrian experience, creating community and interaction within the neighborhood 3.22 Floodplain Management: The proposal leaves largely unchanged the historic and modeled flow patterns of storm water through the site. See drawings. 3.26 Protection of Water Quality: current the site is entirely paved with no water quality features. The new project will meet codes for water quality, greatly improve the environmental impacts 4.07 Energy Efficient Land Use: The project will create a compact development pattern in an area well served by businesses and alternative transportation. It is ideal for sustainable land use. 5.01 Revitalizing Commercial and Industrial Areas: the current site is an inhospitable parking lot, much like Diagonal Plaza used to be, and this proposal will turn it into a vibrant, mixed use neighborhood. Attachment A - January 16, 2024 Planning Board packet Item 5A - 2952 Baseline Rd. Concept Review Page 34 Packet Page 372 of 523 5.03 Diverse Mix of Unit Types & 5.04 Vital and Productive Retail Base: the diverse mix of residential, restaurant, retail and service uses will add vitality to both the project and the surrounding area as a whole. 6.05 Reduction of Single Occupancy Auto Trips: This project’s location is central and proximate to a host of alt transportation options, including biking trails and bus lines. It is ideally located for sustainable transportation options. 6.13 Access Management and Parking: The parking for the site will be aligned with SUMP principles. 6.17 Complete Missing Links: The site is currently a hole in the civic fabric and provides no street, path or sidewalk connectivity. The project will provide, for the first time, all of those connections. 7.02 Affordable Housing Goals: This project will contribute a large amount of affordable housing stock through compliance with Boulder Codes for affordable housing contributions. 7.10 Balancing Housing Supply with Employment Base: This project meets the goal of increased housing for Boulder workers in proximity to transit, employment and services. Attachment A - January 16, 2024 Planning Board packet Item 5A - 2952 Baseline Rd. Concept Review Page 35 Packet Page 373 of 523 PARKING GARAGE LEVELS 0-4 ROOF DECK BUILDING A BUILDING A BUILDING A BUILDING A BUILDING B UNDERGROUND GARAGE BUILDING C BUILDING D BUILDING E BUILDING F PLAZA PLAZA PARK PLAZA PROPOSED STREET "A"PROPOSED STREET "A"MULTI-USE PATH P R O P O S E D P RIV A T E S T R E E T "A" PROPOSED PRIVATE STREET "B" SIDEWALKS E XIS TIN G M U L T-U S E P A T H C O N N E C TIO N T O M U L TI-U S E P E R T M P SIDEWALKS MULTI-USE PATH MULTI-USE PATH SIDEWALKS SID E W A L K S FLEX PARKING E X I S T I N G M U L T - U S E P A T H SIDEWALKSPROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINEP R O P E R T Y LIN E P R O P E R T Y LIN E PROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINE EXISTING BUILDINGS EXISTING BUILDING 4 STORIES 4 STORIES 4 STORIES 4 STORIES 5 STORIES 5 STORIES ROOF DECK ROOF DECK ROOF DECK ROOF DECK THE WILLIAMS FAMILY WILLIAMS VILLAGE II 2952 Baseline Road CONCEPT PLAN REVIEW 2023.07.21 CP-005ILLUSTRATIVE SITE PLAN 0 25'50'100' SCALE: 1" = 50'-0" Attachment A - January 16, 2024 Planning Board packet Item 5A - 2952 Baseline Rd. Concept Review Page 36 Packet Page 374 of 523 THE WILLIAMS FAMILY WILLIAMS VILLAGE II 2952 Baseline Road CONCEPT PLAN REVIEW 2023.08.14 CP-000 COVER SHEET CONCEPT PLAN REVIEW WILLIAMS VILLAGE DEVELOPMENT SCOPE OF WORK ARCHITECT OWNER SCOPE OF WORK: APPROXIMATELY 610 MARKET RATE RESIDENTIAL UNITS WITH ASSOCIATED COMMUNITY AMENITIES, COMMERCIAL UNITS, RESTURANT SPACE AND A LARGE OUTDOOR OPEN SPACE ZONING: BC-2 SETBACK MINIMUMS: TBD BUILDING TYPE: MULTI-FAMILY AND MIXED COMMERCIAL WITH MULTI-FAMILY NUMBER OF BUILDINGS: 6 PARKING STRUCTURES: 2 PROPOSED BUILDING AREA: APPROXIMATELY 725,969 SF CP-000 COVER SHEET CP-001 CONTEXT / TRANSIT DIAGRAM CP-002 EXISTING URBAN FABRIC CP-003 REPAIRING THE URBAN FABRIC CP-004 PROPOSED URBAN FABRIC CP-005 ILLUSTRATIVE SITE PLAN CP-006 BUILDING USE DIAGRAM CP-007 BUILDING METRICS CP-008 ARCHITECTURAL PRECEDENTS CP-009 LANDSCAPE PRECEDENTS CP-010 RENDERINGS CP-011 RENDERINGS CP-012 RENDERINGS CP-013 RENDERINGS CP-014 RENDERINGS CP-015 SITE SECTION CP-016 FLOOD PLANE DIAGRAM CP-017 OPEN SPACE CP-018 PARKING DIAGRAM CP-019 PHASING PLAN CP-020 RENDERINGS SHEET INDEX COBURN ARCHITECTURE 2718 PINE ST #100 BOULDER, COLORADO 80302 P: (303) 442-3351 GEORGE WILLIAMS, LLP 6700 LOOKOUT RD BOULDER, COLORADO 80301 P: (303) 503-1411 Attachment A - January 16, 2024 Planning Board packet Item 5A - 2952 Baseline Rd. Concept Review Page 37 Packet Page 375 of 523 1/4 MILE1/2 MILEBUS STOP B-CYCLE STATION PROPSED RTD STATION DESIGNATED BIKE ROUTE EXISTING DESIGNATED BIKE ROUTE PROPOSED MULTI USE PATH PROPOSED MULTI USE PATH EXISTING ON STREET BIKE LANE EXISTING ON STREET BIKE LANE PROPOSED BUS LINES LEGEND SITE THE WILLIAMS FAMILY WILLIAMS VILLAGE II 2952 Baseline Road CONCEPT PLAN REVIEW 2023.08.14 CP-001 CONTEXT / TRANSIT DIAGRAM Attachment A - January 16, 2024 Planning Board packet Item 5A - 2952 Baseline Rd. Concept Review Page 38 Packet Page 376 of 523 THE WILLIAMS FAMILY WILLIAMS VILLAGE II 2952 Baseline Road CONCEPT PLAN REVIEW 2023.08.14 CP-002 EXISTING URBAN FABRIC Attachment A - January 16, 2024 Planning Board packet Item 5A - 2952 Baseline Rd. Concept Review Page 39 Packet Page 377 of 523 THE WILLIAMS FAMILY WILLIAMS VILLAGE II 2952 Baseline Road CONCEPT PLAN REVIEW 2023.08.14 CP-003 REPAIRING THE URBAN FABRIC 1. EXISTING SHOPPING CENTER DESIGNED FOR CARS 2. BREAK DOWN SUPERBLOCK SCALE TO PEDESTRIAN APPROPRIATE BLOCKS 4. ADD PEDESTRIAN AND BIKE CONNECTIONS AND GATHERING SPACES 3. ADDITION OF BUILDING MASSES TO CREATE PUBLIC PLAZAS AND OPEN SPACE 6. COMPLETED SITE FIGURE GROUND5. HIDE PARKING ON INTERIOR OF BLOCKS AND UNDERGROUND Attachment A - January 16, 2024 Planning Board packet Item 5A - 2952 Baseline Rd. Concept Review Page 40 Packet Page 378 of 523 THE WILLIAMS FAMILY WILLIAMS VILLAGE II 2952 Baseline Road CONCEPT PLAN REVIEW 2023.08.14 CP-004 PROPOSED URBAN FABRIC Attachment A - January 16, 2024 Planning Board packet Item 5A - 2952 Baseline Rd. Concept Review Page 41 Packet Page 379 of 523 PARKING GARAGE LEVELS 0-4 ROOF DECK BUILDING A BUILDING A BUILDING A BUILDING A BUILDING B UNDERGROUND GARAGE BUILDING C BUILDING D BUILDING E BUILDING F PLAZA PLAZA PARK PLAZA PROPOSED STREET "A"PROPOSED STREET "A"MULTI-USE PATH P R O P O S E D P RIV A T E S T R E E T "A" PROPOSED PRIVATE STREET "B" SIDEWALKS E XIS TIN G M U L T-U S E P A T H C O N N E C TIO N T O M U LTI-U S E P E R T M P SIDEWALKS MULTI-USE PATH MULTI-USE PATH SIDEWALKS SID E W A L K S FLEX PARKING E X I S TI N G M U L T - U S E P A T H SIDEWALKSPROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINEP R O P E R T Y LIN E P R O P E R T Y LIN E PROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINE EXISTING BUILDINGS EXISTING BUILDING 4 STORIES 4 STORIES 4 STORIES 4 STORIES 5 STORIES 5 STORIES ROOF DECK ROOF DECK ROOF DECK ROOF DECK SITE SECTION 1 THE WILLIAMS FAMILY WILLIAMS VILLAGE II 2952 Baseline Road CONCEPT PLAN REVIEW 2023.08.14 CP-005 ILLUSTRATIVE SITE PLAN 0 25'50'100' SCALE: 1" = 50'-0" Attachment A - January 16, 2024 Planning Board packet Item 5A - 2952 Baseline Rd. Concept Review Page 42 Packet Page 380 of 523 RESIDENTIAL -YELLOW COMMERCIAL -LIGHT BLUE HOTEL -PALE ORANGE RESTAURANT -PINK ROADS -GRAY PATHS -CREAM GARAGE -LIGHT GRAYPEDESTRIAN PATH -TEALSTUDENT HOUSING -LIGHT GREEN 44 COMPACT 66 STANDARD 24089 SF COMMERCIAL BUILDING A 7740 SF COMMERCIAL BUILDING A 6405 SF COMMERCIAL BUILDING A 6435 SF RESIDENTIAL BUILDING A 37135 SF PARKING GARAGE BUILDING A 10014 SF COMMERCIAL BUILDING B 11900 SF HOTEL BUILDING D 14000 SF RESIDENTIAL BUILDING C 14611 SF RESIDENTIAL BUILDING B 7796 SF RESTAURANT BUILDING D 10750 SF RESIDENTIAL BUILDING F 43 COMPACT 50 STANDARD BUILDING B UNDERGROUND GARAGE (ENTIRE FOOTPRINT) BUILDING A UNDERGROUND GARAGE (SAME AMOUT AS ABOVE) PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE BUILDING B PLAZA BUILDING E PLAZA 10926 SF AMPHITHEATER PARK 15510 SF FLEX PARK PARKING 8' - 0"1' - 6"3' - 6"56806 SF RESIDENTIAL BUILDING E BUILDING E PLAZA THE WILLIAMS FAMILY WILLIAMS VILLAGE II 2952 Baseline Road CONCEPT PLAN REVIEW 2023.08.14 CP-006 BUILDING USE DIAGRAM 1" = 80'-0" LEVEL 1 Attachment A - January 16, 2024 Planning Board packet Item 5A - 2952 Baseline Rd. Concept Review Page 43 Packet Page 381 of 523 THE WILLIAMS FAMILY WILLIAMS VILLAGE II 2952 Baseline Road CONCEPT PLAN REVIEW 2023.08.14 CP-007 BUILDING METRICS WILLIAMS VILLAGE II: METRICS Attachment A - January 16, 2024 Planning Board packet Item 5A - 2952 Baseline Rd. Concept Review Page 44 Packet Page 382 of 523 THE WILLIAMS FAMILY WILLIAMS VILLAGE II 2952 Baseline Road CONCEPT PLAN REVIEW 2023.08.14 CP-008 ARCHITECTURAL PRECEDENTS Attachment A - January 16, 2024 Planning Board packet Item 5A - 2952 Baseline Rd. Concept Review Page 45 Packet Page 383 of 523 THE WILLIAMS FAMILY WILLIAMS VILLAGE II 2952 Baseline Road CONCEPT PLAN REVIEW 2023.08.14 CP-009 LANDSCAPE PRECEDENTS Attachment A - January 16, 2024 Planning Board packet Item 5A - 2952 Baseline Rd. Concept Review Page 46 Packet Page 384 of 523 THE WILLIAMS FAMILY WILLIAMS VILLAGE II 2952 Baseline Road CONCEPT PLAN REVIEW 2023.08.14 CP-010 RENDERINGS Attachment A - January 16, 2024 Planning Board packet Item 5A - 2952 Baseline Rd. Concept Review Page 47 Packet Page 385 of 523 THE WILLIAMS FAMILY WILLIAMS VILLAGE II 2952 Baseline Road CONCEPT PLAN REVIEW 2023.08.14 CP-011 RENDERINGS Attachment A - January 16, 2024 Planning Board packet Item 5A - 2952 Baseline Rd. Concept Review Page 48 Packet Page 386 of 523 THE WILLIAMS FAMILY WILLIAMS VILLAGE II 2952 Baseline Road CONCEPT PLAN REVIEW 2023.08.14 CP-012 RENDERINGS Attachment A - January 16, 2024 Planning Board packet Item 5A - 2952 Baseline Rd. Concept Review Page 49 Packet Page 387 of 523 THE WILLIAMS FAMILY WILLIAMS VILLAGE II 2952 Baseline Road CONCEPT PLAN REVIEW 2023.08.14 CP-013 RENDERINGS Attachment A - January 16, 2024 Planning Board packet Item 5A - 2952 Baseline Rd. Concept Review Page 50 Packet Page 388 of 523 THE WILLIAMS FAMILY WILLIAMS VILLAGE II 2952 Baseline Road CONCEPT PLAN REVIEW 2023.08.14 CP-014 RENDERINGS Attachment A - January 16, 2024 Planning Board packet Item 5A - 2952 Baseline Rd. Concept Review Page 51 Packet Page 389 of 523 DRAINAGE DITCH ROUTE 36 /DENVER BOULDER TURNPIKE ROUTE 36 OFF RAMP TO BASELINE ROAD MULTI- USE PATH BUILDING E PLAZA BUILDING E 21' - 6"HIGH POINT THE WILLIAMS FAMILY WILLIAMS VILLAGE II 2952 Baseline Road CONCEPT PLAN REVIEW 2023.08.14 CP-015 SITE SECTION 1" = 20'-0" 1 SITE SECTION 1 @ 36 THE PROPOSED PROJECT IS LOWER IN ELEVATION THAN ITS SURROUNDINGS. DUE TO THIS, FROM THE WEST THE PROJECT‘S FIRST TWO STORIES ARE HIDDEN BY THE ELEVATED ROAD. ADDITIONALLY, THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF THE PROJECT IS FAR LOWER THAN THE ADJACENT WILLIAMS TOWER AND HOUSING TO THE EAST. THEREFORE, THE PERCEIVED OF THE PROPOSED BUILDINGS WILL BE LOW BASED ON THE SURROUNDING CONTEXT. Attachment A - January 16, 2024 Planning Board packet Item 5A - 2952 Baseline Rd. Concept Review Page 52 Packet Page 390 of 523 NEW LAYOUT PRESERVES FLOOD LEVELS AT EDGES OF SITE, AND GENERALLY PRESERVES THE ROUTE OF WATER ON THE SITE. ROUTES WILL BE MOVED SLIGHTLY TO ALLOW WATER TO FOLLOW STREET LAYOUTS. PARKING GARAGE LEVELS 0-4 ROOF DECK BUILDING A BUILDING A BUILDING A BUILDING A BUILDING B UNDERGROUND GARAGE BUILDING C BUILDING D BUILDING E BUILDING F PLAZA PLAZA PARK PLAZA PROPOSED STREET "A"PROPOSED STREET "A"MULTI-USE PATH P R O P O S E D P RIV A T E S T R E E T "A" PROPOSED PRIVATE STREET "B" SIDEWALKS E XIS TIN G M U LT-U S E P A T H C O N N E C TIO N T O M U LTI-U S E P E R T M P SIDEWALKS MULTI-USE PATH MULTI-USE PATH SIDEWALKS SID E W A L K S FLEX PARKING E X I S TI N G M U L T - U S E P A T H SIDEWALKSPROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINEP R O P E R T Y LIN E P R O P E R T Y LIN E PROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINE EXISTING BUILDINGS EXISTING BUILDING 4 STORIES 4 STORIES 4 STORIES 4 STORIES 5 STORIES 5 STORIES ROOF DECK ROOF DECK ROOF DECK ROOF DECK 100 YEAR FLOOD ZONE CONVEYANCE ZONE 100 YEAR FLOOD ZONE CONVEYANCE ZONE THE WILLIAMS FAMILY WILLIAMS VILLAGE II 2952 Baseline Road CONCEPT PLAN REVIEW 2023.08.14 CP-016 FLOOD PLANE DIAGRAM 1" = 60'-0" EXISTING FLOOD PLANE AND CONVEYANCE ZONE 1" = 60'-0" FLOOD PLANE AND CONVEYANCE ZONE CONTROL Attachment A - January 16, 2024 Planning Board packet Item 5A - 2952 Baseline Rd. Concept Review Page 53 Packet Page 391 of 523 PARKING GARAGE LEVELS 0-4 ROOF DECK BUILDING A BUILDING A BUILDING A BUILDING A BUILDING B UNDERGROUND GARAGE BUILDING C BUILDING D BUILDING E BUILDING F PLAZA PLAZA PARK PLAZA PROPOSED STREET "A"PROPOSED STREET "A"MULTI-USE PATH P R O P O S E D P RIV A T E S T R E E T "A" PROPOSED PRIVATE STREET "B" SIDEWALKS E XIS TIN G M U LT-U S E P A T H C O N N E C TIO N T O M U LTI-U S E P E R T M P SIDEWALKS MULTI-USE PATH MULTI-USE PATH SIDEWALKS SID E W A L K S FLEX PARKING E X I S TI N G M U L T - U S E P A T H SIDEWALKSPROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINEP R O P E R T Y LIN E P R O P E R T Y LIN E PROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINE EXISTING BUILDINGS EXISTING BUILDING 4 STORIES 4 STORIES 4 STORIES 4 STORIES 5 STORIES 5 STORIES ROOF DECK ROOF DECK ROOF DECK ROOF DECK THE WILLIAMS FAMILY WILLIAMS VILLAGE II 2952 Baseline Road CONCEPT PLAN REVIEW 2023.08.14 CP-017 OPEN SPACE 0 25'50'100' SCALE: 1" = 50'-0" Attachment A - January 16, 2024 Planning Board packet Item 5A - 2952 Baseline Rd. Concept Review Page 54 Packet Page 392 of 523 PARKING GARAGE BUILDING A BUILDING A BUILDING A BUILDING A BUILDING B UNDERGROUND GARAGE BUILDING C BUILDING D BUILDING E BUILDING F PLAZA PLAZA PARK PROPOSED STREET "A"PROPOSED STREET "A"MULTI-USE PATH P R O P O S E D P RIV A T E S T R E E T "A" PROPOSED PRIVATE STREET "B" 5 LEVEL PARKING GARAGE 1 UNDERGROUND LEVEL 4 ABOVE GRADE LEVELS APPROX. 550 PARKING SPACES GARAGE 1 LEVEL PARKING GARAGE 1 UNDERGROUND LEVEL APPROX. 93 PARKING SPACES UNDERGROUND GARAGE 70 PARAELL PARKING SPACES STREET PARKING APPROX. 32 PARKING SPACES + OPPORTUNITY TO ALLOW FOOD TRUCKS FLEX PARKING 30 FLEX PARKING SPACES 550 PARKING GARAGE SPACES 70 STREET PARKING SPACES 93 UNDERGROUND PARKING SPACES APPROX. 743 PARKING SPACES TOTAL PARKING TOTALS PLAZA THE WILLIAMS FAMILY WILLIAMS VILLAGE II 2952 Baseline Road CONCEPT PLAN REVIEW 2023.08.14 CP-018 PARKING DIAGRAM 0 25'50'100' SCALE: 1" = 50'-0" Attachment A - January 16, 2024 Planning Board packet Item 5A - 2952 Baseline Rd. Concept Review Page 55 Packet Page 393 of 523 PARKING GARAGE LEVELS 0-4 ROOF DECK BUILDING A BUILDING A BUILDING A BUILDING A BUILDING B UNDERGROUND GARAGE BUILDING C BUILDING D BUILDING E BUILDING F PLAZA PLAZA PARK PLAZA PROPOSED STREET "A"PROPOSED STREET "A"MULTI-USE PATH P R O P O S E D P RIV A T E S T R E E T "A" PROPOSED PRIVATE STREET "B" SIDEWALKS E XIS TIN G M U LT-U S E P A T H C O N N E C TIO N T O M U LTI-U S E P E R T M P SIDEWALKS MULTI-USE PATH MULTI-USE PATH SIDEWALKS SID E W A L K S FLEX PARKING E X I S TI N G M U L T - U S E P A T H SIDEWALKSPROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINEP R O P E R T Y LIN E P R O P E R T Y LIN E PROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINE EXISTING BUILDINGS EXISTING BUILDING 4 STORIES 4 STORIES 4 STORIES 4 STORIES 5 STORIES 5 STORIES ROOF DECK ROOF DECK ROOF DECK ROOF DECK PHASE 2 PHASE 1 PHASE 3 THE WILLIAMS FAMILY WILLIAMS VILLAGE II 2952 Baseline Road CONCEPT PLAN REVIEW 2023.08.14 CP-019 PHASING PLAN 0 25'50'100' SCALE: 1" = 50'-0" Attachment A - January 16, 2024 Planning Board packet Item 5A - 2952 Baseline Rd. Concept Review Page 56 Packet Page 394 of 523 THE WILLIAMS FAMILY WILLIAMS VILLAGE II 2952 Baseline Road CONCEPT PLAN REVIEW 2023.08.14 CP-020 RENDERINGS Attachment A - January 16, 2024 Planning Board packet Item 5A - 2952 Baseline Rd. Concept Review Page 57 Packet Page 395 of 523 CITY OF BOULDER LAND USE REVIEW RESULTS AND COMMENTS September 29, 2023DATE OF COMMENTS: CASE MANAGER: PROJECT NAME: LOCATION: REVIEW TYPE: REVIEW NUMBER: APPLICANT: DESCRIPTION: Chandler Van Schaack WILLIAMS VILLAGE II 2952 BASELINE RD Concept Plan Review & Comment LUR2023-00038 PETUR WILLIAMS, GEORGE WILLIAMS, LLLP WILLIAM COBURN, COBURN DEVELOPMENT, INC STEVE SAVERCOOL GRANT YAMAKI, COBURN DEVELOPMENT, INC BILL HOLICKY Applicant proposes to develop a 448,668 SF lot for a Mixed-use of Residential, Commercial, Hotel, and Restaurant uses. The existing buildings on site will be demolished to make room for 6 new buildings, approximately 610 new dwelling units, an integrated parking structure and underground parking structure. The unit type mix would include Market Rate units, Student housing units. I. REVIEW FINDINGS This application will be neither approved or denied, but rather is an opportunity for the city staff, the Planning Board, and the public to comment on the general aspects of the proposal. Refer to review comments below for staff’s initial review comments and information regarding the Planning Board hearing. II. CITY REQUIREMENTS The section below addresses issues that must be resolved prior to project approval. III. INFORMATIONAL COMMENTS 1. 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. 2.DRAINAGE, Erik Saunders, 303 441-4493 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS: a. Pursuant to Section 11-5-6, B.R.C. 1981, the applicant is required to provide “all reasonable necessary drainage facilities to ensure adequate drainage and management of storm waters and floods falling on, or flowing onto, the property” in accordance with an approved stormwater and flood management plan in addition to meeting the provisions of the City of Boulder Stormwater Master Plan. b. It is not clear on the plans where water quality pond(s) or other facilities will be located. Based on the proposed layout it appears areas of permeable pavements may be added to the site. If so, please be aware; recent testing of porous pavers on multiple projects throughout the city has shown them to require additional maintenance than what is suggested in the Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual – Volume 3. Maintenance costs of all SCM types should be considered when designing the site. c. Storm water runoff and water quality treatment are issues that must be addressed during the Site Review Attachment A - January 16, 2024 Planning Board packet Item 5A - 2952 Baseline Rd. Concept Review Page 58 Packet Page 396 of 523 2952 BASELINE RD Page 2 of 6 Process. 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 including (but not limited to): - Storm water detention - LID Techniques - Quality Design Standard Compliance - Selection and Design of SCM’s - Preliminary Infiltration Feasibility Screening - Treatment Approach Selection Criteria - Soil and Infiltration Test - Storm sewer construction - Irrigation Ditches and Laterals - Groundwater discharge - Erosion control during and post construction activities. d. A Preliminary Storm Water Report and Plan in accordance with the City of Boulder Design and Construction Standards (DCS) must be provided by the applicant at time of Site Review application. e. The applicant is notified that detention and water quality facilities intended to detain and/or treat stormwater runoff for multiple lots shall be located in “Outlots”, with maintenance responsibilities detailed in the subdivision agreement. f. Discharge of groundwater to the public storm sewer system may be necessary to accommodate construction and operation of the proposed developments. City Agreements and/or State permits will be required for this discharge. The applicant is advised to contact the City of Boulder Storm Water Quality Office at 303-413-7350 regarding Agreement requirements. All applicable permits must be in place prior to building permit application. Additionally, special design considerations for the property to handle groundwater discharge as part of the development may be necessary. g. A construction storm water discharge permit is required from the State of Colorado for projects disturbing one (1) acre of land or more. The applicant is advised to contact the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment. 3.FLOODPLAIN; Tom Pankau (pankaut@bouldercolorado.gov) The property is impacted by the Conveyance Zone of Skunk Creek. The Boulder Revised Code requires that a flood control easement be dedicated along the conveyance zone of the drainageway prior to building permit issuance unless it is located within public right-of-way. 4. FLOODPLAIN; Tom Pankau (pankaut@bouldercolorado.gov) The property is impacted by the High Hazard Zone of Skunk Creek and residential uses and parking spaces for motor vehicles are prohibited. The High Hazard Zone is not shown on Sheet CP-016 (page 17) of the architectural drawings. 5.FLOODPLAIN; Tom Pankau (pankaut@bouldercolorado.gov) The proposed layout of the site impacts the 100-year floodplain and Conveyance Zone of Skunk Creek which will alter floodway delineations and base flood elevations. Preparation and approval of a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) to the City and FEMA, that demonstrates compliance with FEMA regulations, is required to revise the current NFIP map and requires a separate floodplain development permit. In the case where the proposed project increases the base flood elevation more than 0.0 foot in a floodway or proposed to relocate a floodway, a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) is required. Engineered analysis and modeling are required for both LOMRs and CLOMRs and the review process may take more than 9 months to complete for each mapping process. If a CLOMR is required, it must be approved prior to a final staff recommendation on any Site Review application. 6. FLOODPLAIN; Tom Pankau (pankaut@bouldercolorado.gov) The proposed structures will reside in the 100-year floodplain of Skunk Creek. New residential structures are subject to the standards listed in Land Use Code 9-3-3, B.R.C. 1981, including elevating structures to flood protection elevations, and require separate floodplain development permits for each structure at time of building permit. 7. FLOODPLAIN; Tom Pankau (pankaut@bouldercolorado.gov) The proposed structures will reside in the 500-year floodplain of Skunk Creek. New lodging facilities, such as dormitories, are considered critical facilities and are subject to the standards listed out in Land Use Code 9-3-2(i), B.R.C. 1981. These standards consist of implementing floodproofing measures, emergency management plans, and additional construction requirements. The 500-year floodplain is not shown or noted on sheet CP-016 (page 17) of the architectural drawings. 8. GROUNDWATER, Erik Saunders, 303 441-4493 Attachment A - January 16, 2024 Planning Board packet Item 5A - 2952 Baseline Rd. Concept Review Page 59 Packet Page 397 of 523 2952 BASELINE RD Page 3 of 6 Groundwater is a concern in many areas of the City of Boulder. Discharge of groundwater to the public storm sewer system should be anticipated to accommodate construction and operation of the proposed development. Please be advised that if groundwater is encountered at this site an underdrain/ dewatering system may be required to reduce groundwater infiltration. Information pertaining to the quality of the groundwater encountered on the site will be required to determine if treatment is necessary prior to discharge from the site. City Agreements and/or State permits are required for the discharge of any groundwater to the public storm sewer system. The applicant is advised to contact the City of Boulder Storm Water Quality Office at 303-413-7350 regarding Agreement requirements. All applicable permits/agreements must be in place prior to building permit application. Additionally, special design considerations for the properties to handle groundwater discharge as part of the development may be necessary. 9.Historic Preservation, Marcy Gerwing, (303) 441-3207, GerwingM@bouldercolorado.gov The property is not individually landmarked or located in a historic district. However, due to the age of the buildings, historic preservation review will be required beginning in 2024 to determine whether the existing buildings are potentially eligible for landmark designation. If the building(s) are determined to be potentially eligible for designation, staff may recommend a landmark designation application be submitted as a condition of Site Review per BVCP Policy 2.27, Preservation of Historic & Cultural Resources. The designation application may be held in agreement between the owner and the City, typically until Site Review approval. If exterior changes are proposed, review through a Landmark Alteration Certificate would occur concurrent to the Site Review Process, and prior to Planning Board review. If the building(s) are not found to be potentially eligible, the demolition application will be approved. Please note the historic preservation demolition approval is valid for 180 days and cannot be extended. Please submit a Historic Preservation Demolition Review application to determine whether the buildings would be approved for demolition or recommended for preservation. Staff encourages the applicant to submit the application early in the schematic design phase, as the outcome of the review may have a large impact on the development. 10.Inclusionary Housing, Sloane Walbert, walberts@bouldercolorado.gov a. The comments below are based on current inclusionary housing (IH) regulations. An update to the inclusionary housing program is under consideration. Refer to the project website here: https://bouldercolorado.gov/projects/inclusionary-housing. The update to the program is anticipated to be effective Jan. 2024. b. Each new residential unit developed on the property is subject to Chapter 9-13, “Inclusionary Housing”, B.R.C., 1981, 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 through the Site Review process, and prior to application for a residential building permit. 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. Any required documents, including the Determination of Inclusionary Housing Compliance form, must be signed prior to application for any residential building permit. Any applicable cash-in-lieu contribution must be made prior to issuance of a residential building permit. e. As proposed, the project would be 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 the zoning district height limit. This additional floor area is called "bonus floor area" in the code and 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 equivalent, the aforementioned requirement increases the overall percentage of the project from 25% to 36% of the number of units or 11% greater than the by-right percentage. 11.LANDSCAPING; Chris Ricciardiello; ricciardielloc@bouldercolorado.gov; (303) 441-3138: The proposed development project will trigger landscape requirements in accordance with the City of Boulder Land Use Code, Sections 9-9-12, 9-9-13, and 9-9-14, B.R.C. 1981 in addition to Open Space, Landscaping, and Screening criteria as defined in 9-2-14, B.R.C 1981 Site Review requirements. Applicable requirements include street tree plantings and overall site landscape plantings as outlined in 9-9-12(d) and 9-9-13, interior parking lot landscaping per section Attachment A - January 16, 2024 Planning Board packet Item 5A - 2952 Baseline Rd. Concept Review Page 60 Packet Page 398 of 523 2952 BASELINE RD Page 4 of 6 9-9-14(d) and parking lot screening per section 9-9-14(b). Include a summary table of landscape requirements per section 9-9-12(d)(1)(J) BRC 1981 to determine the extent of required landscape improvements. In development of the landscape-related submittals for Site Review, provide a landscape plan, and tree inventory (9-2-14(d), B.R.C. 1981) detailing proposed landscape improvements consistent with the Landscape Site Review Criteria (9-2-14(h) (2)(C), B.R.C. 1981. Provide a detailed narrative defining how all Site Review Landscaping Criteria are being met through the proposed development application. The site plan/layout presented in the Illustrative Site Plan lacks functional open space areas and effective landscape areas, appearing to relegate much of the planned open space to roof decks. Plazas appear as residual spaces formed by architectural voids, nominal in size, function, and amenity. 12.Please see Attachment A for staff's preliminary analysis of the Concept Review criteria. 13.TRANSPORTATION; Tom Pankau (pankaut@bouldercolorado.gov) According to Section 9-9-8(g), right-of-way improvements to the existing sidewalks shall be required at the time of issuance of a building permit for the development. This includes improving the existing sidewalks along 30th Street to residential collector street standards located in the City of Boulder Design and Construction Standards (DCS) Table 2-13. Specifically, these improvements shall include an 8’-wide planting strip and a 5’-wide detached sidewalk along 30th Street. Dedication of a public access easement that extends 2’ beyond the edge of walk is required prior to the approval of any site construction documents. 14. TRANSPORTATION; Tom Pankau (pankaut@bouldercolorado.gov) According to Section 9-9-8(g), right-of-way improvements to the existing sidewalks shall be required at the time of issuance of a building permit for the development. This includes improving the existing sidewalks along Baseline Road to arterial multi-use path standards. Specifically, these improvements shall include an 8’-wide planting strip and a 12’-wide detached multi-use path along Baseline Road. Dedication of a public access easement that extends 2’ beyond the edge of walk is required prior to the approval of any site construction documents. 15.TRANSPORTATION; Tom Pankau (pankaut@bouldercolorado.gov) According to The Low-Stress Walk and Bike Network Plan 2019, a multi-use path has been proposed to connect the existing multi-use path located along HWY-36 near the park and connects to Baseline Road, directly east of Building F. The City appreciates the additional multi-use paths proposed throughout the site that promote pedestrian and bicycle circulation, but the connection described above should be implemented. A 16’-wide public access easement dedicated to the city would be required for this path and should not encroach under the roofs of any proposed structures. Multi-use paths shall meet the standards found in the Jan 2, 2023 City of Boulder Design and Construction Standards (DCS) Section 2.11. 16. TRANSPORTATION; Tom Pankau (pankaut@bouldercolorado.gov) According to The Low-Stress Walk and Bike Network Plan 2019, a Neighborhood Green Street has been proposed along 30th Street which benefits both pedestrian and bicycle improvements to create a network of low-stress facilities for the area. Staff will look for the opportunity to implement these facilities with the reconstruction of medians along 30th Street to allow for an intersection to allow full turning movements for vehicles and controlled crossings for pedestrians. These improvements may also include the implementation of bike lanes (preferably buffered) or enhanced pedestrian facilities. 17.TRANSPORTATION; Tom Pankau (pankaut@bouldercolorado.gov) At the time of Site Review application, a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan consistent with the requirements contained in Section 2.03(I) of the City of Boulder Design and Construction Standards and Land Use Code, Section 9-2-14(h)(2)(A), B.R.C. 1981 is required to be submitted that outlines strategies to mitigate traffic impacts created by the proposed development and implementable measures for promoting alternative modes of travel. Transportation demand management (TDM) strategies implemented to mitigate traffic impacts can be included with the Traffic Study and should mention items listed in DCS 2.03(I). 18.TRANSPORTATION; Tom Pankau (pankaut@bouldercolorado.gov) At the time of Site Review application, include a spreadsheet for the bicycle and the motor vehicle parking spaces being provided for the site. The information to be included shall include the required quantity of parking spaces by Land Use Code Section 9-9-6 and the proposed quantity. The bicycle parking information must show the quantity and location of long-term and short-term bicycle parking spaces. It is recommended to meet the required number of bicycle parking spaces for this development due to the vicinity of the CU campus. The motor vehicle parking must show the number of standard, compact, and accessible parking spaces being provided for the site. Include any parking reduction percentages Attachment A - January 16, 2024 Planning Board packet Item 5A - 2952 Baseline Rd. Concept Review Page 61 Packet Page 399 of 523 2952 BASELINE RD Page 5 of 6 being requested with this development in this table. 19.TRANSPORTATION; Tom Pankau (pankaut@bouldercolorado.gov) At time of Site Review application, a Parking Study is required in support of the requested parking reduction for the project. The Parking Study can be included as part of the Project’s TDM Plan. Supporting documentation for the requested reduction in parking will be required that address the items listed in Land Use Code Section 9-9-6(f)(3) and City SUMP principles. 20. TRANSPORTATION; Tom Pankau (pankaut@bouldercolorado.gov) At time of Site Review application, a Traffic Study is required in accordance with Land Use Code Section 2.02 of the City of Boulder Design and Construction Standards (DCS) because the vehicle trips expected to be generated by the project during the PM peak hours exceed 20 vehicles for residential purposes. The Traffic Study must be prepared consistent with Section 2.03 of the DCS. The Traffic Study should address any conflicts that may arise from the restricted turning movements associated with the site access(es) and if existing queue lengths along Baseline Rd and 30th Street can accommodate the increase in traffic generated from the site. 21. TRANSPORTATION; Tom Pankau (pankaut@bouldercolorado.gov) At time of Site Review application, ensure the dimensions for the parking spaces and for the drive aisles are shown on the site plan to verify compliance with the motor vehicle parking design standards contained in Land Use Code Section 9-9-6. 22.TRANSPORTATION; Tom Pankau (pankaut@bouldercolorado.gov) Circulation issues arise with the proposed configuration of access points to the site and do not allow vehicles to head west on Baseline Road, which will increase traffic conflicts, queues, and volumes in the area for vehicles approaching or leaving the site from HWY-36. Revision to the proposed site access(es) layout is required to reduce the number of access points and provide a circulation pattern that allows vehicles to approach and exit the site from all directions. Reconstruction of medians along Baseline Road and/or 30th Street may be required to improve area circulation. 23.TRANSPORTATION; Tom Pankau (pankaut@bouldercolorado.gov) Coordination with the CU / Williams Village staff is suggested given the campus and CU bus facilities across 30th Street. The applicant is also advised that CU is considering acquisition of Apache Road right-of-way for transit and parking purposes. 24. TRANSPORTATION; Tom Pankau (pankaut@bouldercolorado.gov) Dedication and construction of the public right-of-way, shown as Street “A”, shall meet the minimum requirements described in DCS Section 2.06 and Land Use Code Section 9-9-8 “Reservations, Dedication, and Improvement of Rights-of-Way”, B.R.C. 1981. 25.TRANSPORTATION; Tom Pankau (pankaut@bouldercolorado.gov) Development of the project site will require the site access design to meet Land Use Code Section 9-9-5(c), B.R.C. 1981 and DCS Section 2.04, which limits the number of access points to one, unless a traffic study demonstrates the need for an additional access point. The location of access point(s) shall meet the spacing requirements described in DCS Section 2.04. Access to the site is required to be from the lowest category of street, which is the residential 30th Street. 26. TRANSPORTATION; Tom Pankau (pankaut@bouldercolorado.gov) The Illustrative Site Plan (CP-005) did not indicate for the sidewalk along 30th Street to continue south and connect to the existing pedestrian infrastructure. This parcel is located within a Pedestrian Improvement Area (PIA) of the Low Stress Bike and Walk Network Plan 2019 and completing the pedestrian connection to existing infrastructure is required for meeting circulation criteria in Title 9 – Land Use Code. 27. TRANSPORTATION; Tom Pankau (pankaut@bouldercolorado.gov) The Illustrative Site Plan (CP-005) indicated that the public right-of-way located in the southern end of the parcel was to be vacated. Vacation of public right-of-way is subject to regulations in Title 8 - Chapter 6 “Vacation of Public Rights of Way and Public Access Easements” of the Boulder Revised Code. 28.UTILITIES, Erik Saunders, 303-41-4493 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS: a. A water system distribution analysis (Utility Report) will be required at time of Site Review in order to assess the impacts and service demands of the proposed development. Conformance with the city’s Treated Water Master Plan, October 2011 is necessary. b. A wastewater collection system analysis (Utility Report) will be required at time of Site Review to determine any system impacts based on the proposed demands of the development. The analysis will need to show conformance Attachment A - January 16, 2024 Planning Board packet Item 5A - 2952 Baseline Rd. Concept Review Page 62 Packet Page 400 of 523 2952 BASELINE RD Page 6 of 6 with the city’s Wastewater Collection System Master Plan, July 2016. c. On-site and off-site water main and wastewater main construction per the City of Boulder Design and Construction Standards (DCS) as necessary to serve the development, as well as perpetuate the overall system, will be required. All proposed public utilities for this project shall be designed in accordance with the DCS. d. Fire hydrants shall be installed as necessary to meet the coverage requirements outlined in Section 5.10 of the City of Boulder Design and Construction Standards. Per the standards, no portion of any building shall be over 175 feet of fire access distance from the nearest hydrant. Fire access distance is measured along public or private (fire accessible) roadways or fire lanes, as would be traveled by motorized fire equipment. All fire hydrants and public water lines will need to be located within public utility easements. e. The applicant is notified that, though the city allows Xcel, CenturyLink and Comcast to install their utilities within public rights-of-way, the private and franchised utility providers generally require them to be located in easements on private property. f. The applicant is advised that any proposed street trees along property frontages, and/or along the private street network, may conflict with existing or proposed utilities, including without limitation: water, wastewater, storm drainage, flood control, gas, electric, telecommunications, drainageways, and irrigation ditches, within and adjacent to the development site. It is the applicant’s responsibility to resolve such conflicts with appropriate methods conforming to the Boulder Revised Code 1981, the City of Boulder Design and Construction Standards, and any private/franchise utility specifications. g. The landscape irrigation system requires a separate water service and meter. A separate water Plant Investment Fee must be paid at time of building permit. Service, meter and tap sizes will be required at time of building permit submittal. IV. FEES Because revisions or corrections are not required for this application, based on current development review fees, hourly billing will not be applicable unless another application is required or the applicant revises the current proposal. Attachment A - January 16, 2024 Planning Board packet Item 5A - 2952 Baseline Rd. Concept Review Page 63 Packet Page 401 of 523 CRITERIA CHECKLIST AND COMMENT FORM CONCEPT PLAN REVIEW AND COMMENT SECTION 9-2-13 (g) Guidelines for Review and Comment: The following guidelines will be used to guide the planning board's discussion regarding the site. It is anticipated that issues other than those listed in this section will be identified as part of the concept plan review and comment process. The Planning Board may consider the following guidelines when providing comments on a concept plan: (1) Characteristics of the site and surrounding areas, including, without limitation, its location, surrounding neighborhoods, development and architecture, any known natural features of the site including, without limitation, mature trees, watercourses, hills, depressions, steep slopes and prominent views to and from the site; The approximately 9.59-acre project site encompasses the triangular area located east of Highway 36, south of Baseline Rd. and west of 30th Street, excluding the Baseline Crossing site on the northwest corner of the site (2850 Baseline Rd.) and the McDonald’s site (2920 Baseline Rd.). To the east across 30th Street is the CU Williams Village dormitory complex, containing the 12-story Darley and Stearns dormitory buildings and the 6-story Bear Creek Apartment buildings. Across Baseline Rd. to the north are a variety of retail, service and office uses, including a gas station, a beauty salon, a mortuary and a medical office building. To the northeast of the intersection of Baseline and 30th Street lies the Baseline Subdivision, a single-family neighborhood that has existed since the early 1960’s. US 36 runs along the eastern boundary of the site, across which lies the Martin Acres Neighborhood. Aside from the CU buildings, all of the existing buildings surrounding the site are one to three stories in height. The site currently contains 5 existing one-to-three story buildings containing a variety of retail and restaurant businesses, including a Sprouts Market, the Dark Horse Saloon, Cosmos’s Pizza, a liquor store, a bank and other restaurants. There is a Conoco gas station on the northeast corner of the site off Baseline Rd. On the south corner of the site is the Boulder Broker Inn, a legal nonconforming hotel use. Both the Dark Horse and the Broker Inn have been in this location since 1974. The site area surrounding the existing buildings is primarily surface parking, with some of the parking areas meeting current city landscaping and screening requirements and other, older parking areas not meeting current standards. Not including the Baseline Crossing or MacDonald’s sites, there are nine existing access points to the site, with four curb cuts on Baseline Rd. and five curb cuts along 30th Street. The Flatirons are largely visible from most locations on the site. (2) Community policy considerations including, without limitation, the review process and likely conformity of the proposed development with the Boulder Attachment A - January 16, 2024 Planning Board packet Item 5A - 2952 Baseline Rd. Concept Review Page 64 Packet Page 402 of 523 Valley Comprehensive Plan and other ordinances, goals, policies, and plans, including, without limitation, sub-community and sub-area plans; Land Use Designation. The Site Review criteria of the land use code section 9-2-14(h), B.R.C. 1981, will be used to evaluate the project and to make findings for any future Site Review approval. Among the findings that must be made is a project’s consistency with the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan policies and Land Use designation. As shown in below, the BVCP land use designation is split between Mixed Use Business (MUB) and Community Business (CB), defined in Chapter III of the 2010 Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan as follows: The BVCP land use designation for the eastern portion of the site was changed from CB to MUB during the 2000 BVCP Update, but the site has never been rezoned. In terms of conformity of the proposed development with the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan, the current proposal appears to be generally consistent with the Mixed-Use Business designation in that it consists mainly of housing with some commercial uses. Conformity with the CB land use designation is less clear, as the desired characteristics of the CB land use designation are geared more towards neighborhood-serving commercial uses than residential uses. In general, the project appears to support a number of BVCP policies related to housing, and the project’s utilization of an infill site is consistent with several policies pertaining to sustainable urban form. The current proposal raises concerns regarding several other BVCP policies. These policies are listed below with a brief description of staff’s concerns: The Williams Village Center is identified in the BVCP as a Neighborhood Center (see pg. 37), the intent of which is described as follows: “In addition to serving as neighborhood gathering places, these centers also provide goods and services for the day-to-day needs of nearby residents, workers and students and are easily accessible from surrounding areas by foot, bike and transit. Neighborhood centers contribute to a sense of place and the achievement of walkable (15-minute) places with a mix of uses and range of services.” The BVCP includes guiding principles for Neighborhood Centers. In terms of uses, the guiding principles state that Neighborhood Centers should “include a mix of locally serving retail (e.g., retail anchors, such as grocery stores and personal services such as hair salons or small Attachment A - January 16, 2024 Planning Board packet Item 5A - 2952 Baseline Rd. Concept Review Page 65 Packet Page 403 of 523 local markets) and other activities, such as smaller-scale office uses to meet every day needs,” in buildings “at a scale and intensity lower than downtown and the regional centers, ensuring compatibility of buildings with adjacent residential uses decreasing intensity of activity around edges or “transition zones” near neighborhoods. These transition zones should encourage a diversity of low- and medium-density residential uses, such as attached single- family housing, row homes and a variety of flats” (BVCP, pg. 45). The existing BC-2 zoning is consistent with this Neighborhood Center designation. Based on the metrics provided with the concept review application (Sheet CP- 007), which staff notes contain several inconsistencies, the current proposal is primarily a residential project, with attached residential uses (combined student and non-student housing) comprising roughly 82 percent of the overall floor area of the development, “commercial” uses comprising roughly eight percent (8%) of the floor area, hotel comprising six percent (6%), and restaurant uses a mere one percent (1%). Such a percentage breakdown is arguably inconsistent with the intent of both the CB and MUB land use designations, and is clearly inconsistent with the desired characteristics of Neighborhood Centers as outlined in the BVCP. Further, the current proposal does little to achieve a transition in scale to surrounding uses and neighborhoods, with the majority of the building frontages along the site’s boundary being 5 stories in height and all of the buildings being a minimum of four stories in height. Given that the site lies immediately across from a low-density single-family neighborhood and that the existing business across Baseline are all below 35 feet in height, the proposed building heights and massing appear to be inconsistent with several BVCP policies related to the Built Environment, including 2.33 Sensitive Infill & Redevelopment, 2.36 Physical Design for People, and elements of 2.41 Enhanced Design for All Projects. In terms of the project’s likely consistency with the Site Review criteria, it should be noted that the project as proposed would be required to comply with the “Additional Criteria for Buildings Requiring Height Modification” found in Section 9-2-14(h)(4) of the land use code. Currently, there are two criteria with which the proposed project appears inconsistent, including: (A)(i) The building does not exceed 200 feet in length along any public right-of- way. (A)(ii) All building facades exceeding 120 feet in length along a public street, excluding alleys, are designed to appear as at least two distinct buildings. (3) Applicable criteria, review procedures, and submission requirements for a site review; Per Table 2-2, “Site Review Threshold Table,” section 9-2-14, B.R.C. 1981, Concept Plan and Site Review are required in the BC-2 zone district for properties over 2 acres in size or that include over 25,000 square feet of floor area. Therefore, if the applicant moves forward with the proposal, approval of a Site Review application would be required. Decision on the application would be Attachment A - January 16, 2024 Planning Board packet Item 5A - 2952 Baseline Rd. Concept Review Page 66 Packet Page 404 of 523 based on the Site Review criteria of Section 9-2-14(h), B.R.C. 1981. Submittal requirements are based on those specified in the land use code, including but not limited, detailed site plans, landscape plans, floor plans and elevations, preliminary storm water and utility plans etc. Site Review is required due to the size of the site and proposed project and the modifications to the land use code being requested. Applicable Criteria. At the time of site review the proposed project will be evaluated for conformance with the following: • Site Review criteria in Section 9-2-14(h) of the Land Use Code; • Use Review criteria in Section 9-2-15(e) of the Land Use Code; • The land use designation in the BVCP; • All relevant policies of the BVCP; • BC-2 Zoning regulations; • The City of Boulder Design and Construction Standards (DCS). It should be noted that a request for a height modification would be subject to Section 9-2-14(h)(6)(C), B.R.C. 1981, which states: (C) Additional Criteria for a Height Bonus and Land Use Intensity Modifications: 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)(6)(B), may be approved if it meets the requirements of this Subparagraph (h)(6)(C). For purposes of this Subparagraph(h)(6)(C), 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)(6)(B). The approving authority may approve a height up to fifty-five feet if one of the following criteria is met: (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 Attachment A - January 16, 2024 Planning Board packet Item 5A - 2952 Baseline Rd. Concept Review Page 67 Packet Page 405 of 523 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. (ii) Non-Residential Developments: For non-residential developments, the applicant shall pay the affordable housing portion of the capital facility impact fee in Section 4-20-62, B.R.C. 1981, at a rate of 1.43 above the base requirement for the bonus floor area. In a building with several types of non-residential uses, the bonus floor area of each type identified under Section 4-20-62, B.R.C. 1981, shall be a percentage of the bonus floor area that equals in number the percentage of the total floor area in the building of such use type. For nonresidential uses with a fee that is calculated per room or bed under Section 4-20-62, B.R.C. 1981, the increased rate for the affordable housing portion of the fee shall apply to bonus rooms or bonus beds as applicable under that section; the number of bonus rooms or bonus beds shall be determined consistent with the methodology for bonus units in Subparagraph (i)b. above. (iii) Mixed Use: If the development is a residential mixed-use development, the requirements of Subsections (i) and (ii) above shall apply to the bonus floor area according to the percentage of the total building floor area of each use. (iv) (iv)Alternative Community Benefit: Pursuant to the standard in this Subparagraph (iv), the approving authority may approve an alternative method of compliance to provide additional benefits to the community and qualify for a height bonus together with any additional floor area or density that may be approved under Subparagraph (h)(6)(B). The approving authority will approve the alternative method of compliance if the applicant proposes the alternative method of compliance and demonstrates that the proposed method: a. Will improve the facilities or services delivered by the city, including without limitation any police, fire, library, human services, parks and recreation, or other municipal facility, land or service, or will provide an arts, cultural, human services, housing, environmental or other benefit that is a community benefit objective in the BVCP, and b. Is of a value that is equivalent to or greater than the benefits required by this Subparagraph (h)(6)(C). (4) Permits that may need to be obtained and processes that may need to be completed prior to, concurrent with, or subsequent to site review approval; Following Site Review approval, if approved, the applicant is required to submit an application for Technical Document (TEC doc) Review prior to application for building permit. The intent in the TEC doc review is to ensure that technical Attachment A - January 16, 2024 Planning Board packet Item 5A - 2952 Baseline Rd. Concept Review Page 68 Packet Page 406 of 523 details are resolved such as drainage and transportation issues that may require supplemental analyses. Because the project site is affected by the regulatory floodplain including the 100-year, Conveyance and High Hazard zones, a Floodplain Development Permit will also be required for any new development. In addition to Site Review, a Use Review is required for the proposed ground floor residential uses. Subdivision (Preliminary and Final Plat) will also be required in order to consolidate the existing parcels into a single buildable lot. (5) Opportunities and constraints in relation to the transportation system, including, without limitation, access, linkage, signalization, signage, and circulation, existing transportation system capacity problems serving the requirements of the transportation master plan, possible trail links, and the possible need for a traffic or transportation study; The current site presents several opportunities related to the transportation system. As mentioned above, there are currently nine access points to the site, not including the three additional access points serving the MacDonald’s and Baseline Crossing sites. Of the four existing access points on Baseline Rd., only one, located between Baseline Crossing and MacDonald’s, is a two-way turn, with the remainder being right-only. Similarly, the existing access points on 30th Street are also right-only with the exception of the access serving the Cosmo’s Pizza building. With only a single drive aisle providing access to westbound lanes on Baseline, the current access configuration severely limits opportunities for westbound travel from the site, with U-turns on either 30th Street or at the signaled intersection of 30th and Baseline being required for the majority of exit points from the site. Both 30th Street and Baseline have landscaped medians running along the majority of the site frontages, and as such would need to be modified in order to provide additional left-turn opportunities. Within the site, connectivity is largely circuitous and vehicle-oriented, with limited segments of sidewalk making pedestrian travel across the site difficult. There is an existing multi-use path running along US 36 which provides three access points to the site, each of which leads to either a drive lane crossing or a parking lot. There is also a multi-use path along Baseline Rd on the northern property boundary, which crosses seven existing vehicular access points. Similarly, the existing sidewalk on the eastern property boundary along 30th Street crosses five vehicular access points and dead ends at the southern end of the site. Overall, while the multi-use path along US 36 provides safe north-south pedestrian and bicycle travel past the site, pedestrian and bicycle travel within the site and along both 30th and Baseline presents a number of potential conflict points with vehicles and is largely undesirable. The current proposal appears to show seven vehicular access points, all of which would be right-in, right-out only except for the existing access point just west of MacDonald’s which would be maintained. This configuration, while a slight improvement compared to existing site conditions, is still not consistent with city Attachment A - January 16, 2024 Planning Board packet Item 5A - 2952 Baseline Rd. Concept Review Page 69 Packet Page 407 of 523 access standards which require one access point per property “unless a site plan or traffic study, approved by the city manager, demonstrates that additional access points and curb cuts are required to adequately address accessibility, circulation, and driveway volumes, and only where additional accesses and curb cuts would not impair any public use of any public right-of-way, or create safety or operational problems, or be detrimental to traffic flow on adjacent public streets” (Section 9-9-5(c)(1), B.R.C. 1981). Please see staff’s comments under “Access and Circulation’ above for further details. (6) Environmental opportunities and constraints including, without limitation, the identification of wetlands, important view corridors, floodplains and other natural hazards, wildlife corridors, endangered and protected species and habitats, the need for further biological inventories of the site and at what point in the process the information will be necessary; As mentioned above, the existing site is fully developed, and as such does not include any wetlands, wildlife habitats or protected areas. The site is affected by the 100-year and conveyance flood zones, and as such the project would be required to obtain a floodplain development permit pursuant to Section 9-3-6, B.R.C. 1981. There are existing views of the flatirons from within and near the site which will need to be taken into consideration with the final site and building design. (7) Appropriate ranges of land uses; and The site is zoned Business Community -2 (BC-2) and is adjacent to BT-1 zoning to the north across Baseline Rd. and Public (P)) zoning to the east across 30th St. (Williams Village). To the west, across Highway 36, lies the 2700 Baseline site (also zoned BC-2) and the Martin Acres neighborhood, Zoned RL-1. The BC-2 zoning district is defined by section 9-5-2, B.R.C. 1981 as “Business areas containing retail centers serving a number of neighborhoods, where retail-type stores predominate.” The project site is located in a "Business Community (BC) Area Subject to Special Use Restrictions" (per Appendix N, B.R.C. 1981). Currently, pursuant to Section 9-6-2(c), B.R.C. 1981, attached residential is allowed as a conditional use in BC-2 subject to specific use standards. Retail uses are allowed by-right. Hotel uses are prohibited. Because the proposed project includes ground floor residential it would not meet the conditional use standards for attached residential uses in the BC-2 zone and therefore the following code section would apply (Section 96-2(c)(1)(A)(iii), B.R.C. 1981): Use Review: A use that is not allowed by right or as a conditional use may be approved only pursuant to a use review. In addition to meeting the use review criteria, the applicant shall demonstrate that the use on the ground floor or with a combined floor area larger than ten percent of the total floor area, as applicable, will not adversely affect the intended function and character of the area as a neighborhood serving business area where retail-type stores predominate on the ground floor. In determining whether this criterion is met, the reviewing authority Attachment A - January 16, 2024 Planning Board packet Item 5A - 2952 Baseline Rd. Concept Review Page 70 Packet Page 408 of 523 shall consider the location and design of the proposed use and the existing and approved uses on the lot or parcel and in the area. Regarding the proposed hotel use, the use is currently prohibited in the BC-2 zone, and no change to the Use Table is proposed as part of the upcoming code change. Therefore, either a change to the Use Table in Section 9-6-1 or an ordinance would be required in order to allow for the proposed use in BC-2, or that portion of the site would need to be subdivided and rezoned to a zone district in which hotels are allowed. It should be noted that the underlying land use designation on that portion of the site is Mixed Use Business (MUB), so a Rezoning is theoretically possible if the site were to be subdivided; however, the only potentially viable zoning district consistent with the MUB land use designation which also allows hotel uses (through Use Review) is Business Main Street (BMS), which has a substantially lower maximum FAR of 0.67. It should also be noted that even if the property were to be subdivided to create a single lot for the hotel that rezoning said lot independent of the remainder of the site is unlikely to be supported. Currently, intensity standards for residential uses in the BC-2 zone allow for up to 27.2 units per acre and require a minimum lot area per dwelling unit of 1,600 square feet with a minimum of 600 square feet of open space per unit (this can be reduced to 400 square feet per unit through site review if a mixed use development). Form and bulk standards in BC-2 require a 20’ foot front yard setback, a 15’ foot side yard setback adjacent to a street, a 0’ or 12’ foot interior side yard setback and a 20 foot rear yard setback. There is no maximum FAR requirement in the BC-2 zone. Per Table 7-1 of the land use code, buildings are limited to three stories and 35 feet in the BC-2 zone. The applicant notes that under the current code the proposed project would exceed the maximum number of units allowed on the site under current BC-2 standards (approximately 600-650 units not including hotel rooms are proposed where approximately 270 units would be the maximum number allowed under current standards.) Therefore, the proposed project is contingent on the passing of the proposed Ordinance 8599 (“Zoning for Affordable Housing”), which includes changes to BC-2 zoning standards to remove minimum open space per dwelling unit requirements and implement an FAR-based approach to density/ intensity. The applicant is proposing a net FAR of 1.9, which would be achieved by a “bonus of up to another .5 FAR for sites that are shown in Appendix N in the Land Use Code.” Staff notes that the proposed ordinance is scheduled for third reading in October, 2023, and proposes a base FAR of 1.5 with an additional 0.5 FAR allowance for sites shown in Appendix N, so if the ordinance is passed, the proposed FAR would be consistent with the new BC-2 intensity standards. Pursuant to Section 9-6-2(c), B.R.C. 1981, attached residential is allowed as a conditional use in BC-2 subject to specific use standards. Retail uses are allowed by-right. Because the proposed project includes ground floor residential it would not meet the conditional use standards for attached residential uses in the BC-2 Attachment A - January 16, 2024 Planning Board packet Item 5A - 2952 Baseline Rd. Concept Review Page 71 Packet Page 409 of 523 zone and therefore the following code section would apply (Section 96- 2(c)(1)(A)(iii), B.R.C. 1981): Use Review: A use that is not allowed by right or as a conditional use may be approved only pursuant to a use review. In addition to meeting the use review criteria, the applicant shall demonstrate that the use on the ground floor or with a combined floor area larger than ten percent of the total floor area, as applicable, will not adversely affect the intended function and character of the area as a neighborhood serving business area where retail-type stores predominate on the ground floor. In determining whether this criterion is met, the reviewing authority shall consider the location and design of the proposed use and the existing and approved uses on the lot or parcel and in the area. Staff notes that the current proposal appears to remove a number of existing neighborhood-serving businesses, with the proposed amount of new commercial space being significantly lower than what currently exists on the site. While the applicant indicates their intent to relocate the Sprouts Market into a new commercial space, the proposal overall seems to be predicated on the removal of all of the other existing businesses on the site. Aside from the potential historic significance of certain businesses such as the Dark Horse and the Broker Inn, many of the existing businesses on the site are valued assets to the surrounding neighborhoods. If the applicant moves forward with a Use Review for the proposed ground floor residential, these factors will be taken into consideration. Staff encourages the applicant to provide additional information on what discussions, if any, have been had with existing tenants regarding possible retention/ relocation to new space within the project. (8) The appropriateness of or necessity for housing. Overall, given the site’s proximity and multimodal connectivity to the University of Colorado, staff finds that the project site is an appropriate location for student housing. The site’s size and location also make it appropriate for additional residential density in the form of attached units. That being said, the site presents a number of challenges, both in terms of the land use designation and zoning standards as well as the physical constraints related to transportation and the floodplain. While staff understands the applicant’s desire to maximize the development potential of the site, the current project scope likely exceeds what can feasibly be constructed. Staff encourages the applicant to rethink the project in terms of the maximum number of units that could be provided while still meeting the BVCP goals for Neighborhood Centers, meeting city access and transportation standards and floodplain development requirements, and maintaining or enhancing the character of the surrounding area. Attachment A - January 16, 2024 Planning Board packet Item 5A - 2952 Baseline Rd. Concept Review Page 72 Packet Page 410 of 523 From:Thomas David Kehoe To:Van Schaack, Chandler Subject:2952 Baseline retail store questions Date:Tuesday, September 12, 2023 12:26:05 PM External Sender My neighbors and I discussed the letter we received yesterday. Our concerns are about which existing businesses will continue, particularly Sprouts. Will there be retail space for a supermarket? Is the developer CU or a private developer? If it’s not CU then the developer should pick a name other than “Williams Village II,” which makes it sound like a CU dorm project. Can you also explain why the area between 27th Way, Moorhead, and Hwy 36 remains undeveloped, and why the BaseMar retail area appears to be deteriorating? Thomas David Kehoe 720 31st St. (720) 217-6589 kehoe@casafuturatech.com Attachment A - January 16, 2024 Planning Board packet Item 5A - 2952 Baseline Rd. Concept Review Page 73 Packet Page 411 of 523 From:Katrin Agafonoff To:Van Schaack, Chandler Subject:LUR2003-00038 Date:Thursday, September 14, 2023 11:24:36 AM External Sender Hello, My name is Katrin Agafonoff and I’m a resident here. I don’t think that boulder should allow CU to wipe out the cosmos/dark horse plaza for more studenthousing. I live down baseline in the table Mesa area and regularly frequent that plaza for businesseslike game force, carellis, sprouts and such. Not to mention traffic down baseline is already awful with allthe student housings already here. It would make it impossible to commute daily for us normal citizens.Please consider a different option or a different area for this project. As a boulder resident I’m againstthis proposal. We barely have enough food options on this end of town to begin with. Now you’regonna take out an entire plaza one of very few we have on this side of town. Sent from my iPhone Attachment A - January 16, 2024 Planning Board packet Item 5A - 2952 Baseline Rd. Concept Review Page 74 Packet Page 412 of 523 From:Lois LaCroix To:Van Schaack, Chandler Subject:VAST Project proposal Baseline Date:Friday, September 15, 2023 11:13:17 AM External Sender Hello Chandler. I sincerely hope that you do not believe that because "this sight is underutilized" that it needs to be changed at all, much less so OVERBUILT as to resemble Denver. There are already areas in Boulder that are designated for such density (Downtown, Crossroads, E Pearl and the 28th Street corridor. This is BC2 zoning. Let it remain. Every inch of every property in Boulder does not need to be "built beyond the hilt." Do you have any idea how much commercial rent will increase in this unneeded complex? There are very few businesses left in Boulder that actually have local ownership (restaurants being the exception) in new complexes because the rent is so exorbitant. Chain stores maybe but Mom and Pop businesses can no longer afford Boulder. And we certainly don't need more boutique or market student housing. Regards affordable housing, my educated guess is they will do another "money in lieu" instead of their actual share. This proposal is outsized and ridiculous. The noise, pollution and traffic from the tear down/rebuild alone would be a long-time nightmare. If built, the daily traffic problems in the area from an additional 800 vehicles is unfathomable. And I thought Baseline Zero was a too big... Bigger does not mean better. Lois LaCroix Boulder Attachment A - January 16, 2024 Planning Board packet Item 5A - 2952 Baseline Rd. Concept Review Page 75 Packet Page 413 of 523 From:rosemary hegarty To:Van Schaack, Chandler Subject:30th and Baseline Date:Friday, September 15, 2023 1:27:55 PM External Sender OMG What is Bou;der coming to? The description that the mall is unwalkable and just asphalt is laughable The parking lots are full of cars every day all day!!! We do not need 800 more students living in boutique housing! When is CU going to start building there own student housing!! Maybe if city said no more. Ironic how CU has beautiful green ways on East campus full of parking lots yet city of BOulder is becoming mass density everywhere. You are going to have acity full of students and no stable base of citizens very soon. CU south Baseline Zero all the huge highrises along 28th NONE of this is Boulder!! ADYS allowed anywhere. ALL f this is short sighted. What about water, noise, evacuation in wild fires or flooding??? You are building a city of a disaster Rosemary Hegarty Attachment A - January 16, 2024 Planning Board packet Item 5A - 2952 Baseline Rd. Concept Review Page 76 Packet Page 414 of 523 From:Mueller, Brad To:Van Schaack, Chandler Subject:FW: Pam Howell :- Other or I am not sure Date:Friday, September 29, 2023 9:45:50 AM For the case file correspondence file. From: Huntley, Sarah <Huntleys@bouldercolorado.gov> Sent: Wednesday, September 27, 2023 1:14 PM To: Mueller, Brad <MuellerB@bouldercolorado.gov> Subject: FW: Pam Howell :- Other or I am not sure From: No Reply <noreply@bouldercolorado.gov> Sent: Wednesday, September 27, 2023 10:26 AM To: Council <Council@bouldercolorado.gov>; ContactCoB <ContactCoB@bouldercolorado.gov>; Huntley, Sarah <Huntleys@bouldercolorado.gov> Subject: Pam Howell :- Other or I am not sure Preferred Form Language: English / Inglés Name: Pam Howell Organization (optional): Email: pammyhow@yahoo.com Phone (optional): My question or feedback most closely relates to the following topic (please choose one):Other or I am not sure Comment, question or feedback: Just say no to the dense redevelopment planned near Will Vill! We have several large developments already in the works - second half of transit village, old Albertsons site at 28th and Iris, old Community Hospital site. Enough! I am not persuaded that any of these will actually provide much affordable housing - most people don’t want to live in these dense places. (I participated in the early planning for the transit village and - surprise (not) - there is much less open/green space than promised. I have read that Denver will soon be facing an apartment glut and many places will go empty - could be the trajectory for Boulder, too [[FSF080521]] Submission ID is #: 1146501975 Attachment A - January 16, 2024 Planning Board packet Item 5A - 2952 Baseline Rd. Concept Review Page 77 Packet Page 415 of 523 From:Clémentine Hardy Gas To:Van Schaack, Chandler Cc:ContactCoB Subject:Re: Contact City Council and Staff: Planning and Development Services Date:Monday, October 9, 2023 10:34:13 AM External Sender Hello Chandler, Thank you for your answer! Have a good day, Clémentine On Mon, Oct 9, 2023 at 10:30 AM Van Schaack, Chandler <VanSchaackC@bouldercolorado.gov> wrote: Hi Clementine, Thanks for your comments. The Planning Board hearing for this concept review has been scheduled for December 5, 2023. The meeting will be held virtually, and you can participate by signing up as a speaker at the hearing. The meeting link, agenda, and instructions for participation will be available here a few days prior to the meeting: https://bouldercolorado.gov/government/board-commission/planning-board. In the meantime, the concept review application materials are available for your review at the following link (enter ‘LUR2023-00038’ into the search bar on the top left > links to the application materials will appear on the left hand side of the screen): https://bouldercolorado.gov/development-review-cases-map Staff has issued preliminary comments to the applicant, which I have attached to this email. Just as a reminder, there is no approval or denial associated with this application; rather, the purpose of concept review is to allow staff, the planning board and the public to provide feedback on a preliminary proposal prior to submittal of a formal site review application. Please feel free to send me any additional thoughts or comments you may have, and I will look forward to hearing from you at the hearing as well. Best, Chandler Van Schaack, AICP Attachment A - January 16, 2024 Planning Board packet Item 5A - 2952 Baseline Rd. Concept Review Page 78 Packet Page 416 of 523 Principal Planner (Pronouns: He/Him/His) What's This? O: 303-441-1930 vanschaackc@bouldercolorado.gov Department of Planning and Development Services 1739 Broadway | Boulder, CO 80302 bouldercolorado.gov -------------------------------------------------------------- Name: Clementine Gas Email: clementine.gas@gmail.com Organization: Topic: Planning and Development Services Comment, Question or Feedback: I am not sure the plans for demolishing the Dark Horse and replacing it with hotels and student housing is good. I am sure a lot o other people think similarly! Could you hold a vote for public comment on plan LUR2023-00038? Thank you, Clementine Gas -------------------------------------------------------------- [[FSF080521]] Submission ID is #: 1149727807 -- Clémentine Hardy Gas Attachment A - January 16, 2024 Planning Board packet Item 5A - 2952 Baseline Rd. Concept Review Page 79 Packet Page 417 of 523 From:Ferro, Charles To:Van Schaack, Chandler Subject:Fwd: Brynn Bader :- Historic Preservation/Landmarking Date:Tuesday, October 24, 2023 9:53:40 AM Hey Chandler, can you pls respond? Pls see Brad’s note below re: cc’s. Thanks! Best, Charles Begin forwarded message: From: "Mueller, Brad" <MuellerB@bouldercolorado.gov> Date: October 24, 2023 at 7:30:19 AM MDT To: "Johnson, Kristofer" <JohnsonK3@bouldercolorado.gov>, "Ferro, Charles" <ferroc@bouldercolorado.gov> Subject: FW: Brynn Bader :- Historic Preservation/Landmarking KJ and Charles, please decide whether a response should come from Marcy or Chandler. Make sure that they know to cc: all original folks on the e-mail. Thanks! From: No Reply <noreply@bouldercolorado.gov> Sent: Monday, October 23, 2023 10:20 PM To: Council <Council@bouldercolorado.gov>; ContactCoB <ContactCoB@bouldercolorado.gov>; Mueller, Brad <MuellerB@bouldercolorado.gov>; Johnson, Kristofer <JohnsonK3@bouldercolorado.gov>; Gerwing, Marcy <GerwingM@bouldercolorado.gov> Subject: Brynn Bader :- Historic Preservation/Landmarking Preferred Form Language: English / Inglés Name: Brynn Bader Organization (optional): Email: brynnlarson119@yahoo.com Phone (optional): My question or feedback most closely relates to the following topic (please choose one):Historic Preservation/Landmarking Attachment A - January 16, 2024 Planning Board packet Item 5A - 2952 Baseline Rd. Concept Review Page 80 Packet Page 418 of 523 Comment, question or feedback: I recently heard about the new luxury housing plans for south Boulder and am deeply concerned about preserving the World Famous Dark Horse restaurant. It seems every restaurant/bar that was unique to boulder’s culture has been upended and replaced. I would hate to see the same demise for the Dark Horse. Please hold a public meeting, and I’m sure there are plenty of others who voice the same concerns. [[FSF080521]] Submission ID is #: 1155533322 Compose a Response to this Email Attachment A - January 16, 2024 Planning Board packet Item 5A - 2952 Baseline Rd. Concept Review Page 81 Packet Page 419 of 523 From:WIRELESS CALLER To:Van Schaack, Chandler Subject:Voice Mail (1 minute and 5 seconds) Date:Friday, October 27, 2023 10:56:18 AM Attachments:audio.mp3 External Sender Notice This email was sent by an external sender. Hello Chandler. My name is James King, Boulder resident Martin Acres. I'd like to register my officeposition to the Williams Village 2 project that is proposed, taking away another grocery store and myimmediate neighborhood, as well as places that many residents of Boulder and visitors like to visit, likethe Dark Horse. And there's a whole bunch of places over there that shouldn't come down and put up abunch of apartment complex. Seems to me that could be done differently. Alright, thank you, 720-339-0272. You received a voice mail from WIRELESS CALLER. Thank you for using Transcription! If you don't see a transcript above, it's because the audio quality was notclear enough to transcribe. Set Up Voice Mail Attachment A - January 16, 2024 Planning Board packet Item 5A - 2952 Baseline Rd. Concept Review Page 82 Packet Page 420 of 523 From:Van Schaack, Chandler To:larina.ascunce@yahoo.com Cc:ContactCoB; Mueller, Brad; Johnson, Kristofer; Gerwing, Marcy; Ferro, Charles Subject:Contact City Council and Staff: Historic Preservation/Landmarking Date:Thursday, December 14, 2023 3:13:00 PM Hi Larina, Thanks for your comments. A public hearing regarding the concept plan for 2952 Baseline Rd. (LUR2023-00038) will be held at Planning Board on Jan. 16 at 6 p.m. Planning Board meetings are now hybrid so, testimony can be provided in person or remotely. Board meetings are held in the City Council Chambers at 1777 Broadway. For more information regarding remote testimony, please refer to the board’s website. If you plan to share any documentary evidence with the board as part of your testimony, it must be submitted to the secretary of the board via email (boulderplanningboard@bouldercolorado.gov) at least 24 hours prior to the beginning of the meeting. Documentary evidence includes, without limitation, materials related to specific applications and other documents or presentations to be shown electronically or be referenced during the hearing. You are also welcome to email any feedback directly to the board at boulderplanningboard@bouldercolorado.gov. Regarding the Dark Horse, the property is not individually landmarked or located in a historic district. However, due to the age of the buildings, historic preservation review will be required beginning in 2024 to determine whether the existing buildings are potentially eligible for landmark designation. If the building(s) are determined to be potentially eligible for designation, staff may recommend a landmark designation application be submitted as a condition of Site Review. The designation application may be held in agreement between the owner and the City, typically until Site Review approval. If exterior changes are proposed, review through a Landmark Alteration Certificate would occur concurrent to the Site Review Process, and prior to Planning Board review. If the building(s) are not found to be potentially eligible, the demolition application will be approved. The applicant will be required to submit a Historic Preservation Demolition Review application to determine whether the buildings would be approved for demolition or recommended for preservation. Staff has encouraged the applicant to submit the application early in the schematic design phase, as the outcome of the review may have a large impact on the development. Please feel free to contact me with any additional questions. Best, Chandler Van Schaack, AICP Principal Planner (Pronouns: He/Him/His) What's This? O: 303-441-1930 vanschaackc@bouldercolorado.gov Attachment A - January 16, 2024 Planning Board packet Item 5A - 2952 Baseline Rd. Concept Review Page 83 Packet Page 421 of 523 Department of Planning and Development Services 1739 Broadway | Boulder, CO 80302 bouldercolorado.gov -------------------------------------------------------------- Name: Larina Ascunce Email: larina.ascunce@yahoo.com Organization: Topic: Historic Preservation/Landmarking Comment, Question or Feedback: Hello - I would like to formally demand the city council hold a vote for public comment on Plan LUR2023-00038. I would also like to encourage the city council to make the Dark Horse building an historical landmark so that it cannot be torn down. It is an iconic venue in our city that has much history and love from the community. Please please save the Dark Horse! Thank you, Larina Ascunce -------------------------------------------------------------- [[FSF080521]] Submission ID is #: 1174509403 Attachment A - January 16, 2024 Planning Board packet Item 5A - 2952 Baseline Rd. Concept Review Page 84 Packet Page 422 of 523 1 Cusworth, Amanda From:Brian Keegan <bkeegan@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, January 15, 2024 10:31 AM To:boulderplanningboard Subject:Williams Village II External Sender Notice This email was sent by an external sender. I write to express my support for the proposed development of Williams Village II. The development would add a much‐needed mix of housing for students and non‐students, relieving housing pressure on other neighborhoods. Furthermore, the site is already located at a confluence of mixed zoning areas and is an excellent candidate for in‐fill development into a neighborhood center (as envisioned in BVCP 2.19) leveraging its proximity to the university and city investments in pedestrian, biking, and public transportation infrastructure. Boulder already devotes far too much of its valuable space to subsidizing parking for cars instead of subsidizing housing for people. Please expedite this proposed development so that people who want to live in Boulder can live here instead of pushing people out to other neighborhoods and communities and accelerating our interlocking climate and affordability crises. Sincerely, Brian Keegan Attachment A - January 16, 2024 Planning Board packet Item 5A - 2952 Baseline Rd. Concept Review Page 85 Packet Page 423 of 523 1 Cusworth, Amanda From:Stephen Hibbs <shibbs.a@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, January 15, 2024 8:23 AM To:boulderplanningboard Subject:I support the Williams Village II development External Sender Notice This email was sent by an external sender. Please build this. I used to live right near there, I worked right behind the shell for years, and I see no issue in making that space modern and full of housing. In fact that area was always totally underutilized and I was always annoyed at the lack of good restaurants in the area (it is now better with the pho place). It is right next to the highway, right next to campus, and the only vies that are really impacted are those of Will‐Ville and the highway drivers. Let’s build this thing as is. I currently live in Whittier neighborhood. As for the Dark Horse, I don’t personally think saving it is worth the cost of extra housing, but I would be personally sympathetic to a version that lets it stay. But under no circumstances should we torpedo 610 housing units for a (cool) bar. Best, Steve Attachment A - January 16, 2024 Planning Board packet Item 5A - 2952 Baseline Rd. Concept Review Page 86 Packet Page 424 of 523 1 Cusworth, Amanda From:Neesha Regmi Schnepf <neesha.regmi.schnepf@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, January 15, 2024 10:33 AM To:boulderplanningboard Subject:support Williams Village II housing development External Sender Notice This email was sent by an external sender. Hi there, I am a research scientist at CU Boulder. I think it is a fantastic idea to build 610 housing units at Williams Village II. Most of the students in my research group commute to Boulder from neighboring towns. This drains their ability to actually be present in person, and it adds congestion to our roadways and neighborhood streets (because campus parking is not free to students, the students all park on side streets). If they could find affordable housing in Boulder, they would live here. Converting strip malls to high density housing communities that are walkable and bikeable is the way forward for our town. Baseline and 30th is an excellent area to lead the way on this. Thank you, Neesha Schnepf Attachment A - January 16, 2024 Planning Board packet Item 5A - 2952 Baseline Rd. Concept Review Page 87 Packet Page 425 of 523 1 Cusworth, Amanda From:Amanda Lenz <amandalenz@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, January 15, 2024 9:18 AM To:boulderplanningboard Subject:Williams village 2 External Sender NoƟce This email was sent by an external sender. Hello planning board, I think it’s great to reconsider this development but adding a hotel and 610 housing units is really hard to conceive how this area will handle that many more people. I live in the Baseline and Broadway area and I love that the area is mixed use (my home has an adu), but I am concerned about the infrastructure of the area. I’ve been bugging the city for a green arrow on baseline and broadway for years with no luck. I almost get hit in that intersecƟon weekly. The underpasses are great, but they are out of the way and have been used as transient living areas for the last couple years. The streets in the neighborhood have already seen an inﬂux of traffic that goes way too fast especially aŌer football games. I’ve saved and lived in a Ɵny space for 10 years to afford to live here. Now I have a sweet baby and it scares me to think of the street becoming more dangerous. Can I sustain living here? Thank you for your consideraƟon, Amanda Lenz / lenzillustraƟon.com Attachment A - January 16, 2024 Planning Board packet Item 5A - 2952 Baseline Rd. Concept Review Page 88 Packet Page 426 of 523 1 Cusworth, Amanda From:Betsy <bjhandco@comcast.net> Sent:Monday, January 15, 2024 10:14 AM To:boulderplanningboard Subject:Williams Village II - please support this project External Sender NoƟce This email was sent by an external sender. Dear Planning Board, I hope you will consider this proposal favorably. It is in a great locaƟon with easy access on foot, bike, or bus. It’s great too that the plan includes the Sprouts grocery store! thank you. Betsy Hand 880 6th Street Boulder 303 447‐8073 Attachment A - January 16, 2024 Planning Board packet Item 5A - 2952 Baseline Rd. Concept Review Page 89 Packet Page 427 of 523 1 Cusworth, Amanda From:Brian Keegan <bkeegan@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, January 15, 2024 10:31 AM To:boulderplanningboard Subject:Williams Village II External Sender Notice This email was sent by an external sender. I write to express my support for the proposed development of Williams Village II. The development would add a much‐needed mix of housing for students and non‐students, relieving housing pressure on other neighborhoods. Furthermore, the site is already located at a confluence of mixed zoning areas and is an excellent candidate for in‐fill development into a neighborhood center (as envisioned in BVCP 2.19) leveraging its proximity to the university and city investments in pedestrian, biking, and public transportation infrastructure. Boulder already devotes far too much of its valuable space to subsidizing parking for cars instead of subsidizing housing for people. Please expedite this proposed development so that people who want to live in Boulder can live here instead of pushing people out to other neighborhoods and communities and accelerating our interlocking climate and affordability crises. Sincerely, Brian Keegan Attachment A - January 16, 2024 Planning Board packet Item 5A - 2952 Baseline Rd. Concept Review Page 90 Packet Page 428 of 523 1 Cusworth, Amanda From:Mark Bloomfield <mark@averde.net> Sent:Monday, January 15, 2024 9:30 AM To:boulderplanningboard Subject:Williams Village II External Sender Notice This email was sent by an external sender. I fully support the plan for Williams Village II. As Macon Cowles outlined in his letter to you, it's an excellent opportunity for a 15 minute neighborhood, enhancing the City's investment in bike infrastructure. It's a perfect place to add student housing, and a perfect place for dense housing without the need to segue into residential neighborhoods. Every extra housing unit counts! Please approve it! ‐Mark Mark Bloomfield 289 Seven Hills Dr, Boulder, CO 80302 mark@averde.net 720.589.2895 Attachment A - January 16, 2024 Planning Board packet Item 5A - 2952 Baseline Rd. Concept Review Page 91 Packet Page 429 of 523 From:Macon Cowles To:boulderplanningboard Subject:Williams village II Date:Sunday, January 14, 2024 4:36:51 PM Attachments:PastedGraphic-6.png PastedGraphic-3.png PastedGraphic-5.png External Sender Notice This email was sent by an external sender. Dear colleagues on the Planning Board: The Williams Village II redevelopment at 2952 Baseline Rd. is one of eight neighborhood centers in the City— commercial and mixed use hubs that are gathering spots with services and stores that provide significant benefits to adjacent and nearby residents. The location has excellent walk and bike scores and decent transit scores. See walkscore.com. I urge you to view the Williams Village II redevelopment as a neighborhood center from the standpoint of how its redevelopment will affect the area’s attributes as a Fifteen Minute Neighborhood. The redevelopment will retain the grocery store and add a modest amount of commercial and restaurant space to the site which will increase the stores and services for residents in adjacent neighborhoods, increasing their walk score and bike scores. And because it will add a substantial amount of housing, the redevelopment will increase the ability of these businesses to thrive. Current conditions within the site make it harrowing for people to safely walk or bike through the site or along its northern or eastern edges because of the twelve motor vehicle access points and the fact that there are relatively few buildings amidst large and ugly parking lots. The overhead view of the current site on p. 3 of 86 of your packet makes that abundantly clear. The walkability of the site and its attractiveness as a bicycle destination will be enhanced by the developer’s reducing the current chaos and land devoted to surface parking. Attachment A - January 16, 2024 Planning Board packet Item 5A - 2952 Baseline Rd. Concept Review Page 92 Packet Page 430 of 523 Staff’s concern about using the full height allowed by The Charter for the buildings at the northeast corner of the site seems out of place for this neighborhood center, which is sandwiched between Williams Village towers (157 feet) and the 25 foot retaining wall for a highway that carries 49,000 vehicles per day. The only detached residences are those catty corner to the redevelopment, all of which are rental properties. (See map of rental properties, shown in blue in the figure below, here.) There is no neighborhood character here crying out for a transition zone from density. In this way, it is unique: unlike any fo the other seven neighborhood centers listed on p. 37 of the BVCP. Ensuring “appropriate scale transitions to neighboring residential uses” (p. 19 of 86) makes sense for the other seven neighborhood centers. But on this site, losing housing units by reducing the height of buildings lets the tail wag the dog. Our housing crisis has gotten so much worse in the last ten years, that the countervailing BVCP policies supporting housing should override the suggestion of the need to reduce height at the edge of the property. One of those is §2.14 of the Comp Plan: the “Commitment to a Walkable and Accessible City.” “The city will promote the development of a walkable and accessible city by designing neighborhoods and mixed-use business areas to provide easy and safe access by foot, bike and transit to places such as neighborhood centers, community facilities, transit stops or centers and shared public spaces and amenities (i.e., 15-minute neighborhoods).” The City has spent tens of millions of dollars on eight bicycle and pedestrian overpasses and underpasses within ¼ mile of this site to enhance the walkability and bikeability of this area. See https://boulder.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=29b906ffd7c24f10b33383b829f4ee28. Attachment A - January 16, 2024 Planning Board packet Item 5A - 2952 Baseline Rd. Concept Review Page 93 Packet Page 431 of 523 Let’s not throw that investment away. These pathways are the very foundation for fifteen minute neighborhoods. When there is the opportunity to add housing to an area that already is a fifteen minute neighborhood, it should be embraced. Macon Cowles 1726 Mapleton Ave. Boulder, Colorado 80304 macon.cowles@gmail.com (303) 447-3062 Attachment A - January 16, 2024 Planning Board packet Item 5A - 2952 Baseline Rd. Concept Review Page 94 Packet Page 432 of 523 1 Cusworth, Amanda From:rebecca.dickson@comcast.net Sent:Monday, January 15, 2024 11:27 AM To:boulderplanningboard Subject:Williams Village II External Sender Notice This email was sent by an external sender. Dear Planning Board: I write to voice my support of the Williams Village II project. It’s an excellent plan to redevelop this car‐crazy area. I live and work in the area and frequently go the grocery store there—Sprouts—on my bike or walking or by car. It’s kinda scary going there by bike because there are lots of places where a car can hit me. As you know, there are good bike routes that can get me there. But the parking lots are dangerous for those of us on bikes. People can turn in on us from mulƟple places and angles. And all those aging buildings are not environmentally friendly. They aren’t very aƩracƟve, either. More housing is vital, of course. Boulder housing is far too expensive. I’ve lived in Boulder for 37 years now—I rented for years than bought a house when that was possible. I could not have afforded the rents in Boulder today. Our housing prices are simply not affordable for the majority of people and we need to do beƩer. More housing is one way to create a more equitable, sustainable, and diverse community. The Williams Village II project is a move forward. Thank you for your work, Rebecca Rebecca Dickson 1055 Waite Drive Boulder, CO 80303 Attachment A - January 16, 2024 Planning Board packet Item 5A - 2952 Baseline Rd. Concept Review Page 95 Packet Page 433 of 523 1 Cusworth, Amanda From:joni teter <joniteter@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, January 15, 2024 9:02 AM To:boulderplanningboard Subject:Williams Village plan External Sender Notice This email was sent by an external sender. Hi, Planing Board members - I am very supportive of the proposed redevelopment of the strip mall at 30th and Baseline. I am quite familiar with this area: I live in the neighborhood, walk/bike through the Willie Villie campus properties and adjacent areas frequently, and must drive on Baseline when exiting my suburban enclave. This decrepit mall is a great place to add housing, and the developer's plan allows room to retain existing businesses, many of which have managed to survive for a couple of decades. Alternative transportation access to and from the site is good, but traversing the blocks presently occupied by the mall by bike/on foot is perilous, with multiple entries and cars in largely disconnected parking lots going every which way. Adding cars to Baseline shouldn't be a concern: CU's bus system from WV to all of CU's other locations works really well, with full buses running much of the time, keeping students out of cars and off the streets. (I'm taking a class at CU and ride the CU bus frequently, so have first hand experience.) I am excited by this development and about the prospect to add more housing in a nearly perfect location for walkability/bikability. Thank you for the work you do - I know it ain't easy :) Best - Joni Teter Attachment A - January 16, 2024 Planning Board packet Item 5A - 2952 Baseline Rd. Concept Review Page 96 Packet Page 434 of 523 1 Cusworth, Amanda From:Peter Vitale <petercvitale@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, January 15, 2024 3:29 PM To:boulderplanningboard Subject:Williams Village, Jan 16 PB Meeting (written comments) External Sender Notice This email was sent by an external sender. Hello Planning Board, As some of you may know, I have been advising the Williams family on various aspects of their real estate holdings in Boulder for several years. They have now assembled a very competent team to redevelop their family property adjacent to Williams Village - land that was also once their family land. The team has assembled the below points and I wanted to be sure that you had these items before you as you head into the Concept Review hearing. You will obviously hear more about all of these points from the project team and other speakers/stakeholders. Best of luck, as always! Peter Vitale -As a community, we need more housing of all types. Even student new housing helps take pressure off the existing housing stock. -This is an old 1970’s shopping center with a highway on one side, an arterial road on another side and commercial across the street. Not to mention 150-foot towers to the east. This is an appropriate location to be redeveloped and the primary focus should be on residential development. It should also serve both the neighborhood and the community as a commercial center. -The site is 100% paved and currently thousands of students walk across parking lots every day to access the university with limited services for them or the neighborhood. It currently doesn’t do a good job of serving the neighborhood. -It is a perfect site to help repair the urban fabric and introduce pedestrian streets and parks as well as people. This is a good location for commercial and residentialuses. -This should be a demonstration site for sustainable development. It should be all electric and show where we are going as a city. Attachment A - January 16, 2024 Planning Board packet Item 5A - 2952 Baseline Rd. Concept Review Page 97 Packet Page 435 of 523 2 -It would be good to try to preserve existing businesses, if possible. Especially those that are neighborhood serving. -The site already has very good access to city services and requires very little, if any, new infrastructure from the city. end —————————— Peter Vitale 312.404.8356 Attachment A - January 16, 2024 Planning Board packet Item 5A - 2952 Baseline Rd. Concept Review Page 98 Packet Page 436 of 523 1 Cusworth, Amanda From:Bogdan Lita <optoengineer@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, January 15, 2024 12:32 PM To:boulderplanningboard Subject:Williams villlage housing External Sender Notice This email was sent by an external sender. Hi, Please allow housing to the baseline and 30th Williams village development. Thanks Bogdan Attachment A - January 16, 2024 Planning Board packet Item 5A - 2952 Baseline Rd. Concept Review Page 99 Packet Page 437 of 523 LSC TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS, INC. 1889 York Street Denver, CO 80206 (303) 333-1105 FAX (303) 333-1107 E-mail: lsc@lscdenver.com July 21, 2022 Mr. Steve Savercool Coburn Architecture 2718 Pine Street, Suite 100 Boulder, CO 80302 Re: Williams Village II Boulder, CO LSC #230560 Dear Mr. Savercool: In response to your request, LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. has prepared this Trip Gene- ration and Assignment Report for the proposed Williams Village II development in Boulder, Colorado, to meet the traffic study requirements for Concept Review. IMPACT AREA Figure 1 shows the vicinity map. Area Roadways The major roadways in the site’s vicinity are shown on Figure 1 and are described below. •28th Street (US 36) is a north-south, four-lane principal arterial roadway west of the site. There are three southbound lanes in the vicinity of the site. The intersection with Baseline Road is grade-separated with signalized ramp intersections and auxiliary lanes. The posted speed limit in the vicinity of the site is 35 mph. There is a detached sidewalk on the east side of the roadway. There are bus stops near the intersection with Baseline Road. •Baseline Road is an east-west, four-lane major arterial roadway north of the site. The intersections with 28th Street (US 36) and 30th Street are grade-separated or signalized with auxiliary lanes. The posted speed limit in the vicinity of the site is 35 mph. There are detached sidewalks and dedicated bike lanes on both sides of the roadway. There are bus stops near the intersections with 28th Street (US 36) and 30th Street. •30th Street is a north-south, two-lane minor arterial roadway east of the site. The inter- section with Baseline Road is signalized with auxiliary lanes. The posted speed limit in the vicinity of the site is 20 mph. There are bus stops near the intersection with Baseline Road. Attachment A - January 16, 2024 Planning Board packet Item 5A - 2952 Baseline Rd. Concept Review Page 100 Packet Page 438 of 523 Mr. Steve Savercool Page 2 July 21, 2023 Williams Village II PROPOSED LAND USE AND ACCESS The site is proposed to include a mix of retail and residential uses. The site is proposed to include about 69,382 square feet of commercial space, about 570 apartment dwelling units, a 7,796 square-foot restaurant, and a 45-room hotel. Access is proposed to Baseline Road and 30th Street in several locations as shown in the con- ceptual site plan in Figure 2. The configuration of each as right-in/right-out, three-quarter, or full movement will be coordinated with City staff and reviewed/evaluated in a future traffic impact study as part of Site Review. ALTERNATIVE TRAVEL MODES An alternate travel mode share of 20 percent is expected for the site. There are existing bus stops on 28th Street (US 36), Baseline Road, and 30th Street near the site. There are dedicated bike lanes and detached sidewalks on both sides of Baseline Road. This reduction will be sup- ported by a future Travel Demand Management (TDM) plan. TRIP GENERATION Table 1 shows the estimated typical weekday, morning peak-hour, and afternoon peak-hour trip generation for the site based on the rates from Trip Generation, 11th Edition, 2021, by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). The site is projected to generate about 7,562 vehicle-trips on the average weekday, with about half entering and half exiting the site during a 24-hour period. During the morning peak-hour, which generally occurs for one hour between 6:30 and 8:30 a.m., about 201 vehicles would enter and about 271 vehicles would exit the site. During the afternoon peak-hour, which gene- rally occurs for one hour between 4:00 and 6:30 p.m., about 421 vehicles would enter and about 354 vehicles would exit the site. These trips will be reduced by alternative travel modes as shown in Table 1. TRIP DISTRIBUTION Figure 3 shows the estimated distribution of the site-generated traffic. TRIP ASSIGNMENT Figure 4 shows the assignment of site-generated traffic based on the trip generation shown in Table 1 and the directional distribution shown in Figure 3. * * * * * Attachment A - January 16, 2024 Planning Board packet Item 5A - 2952 Baseline Rd. Concept Review Page 101 Packet Page 439 of 523 Mr. Steve Savercool Page 3 July 21, 2023 Williams Village II We trust this information will assist you in planning for the proposed Williams Village II deve- lopment. Respectfully submitted, LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. By: Christopher S. McGranahan, P.E. Principal/President CSM/wc Enclosure: Table 1 Figures 1 - 4 W:\LSC\Projects\2023\230560-WilliamsVillage_II\Report\WilliamsVillage_II-072123.wpd Attachment A - January 16, 2024 Planning Board packet Item 5A - 2952 Baseline Rd. Concept Review Page 102 Packet Page 440 of 523 Table 1 ESTIMATED TRAFFIC GENERATION Williams Village II Boulder CO LSC #230560; July, 2023 Vehicle - Trips GeneratedTrip Generation Rates (1) PM Peak-Hour AM Peak-HourAveragePM Peak-HourAM Peak-HourAverage OutInOutInWeekdayOutInOutInWeekdayQuantityTrip Generating Category Building A 12612636542,0823.2953.2950.9441.41654.45KSF (3)38.234Commercial (2) 172733105220.1520.2380.2850.0854.54DU (5)115Apartments (4) 14315369642,604Total Building A = Building B 33339145453.2953.2950.9441.41654.45KSF (3)10.014Commercial (2) 14212684090.1520.2380.2850.0854.54DU (5)90Apartments (4) 47543522954Total Building B = Building C 8131652500.1520.2380.2850.0854.54DU (5)55Apartments (4) 813165250Total Building C = Building D 707020301,1513.2953.2950.9441.41654.45KSF (3)21.134Commercial (2) 11149123600.2420.3010.2020.2587.99Rooms45Hotel (6) 284334418363.5305.5214.3075.264107.20KSF (3)7.796Restaurant (7) 10912763832,347Total Building D = Building E 15242894540.1520.2380.2850.0854.54DU (5)100Apartments (4) 1524289454Total Building E = Building F 233643136810.1520.2380.2850.0854.54DU (5)150Apartments (4) 23364313681Total Building F = Building G 9141752720.1520.2380.2850.0854.54DU (5)60Apartments (4) 914175272Total Building G = 3544212712017,562TOTAL = 718454401,51220% ATM Reduction (8) = 2833372171616,050Net Trips = Notes: Source: Trip Generation, Institute of Transportation Engineers, 11th Edition, 2021(1) ITE Land Use No. 822 - Strip Retail Plaza (<40k)(2) KSF = 1,000 square feet(3) ITE Land Use No. 221 - Multifamily Housing (Mid-Rise)(4) DU = Dwelling Unit(5) ITE Land Use No. 310 - Hotel(6) ITE Land Use No. 932 - High Turnover (Sit-Down) Restaurant(7) The alternative travel mode reduction will be supported by a future Travel Demand Management (TDM) plan.(8) Attachment A - January 16, 2024 Planning Board packet Item 5A - 2952 Baseline Rd. Concept Review Page 103 Packet Page 441 of 523 SITEMapFigure 1VicinityScale: 1"=1,200'Approximate ScaleWilliams Village II (LSC #230560)Attachment A - January 16, 2024 Planning Board packetItem 5A - 2952 Baseline Rd. Concept ReviewPage 104Packet Page 442 of 523 Attachment A - January 16, 2024 Planning Board packetItem 5A - 2952 Baseline Rd. Concept ReviewPage 105Packet Page 443 of 523 SITEof Site-Generated TrafficDirectional Distribution65%Figure 310%Scale: 1"=500'Approximate ScaleWilliams Village II (LSC #230560)10%15%35%5%25%Attachment A - January 16, 2024 Planning Board packetItem 5A - 2952 Baseline Rd. Concept ReviewPage 106Packet Page 444 of 523 SITESite-Generated TrafficAssignment ofFigure 4Scale: 1"=500'Approximate Scale60511,0003526Williams Village II (LSC #230560)2345676059101,5103002,82021910416347611387998440814175611871115445158751095162121634579402095242121632015302015163 734632121885025162218114100004753110371861614718371,0001,1202,9409903,1203002,1204,535Attachment A - January 16, 2024 Planning Board packetItem 5A - 2952 Baseline Rd. Concept ReviewPage 107Packet Page 445 of 523 CITY OF BOULDER PLANNING BOARD ACTION MINUTES January 16, 2024 Hybrid Meeting A permanent set of these minutes and a tape recording (maintained for a period of seven years) are retained in Central Records (telephone: 303-441-3043). Minutes and streaming audio are also available on the web at: http://www.bouldercolorado.gov/ PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Jorge Boone (virtual) Laura Kaplan Mark McIntyre Kurt Nordback ml Robles (virtual) Sarah Silver, Chair PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Lisa Smith STAFF PRESENT: Amanda Cusworth, Internal Operations and Board Support Manager Charles Ferro, Development Review Senior Manager Adam Olinger, City Planner Thomas Remke, Board Specialist Edward Stafford, Civil Engineering Senior Manager Chandler Van Schaack, City Planner Principal Laurel Witt, Assistant City Attorney II 1.CALL TO ORDER Chair, S. Silver, declared a quorum at 6:00 p.m. and the following business was conducted. 2.PUBLIC PARTICIPATION In Person: No one spoke. Virtual: 1)Lynn Segal 3.APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES A.The draft Planning Board minutes from November 21st, 2023 are scheduled for approval. On a motion by L. Kaplan seconded by K. Nordback, the Planning Board voted to approve the November 21st, 2023 meeting minutes. Attachment B - Approved 1.16.24 Planning Board Minutes Item 5A - 2952 Baseline Rd. Concept Review Page 108 Packet Page 446 of 523 B. The draft Planning Board minutes from December 5th, 2023 are scheduled for approval. On a motion by L. Kaplan seconded by K. Nordback, the Planning Board voted to approve the December 5th, 2023 meeting minutes. C. The draft Planning Board minutes from December 19th, 2023 are scheduled for approval. On a motion by L. Kaplan seconded by ml Robles, the Planning Board voted to approve the December 19th, 2023 meeting minutes. 4. DISCUSSION OF DISPOSITIONS, PLANNING BOARD CALL-UPS / CONTINUATIONS A. CALL UP ITEM: Final Plat to subdivide the property at 1937 Upland Avenue to create three lots. Lot 1 is 19,575 square feet, Lot 2 is 9,724 square feet, and Lot 3 is 7,881 square feet. (Adams Subdivision, case no. TEC2022-00006). The Preliminary Plat was approved through case no. LUR2022-00003. This application is subject to potential call up on or before January 16, 2024. B. CALL UP ITEM: 2105 Mapleton Ave. Nonconforming Use Review (LUR2023-00047): Nonconforming Use Review for a 201 square foot addition to the attached dwelling unit at 2105 Mapleton Ave., including updated landscaping and architectural improvements. The call up period expires on January 16, 2024. C. CALL UP ITEM: Stream, Wetland and Water Body Map Revision (WET2023-00019) Gebhard ISP Mapping Revision. The call-up period expires on January 16, 2024. D. CALL UP ITEM: Standard Wetland Permit (WET2023-00014) Driveway Culvert Replacement at 8550/8600 Valmont. The call-up period expires on January 16, 2024. E. CALL UP ITEM: Standard Wetland Permit (WET2023-00020) Chapman Drive Trailhead and Pedestrian Bridge. The call-up period expires on January 16, 2024. This item was called up by K. Nordback. F. CALL UP ITEM: Standard Wetland Permit (WET2023-00021) Sawhill Ponds Improvements. The call-up period expires on January 26, 2024. 5. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS A. AGENDA TITLE: Concept Review proposal to redevelop the 448,668 sq. ft. site at 2952 Baseline Rd. with a mixed-use development consisting of residential, commercial, hotel, and restaurant uses. The existing buildings on site would be demolished and replaced with six new 4- 5 story buildings containing retail, restaurant and hotel uses as well as approximately 610 new dwelling units, and a mix of structured and underground parking. The unit type mix would Attachment B - Approved 1.16.24 Planning Board Minutes Item 5A - 2952 Baseline Rd. Concept Review Page 109 Packet Page 447 of 523 include market rate units and student housing units. Reviewed under case number LUR2023- 00038. Staff Presentation: S. Silver introduced the item. C. Van Schaack presented the item to the board. Board Questions: C. Van Schaack answered questions from the board. Applicant Presentation: Andy Bush and Bill Holicky presented the item to the board on behalf of the applicant. Board Questions: Andy Bush and Bill Holicky answered questions from the board. Public Hearing: In Person: 1. Ken Farmer 2. Guillarmo Losvec 3. Harel Biggie 4. Dr. Michael Grayson 5. Kirill Kravchuk 6. Ben Herman 7. Sage Sherman 8. Matthew Jensen 9. Gregory Kates 10. Hunter Damiani 11. Adam Perry 12. Aiden Young-Sgoutas 13. Kurt Dageforde 14. Daniel Henderson 15. Chad Henderson 16. Lois LaCroix 17. Ana Melara-Whitman 18. Jacob Felltnor 19. Adam Garno 20. Louisa Ensor 21. Paul Whiteside 22. Thomas Sigler 23. Destin Woods Virtual: 1. Kimman Harmon 2. Em Fox Attachment B - Approved 1.16.24 Planning Board Minutes Item 5A - 2952 Baseline Rd. Concept Review Page 110 Packet Page 448 of 523 3. George Craft 4. David Pardo 5. Scott Woodard 6. Mike Marsh 7. Paula Moseley 8. Ron DePugh 9. Daniel Howard 10. Lisa Harris 11. Cecilia Girz 12. Lynn Segal 13. Hunter Miller 14. Rosemary Hegarty 15. Nick Aguilera 16. Brent Fontana 17. Dorothy Cohen 18. Macon Cowles Board Comments: Key Issue #1: Is the proposed concept plan generally compatible with the goals, objectives, and recommendations of the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP)? M. McIntyre stated that he believes that the project aligns with BVCP goals for neighborhood centers but commented on the thinness of the proposal. He indicated that this lack of design detail plays into community fears regarding development and gives the board very little to provide feedback on. Mark noted that he was aligned with staff’s comments about massing, overall design, and access. L. Kaplan agreed that this project is generally compatible with the goals and objectives of the BVCP. Laura stated her general preference for more retail space on the ground floor and commented that the purpose of a neighborhood center is to support a community. Laura stated that that this concept provides more retail space on the ground floor, as well as housing, and thus should be considered a win-win. K. Nordback agreed with L. Kaplan and M. McIntyre that neighborhood centers need to serve a neighborhood. He noted that CB land use is listed as being primarily business, and that parts of the plan do not meet this standard. Ml Robles stated that, as proposed, this plan does not meet the intent nor guidance of a neighborhood center as defined in the BVCP. She stated that BVCP and zoning both point to this having a stronger commercial and retail base than currently proposed. She recommended that the applicant take a deeper look at what the BVCP and the BC-2 Zoning District standards are asking for. J. Boone seconded ml Robles’s comments and expressed serious concerns about the development as proposed. Jorge thanked the public for coming out and providing comments on this proposal. He believes that this does not work with the BVCP and maximizes profitability for the owners and developers of this site rather than serving the community’s needs. Attachment B - Approved 1.16.24 Planning Board Minutes Item 5A - 2952 Baseline Rd. Concept Review Page 111 Packet Page 449 of 523 S. Silver agreed with ml Robles and J. Boone’s comments regarding the excessive maximization of the proposed development. She suggested that the applicants decrease the size of their development and add more neighborhood-serving commercial space, perhaps with smaller retail footprints, when they return with their site plans. Sarah also suggested that the applicants consider diversifying the types of housing offered in the proposal. L. Kaplan made a comment regarding the inclusion of a hotel on the site, noting that one may not be ideal in this location as it is not a neighborhood-serving use, and it would be difficult to achieve given the current zoning. Key Issue #2: Does the Board have feedback for the applicant on the conceptual site plan and building design? J. Boone stated that he believes the conceptual design was put forth as a strategy to maximize revenue from the site and suggested that the applicant team review the board’s comments closely. ml Robles stated that the staff provided good input on the site and building design issues including access, open space, permeability, and scale. ml expressed that she would not support ground floor residential uses on any building facing Baseline or 30th St. She raised questions that a student population base would be able to support ground floor businesses year-round. ml advised the applicants to consider who they would be housing and how those residents would support the neighborhood center. K. Nordback made comments regarding the number and size of commercial units, noting that he likes to see more smaller spaces rather than fewer larger spaces. He also offered feedback on street design, access, minimizing curb cuts on Baseline, parking, and height issues. He disagreed with ml regarding the type of housing, opining that it is an ideal place for student housing. L. Kaplan agreed with most of the staff’s comments and noted that the plan includes a mix of student and non-student housing, which could help ease ml’s concerns. M. McIntyre noted that the design needs more articulation. He agreed that the development feels massive, and he sympathized with the community’s concerns. He noted that a lot of the proposed open space lies in the linear path that runs along Hwy 36, which he feels would not be utilized effectively as community space. S. Silver brought up neighbors’ concerns of increased sound pollution from the highway caused by these buildings. She suggested moving the parking structure along Hwy 36. Sarah commented on livability of the development. She also called for far more on-the-ground green space, including trees. She echoed M. McIntyre’s opinion, stating that it is difficult to comment on “Lego buildings”, given such incomplete design plans. Key Issue #3: Is the proposed building height of 55 feet in general proportion to the height of existing buildings and the proposed or projected heights of approved buildings in the area? Attachment B - Approved 1.16.24 Planning Board Minutes Item 5A - 2952 Baseline Rd. Concept Review Page 112 Packet Page 450 of 523 M. McIntyre noted that the current site layout does not seem to take advantage of any view corridors. He commented that the height limit is not 35 feet, but 55 feet, given the proper community benefit. L. Kaplan reiterated that it is important for the community to understand that the “35 ft. height limit” is the by-right height limit, and that allowing a development up to 55 feet in this area is not breaking any rules or giving developers any special treatment. She feels that 55 feet is an appropriate height for this area but agreed with K. Nordback that the building heights need more variability. She supported staffs’ comments in the packet about the length of building frontages and variability of roof lines. K. Nordback agreed that a max height of 55’ is appropriate in this location, considering the proximity of much taller buildings at Williams Village, but he expressed other architectural concerns. Ml Robles stated that, as this project stands, it does not meet basic definition of a neighborhood center, so she would not see a benefit to allowing additional height. J. Boone noted that the Planning Board does not control CU’s zoning, and as such the Planning Board should not use the surrounding buildings that were developed by CU when planning the city’s future framework. S. Silver agreed with ml Robles and J. Boone that the city should not use buildings that are not compliant with the city’s height requirement when considering height requirements of buildings that are bound by the city’s code. Sarah agreed with K. Nordback that there needs to be more variation of building height. Key Issue #4: Other key issues as identified by the Planning Board. ml Robles noted that the site is subject to historic preservation review and that this should happen before further review by the planning board. Ml Robles pointed out that this plan should include keeping vital services operable during construction. She noted that this project highlights many of the problems associated with redeveloping long-standing sites and suggested a deep rethink on how to provide what the city needs at this site. K. Nordback noted that a historic preservation can protect the exterior of the building but cannot protect the business inside. He believed it might be politically wise for the applicant to consider a plan that keeps the existing Dark Horse building as is. He expressed concerns about the project phasing and encouraged a plan to minimize the time Sprouts and other businesses would be closes. He reiterated concerns about the amount of parking and suggested the applicant seek parking alternatives. He agreed with neighbors’ concerns for this to remain a lively community space. L. Kaplan echoed K. Nordback’s comments about the limitations of landmarking and historic preservation, noting that this process cannot help to preserve or sustain the business inside. She reminded participants that the city cannot require applicants to build affordable housing on site. She noted that determining whether the property meets the criteria for landmarking is the purview of the Landmarks Board. She noted challenges with sequencing the Landmarks Board review of the property with Site Review. She strongly encouraged staff to work with the Landmarks Board to determine Attachment B - Approved 1.16.24 Planning Board Minutes Item 5A - 2952 Baseline Rd. Concept Review Page 113 Packet Page 451 of 523 whether Landmarks Board would be willing to landmark over the objection of the property owner before this project comes back for Site Review. M. McIntyre appreciated the public participation in tonight’s meeting, and reminded the public that there is no government mechanism to protect beloved businesses. He commented that it may take a lot more design work to convince the board that this plan has potential to become a beloved neighborhood center. S. Silver made additional comments about parking challenges and reducing sound issues. 6. ADDITIONAL MATTERS FROM THE PLANNING BOARD, PLANNING DIRECTOR, AND CITY ATTORNEY L. Smith announced her resignation from the board. The remainder of the board thanked Lisa for her time spent serving on the board. 7. DEBRIEF MEETING/CALENDAR CHECK 8. ADJOURNMENT The Planning Board adjourned the meeting at 10:35 pm. APPROVED BY _ _____ Board Chair _2/20/24____________ DATE Attachment B - Approved 1.16.24 Planning Board Minutes Item 5A - 2952 Baseline Rd. Concept Review Page 114 Packet Page 452 of 523 C OVE R SH E E T ME E T I N G D AT E March 7, 2024 AG E N D A I T E M Progress Update on the Implementation of the East Boulder Subcommunity Plan: Zoning Update P RI MARY STAF F C ON TAC T Kathleen King, Principal Planner AT TAC H ME N T S: Description I tem 6A - P rogress Update on the I mplementation of the East B oulder Subcommunity P lan: Zoning Update Packet Page 453 of 523 CITY OF BOULDER CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM MEETING DATE: March 7, 2024 AGENDA TITLE Progress Update on the Implementation of the East Boulder Subcommunity Plan: Zoning Update PRESENTER(S) Nuria Rivera-Vandermyde, City Manager Brad Mueller, Director of Planning & Development Services Kristofer Johnson, Comprehensive Planning Manager Kathleen King, City Principal Planner Sarah Horn, City Senior Planner EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The East Boulder Subcommunity Plan (EBSP), adopted by Planning Board and City Council in 2022, includes the following recommendation for near-term implementation: D9. East Boulder Zoning and Form Based Code Study Implementing the vision of the East Boulder land use plan will require code updates, zoning changes and possibly, the creation of new zones. The East Boulder Place Types Map and Place Type Performance Standards will be used as a guide to develop code recommendations to implement the plan and deliver design quality and placemaking described in the EBSP. Form-based code will be considered as an implementation option. (page 83-84). Item 6A - Progress Update on the Implementation of the East Boulder Subcommunity Plan: Zoning Update Page 1 Packet Page 454 of 523 Comprehensive Planning division staff began implementation of this recommendation in 2023, with the support of a consultant team. The approach anticipates two parts including the identification of appropriate zone districts and modifications to establish uses consistent with the Place Types, and updates to the form-based code (FBC) to guide the future built environment envisioned by the plan. On October 12, 2023, staff presented initial community feedback on the FBC to city council, and the council provided feedback on FBC regulations and review process. Staff and the consultant are currently drafting an update to the city’s FBC regulations based on collected feedback. A draft of the FBC updates will be available for public review and be presented to the planning board and city council in the late spring/early summer of this year. The purpose of this meeting is to review and provide feedback on proposed supported future zoning for East Boulder and associated recommendations for use table modifications to guide redevelopment in East Boulder to meet the Place Type performance standards described in the EBSP. Planning Board reviewed the proposed zoning recommendations on February 20, 2024, and provided feedback for Council’s consideration as discussed below. KEY QUESTIONS 1. Does city council find the identified equivalent zones adequately implement the vision of the East Boulder Subcommunity Plan? 2.Does Council have input on whether IG or IMS is the most effective equivalent zone for the Destination Workplace Place Type? 3. Does City Council support the proposed use table modifications? STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the following zone districts be considered ‘equivalent’ to the East Boulder Place Types, as described in the subcommunity plan: Place Type Equivalent Zone District 1 Parkside Residential MU -2 Mixed Use 2 2 Innovation TOD MU -4 Mixed Use 4 3 Neighborhood TOD MU -4 Mixed Use 4 4 Main Street Live -Work MU -4 Mixed Use 4 5 Innovation TOD (Non- Residential) IG Industrial-General 6 Hands -On Industrial IG Industrial-General 7 Destination Workplace IMS Industrial-Mixed Service OR IG Industrial-General The identification of these equivalent zones is intended to provide guidance to property owners, city staff, Planning Board and city council as parties consider redevelopment and rezoning requests of area properties that are in line with the subcommunity plan. The recommendation could also help identify initial zoning for future annexations of land Item 6A - Progress Update on the Implementation of the East Boulder Subcommunity Plan: Zoning Update Page 2 Packet Page 455 of 523 outside city limits, but within the boundaries of the subcommunity. Staff will further analyze whether additional tools will be needed to ensure rezoning to these districts, such as through an amendment of the subcommunity plan, or a different approach. Staff also recommends modifications to Title 9, Chapter 6 “Use Standards” to align permitted uses in the supportive underlying zones with the subcommunity plan’s Place Type performance standards: Zone Use Current Status Proposed Revision MU-4 Brewery, Distillery, Winery Prohibited Allowed MU-4 Small theater or rehearsal space Use Review Allowed IG Brewpubs and Taverns Prohibited Allowed Staff recommends the following modifications to Conditional Uses to align permitted uses in the supportive underlying zones with the subcommunity plan’s Place Type performance standards: Zone Use Conditions Proposed Revision IG Brewery, Distillery, Winery Allowed by right if the use does not exceed 15,000 square feet in floor area and does not include a restaurant Allowed by right if the use does not exceed 15,000 square feet in floor area IMS Office Allowed by right if the floor area of the use does not exceed 5,000 square feet and is otherwise prohibited Allowed by right if the floor area of the use does not exceed 50,000 square feet COMMUNITY SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENTS AND IMPACTS • Economic – The proposed use table updates support greater diversity in business uses and types in the East Boulder subcommunity, further building upon the growing and evolving economic ecosystem in the area. Because the use table changes would affect all zones described, the impact would apply citywide. Additionally, the proposed equivalent zones would allow for a greater range and mix of uses in East Boulder, including housing, creating opportunities for redevelopment. • Environmental – The proposed equivalent zones and use table updates are intended to support redevelopment in the East Boulder subcommunity that is consistent with the city’s goals for developing 15-minute neighborhoods and the Item 6A - Progress Update on the Implementation of the East Boulder Subcommunity Plan: Zoning Update Page 3 Packet Page 456 of 523 associated environmental benefits that those neighborhoods offer, such as a reduction in potential GHG emissions from car trips. •Social – Similarly, the proposed changes would continue to provide opportunities to expand the mix of uses in East Boulder subcommunity neighborhoods, offering more places for living, working, and connecting socially. OTHER IMPACTS •Fiscal – The proposed changes do not require unplanned funding. •Staff time – The proposed changes are considered part of this work plan item and do not require unplanned staff time. RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS FROM COUNCIL AGENDA COMMITTEE None. BOARD AND COMMISSION FEEDBACK Planning Board The Planning Board reviewed the proposed equivalent zones and recommended use table changes on February 20, 2024. In general, the board supports the recommended equivalent zones for the East Boulder place types. Additionally, the board supports the recommended use table modifications for the MU4 and IG zones. The board was not in unanimous agreement about the proposed modifications to the IMS zone, expressing concern that allowing additional office in a district could conflict with a citywide goal to create more space for housing. Additionally, board members proposed the following concepts for council’s consideration: 1) Additional modifications to the Use Table to address other perceived inconsistencies with the EBSP vision (see Attachment C) 2)The creation of additional zoning strategies that would require residential components in future redevelopment projects If council supports these considerations, staff are prepared to further evaluate and explore options to implement these ideas. PUBLIC FEEDBACK The East Boulder Subcommunity Plan process included three years of robust community engagement to help define a community vision for the future of the subcommunity. The plan describes community expectations for desired land uses, building character, street- level activation, streetscape character, access and mobility, and parking. As described in Item 6A - Progress Update on the Implementation of the East Boulder Subcommunity Plan: Zoning Update Page 4 Packet Page 457 of 523 the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan, a key tool to manage the execution of that vision through redevelopment is the Boulder Revised Code (B.R.C. 1981). This phase of implementation includes a technical analysis of zoning options and the development review process. To inform this process, the project includes engagement with the community through three channels: 1. A Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) The TAC is composed of approximately 12 members of the local design and construction community. Members represent various disciplines and specialties in the design process and bring a critical eye to inform potential rezonings, code changes and the potential update to the city’s Form Based Code. Two TAC meetings have been held thus far, the first on September 12, 2023 and the second on December 12, 2023. Both of these meetings were focused on technical issues of the Form Based Code. 2. Focus Group Sessions The project team assembled four focus group sessions focused on key issues to inform future zoning recommendations. The four groups included participants representing area property and developers, local business owners, mobility service providers and advocates, and long-range planning advocates. Similarly, the Focus Group sessions introduced the project to participants and collected feedback on their interests, concerns and plans for zoning changes in the area. Key themes from these sessions included: • Interest in ability to create more and wider variety of housing options in East Boulder • Concerns for affordability of commercial space and subcommunity’s ability to support small businesses in the face of redevelopment 3. Community-wide Communications Channels In addition to collecting targeted input from impacted community members and those working in the design and development industries, the project team has provided information about the project to the broader community through updates to the East Boulder Subcommunity Plan project webpage. Staff and some members of council received letters from community members, included in this memo as Attachment D. BACKGROUND Purpose of the East Boulder Zoning Update The purpose of the East Boulder Zoning Update is to facilitate the realization of the community’s vision and direction outlined in the adopted East Boulder Subcommunity Plan. The intended outcome of the process is a rezoning strategy and updates to the city’s Form Based Code based on the adopted plan, which may be applied to areas of change identified in the Subcommunity Plan. This will: Item 6A - Progress Update on the Implementation of the East Boulder Subcommunity Plan: Zoning Update Page 5 Packet Page 458 of 523 • Reduce barriers to achieving the types of places we heard community members want. • Promote the design of buildings to strengthen their relationship to public space. • Enhance the unique character of the East Boulder subcommunity. • Nurture a more economically resilient, walkable place for businesses, workers and residents. • Provide more attainable and affordable housing opportunities to accommodate a growing region. • Encourage work spaces and commercial places for existing and new makers and merchants. Rezoning Criteria At the time the East Boulder Subcommunity Plan was adopted, City Council also adopted Ordinance 8544, amending Section 9-2-19 of the Boulder Revised Code (B.R.C. 1981) to specifically address criteria for rezonings in East Boulder. The purpose of this ordinance was to ensure that the city had regulations in place to manage redevelopment in East Boulder before rezoning applications would be considered: (g) Additional Criteria for Land within the East Boulder Subcommunity Plan and 55th and Arapahoe Station Area Plan Boundaries. In the East Boulder Subcommunity Plan boundary and in the 55th and Arapahoe Station Area Plan boundary, for an application not incidental to a general revision of the zoning map, the city council shall also find, in addition to requirements in Subsection (e) above, that the land use code contains standards necessary to achieve the vision of the East Boulder Subcommunity Plan for the area proposed for rezoning. The intent of this requirement is to ensure that the land use code contains standards that will result in development of the area proposed for rezoning consistent with the vision of the plan, to ensure the rezoning will not otherwise negatively impact the achievement of the vision of the plan, and to not prevent rezoning until all anticipated land use code projects and programs of the plan have been completed. In making this determination, council shall consider, to the extent applicable for the area proposed for rezoning: (1) The ability of the proposed rezoning to achieve the place types and meet the place type performance standards established in the plan, (2) The ability of the proposed rezoning to achieve new and upgraded transportation connections designated in the East Boulder Subcommunity Connections Plan concurrent with development or redevelopment, and (3) Whether the proposed rezoning may impact the city's ability to incentivize the creation of or participation in one or more general improvement districts, or an equivalent organization, proposed in the plan. To establish zoning that aligns with the EBSP’s Place Type recommendations, the East Boulder Zoning Update strategy includes four key components: 1. Use table modifications to permit Place Type preferred uses by-right 2. Establishment of supported “underlying” zones to align with Place Types Item 6A - Progress Update on the Implementation of the East Boulder Subcommunity Plan: Zoning Update Page 6 Packet Page 459 of 523 3. Application of Form-Based Code in appropriate areas through the update to Appendix L: Form Based Code Areas map. 4. Update of Appendix M: Form Based Code to reflect East Boulder Place Types This memo addresses the first two of these components. Draft updates to Appendices M and L will be presented to the council in the late spring/early summer of 2024. East Boulder Place Types The East Boulder Place Types included in the EBSP describe the design intent and performance expectations for evolving neighborhoods, or ‘areas of change,’ identified in the subcommunity plan. The Place Type map can be found on page 36 of the plan and performance standards are described on pages 37-43. Figure 1: East Boulder Place Types Map Zoning Districts and Form-Based Code The purpose of Boulder’s Form-Based Code is to establish building form and design requirements for development within the areas designated in Appendix L. The requirements for these areas implement the desired development, including functional characteristics, form, design character and quality, as guided by the plans for each designated area and the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan. These requirements are considered supplemental to the underlying zoning provisions and supersede Title 9 regulations related to the intensity, form and bulk standards. However, the underlying zoning continues to regulate which uses are permitted, conditionally permitted, prohibited, or which may be permitted through use review. For ‘areas of change’ Item 6A - Progress Update on the Implementation of the East Boulder Subcommunity Plan: Zoning Update Page 7 Packet Page 460 of 523 identified in the EBSP, some properties may need to pursue a rezoning in order to redevelop with the preferred uses described in the subcommunity plan. To support future rezoning processes, the project team evaluated the Place Type map and performance standards of the EBSP against the existing zoning map and Chapter 6 of Title 9, “Use Standards.” See Attachment B for a zoning map of East Boulder. ANALYSIS Does city council find the identified equivalent zones adequately implement the vision of the East Boulder Subcommunity Plan? How were recommended zones selected? The vision for future neighborhoods described in Chapter 3 of the East Boulder Subcommunity Plan drove the selection of the recommended zone districts. Because the team anticipates the application of Form-Based Code to most areas of change in the subcommunity, the primary consideration for underlying zoning is by-right uses. Consistent with Planning & Development Services department-wide efforts to simplify the city code, the project team sought opportunities to employ existing zones, with modification, as opposed to creating new, additional zone districts. In general, the zoning districts proposed for each place type match the character desired for the place type; however, there are a few uses recommended to be revised. These recommended revisions to the existing zoning districts have been carefully vetted to request only those truly needed to achieve the goals of the Place Types described in the subcommunity plan. Uses allowed in the zoning district may also be managed further through the FBC. For example, the FBC may limit which floors the use may occur on within a particular building type within a particular location. For the full analysis of Place Types and Equivalent zones, see Attachment A. Does City Council have input on whether IG or IMS is the most effective equivalent zone for the Destination Workplace Place Type? As described in the Rezoning Memo (Attachment A), there are two options for an equivalent zone that would support the realization of the Destination Workplace Place Type: (1) Industrial Mixed Service (IMS) or (2) Industrial General (IG). The memo includes the following recommendation: IMS is the preferred zone designation, as it allows residential use by right, but, unless modified, it would limit Office and R&D uses to 5,000sf. This limitation is considered inappropriate for the Place Type, which is described in the subcommunity plan as: The Destination Workplace Place Type incorporates modern principles of creating flexible, active and engaging work places to serve Boulder businesses Item 6A - Progress Update on the Implementation of the East Boulder Subcommunity Plan: Zoning Update Page 8 Packet Page 461 of 523 and industry. These places will offer industrial and office space with indoor/outdoor work space, excellent connections to a variety of mobility options and local destinations for dining and entertainment. This place also expands opportunities for existing or new industrial businesses to create retail space and engage potential customers in an exciting environment. Flexibility in these neighborhoods also includes allowing for residential infill providing area employees with local housing options. (pg. 39) The IG option is described in the memo as an alternative if Office and R&D uses are not expanded in IMS. This alternative would continue to require a Use Review to allow for residential use in the area. East Boulder properties zoned IG and located in an “area of change” in the subcommunity plan would meet the criteria for Use Review approval described in B.R.C. 9-6-3(2)(A). At the February 20, 2024 Planning Board meeting, the board did not support modifications to the IMS zone that would increase allowed office space by right. Does City Council support the proposed use table modifications? What is the reason for the proposed Use Table Modifications? Some of the recommended zones do not allow for the kinds of uses or activities that are described in the subcommunity plan. The proposed modifications would allow preferred uses described in the plan by right. How will the proposed Use Table modifications impact other areas of the city? MU-4 Modifications Zone Use Current Status Proposed Revision MU-4 Brewery, Distillery, Winery Prohibited Allowed MU-4 Small theater or rehearsal space Use Review Allowed The MU-4 zone district is applied in two other locations in the city: (1) Boulder Junction. There are a little over twenty properties located in the Boulder Junction area that have MU-4 zoning. The mixed-use neighborhood includes residential, restaurants, retail, and office. A brewery, distillery or winery is more industrial in nature than the existing character of the neighborhood, however, this type of use is considered a valuable kind of “third place” that could, in the future, contribute to the social Item 6A - Progress Update on the Implementation of the East Boulder Subcommunity Plan: Zoning Update Page 9 Packet Page 462 of 523 infrastructure in this denser part of the city. Staff considers the proposed use complimentary to the existing uses in the neighborhood. Similarly, allowing a small theater or rehearsal space in this area would provide additional entertainment and social options for the growing neighborhood. (2) 1100 Balsam. MU-4 is applied to the northeast corner of 1100 Balsam, commonly known as the Alpine-Balsam site. Staff does not anticipate that the proposed modifications would impact the use of this site, which is currently in the development review process. IG Modifications Zone Use Current Status Proposed Revision IG Brewpubs and Taverns Prohibited Allowed Zone Use Conditions Proposed Revision IG Brewery, Distillery, Winery Allowed by right if the use does not exceed 15,000 square feet in floor area and does not include a restaurant Allowed by right if the use does not exceed 15,000 square feet in floor area The IG zones are concentrated in three regions of the city: (1) The East Boulder Subcommunity. (2) Foothills Corridor between Arapahoe and Jay Road. (3) Gunbarrel. The proposed modifications are intended to deliver the mix of uses community members described as desired during the East Boulder Subcommunity Planning process. In addition to this, as the city continues to consider the future of industrial zones, these modifications could create more opportunities to build in 15-minute neighborhoods for future workforce and potential residents of these areas as they evolve. Breweries, distilleries and wineries, in addition to manufacturing products with alcohol, also serve as important social places in industrial zones today. In East Boulder, these businesses host community meetings, put on neighborhood events like comedy or game nights and act as key meeting places for local workforce and nearby residents. The proposed modifications would permit existing businesses to expand into food service and allow other food and alcohol establishments to create new places within these neighborhoods for social activity and entertainment. IMS Modifications Zone Use Conditions Proposed Revision Item 6A - Progress Update on the Implementation of the East Boulder Subcommunity Plan: Zoning Update Page 10 Packet Page 463 of 523 IMS Office Allowed by right if the floor area of the use does not exceed 5,000 square feet and is otherwise prohibited Allowed by right if the floor area of the use does not exceed 50,000 square feet The IMS zone district is applied in two other locations in the city: (1) Boulder Junction. Located just west of the MU-4 zoned properties in Boulder Junction, in an area commonly referred to as ‘Steel Yards,’ this neighborhood consists of residential, light industrial and some office uses. The proposed modification would allow for larger office space uses in the area, however, the approximately 115 properties in the zoned district are subject to Form-Based Code. Office uses can be limited by FBC to specified stories and/or frontages, should an increased office footprint in the neighborhood be a concern. (2) North Boulder. There are approximately ten properties, located west of Broadway and north of Rosewood Avenue with an IMS designation. The North Boulder Subcommunity Plan envisions this area as “a mix of uses in a lower scale of intensity than the uses along Broadway and Yarmouth. They should provide a transition between the main street and the adjacent residential and industrial areas.” Staff finds that the proposed revision would not impede this realization of this vision for the area. NEXT STEPS Council can consider the proposed equivalent zones and Use Table modifications as conceptual. Pending council direction, staff will prepare to implement the Use Table modifications and subsequently identify a tool to manage future rezonings, such as an amendment to the East Boulder Subcommunity Plan. Council is scheduled to review community feedback and the following components of the East Boulder Zoning Update later in the year: 1. Draft updates to Appendix L: Form Based Code Areas map. 2. Draft update of Appendix M: Form Based Code ATTACHMENT(S) Attachment A: Rezoning Memo by Codametrics Attachment B: East Boulder Zoning Map Attachment C: Use Table Modifications proposed by Planning Board member, Kurt Nordback Attachment D: Letters from Community Members to Project team Item 6A - Progress Update on the Implementation of the East Boulder Subcommunity Plan: Zoning Update Page 11 Packet Page 464 of 523 EAST BOULDER ZONING UPDATE February 13, 2024 | REZONING RECOMMENDATION MEMO1 This memo outlines recommended zoning districts for each of the Place Types generally where the form-based code will apply. See map, right. The recommendations include zoning districts currently on the books in the city's zoning (land use) code. The Flatiron Business Park area that is not currently proposed to be form-based code is also included to allow the mix of uses called for in the plan. FOCUS ONLY ON USE STANDARDS Because the form-based code supercedes any regulations in the zoning district related to the form and bulk standards and the intensity The City of Boulder adopted the East Boulder Subcommunity Plan in October 2022. Consistent with recommendations in the plan, the city is considering expansion and calibration of the existing form-based code for portions of East Boulder, including the station area at 55th and Arapahoe. The form-based code is an overlay, relying on the base zoning for land use information. Currently the parcels in these portions of East Boulder are zoned mainly with a mix of industrial zones (IG, IM, IS-1, and IS-2) with some business zoning, especially at 55th and Arapahoe (BC-1). These parcels will need to be rezoned in order to allow a mix of uses per the form-based code. REZONING RECOMMENDATIONS DOCUMENT ORGANIZATION This document is organized around the Place Types in the East Boulder Subcommunity Plan, and includes the following sections: Summary of Zoning Districts. On page 2, a summary table of proposed zoning districts is provided. Also, a discussion of some potential revisions with the application of certain districts to the Place Types is provided, titled Concerning Uses. Place Types. On pages 4 to 10, one the city's current zoning districts is recommended for each Place Type with an outline of the allowed uses, general limitations on allowed uses, and prohibited uses. The description of uses from the subcommunity plan is also provided. This information is for reference and comparison only. Refer to the code and plan for accurate information. standards, the use standards are key to determining which district is appropriate for application to each Place Type recommended for form-based code use. UTILIZING CURRENT ZONING DISTRICTS With the goal of simplifying, the recommendations included herein utilize the city's current zoning districts, instead of recommending the creation of new districts. In general, the zoning districts proposed for each Place Type match the character desired for the Place Type; however, there are a few uses recommended to be revised. These recommended revisions to the existing zoning districts have been carefully vetted to request only those truly needed to achieve the goals of the Place Types and the plan. REZONING Rezoning of a parcel would only be sought by request of the property owner for redevelopment or reuse of the parcel. Rezoning is not required to continue the current uses or if the owner is interested in redeveloping or rebuilding with a use or structure allowed by the current zone. Should a property owner be interested in redeveloping using the form-based code within the designated areas of East Boulder, rezoning would be required. ADDITIONAL USE LIMITATIONS THROUGH FBC Uses allowed in the zoning district may also be managed further through the form-based code. For example, the FBC may limit which floors the use may occur on with a particular building type within a particular location. Or, further, the FBC may require a particular use or set of uses within certain locations within a bulding type. Concerning Uses LIVE-WORK AND GROUP LIVING USES IN THE IG ZONE The Non-Residential Innovation Place Type described in the East Boulder Subcommunity Plan is in proximity to Ball Aerospace and specifically limits residential uses. The IG zoning district is both the current zoning district and Attachment A - Rezoning Memo by Codametrics Item 6A - Progress Update on the Implementation of the East Boulder Subcommunity Plan: Zoning Update Page 12 Packet Page 465 of 523 EAST BOULDER ZONING UPDATE February 13, 2024 | REZONING RECOMMENDATION MEMO2 Summary of Zoning Districts Below is a summary of the zoning districts recommended for use within the East Boulder areas of change and form-based code areas. A list of recommended revisions or concerns related to the allowed uses wtihin the zoning districts are expressed for addiitonal discussion. Recommended District Applicable Place Types Concerns Remarks MU2 Parkside Residential None The scale of MU2 works well, limiting the size of most commercial uses.The zone allows for art workshops for small-scale manufacturing. Small-scale catering or commercial kitchens could also work, but would not be allowed. MU4 Innovation TOD None MU4 works well with larger offices (20,000 sf) allowed, though Research & Development is limited to 5,000 sf. Neighborhood TOD None Either MU2 or MU4 would work, however, MU4 allows light industrial uses and is more flexibile in terms of office space. Main Street LIve-Work None MU4 works well, allowing both art studios/workshops and light industrial uses up to 15,000 sf, in addition to typical mixed-use. IG Innovation TOD - Nonresidential Storage, Distribution, & Wholesaling IG works well, prohibiting residential and allowing the maximum amount of office space (50,000 sf) and unlimited R&D space.It does, however, also allow Storage, Distribution, & Wholesaling, however, most of this area is occupied by Ball Aerospace. Hands-On Industrial Storage, Distribution, & Wholesaling IG allows for unlimited services of vehicles as well light industrial and general industrial with Use Review.However, it does allow some uses that may be take large amounts of space away from more desired uses: sales or rentals of vehicles, lumber yards, and the category of Storage, Distribution, and Wholesaling.Ideally, Repair-Rental Services would be allowed by right. IMS Destination Workplace(PREFERRED: only if Office and R&D uses may be larger by right.) Residential;Storage, Distribution, & Wholesaling;Industrial Service The IMS zone would allow residential, but, unless modified, it would limit Office and R&D uses to 5,000 sf, which is inappropriate for this Place Type. The IMS zoning district has similar issues with Storage/Distribution and Industrial Service uses as IG, though outdoor storage, self-service storage, and lumber yards are prohibited. IG Destination Workplace(ALTERNATE: if Office/R&D uses are not expanded in IMS. Note that Residential uses are not allowed in IG.) Residential;Storage, Distribution, & Wholesaling; Industrial Services The main reason for choosing the IG zone (which is the existing zone in this location) is it is the only zone that allows up to 50,000 sf in office (unlimited through Use Review) with unlimited R&D. However, it does not allow residential uses, a key component of the Place Type.Further, Storage and Distribution uses and Industrial Service uses pose concerns, based upon large areas of land required and especially in terms outdoor storage (allowed through Use Review). is proposed to be maintained. While the IG district limits most residential, it does allow live-work and a wide range of Group Living uses. Live-work and transitional housing require a conditional use permit, which poses the most concern. Other Group Living uses require Use Review, which could catch those uses and not allow them. Recommendation: Ideally, these residentially oriented uses, live-work and Group Living, could be removed from IG zoning district or we could limit them within the form- based code. Alternatively, live-work and Group Living uses could be allowed with the same locational standards as residential in the IG district; however, the live-work standards should also apply. OFFICE USES The Destination Workplace Place Type is intended to allow both large offices and residential uses; however, there is no district that would allow both. The IG district allows the highest level of office space at 50,000 sf, but residential is not allowed by right. Recommendation: If office uses in the IMS district could be increased or unlimited in size, this district would work better for the Destination Workplace Place Type. BREWERY, DISTILLERY, WINERY USES While breweries, distilleries, and wineries are allowed in the IG zoning district, they are prohibited in the MU-4 zone. Recommendation: Allow in the MU-4 zone with a size limitation. While breweries, distilleries, and wineries are allowed in the IG zoning district, they may not occur with a restaurant1 without a conditional use permit and are limited to 15,000 sf in size. To be larger or have an attached restaurant requires a conditional use permit. There is no limitation on hours of operation, except restaurants approved must be closed from 11pm until 5am. Further, the restaurant is limited to no more than 30% of the floor area, including outdoor seating. 1 Perhaps this is a good thing for supporting food trucks and entrepreneurs? Attachment A - Rezoning Memo by Codametrics Item 6A - Progress Update on the Implementation of the East Boulder Subcommunity Plan: Zoning Update Page 13 Packet Page 466 of 523 EAST BOULDER ZONING UPDATE February 13, 2024 | REZONING RECOMMENDATION MEMO3 Recommendation: Allow larger breweries, distilleries, and wineries by right, and allow them to occur with a restaurant without limitation. RESTAURANT/BREWPUB/TAVERN USES In the industrial zoning districts, including IG, brewpubs and taverns are prohibited. Restaurants are allowed only if they occur within mixed-use buildings, including industrial, residential, or office uses. In most cases, the restaurant limitation will not be a concern in the IG zoning district as the goal is for these builidngs to be mixed-use. Recommendation: If the limitations are removed or managed differently for the brewery, distillery, and winery use category, the limitation on brewpubs and taverns in the IG zoning district should be revised as well. Perhaps brewpubs and taverns could be managed similarly to restaurants and even perhaps limit their size. STORAGE, DISTRIBUTION AND INDUSTRIAL SERVICE USES Storage and distribution uses, including cold storage lockers and warehouses are generally allowed in all of the industrial districts. Outdoor storage and self-service storage facilities require Use Review in IG zoning districts and are not allowed in IMS zoning districts. The concern in East Boulder is those storage facilities can be quite large and may reduce the land avaialble for more desirable employment uses. Similar concerns exist for the industrial service category of uses, which typically focus heavily on outdoor storage of goods and equipment. Recommendation: In IG, hopefully Use Review will limit outdoor storage and self-storage facilities. Cold storage facilities and warehouse and distribution facilities could be limited in IMS to a maximum floor area size geographically, only in the East Boulder subcommunity area. SMALL THEATER AND INDOOR COMMERCIAL RECREATION USES Small theater or rehearsal space uses and indoor commercial recreation uses require Use Review in MU-4 zoning districts. While this is not listed as a concern in the table, small theater or rehearsal space uses are highly desirable in East Boulder, since several currently exist within the areas of change. If that use could be allowed by right, the costs associated with installing the use could be reduced, especially since many are non-profit organizations. Indoor commercial recreation uses, such as a bowling alley or kid's gym, also seem desirable. Recommendation: While this is not listed as a concern in the table, ideally small theater or rehearsal space and indoor commercial recreation uses would be allowed by right in the MU-4 district, perhaps limited in size, if this a concern. Zoning Districts to Apply with FBC MU2 MU4 IMS IG To Remain IG BURLINGTON NORTHERN R A I L R O A D BURLINGTON NORTHERN R A I L R O A D ARAPAHOEARAPAHOE WESTERNWESTERN CENTRAL AVECENTRAL AVE CENTRAL AVECENTRAL AVE VALMONT RDVALMONT RD STERLING DRSTERLING DR IMSIMS currently currently IG IG currently currently IG IG MU2MU2MU4MU4 MU4MU4 MU2MU2 MU4MU4 MU4MU4 MU4MU4 MU4MU4 MU4MU4 GOOSE CREEKGOOSE CREEK W O N D E R L A N D C R E E K W O N D E R L A N D C R E E K SOUTH BOULDER CREEKSOUTH BOULDER CREEKDRY CREEK NO. 2 DITCHDRY CREEK NO. 2 DITCHBOULDER CREEKBOULDER CREEK PEARL STPEARL ST VALMONT RDVALMONT RD STERLING DRSTERLING DR PEARL PKWYPEARL PKWYPEARL P K W Y PEARL P K W Y FLATI R O N P K W Y FLATI R O N P K W Y CONESTOGA CTCONESTOGA CT CONESTOGACONESTOGARANGERANGE55TH ST55TH ST55TH ST55TH STSTERLING CTSTERLING CTFOOTHILLS PKWYFOOTHILLS PKWYSTERLING CTSTERLING CT56TH ST56TH ST57TH57THFLATIRON CTFLATIRON CTIG IG (currently (currently outside outside city city limits)limits) IGIG IGIG currently currently IGIG IGIG currently currently IGIG post officepost office hospitalhospital Attachment A - Rezoning Memo by Codametrics Item 6A - Progress Update on the Implementation of the East Boulder Subcommunity Plan: Zoning Update Page 14 Packet Page 467 of 523 EAST BOULDER ZONING UPDATE February 13, 2024 | REZONING RECOMMENDATION MEMO4 Residential Uses HOUSEHOLD LIVING USES ✔All are allowed, except Detached Dwelling Units (single-family houses) are allowed only if existing and Live/Work with use specific standards. GROUP LIVING USES ✔All are allowed through a CU or Use REview, except Boarding Houses are allowed by right and Sororities, Fraternities, and Dormitories are prohibited. Commercial Uses LODGING ✔Bed and Breakfast is allowed with a conditional use permit. ✔Hostels are allowed only through Use Review ✘Hotels are prohibited. FOOD & BEVERAGE USES ✘Brewery, Distillery, Winery is prohibited. ✘Commercial Kitchen and Catering is prohibited. ✔Mobile Food Vehicle is allowed with use specific standards. (Would not be in RH-7.) ✔Restaurant, Brewpub, and Tavern uses are allowed, but limited to 4,000 sf, closing no later than 11pm. RECREATION & ENTERTAINMENT ✔Art Studio or Workshop is allowed. ✔Indoor Athletic Facility is allowed, but limited to 1,000 sf. ✘Indoor and Outdoor Commercial Recreation uses are prohibited. ✔Small Theater or Rehearsal Space is allowed through Use Review. OFFICE ✘Administrative Office is prohibited, but this use is associated with industrial uses. ✔Medical Office is allowed, but limited to 5,000 sf. ✔Office is allowed, but limited to 5,000 sf. ✔Research & Development is allowed, but limited to 5,000 sf. RETAIL SALES USES ✔Accessory Sales are allowed. ✘Building Material Sales are prohibited. ✔Convenience Retail Sales are allowed, but limited to 2,000 sf. ✔Fuel Sales are allowed through Use Review. ✔Retail Sales are allowed, but limited to 5,000 sf (recent update) . SERVICE USES ✔Animal Hospital or Vet Clinic uses are allowed only through Use Review. ✘Animal Kennel uses are prohibited. ✘Business Support Service uses are prohibited. ✔Financial Institution uses are allowed through Use Review. ✔Media Production is allowed, but limited to 5,000 sf. ✘Mortuary & Funeral Chapel uses are prohibited. ✔Repair-Rental Service (non-vehicular) uses are allowed, but limited to 5,000 sf. ✔Personal Service uses are allowed. VEHICLE-RELATED USES ✘Car Wash uses are prohibited. ✘Drive-Thru uses are prohibited. ✘Full Service Station uses are prohibited. ✔Principal Parking Facility is allowed through Use Review. ✘Sales or Rental of Vehicles is prohibited. ✘Service of Vehicles is prohibited. Industrial Uses STORAGE, DISTRIBUTION, WHOLESALING ✘Cold Storage Locker uses are prohibited. ✘Outdoor Display of Merchandise uses are prohibited. ✘Outdoor Storage uses are prohibited. ✘Self-Service Storage Facility is prohibited.. ✘Warehouse or Distributions Facility is prohibited. ✘Wholesale Business is prohibited. PRODUCTION & PROCESSING ✘General Manufacturing uses are prohibited. ✘Light Manufacturing uses are prohibited. ✘Recycling Center uses are prohibited. ✘Recycling Collection Facility - Large is prohibited. ✘Recycling Collection Facility - Small is prohibited. ✘Recycling Processing Facility is prohibited. INDUSTRIAL SERVICES ✘Building and Landscaping Contractor uses are prohibited. ✘Cleaning and Laundry Plant uses are prohibited. ✘Equipment Repair and Rental uses are prohibited. ✘Lumber Yard is prohibited. Parkside Residential Agriculture and Natural Resource Uses ✔Community Garden uses are allowed. ✔Crop Production uses are allowed. ✘Firewood Operation uses are prohibited. ✘Greenhouse and Plant Nursery is prohibited.. ✘Mining Industries are prohibited. ✘Oil and Gas Operations are prohibited. ✘Pasture is prohibited. Public and Institutional Uses COMMUNITY , CULTURAL, EDUCATIONAL ✔Club or Lodge uses are allowed. ✔Community Services uses are allowed. ✔Government Facility are allowed. ✘Hospital use is prohibited.. ✔Museum are allowed through Use Review. ✔Open Space, Park, Recreation Uses are allowed. ✘Private College or University is prohibited. ✔Private Elem., Middle, or High School is allowed through Use Review. ✔Public College or University is allowed. ✔Public Elem., Middle, or High School is allowed. ✔Religious Assembly is allowed through Use Review.. ✔Specialized Instruction Facility is allowed through Use Review.. CARE AND SHELTER ✔Daycare Center uses are allowed. ✔Daycare Homes are allowed. ✔Day Shelter are allowed. ✘Emergency Shelter use is prohibited.. ✔Overnight Shelter uses are allowed through Use Review. INFRASTRUCTURE AND UTILITIES ✘Airport and Heliport uses are prohibited. ✔Essential Municipal and Public Utility uses are allowed through Use Review. 35 36EAST BOULDER SUBCOMMUNITY PLAN EVOLVING NEIGHBORHOODS GUIDING REDEVELOPMENT: EAST BOULDER PLACE TYPES Valmont RdValmont RdPearl PkwyPearl Pkwy 55th Street55th StreetArapahoe AveAirport RdAirport Rd63rd StIndependence RdFoothills PkwyBNSF RailroadPearl StPearl St48th Ct48th Ct49th St49th StPearl E CirPearl E CirWalnut StWalnut StSterling DrSterling Dr Sterling CtSterling Ct47th ST47th STAirport BlvdAirport BlvdAirport RdAirport RdSterling DrSterling DrSterling CirSterling CirFlatiron PkwyFlatiron PkwyCentral AveCentral AveCentral AveCentral Ave S Flatiron CtS Flatiron CtN 57th CtN 57th Ct56th St56th StConestoga Conestoga CtCt Conestoga StConestoga StWestern AveWestern Ave Range StRange StCommerce StCommerce St48th ST48th STPeak AvePeak Ave Old Tale RdOld Tale RdCherryvale RdCherryvale RdOreg AveOreg AveEisenhower DrMacArthur MacArthur DrDr Patton DrPatton Dr55th St55th St63rd St63rd StValmont RdValmont RdEAST BOULDER PLACE TYPES103452CONTENTSACKNOWLEDGEMENTSWELCOME TO EAST BOULDER: BACKGROUND AND PROCESSTHE VISION FOR EAST BOULDEREVOLVING NEIGHBORHOODS: LAND USEMOBILITY AND CONNECTIONS: TRANSPORTATION ACHIEVING THE VISION: IMPLEMENTATION ResidentialRestaurants and DiningRetailPersonal ServicesManufacturingAuto ServiceIndoor RecreationOfficeGreenhouseParkingPublic or InstitutionalTransparent icon indicates conditional use PLACE TYPE USES Hands On IndustrialParkside Residential Main Street Live/Work Destination Office Park-Side ResidentialMain Street Live/WorkDestination WorkplaceHands-On IndustrialInnovation TOD (Residential)Neighborhood TOD Innovation TOD (Non-Residential) Innovation TOD (Residential) Innovation TOD (Non-Residential) Neighborhood TOD WHAT ARE PLACE TYPES? What are Place Types? The East Boulder Place Types describes the design intent and performance expectations for these evolving neighborhoods. The Place Type descriptions and performance measures can be used to guide redevelopment options and help future phases of implementation of the East Boulder Subcommunity Plan through the adoption of potential land use code amendments, re-zonings and the creation of new zones. The Place Type performance standards also describe elements that tie land use to important mobility features, such as access and parking and streetscape character. 37 38EAST BOULDER SUBCOMMUNITY PLAN EVOLVING NEIGHBORHOODS Description The Park-Side Residential Place Type takes advantage of adjacencies to public green space and outdoor recreation sites to provide new/potential residents with the benefits of access to the outdoors. This adjacency allows for a reduction in on-site open space requirements. Park Side Residential neighborhoods will accomodate a mix of unit types, provide affordable housing options and integrate visual and physical access to the outdoors as much as possible. Density allowances are intended to offer new opportunities for a mix of unit types and income levels great access to a city park. Allowed Uses Ground Floor • Residential such as townhomes, triplex and fourflex, courtyard apartments and multiplex units; • Dining and Entertainment that would support local neighborhood and park users such as restaurants, coffee shops, deli, icecream shop • Retail Sales and Personal Services that would support local neighborhood and park users such as gyms, dog wash/grooming, recreation-oriented shops (bikes, disc golf, etc.), barber shops, alcohols sales; • Commercial Service Non-residential ground-floor uses should provide an active and transparent environment that visually engages pedestrians. Mix of uses is allowed. Conditional Uses Ground Floor Retail must be street-facing or park-facing; Uses must be engaging to users of the park and residents in the neighborhood; Encourage ground floor uses that will be open in evenings and on weekends to contribute to neighborhood vitality Allowed Uses Above Ground Floor Attached residential Useable Open Space Minimum 10% of total land area Building Character Buildings should be treated as “four-sided” architecture. Park-side building faces should have similar treatments to street-side building face. Key design features in this place type include a varied roofline and consistent set-backs from the street. Street Level Activation Residential homes should provide “eyes on the street,” facilitate front-porch conversations and offer sense of activity. Buildings with commercial and/or retail on the ground-floor should provide transparency and create social exchange between ground-floor spaces and passers-by. Streetscape Character Streetscapes should offer a park-like atmosphere, with consistent tree canopy and high quality landscape material contributing to stormwater management. Streetscape amenities may include places to “park” with benches, recepticles and dog clean-up stations or bicycle parking. Access + Mobility Side and rear vehicular building access; Transportation connections should offer safe, comfortable pedestrian and bicycle access and slower speed vehicular movement to minimize conflicts with vehicles; centrally placed mobility hubs with high frequency transit should offer micromobility (e-bike, e-scooter) options for first and last mile connections; curbs should be managed to allow for different uses by time of day and/or loading/drop off based on adjacent land uses. Parking Promote efficient use of parking areas through unbundled, paid, flexible and shared use. MAIN STREET LIVE/WORK Description The Main Street Live/Work Place Type creates opportunities for a greater exchange between local Boulder business customers and workforce by infusing new residential opportunities into working, light industrial neighborhoods. Adaptive reuse of existing buildings and redevelopment should offer new living and office spaces as well as a “front-door” to great, local businesses located along key streets, trails or greenways in East Boulder. These areas are envisioned to include a mix of light-industrial, retail, arts studios and education spaces, office and residential uses along active passageways. Allowed Uses Ground Floor • Light Industrial such as arts studio and maker space, performance, breweries or distilleries, coffee roasters and small-scale manufacturing; • Dining and Entertainment such as restaurants, cafes and taverns; • Service uses such as autobody repair, computer repair, and bicycle mechanics; • Personal services such as salons, indoor recreational or athletic facilities; • Professional office Conditional Uses Ground Floor The following uses should not exceed 4,000sf in floor area: Retail sales; Professional Office Allowed Uses Above Ground Floor Residential (attached); Office; Personal services; Retail Sales; Useable Open Space Minimum 10% of total land area Building Character Aesthetic choices will be industrial in nature with large ground-floor openings for loading/unloading that may serve multiple purposes. Buildings should orient “front-door” facades to adjacent trails or greenways, when present. Expect tall ground floor ceiling heights to accommodate industrial uses. Accommodate height flexibility to allow for residential above the ground floor. Street Level Activation Building frontages along streets should offer front-door environments, transparency along block-faces and interactive exchanges between buildings and the street, which may include café space, outdoor retail space, market space, etc. When development is adjacent to trails or greenways, prioritize the trail-facing sides of buildings for activation. Streetscape Character Streetscapes will support the industrial context of these places and facilitate ease of movement for goods and services in the area. Incorporating tree planting and landscape that will make positive climate impacts into streetscapes where possible is strongly encouraged. Access + Mobility Street-side access should balance vehicular access and needs with a supported environment for pedestrians and cyclists. Trail-side access is prioritized for pedestrians and cyclists. Particular attention required to connecting this place type between trail access and on-street networks in the area. Transportation connections should offer safe, comfortable pedestrian and bicycle access and slower speed vehicular movement to minimize conflicts with vehicles; centrally placed mobility hubs with high frequency transit should offer micromobility (e-bike, e-scooter) options for first and last mile connections; curbs should be managed to allow for different uses by time of day and/or loading/drop off based on adjacent land uses Parking On-street parking for ROWs that can accommodate; Promote efficient use of parking areas through unbundled, paid, flexible and shared use. 1 0 3 4 5 2 CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS WELCOME TO EAST BOULDER: BACKGROUND AND PROCESS THE VISION FOR EAST BOULDER EVOLVING NEIGHBORHOODS: LAND USE MOBILITY AND CONNECTIONS: TRANSPORTATION ACHIEVING THE VISION: IMPLEMENTATION PARK SIDE RESIDENTIAL Recommended ZoneMU2 Attachment A - Rezoning Memo by Codametrics Item 6A - Progress Update on the Implementation of the East Boulder Subcommunity Plan: Zoning Update Page 15 Packet Page 468 of 523 EAST BOULDER ZONING UPDATE February 13, 2024 | REZONING RECOMMENDATION MEMO5 Innovation TOD 41 42EAST BOULDER SUBCOMMUNITY PLAN EVOLVING NEIGHBORHOODS Allowed Uses Ground Floor • Dining and Entertainment; • Light Industrial; • Residential such as attached dwellings, townhomes, and live-work units; • Retail; • Personal services Allowed Uses Above Ground Floor Attached Residential; Structured parking Conditional Above Ground Floor Second stories may incorporate a mix of office (including medical office) and residential; third, fourth and if plausible, fifth stories, should be reserved for residential uses FAR Range 1.0 - 3.5 Useable Open Space Minimum 20% of total land area Building Character Buildings may have large ground-floor openings for loading/unloading that may serve multiple purposes. Architecture should express innovation, creativity and Boulder entrepreunerism. This place type prioritizes energy conservation and activation. Street Level Activation Building frontages along arterial and collector streets should offer transparent and engaging front-door environments, which will likely include roll-up doors, loading and unloading areas, outdoor dining, etc. Traditional window displays should be limited in favor of sharing what is happening inside the spaces. Streetscape Character Streetscapes accommodate small, medium and some large sized delivery trucks while also encouraging a transit- supportive and active pedestrian and bicycle environment. Consistent elements should include landscape with integrated stormwater elements, street trees, seating, and designated areas for bike/scooter parking. Access + Mobility Side and rear vehicular building access; Transportation connections should offer safe, comfortable pedestrian and bicycle access and slower speed vehicular movement to minimize conflicts with vehicles; centrally placed mobility hubs should offer micromobility (e-bike, e-scooter) options for first and last mile connections; curbs should be managed to allow for different uses by time of day and/or deliveries/ loading/drop off based on adjacent land uses; pedestrian paseos (especially through larger blocks) enhance pedestrian connectivity Parking On-street parking for ROWs that can accommodate; rear or alley parking; Promote structured parking and transition away from large surface parking lots; Promote efficient use of parking areas through unbundled, paid, flexible and shared use. 1 0 3 4 5 2 CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS WELCOME TO EAST BOULDER: BACKGROUND AND PROCESS THE VISION FOR EAST BOULDER EVOLVING NEIGHBORHOODS: LAND USE MOBILITY AND CONNECTIONS: TRANSPORTATION ACHIEVING THE VISION: IMPLEMENTATION INNOVATION TOD (RESIDENTIAL) Description The Innovation Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Residential Place Type intends to maintain opportunities for light industrial and flex uses while integrating public-facing retail and providing transit supportive, attainable housing options. The area should prioritize energy conservation, urban rewilding strategies and creativity in new and re-development. INNOVATION TOD (NON-RESIDENTIAL) Allowed Uses Ground Floor • Light industrial; • Office; • Dining and Entertainment Conditional Uses Ground Floor Retail uses should be accessory to on-site businesses Allowed Uses Above Ground Floor Light industrial; Office; Structured Parking FAR Range 1.5 - 4.0 Useable Open Space Minimum 15% of total land area Building Character Aesthetic choices will be both of industrial in nature with large ground-floor openings for loading/unloading that may serve multiple purposes and/or more commercial with active office, retail, lobby or studio space on on ground floor. Architecture should express innovation, creativity and Boulder entrepreunerism. This place type prioritizes energy conservation, building rehabilitation and adaptive reuse of existing buildings. Street Level Activation Building frontages along arterial and collector streets should offer transparent and engaging front-door environments. Street facing ground floor space prioritize active use. Work places should offer on-site outdoor space for employee use as work space and non-work space. Streetside dining and entertainment space is encouraged. Streetscape Character Streetscapes accommodate small, medium and some large sized delivery trucks while also encouraging a transit- supportive and active pedestrian and bicycle environment. Consistent elements should include high quality landscape treatments with integrated stormwater management features, street trees, seating, and designated areas for bike/scooter parking. Access + Mobility Side and rear vehicular building access; Transportation connections should offer safe, comfortable pedestrian and bicycle access and slower speed vehicular movement to minimize conflicts with vehicles; centrally placed mobility hubs should offer micromobility (e-bike, e-scooter) options for first and last mile connections; pedestrian paseos (especially through larger blocks) enhance pedestrian connectivity Parking On-street parking for ROWs that can accommodate; rear or alley parking; Promote structured parking and transition away from large surface parking lots; Improve remaining surface lots with landscape stormwater features and pedestrian pathways; Promote efficient use of parking areas through unbundled, paid, flexible and shared use. Description The Innovation TOD (Non-Residential) Place Type prioritizes opportunities for light industrial and commercial uses. These areas are envisioned to integrate public-facing retail for light industrial, office, and commercial users. What is FAR? Floor area ratio (FAR) means the ratio of the floor area of a building to the area of the lot on which the building is situated. B.R.C. 9-16-1 Recommended ZoneMU4 35 36EAST BOULDER SUBCOMMUNITY PLAN EVOLVING NEIGHBORHOODS GUIDING REDEVELOPMENT: EAST BOULDER PLACE TYPES Valmont RdValmont RdPearl PkwyPearl Pkwy 55th Street55th StreetArapahoe AveAirport RdAirport Rd63rd StIndependence RdFoothills PkwyBNSF Railroad Pearl StPearl St48th Ct48th Ct49th St49th StPearl E CirPearl E Cir Walnut StWalnut St Sterling DrSterling Dr Sterling CtSterling Ct47th ST47th STAirport BlvdAirport BlvdAirport RdAirport RdSterling DrSterling DrSterling CirSterling CirFlatiron PkwyFlatiron PkwyCentral AveCentral Ave Central AveCentral Ave S F l a t i r o n C t S F l a t i r o n C tN 57th CtN 57th Ct56th St56th StConestoga Conestoga CtCt Conestoga StConestoga StWestern AveWestern Ave Range StRange StCommerce StCommerce St48th ST48th STPeak AvePeak Ave Old Tale RdOld Tale RdCherryvale RdCherryvale RdOreg AveOreg AveEisenhower DrMacArthur MacArthur DrDr Patton DrPatton Dr55th St55th St63rd St63rd StValmont RdValmont RdEAST BOULDER PLACE TYPES1034 5 2CONTENTSACKNOWLEDGEMENTSWELCOME TO EAST BOULDER: BACKGROUND AND PROCESSTHE VISION FOR EAST BOULDEREVOLVING NEIGHBORHOODS: LAND USEMOBILITY AND CONNECTIONS: TRANSPORTATION ACHIEVING THE VISION: IMPLEMENTATION ResidentialRestaurants and DiningRetailPersonal ServicesManufacturingAuto ServiceIndoor RecreationOfficeGreenhouseParking Public or Institutional Transparent icon indicates conditional use PLACE TYPE USES Hands On IndustrialParkside ResidentialMain Street Live/Work Destination Office Park-Side ResidentialMain Street Live/WorkDestination WorkplaceHands-On IndustrialInnovation TOD (Residential)Neighborhood TOD Innovation TOD (Non-Residential) Innovation TOD (Residential) Innovation TOD (Non-Residential) Neighborhood TOD WHAT ARE PLACE TYPES? What are Place Types? The East Boulder Place Types describes the design intent and performance expectations for these evolving neighborhoods. The Place Type descriptions and performance measures can be used to guide redevelopment options and help future phases of implementation of the East Boulder Subcommunity Plan through the adoption of potential land use code amendments, re-zonings and the creation of new zones. The Place Type performance standards also describe elements that tie land use to important mobility features, such as access and parking and streetscape character. Residential Uses HOUSEHOLD LIVING USES ✔All are allowed, except Detached Dwelling Units (single-family houses) are allowed only if existing and Live/Work with use specific standards. GROUP LIVING USES ✔All are allowed through a CU or Use REview, except Boarding Houses are allowed by right with standards, and Custodial Care Facilities and Sororities, Fraternities, and Dormitories are prohibited. Commercial Uses LODGING ✘Bed and Breakfast is prohibited. ✔Hostels are allowed with standards. ✔Hotels are allowed through Use Review. FOOD & BEVERAGE USES ✘Brewery, Distillery, Winery is prohibited. ✔Commercial Kitchen and Catering is allowed. ✔Mobile Food Vehicle is allowed with use specific standards. (Would not be in RH-7.) ✔Restaurant, Brewpub, and Tavern uses are allowed, but limited to 4,000 sf, closing no later than 11pm. RECREATION & ENTERTAINMENT ✔Art Studio or Workshop is allowed. ✔Indoor Athletic Facility is allowed. ✔Indoor Commercial Recreation uses are allowed through Use Review. Outdoor Commercial Recreation is prohibited. ✔Small Theater or Rehearsal Space is allowed through Use Review. OFFICE ✘Administrative Office is prohibited, but this use is associated with industrial uses. ✔Medical Office is allowed, but limited to 5,000 sf. ✔Office is allowed, but limited to 20,000 sf. ✔Research & Development is allowed, but limited to 5,000 sf. RETAIL SALES USES ✔Accessory Sales are allowed. ✘Building Material Sales are prohibited. ✔Convenience Retail Sales are allowed. ✔Fuel Sales are allowed with Conditional Use. ✔Retail Sales are allowed, but limited to 20,000 sf. SERVICE USES ✔Animal Hospital or Vet Clinic uses are allowed through Use Review. ✔Animal Kennel uses are allowed through Use Review. ✔Business Support Service uses are allowed, but limited to 20,000sf. ✔Financial Institution uses are allowed, but limited to 20,000sf. ✔Media Production is allowed. ✔Mortuary & Funeral Chapel uses is allowed through Use Review. ✔Repair-Rental Service (non-vehicular) uses are allowed, but limited to 5,000 sf. ✔Personal Service uses are allowed. VEHICLE-RELATED USES ✘Car Wash uses are prohibited. ✘Drive-Thru uses are prohibited. ✔Full Service Station uses are allowed through Use Review. ✔Principal Parking Facility is allowed through Use Review. ✘Sales or Rental of Vehicles is prohibited. ✔Service of Vehicles is allowed through Use Review. Industrial Uses STORAGE, DISTRIBUTION, WHOLESALING ✘Cold Storage Locker uses are prohibited. ✘Outdoor Display of Merchandise uses are prohibited. ✘Outdoor Storage uses are prohibited. ✘Self-Service Storage Facility is prohibited.. ✘Warehouse or Distributions Facility is prohibited. ✔Wholesale Business is allowed. PRODUCTION & PROCESSING ✘General Manufacturing uses are prohibited. ✔Light Manufacturing uses are allowed, but limited to 15,000sf. ✘Recycling Center uses are prohibited. ✘Recycling Collection Facility - Large is prohibited. ✘Recycling Collection Facility - Small is allowed with Conditional Use. ✘Recycling Processing Facility is prohibited. INDUSTRIAL SERVICES ✘Building and Landscaping Contractor uses are prohibited. ✘Cleaning and Laundry Plant uses are prohibited. ✘Equipment Repair and Rental uses are prohibited. ✘Lumber Yard is prohibited. Agriculture and Natural Resource Uses ✔Community Garden uses are allowed. ✘Crop Production uses are prohibited. ✘Firewood Operation uses are prohibited. ✘Greenhouse and Plant Nursery is prohibited.. ✘Mining Industries are prohibited. ✘Oil and Gas Operations are prohibited. ✘Pasture is prohibited. Public and Institutional Uses COMMUNITY , CULTURAL, EDUCATIONAL ✔Club or Lodge uses are allowed. ✔Community Services uses are allowed. ✔Government Facility are allowed. ✘Hospital use is prohibited.. ✔Museum are allowed through Use Review. ✔Open Space, Park, Recreation Uses are allowed. ✘Private College or University is prohibited. ✔Private Elem., Middle, or High School is allowed through Use Review. ✔Public College or University is allowed. ✔Public Elem., Middle, or High School is allowed. ✔Religious Assembly is allowed through Use Review.. ✔Specialized Instruction Facility is allowed, but limited to 20,000sf. CARE AND SHELTER ✔Daycare Center uses are allowed through Use Review. ✘Daycare Homes are prohibited. ✔Day Shelter are allowed with Conditional Use. ✘Emergency Shelter use is allowed with Conditional Use. ✔Overnight Shelter uses are allowed with Conditional Use. INFRASTRUCTURE AND UTILITIES ✘Airport and Heliport uses are prohibited. ✔Essential Municipal and Public Utility uses are allowed. Attachment A - Rezoning Memo by Codametrics Item 6A - Progress Update on the Implementation of the East Boulder Subcommunity Plan: Zoning Update Page 16 Packet Page 469 of 523 EAST BOULDER ZONING UPDATE February 13, 2024 | REZONING RECOMMENDATION MEMO6 Residential Uses HOUSEHOLD LIVING USES ✔All are allowed, except Detached Dwelling Units (single-family houses) are allowed only if existing and Live/Work with use specific standards. GROUP LIVING USES ✔All are allowed through a CU or Use REview, except Boarding Houses are allowed by right with standards, and Custodial Care Facilities and Sororities, Fraternities, and Dormitories are prohibited. Commercial Uses LODGING ✘Bed and Breakfast is prohibited. ✔Hostels are allowed with standards. ✔Hotels are allowed through Use Review. FOOD & BEVERAGE USES ✘Brewery, Distillery, Winery is prohibited. ✔Commercial Kitchen and Catering is allowed. ✔Mobile Food Vehicle is allowed with use specific standards. (Would not be in RH-7.) ✔Restaurant, Brewpub, and Tavern uses are allowed, but limited to 4,000 sf, closing no later than 11pm. RECREATION & ENTERTAINMENT ✔Art Studio or Workshop is allowed. ✔Indoor Athletic Facility is allowed. ✔Indoor Commercial Recreation uses are allowed through Use Review. Outdoor Commercial Recreation is prohibited. ✔Small Theater or Rehearsal Space is allowed through Use Review. OFFICE ✘Administrative Office is prohibited, but this use is associated with industrial uses. ✔Medical Office is allowed, but limited to 5,000 sf. ✔Office is allowed, but limited to 20,000 sf. ✔Research & Development is allowed, but limited to 5,000 sf. RETAIL SALES USES ✔Accessory Sales are allowed. ✘Building Material Sales are prohibited. ✔Convenience Retail Sales are allowed. ✔Fuel Sales are allowed with Conditional Use. ✔Retail Sales are allowed, but limited to 20,000 sf. SERVICE USES ✔Animal Hospital or Vet Clinic uses are allowed through Use Review. ✔Animal Kennel uses are allowed through Use Review. ✔Business Support Service uses are allowed, but limited to 20,000sf. ✔Financial Institution uses are allowed, but limited to 20,000sf. ✔Media Production is allowed. ✔Mortuary & Funeral Chapel uses is allowed through Use Review. ✔Repair-Rental Service (non-vehicular) uses are allowed, but limited to 5,000 sf. ✔Personal Service uses are allowed. VEHICLE-RELATED USES ✘Car Wash uses are prohibited. ✘Drive-Thru uses are prohibited. ✔Full Service Station uses are allowed through Use Review. ✔Principal Parking Facility is allowed through Use Review. ✘Sales or Rental of Vehicles is prohibited. ✔Service of Vehicles is allowed through Use Review. Industrial Uses STORAGE, DISTRIBUTION, WHOLESALING ✘Cold Storage Locker uses are prohibited. ✘Outdoor Display of Merchandise uses are prohibited. ✘Outdoor Storage uses are prohibited. ✘Self-Service Storage Facility is prohibited.. ✘Warehouse or Distributions Facility is prohibited. ✔Wholesale Business is allowed. PRODUCTION & PROCESSING ✘General Manufacturing uses are prohibited. ✔Light Manufacturing uses are allowed, but limited to 15,000sf. ✘Recycling Center uses are prohibited. ✘Recycling Collection Facility - Large is prohibited. ✘Recycling Collection Facility - Small is allowed with Conditional Use. ✘Recycling Processing Facility is prohibited. INDUSTRIAL SERVICES ✘Building and Landscaping Contractor uses are prohibited. ✘Cleaning and Laundry Plant uses are prohibited. ✘Equipment Repair and Rental uses are prohibited. ✘Lumber Yard is prohibited. Neighborhood TOD Agriculture and Natural Resource Uses ✔Community Garden uses are allowed. ✘Crop Production uses are prohibited. ✘Firewood Operation uses are prohibited. ✘Greenhouse and Plant Nursery is prohibited.. ✘Mining Industries are prohibited. ✘Oil and Gas Operations are prohibited. ✘Pasture is prohibited. Public and Institutional Uses COMMUNITY , CULTURAL, EDUCATIONAL ✔Club or Lodge uses are allowed. ✔Community Services uses are allowed. ✔Government Facility are allowed. ✘Hospital use is prohibited.. ✔Museum are allowed through Use Review. ✔Open Space, Park, Recreation Uses are allowed. ✘Private College or University is prohibited. ✔Private Elem., Middle, or High School is allowed through Use Review. ✔Public College or University is allowed. ✔Public Elem., Middle, or High School is allowed. ✔Religious Assembly is allowed through Use Review.. ✔Specialized Instruction Facility is allowed, but limited to 20,000sf. CARE AND SHELTER ✔Daycare Center uses are allowed through Use Review. ✘Daycare Homes are prohibited. ✔Day Shelter are allowed with Conditional Use. ✘Emergency Shelter use is allowed with Conditional Use. ✔Overnight Shelter uses are allowed with Conditional Use. INFRASTRUCTURE AND UTILITIES ✘Airport and Heliport uses are prohibited. ✔Essential Municipal and Public Utility uses are allowed. 43 44EAST BOULDER SUBCOMMUNITY PLAN EVOLVING NEIGHBORHOODS FUTURE OPPORTUNITIES Allowed Uses Ground Floor • Dining and Entertainment such as restaurants, taverns, cafes, performance space; • Neighborhood-hood serving retail such as grocery store, convenience store, pharmacy; • Residential such as attached dwellings, townhomes, condos and apartments • Neighborhood-serving public or institutional uses such as daycare, nonprofit offices Allowed Uses Above Ground Floor Attached residential; Retail sales; Office FAR Range 1.0 - 3.0 Useable Open Space Minimum 10% of total land area Building Character Building facades should have a high level of articualtion and transparency, especially facing pedestrian and bicycle facilities (sidewalks, pathways, paseos and breezeways). Building materials may be eclectic, but of high quality. Varied rooflines and architectural detail are important design considerations to align with community vision for the area. Street Level Activation Building frontages along streets should offer front-door environments, transparency along block-faces and interactive exchanges between buildings and the street, as well as pedestrian-oriented internal circulation. Buildings in this place-type will orient “front door” facades to higher order streets and pedestrian paseos/courtyards. It is anticipated that most “back of house” loading, service and parking are provided in the rear of properties. Streetscape Character Streetscapes should encourage a safe and active pedestrian environment, including consistent tree canopies, landscaping and green infrastructure, seating and designated areas for bike/scooter parking. Access + Mobility Side and rear vehicular building access; Transportation connections should offer safe and comfortable pedestrian and bicycle access separated and buffered from vehicular movement when possible; curbcuts should be managed and consolidated where possible to limit potential conflicts between vehicles and pedestrians/cyclists; pedestrian and bicycle connections should provide access to nearby residents and employees. Parking Promote efficient use of parking areas through unbundled, paid, flexible and shared use; manage parking supply to encourage use of transit and active transportation. Valmont Butte Valmont Butte is a basalt dike that runs east-west above Valmont Road. The ridge and rocky outcrops are a unique natural feature in the area. The site is located in Area III of the BVCP’s Comprehensive Planning areas. In 2000, the City purchased the land. The city recognizes the significant spiritual, cultural and historical importance of Valmont Butte and intends to discuss the future of the site in consultation and collaboration with the community including American Indian Tribal Nations, Indigenous community members, Valmont community descendants and the local historic community. 1 0 3 4 5 2 CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS WELCOME TO EAST BOULDER: BACKGROUND AND PROCESS THE VISION FOR EAST BOULDER EVOLVING NEIGHBORHOODS: LAND USE MOBILITY AND CONNECTIONS: TRANSPORTATION ACHIEVING THE VISION: IMPLEMENTATION Valmont Butte NEIGHBORHOOD TOD Description The Neighborhood Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Place Type reimagines existing auto-oriented commercial and retail areas as highly walkable and transit-supportive environments. Active ground floors may have mixed income housing above when development is multi-story. East Boulder is home to a number of unique sites within the city that offer future opportunities for implementing citywide goals. In concert with the proposed land use changes described for East Boulder, the following areas have been identified by community members as important sites for continued discussion: Boulder Municipal Airport This is a general aviation airport that began operating in 1928. The airport serves business, private, recreational and emergency aviation services to the City of Boulder and surrounding communities. The airport facilities include runways, underground fuel storage tanks, hangar space and tie-down space for aircraft. The City’s relationship with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and the Boulder Municipal Airport includes periodic access to grant funding from the FAA and the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) for capital funding or for the historic purchase of land at the airport. Contracts with the FAA and CDOT for capital funding requires a legal agreement to keep the airport open for the useful life of the improvements, designated as 20 years. If actions were taken by the City which denied the public access to the airport, then the contract requires that the City must repay the FAA or CDOT for the unused useful life of the funding on a pro-rata basis. Key Map: Boulder Municipal Airport Recommended ZoneMU4 35 36EAST BOULDER SUBCOMMUNITY PLAN EVOLVING NEIGHBORHOODS GUIDING REDEVELOPMENT: EAST BOULDER PLACE TYPESValmont RdValmont RdPearl PkwyPearl Pkwy55th Street55th StreetArapahoe AveAirport RdAirport Rd63rd StIndependence RdFoothills PkwyBNSF RailroadPearl StPearl St48th Ct48th Ct49th St49th StPearl E CirPearl E CirWalnut StWalnut StSterling DrSterling DrSterling CtSterling Ct47th ST47th STAirport BlvdAirport BlvdAirport RdAirport RdSterling DrSterling DrSterling CirSterling CirFlatiron PkwyFlatiron PkwyCentral AveCentral AveCentral AveCentral Ave S Flatiron CtS Flatiron CtN 57th CtN 57th Ct56th St56th StConestoga Conestoga CtCt Conestoga StConestoga StWestern AveWestern Ave Range StRange StCommerce StCommerce St48th ST48th STPeak AvePeak Ave Old Tale RdOld Tale RdCherryvale RdCherryvale RdOreg AveOreg AveEisenhower DrMacArthur MacArthur DrDr Patton DrPatton Dr55th St55th St63rd St63rd StValmont RdValmont RdEAST BOULDER PLACE TYPES103452CONTENTSACKNOWLEDGEMENTSWELCOME TO EAST BOULDER: BACKGROUND AND PROCESSTHE VISION FOR EAST BOULDEREVOLVING NEIGHBORHOODS: LAND USEMOBILITY AND CONNECTIONS: TRANSPORTATION ACHIEVING THE VISION: IMPLEMENTATION ResidentialRestaurants and DiningRetailPersonal ServicesManufacturingAuto ServiceIndoor RecreationOfficeGreenhouseParkingPublic or InstitutionalTransparent icon indicates conditional use PLACE TYPE USES Hands On IndustrialParkside ResidentialMain Street Live/Work Destination Office Park-Side ResidentialMain Street Live/WorkDestination WorkplaceHands-On IndustrialInnovation TOD (Residential)Neighborhood TOD Innovation TOD (Non-Residential) Innovation TOD (Residential) Innovation TOD (Non-Residential) Neighborhood TOD WHAT ARE PLACE TYPES? What are Place Types? The East Boulder Place Types describes the design intent and performance expectations for these evolving neighborhoods. The Place Type descriptions and performance measures can be used to guide redevelopment options and help future phases of implementation of the East Boulder Subcommunity Plan through the adoption of potential land use code amendments, re-zonings and the creation of new zones. The Place Type performance standards also describe elements that tie land use to important mobility features, such as access and parking and streetscape character. Attachment A - Rezoning Memo by Codametrics Item 6A - Progress Update on the Implementation of the East Boulder Subcommunity Plan: Zoning Update Page 17 Packet Page 470 of 523 EAST BOULDER ZONING UPDATE February 13, 2024 | REZONING RECOMMENDATION MEMO7 Residential Uses HOUSEHOLD LIVING USES ✔All are allowed, except Detached Dwelling Units (single-family houses) are allowed only if existing and Live/Work with use specific standards. GROUP LIVING USES ✔All are allowed through a CU or Use Review, except Boarding Houses are allowed by right with standards, and Custodial Care Facilities and Sororities, Fraternities, and Dormitories are prohibited. Commercial Uses LODGING ✘Bed and Breakfast is prohibited. ✔Hostels are allowed with standards. ✔Hotels are allowed through Use Review. FOOD & BEVERAGE USES ✘Brewery, Distillery, Winery is prohibited. ✔Commercial Kitchen and Catering is allowed. ✔Mobile Food Vehicle is allowed with use specific standards. (Would not be in RH-7.) ✔Restaurant, Brewpub, and Tavern uses are allowed, but limited to 4,000 sf, closing no later than 11pm. RECREATION & ENTERTAINMENT ✔Art Studio or Workshop is allowed. ✔Indoor Athletic Facility is allowed. ✔Indoor Commercial Recreation uses are allowed through Use Review. Outdoor Commercial Recreation is prohibited. ✔Small Theater or Rehearsal Space is allowed through Use Review. OFFICE ✘Administrative Office is prohibited, but this use is associated with industrial uses. ✔Medical Office is allowed, but limited to 5,000 sf. ✔Office is allowed, but limited to 20,000 sf. ✔Research & Development is allowed, but limited to 5,000 sf. RETAIL SALES USES ✔Accessory Sales are allowed. ✘Building Material Sales are prohibited. ✔Convenience Retail Sales are allowed. ✔Fuel Sales are allowed with Conditional Use. ✔Retail Sales are allowed, but limited to 20,000 sf. SERVICE USES ✔Animal Hospital or Vet Clinic uses are allowed through Use Review. ✔Animal Kennel uses are allowed through Use Review. ✔Business Support Service uses are allowed, but limited to 20,000sf. ✔Financial Institution uses are allowed, but limited to 20,000sf. ✔Media Production is allowed. ✔Mortuary & Funeral Chapel uses is allowed through Use Review. ✔Repair-Rental Service (non-vehicular) uses are allowed, but limited to 5,000 sf. ✔Personal Service uses are allowed. VEHICLE-RELATED USES ✘Car Wash uses are prohibited. ✘Drive-Thru uses are prohibited. ✔Full Service Station uses are allowed through Use Review. ✔Principal Parking Facility is allowed through Use Review. ✘Sales or Rental of Vehicles is prohibited. ✔Service of Vehicles is allowed through Use Review. Industrial Uses STORAGE, DISTRIBUTION, WHOLESALING ✘Cold Storage Locker uses are prohibited. ✘Outdoor Display of Merchandise uses are prohibited. ✘Outdoor Storage uses are prohibited. ✘Self-Service Storage Facility is prohibited.. ✘Warehouse or Distributions Facility is prohibited. ✔Wholesale Business is allowed. PRODUCTION & PROCESSING ✘General Manufacturing uses are prohibited. ✔Light Manufacturing uses are allowed, but limited to 15,000sf. ✘Recycling Center uses are prohibited. ✘Recycling Collection Facility - Large is prohibited. ✘Recycling Collection Facility - Small is allowed with Conditional Use. ✘Recycling Processing Facility is prohibited. INDUSTRIAL SERVICES ✘Building and Landscaping Contractor uses are prohibited. ✘Cleaning and Laundry Plant uses are prohibited. ✘Equipment Repair and Rental uses are prohibited. ✘Lumber Yard is prohibited. Main Street Live-Work Agriculture and Natural Resource Uses ✔Community Garden uses are allowed. ✘Crop Production uses are prohibited. ✘Firewood Operation uses are prohibited. ✘Greenhouse and Plant Nursery is prohibited.. ✘Mining Industries are prohibited. ✘Oil and Gas Operations are prohibited. ✘Pasture is prohibited. Public and Institutional Uses COMMUNITY , CULTURAL, EDUCATIONAL ✔Club or Lodge uses are allowed. ✔Community Services uses are allowed. ✔Government Facility are allowed. ✘Hospital use is prohibited.. ✔Museum are allowed through Use Review. ✔Open Space, Park, Recreation Uses are allowed. ✘Private College or University is prohibited. ✔Private Elem., Middle, or High School is allowed through Use Review. ✔Public College or University is allowed. ✔Public Elem., Middle, or High School is allowed. ✔Religious Assembly is allowed through Use Review.. ✔Specialized Instruction Facility is allowed, but limited to 20,000sf. CARE AND SHELTER ✔Daycare Center uses are allowed through Use Review. ✘Daycare Homes are prohibited. ✔Day Shelter are allowed with Conditional Use. ✘Emergency Shelter use is allowed with Conditional Use. ✔Overnight Shelter uses are allowed with Conditional Use. INFRASTRUCTURE AND UTILITIES ✘Airport and Heliport uses are prohibited. ✔Essential Municipal and Public Utility uses are allowed. 37 38EAST BOULDER SUBCOMMUNITY PLAN EVOLVING NEIGHBORHOODS Description The Park-Side Residential Place Type takes advantage of adjacencies to public green space and outdoor recreation sites to provide new/potential residents with the benefits of access to the outdoors. This adjacency allows for a reduction in on-site open space requirements. Park Side Residential neighborhoods will accomodate a mix of unit types, provide affordable housing options and integrate visual and physical access to the outdoors as much as possible. Density allowances are intended to offer new opportunities for a mix of unit types and income levels great access to a city park. Allowed Uses Ground Floor • Residential such as townhomes, triplex and fourflex, courtyard apartments and multiplex units; • Dining and Entertainment that would support local neighborhood and park users such as restaurants, coffee shops, deli, icecream shop • Retail Sales and Personal Services that would support local neighborhood and park users such as gyms, dog wash/grooming, recreation-oriented shops (bikes, disc golf, etc.), barber shops, alcohols sales; • Commercial Service Non-residential ground-floor uses should provide an active and transparent environment that visually engages pedestrians. Mix of uses is allowed. Conditional Uses Ground Floor Retail must be street-facing or park-facing; Uses must be engaging to users of the park and residents in the neighborhood; Encourage ground floor uses that will be open in evenings and on weekends to contribute to neighborhood vitality Allowed Uses Above Ground Floor Attached residential Useable Open Space Minimum 10% of total land area Building Character Buildings should be treated as “four-sided” architecture. Park-side building faces should have similar treatments to street-side building face. Key design features in this place type include a varied roofline and consistent set-backs from the street. Street Level Activation Residential homes should provide “eyes on the street,” facilitate front-porch conversations and offer sense of activity. Buildings with commercial and/or retail on the ground-floor should provide transparency and create social exchange between ground-floor spaces and passers-by. Streetscape Character Streetscapes should offer a park-like atmosphere, with consistent tree canopy and high quality landscape material contributing to stormwater management. Streetscape amenities may include places to “park” with benches, recepticles and dog clean-up stations or bicycle parking. Access + Mobility Side and rear vehicular building access; Transportation connections should offer safe, comfortable pedestrian and bicycle access and slower speed vehicular movement to minimize conflicts with vehicles; centrally placed mobility hubs with high frequency transit should offer micromobility (e-bike, e-scooter) options for first and last mile connections; curbs should be managed to allow for different uses by time of day and/or loading/drop off based on adjacent land uses. Parking Promote efficient use of parking areas through unbundled, paid, flexible and shared use. MAIN STREET LIVE/WORK Description The Main Street Live/Work Place Type creates opportunities for a greater exchange between local Boulder business customers and workforce by infusing new residential opportunities into working, light industrial neighborhoods. Adaptive reuse of existing buildings and redevelopment should offer new living and office spaces as well as a “front-door” to great, local businesses located along key streets, trails or greenways in East Boulder. These areas are envisioned to include a mix of light-industrial, retail, arts studios and education spaces, office and residential uses along active passageways. Allowed Uses Ground Floor • Light Industrial such as arts studio and maker space, performance, breweries or distilleries, coffee roasters and small-scale manufacturing; • Dining and Entertainment such as restaurants, cafes and taverns; • Service uses such as autobody repair, computer repair, and bicycle mechanics; • Personal services such as salons, indoor recreational or athletic facilities; • Professional office Conditional Uses Ground Floor The following uses should not exceed 4,000sf in floor area: Retail sales; Professional Office Allowed Uses Above Ground Floor Residential (attached); Office; Personal services; Retail Sales; Useable Open Space Minimum 10% of total land area Building Character Aesthetic choices will be industrial in nature with large ground-floor openings for loading/unloading that may serve multiple purposes. Buildings should orient “front-door” facades to adjacent trails or greenways, when present. Expect tall ground floor ceiling heights to accommodate industrial uses. Accommodate height flexibility to allow for residential above the ground floor. Street Level Activation Building frontages along streets should offer front-door environments, transparency along block-faces and interactive exchanges between buildings and the street, which may include café space, outdoor retail space, market space, etc. When development is adjacent to trails or greenways, prioritize the trail-facing sides of buildings for activation. Streetscape Character Streetscapes will support the industrial context of these places and facilitate ease of movement for goods and services in the area. Incorporating tree planting and landscape that will make positive climate impacts into streetscapes where possible is strongly encouraged. Access + Mobility Street-side access should balance vehicular access and needs with a supported environment for pedestrians and cyclists. Trail-side access is prioritized for pedestrians and cyclists. Particular attention required to connecting this place type between trail access and on-street networks in the area. Transportation connections should offer safe, comfortable pedestrian and bicycle access and slower speed vehicular movement to minimize conflicts with vehicles; centrally placed mobility hubs with high frequency transit should offer micromobility (e-bike, e-scooter) options for first and last mile connections; curbs should be managed to allow for different uses by time of day and/or loading/drop off based on adjacent land uses Parking On-street parking for ROWs that can accommodate; Promote efficient use of parking areas through unbundled, paid, flexible and shared use. 1 0 3 4 5 2 CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS WELCOME TO EAST BOULDER: BACKGROUND AND PROCESS THE VISION FOR EAST BOULDER EVOLVING NEIGHBORHOODS: LAND USE MOBILITY AND CONNECTIONS: TRANSPORTATION ACHIEVING THE VISION: IMPLEMENTATION PARK SIDE RESIDENTIAL Recommended ZoneMU4 35 36EAST BOULDER SUBCOMMUNITY PLAN EVOLVING NEIGHBORHOODS GUIDING REDEVELOPMENT: EAST BOULDER PLACE TYPES Valmont RdValmont RdPearl PkwyPearl Pkwy 55th Street55th StreetArapahoe AveAirport RdAirport Rd63rd StIndependence RdFoothills PkwyBNSF RailroadPearl StPearl St48th Ct48th Ct49th St49th StPearl E CirPearl E CirWalnut StWalnut StSterling DrSterling Dr Sterling CtSterling Ct47th ST47th STAirport BlvdAirport BlvdAirport RdAirport RdSterling DrSterling DrSterling CirSterling CirFlatiron PkwyFlatiron PkwyCentral AveCentral AveCentral AveCentral Ave S Flatiron CtS Flatiron CtN 57th CtN 57th Ct56th St56th StConestoga Conestoga CtCt Conestoga StConestoga StWestern AveWestern Ave Range StRange StCommerce StCommerce St48th ST48th STPeak AvePeak Ave Old Tale RdOld Tale RdCherryvale RdCherryvale RdOreg AveOreg AveEisenhower DrMacArthur MacArthur DrDr Patton DrPatton Dr55th St55th St63rd St63rd StValmont RdValmont RdEAST BOULDER PLACE TYPES103452CONTENTSACKNOWLEDGEMENTSWELCOME TO EAST BOULDER: BACKGROUND AND PROCESSTHE VISION FOR EAST BOULDEREVOLVING NEIGHBORHOODS: LAND USEMOBILITY AND CONNECTIONS: TRANSPORTATION ACHIEVING THE VISION: IMPLEMENTATION ResidentialRestaurants and DiningRetailPersonal ServicesManufacturingAuto ServiceIndoor RecreationOfficeGreenhouseParkingPublic or InstitutionalTransparent icon indicates conditional use PLACE TYPE USES Hands On IndustrialParkside Residential Main Street Live/Work Destination Office Park-Side ResidentialMain Street Live/WorkDestination WorkplaceHands-On IndustrialInnovation TOD (Residential)Neighborhood TOD Innovation TOD (Non-Residential) Innovation TOD (Residential) Innovation TOD (Non-Residential) Neighborhood TOD WHAT ARE PLACE TYPES? What are Place Types? The East Boulder Place Types describes the design intent and performance expectations for these evolving neighborhoods. The Place Type descriptions and performance measures can be used to guide redevelopment options and help future phases of implementation of the East Boulder Subcommunity Plan through the adoption of potential land use code amendments, re-zonings and the creation of new zones. The Place Type performance standards also describe elements that tie land use to important mobility features, such as access and parking and streetscape character. 35 36EAST BOULDER SUBCOMMUNITY PLAN EVOLVING NEIGHBORHOODS GUIDING REDEVELOPMENT: EAST BOULDER PLACE TYPES Valmont RdValmont RdPearl PkwyPearl Pkwy 55th Street55th StreetArapahoe AveAirport RdAirport Rd63rd StIndependence RdFoothills PkwyBNSF RailroadPearl StPearl St48th Ct48th Ct49th St49th StPearl E CirPearl E CirWalnut StWalnut StSterling DrSterling Dr Sterling CtSterling Ct47th ST47th STAirport BlvdAirport BlvdAirport RdAirport RdSterling DrSterling DrSterling CirSterling CirFlatiron PkwyFlatiron PkwyCentral AveCentral AveCentral AveCentral Ave S Flatiron CtS Flatiron CtN 57th CtN 57th Ct56th St56th StConestoga Conestoga CtCt Conestoga StConestoga StWestern AveWestern Ave Range StRange StCommerce StCommerce St48th ST48th STPeak AvePeak Ave Old Tale RdOld Tale RdCherryvale RdCherryvale RdOreg AveOreg AveEisenhower DrMacArthur MacArthur DrDr Patton DrPatton Dr55th St55th St63rd St63rd StValmont RdValmont RdEAST BOULDER PLACE TYPES103452CONTENTSACKNOWLEDGEMENTSWELCOME TO EAST BOULDER: BACKGROUND AND PROCESSTHE VISION FOR EAST BOULDEREVOLVING NEIGHBORHOODS: LAND USEMOBILITY AND CONNECTIONS: TRANSPORTATION ACHIEVING THE VISION: IMPLEMENTATION ResidentialRestaurants and DiningRetailPersonal ServicesManufacturingAuto ServiceIndoor RecreationOfficeGreenhouseParkingPublic or InstitutionalTransparent icon indicates conditional use PLACE TYPE USES Hands On IndustrialParkside Residential Main Street Live/Work Destination Office Park-Side ResidentialMain Street Live/WorkDestination WorkplaceHands-On IndustrialInnovation TOD (Residential)Neighborhood TOD Innovation TOD (Non-Residential) Innovation TOD (Residential) Innovation TOD (Non-Residential) Neighborhood TOD WHAT ARE PLACE TYPES? What are Place Types? The East Boulder Place Types describes the design intent and performance expectations for these evolving neighborhoods. The Place Type descriptions and performance measures can be used to guide redevelopment options and help future phases of implementation of the East Boulder Subcommunity Plan through the adoption of potential land use code amendments, re-zonings and the creation of new zones. The Place Type performance standards also describe elements that tie land use to important mobility features, such as access and parking and streetscape character. Attachment A - Rezoning Memo by Codametrics Item 6A - Progress Update on the Implementation of the East Boulder Subcommunity Plan: Zoning Update Page 18 Packet Page 471 of 523 EAST BOULDER ZONING UPDATE February 13, 2024 | REZONING RECOMMENDATION MEMO8 35 36EAST BOULDER SUBCOMMUNITY PLAN EVOLVING NEIGHBORHOODS GUIDING REDEVELOPMENT: EAST BOULDER PLACE TYPES Valmont RdValmont Rd Pearl Pk wy Pearl Pk wy 55th Street55th StreetArapahoe AveAirport RdAirport Rd63rd StIndependence Rd Foothills PkwyBNSF Railroad Pearl StPearl St 48th Ct48th Ct49th St49th StPearl E CirPearl E Cir Walnut StWalnut St Sterling DrSterling Dr Sterling CtSterling Ct47th ST47th STAirport BlvdAirport BlvdAirport RdAirport RdSterling DrSterling DrSterling CirSterling CirFlati r o n P k w y Flati r o n P k w y Central AveCentral Ave Central AveCentral Ave S F l a t i r o n C t S F l a t i r o n C tN 57th CtN 57th Ct56th St56th StConestoga Conestoga CtCt Conestoga StConestoga StWestern AveWestern Ave Range StRange StCommerce StCommerce St48th ST48th STPeak AvePeak Ave Old Tale RdOld Tale RdCherryvale RdCherryvale RdOreg AveOreg AveEisenhower DrMacArthur MacArthur DrDr Patton DrPatton Dr55th St55th St63rd St63rd StValmont RdValmont RdEAST BOULDER PLACE TYPES103 4 5 2CONTENTSACKNOWLEDGEMENTSWELCOME TO EAST BOULDER: BACKGROUND AND PROCESSTHE VISION FOR EAST BOULDEREVOLVING NEIGHBORHOODS: LAND USE MOBILITY AND CONNECTIONS: TRANSPORTATION ACHIEVING THE VISION: IMPLEMENTATION ResidentialRestaurants and DiningRetailPersonal ServicesManufacturingAuto ServiceIndoor RecreationOffice Greenhouse Parking Public or Institutional Transparent icon indicates conditional use PLACE TYPE USES Hands On IndustrialParkside ResidentialMain Street Live/Work Destination Office Park-Side ResidentialMain Street Live/WorkDestination WorkplaceHands-On IndustrialInnovation TOD (Residential)Neighborhood TOD Innovation TOD (Non-Residential) Innovation TOD (Residential) Innovation TOD (Non-Residential) Neighborhood TOD WHAT ARE PLACE TYPES? What are Place Types? The East Boulder Place Types describes the design intent and performance expectations for these evolving neighborhoods. The Place Type descriptions and performance measures can be used to guide redevelopment options and help future phases of implementation of the East Boulder Subcommunity Plan through the adoption of potential land use code amendments, re-zonings and the creation of new zones. The Place Type performance standards also describe elements that tie land use to important mobility features, such as access and parking and streetscape character. Non-Residential Innovation TOD 41 42EAST BOULDER SUBCOMMUNITY PLAN EVOLVING NEIGHBORHOODS Allowed Uses Ground Floor • Dining and Entertainment; • Light Industrial; • Residential such as attached dwellings, townhomes, and live-work units; • Retail; • Personal services Allowed Uses Above Ground Floor Attached Residential; Structured parking Conditional Above Ground Floor Second stories may incorporate a mix of office (including medical office) and residential; third, fourth and if plausible, fifth stories, should be reserved for residential uses FAR Range 1.0 - 3.5 Useable Open Space Minimum 20% of total land area Building Character Buildings may have large ground-floor openings for loading/unloading that may serve multiple purposes. Architecture should express innovation, creativity and Boulder entrepreunerism. This place type prioritizes energy conservation and activation. Street Level Activation Building frontages along arterial and collector streets should offer transparent and engaging front-door environments, which will likely include roll-up doors, loading and unloading areas, outdoor dining, etc. Traditional window displays should be limited in favor of sharing what is happening inside the spaces. Streetscape Character Streetscapes accommodate small, medium and some large sized delivery trucks while also encouraging a transit- supportive and active pedestrian and bicycle environment. Consistent elements should include landscape with integrated stormwater elements, street trees, seating, and designated areas for bike/scooter parking. Access + Mobility Side and rear vehicular building access; Transportation connections should offer safe, comfortable pedestrian and bicycle access and slower speed vehicular movement to minimize conflicts with vehicles; centrally placed mobility hubs should offer micromobility (e-bike, e-scooter) options for first and last mile connections; curbs should be managed to allow for different uses by time of day and/or deliveries/ loading/drop off based on adjacent land uses; pedestrian paseos (especially through larger blocks) enhance pedestrian connectivity Parking On-street parking for ROWs that can accommodate; rear or alley parking; Promote structured parking and transition away from large surface parking lots; Promote efficient use of parking areas through unbundled, paid, flexible and shared use. 1 0 3 4 5 2 CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS WELCOME TO EAST BOULDER: BACKGROUND AND PROCESS THE VISION FOR EAST BOULDER EVOLVING NEIGHBORHOODS: LAND USE MOBILITY AND CONNECTIONS: TRANSPORTATION ACHIEVING THE VISION: IMPLEMENTATION INNOVATION TOD (RESIDENTIAL) Description The Innovation Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Residential Place Type intends to maintain opportunities for light industrial and flex uses while integrating public-facing retail and providing transit supportive, attainable housing options. The area should prioritize energy conservation, urban rewilding strategies and creativity in new and re-development. INNOVATION TOD (NON-RESIDENTIAL) Allowed Uses Ground Floor • Light industrial; • Office; • Dining and Entertainment Conditional Uses Ground Floor Retail uses should be accessory to on-site businesses Allowed Uses Above Ground Floor Light industrial; Office; Structured Parking FAR Range 1.5 - 4.0 Useable Open Space Minimum 15% of total land area Building Character Aesthetic choices will be both of industrial in nature with large ground-floor openings for loading/unloading that may serve multiple purposes and/or more commercial with active office, retail, lobby or studio space on on ground floor. Architecture should express innovation, creativity and Boulder entrepreunerism. This place type prioritizes energy conservation, building rehabilitation and adaptive reuse of existing buildings. Street Level Activation Building frontages along arterial and collector streets should offer transparent and engaging front-door environments. Street facing ground floor space prioritize active use. Work places should offer on-site outdoor space for employee use as work space and non-work space. Streetside dining and entertainment space is encouraged. Streetscape Character Streetscapes accommodate small, medium and some large sized delivery trucks while also encouraging a transit- supportive and active pedestrian and bicycle environment. Consistent elements should include high quality landscape treatments with integrated stormwater management features, street trees, seating, and designated areas for bike/scooter parking. Access + Mobility Side and rear vehicular building access; Transportation connections should offer safe, comfortable pedestrian and bicycle access and slower speed vehicular movement to minimize conflicts with vehicles; centrally placed mobility hubs should offer micromobility (e-bike, e-scooter) options for first and last mile connections; pedestrian paseos (especially through larger blocks) enhance pedestrian connectivity Parking On-street parking for ROWs that can accommodate; rear or alley parking; Promote structured parking and transition away from large surface parking lots; Improve remaining surface lots with landscape stormwater features and pedestrian pathways; Promote efficient use of parking areas through unbundled, paid, flexible and shared use. Description The Innovation TOD (Non-Residential) Place Type prioritizes opportunities for light industrial and commercial uses. These areas are envisioned to integrate public-facing retail for light industrial, office, and commercial users. What is FAR? Floor area ratio (FAR) means the ratio of the floor area of a building to the area of the lot on which the building is situated. B.R.C. 9-16-1 Recommended ZoneIG 35 36EAST BOULDER SUBCOMMUNITY PLAN EVOLVING NEIGHBORHOODS GUIDING REDEVELOPMENT: EAST BOULDER PLACE TYPES Valmont RdValmont Rd Pearl Pk wy Pearl Pk wy 55th Street55th StreetArapahoe AveAirport RdAirport Rd63rd StIndependence Rd Foothills PkwyBNSF Railroad Pearl StPearl St 48th Ct48th Ct49th St49th StPearl E CirPearl E Cir Walnut StWalnut St Sterling DrSterling Dr Sterling CtSterling Ct47th ST47th STAirport BlvdAirport BlvdAirport RdAirport RdSterling DrSterling DrSterling CirSterling CirFlati r o n P k w y Flati r o n P k w y Central AveCentral Ave Central AveCentral Ave S F l a t i r o n C t S F l a t i r o n C tN 57th CtN 57th Ct56th St56th StConestoga Conestoga CtCt Conestoga StConestoga StWestern AveWestern Ave Range StRange StCommerce StCommerce St48th ST48th STPeak AvePeak Ave Old Tale RdOld Tale RdCherryvale RdCherryvale RdOreg AveOreg AveEisenhower DrMacArthur MacArthur DrDr Patton DrPatton Dr55th St55th St63rd St63rd StValmont RdValmont RdEAST BOULDER PLACE TYPES103 4 5 2CONTENTSACKNOWLEDGEMENTSWELCOME TO EAST BOULDER: BACKGROUND AND PROCESSTHE VISION FOR EAST BOULDEREVOLVING NEIGHBORHOODS: LAND USE MOBILITY AND CONNECTIONS: TRANSPORTATION ACHIEVING THE VISION: IMPLEMENTATION ResidentialRestaurants and DiningRetailPersonal ServicesManufacturingAuto ServiceIndoor RecreationOffice Greenhouse Parking Public or Institutional Transparent icon indicates conditional use PLACE TYPE USES Hands On IndustrialParkside ResidentialMain Street Live/Work Destination Office Park-Side ResidentialMain Street Live/WorkDestination WorkplaceHands-On IndustrialInnovation TOD (Residential)Neighborhood TOD Innovation TOD (Non-Residential) Innovation TOD (Residential) Innovation TOD (Non-Residential) Neighborhood TOD WHAT ARE PLACE TYPES? What are Place Types? The East Boulder Place Types describes the design intent and performance expectations for these evolving neighborhoods. The Place Type descriptions and performance measures can be used to guide redevelopment options and help future phases of implementation of the East Boulder Subcommunity Plan through the adoption of potential land use code amendments, re-zonings and the creation of new zones. The Place Type performance standards also describe elements that tie land use to important mobility features, such as access and parking and streetscape character. Residential Uses HOUSEHOLD LIVING USES ✘All are so limited as to not be allowed in East Boulder IG zones, except Live/Work with use specific standards. GROUP LIVING USES ✔All are allowed through Use Review except Group Home Facilities. Commercial Uses LODGING ✘Bed and Breakfast is prohibited. ✔Hostels are allowed only through Use Review ✘Hotels are prohibited. FOOD & BEVERAGE USES ✔Brewery, Distillery, Winery are allowed, but limited to 15,000 sf. Restaurant allowed only wiht a CU & closed 11pm-5am. ✔Commercial Kitchen and Catering is allowed. ✔Mobile Food Vehicle is allowed with use specific standards. (Would not be in RH-7.) ✔Restaurant, Brewpub, and Tavern uses are allowed, but brewpubs & taverns are essentially prohibited. RECREATION & ENTERTAINMENT ✔Art Studio or Workshop is allowed. ✔Indoor Athletic Facility is allowed, but limited to 5,000 sf. ✘Indoor and Outdoor Commercial Recreation uses are prohibited. ✔Small Theater or Rehearsal Space is allowed. OFFICE ✔Administrative Office is allowed. ✔Medical Office is allowed with a Conditional Use Permit. ✔Office is allowed, but limited to 50,000 sf. (Can limit location within building in FBC.) ✔Research & Development is allowed. RETAIL SALES USES ✔Accessory Sales are allowed. ✔Building Material Sales are allowed, but limited to 15,000sf. ✔Convenience Retail Sales are allowed. ✔Fuel Sales are allowed with Conditional Use Permit. ✔Retail Sales are allowed, but limited to 2,000 sf. and must be mixed-use. SERVICE USES ✔Animal Hospital or Vet Clinic uses are allowed. ✔Animal Kennel uses are allowed. ✔Business Support Service uses are allowed through Use Review. ✘Financial Institution uses are prohibited. ✔Media Production is allowed. ✘Mortuary & Funeral Chapel uses are prohibited. ✔Repair-Rental Service (non-vehicular) uses are allowed through Use Review ✔Personal Service uses are allowed, but limited to 2,000 sf. VEHICLE-RELATED USES ✘Car Wash uses are prohibited. ✘Drive-Thru uses are prohibited. ✔Full Service Station uses is allowed with a Conditional Use Permit. ✔Principal Parking Facility is allowed. ✔Sales or Rental of Vehicles is allowed. ✔Service of Vehicles is allowed. Industrial Uses STORAGE, DISTRIBUTION, WHOLESALING ✔Cold Storage Locker uses is allowed. ✔Outdoor Display of Merchandise uses is allowed. ✔Outdoor Storage uses is allowed through Use Review. ✔Self-Service Storage Facility is allowed through Use Review. ✔Warehouse or Distributions Facility is allowed. ✔Wholesale Business is allowed. PRODUCTION & PROCESSING ✔General Manufacturing is allowed through Use Review. ✔Light Manufacturing is allowed. ✔Recycling Center is allowed through Use Review. ✔Recycling Collection Facility - Large is allowed through Use Review. ✔Recycling Collection Facility - Small is is allowed with a Conditional Use Permit. ✔Recycling Processing Facility is allowed through Use Review. INDUSTRIAL SERVICES ✔Building and Landscaping Contractor uses are allowed. ✔Cleaning and Laundry Plant uses are allowed. ✔Equipment Repair and Rental uses are allowed. ✔Lumber Yard is allowed. Agriculture and Natural Resource Uses ✔Community Garden uses are allowed. ✘Crop Production uses are prohibited. ✔Firewood Operation uses are allowed. ✔Greenhouse and Plant Nursery is allowed. ✘Mining Industries are prohibited. ✘Oil and Gas Operations are prohibited. ✘Pasture is prohibited. Public and Institutional Uses COMMUNITY , CULTURAL, EDUCATIONAL ✘Club or Lodge uses are prohibited. ✔Community Services uses are allowed through Use Review. ✔Government Facility are allowed. ✘Hospital use is prohibited.. ✔Museum uses are allowed. ✔Open Space, Park, Recreation Uses are allowed. ✔Private College or University is allowed through Use Review. ✔Private Elem., Middle, or High School is allowed through Use Review. ✔Public College or University is allowed. ✔Public Elem., Middle, or High School is allowed. ✘Religious Assembly is prohibited. ✔Specialized Instruction Facility is allowed, but limited to 20,000 sf. CARE AND SHELTER ✔Daycare Center uses are allowed through Use Review. ✘Daycare Homes are prohibited. ✔Day Shelter are allowed with a Conditional Use Permit. ✔Emergency Shelter use is allowed with a Conditional Use Permit. ✔Overnight Shelter uses are allowed with a Conditional Use Permit. INFRASTRUCTURE AND UTILITIES ✘Airport and Heliport uses are prohibited. ✔Essential Municipal and Public Utility uses are allowed through Use Review. Attachment A - Rezoning Memo by Codametrics Item 6A - Progress Update on the Implementation of the East Boulder Subcommunity Plan: Zoning Update Page 19 Packet Page 472 of 523 EAST BOULDER ZONING UPDATE February 13, 2024 | REZONING RECOMMENDATION MEMO9 Residential Uses HOUSEHOLD LIVING USES ✘All are so limited as to not be allowed in East Boulder IG zones, except Live/Work with use specific standards. GROUP LIVING USES ✔All are allowed through Use Review except Group Home Facilities. Commercial Uses LODGING ✘Bed and Breakfast is prohibited. ✔Hostels are allowed only through Use Review ✘Hotels are prohibited. FOOD & BEVERAGE USES ✔Brewery, Distillery, Winery are allowed, but limited to 15,000 sf. Restaurant allowed only wiht a CU & closed 11pm-5am. ✔Commercial Kitchen and Catering is allowed. ✔Mobile Food Vehicle is allowed with use specific standards. (Would not be in RH-7.) ✔Restaurant, Brewpub, and Tavern uses are allowed, but brewpubs & taverns are essentially prohibited. RECREATION & ENTERTAINMENT ✔Art Studio or Workshop is allowed. ✔Indoor Athletic Facility is allowed, but limited to 5,000 sf. ✘Indoor and Outdoor Commercial Recreation uses are prohibited. ✔Small Theater or Rehearsal Space is allowed. OFFICE ✔Administrative Office is allowed. ✔Medical Office is allowed with a Conditional Use Permit. ✔Office is allowed, but limited to 50,000 sf. (Can limit location within building in FBC.) ✔Research & Development is allowed. RETAIL SALES USES ✔Accessory Sales are allowed. ✔Building Material Sales are allowed, but limited to 15,000sf. ✔Convenience Retail Sales are allowed. ✔Fuel Sales are allowed with Conditional Use Permit. ✔Retail Sales are allowed, but limited to 2,000 sf. and must be mixed-use. SERVICE USES ✔Animal Hospital or Vet Clinic uses are allowed. ✔Animal Kennel uses are allowed. ✔Business Support Service uses are allowed through Use Review. ✔Financial Institution uses are prohibited. ✔Media Production is allowed. ✘Mortuary & Funeral Chapel uses are prohibited. ✔Repair-Rental Service (non-vehicular) uses are allowed through Use Review ✔Personal Service uses are allowed, but limited to 2,000 sf. VEHICLE-RELATED USES ✘Car Wash uses are prohibited. ✘Drive-Thru uses are prohibited. ✔Full Service Station uses is allowed with a Conditional Use Permit. ✔Principal Parking Facility is allowed. ✔Sales or Rental of Vehicles is allowed, unlimited except within 500 feet of a residential district. ✔Service of Vehicles is allowed. Industrial Uses STORAGE, DISTRIBUTION, WHOLESALING ✔Cold Storage Locker uses is allowed. ✔Outdoor Display of Merchandise uses is allowed. ✔Outdoor Storage uses is allowed through Use Review. ✔Self-Service Storage Facility is allowed through Use Review. ✔Warehouse or Distributions Facility is allowed. ✔Wholesale Business is allowed. PRODUCTION & PROCESSING ✔General Manufacturing is allowed through Use Review.. ✔Light Manufacturing is allowed. ✔Recycling Center is allowed through Use Review. ✔Recycling Collection Facility - Large is allowed through Use Review. ✔Recycling Collection Facility - Small is is allowed with a Conditional Use Permit. ✔Recycling Processing Facility is allowed through Use Review. INDUSTRIAL SERVICES ✔Building and Landscaping Contractor uses are allowed. ✔Cleaning and Laundry Plant uses are allowed. ✔Equipment Repair and Rental uses are allowed. ✔Lumber Yard is allowed. Agriculture and Natural Resource Uses ✔Community Garden uses are allowed. ✘Crop Production uses are prohibited. ✔Firewood Operation uses are allowed. ✔Greenhouse and Plant Nursery is allowed. ✘Mining Industries are prohibited. ✘Oil and Gas Operations are prohibited. ✘Pasture is prohibited. Public and Institutional Uses COMMUNITY , CULTURAL, EDUCATIONAL ✘Club or Lodge uses are prohibited. ✔Community Services uses are allowed through Use Review. ✔Government Facility are allowed. ✘Hospital use is prohibited.. ✔Museum uses are allowed. ✔Open Space, Park, Recreation Uses are allowed. ✔Private College or University is allowed through Use Review. ✔Private Elem., Middle, or High School is allowed through Use Review. ✔Public College or University is allowed. ✔Public Elem., Middle, or High School is allowed. ✘Religious Assembly is prohibited. ✔Specialized Instruction Facility is allowed, but limited to 20,000 sf. CARE AND SHELTER ✔Daycare Center uses are allowed through Use Review. ✘Daycare Homes are prohibited. ✔Day Shelter are allowed with a Conditional Use Permit. ✔Emergency Shelter use is allowed with a Conditional Use Permit. ✔Overnight Shelter uses are allowed with a Conditional Use Permit. INFRASTRUCTURE AND UTILITIES ✘Airport and Heliport uses are prohibited. ✔Essential Municipal and Public Utility uses are allowed through Use Review. Hands-On Industrial Recommended Zone 39 40EAST BOULDER SUBCOMMUNITY PLAN EVOLVING NEIGHBORHOODS DESTINATION WORKPLACE Description The Destination Workplace Place Type incorporates modern principles of creating flexible, active and engaging work places to serve Boulder business and industry. These places will offer industrial and office space with indoor/outdoor work space, excellent connections to a variety of mobility options and local destinations dining and entertainment. This place also expands opportunities for existing or new industrial businesses to create retail space and engage potential customers in an exciting environment. Flexibility in these neighborhoods also includes allowing for residential infill providing area employees with local housing options. Allowed Uses Ground Floor • Office such as technical, financial, professional; • Light Industrial such as small-scale manufacturing, flex- space, breweries, distilleries, coffee roasting; • Dining and Entertainment such as restaurants, cafes and taverns; • Retail sales such as on-site retail for manufacturing businesses or other industrial businesses Conditional Uses Ground Floor n/a Allowed Uses Above Ground Floor Office; Light Industrial; Attached Residential Useable Open Space Minimum 20% of total land area Building Character Buildings should offer modern amenities to Boulder employers and employees that support an indoor/outdoor exchange of air and light. Aesthetic choices should express innovation, creativity and Boulder entrepreunerism. This place type prioritizes energy conservation in both new and re- development. Street Level Activation Transparency along both streets and key pedestrian pathways should create an active ground-floor environment. Work places should offer on-site outdoor space for employee use as work space and non-work space. Streetside dining and entertainment space is encouraged. Streetscape Character Streetscape environments should incorporate high quality landscaping including a consistent tree canopy and green infrastructure, offer off-street space for pedestrians and cyclists and provide moments for pause and repose. Access + Mobility Transportation connections should offer safe, comfortable pedestrian and bicycle access and slower speed vehicular movement to minimize conflicts with vehicles; centrally placed mobility hubs with high frequency transit should offer micromobility (e-bike, e-scooter) options for first and last mile connections; curbs should be managed to allow for different uses by time of day and/or loading/drop off based on adjacent land uses. Parking Parking in the Destination Workplace Place Type should strive for consolidation. It is envisioned that parking structures are well-connected to local work places and retail/dining destinations through a network of the highest quality pedestrian environment. 1 0 3 4 5 2 CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS WELCOME TO EAST BOULDER: BACKGROUND AND PROCESS THE VISION FOR EAST BOULDER EVOLVING NEIGHBORHOODS: LAND USE MOBILITY AND CONNECTIONS: TRANSPORTATION ACHIEVING THE VISION: IMPLEMENTATION HANDS ON INDUSTRIAL Description The Hands-On Industrial Place Type are key places for Boulder’s makers, artists, mechanics, musicians and fixer-uppers. The place type is envisioned to be a little gritty, a little funky and build opportunities for the collective of local artisans and specialists. Adaptive reuse and redevelopment should provide affordable commercial space when possible and provide an interactive ground floor environment that contributes to neighborhood character. What is Unbundled Parking? Unbundled parking is the practice of selling or leasing parking spaces separate from the purchase or lease of a commercial or residential use. Detaching the cost of a home or commercial space from associated parking spaces allows buyers or renters to pay for parking only if they need it. Allowed Uses Ground Floor • Light Industrial such as manufacturing, maker space, performance, breweries or distilleries, coffee roasters • Vehicular Services and Auto-related businesses • Personal services • Indoor recreation • Retail sales • Arts/Performance Studio • Maker Space Conditional Uses Ground Floor Greenhouse and plant nurseries Allowed Uses Above Ground Floor Accessory or administrative office Useable Open Space Minimum 10% of total land area Building Character Aesthetic choices will be industrial in nature. Smaller scale buildings are anticipated. Expect tall ground floor ceiling heights to accommodate industrial uses. Street Level Activation Building facades should have clear “front-door” entries. Creative facades and signage are encouraged. Streetscape Character Streetscape character and local wayfinding should feature and celebrate local businesses, integrate local art, increase canopy and incorporate a pedestrian environment that welcomes customers and visitors to the experience of Boulder’s community of makers. Access + Mobility Transportation connections should offer safe, comfortable pedestrian and bicycle access and slower speed vehicular movement to minimize conflicts with vehicles; centrally placed mobility hubs with high frequency transit should offer micromobility (e-bike, e-scooter) options for first and last mile connections; curbs should be managed to allow for different uses by time of day and/or loading/drop off based on adjacent land uses. Parking Promote efficient use of parking areas through unbundled, paid, flexible and shared use. 35 36EAST BOULDER SUBCOMMUNITY PLAN EVOLVING NEIGHBORHOODS GUIDING REDEVELOPMENT: EAST BOULDER PLACE TYPES Valmont RdValmont RdPearl PkwyPearl Pkwy 55th Street55th StreetArapahoe AveAirport RdAirport Rd63rd StIndependence RdFoothills PkwyBNSF RailroadPearl StPearl St48th Ct48th Ct49th St49th StPearl E CirPearl E CirWalnut StWalnut StSterling DrSterling Dr Sterling CtSterling Ct47th ST47th STAirport BlvdAirport BlvdAirport RdAirport RdSterling DrSterling DrSterling CirSterling CirFlatiron PkwyFlatiron PkwyCentral AveCentral AveCentral AveCentral Ave S Flatiron CtS Flatiron CtN 57th CtN 57th Ct56th St56th StConestoga Conestoga CtCt Conestoga StConestoga StWestern AveWestern Ave Range StRange StCommerce StCommerce St48th ST48th STPeak AvePeak Ave Old Tale RdOld Tale RdCherryvale RdCherryvale RdOreg AveOreg AveEisenhower DrMacArthur MacArthur DrDr Patton DrPatton Dr55th St55th St63rd St63rd StValmont RdValmont RdEAST BOULDER PLACE TYPES103452CONTENTSACKNOWLEDGEMENTSWELCOME TO EAST BOULDER: BACKGROUND AND PROCESSTHE VISION FOR EAST BOULDEREVOLVING NEIGHBORHOODS: LAND USEMOBILITY AND CONNECTIONS: TRANSPORTATION ACHIEVING THE VISION: IMPLEMENTATION ResidentialRestaurants and DiningRetailPersonal ServicesManufacturingAuto ServiceIndoor RecreationOfficeGreenhouseParkingPublic or InstitutionalTransparent icon indicates conditional use PLACE TYPE USES Hands On IndustrialParkside Residential Main Street Live/Work Destination Office Park-Side ResidentialMain Street Live/WorkDestination WorkplaceHands-On IndustrialInnovation TOD (Residential)Neighborhood TOD Innovation TOD (Non-Residential) Innovation TOD (Residential) Innovation TOD (Non-Residential) Neighborhood TOD WHAT ARE PLACE TYPES? What are Place Types? The East Boulder Place Types describes the design intent and performance expectations for these evolving neighborhoods. The Place Type descriptions and performance measures can be used to guide redevelopment options and help future phases of implementation of the East Boulder Subcommunity Plan through the adoption of potential land use code amendments, re-zonings and the creation of new zones. The Place Type performance standards also describe elements that tie land use to important mobility features, such as access and parking and streetscape character. 35 36EAST BOULDER SUBCOMMUNITY PLAN EVOLVING NEIGHBORHOODS GUIDING REDEVELOPMENT: EAST BOULDER PLACE TYPES Valmont RdValmont RdPearl PkwyPearl Pkwy 55th Street55th StreetArapahoe AveAirport RdAirport Rd63rd StIndependence RdFoothills PkwyBNSF RailroadPearl StPearl St48th Ct48th Ct49th St49th StPearl E CirPearl E CirWalnut StWalnut StSterling DrSterling Dr Sterling CtSterling Ct47th ST47th STAirport BlvdAirport BlvdAirport RdAirport RdSterling DrSterling DrSterling CirSterling CirFlatiron PkwyFlatiron PkwyCentral AveCentral AveCentral AveCentral Ave S Flatiron CtS Flatiron CtN 57th CtN 57th Ct56th St56th StConestoga Conestoga CtCt Conestoga StConestoga StWestern AveWestern Ave Range StRange StCommerce StCommerce St48th ST48th STPeak AvePeak Ave Old Tale RdOld Tale RdCherryvale RdCherryvale RdOreg AveOreg AveEisenhower DrMacArthur MacArthur DrDr Patton DrPatton Dr55th St55th St63rd St63rd StValmont RdValmont RdEAST BOULDER PLACE TYPES103452CONTENTSACKNOWLEDGEMENTSWELCOME TO EAST BOULDER: BACKGROUND AND PROCESSTHE VISION FOR EAST BOULDEREVOLVING NEIGHBORHOODS: LAND USEMOBILITY AND CONNECTIONS: TRANSPORTATION ACHIEVING THE VISION: IMPLEMENTATION ResidentialRestaurants and DiningRetailPersonal ServicesManufacturingAuto ServiceIndoor RecreationOfficeGreenhouseParkingPublic or InstitutionalTransparent icon indicates conditional use PLACE TYPE USES Hands On IndustrialParkside Residential Main Street Live/Work Destination Office Park-Side ResidentialMain Street Live/WorkDestination WorkplaceHands-On IndustrialInnovation TOD (Residential)Neighborhood TOD Innovation TOD (Non-Residential) Innovation TOD (Residential) Innovation TOD (Non-Residential) Neighborhood TOD WHAT ARE PLACE TYPES? What are Place Types? The East Boulder Place Types describes the design intent and performance expectations for these evolving neighborhoods. The Place Type descriptions and performance measures can be used to guide redevelopment options and help future phases of implementation of the East Boulder Subcommunity Plan through the adoption of potential land use code amendments, re-zonings and the creation of new zones. The Place Type performance standards also describe elements that tie land use to important mobility features, such as access and parking and streetscape character. IG Attachment A - Rezoning Memo by Codametrics Item 6A - Progress Update on the Implementation of the East Boulder Subcommunity Plan: Zoning Update Page 20 Packet Page 473 of 523 Residential Uses HOUSEHOLD LIVING USES ✔All multi-unit housing types are allowed, except townhouses and duplexes are allowed in a building only if 50% of the floor area is nonresidential. Live-work is a conditional use. Detached household living is not allowed. GROUP LIVING USES ✘No group living uses are allowed except transitional housing is a conditional use. Commercial Uses LODGING ✘Bed and Breakfast is prohibited. ✘Hostels are prohibited. ✘Hotels are prohibited. FOOD & BEVERAGE USES ✔Brewery, Distillery, Winery are allowed, but limited to 15,000 sf. Restaurant allowed only with a CU & closed 11pm-5am. ✔Commercial Kitchen and Catering is allowed. ✔Mobile Food Vehicle is allowed with use specific standards. (Would not be in RH-7.) ✔Restaurant, Brewpub, and Tavern uses are allowed, but brewpubs & taverns are essentially prohibited. RECREATION & ENTERTAINMENT ✔Art Studio or Workshop is allowed. ✔Indoor Athletic Facility is allowed, but limited to 5,000 sf. ✘Indoor and Outdoor Commercial Recreation uses are prohibited. ✔Small Theater or Rehearsal Space is allowed. OFFICE ✘Administrative Office is prohibited. ✘Medical Office is prohibited. ✔Office is allowed, but limited to 5,000 sf. ✔Research & Development is allowed, but limited to 5,000 sf. RETAIL SALES USES ✔Accessory Sales are allowed. ✔Building Material Sales are allowed, but limited to 15,000sf. ✔Convenience Retail Sales are allowed. ✔Fuel Sales are allowed only through Use Review. ✔Retail Sales are allowed, but limited to 2,000 sf. and must be mixed-use. SERVICE USES ✔Animal Hospital or Vet Clinic uses are allowed. ✔Animal Kennel uses are allowed. ✔Business Support Service uses are allowed, but limited to 20,000 sf. ✘Financial Institution uses are prohibited. ✔Media Production is allowed. ✘Mortuary & Funeral Chapel uses are prohibited. ✔Repair-Rental Service (non-vehicular) uses are allowed. ✔Personal Service uses are allowed, but limited to 2,000 sf. VEHICLE-RELATED USES ✘Car Wash uses are prohibited. ✘Drive-Thru uses are prohibited. ✔Full Service Station uses is allowed through Use Review. ✔Principal Parking Facility is allowed through Use Review. ✘Sales or Rental of Vehicles is prohibited. ✔Service of Vehicles is allowed. Industrial Uses STORAGE, DISTRIBUTION, WHOLESALING ✔Cold Storage Locker uses is allowed. ✔Outdoor Display of Merchandise uses is allowed. ✘Outdoor Storage uses is prohibited. ✘Self-Service Storage Facility is prohibited. ✔Warehouse or Distributions Facility is allowed. ✔Wholesale Business is allowed. PRODUCTION & PROCESSING ✘General Manufacturing is prohbited. ✔Light Manufacturing is allowed. ✔Recycling Center is allowed through Use Review. ✔Recycling Collection Facility - Large is allowed through Use Review. ✔Recycling Collection Facility - Small is is allowed with a Conditional Use Permit. ✘Recycling Processing Facility is prohbited. INDUSTRIAL SERVICES ✔Building and Landscaping Contractor uses are allowed. ✔Cleaning and Laundry Plant uses are allowed. ✔Equipment Repair and Rental uses are allowed. ✘Lumber Yard is prohbited. Agriculture and Natural Resource Uses ✔Community Garden uses are allowed. ✘Crop Production uses are prohibited. ✘Firewood Operation uses are prohibited. ✔Greenhouse and Plant Nursery is allowed. ✘Mining Industries are prohibited. ✘Oil and Gas Operations are prohibited. ✘Pasture is prohibited. Public and Institutional Uses COMMUNITY , CULTURAL, EDUCATIONAL ✘Club or Lodge uses are prohibited. ✔Community Services uses are allowed through Use Review. ✔Government Facility are allowed. ✘Hospital use is prohibited.. ✔Museum uses are allowed. ✔Open Space, Park, Recreation Uses are allowed. ✔Private College or University is allowed through Use Review. ✔Private Elem., Middle, or High School is allowed through Use Review. ✔Public College or University is allowed. ✔Public Elem., Middle, or High School is allowed. ✘Religious Assembly is prohibited. ✔Specialized Instruction Facility is allowed, but limited to 20,000 sf. CARE AND SHELTER ✔Daycare Center uses are allowed through Use Review. ✘Daycare Homes are prohibited. ✔Day Shelter are allowed through Use Review. ✔Emergency Shelter use is allowed through Use Review. ✔Overnight Shelter uses are allowed through Use Review. INFRASTRUCTURE AND UTILITIES ✔Airport and Heliport uses are prohibited. ✔Essential Municipal and Public Utility uses are allowed through Use Review. Destination Workplace 39 40EAST BOULDER SUBCOMMUNITY PLAN EVOLVING NEIGHBORHOODS DESTINATION WORKPLACE Description The Destination Workplace Place Type incorporates modern principles of creating flexible, active and engaging work places to serve Boulder business and industry. These places will offer industrial and office space with indoor/outdoor work space, excellent connections to a variety of mobility options and local destinations dining and entertainment. This place also expands opportunities for existing or new industrial businesses to create retail space and engage potential customers in an exciting environment. Flexibility in these neighborhoods also includes allowing for residential infill providing area employees with local housing options. Allowed Uses Ground Floor • Office such as technical, financial, professional; • Light Industrial such as small-scale manufacturing, flex- space, breweries, distilleries, coffee roasting; • Dining and Entertainment such as restaurants, cafes and taverns; • Retail sales such as on-site retail for manufacturing businesses or other industrial businesses Conditional Uses Ground Floor n/a Allowed Uses Above Ground Floor Office; Light Industrial; Attached Residential Useable Open Space Minimum 20% of total land area Building Character Buildings should offer modern amenities to Boulder employers and employees that support an indoor/outdoor exchange of air and light. Aesthetic choices should express innovation, creativity and Boulder entrepreunerism. This place type prioritizes energy conservation in both new and re- development. Street Level Activation Transparency along both streets and key pedestrian pathways should create an active ground-floor environment. Work places should offer on-site outdoor space for employee use as work space and non-work space. Streetside dining and entertainment space is encouraged. Streetscape Character Streetscape environments should incorporate high quality landscaping including a consistent tree canopy and green infrastructure, offer off-street space for pedestrians and cyclists and provide moments for pause and repose. Access + Mobility Transportation connections should offer safe, comfortable pedestrian and bicycle access and slower speed vehicular movement to minimize conflicts with vehicles; centrally placed mobility hubs with high frequency transit should offer micromobility (e-bike, e-scooter) options for first and last mile connections; curbs should be managed to allow for different uses by time of day and/or loading/drop off based on adjacent land uses. Parking Parking in the Destination Workplace Place Type should strive for consolidation. It is envisioned that parking structures are well-connected to local work places and retail/dining destinations through a network of the highest quality pedestrian environment. 1 0 3 4 5 2 CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS WELCOME TO EAST BOULDER: BACKGROUND AND PROCESS THE VISION FOR EAST BOULDER EVOLVING NEIGHBORHOODS: LAND USE MOBILITY AND CONNECTIONS: TRANSPORTATION ACHIEVING THE VISION: IMPLEMENTATION HANDS ON INDUSTRIAL Description The Hands-On Industrial Place Type are key places for Boulder’s makers, artists, mechanics, musicians and fixer-uppers. The place type is envisioned to be a little gritty, a little funky and build opportunities for the collective of local artisans and specialists. Adaptive reuse and redevelopment should provide affordable commercial space when possible and provide an interactive ground floor environment that contributes to neighborhood character. What is Unbundled Parking? Unbundled parking is the practice of selling or leasing parking spaces separate from the purchase or lease of a commercial or residential use. Detaching the cost of a home or commercial space from associated parking spaces allows buyers or renters to pay for parking only if they need it. Allowed Uses Ground Floor • Light Industrial such as manufacturing, maker space, performance, breweries or distilleries, coffee roasters • Vehicular Services and Auto-related businesses • Personal services • Indoor recreation • Retail sales • Arts/Performance Studio • Maker Space Conditional Uses Ground Floor Greenhouse and plant nurseries Allowed Uses Above Ground Floor Accessory or administrative office Useable Open Space Minimum 10% of total land area Building Character Aesthetic choices will be industrial in nature. Smaller scale buildings are anticipated. Expect tall ground floor ceiling heights to accommodate industrial uses. Street Level Activation Building facades should have clear “front-door” entries. Creative facades and signage are encouraged. Streetscape Character Streetscape character and local wayfinding should feature and celebrate local businesses, integrate local art, increase canopy and incorporate a pedestrian environment that welcomes customers and visitors to the experience of Boulder’s community of makers. Access + Mobility Transportation connections should offer safe, comfortable pedestrian and bicycle access and slower speed vehicular movement to minimize conflicts with vehicles; centrally placed mobility hubs with high frequency transit should offer micromobility (e-bike, e-scooter) options for first and last mile connections; curbs should be managed to allow for different uses by time of day and/or loading/drop off based on adjacent land uses. Parking Promote efficient use of parking areas through unbundled, paid, flexible and shared use. Recommended Zoneonly if office uses are expanded. IMS 35 36EAST BOULDER SUBCOMMUNITY PLAN EVOLVING NEIGHBORHOODS GUIDING REDEVELOPMENT: EAST BOULDER PLACE TYPES Valmont RdValmont Rd Pearl Pk wy Pearl Pk wy 55th Street55th StreetArapahoe AveAirport RdAirport Rd63rd StIndependence Rd Foothills PkwyBNSF Railroad Pearl StPearl St 48th Ct48th Ct49th St49th StPearl E CirPearl E Cir Walnut StWalnut St Sterling DrSterling Dr Sterling CtSterling Ct47th ST47th STAirport BlvdAirport BlvdAirport RdAirport RdSterling DrSterling DrSterling CirSterling CirFlati r o n P k w y Flati r o n P k w y Central AveCentral Ave Central AveCentral Ave S F l a t i r o n C t S F l a t i r o n C tN 57th CtN 57th Ct56th St56th StConestoga Conestoga CtCt Conestoga StConestoga StWestern AveWestern Ave Range StRange StCommerce StCommerce St48th ST48th STPeak AvePeak Ave Old Tale RdOld Tale RdCherryvale RdCherryvale RdOreg AveOreg AveEisenhower DrMacArthur MacArthur DrDr Patton DrPatton Dr55th St55th St63rd St63rd StValmont RdValmont RdEAST BOULDER PLACE TYPES103 4 5 2CONTENTSACKNOWLEDGEMENTSWELCOME TO EAST BOULDER: BACKGROUND AND PROCESSTHE VISION FOR EAST BOULDEREVOLVING NEIGHBORHOODS: LAND USE MOBILITY AND CONNECTIONS: TRANSPORTATION ACHIEVING THE VISION: IMPLEMENTATION ResidentialRestaurants and DiningRetailPersonal ServicesManufacturingAuto ServiceIndoor RecreationOffice Greenhouse Parking Public or Institutional Transparent icon indicates conditional use PLACE TYPE USES Hands On IndustrialParkside ResidentialMain Street Live/Work Destination Office Park-Side ResidentialMain Street Live/WorkDestination WorkplaceHands-On IndustrialInnovation TOD (Residential)Neighborhood TOD Innovation TOD (Non-Residential) Innovation TOD (Residential) Innovation TOD (Non-Residential) Neighborhood TOD WHAT ARE PLACE TYPES? What are Place Types? The East Boulder Place Types describes the design intent and performance expectations for these evolving neighborhoods. The Place Type descriptions and performance measures can be used to guide redevelopment options and help future phases of implementation of the East Boulder Subcommunity Plan through the adoption of potential land use code amendments, re-zonings and the creation of new zones. The Place Type performance standards also describe elements that tie land use to important mobility features, such as access and parking and streetscape character. 35 36EAST BOULDER SUBCOMMUNITY PLAN EVOLVING NEIGHBORHOODS GUIDING REDEVELOPMENT: EAST BOULDER PLACE TYPES Valmont RdValmont Rd Pearl Pk wy Pearl Pk wy 55th Street55th StreetArapahoe AveAirport RdAirport Rd63rd StIndependence Rd Foothills PkwyBNSF Railroad Pearl StPearl St 48th Ct48th Ct49th St49th StPearl E CirPearl E Cir Walnut StWalnut St Sterling DrSterling Dr Sterling CtSterling Ct47th ST47th STAirport BlvdAirport BlvdAirport RdAirport RdSterling DrSterling DrSterling CirSterling CirFlati r o n P k w y Flati r o n P k w y Central AveCentral Ave Central AveCentral Ave S F l a t i r o n C t S F l a t i r o n C tN 57th CtN 57th Ct56th St56th StConestoga Conestoga CtCt Conestoga StConestoga StWestern AveWestern Ave Range StRange StCommerce StCommerce St48th ST48th STPeak AvePeak Ave Old Tale RdOld Tale RdCherryvale RdCherryvale RdOreg AveOreg AveEisenhower DrMacArthur MacArthur DrDr Patton DrPatton Dr55th St55th St63rd St63rd StValmont RdValmont RdEAST BOULDER PLACE TYPES103 4 5 2CONTENTSACKNOWLEDGEMENTSWELCOME TO EAST BOULDER: BACKGROUND AND PROCESSTHE VISION FOR EAST BOULDEREVOLVING NEIGHBORHOODS: LAND USE MOBILITY AND CONNECTIONS: TRANSPORTATION ACHIEVING THE VISION: IMPLEMENTATION ResidentialRestaurants and DiningRetailPersonal ServicesManufacturingAuto ServiceIndoor RecreationOffice Greenhouse Parking Public or Institutional Transparent icon indicates conditional use PLACE TYPE USES Hands On IndustrialParkside ResidentialMain Street Live/Work Destination Office Park-Side ResidentialMain Street Live/WorkDestination WorkplaceHands-On IndustrialInnovation TOD (Residential)Neighborhood TOD Innovation TOD (Non-Residential) Innovation TOD (Residential) Innovation TOD (Non-Residential) Neighborhood TOD WHAT ARE PLACE TYPES? What are Place Types? The East Boulder Place Types describes the design intent and performance expectations for these evolving neighborhoods. The Place Type descriptions and performance measures can be used to guide redevelopment options and help future phases of implementation of the East Boulder Subcommunity Plan through the adoption of potential land use code amendments, re-zonings and the creation of new zones. The Place Type performance standards also describe elements that tie land use to important mobility features, such as access and parking and streetscape character. Attachment A - Rezoning Memo by Codametrics Item 6A - Progress Update on the Implementation of the East Boulder Subcommunity Plan: Zoning Update Page 21 Packet Page 474 of 523 Residential Uses HOUSEHOLD LIVING USES ✘All are so limited as to not be allowed in East Boulder IG zones, except Live/Work with use specific standards. GROUP LIVING USES ✔All are allowed through Use Review except Group Home Facilities. Commercial Uses LODGING ✘Bed and Breakfast is prohibited. ✔Hostels are allowed only through Use Review ✘Hotels are prohibited. FOOD & BEVERAGE USES ✔Brewery, Distillery, Winery are allowed, but limited to 15,000 sf. Restaurant allowed only wiht a CU & closed 11pm-5am. ✔Commercial Kitchen and Catering is allowed. ✔Mobile Food Vehicle is allowed with use specific standards. (Would not be in RH-7.) ✔Restaurant, Brewpub, and Tavern uses are allowed, but brewpubs & taverns are essentially prohibited. RECREATION & ENTERTAINMENT ✔Art Studio or Workshop is allowed. ✔Indoor Athletic Facility is allowed, but limited to 5,000 sf. ✘Indoor and Outdoor Commercial Recreation uses are prohibited. ✔Small Theater or Rehearsal Space is allowed. OFFICE ✔Administrative Office is allowed. ✔Medical Office is allowed with a Conditional Use Permit. ✔Office is allowed, but limited to 50,000 sf. (Can limit location within building in FBC.) ✔Research & Development is allowed. RETAIL SALES USES ✔Accessory Sales are allowed. ✔Building Material Sales are allowed, but limited to 15,000sf. ✔Convenience Retail Sales are allowed. ✔Fuel Sales are allowed with Conditional Use Permit. ✔Retail Sales are allowed, but limited to 2,000 sf. and must be mixed-use. SERVICE USES ✔Animal Hospital or Vet Clinic uses are allowed. ✔Animal Kennel uses are allowed. ✔Business Support Service uses are allowed through Use Review. ✘Financial Institution uses are prohibited. ✔Media Production is allowed. ✘Mortuary & Funeral Chapel uses are prohibited. ✔Repair-Rental Service (non-vehicular) uses are allowed through Use Review. ✔Personal Service uses are allowed, but limited to 2,000 sf. VEHICLE-RELATED USES ✘Car Wash uses are prohibited. ✘Drive-Thru uses are prohibited. ✔Full Service Station uses is allowed with a Conditional Use Permit. ✔Principal Parking Facility is allowed. ✔Sales or Rental of Vehicles is allowed. ✔Service of Vehicles is allowed. Industrial Uses STORAGE, DISTRIBUTION, WHOLESALING ✔Cold Storage Locker uses is allowed. ✔Outdoor Display of Merchandise uses is allowed. ✔Outdoor Storage uses is allowed through Use Review. ✔Self-Service Storage Facility is allowed through Use Review. ✔Warehouse or Distributions Facility is allowed. ✔Wholesale Business is allowed. PRODUCTION & PROCESSING ✔General Manufacturing is allowed through Use Review. ✔Light Manufacturing is allowed. ✔Recycling Center is allowed through Use Review. ✔Recycling Collection Facility - Large is allowed through Use Review. ✔Recycling Collection Facility - Small is is allowed with a Conditional Use Permit. ✔Recycling Processing Facility is allowed through Use Review. INDUSTRIAL SERVICES ✔Building and Landscaping Contractor uses are allowed. ✔Cleaning and Laundry Plant uses are allowed. ✔Equipment Repair and Rental uses are allowed. ✔Lumber Yard is allowed. Agriculture and Natural Resource Uses ✔Community Garden uses are allowed. ✘Crop Production uses are prohibited. ✔Firewood Operation uses are allowed. ✔Greenhouse and Plant Nursery is allowed. ✘Mining Industries are prohibited. ✘Oil and Gas Operations are prohibited. ✘Pasture is prohibited. Public and Institutional Uses COMMUNITY , CULTURAL, EDUCATIONAL ✘Club or Lodge uses are prohibited. ✔Community Services uses are allowed through Use Review. ✔Government Facility are allowed. ✘Hospital use is prohibited.. ✔Museum uses are allowed. ✔Open Space, Park, Recreation Uses are allowed. ✔Private College or University is allowed through Use Review. ✔Private Elem., Middle, or High School is allowed through Use Review. ✔Public College or University is allowed. ✔Public Elem., Middle, or High School is allowed. ✘Religious Assembly is prohibited. ✔Specialized Instruction Facility is allowed, but limited to 20,000 sf. CARE AND SHELTER ✔Daycare Center uses are allowed through Use Review. ✘Daycare Homes are prohibited. ✔Day Shelter are allowed with a Conditional Use Permit. ✔Emergency Shelter use is allowed with a Conditional Use Permit. ✔Overnight Shelter uses are allowed with a Conditional Use Permit. INFRASTRUCTURE AND UTILITIES ✘Airport and Heliport uses are prohibited. ✔Essential Municipal and Public Utility uses are allowed through Use Review. Destination Workplace 39 40EAST BOULDER SUBCOMMUNITY PLAN EVOLVING NEIGHBORHOODS DESTINATION WORKPLACE Description The Destination Workplace Place Type incorporates modern principles of creating flexible, active and engaging work places to serve Boulder business and industry. These places will offer industrial and office space with indoor/outdoor work space, excellent connections to a variety of mobility options and local destinations dining and entertainment. This place also expands opportunities for existing or new industrial businesses to create retail space and engage potential customers in an exciting environment. Flexibility in these neighborhoods also includes allowing for residential infill providing area employees with local housing options. Allowed Uses Ground Floor • Office such as technical, financial, professional; • Light Industrial such as small-scale manufacturing, flex- space, breweries, distilleries, coffee roasting; • Dining and Entertainment such as restaurants, cafes and taverns; • Retail sales such as on-site retail for manufacturing businesses or other industrial businesses Conditional Uses Ground Floor n/a Allowed Uses Above Ground Floor Office; Light Industrial; Attached Residential Useable Open Space Minimum 20% of total land area Building Character Buildings should offer modern amenities to Boulder employers and employees that support an indoor/outdoor exchange of air and light. Aesthetic choices should express innovation, creativity and Boulder entrepreunerism. This place type prioritizes energy conservation in both new and re- development. Street Level Activation Transparency along both streets and key pedestrian pathways should create an active ground-floor environment. Work places should offer on-site outdoor space for employee use as work space and non-work space. Streetside dining and entertainment space is encouraged. Streetscape Character Streetscape environments should incorporate high quality landscaping including a consistent tree canopy and green infrastructure, offer off-street space for pedestrians and cyclists and provide moments for pause and repose. Access + Mobility Transportation connections should offer safe, comfortable pedestrian and bicycle access and slower speed vehicular movement to minimize conflicts with vehicles; centrally placed mobility hubs with high frequency transit should offer micromobility (e-bike, e-scooter) options for first and last mile connections; curbs should be managed to allow for different uses by time of day and/or loading/drop off based on adjacent land uses. Parking Parking in the Destination Workplace Place Type should strive for consolidation. It is envisioned that parking structures are well-connected to local work places and retail/dining destinations through a network of the highest quality pedestrian environment. 1 0 3 4 5 2 CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS WELCOME TO EAST BOULDER: BACKGROUND AND PROCESS THE VISION FOR EAST BOULDER EVOLVING NEIGHBORHOODS: LAND USE MOBILITY AND CONNECTIONS: TRANSPORTATION ACHIEVING THE VISION: IMPLEMENTATION HANDS ON INDUSTRIAL Description The Hands-On Industrial Place Type are key places for Boulder’s makers, artists, mechanics, musicians and fixer-uppers. The place type is envisioned to be a little gritty, a little funky and build opportunities for the collective of local artisans and specialists. Adaptive reuse and redevelopment should provide affordable commercial space when possible and provide an interactive ground floor environment that contributes to neighborhood character. What is Unbundled Parking? Unbundled parking is the practice of selling or leasing parking spaces separate from the purchase or lease of a commercial or residential use. Detaching the cost of a home or commercial space from associated parking spaces allows buyers or renters to pay for parking only if they need it. Allowed Uses Ground Floor • Light Industrial such as manufacturing, maker space, performance, breweries or distilleries, coffee roasters • Vehicular Services and Auto-related businesses • Personal services • Indoor recreation • Retail sales • Arts/Performance Studio • Maker Space Conditional Uses Ground Floor Greenhouse and plant nurseries Allowed Uses Above Ground Floor Accessory or administrative office Useable Open Space Minimum 10% of total land area Building Character Aesthetic choices will be industrial in nature. Smaller scale buildings are anticipated. Expect tall ground floor ceiling heights to accommodate industrial uses. Street Level Activation Building facades should have clear “front-door” entries. Creative facades and signage are encouraged. Streetscape Character Streetscape character and local wayfinding should feature and celebrate local businesses, integrate local art, increase canopy and incorporate a pedestrian environment that welcomes customers and visitors to the experience of Boulder’s community of makers. Access + Mobility Transportation connections should offer safe, comfortable pedestrian and bicycle access and slower speed vehicular movement to minimize conflicts with vehicles; centrally placed mobility hubs with high frequency transit should offer micromobility (e-bike, e-scooter) options for first and last mile connections; curbs should be managed to allow for different uses by time of day and/or loading/drop off based on adjacent land uses. Parking Promote efficient use of parking areas through unbundled, paid, flexible and shared use. Alternate Recommended Zoneonly if Office uses are not expanded in IMS. Note that Residential Uses are not allowed. IG 35 36EAST BOULDER SUBCOMMUNITY PLAN EVOLVING NEIGHBORHOODS GUIDING REDEVELOPMENT: EAST BOULDER PLACE TYPES Valmont RdValmont Rd Pearl Pk wy Pearl Pk wy 55th Street55th StreetArapahoe AveAirport RdAirport Rd63rd StIndependence Rd Foothills PkwyBNSF Railroad Pearl StPearl St 48th Ct48th Ct49th St49th StPearl E CirPearl E Cir Walnut StWalnut St Sterling DrSterling Dr Sterling CtSterling Ct47th ST47th STAirport BlvdAirport BlvdAirport RdAirport RdSterling DrSterling DrSterling CirSterling CirFlati r o n P k w y Flati r o n P k w y Central AveCentral Ave Central AveCentral Ave S F l a t i r o n C t S F l a t i r o n C tN 57th CtN 57th Ct56th St56th StConestoga Conestoga CtCt Conestoga StConestoga StWestern AveWestern Ave Range StRange StCommerce StCommerce St48th ST48th STPeak AvePeak Ave Old Tale RdOld Tale RdCherryvale RdCherryvale RdOreg AveOreg AveEisenhower DrMacArthur MacArthur DrDr Patton DrPatton Dr55th St55th St63rd St63rd StValmont RdValmont RdEAST BOULDER PLACE TYPES103 4 5 2CONTENTSACKNOWLEDGEMENTSWELCOME TO EAST BOULDER: BACKGROUND AND PROCESSTHE VISION FOR EAST BOULDEREVOLVING NEIGHBORHOODS: LAND USE MOBILITY AND CONNECTIONS: TRANSPORTATION ACHIEVING THE VISION: IMPLEMENTATION ResidentialRestaurants and DiningRetailPersonal ServicesManufacturingAuto ServiceIndoor RecreationOffice Greenhouse Parking Public or Institutional Transparent icon indicates conditional use PLACE TYPE USES Hands On IndustrialParkside ResidentialMain Street Live/Work Destination Office Park-Side ResidentialMain Street Live/WorkDestination WorkplaceHands-On IndustrialInnovation TOD (Residential)Neighborhood TOD Innovation TOD (Non-Residential) Innovation TOD (Residential) Innovation TOD (Non-Residential) Neighborhood TOD WHAT ARE PLACE TYPES? What are Place Types? The East Boulder Place Types describes the design intent and performance expectations for these evolving neighborhoods. The Place Type descriptions and performance measures can be used to guide redevelopment options and help future phases of implementation of the East Boulder Subcommunity Plan through the adoption of potential land use code amendments, re-zonings and the creation of new zones. The Place Type performance standards also describe elements that tie land use to important mobility features, such as access and parking and streetscape character. 35 36EAST BOULDER SUBCOMMUNITY PLAN EVOLVING NEIGHBORHOODS GUIDING REDEVELOPMENT: EAST BOULDER PLACE TYPES Valmont RdValmont Rd Pearl Pk wy Pearl Pk wy 55th Street55th StreetArapahoe AveAirport RdAirport Rd63rd StIndependence Rd Foothills PkwyBNSF Railroad Pearl StPearl St 48th Ct48th Ct49th St49th StPearl E CirPearl E Cir Walnut StWalnut St Sterling DrSterling Dr Sterling CtSterling Ct47th ST47th STAirport BlvdAirport BlvdAirport RdAirport RdSterling DrSterling DrSterling CirSterling CirFlati r o n P k w y Flati r o n P k w y Central AveCentral Ave Central AveCentral Ave S F l a t i r o n C t S F l a t i r o n C tN 57th CtN 57th Ct56th St56th StConestoga Conestoga CtCt Conestoga StConestoga StWestern AveWestern Ave Range StRange StCommerce StCommerce St48th ST48th STPeak AvePeak Ave Old Tale RdOld Tale RdCherryvale RdCherryvale RdOreg AveOreg AveEisenhower DrMacArthur MacArthur DrDr Patton DrPatton Dr55th St55th St63rd St63rd StValmont RdValmont RdEAST BOULDER PLACE TYPES103 4 5 2CONTENTSACKNOWLEDGEMENTSWELCOME TO EAST BOULDER: BACKGROUND AND PROCESSTHE VISION FOR EAST BOULDEREVOLVING NEIGHBORHOODS: LAND USE MOBILITY AND CONNECTIONS: TRANSPORTATION ACHIEVING THE VISION: IMPLEMENTATION ResidentialRestaurants and DiningRetailPersonal ServicesManufacturingAuto ServiceIndoor RecreationOffice Greenhouse Parking Public or Institutional Transparent icon indicates conditional use PLACE TYPE USES Hands On IndustrialParkside ResidentialMain Street Live/Work Destination Office Park-Side ResidentialMain Street Live/WorkDestination WorkplaceHands-On IndustrialInnovation TOD (Residential)Neighborhood TOD Innovation TOD (Non-Residential) Innovation TOD (Residential) Innovation TOD (Non-Residential) Neighborhood TOD WHAT ARE PLACE TYPES? What are Place Types? The East Boulder Place Types describes the design intent and performance expectations for these evolving neighborhoods. The Place Type descriptions and performance measures can be used to guide redevelopment options and help future phases of implementation of the East Boulder Subcommunity Plan through the adoption of potential land use code amendments, re-zonings and the creation of new zones. The Place Type performance standards also describe elements that tie land use to important mobility features, such as access and parking and streetscape character. Attachment A - Rezoning Memo by Codametrics Item 6A - Progress Update on the Implementation of the East Boulder Subcommunity Plan: Zoning Update Page 22 Packet Page 475 of 523 ARAPAHOE 55TH33RDDIAGONAL CHERRYVALE47THPEARL 63RD VALM O NT 61STVALMONT FOOTHILLSWALNUT32ND BUTTE MILL KALMIA INDEPENDENCE Hayden Lake Pit D Hillcrest Lake Lower Cline Fish Pond Valmont Reservoir Leggett Owen Reservoir Upper Cline Fish Pond P IG RL-2 BR-1 RM-1 BT-2 IS-2 P P IS-2 PIS-2 BT-1 IS-1 P IS-1 P IG P P MH IG IM IG IS-1 MH E P E A RE P P RR-2 IM RH-3 P IG P RH-4 E E RM-1 IM RM-1 P IS-2 RM-1 BC-1 IG P RH-4 E RL-2 IG P IG BT-1 IG PSources: Esri, Airbus DS, USGS, NGA, NASA, CGIAR, N Robinson, NCEAS, NLS, OS, NMA, Geodatastyrelsen, Rijkswaterstaat, GSA, Geoland, FEMA, Intermap and the GISuser community, Esri Community Maps Contributors, UCB CAD/GIS Office, City of Boulder, Boulder County, Esri, TomTom, Garmin, SafeGraph, GeoTechnologies, Inc,METI/NASA, USGS, EPA, NPS, US Census Bureau, USDA, USFWS ¯ 0 1,000 2,000 3,000500Feet East Boulder Subcommunity Zoning Map 2024 Not To Scale Attachment B - East Boulder Zoning Map Item 6A - Progress Update on the Implementation of the East Boulder Subcommunity Plan: Zoning Update Page 23 Packet Page 476 of 523 2/27/24, 9:57 AM Mail - King, Kathleen - Outlook https://outlook.office.com/mail/id/AAMkADJjM2U1ZTFhLWFkMmUtNDk5Yi1iZDYyLWViYzE5MWI2MTE2NwBGAAAAAAAqhHTjsPfrSrYd6sg%2FSYJf…1/2 RE: EBSP Zoning Johnson, Kristofer <JohnsonK3@bouldercolorado.gov> Tue 2/20/2024 3:02 PM To: Kurt Nordback <kurt.nordback@protonmail.com>; boulderplanningboard <boulderplanningboard@bouldercolorado.gov> Cc: Mueller, Brad <MuellerB@bouldercolorado.gov>; King, Kathleen <KingK@bouldercolorado.gov>; Horn, Sarah <horns@bouldercolorado.gov> Hi Kurt, Thank you for sending these questions in advance. You are correct - there is an error on page 14. In MU-2, Club or lodge, is prohibited, as is Home Daycare. The team attempted to minimize recommended use table changes to avoid any unintended consequences of expanding uses in already designated zones outside East Boulder. Anticipating that public-institutional uses are less likely to occur in future redevelopment of those sites, there was not a significant focus on those uses in the study. If you would like to propose additional changes for the board's consideration, the team will take the board's recommendations to City Council in March for further discussion. Thanks and looking forward to the meeting this evening, kj Kristofer Johnson, AICP, PLA Comprehensive Planning Manager (Pronouns: He/Him/His) What's This? O: 303-441-4277 johnsonk3@bouldercolorado.gov Department of Planning & Development Services 1739 Broadway | Boulder, CO 80306 bouldercolorado.gov From: Kurt Nordback <kurt.nordback@protonmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2024 10:25 AM To: Mueller, Brad <MuellerB@bouldercolorado.gov>; Johnson, Kristofer <JohnsonK3@bouldercolorado.gov>; boulderplanningboard <boulderplanningboard@bouldercolorado.gov> Subject: EBSP Zoning External Sender Notice This email was sent by an external sender. Dear Staff, I'm seeing discrepancies between the listings of allowed uses shown in the "Rezoning Memo by Codametrics", included in our packet, and what's in the use table in 9-6-1 as shown on the Municode website. Attachment C - Use Table Modifications proposed by Planning Board member, Kurt Nordback Item 6A - Progress Update on the Implementation of the East Boulder Subcommunity Plan: Zoning Update Page 24 Packet Page 477 of 523 2/27/24, 9:57 AM Mail - King, Kathleen - Outlook https://outlook.office.com/mail/id/AAMkADJjM2U1ZTFhLWFkMmUtNDk5Yi1iZDYyLWViYzE5MWI2MTE2NwBGAAAAAAAqhHTjsPfrSrYd6sg%2FSYJf…2/2 For instance, p. 14 of 22 of this memo shows allowed and disallowed uses in MU-2, and indicates that "Club or lodge" and "Home daycare" are allowed uses, but that seems contrary to what I see in the code. Am I missing something? Thanks for any clarification. More generally, assuming my reading of what's in the code is correct, I'm wondering if consideration was given to making the following changes, to better align the proposed assigned zone districts to the place types. MU-2/MU-4 * Allow “Club or lodge” (allowed in MU-4) * Allow “Private college or university” * Allow “Home daycare” * Allow “Business support service” (allowed with standards in MU-4) * Allow “Neighborhood business center” * Prohibit “Principal parking facility” *Prohibit "Fuel service station" (prohibited in MU-2; allowed with UR in MU-4) IG/IMS * Allow “Club or lodge” * Allow “Religious assembly” * Allow “Home daycare” * Allow “Financial institution” * Allow “Administrative office” (allowed in IG) * Allow “Medical office” (conditionally allowed in IG) * Allow “Neighborhood business center” Thank you. -- Kurt Attachment C - Use Table Modifications proposed by Planning Board member, Kurt Nordback Item 6A - Progress Update on the Implementation of the East Boulder Subcommunity Plan: Zoning Update Page 25 Packet Page 478 of 523 115 Depot Street, Ann Arbor, MI 48104 | O: 734.994.5050 | F: 734.761.6151 QUADCP.COM February 15, 2024 Submitted via email Kathleen King Principal Planner Boulder Planning and Development Services City of Boulder Leslie Oberholtzer Principal CodaMetrics Re: Recommendations for East Boulder Form Based Code Dear Kathleen and Leslie: Quad Capital Partners (QCP) is submitting this letter to provide our recommendations for the Form Based Code (“FBC”) being developed for East Boulder and particularly the STAMP area. Thank you for the opportunity to participate and provide input in the process. We appreciated being invited to join the focus group discussions and thought it would be helpful to also provide direct input through this letter. Having acquired a prime corner of the STAMP district, we have carefully analyzed the site and this area’s market potential, and believe we offer a unique perspective on how the FBC should be structured to facilitate development and realize the City’s well-crafted goals for East Boulder. Background QCP purchased the Boulder Dinner Theater property (5501 Arapahoe) in spring of 2022 and subsequently optioned the purchase of the adjacent Premier Members Credit Union property (5505 Arapahoe). With these two properties, QCP has assembled a 2.6-acre site at the prime corner of 55th and Arapahoe, creating the potential for a marquee project that will catalyze implementation of the City’s vision for this area while creating hundreds of housing units and generating a large investment in affordable housing. Since securing the property, QCP has been working closely with our architecture team from Sopher Sparn and the City to design a project that is aligned with the overall objectives of the East Boulder Subcommunity Plan and the STAMP Plan. Both QCP and Sopher Sparn have been tracking and participating in the FBC process over the last nine months. Boulder’s staff in P&DS has been great to work with and we are excited about next steps. What Makes STAMP Different from Other FBC Areas QCP completed a site-by-site analysis of the STAMP area, including evaluating its market potential for residential development and having conversations with a number of fellow property owners. As the City continues to formulate the FBC for the STAMP area, there are unique characteristics of this part of the city that require different approaches to the FBC from what was implemented in Alpine Balsam and Boulder Junction. The following is a summary of five characteristics of the STAMP area that differentiate it from Boulder’s existing FBC areas, and our recommendations for how the STAMP FBC should respond to each one. Attachment D - Letters from Community Members to Project Team Item 6A - Progress Update on the Implementation of the East Boulder Subcommunity Plan: Zoning Update Page 26 Packet Page 479 of 523 115 Depot Street, Ann Arbor, MI 48104 | O: 734.994.5050 | F: 734.761.6151 QUADCP.COM Page | 2 STAMP Difference #1 - Larger Blocks Compared with other parts of Boulder, the blocks within the STAMP area are larger, creating the potential for more expansive redevelopment when compared to Boulder Junction and Alpine Balsam. The preliminary “redevelopment approach” diagram in the STAMP Plan recognized this difference and shows numerous larger buildings with relatively long street frontages (see master plan and particularly the red “bubbled” properties on the map below). In comparison, the Master Plan for Phase 1 of Boulder Junction (TVAP) calls for a tighter street grid with smaller blocks and more compact buildings compared to the STAMP area. Resulting FBC Recommendations: • Allow Broader Buildings - Given the larger blocks, STAMP’s Form Based Code should allow for broader buildings as depicted in the STAMP Plan. The Form Based Code provisions for Boulder Junction and Alpine Balsam require building widths less than 150 feet. This provision is out of context for the STAMP area given the larger parcels and block dimensions. The City’s concept diagram shown in the STAMP Plan recognizes this and depicts buildings with dimensions longer than 150 feet. The standard city block in Boulder is 350 feet. There are many instances in the Downtown District of full block buildings. Because of the street grid of the STAMP area, the building width restriction should not be included in the FBC to allow for the STAMP planning vision to be realized. Architectural techniques can be used to provide variation in longer facades. • More Expansive Facades – In addition to wider buildings, given the larger blocks sizes, the STAMP FBC should also allow for more expansive spacing of façade divisions and entrances than what is allowed in the existing FBC. Attachment D - Letters from Community Members to Project Team Item 6A - Progress Update on the Implementation of the East Boulder Subcommunity Plan: Zoning Update Page 27 Packet Page 480 of 523 115 Depot Street, Ann Arbor, MI 48104 | O: 734.994.5050 | F: 734.761.6151 QUADCP.COM Page | 3 STAMP Difference #2 – Occupied/Functioning Buildings (Density Needed for Feasibility) The STAMP area is currently characterized by low-density light industrial buildings with some service retail and office uses. These existing buildings are mostly occupied and economically performing very well, especially as they are repurposed with higher rent paying life science tenants. In order for the East Boulder and STAMP Plans to be realized, there needs to be sufficient economic value in new construction for these property owners to sell or redevelop their property. This can only be achieved with sufficient density to generate operating income from future developments that justify the cost of demolishing the existing structures and building something new. The STAMP Plan itself identified this market reality stating, “Within the context of a strong market, landowners can raise rents without significant investment, and the market data confirm this trend. Thus, there will likely need to be substantial incentives to motivate developers to move forward and redevelop structu res that otherwise generate sufficient net operating income (NOI) to fulfill investment returns.” (STAMP p.45). The images below show typical streetscapes in STAMP. Many of the existing buildings identified in the Plan for redevelopment are occupied by staple rent-paying tenants, creating a high bar for owners to consider redevelopment. Resulting FBC Recommendations: • Permit Five-Stories – The STAMP Plan calls for redevelopment of many of these existing 1- and 2-story commercial buildings. As noted, in order for that to happen, the economic benefit to these owners from selling or redeveloping must justify the cost and foregoing the revenue from the existing building. Based on QCP’s analysis and discussions with fellow STAMP property owners, five story density is necessary to achieve operating income that will make redevelopment projects feasible for developers (and their lenders and investors). With assurance that the density achieved with five-story buildings is possible, the land value may be high enough to unlock current performing existing buildings for redevelopment. Attachment D - Letters from Community Members to Project Team Item 6A - Progress Update on the Implementation of the East Boulder Subcommunity Plan: Zoning Update Page 28 Packet Page 481 of 523 115 Depot Street, Ann Arbor, MI 48104 | O: 734.994.5050 | F: 734.761.6151 QUADCP.COM Page | 4 STAMP Difference #4 – Water Table / Flood Zone As shown in the map below, over half of the STAMP area is within the 100-year floodplain (blue shading). The City’s East Boulder Inventory and Analysis points out, “Because East Boulder is the site of confluence among a number of significant creeks and streams, much of the area falls within the floodplain. Fifty-seven percent of land in East Boulder lies within a mapped floodplain.” This floodplain condition reduces the vertical space available for development and makes below grade parking at a minimum prohibitively expensive, and in some cases not permitted per FEMA. The inability to go below grade combined with Boulder’s height limitations significantly constrains the volume / vertical space available for development. Resulting FBC Recommendations: • Allow External Parking Garages - As a result of the floodplain, parking for new development projects will likely need to be accommodated within the limited above-grade envelop of the building, reducing the amount of housing that can be built and thus decreasing the economic viability of projects. With this constraint, the STAMP FBC should allow greater flexibility in how development projects accommodate parking, including allowing for external parking structures with new buildings. QCP/Sopher Sparn would welcome the opportunity to talk with the city staff and walk through the design challenges we have found with our site and why alternative approaches to parking are needed. • Entrance Elevation Exceptions - Given the constraints of the floodplain in this area, the FBC should offer exceptions to allow for flexibility for entry heights above grade in the floodplain. The current FBC restriction of 30 inches would not be feasible for most locations of a building within the floodplain because of the flood protection elevation requirements. Attachment D - Letters from Community Members to Project Team Item 6A - Progress Update on the Implementation of the East Boulder Subcommunity Plan: Zoning Update Page 29 Packet Page 482 of 523 115 Depot Street, Ann Arbor, MI 48104 | O: 734.994.5050 | F: 734.761.6151 QUADCP.COM Page | 5 STAMP Difference #4 - Limited Existing Residential The portion of the STAMP area north of Arapahoe has no adjacent residential uses. The current zoning and existing uses within the STAMP Area do not include any preexisting residential north of Arapahoe, so there are no existing residents who will be impacted by development. From our discussions, the current owners and tenants of the existing commercial buildings are largely supportive of development. Resulting FBC Recommendations: • Greater Flexibility on Building Height/Form – With no existing residents who will be impacted by the future build-out of the STAMP area, it would be appropriate to allow for greater building height and mass than other parts of the city where redevelopment needs to be integrated into an existing residential context. Because redevelopment of this area will not impact neighborhoods, more density and flexibility in development can be accomplished without negative externalities. • Reduce Step Down Requirement – The provision in the Boulder Junction and Alpine Balsam FBC requiring that 30% of the area of a building is one story lower than the highest portion of the building is not feasible for STAMP given the larger block sizes, floodplain limitation, and need for density to achieve feasibility. We would propose that STAMP FBC allow for full five-story height without requiring step backs or step downs. Attachment D - Letters from Community Members to Project Team Item 6A - Progress Update on the Implementation of the East Boulder Subcommunity Plan: Zoning Update Page 30 Packet Page 483 of 523 115 Depot Street, Ann Arbor, MI 48104 | O: 734.994.5050 | F: 734.761.6151 QUADCP.COM Page | 6 STAMP Difference #5 - Employment/Housing Imbalance and Untested Submarket According to the City’s Inventory and Analysis, East Boulder is home to 17,000 jobs and only 466 residents. Further, the STAMP Plan points out that nearly 2,900 jobs were added to this area over the past decade and, “A significant characteristic of this job growth is that little new construction has happened alongside the increase in jobs.” Indeed, many of Boulder’s largest and growing employers are in East Boulder including Boulder Community Health, Ball Aerospace, and the Flat Irons Business Park. As this area continues to create jobs, adding high quality housing in the vicinity is vital to achieving city goals for sustainability and transit-oriented development. In addition, the STAMP area is an untested residential location that is three miles from campus and four miles from downtown creating greater uncertainty to financing and developing housing. QCP’s proposed development will be a pilot project that provides proof-of-concept for development in the STAMP area. Resulting FBC Recommendations: • Allow Greater Density –Given East Boulder’s severe imbalance between employment and population, it is in the City’s interest to address this imbalance by encouraging residential development in this part of the City. • Provide Tools/Incentives – Investing in residential development in locations without existing housing brings risk. In order to achieve its goals for the STAMP area, the City may need to deploy incentives to make development feasible. The STAMP Plan provides a list of recommendations for how the City should support redevelopment including providing financial incentives to developers looking to redevelop properties in accordance with the plan and removing unnecessary barriers to development. The Plan specifically recommends that the City, “Incentivize catalytic (re)development of buildings near the intersection of Arapahoe Avenue and 55th Street in particular as these are nearest the BRT station and could help stimulate redevelopment in other parts of the Station Area.” QCP would welcome a conversation with the City on what tools/incentives are available to help implement the City’s goals. Attachment D - Letters from Community Members to Project Team Item 6A - Progress Update on the Implementation of the East Boulder Subcommunity Plan: Zoning Update Page 31 Packet Page 484 of 523 115 Depot Street, Ann Arbor, MI 48104 | O: 734.994.5050 | F: 734.761.6151 QUADCP.COM Page | 7 As a lead investor/developer in the STAMP area, our interests and the City’s interests are closely aligned in the desire to create more needed housing and jumpstart the City’s Plan for STAMP as a mixed-use transit-oriented hub. The East Boulder and STAMP Plans were the result of years of hard work, analysis, and thoughtful community engagement by the City. By tailoring the FBC to the specific needs of East Boulder, the City can ensure that its goals for this area as articulated in the Plans can come to fruition. If you have questions or would like to further discuss our proposed project or our thoughts on the Form Based Code, please don’t hesitate to reach out. We are also happy to meet in person. Again, we have enjoyed working with Boulder’s very competent staff and look forward to continuing the conversation about the future of East Boulder. Sincerely, Dan Kennelly Quad Capital Partners CC Mayor Brockett Brad Mueller Nuria Rivera-Vandermyde Mark Woulf Kristopher Johnson Please find the attached letters of support from: Carlos Pacheco, CEO – Premier Members Credit Union Peter Aweida, President – Westland Development Services Dan Aweida, President – Aweida Properties Brant Brooks, Managing Member – 544 Conestoga LLC Attachment D - Letters from Community Members to Project Team Item 6A - Progress Update on the Implementation of the East Boulder Subcommunity Plan: Zoning Update Page 32 Packet Page 485 of 523 February 15, 2024 Submitted via email Kathleen King Principal Planner Boulder Planning and Development Services City of Boulder Dear Kathleen, I am writing to express my support for the recommendations Quad Capital Partners and Sopher Sparn submitted on February 15, 2024 related to the Form Based Code being developed for East Boulder and the “STAMP” area. As a property owner and business operating within the STAMP area for nearly 30 years, currently at 5505 Arapahoe and previously at 5495 Arapahoe, I believe the recommendations put forth are reasonable, appropriate for this part of Boulder, and aligned with the STAMP Plan. In particular, allowing five story buildings, as well as greater flexibility on matters like parking and building widths, makes sense for this area and will help unlock more property for high quality redevelopment, things this part of Boulder could really benefit from. I believe incorporating these ideas into the Form Based Code will help make the implementation of the East Boulder and STAMP plans more feasible and likely to occur. As an owner of property that will be subject to this new Form Based Code, I hope you seriously consider and include these recommendations. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Carlos Pacheco Chief Executive Officer Premier Members Credit Union Attachment D - Letters from Community Members to Project Team Item 6A - Progress Update on the Implementation of the East Boulder Subcommunity Plan: Zoning Update Page 33 Packet Page 486 of 523 February 15, 2024 Submitted via email Kathleen King Principal Planner Boulder Planning and Development Services City of Boulder Dear Kathleen: Hope you are well. I am writing to express my support for the recommendations Quad Capital Partners and Sopher Sparn submitted related to the Form Based Code being developed for East Boulder and the “STAMP” area. As a property owner within the STAMP area, greater flexibility in design and zoning codes would be a good incentive to consider redevelopment of current industrial buildings to what is envisioned for East Boulder. I believe their recommendations are reasonable and aligned with the STAMP Plan. Greater flexibility on parking, building widths and allowing five story buildings will accelerate the STAMP area’s transformation. I believe incorporating these ideas into the Form Based Code will help make the implementation of the East Boulder and STAMP plans more feasible and accelerate redevelopment. As an owner of property that will be subject to this new Form Based Code, I hope you include these recommendations. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Peter Aweida President, Westland Development Services, Inc. Attachment D - Letters from Community Members to Project Team Item 6A - Progress Update on the Implementation of the East Boulder Subcommunity Plan: Zoning Update Page 34 Packet Page 487 of 523 February 15, 2024 Submitted via email Kathleen King Principal Planner Boulder Planning and Development Services City of Boulder Dear Kathleen: I am writing to express my support for the recommendations Quad Capital Partners and Sopher Sparn submitted on February 15, 2024 related to the Form Based Code being developed for East Boulder and the “STAMP” area. As a property owner within the STAMP area, I believe the recommendations put forth are reasonable, appropriate for this part of Boulder, and aligned with the STAMP Plan. In particular, allowing five story buildings, as well as greater flexibility on matters like parking and building widths, makes sense for this area and will help unlock more property for high quality redevelopment. I believe incorporating these ideas into the Form Based Code will help make the implementation of the East Boulder and STAMP plans more feasible and likely to occur . As an owner of property that will be subject to this new Form Based Code, I hope you include these recommendations. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Dan Aweida President, Aweida Properties, Inc. Attachment D - Letters from Community Members to Project Team Item 6A - Progress Update on the Implementation of the East Boulder Subcommunity Plan: Zoning Update Page 35 Packet Page 488 of 523 February 15, 2024 Submitted via email Kathleen King Principal Planner Boulder Planning and Development Services City of Boulder Dear Kathleen: I am writing to express my support for the recommendations Quad Capital Partners and Sopher Sparn submitted on February 15, 2024 related to the Form Based Code being developed for East Boulder and the “STAMP” area. As a property owner within the STAMP area, I believe the recommendations put forth are reasonable, appropriate for this part of Boulder, and aligned with the STAMP Plan. In particular, allowing five story buildings, as well as greater flexibility on matters like parking and building widths, makes sense for this area and will help unlock more property for high quality redevelopment. I believe incorporating these ideas into the Form Based Code will help make the implementation of the East Boulder and STAMP plans more feasible and likely to occur. As an owner of property that will be subject to this new Form Based Code, I hope you include these recommendations. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Brant Brooks Managing Member 5440 Conestoga LLC Attachment D - Letters from Community Members to Project Team Item 6A - Progress Update on the Implementation of the East Boulder Subcommunity Plan: Zoning Update Page 36 Packet Page 489 of 523 C OVE R SH E E T ME E T I N G D AT E March 7, 2024 I N F O RMAT I ON I T E M 2024 Annual O SMP Prairie Dog C onservation and Management Update P RI MARY STAF F C ON TAC T Heather Swanson, Interim Deputy Director AT TAC H ME N T S: Description I nformation I tem A - 2023 P rairie Dog Annual Update Packet Page 490 of 523 INFORMATION ITEM MEMORANDUM To: Mayor and Members of Council From: Nuria Rivera-Vandermyde, City Manager Dan Burke, Director, Open Space and Mountain Parks Heather Swanson, Interim Deputy Director Resource and Stewardship Andy Pelster, Agriculture and Water Stewardship Sr. Manager Victoria Poulton, Prairie Dog Ecologist Date: March 7, 2024 Subject: Information Item: 2023 Annual Prairie Dog Management Update EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Background: At their Aug. 11, 2020, meeting, City Council approved the preferred alternative recommended by Open Space Board of Trustees (OSBT) and staff for prairie dog management, agricultural land restoration, and soil health on irrigated agricultural land in the northern portion of the Open Space and Mountain Parks (OSMP) land system to, among other things, complete 100-240 acres of prairie dog removal annually with associated barrier construction and agricultural restoration activities. This direction added to the suite of prairie dog conservation efforts already undertaken by the department from past guidance including the council-approved Grassland Ecosystem Management Plan (2010) and recommendations of the Prairie Dog Working Group (2018). In 2023, OSMP staff evaluated the implementation success of the preferred alternative and identified modifications to the program intended to decrease conflict between prairie dogs and irrigated agriculture and brought these modifications to the community, OSBT, City Council. City Council approved the expansion of the removal program system-wide on irrigable agricultural lands designated as transition and removal areas and approved to expand burrow disturbance allowance for agricultural activities to 6 inches (12 inches with notification) system- wide on irrigable agricultural lands designated as transition and removal areas. Annual Community Meeting Summary: OSMP staff held a virtual public meeting on Dec. 11, 2023, to provide updates to the community on OSMP prairie dog management including Information Item A - 2023 Prairie Dog Annual Update Page 1 Packet Page 491 of 523 modifications to the program reducing conflict between prairie dogs and irrigated agriculture, implementation of the prairie dog working group recommendations, prairie dog population status on OSMP, prairie dog relocations and removals, restoration, and agricultural sustainability. Staff also shared prairie dog management plans for 2024. Prior to the annual meeting, staff sent 900 notification postcards to property owners with property adjacent to OSMP land with prairie dogs in addition to the typical methods of advertising the meeting (prairie dog stakeholder list, press release, webpage, Field Notes/Natural Selections email). Presentations on management topics were released for public viewing as videos (prairie dog meeting materials). At the meeting, OSMP staff gave summaries and updates for the online presentations, answered many of the questions that were submitted by the community during the meeting, and informed participants how they can continue to offer comments or questions after the meeting. Prairie dog management and agricultural land restoration accomplishments in 2023: •Evaluation of and improvements to the program to decrease conflict between prairie dogs and irrigated agriculture including discussions with the community, OSBT, City Council. o OSBT recommendation to implement most staff recommended changes. o City Council approval to expand removal program system-wide on irrigable agricultural lands designated as transition and removal areas. o City Council approval to expand burrow disturbance allowance for agricultural activities to 6 inches (12 inches with notification) system-wide on irrigable agricultural lands designated as transition and removal areas. •Distribution of two doses of sylvatic plague vaccine in the Southern Grasslands. •Relocation of 484 prairie dogs from approximately 27 acres of the Axelson property to the Pueblo Chemical Depot. •Removal using lethal control of approximately 98 acres of prairie dog colonies from irrigated agricultural properties including Lore, Ellison, Axelson, Brewbaker and Stratton. •Approximately 17,310 feet of prairie dog exclusion barrier constructed at relocation and removal sites. •Use of passive relocation techniques by staff and contractors for small (< 1 acre) conflict areas along trail projects and where prairie dog barriers were installed. •Agricultural and land restoration work on over 450 acres of prairie dog relocation and removal sites from 2018-2023. •Support for a collaborative learning project investigating ways to grow crops and graze livestock on an OSMP parcel that is inhabited by prairie dogs. •Continued work on updating prairie dog habitat suitability modeling on OSMP properties. •Work with the City Attorney’s Office to draft a framework for a barrier cost share program as recommended by the Prairie Dog Working Group that is consistent with City Council direction and City codes and policies. •Interacting with agencies, researchers, tenants, neighbors, and the community to communicate about prairie dog management, hear concerns and provide recommendations or support for conflict minimization. In addition, staff completed annual system-wide prairie dog colony mapping that has taken place since 1996. Prairie dog acres decreased 9.8% from 2022 to 2023, and the number of irrigated Information Item A - 2023 Prairie Dog Annual Update Page 2 Packet Page 492 of 523 agricultural acres in conflict with prairie dogs in the northern project area is now 451, down from 967 acres in 2020. The Southern Grasslands maintained 10.4% occupancy, which is within the occupancy goals set in the Grassland Management Plan (10-26% occupancy). The Grassland Ecosystem Management Plan states that relocations to Grassland Preserves will not occur when occupancy is 10% or higher. As a result, prairie dogs captured for relocation in 2023 were not taken to the Southern Grasslands, but rather to the Pueblo Chemical Depot – a site where prairie dog populations were being increased to support reintroduction of Black-footed Ferrets (which occurred in late 2023). Further details are available in the recorded presentations about prairie dog management, population monitoring, prairie dog removal, and agricultural land restoration referenced above. Implementation Plans for 2024: Staff evaluated irrigated agricultural fields across the OSMP system to determine the highest priorities for management in 2024. The criteria to establish priority as presented in the Council-approved preferred alternative in 2020 are: • areas designated as removal and transition areas • areas where the likelihood of effective removal, exclusion, and restoration are most likely to be successful • areas leased by tenants that are most affected by prairie dog occupation • areas that are currently unleased but can be restored to production • areas where successful management will increase OSMP lease revenue • areas where removal will have least impact to associated species • areas with the highest degree of neighbor conflict • areas that provide some degree of relief to the greatest number of tenants In addition, some areas were included due to very small, recently established colonies where removal of prairie dogs now can reduce the likelihood of further impacts to irrigated fields and need for much larger scale removal in the future. Plans for 2024 implementation presented to the community in December 2023 included the following: • Continued implementation of priority Prairie Dog Working Group recommendations. o Continued work on the prairie dog habitat suitability model to include social suitability factors. o Initial pilot year of a cost-sharing program with neighbors for prairie dog barriers. o Distribution of sylvatic plague vaccine at sites in the Southern Grassland Preserve and at planned take sites for relocation as directed in the city’s Plague Management Plan. o Begin discussions and evaluation of the feasibility of future black-footed ferret reintroduction on city land. • Removal by relocation of approximately 18 acres of prairie dogs from the western field at Teller South (irrigated agriculture) if relocation receiving sites are identified outside the OSMP land system (e.g. Pueblo Chemical Depot). If suitable receiving sites cannot be identified, these colonies will be removed using lethal control. • Hiring and training of a new prairie dog management program manager and seasonal staff member and purchase of PERC equipment for in-house removal of prairie dogs. • Removal by lethal control of approximately 134 acres of prairie dogs from properties likely to include Autrey, Hartnagle, Warner, Straty Cline, Deluca, Teller Farms North, Teller Farms Middle, Anderson, Steele North, and Boulder Valley Ranch properties Information Item A - 2023 Prairie Dog Annual Update Page 3 Packet Page 493 of 523 (irrigated agricultural land only). Specifics of removal and other management on each property will be determined early in 2024 based on field assessments and current conditions. • Installation of barriers where necessary to prevent recolonization of properties following removal. • Maintenance and improvement of irrigation infrastructure on several properties including Boulder Valley Ranch, Steele, Autrey, Oasis, Bennett, Belgrove, Johnson South, and Stratton. • Continuation of lease and work with Shared Learning Collaborative for agricultural management on the Minnetrista II property in the presence of prairie dogs. • Restoration of agricultural properties after removal to encourage enhanced agricultural sustainability and soil health. • Annual fall mapping of prairie dog occupation across OSMP properties. During and after the meeting, questions were submitted by the community. Several questions were answered verbally during the meeting, but all questions received a written response, posted on the meeting webpage: https://bouldercolorado.gov/events/osmp-prairie-dog-annual-meeting. In addition to collecting comments and questions at the Dec. 11, 2023, meeting, staff received additional feedback and suggestions via email through Dec. 18, 2023, for implementation of prairie dog management in 2024. Staff evaluated all comments received and looked for opportunities to address feedback in 2024 plans. Feedback received did not include suggestions related to specifics of 2024 plans, so staff remain confident in our plans for 2024 as presented at the public meeting. Some common themes from the comments include: • Concerns over prairie dog impacts to OSMP land, especially at the Brewbaker and Stratton Property (weeds, lack of agricultural production, etc.). • Concerns over the degree to which nesting eagles are influencing the management plans and limiting prairie dog management on Brewbaker and Stratton. • Concerns over the degree to which prairie dog management may be negatively impacting nesting and foraging eagles, especially on Brewbaker and Stratton • Concern over the use of lethal control in prairie dog management on OSMP. • Comments from neighboring property owners with concerns about prairie dogs moving from OSMP land onto their private property and the resulting impacts. • Comments related to the benefit of DeltaDust in managing plague in prairie dogs. • Support for continued implementation of the Prairie Dog Working Group recommendations. • Requests for Grassland Ecosystem Management Plan Update (to reduce lethal control and increase implementation of Prairie Dog Working Group recommendations). FISCAL IMPACT Anticipated expenditures for irrigated agricultural land restoration and prairie dog conservation in 2024 are approximately $640,000 plus staffing and vehicle expenses. This includes expenditures associated with the implementation of the prairie dog working group recommendations, all prairie dog removals, barrier installations, and land restoration and soil health treatments where prairie dogs have been removed. Information Item A - 2023 Prairie Dog Annual Update Page 4 Packet Page 494 of 523 Anticipated 2024 Expenditures Total Amount Prairie Dog Working Group Recommendations ~$80,000 Removal by Relocation ~$60,000 Removal by Lethal Control ~$50,000 Barrier Installation ~$408,000 Agricultural Land Restoration and Soil Health Treatments ~$42,000 TOTAL ~$640,000 • Note that budget expenditures above do not include staff time (approximately 4 FTE) and 2 trucks purchased for use in PERC lethal control. Next Steps: Staff will finalize plans for removals and contract for installation of barriers and relocation in the spring. Lethal control will begin on planned sites outside of the March 1 – May 30 prairie dog pupping season once barriers are completed and staff are hired and PERC equipment purchased. Exact timing will be determined in collaboration with lessees on the property. Relocation, if possible, will begin later in the summer. Restoration, agricultural infrastructure improvements and soil health treatments on properties will occur this year for properties where prairie dogs were removed in 2023 and on the properties not fully restored from previous years’ control efforts. It is likely there will be some follow-up prairie dog removal required on properties where prairie dogs were removed in 2020-2023. Later in 2024, staff will once again hold an update meeting to provide the community with information on progress in 2024 as well as preliminary plans for 2025. The format for this meeting will be evaluated by staff and will consider the desire by some community members for an in-person option. Information Item A - 2023 Prairie Dog Annual Update Page 5 Packet Page 495 of 523 C OVE R SH E E T ME E T I N G D AT E March 7, 2024 AG E N D A I T E M Boulder Social Streets - Updates and Next Steps P RI MARY STAF F C ON TAC T Ben Manibog - Senior Project Manager AT TAC H ME N T S: Description I nformation I tem B: B oulder Social Streets - Updates and Next Steps Packet Page 496 of 523 INFORMATION ITEM MEMORANDUM To: Mayor and Members of Council From: Nuria Rivera-Vandermyde, City Manager Mark Woulf, Assistant City Manager Natalie Stiffler, Director of Transportation & Mobility Brad Mueller, Director of Planning and Development Services Sarah Huntley, Director of Communication & Engagement Cris Jones, Director of Community Vitality Valerie Watson, Deputy Director of Transportation & Mobility Kristopher Johnson, Planning & Development Services Senior Manager Devin Joslin, T&M Civil Engineering Civil Senior Manager Justin Greenstein, Events Senior Program Manager Kathleen King, City Planner Principal Vivian Castro-Wooldridge, Community Engagement Senior Project Manager Emi Smith, Communications Program Manager Ben Manibog, Public Works Senior Project Manager Date: March 7, 2024 Subject: Information Item: Boulder Social Streets (formerly Downtown Streets as Public Space) EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this information item is to summarize the history and analysis to date of Boulder Social Streets (BSS, formerly known as Downtown Streets as Public Space), as well as planned work for 2024. The City of Boulder implemented temporary vehicular closures on a two-block portion of West Pearl Street during the COVID-19 pandemic to increase outdoor dining, provide safer spaces for community to gather, and to support businesses during a challenging time. In Fall 2022, the pandemic-related street closures for vehicles ended. The city received significant feedback as it moved to re-open the impacted part of West Pearl to vehicles. City Council logged several hundred emails from community members who wanted to Information Item B - Boulder Social Streets - Updates and Next Steps Page 1 Packet Page 497 of 523 see the roadway remain closed to vehicles permanently. An alternative perspective came from many business owners on West Pearl who said vehicle access was essential to their long-term viability, and community members who preferred or needed parking close to the businesses they wanted to frequent. There was also input related to the challenges a permanent street closure would pose for deliveries and emergency response. Due to the significant community interest, City Council requested in spring/summer 2023 that staff develop recommendations for ways to activate downtown streets for increased public use and, in general, research how public streets in Boulder might function more as public spaces. Staff presented the proposed BSS project to council in March 2023, based on public life analysis, urban design, transportation and community feedback analysis. The recommended pilot included multiple ways to reimagine streets: a pop-up series on 13th Street, two parklets downtown and a kit of parts with street furniture to help with placemaking. Council directed staff to prioritize the pop-up series on 13th Street between Arapahoe Avenue and Canyon Boulevard for a summer pilot. The pop-up series included eight event-based closures to facilitate more community connections and test programs to influence future street design. A key element of the pilot was to gather research regarding community behavior and interest in activating public streets, as well as to understand best practices from national experts regarding such spaces. Following a Request for Proposals and two submittals, the City of Boulder contracted Downtown Boulder Partnership (DBP) to plan, advertise, and conduct the event series between June and September 2023. As part of the pilot, staff and a consultant team analyzed the event series from public life, urban design, transportation and community feedback perspectives. This Information Packet provides some details about that effort. A more in-depth discussion, including a consultant presentation, is scheduled during the study session on April 25, 2024. At that session, staff will also outline their plans to leverage $150,000, allocated as part of the 2024 approved budget, to further the creation of a program that supports community in reimagining public streets citywide. BACKGROUND At the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, west Pearl Street was closed to vehicular traffic from 9th to 11th streets, and 10th Street was closed from Pearl Street to Morrison Alley to respond to, and recover from, the effects of the pandemic. These blocks of the west Pearl Street area were temporarily closed to vehicles and activated as space for outdoor dining, gathering, programming and activation. After the pandemic-related temporary vehicular closure in September 2022, the city heard significant community interest for more pedestrianized spaces in the downtown area, as well as some concerns, mostly from adjacent businesses, about the West Pearl location. City Council asked staff at its Sept. 15, 2022, meeting to create recommendations for increased public space in spring/summer 2023. Members asked staff to build on existing feedback and collect additional input to ensure that more people had the opportunity to share their perspective on downtown streets as public space. City Council requested that staff bring the recommendations forward in March 2023 so that timely implementation could occur before and during the warm weather months in Boulder. Information Item B - Boulder Social Streets - Updates and Next Steps Page 2 Packet Page 498 of 523 Staff updated City Council on the BSS project at its March 23, 2023, meeting. The update focused on consultant recommendations for public space in the downtown area. Council agreed to move forward with one of staff’s proposals to test an event series on 13th Street in summer 2023. Council members emphasized the need to consider implementation logistics and funding. They also requested staff to continue gathering community feedback through the process. ANALYSIS Urban design consultant, Gehl, created an action plan for Boulder Social Streets in 2023 with the following objectives in mind: 1. Facilitate more community connections with joyful experiences 2. Expand downtown beyond the Pearl Street Mall 3. Better connect the pedestrian and bike network 4. Support Boulder businesses 5.Test programs to influence future street design 6. Inform ongoing and future city initiatives and projects downtown City staff worked alongside consultants Gehl, Leadline (community engagement), and Fox Tuttle (engineering) to develop a well-rounded analysis of work conducted in 2023. Downtown Boulder Partnership (DBP) was chosen to implement the pop-up activities, which were scaled and timed to acknowledge the very limited lead planning time. (Usually similar-type events are planned a year in advance.) Public Life Study and Spatial Analysis Gehl used on-site observation tools and site visits to study the conditions on 13th Street. They observed both non-event and event days to determine and compare how many people moved through the area, what activities and behaviors they participated in, and their perceived demographics. In addition, Gehl assessed the existing qualitative attributes of 13th Street to identify opportunities for long-term improvements that enable public gathering spaces. Key observations and insights from this analysis include: •BSS created a “new pull” to downtown – making it a place that felt more neighborly than touristy. •Event-goers felt both welcomed and included, especially for women and children. •People felt safe, but there is room for improvement. •Stakeholders hope a Boulder Social Streets type of program can better empower the public to lead street transformations. Community Outreach and Engagement Based on City Council direction in March 2023, staff emphasized community engagement as a core tenant of the BSS project to continue learning about community preferences and reach those whose voices have not been heard. For engagement, the city and consultant team conducted eight mixed-methodology engagement tactics to learn from the community in summer 2024: •Gehl’s public life app •Chalkboard activities •Poker Chip activities •Photo board sticker voting Information Item B - Boulder Social Streets - Updates and Next Steps Page 3 •Online questionnaire •Facilitated interviews •Experiments in Public Art •Experiential evaluation group Packet Page 499 of 523 The approach to each engagement tactic led by Leadline and their associated findings include: •Most event attendees reside in Boulder. Of Boulder attendees, 44% drove their personal vehicle to the event, while 26% walked and 22% biked. This represents the most diversity in travel mode by residency. •44% of engagement respondents said that the type of event is the top reason they chose to attend the event, whereas the food, music, and location were not as important. •No matter where the engagement respondent lived, the majority of respondents preferred street transformation in the form of “Pavement to Plaza”. •There were far fewer online questionnaire respondents as compared to a similar questionnaire offered in early 2023. The questionnaire was offered all summer after each event and received 84 responses. Of the respondents: o 56% reside in Boulder; 40%+ earn more than $100k per year; and 74% are White o A strong majority of respondents agree that events like these make Boulder public spaces feel welcoming and that spaces like this make them feel more connected to the Boulder community. o 45% of respondents visited downtown exclusively for the event and to not visit other downtown businesses. However, 26% of attendees already visited downtown shops/dining when they decided to attend the event. •Boulder staff managed an experiential evaluation group with ten active members from diverse backgrounds. The group filled out an online form with feedback after each pop- up. There were two consultations to gather feedback on a potential future program. Main messages from this group include: o Activations need to be a community-driven for success. o The city should act as a facilitator and not as an event planner. o “Boulder is open space rich and community gathering space poor” – our community longs for more public spaces for social connection. o We should expand the opportunities for street activation beyond West Pearl and 13th Street downtown. •Boulder staff worked with artist Edica Pacha to conduct an Experiment in Public Art funded through the Office of Arts and Culture. Pacha co-created with community a 20x20-foot temporary street mural on 13th Street during Community Art Day and the [placeholder] festival in October 2023. The mural was a mechanism to use the street in sharing back the community’s hopes and dreams for the public realm. Main themes from the feedback Pacha collected through community conversations are: o Simplifying the permitting process for artists and other community members to use streets for non-vehicles purposes is highly desirable. o Concerns that the city designs public spaces for tourists rather than to meet the needs of people living here o Safety concerns related mostly to the unhoused population in the Civic Area Information Item B - Boulder Social Streets - Updates and Next Steps Page 4 West Pearl Business Owner Engagement When committing to a 2023 focus on 13th Street, City Council asked staff to re-engage with the business community on West Pearl to assess the possibility of more exploration of solutions involving this stretch of roadway. Staff offered nine listening sessions and mailed invitations to approximately 300 businesses and property owners. The listening sessions had low attendance. Of the participants, the key takeaways include: Packet Page 500 of 523 •Property and business owners reported minimal to no direct benefit from previous events and street closures on West Pearl. •Temporary closures or events will not make up for the loss of revenue from a reduced workforce downtown. •Participants are open to discussing future events or temporary activations, if the focus is on celebrating West Pearl’s unique and “special vibes,” rather than organizing events for the sake of activation. They requested that organizers actively seek their input on event layout and other details related to a street closure that could affect their businesses, before planning any activities or closures. Transportation Analysis The transportation analysis conducted in early 2023 demonstrated that traffic impacts to a closure on 13th Street would be unlikely. Existing street closures on 13th Street for Wednesday and Saturday Farmer’s Markets supported the study’s conclusion. A traffic operations and multimodal analysis was conducted based on before- and during-event conditions at 13th Street and the surrounding intersections. The analysis supported that the intersections’ (Broadway & Canyon Boulevard; Broadway & Arapahoe Avenue; and Canyon Boulevard & 13th Street) level of service did not change based on 13th Street closures. Similarly, weekday versus weekend conditions had no impact on intersection levels of service. The analysis concluded that 13th Street, between Arapahoe Avenue and Canyon Boulevard, could be closed to motor vehicle traffic completely or on weekends with few transportation- related technical challenges. NEXT STEPS As mentioned previously, staff will present more complete information about the 2023 efforts and consultant recommendations at a study session on April 25, 2024. Unless otherwise directed by council, staff will continue its efforts to develop a distinct and ongoing Boulder Social Streets program in 2024. While details are still being developed, staff anticipates the limited funding will support: 1.The identification of streets citywide that might be appropriate for re-purposing, either temporarily or permanently, in parts of town other than downtown, where gathering options are more limited and where new uses might support equity goals; and 2. Engagement with residents and groups who might be interested in activating these streets to identify ways the city could reduce barriers to support community-led uses; and 3.Development of program characteristics and requirements to support future creation of a viable program, if council so desires, similar to the city’s Outdoor Dining Program Information Item B - Boulder Social Streets - Updates and Next Steps Page 5 Packet Page 501 of 523 C OVE R SH E E T ME E T I N G D AT E March 7, 2024 I N F O RMAT I ON I T E M C ommunity Connectors-in-Residence Update P RI MARY STAF F C ON TAC T Ryan Hanschen, hanschenr@bouldercolorado.gov AT TAC H ME N T S: Description I nformation I tem C: Community Connectors-in-Residence Update Packet Page 502 of 523 INFORMATION ITEM MEMORANDUM To: From: Date: Subject: Mayor and Members of Council Nuria Rivera-Vandermyde, City Manager Sarah Huntley, Communication & Engagement Director Ryan Hanschen, Community Engagement Manager Ana Silvia Avendaño-Curiel, Equity Policy Advisor March 7, 2024 Community Connectors-in-Residence Update EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This Community Connectors-in-Residence update is designed to elevate the experiences and perspectives of historically excluded communities and keep City Council updated on themes of community strengths and community issues. FISCAL IMPACTS Budgetary impacts to the city organization in continuing Community Connector-in-Residence programming are minimal. Implementation will be incorporated into existing staff work plans. COMMUNITY SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENTS AND IMPACTS N/A BACKGROUND Since the launch of the city’s Engagement Strategic Framework in November of 2017, staff have supported a shift in engagement culture, ensuring that city decision-making is more inclusive and meaningful. The has included a focus on identifying and removing barriers to engagement opportunities as well as co-designing sessions with historically excluded communities so there are fewer barriers in the first place. The city’s Community Connectors model, first piloted in the spring of 2018, represents a giant leap forward in this approach to community engagement. The Community Connector-in-Residence program, specifically co-designed with community members to support the voices and build power of historically excluded communities by reducing barriers to community engagement, advancing racial equity, and surfacing the ideas, concerns, and dreams of community members, was launched in December 2020. Additional information, as well as other recent updates to City Council, may be found at: https://bouldercolorado.gov/services/community-connectors-in-residence Community Connectors-in-Residence Update 1 Information Item C Packet Page 503 of 523 ANALYSIS N/A NEXT STEPS Community Connectors-in-Residence are committed to continuing to engage historically excluded communities and keep City Council updated on community strengths and community issues as heard through two-way dialogue and capacity building opportunities with communities. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A - Community Connectors-in-Residence Mid-year Update – February 2024 Community Connectors-in-Residence Update 2 Information Item C Packet Page 504 of 523 | Community Connectors-in-Residence Mid-Year Update – February 2024 Mid-year Update Purpose This Community Connectors-in-Residence (CC-in-R) mid-year update to City of Boulder City Council is designed to elevate the experiences and voices of historically excluded communities – as heard through ongoing dialogue and as summarized by themes of community strengths and community issues – for use in city decision-making. This mid-year update includes: o 2024 City Budget Cycle – Community Engagement and Presentation to City Council o Racial Equity Instrument Step Review and Feedback o ‘Celebrating Community: Culture, Wellness, and Connection' o ‘Building Power & Raising Voices’ Session o ‘One Community Summit’ Presentation o Community Outreach We welcome City Council’s feedback on this update and encourage you to share any thoughts through this feedback form. Previous CC-in-R updates, including the most recent update in May 2023, may be found on the CC-in-R webpage. Community Connectors-in-Residence Community Connectors-in-Residence (CC-in-R) elevate the voices and build the power of historically excluded communities by reducing barriers to community engagement, advancing racial equity, and surfacing the ideas, concerns, and dreams of community members. CC-in-Rs earn a stipend, based on four hours per week, for their commitment, time, and expertise. CC-in-Rs and staff – July 2023 Community Connectors-in-Residence Update 3 Attachment A - Community Connectors-in- Residence Mid-year Update – February 2024 Information Item C Packet Page 505 of 523 The CC-in-R program specifically aligns with meaningful and inclusive engagement practices as outlined in the city’s Engagement Strategic Framework as well as strategies included in the city’s Racial Equity Plan: 4.1 - improve access to decision-makers; 4.3 - focus on high-quality community engagement; and 4.5 address language, cultural, and engagement access barriers. Each bicultural CC-in-R serves as a trusted voice and works closely with a community they are already a natural leader within. This may be geographic or cultural, and throughout 2023 has included community members who identify as Latine/o/a, Nepali, Black or African American, Indigenous, older adult, CU student, adults living with disabilities, residents of manufactured home communities, multi-generational households, immigrants, and economically disadvantaged. 2024 City Budget Cycle Community Engagement Throughout March and April 2023, Community Connectors-in-Residence (CC-in-Rs), in partnership with city staff, engaged historically excluded communities to hear their priorities for the city’s 2024 budget (please see May 2023 CC-in-R Update to Council for full details). Based on community input from previous dialogue and from three budget education and engagement sessions in March and April, CC-in-Rs shared that top community priorities included the following Sustainability, Equity, and Resilience (SER) Framework Objectives: o Provide a variety of housing types with a full range of affordability o Support economic opportunity regardless of race, gender, ability, or socioeconomic status o Support the City of Boulder in advancing racial equity CC-in-Rs presented these priorities and community input to Department Directors on May 8 and to City Council on Sept. 14. CC-in-Rs present to City Council – Sept 2023 Community Connectors-in-Residence Update 4 Attachment A - Community Connectors-in- Residence Mid-year Update – February 2024 Information Item C Packet Page 506 of 523 As the 2024 city budget cycle progressed, staff learned of department directors who did not consider submitting specific proposals because they did not align with top community priorities, as shared by CC-in-Rs. In addition, staff heard from members of the Executive Budget Team who articulated that when the team was at an impasse in funding specific items, they looked to the CC-in- R community priorities to guide their decision- making. Community Connectors-in-Residence also hosted a Budget Update & Public Hearing Training on Sept. 28, designed to keep community updated as the budget process moved forward as well as to share what to expect while participating in a public hearing. Participants included 50% households with income under $50,000/year and 91% community members of color (Latinx, Nepali, Black or African American, Indigenous). At the first reading of the 2024 budget, during a City Council meeting in October 2023, 73% of signed-up public hearing speakers were connected to CC-in-Rs. City Council approved the city’s 2024 budget on Oct. 19 and many of the investments included align with identified community priorities. CC-in-Rs shared a multilingual update with community and invited them to see a full list of investments that align with identified community priorities at http://bit.ly/46RQvZh. Budget Update & Public Hearing Training – Sept 2023 Community Connectors-in-Residence Update 5 Attachment A - Community Connectors-in- Residence Mid-year Update – February 2024 Information Item C Packet Page 507 of 523 Racial Equity Instrument Step Review and Feedback CC-in-Rs and staff facilitate a Racial Equity Instrument Step Review & Feedback process, to focus CC-in-R feedback on city projects from a racial equity framework, to increase staff use of the city’s Racial Equity Instrument throughout projects, and to share a clear pathway for staff to hear feedback that centers the lived experiences of historically excluded communities. Discussions with CC-in-Rs assist staff project teams in identifying gaps and concerns they should be addressing. This valuable feedback supplements more inclusive and accessible city practices, helps guide decision- making processes, and aligns with the city’s Racial Equity Plan. Since May 2023, CC-in-Rs reviewed, met with staff for 30-45 minutes, and shared feedback on the following city projects: o Business Equity Focus Groups o Civic Area Historic District o Chronic Nuisance Ordinance o Community Broadband o Community Connector Participation Process o Crisis Response Intervention Team (CIRT) o Parks & Recreation Fee Policies o Snow & Ice Removal Team o Streetlight Acquisition o Walkable Neighborhoods o What’s Up Boulder Civic Area Historic District Tour In September 2023, CC-in-Rs joined staff and representatives from applicant organization Historic Boulder to tour the city’s Civic Area and learn more about a proposed Historic District, including Central Park and five city-owned buildings that are already designated as historic landmarks: the Penfield Tate II Municipal Building, the Glen Huntington Bandshell, the Midland Savings & Loan – Atrium CC-in-Rs tour the city’s Civic Area – Sept 2023 Community Connectors-in-Residence Update 6 Attachment A - Community Connectors-in- Residence Mid-year Update – February 2024 Information Item C Packet Page 508 of 523 Building, the Dushanbe Teahouse and the City Storage Building. Themes from CC-in-R feedback on this Historic District included a concern that this sacred land, the history of indigenous people, their connection to this land, and peoples’ stories would not be adequately covered in the historical narrative of this area; an encouragement for this designation to contribute to community wellness and preserve this land for future generations; a recommendation to include more community voices of color in the historical narrative; and an appreciation for efforts already underway to work with community in documenting history of this area. Several recommendations from CC-in-R feedback were also included in the city’s Downtown Boulder Civic Area StoryMap. ‘Celebrating Community – Culture, Wellness, and Connection‘ CC-in-Rs created a vision for a community celebration, which they designed and coordinated for participants of 'Building Power & Raising Voices' sessions as well as for their communities. The focus was on celebrating cultures within Boulder, educating community members about how to engage with city government, building relationships, and sharing wellness activities and resources. CC-in-Rs were grateful to receive funding from the Community Foundation Boulder County to support this civic engagement work. Community Connector Ja'mal Gilmore hosted this event outside of his Four Corners Hair Boutique, and throughout the afternoon, community members participated in AcuDetox through Natural Highs and art activities with Luna Cultura. Music was shared by Selasee & the FaFa Family, MusicCO Organization, and DJ Musa Starseed. Community members also enjoyed Navajo tacos, Soul Food, and Puerto Rican and Nepali food from several local providers. CC-in-Rs with council members and staff – July 2023 Community Connectors-in-Residence Update 7 Attachment A - Community Connectors-in- Residence Mid-year Update – February 2024 Information Item C Packet Page 509 of 523 Each participant received multilingual information on city and community resources as well as details about how to share their voice with the City of Boulder – to give input on a city decision, to share perspective with elected officials, or to reach out for support with an issue. Additionally, 37 community members shared their contact information to learn more about opportunities to engage with the city. During this community celebration, nearly 200 Indigenous, Black, Nepali, Latino, multiracial, and white community members came together to celebrate, dance, learn, and connect. We heard from participants who expressed appreciation for the city bringing community together in such a truly multicultural space. This celebration also aligned with the city's Racial Equity Plan, specifically in "seeking opportunities to support and promote the value of diversity and multiculturalism." Reflecting on the celebration, participants and Community Connectors shared: o “Having celebrations like this helps removing the ‘otherness’ and making stronger connections.” o “It felt so welcoming.” o “The vibe was uplifting, happy, and joyful.” o This was “an opportunity to share with community members.” Community Connectors-in-Residence Update 8 Attachment A - Community Connectors-in- Residence Mid-year Update – February 2024 Information Item C Packet Page 510 of 523 o The celebration was a “representation of such a diverse community.” o “I was so touched and excited about seeing so many people who are part of my community. I feel more connected.” ‘Building Power & Raising Voices’ Update CC-in-Rs continue to build capacity to participate in local government among historically excluded community members without lived experience in that space. To address this, CC-in-Rs continue to identify barriers to community engagement opportunities. In addition, they remain committed to facilitating their co-designed, two-hour ‘Building Power & Raising Voices’ session for community members. These sessions aim to increase a sense of belonging and trust in city government; build the power and skills of historically excluded communities to share their voices and shape decisions and policy about their community and the common good; increase understanding and education of local government and how to navigate systems; and lift up aspirations, engagement barriers, or issues that communities are experiencing. In the summer of 2023, CC-in-Rs facilitated one ‘Building Power & Raising Voices’ session: o Four Corners Hair Boutique Community Connectors-in-Residence Update 9 Attachment A - Community Connectors-in- Residence Mid-year Update – February 2024 Information Item C Packet Page 511 of 523 Themes from this session include community strengths: community and people of Boulder, some city services, and alternative transportation infrastructure. Several challenges were also identified: bullying in schools, racial disparities, traffic, and people no longer able to afford living in Boulder. Please see the appendix for full notes from this session. Spotlights on City Services CC-in-Rs have learned about and shared dozens of city services, city/county/community partner resources, and community happenings with their networks. Staff routinely join CC-in-R Gatherings to share details about services or programs, which have recently included: o BPD response in situations of domestic violence o Elevate Boulder guaranteed income pilot program o Middle Income Down Payment Assistance pilot program o Ranked Choice Voting ‘One Community Summit’ Presentation In October 2023, Community Connectors and staff presented a bilingual session, “Centering equity in city decision-making, emergency response, and trust-building,” at the Jefferson County ‘One Community Summit.’ The summit is designed for local governments to “learn how to better serve our increasingly diverse communities.” Community Connectors were invited to present a session that shared how the city’s Community Connector model has built trust in city government, shared essential resources with community, and centered the lived experience of historically excluded communities in city decision-making. ‘Building Power & Raising Voices’ session – July 2023 Community Connectors-in-Residence Update 10 Attachment A - Community Connectors-in- Residence Mid-year Update – February 2024 Information Item C Packet Page 512 of 523 Summit coordinators shared that they “already got feedback from people about how inspired to action they are, that you were their favorite, and that having a presentation in Spanish helped to heal parts of them they didn’t know needed healing. We also had several [session participants] share that they never appreciated the barriers of needing interpretation until your session!” Community Outreach CC-in-Rs tabled at several community events to share information about city services and resources, details about CC-in-R programming, and avenues for community members to connect with city government in addressing issues or questions. Tabling opportunities this past fall included: o El Centro AMISTAD Cumbre Compañeras – “The goal of the Cumbre Compañeras is to raise awareness about social justice and equity, develop leadership skills, and increase resilience in our community. This leads to better educational, employment and health access opportunities for women and their families and, consequently, improve the lifestyle of our entire community.” o What’s Up Boulder – “This event brings together all city departments to engage in dialogue with you about a variety of plans and projects, family-friendly activities, and opportunities to chat with council members.” CC-in-Rs tabling and sharing resources at Cumbre Compañeras – July 2023 CC-in-Rs tabling and sharing resources at What’s Up Boulder – Sept 2023 Community Connectors-in-Residence Update 11 Attachment A - Community Connectors-in- Residence Mid-year Update – February 2024 Information Item C Packet Page 513 of 523 Looking Ahead Moving further into 2024, Community Connectors-in-Residence will continue to: o Keep City Council updated on community strengths and community issues, especially ahead of the April 2024 Council Retreat o Identify opportunities to welcome individual council members to meet with CC-in-Rs to learn more about this team and their work o Leverage additional General Fund program funding allocated at council’s request by recommending and participating in Community Connector Mental Health & Well-being sessions o Include historically excluded communities in 2025 city budget cycle engagement opportunities o Co-facilitate ‘Building Power & Raising Voices’ sessions and explore expanding training offerings o Review and share feedback with city staff on Racial Equity Instrument steps o Engage in ongoing dialogue with community members Questions Please don’t hesitate to reach out with any questions or to learn more! o Ryan Hanschen, Community Engagement Manager, hanschenr@bouldercolorado.gov o Ana Silvia Avendaño-Curiel, Equity Policy Advisor, avendano-curiela@bouldercolorado.gov Community Connectors-in-Residence Update 12 Attachment A - Community Connectors-in- Residence Mid-year Update – February 2024 Information Item C Packet Page 514 of 523 ____________________________________________________________________________________________ Appendix o ‘Building Power & Raising Voices’ session – Community Strengths and Community Issues ‘Building Power & Raising Voices’ Session Notes Community Strengths and Community Issues Four Corners Hair Boutique July 2023 In your experience, what’s working well within Boulder? o Offering resources for community engagement o City communications are being heard and reciprocated o Walkable neighborhoods o City services o Affordable housing, more than many other cities o Alternative transportation, bike, infrastructure o Flood mitigation o Love time in outdoors, greenbelt, environmental leadership o During quarantine, privileged and blessed to live here with so much nature o Housing code protecting tenants o More outreach to diverse and underrepresented communities more in recent years o Resources for small businesses o Protecting manufactured home communities by keeping zoning o Boulder housing density o Signage for future events, alt routes, transportation In your experience, what’s NOT working well within Boulder? o Bullying in schools x2 o More bus routes to schools o Unsheltered community members  o Gun violence  o See a lot of classism, a level of social responsibility to that, upper class elite has responsibility to help other live here, a lot of performative inclusion o Negative impacts for communities of color, bullying in school, less support for businesses of color, Boulder not taking care of people, don’t feel supported by the community, fly under the radar to survive and get by o City programs are really out there in front compared to other cities, city model for green issues, more work ahead, model for other cities  o Traffic, timeliness in fixing roads o Taxes o Density – increase in traffic, parking o Communication with city staff and city events – more marketing and social media presence o Reparations with people that have been “pushed out” Community Connectors-in-Residence Update 13 Attachment A - Community Connectors-in- Residence Mid-year Update – February 2024 Information Item C Packet Page 515 of 523 What may be included in your ideal community? o More intergenerational engagement o Conflict resolution venues o Equity o Strong communication channels o Wider resource education Community Connectors-in-Residence Update 14 Attachment A - Community Connectors-in- Residence Mid-year Update – February 2024 Information Item C Packet Page 516 of 523 C OVE R SH E E T ME E T I N G D AT E March 7, 2024 B O ARD S AN D C O MMI SSI O N S I T E M J anuary 10, 2024 Environmental Advisory Board Meeting Minutes P RI MARY STAF F C ON TAC T J onathan Koehn, Climate Initiatives Director AT TAC H ME N T S: Description January 10, 2024 Env ironmental Adv isory Board Meeting Minutes Packet Page 517 of 523 Packet Page 518 of 523 Packet Page 519 of 523 Packet Page 520 of 523 Packet Page 521 of 523 C OVE R SH E E T ME E T I N G D AT E March 7, 2024 AG E N D A I T E M National Women's History Month Declaration P RI MARY STAF F C ON TAC T Megan Valliere AT TAC H ME N T S: Description National Women's History Month Declaration Packet Page 522 of 523 Packet Page 523 of 523