Loading...
5B - Consideration of a Site Review (LUR2007-00066) - Landmark Lofts Phase IICITY OF BOULDER PLANNING BOARD AGENDA ITEM MEETING DATE: April 17, 2008 (Agenda Item Preparation Date: Mazch 21, 2008) AGENDA TITLE: Public heazing and consideration of Site Review application #LUR2007-00066, Landmark Lofts Phase II. The property consists of 231 net acres zoned Residential High-3 (RH-3) and proposes 129 multifamily residential units and 1,900 square feet of neighborhood retail space. The application request includes land use code modifications for building height, ma~cimum number of stories, building setbacks, solar access, and a parking reduction. Applicant / Owner: 970 28`h Street - Phase II, LLC REQUESTING DEPARTMENT: Ruth McHeyser, Acting Planning Director Robert Ray, Land Use Review Manager Chazles Ferro, Case Manager OBJECTIVE: Define the steps for Planning Board consideration of this request: l. Hear applicant and staff presentations 2. Hold public hearing 3. Planning Board discussion 4. Planning Board take action to approve, approve with conditions or deny SUMMARY: Proposal: Site Review application for 129 residential units (divided between five buildings), 1,900 square feet of neighborhood commercial / retail space, with two underground parking gazages. Net density is proposed at approximately 55 dwelling units per acre. Project Name: Landmark Lofts II Location: 970 28`h Street Frontage Size of Tract: 2.45 acres (gross) (107,012 square feet) 2.31 acres (net) (100,534 square feet) Zoning: RH-3 (Residential - High 3) Comprehensive Plan: HR (Residential - High Density) AGENDA ITEM # SB PACE # 1 KEY ISSUES: Staff has identified the following key issues regarding the proposed Site Review application: 1. Is the proposed development compatible with the Site Review criteria? 2. Does the proposed site plan layout optimize pedestrian and vehicular access, pedestrian and vehicular safety, and circulation? 3. Is the location and quality of proposed open space appropriate? 4. Is the proposed height and building design compatible with the surrounding area? 5. Are the requested setback, parking reduction, and solar exception modifications appropriate? BACKGROUND: Previous Concept Plan Review (LUR2006-00059): In Aug. 2006, the applicant submitted an initial application for Concept Review. At the Nov. 2, 2006 Planning Board hearing, the board directed the applicant to prepare a second concept plan for the property addressing staff and Planning Board comments regarding the quality of open space and building design. The applicant was also directed to prepare a master plan for a potential Landmark Lofrs Phase III at the First Christian Church property located directly to the south. On June 14, 2007 the applicant returned to the Planning Board with a highly modified Concept Plan submittal addressing staff, neighborhood, and Planning Board concerns. Additionally, the applicant's Phase III site plan included preservation of the First Christian Church. Please refer to Attachments A and B for summary minutes from the previous Planning Board hearings. Existing Site /Site Context The subject site is the current location of the New West Motel (formerly the Super 8 Motel), a three story structure, with individual exterior entrances. Immediately to the north at 1000 28'h St. was a former motel building demolished to accommodate the recently approved Landmark Lofrs Phase I, which will include a 100 unit mixed use condominium development (with four buildings ranging in height from 45-55 feet at a similar density of 55 dwelling units per acre). First Christian Church and a private access drive owned by the church known as Euclid Ave. are located directly south of the subject site. Euclid Ave. connects the 28`h Street Frontage Road with Adams Circle to the east, and functions as a primary pedestrian connection and a secondary vehicular connection to the neighborhood to the east. To the east is a variety of established high and medium density, multi-family housing (primarily consisting of students) as well as the Golden West Manor assisted living facility. To the west across 28'h St. is the University of Colorado main campus. A pedestrian underpass underneath 28`h St. is located approximately 225 feet north of the site at the intersection of 28`h St. and East College Ave. The north, east, and southwest sides of the property have steep slope conditions and mountain views are prominent to the north, west, south, and southwest of the property. Please refer to Attachment C for a vicinity map of the property. AGENDA ITEM # 5B PAGE # 2 r - ~ ~ ~ err' 7~. ~ y~'~ . T A art T'.~ ~ __.•s ~ ~ l ' ~ y ~ '200 E CdLLEQ ~1,' h - ~+r ~ 1I ase I Ph Landmark L s ~ _ 1000 28th St. ` ~ ~ = ~ t ~ Y , ~ ~ _ ~ ~ i~~ ....1 ~ - _ - ~..d 1 1a y . ~ .-w~~:._ ~ _ ~''rs# Stan ~C' Bch - - - j _ i 'A Z A • r ~ ° ' ~i ' ~ ' v. fir' 1r ~ ` *Aerirtl Map of Area. Site Constraints A majority of the site is moderately level; however, as mentioned above, the north, east, and south east boundaries of the property have steep slope conditions and grade differentials of approximately 10 to 25 feet over surrounding properties, making the site somewhat difficult to develop with regard to solar access regulations. Additionally, as indicated by Attachment D Sheet SD3, the applicant was required to adjust a portion of the northern lot line to the south to accommodate the retaining walls required for the south side of Landmark Lofts Phase I. A separate application for a lot line adjustment is pending. Topographic conditions are illustrated below. AGENDA ITEM # 5B PAGE # 3 - _ _ - <s ' - - _ 1 `~1 \ ~ X000 28th - PHASE I ~ _ 2soo E co~~ o av - _ - ~ t.Zn ~ 11 970 28TH ST -PHASE II ~ ~ Q CV - i ~ / tIJS j i I~ i Y ~I'~ ~Jlj c n 1 \ I *Topograplric Conditions Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP) Designation The BVCP land use designation on the property was changed from Transitional Business to High Density Residential (HR) in 2003. In areas designated HR, densities over 14 dwelling units per acre are possible, if proposed development is compatible with the surrounding area and compliant with zoning and relevant BVCP policies. The zoning on the site was changed to Residential High Density Three (RH-3) in 2004 to reflect the BVCP land use designation amendment to HR (discussed below under `'zoning"). BVCP contains specif7c policies designed to accommodate new development with respect to existing neighborhood character. Staff finds that the proposed Site Review application furthers many city policies regarding the jobs /housing balance, compact design, sensitive infill development, provision of diverse housing types /affordable housing, and concentration ofhigh-density residential development along multi-modal corridors. A complete analysis on the proposed development is included in Attachment E. AGENDA ITEM # 5B PAGE # 4 i E College Av ~ ~ 2900 E C4LL GE AV 1000 28th -PHASE I ~t .'s, W ~b ~4f ~ . ! ~C1St eSl ntla~ L . r ~ 970 28TH ST -PHASE {i 4 ¢p - s,." , ` PS • , 4t w ~ S' _F *Area BVCP Land Use Designation Zoning The RH-3 zone (formerly HRl-X) was a new zoning district created in 2004 to implement strategies from Resolution 922 adopted by City Council at the culmination of the Jobs/Population study to consider the potential for higher housing densities on parcels adjacent the University of Colorado. In addition, RH-3 was established to meet the city goal of providing more affordable housing in the community. One intent of the RH-3 zoning district is to provide redevelopment opportunities for areas of the city in the process of changing to high-density residential uses with limited, pedestrian oriented neighborhood retail uses. RH-3 zoning is intended to serve areas in close proximity to either a primary destination or a transit center in order to encourage travel by foot, bicycle, bus or rail. At the time the zone was adopted, a draft transportation connections plan was brought forward to provide needed connections in AGENDA ITEM # 5B PAGE # 5 the area to sup~ort the increased density and further the city's Transportation Master Plan goals. The 28` Street Frontage Road will have improved transit service and access from the side streets, and off-street parking will be an important component of the plan; staff is currently establishing a schedule for network plan adoption. The RH-3 zoning designation does not specify a maximum density. Instead, density in the RH-3 zoning district is a function of on-site open space, requiring that a minimum 60% of a property remain useable open space. E College Av 1 I ~ 1000 28th - PHASE I 2900 E COLL GE AV Q~ ~ ~ C~ RH-3 RH-5 ~ 970 28TH ST -PHASE II E r?/'J~ f v f 1 M W N 1 i *Area Zoning Map Designations Project Description: The site is located directly east (across 28`" Street) of the University of Colorado Campus and a majority of the units are expected to be marketed as student housing. The Site Review submittal includes 129 residential condominium units (divided between AGENDA ITEM # 5B PAGE 6 five buildings), 1,900 square feet of neighborhood commercial/retail space. One and two story units will range in size from 516 to 2,100 squaze feet and the proposed unit mix will include 56 one bedroom units, 71 two bedroom units, and two, three bedroom units. Access to units will be accommodated via double loaded interior corridors served by elevators and open air staircases. Access to staircases, elevators, and interior unit hallways will be security restricted for the safety of residents. The site will accommodate 155 total on-site parking spaces concentrated in two underground parking garages. Thirteen on-street parking spaces will also be available along the south side of Euclid Avenue. Based on the proposed unit mix, the amount of off-street pazking as proposed will require a 6.6 percent parking reduction. An emergency 20 foot vehicle service access was required on Phase II property as part of the Phase I approval, and is located on the north and east sides of the property connecting 28`h St. with Euclid Ave. The proposed emergency access will be closed to through traffic and will include colored concrete pavement treatments to allow the paved area to double as a pedestrian walkway through the site, as well as useable open space. The site will utilize an existing curb cut at the north west comer of the site along 28`h St. to service both the shared emergency access as well as an underground parking garage. Two additional curb cuts are proposed along Euclid Ave. on the south eastern corner of the site to accommodate underground parking garage access, as well as the required service and emergency access. On-site open space is compliant with the RH-3 district and consists of several large internal courtyard and landscaped areas situated between buildings, as well as individual balconies, decks, and patios. An indoor fitness gym will also be included for the use of residents. The proposed commercial component of the development will be prominently located on the corner of Euclid Ave. and the 28th Street Frontage and will help to activate the public sidewalk, while providing additional outdoor seating opportunities for the proposed commercial uses. Building locations have been shifted to the south to accommodate a required emergency access driveway and to reduce solaz impacts on properties to the north. Additionally, the western portion of the development will maintain an appropriate setback to allow the adjacent First Christian Church to remain prominent along the 28'h St. corridor, while accommodating a new eight foot wide multi-modal pathway with street trees. Per Attachment D, building architecture consists of a contemporary design incorporating a variety of high quality building materials including metal, brick, stucco, glass storefront, and wood. Building heights measured to the top of the buildings' pazapets aze expected to be 55 feet in 4, 5-story buildings. Upper level stories have been recessed and set back to the south side of the site in order to minimize solar impacts on properties to the north, while creating more of a three story massing throughout the project. Both the proposed building heights and the number of stories require modification to the requirements of the land use code through the Site Review process, as discussed below under "Analysis". AGENDA ITEM # SB PAGE # 7 The streetscapes along 28`h St. and Euclid Ave. will be greatly improved and present well articulated urban building frontages with street trees and planting areas to help sofren building edges. The site plan and architecture have also been amended to provide well defined accesses into the site, as well as direct grade level accesses into individual ground floor units to help create more of an individualized feel to the proposed units. Although a private access driveway, per staff and Planning Board recommendation, the Euclid Ave. frontage has been designed to function as a street rather than an alley or access driveway. Of the 129 units proposed, 26 permanently affordable units are required. The applicant has indicated that half of the required units will be built onsite with cash-in-lieu fee equivalents for the remaining required half. Based on proposed building heights, a setback modification will be required for those on the south side of the property, in addition to an exemption to the solar ordinance; a right-of--way dedication on 28'h Street would be required as well. All required modifications are discussed in detail below under the "Analysis" section of this memorandum. Conversely, aright-of--way dedication will not be required for the private access drive on the south side of the property owned by First Christian Church, known as Euclid Ave., and may instead be required upon redevelopment of the First Christian Church site. ANALYSIS: Staff has identit3ed the following key issues and provided a detailed analysis to supplement the attached analysis of the Site Review criteria found in Section 9-2-14(h), B.R.C.,1981. 1. Is the proposed development compatible with the Site Review criteria? Staff finds the proposed development compliant with all applicable Site Review criteria, and compatible with the context of the surrounding azea and the intent of the RH-3 zone district and the BVCP land use designation for the property. Please refer to Attachment E for staff's detailed evaluation of all required Site Review criteria. 2. Does the proposed site plan layout optimize pedestrian and vehicular access, pedestrian and vehicular safety, and circulation? The Site Review criteria included in Section 9-2-14(h)(2)(D), B.R.C.,1981 encourage safe, convenient pedestrian and vehicular access which minimizes conflicts between pedestrians and vehicles and encourages alternative modes of transportation. Pedestrian Access and Safetv: Based on the existing student population in the area, a high level of pedestrian and bicycle traffic is expected to continue between Adams Circle and 28'h St. along Euclid Ave. on the south side of the site to access the nearby pedestrian tunnel to the AGENDA ITEM # 5B PAGE # S CU campus; a high level of pedestrian traffic is also anticipated through the subject site. In order to increase necessary pedestrian access between student housing in the azea and the CU campus, a defined pedestrian walkway has been added along Euclid Avenue that connects the 28th Street frontage to Adams Circle. On-street parking and planting areas will help buffer the attached sidewalk area from vehiculaz traffic along Euclid Ave. and 28`h Street. The proposed multi-modal transportation and fire lane on the northern portion of the property will also serve as an alternative pedestrian walkway on-site, and help bring pedestrians conveniently through the north side of the site to easily access 28`h Street and the pedestrian underpass. As requested by both staff and Planning Boazd in the previous Concept Plan Review, an open easUwest pedestrian linkage has been provided through Building Two to maximize east/west pedestrian connectivity and to provide additional transparency into the site from 28' Street. Convenient links to Landmark Lofts Phase I to the north have been provided to better integrate both phases of the development. The site is well served by several bus lines with available stops nearby, and the sidewalk along 28'h Street will be upgraded to an eight foot wide multi-modal path. Changes in pavement materials as well as pedestrian accesses along Euclid Ave. have also been proposed to help link pedestrian crossings to an eventual Landmark Lofts Phase III to the south. Overall, pedestrian access, circulation and safety will be well defined and significantly improve access in the area. Staff finds that the proposed site plan meets the intent of the Site Review criteria and will promote safe and effective pedestrian circulation through and around the site. Vehicular Access and Safety: Vehiculaz access to the site will occur from 28'h St. and Euclid Ave. exclusively. There are no internal roadway connections through the site, thereby minimizing the conflict between vehicles and pedestrians on the interior of the site. The site will utilize an existing curb cut at the north west corner of the site along 28"' St. to service both the shared emergency access as well as an underground pazking gazage. Two additional curb cuts are proposed along Euclid Ave. on the southeastern comer of the site to accommodate underground parking gazage access, as well as the required service and emergency access. Curb cuts have been minimized and the proposed vehicular accesses comply with all visibility triangle requirements to minimize conflicts between pedestrians and vehicles on the periphery of the site. 3. Is the location and quality of proposed open space appropriate? The Site Review criteria included in Section 9-2-14(h)(2)(A), B.R.C.,1981 encourage accessible, functional public and private open spaces that provide a relief to surrounding densities and connect to azea-wide or city-wide open space networks, when applicable. AGENDA ITEM # 5B PAGE # 9 The RH-3 zone district requires a minimum 60 percent of the site to remain usable open space. As indicated in Attachment D, the site will exceed the open space requirements for the district. On-site open space consists of three lazge and distinct courtyard areas, plaza spaces, planting areas, and hazdscaped areas throughout the site to accommodate both active and passive open space uses. The western portion of the site contains a main entry courtyard/plaza area measuring approximately 40 feet by 70 feet between Buildings One and Two. A second larger courtyard measuring approximately 50 feet by 80 feet is centrally located on the south side of Building Two. A 23 foot wide central open space corridor located between Buildings Three and Four connects the central courtyard with a third eastern courtyard measuring approximately 60 feet by 40 feet. Six hundred thirty squaze feet of outdoor seating area will be located on the south west corner of the site as well to serve future commercial /retail uses. The proposed open spaces will include a mix of planted areas as well as a variety of pavement types, patterns, and colors. Detention areas have been amenitized with seating walls, benches, and planter walls to be as attractive and useable as possible for residents. The site will be heavily planted with a variety of structured planters throughout the site, which will also function as seat walls. A shade structure, picnic tables and benches will also be installed within courtyard areas to encourage use of the open space areas. A mixture of planted and hardscaped surfaces will help provide diversity among the spaces, and the varied sizes of the spaces will help create a hierarchy of large communal open spaces as well as more isolated, passive open space areas. The required emergency access will include colored, scored concrete pavement treatments to allow the emergency access area to double as a pedestrian walkway through the site, as well as useable open space. A?1 units will have private balconies at least 60 square feet in area as required by the land use code. A majority of units front onto couryazd areas. Units which do not front on open space areas will have access to interior and exterior building connections that will provide easy access to open space. As mentioned in the Concept Plan Reviews, staff had concerns related to the sizes of on-site open spaces and how the previous building arrangement created small, unwelcoming open spaces on-site that did not provide a relief from the proposed high densities. Both staff and Planning Board also had concerns regazding permeability into the site as well as pedestrian access through the site. The rearrangement of the proposed buildings and the reduction of building sizes have significantly improved access, as well as the size and quality of open space on site. As proposed, open spaces are better related to all units on-site as well as other phases of the development and, as noted above, Building Two was divided to create a pedestrian access into the middle of the site from 28`h Street. Units which are not AGENDA ITEM # SB PAGE # 10 directly served by interior courtyazds will front larger green space areas than originally proposed in the Concept Plan. The rearrangement of the proposed buildings also improves light penetration into the courtyard areas during winter months. Both the BVCP land use designation of HR as well as the RH-3 zoning district encourage high density, mixed use development. As noted above, the RH-3 district was established without a maximum density limitation and is driven by the "quality of the project." While the architectural quality of the project is very important to neighborhood compatibility and sustainability of the development, the intent of the RH-3 zoning district is to encourage creativity and innovation in compact, high density, urban development. This concept translates directly to highly functional, defined, and accessible on-site open space azeas. The RH-3 zoning district is purely open space driven, and as mentioned in the previous review by both staff and Planning Board, significant consideration has been given to the impact and relationship of lazge buildings on open space quality and seasonal impacts such as winter light penetration. The site plan has benefited from the use of smaller buildin~ modules and building organization that help to frame an urban streetscape on 28' Street and Euclid. The revised site plan helps create a centralized network of accessible and useable open spaces that relate better to both phases of the Landmark Lofrs development and is designed to integrate with an eventual Phase III of Landmark Lofrs to be located directly to the north. The size, location, and quality of open space areas on-site will provide a relief to the proposed densities in the areas and provide well defined public and private useable open spaces for residents. 4. Is the proposed height and building design compatible with the surrounding area? Site Review criteria included in Section 9-2-14(h)(2)(F), B.R.C.,1981 encourage building height, mass, scale, orientation, and configuration to be compatible with the existing character of the area. Building Desien: As mentioned by both staff and Planning Board in the Concept Review submittals from November 2006 and July 2007, the 28th St. corridor is considered an important gateway into the city of Boulder. Additionally, the site is located immediately north of the iconic first Christian Church (most likely a future historic landmark) and is situated on an elevated site, making it extremely prominent and visible to north and southbound pedestrians and vehicular traffic. The immediate area currently has a few identifiable architectural buildings, including the modernist usonian idiom established by the First Christian Church directly to the south and the Lotus Building located at the intersection of 28`h St. and AGENDA ITEM # SB PAGE # I l Aurora Ave. Staff acknowledges the area along the 28`h Street Frontage between College Ave. and Aurora Ave. as an area currently in transition. The proposed contemporary architecture is varied, yet complementary of Phase I architecture while appropriately referencing the prow and roofline of the church to the south. The proposed building design has been refined to present more of an individualized contemporary brownstone massing at the street level, and building setbacks have been established to frame a more urban, high-density pedestrian corridor along Euclid Ave., as recommended by both staff and the Planning Board at the Concept Plan Review hearing. Individual grade level patio areas and individual unit walkways help to individualize units and reduce the perceived density and mass of the project. The massing and design of all proposed buildings, especially those fronting onto 28'h St. and Euclid Ave., have been significantly improved by removing volume From the center of Building One to address staff and Planning Board concerns regarding scale. Additionally, the south west corner of the building will reduce to a two story massing set back approximately 30 feet at the south west corner of the site to allow views to remain prominent into the adjacent First Christian Church site. Fourth floor elements are set back significantly from building facades along 28`h St. (with the exception of Building Three), and present more of a three story massing throughout a majority of the project. Additional refinements including the removal of building volume and bulk from the center of Building One, help reduce the building mass at the street level and provide a more balanced appearance along 28`" St. Based on the elevation drawings contained in Attachment D, a similar level of detail and pedestrian interest is provided on all sides of each building. Additionally, building entries along 28`h St. are large, well defined and have increased transparency and permeability into the interior of the site. The proposed buildings also help to activate and engage the outdoor public sidewalk spaces for the proposed commercial uses at the comer of Euclid Ave. and 28'h Street. Building Height: The RH-3 zone district is the most dense zone district within the city and intended to accommodate, large, multifamily structures. In response to the RH-3 rezoning, several properties within the immediate area have recently been approved with similar heights, indicating a change in neighborhood character. Phase I of Landmark Lofts at 1000 28'" Street was, for example, recently approved with building heights up to 55 feet. Additionally, both Golden West Manor at 1055 Adams Circle and First Christian Church at 950 28th Street were constructed at heights in excess of 55 feet. Height in the RH-3 district is restricted to three stories at 40 feet (measured to the low point of grade 25 feet from the site), unless modified through Site Review; proposed building heights will be 55 feet. The proposed buildings appear as three and four story buildings, however, Section 9-lti, B.R.C. considers a portion of basement space that extends above grade by two feet or more a story; therefore, AGENDA ITEM # SB PAGE # 12 buildings two, three, and four are considered 5 story buildings, due to the amount of foundation extending above grade. While the proposed building heights appear contextually compatible with the changing character of the area, at the Concept Plan phase, staff had some concerns regarding how proposed building heights would impact on-site open spaces. Reconfiguration of the buildings has resulted in highly functional open space with large, useable open space areas therefore, staff supports height modification. Similarly, refinements to the architecture as noted above have helped to reduce the mass of the proposed buildings and have resulted in structures more compatible with the area. 5. Are the requested setback, parking reduction, and solar exception modifications appropriate? Setbacks: Proposed setbacks are as follows: Setback: Re aired: Pro osed: Deficient: Front -Landsca e (west) 10' (min & may) 10' 0' Interior Side (north) I' setback : 3' bld .hei ht (55/3=18.3) 26.58 0' Street Side Landsca e south) l' setback : 2' bld .hei ht (55/2=27.5') 15.58 11.92' Rear (east) l5' 21.75 0' As indicated by the table above, the south side setback will require a modification to the required setbacks for the RH-3 district. Staff finds that the reduced setback establishes more of an urban streetscape while providing a comfortable distance between individual unit patios and the back of sidewalk. Additionally, staff finds the eight foot landscape areas between the south facing units and the back of sidewalk adequate to accommodate significant landscaping along Euclid Avenue. Parking Reduction: As indicated below, a 6.6 percent parking reduction will be required in order to approve the plan as proposed. Required parking for the ro erty is as follows: Unit T e: Number of Units: Re uirement: Total Re wired: One Bedroom 56 1 ~6 Two Bedroom 71 1.5 106 Three Bedroom 2 2 4 Total 129 - 166 *Non-residential uses in the RH-3 zoning district do nvt require parking. AGENDA ITEM # SB PAGE # 13 Per Attachment D. 155 parking spaces will be provided in the two underground garages resulting in a 6.6 percent parking reduction. An additional 13 on-street parking spaces will be provided along Euclid Ave. as well. Per staff s analysis of the required parking reduction criteria from Section 9-2- 14(h)(K)(2), B.R.C.,1981 found in Attachment E, staff recommends approval of the proposed parking reduction based on the site's proximity to the University of Colorado, major transit lines, and the applicant's proposed Transportation Demand Management (TDM) plan found in Attachment F. As noted in the applicant's TDM plan, Eco Passes will be provided to all residents and a variety of other techniques including bike racks and the provision of RTD route information to residents will be used to encourage use of alternate modes of transportation. Solar Access: Section 9-9-17, B.R.C.,1981, establishes that solar heating and cooling of buildings, solar heated hot water, and solar generated electricity can provide a significant contribution to the city's energy supply. The purpose of the solar access regulations is to regulate structures and vegetation on property, to the extent necessary to ensure access to solar energy, by reasonably regulating the interests of neighboring property holders within the city. The site and the surrounding area are situated within Solar Access Area II as defined by Section 9-9-17(c)(2), B.R.C.,1981. Per the land use code. "Solar Access Areu 11 is designed to pr°otect solar access principally for brrildin~ ro~ftnps in areas where, becaarse of~planned density, topography, or lot configrrrcrtion nr orierrtcrtion, the preponderance of lots therein currently errjny such access and tirhere solar access of this ncrttrre would not undzrly restrict permissible development As noted above, there is a significant grade differential of up to 20 feet between the subject Phase II property and Phase I to the north. The grade differential contributes to the encroachment of shadows onto the northern Phase I property by increasing shadow lengths. Additionally, as shown in Attachment D, Sheet SD3, the applicant was required to adjust a portion of the northern lot line to the south into Phase II property to accommodate the required retaining walls for the Phase I development. The movement of the lot line to the south has resulted in a shortening and artificial reduction of the solar fence, resulting in rooftop solar encroachments onto Phase I. If the lot line were not required to move to the south, the degree of rooftop encroachments onto Phase I buildings would be significantly reduced. The following aerial photo indicates properties which will be impacted by the proposed solar exception (outlined in red): AGENDA ITEM # 5B PAGE # 14 U r.,; - t . ~ ~t I. ''r ~ ' 290~,~ CC)L.LEGE I s P .r ~ Landmark L~f~s Pha>~e i , ~ _ ~ . 1000 28th St. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ , ka, r a, 'l ,,y P 4 J .-b .u ~ ~ ~ ~ f t_~'" ~ ~ ~"r- t'- ~ ~ ~ ~b s.. ~ ~ - ; ~ I V _ ~ ~ ` 2a It ~ ~ « L ~ ~ `ii ~ - E~ ~ if'. t v _ ~ I fw ~~YY4yy~ LS ~ .f£4 ~ T 1 ..ti- f7 I iki.ftf ~ ~ y y Per Section 9-9-17(d)(B), B.R.C.,1981, no person shall erect an object or structure on any other lot that would shade a protected lot in Solar Access Area II to a greater degree than the lot would be shaded by the shadows cast by a hypothetical vertical solar fence twenty-five feet in height, between two hours before and two hours after local solar noon on a clear winter solstice day (Dec. 21, the shortest day of the year). The hypothetical solar fence establishes a reasonable envelope or area of protection within which actual building shadows should be contained. Per Section 9-9-17, B.R.C.,1981, solar analyses are required to illustrate the shadows cast on Dec. 21 at 10 a.m., 12 p.m., and 2 p.m. to indicate the worst case scenario for solar gain. The applicant has provided a detailed solar analysis in Attachment D to illustrate the worst case shading scenario for rooftop shading of surrounding properties. As noted above, the proposed building shadows are not permitted to encroach any farther onto a neighboring property than the shadow cast by the hypothetical 25 foot solar fence. AGENDA ITEM # 5B PAGE # 15 Sheets SD13-SD15 indicate the relationship between actual building shadow lengths and the allowable solar fence at 10 a.m., 12 p.m., and 2 p.m. respectively. Areas of encroachments have been demarcated with an asterisk on each respective drawing. (It should be noted that the proposed sheets depict the shadows as if the Phase I buildings were not built and do not take into account how shadows would react on dimensional building surfaces. These drawings are simply used as a tool to verify the applicant's solar shadow length calculations and whether the appropriate sun angles and shadow lengths have been used.) Sheet SDI5.1 illustrates the relationship among all building shadows on Dec. 21 between 10 a.m. and 2 p.m. and the required solar fence. As indicated by the respective shading patterns, there are areas of the site where the actual building shadows exceed the hypothetical solar fence. As indicated by sheets SD-16 and SD-16.1 in Attachment D, the applicant has prepared section drawings of each area of encroachment (except where encroachments fall into the right-ot=way or courtyard area of Phase I) to demonstrate the actual solar impacts of Phase II on the surrounding properties. The section drawings are the most important illustrative tools available to depict how the proposed Phase II buildings will impact neighboring roottops. As reflected by SD-16 and SD16.1, there are several instances of encroachment where the actual building shadows encroach past the required 25 foot vertical solar fence, though a majority of the encroachments extend onto the south facing walls of buildings in Phase I, not onto the rooftops. Building walls are not considered areas of protection in Solar Access Area II; however, there are a few instances of encroachment onto the roottops of buildings in Phase I as well as the properties located directly east of Phase I, thereby requiring a solar exemption. Staff has the authority to approve solar exemptions per Section 9-9-17(f), B.R.C., 1981 and although exemptions are rarely considered, the grade differential and the minimal rooftop shadow impacts resulting from the proposed Phase II buildings make the proposed exemption supportable. As indicated by sheet SD-16 and SD-16.1 in Attachment D, on December 21 at 10 a.m. Phase II, Building Two will cast a shadow that will encroach 15.16 feet onto the rooftop of Phase I, Building 2B. At 2 p.m., Phase II, Building Four will cast a shadow that will encroach 16.75 feet onto the roof of Phase I, Building 2B. Additionally, a small portion of the south west corner of the roof located at 2960 E. College Ave. (located east of Phase I) will also result in shadows at 2 p.m. from Phase II, Building Five. While the drawings depict Dec. 21 as the worst case scenario for the shadows, the subject rooftop encroachments will occur between November and February (with the worst case encroachments occurring on Dec. 21). On average, building lengths of Phase I are approximately 140 feet long (north to south), and would maintain a large available flat roof expanse where solar equipment could be AGENDA ITEM # 5B PAGE # 16 reasonably located outside of any shadow encroachment. Considering the 10 to 20 foot retaining walls on the south side of the impacted buildings, it is not likely that solar equipment would be placed directly on the south sides of the roofs of the impacted buildings. While the applicant is currently the owner /developer of Phase I, no impacted property owners have objected to the proposed solar exceptions. Per Section 9-9-17(f)(6), B.R.C.,1981 solaz exemptions aze required to meet the following applicable review criteria: (A) Because of basic solar access protection requirements and the land use regulations: (i) Reasonable use cannot otherwise be made of the lot for which the exception is requested; Not applicable. (ii) The part of the adjoining lot or lots that the proposed structure would shade is inherently unsuitable as a site for a solar energy system; or As indicated above and in the solar analyses provided by the applicant, the portions of the rooftops impacted are minimal and based on the topography of the site, solar panels could effectively be installed further north on the rooftops. (iii) Any shading would not significantly reduce the solar potential of the protected lot; and As noted above, the proposed encroachment would not significantly reduce the solar potential for Phase I buildings or buildings located at 2900 or 2960 E. College Ave. The proposed encroachments would result in a maximum rooftop shadow encroachment of approximately 16.75' onto Phase I roof tops. Average building lengths in Phase I are approximately 140 feet and would maintain a large available roof expanse where solar equipment could be reasonably located outside of any rooftop shadow encroachment. Additionally, considering the 10 to 20 foot retaining walls on the south side of the Phase I site, it is not likely that solar equipment would be placed directly on the south sides of the roofs of Phase I buildings or the southwest corners of buildings located at 2900 or 2960 E College Ave. (iv) Such situations have not been created by the applicant; The Phase I property as well as the properties located at 2900 and 2960 E College were cut and excavated for development in the late 1950's therefore, the applicant did not create the exaggerated solar impacts that result from AGENDA ITEM # SB PACE # 17 the difference in topography in the areas north/northeast of the Phase I property. Additionally, the applicant was required to adjust the southern lot line between Phase I and Phase II to accommodate the required retaining walls for Phase I, thereby reducing the length of the Phase II solar fence area. (B) Except for actions under subparagraphs (f)(6)(D), (f)(6)(E), and (f)(ti)(F) of this section, the exception would be the minimal action that would afford relief in an economically feasible manner; As indicated below, Sections (f?(6)(D), (f)(6)(E), and (fj(6)(F) refer to location within an historic district, additions to existing roof structures, and interference with basic solar access protection resulting from the installation of a solar system on Phase II buildings, none of which apply to the subject application, therefore the subject criterion is not applicable. (C) The exception would cause the least interference possible with basic solaz access protection for other lots; The proposed exception would cause the least interference possible onto other lots. As noted above, the worst case scenario will involve a 16.75 foot long shadow onto one rooftop that is approximately 140 in leugth. (D) If the proposed structure is located in an historic district designated by the City Council according to section 9-] 1-2, "City Council May Designate or Amend Landmarks and Historic Districts," B.R.C. 1981, and if it conformed with the requirements of this section, its roof design would be incompatible with the character of the development in the historic district; Not applicable. The site does not contain any historically significant structures. (E) If part of a proposed roof which is to be reconstructed or added to would be incompatible with the design of the remaining parts of the existing roof so as to detract materially from the character of the structure, provided that the roof otherwise conformed with the requirements of this section; Not applicable. The proposed Phase II buildings would be completely new structures, not additions to an existing building. (F) If the proposed interference with basic solar access protection would be due to a solar energy system to be installed, such system could not be feasibly located elsewhere on the applicant's lot; AGENDA ITEM#SB PAGE#18 No interference with basic solar access protection will result from the installation of a solar system on Phase II buildings, however, a significant amount of unobstructed roof area remains available throughout Phase II as well as the other impacted properties to accommodate solar energy systems. (G) If an existing solar system would be shaded as a result of the exception, the beneficiary of that system would nevertheless still be able to make reasonable use of it for its intended purpose; Not applicable. According to the applicant, there will be no rooftop solar systems installed on the Phase I buildings, and there are no existing rooftop solar systems on any surrounding existing buildings that will be impacted by the proposed solar exception. (H) The exception would not cause more than an insubstantial breach of solar access protected by permit as defined in pazagraph (d)(3) of this section; and Not applicable. Insubstantial breaches as defined by paragraph (d)(3) of this section are only applicable to existing structures. (I) All other requirements for the issuance of an exception have been met. The applicant bears the burden of proof with respect to all issues of fact. All other requirements for the issuance of an exception have been met and the applicant has provided detailed solar analysis drawings in Attachment D to demonstrate all issues of fact. PUBLIC COMMENT AND PROCESS: Required public notice was given in the form of written notification mailed to all property owners within 600 feet of the subject property, and a sign posted on the property for at least 10 days. All notice requirements of Section 9-4-2, B.R.C. 1981 have been met. Additionally, staff sent a special notification to adjacent property owners impacted by the proposed solar exception pursuant to Section 9-9-17, B.R.C., 1981. Staff received two neighborhood comments (refer to Attachment G) opposing the proposed development, although the letters received were not from adjacent property owners. Staff has not received any objections from adjacent property owners regazding the proposed development or solar exception. In addition to staff s notification sent out to property owners, the applicant sent letters via registered mail to the property owners impacted by the solar exception at 2900 and 2960 E. College and have been included in Attachment D. AGENDA ITEM # 5B PAGE # 19 STAFF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION: Planning staff finds that the proposed application for Site Review meets the Site Review criteria found in Section 9-2-14(h), B.R.C., 1981. Therefore, staff recommends that Planning Board approve Site Review #LUR2007-00066 incorporating this staff memorandum and the attached Site Review Criteria Checklist as findings of fact, and using the following recommended conditions of approval. RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. The Applicant shall be responsible for ensuring that the development shall be in compliance with all approved plans dated March 3, 2008 and on file in the City of Boulder Planning Department, except as modified by these conditions of approval. 2. Prior to a building permit application, the Applicant shall submit a Technical Document Review application for the following items, subject to the review and approval of Planning and Development Services Division: a. Final architectural plans, including materials and colors, to insure compliance with the intent of this approval and the architectural intent shown on the elevation plans dated March 3, 2008. b. A final site plan showing the corrections and additions requested by this approval, including building setbacks on fully dimensioned plans. A signed survey drawing should also be submitted. c. A final utility plan meeting the City of Boulder Design and Construction Standazds. d. A final storm water report and plan meeting the City of Boulder Design and Construction Standards, which include information regarding the groundwater conditions (geotechnical report, soil borings, etc.) on the Property, and all discharge points for perimeter drainage systems. e. Final transportation plans in accordance with City of Boulder Design and Construction Standards and CDOT Access Code Standards, for all transportation improvements. These plans must include, but are not limited to: plan and profile drawings construction plans for the public access drive and all public sidewalks, a pavement analysis and soils report for the public access drive, and a signage and striping plan in conformance with MUTCD standards. AGENDA ITEM # 56 PAGE # 20 f. CDOT access permits in accordance with CDOT Access Code Standards, for all transportation improvements within the CDOT right-of--way including the two 28~h Street Frontage Road accesses and removal of the existing accesses. g. A detailed landscape plan, including size, quantity, and type of plants existing and proposed; type and quality ofnon-living landscaping materials; any site grading proposed; and any irrigation system proposed, to insure compliance with this approval and the city's landscaping requirements. Removal of trees must receive prior approval of the Planning Department. Removal of any tree in city right-of--way must also receive prior approval of the City Forester. The landscape plan shall be consistent with Sheets SDS, SD5.1, and SD5.2 of the Site Review approval plan set with the following amendments: (i) The four forest pansy redbud (Cercis canadensis `forest pansy') trees shown on Sheet SDS between buildings 3 and 4 shall be replaced with Autumn brilliance serviceberry (Amelanchier x grandiflora `Autumn brilliance') or other like tree species due to limited space adjacent to buildings. (ii) The 77 daylily (Hemerocallis `Stella de Oro') plants noted at the south east garage entry sight triangle shall be augmented with perennials as listed within the plant list on sheet SD5.1. (iii) Illustrate plant materials at the northeast corner of Building 3, adjacent to deck space, where currently none are shown. (iv) Provide city's standard tree planting detail from Drawing 3.02 of the City's Design and Construction Standards on the landscape plan. h. A detailed lighting plan showing location, size, and intensity of illumination units, showing compliance with Section 9-9-16, B.R.C.,1981. 3. Prior to a building permit application, in order to relocate the emergency access easement associated with Landmazk Lofts Phase I approved May 4, 2006 (Land Use review Case No. LUR2005-00056), the Applicant shall submit, for the review and approval of the Planning and Development Services Division, as part of Technical Document Review applications, subject to the approval of the City of Boulder Planning and Development Services Division: a. A lot line adjustment for the shared property line between Landmark Lofts Phase 1 and Phase 2 to address the encroaching retaining wall. AGENDA ITEM # SB PACE # 21 b. A vacation of that portion of the 20' emergency access easement over which the retaining wall from Landmark Lofts Phase 1 encroaches. 4. Prior to a building permit application, the Applicant shall dedicate to the city the following as part of Technical Document Review applications, subject to the approval of the City of Boulder Planning and Development Services Division: a. Right-of--way for 28'h Street Frontage Road in a width and location satisfactory to the Director of Public Works. b. An emergency access easement (south of the retaining wall which encroaches on the shared property line between Landmark Lofts Phase 1 and 2) in a width and location satisfactory to the Director of Public Works. c. A public access and utility easement from the adjacent property owner to the south which contains the entire access drive width, the attached sidewalk, and an additional foot beyond the back of curb. d. A sidewalk easement along the 28`h street Frontage Road which contains the 8 foot wide landscape buffer, 8 foot wide sidewalk, and an additional foot beyond the back of walk. e. A sidewalk easement along the south property line which contains the 5 foot wide sidewalk and an additional foot beyond the back of walk. £ Utility easements in the widths and locations satisfactory to the Director of Public Works. g. Drainage easements for detention ponds and water quality structures in the widths and locations satisfactory to the Director of Public Works. 5. Prior to building permit application, the Applicant shall submit a financial guarantee, in a form acceptable to the Director of Public Works, in an amount equal to the cost of providing eco-passes to the residents of the development for three years after the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for each dwelling unit as proposed in the Applicant's Transportation Demand Management (TDM) plan. 6. Prior to an application for a permit to connect to the City's water system, the Applicant shall pay to the City its pro rata share of the cost AGENDA ITEM # SB PAGE # 22 of the installation on a front foot-basis for the water main improvements on the 28th Street Frontage Road. Approved By: Ruth McHeyser, Ac ng Planning Director Planning Department ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A: November 2, 2006 Planning Board Minutes Attachment B: June 14, 2007 Planning Board Minutes Attachment C: Vicinity Map Attachment D: Applicant's Written Statement and Plans Attachment E: Site Review Criteria Attachment F: Transportation Demand Management Plan Attachment G:Neighborhood Comments S:\PLAN\PB-ITEMS\MEMOS\970 28th SR.CF.doc AGENDA ITEM # 56 PAGE # 23 ATTACHMENT A Appro«ed ~a°resrber Z8, 2f)Ov CITY OF BOULDER PLANNING BOARD ACTION MINUTES November 2, 2006 1777 Broadway, Council Chambers 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.ci.boulder.co.us/planning/planningboard/agendas PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Elise Jones, Chair Simon Mole, Vice Chair John Spitzer Phil Shull, absent Adrian Sopher Claire Levy Richard Sosa STAFF PRESENT: Robert O. Cole, Land Use Review Manager Ruth McHeyser, Acting Planning Director David Gehr, Assistant City Attorney Elaine McLaughlin, Planner Jeff Arthur, Engineering Manager Michelle Allen, Administrative Specialist T. CALL TO ORDER Chair, E. Jones declared a quorum at 6:05 and the fallowing business was conducted. 2. APPROVAL OF MINU'T'ES On a motion by C. Levy, seconded by S. Mole, the Planning Board approved the October 5, 2006 Planning Board minutes. Vote 6-0 (J. Spitzer, abstain) 3. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION None 4. DISCUSSION OF DISPOSITIONS, PLANNING BOARD CALL-UPS 4898 Pearl, 3582 Nottingham, 1421 Cedar, 3620 Walnut no comments 5. ACTION ITEMS A. Publie hearing and consideration of Concept Plan Review and Comment for 1655 Walnut, LUR2006-00066. The proposal includes the redevelopment of the existing office at 1655 Walnut and adjacent parking lot at the northwest corner of Walnut and 17a' for mixed use development within the Downtown - 5 (DT-5) zone. ApplicanUOwner: MCV Walnut properties Public Participation: Tim Plass, 655 Maxwell Ave., Boulder David Bieks, representing DDAB, 1655 Walnut, Boulder Terri Clifford, 1637 Pearl #302, Boulder Jon Olsen, 1637 Pearl #301, Boulder Diane Lorenz-Olsen #301, 1637 Pearl, Boulder Jones: Appreciates the design team and the LEED's certification. Residential here is wonderful but there is one floor too many. Going from one story on the opposite comer to four stones is a transition that doesn't quite work. The proposed plan doesn't really work with the scale of buildings in the historic area. Not OK with 55' on this block. Though we can't preserve everyone's views we shouldn't go too big too fast. Looks like an office building refine the design to make it look like someone's home. An excellentjob of .designing the building by itself now you need to design the building in the context of the neighborhood. Height is only a problem if you can see it, you hide it with step backs a little on the Walnut side but not on the 17°' street side. The applicant should have a discussion with the neighbors. Mole: We are effectively making decisions about two buildings, this proposal and the Presbyterian Church annex. We have to design the whole block. Likes the design changes and lower corner. Likes and buys that the street is scaled to what is across the street to the south. This project a bit heavier and has more massing than what most folks would like to see here. Sitting on the fence not totally against the design and height. If the proposed building to the west were lower this building could have more height on west edge and perhaps not a whole 4`h floor row along the alley. Maybe it could look more like two buildings. Talk to the people working on the project to the west. Spitzer: Likes the building but does not feel it's appropriate for the site. The LEED's rating a good thing. A vote for this height and mass is a vote for the same at the church project to the west. Too much for this site. Go talk with the neighbors and neighborhood groups. Shu1L• Good looking building, does not dislike it's location as much as others. The brick modules on Walnut could be a bit too big. Most concerned about the 17`" St. elevation feels "in your face" and a bit hazsh. As far as obstructing views, we can't do much about that, thinks at least a portion of the building could be four floors. The 4`h floor on the east side should step back more. Courtyard is insightful and a nice amenity. Alley-scape well conceived; shows respect for the alley. Ok with contemporary, but thinks it's too slick maybe too much glass. Some filigree or entry treatments could help. Sopher: Precedence is important. What would it mean if we allow 55' here for the adjacent properties? Old communities that are historically conscience have buildings of different ~ ~ heights adjacent to each other. Consider some penetration of views from north to south but allowing some height of 55'. I preferred the earlier version because of the play of the massing and the way you tutred the corner into the courtyard. Building design is elegant, the courtyard is brilliant but a courtyadd over a parking deck is difficult for landscaping etc. Think about designing the building so that the ground floor space could be commercial to anticipate that things change over time. Levy: Be very sensitive to the edge condition. Likes the small brick modules. Eliminate the top floor and step it back more Chan it is now. Likes the contemporary approach, we need more of that in Boulder. Residential on the ground floor can work and the two story walks ups are great. Does not support 55'on this site. Could live with more height on the NW more concerned with what is done on 17`h. If the fourth floor steps back more on Walnut you are close. Sosa: Love the building and architecture. The zone is transitional and encouraging the residential development downtown is important. The problem is the proximity to the historic district I want the project to honor the adjacent residential and historic areas but the project is too large for the site. Try to maintain the courtyard, an outstanding feature. Break 7:50 - 7:59 B. Public hearing and consideration of Concept Plan Review and Comment #LUR2006- 00059, Landmark Lofts II. The proposal includes development of 139 residential units and 2,240 syuare feet of commercial space on 2.45 acres of property located at 970 28`h Street in the Residential High-3 (RH-3) zoning district. Applicant /Owner: Jim Chanin Public Participation: Tim Plass, on behalf of the LPAB, 655 Maxwell Ave., Boulder Jones: Not excited by this proposal or proposed buildings. The proposed height of phase II is too much and will present a prominent, visible face. Buildings proposed must be very good looking. Project must address and relate to the church to the south. The multi-use paths are good. Widen the corridors, if they aze not sunny they are not usable. The south courtyard seems only usable to residents in building two. The multiuse area between the two phases seems more available to all of the residents. Master plan is needed for all phases. Mole: Likes the attempt on the north side passage, but also make the street on the south work. On board, likes the elevations, likes that it is different enough from phase one. A master plan would be a good idea that includes phase three and all connections including the areas around the edge and how these projects relate to [he adjacent properties. ra s Spitzer: On the 28`h St. elevations, both phase II and I there are no entry elements, would like to see something that says someone lives here. Commercial and residential entrances should be more defined and dynamic for pedestrians. Entry penetrations should be larger. These projects are some of the most visually important in the city, entry elements. The black cubes, a high risk proposition. 1'0o many unbroken flat roofs makes buildings feel larger -greater variation required. Questions roof areas as 100%o open space credit. It's a difficult site but exciting and challenging. We all expect a really outstanding building. Shull: This one will take more effort to bring it up to par, a much more difficult site than phase I. Thinks the church is h=stork and would like these buildings to relate to that. Would like to see a master plan of the <::,:a for all phases. Functionally, access is bad and additional congestion will result. Access points for the garages and vehicle storage will result in considerable congestion and should function as streets. Not against this density, but the buildings and surrounding shccas will have to be remarkably functional (and will be scrutinized at site review). Building two might need to be broken in half, might be best as amore open area. There should be more of a main street going north south through the site. The 28~' street elevation needs more character. Phase I is a stronger project, this is a more difficult site, applicant might consider a second concept after rethinking the parking and access issues. Could generate interest from a mixed target audience, "top of the hill" so might appeal to other buyers besides students. Buildings should better address 28"' with more character and better defined entrances. Applicant should bring back another concept review. Communication with neighborhood is encouraged. Sopher: Appreciates the importance of 28`h as a gateway, but that's the least of the problems. Please do a comprehensive master plan that addresses how all spaces work together. "fhe fire access doesn't appear to meet the visualized picture of a vital "street" and should not be considered useable open space. The grades don't work together. The site is disconnected by the grades and open spaces will not function as one space. You have to treat Euclid like a real street and tie it together with what will happen with the church. Has no problem with a parking reduction but not interested in an open space reduction. Levy: Doesn't think it's differen~_iated enough from phase L These are important entry way buildings. Make it a stronger statement and more of a unifying theme at least on the 28`h St. frontage. Greater variation in elevations should be considered. Break up the south elevation. Step the fourth floor back more from the west side. Work a little more on the open space passages to make them more useable, looks as if they will be very dark. Concerned about the open interior accesses, seems like a security concern. Might appeal to a different demographic, that could help to give the site more character. Sosa: Agrees this is an important gateway site, consequently the design needs more work in making it stand out as a focal project. Courtyard between bldg. I&2 will be very dark. Also, concerned about the security issues with the interior access. Access in general throughout the site is difficult. Edges of project should be better defined. 6. DISCUSSION ITEMS 7. MATTERS FROM THE PLANNING BOARD, PLANNING DIRECTOR, AND CITY ATTORNEY 8. DEBRIEF/AGENDA CHECK 9. ADJOURNMENT The Planning Board adjourned the meeting at 10:05 pm APPROVED BX ~ 7~ Board C air It~z~ DATE ATTACHMENT B APPROYLU UN JOLY=, 21107 CITY OF BOULDER PLANNING BOARD ACTION MINUTES June 14, 2007 1777 Broadway, Council Chambers 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.ci.boulder.co.us/planning/planningboard/agendas PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Elise Jones, Chair Bill Holicky Willa Johnson Phil Shull Adrian Sopher Richard Sosa PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Andrew Shoemaker STAFF PRESENT: Brent Bean, Senior Planner Charles Ferro, Planner II Terry Gordon, Deputy City Attorney Cristina Martinez, Civil Engineer I Elaine McLaughlin, Senior Planner Cindy Pieropan, Housing Planner Robert Ray, Land Use Review Manager Mary Ann Weideman, Administrative Services Manager 1. CALL TO ORDER Chair, E. Jones, declared a quorum at 5:08 p.m. and the following business was conducted. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES On a motion by W. Johnson, seconded by A. Sopher, the Planning Board approved (6-0, A. Shoemaker absent) the May 17, 2007 Planning Board minutes as amended. 3. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION Jeff McWhirter, 5435 Illini Way, commented on environmental factors related to the Hogan-Pancost development proposal and urged the Planning Board to visit the site. 4. DISCUSSION OF DISPOSITIONS, PLANNING BOARD CALL-UPS 1409 North Stree[ The Planning Board clarified some information regarding the Floodplain Development Permit at 1409 North Street and did not call-up this item. /5 G ~ 5~5. _ _ _ 5. ACTION ITEMS A. Public hearing and consideration of Concept Plan Review and Comment #LUR2007-00001, Landmark Lofts II, for the property located at 970 28`h Street. The proposal includes development of 130 residential units with underground parking and 2,000 square feet of retail space on 2.45 acres of property in the Residential High-3 (RH-3) zoning district. Case Manager: Charles I'erro Applicant/Owner: Jim Chanin Staff Presentation Charles Ferro, Planner II, presented the case to the board. Applicant Presentation Jim Chanin, applicant, presented the proposal. Public Hearing No one spoke to this item. Board Discussion The Planning Board discussed the following key themes: Euclid Avenue The "main street" aspect of Euclid Avenue requires additional work and needs to be present on both sides of the street. The front doors and pathways need Co be included on the site plan. The Planning Board commented on having a better understanding of the parking on Euclid, especially the diagonal parking. Open Space The Planning Board commented on continuing to work on the initial open space entry, providing solar access into the internal courtyards and ensuring the courtyards are socially functional. Parkine Entrance The Planning Board noted that the parking garage entry disrupts the path. However, it was noted that the access on the north side of the property is required fire access from Phase The board stated a parking management methodology would be helpful. Affordable Housine Cindy Pieropan, Housing Planner, commented that it is not the city's preference to have affordable housing units at this site and is considering some off-site options. Architecture The Planning Board expressed concern about the cumulative look along Euclid Avenue. The board commented that the profile along 28`h Street and Euclid Avenue needs to work together. There needs to be cohesiveness and continuity between the buildings. HetQht The board commented that due to visibility issues, the mechanical units should be behind something other than standard screening. Church in Phase III The board expressed concern about the view and how much of the Church will be preserved. Board members made the following points: P. Shu11: • Requested more information regarding parking configurations, sections of parking garages, connections between buildings, as well as internal floor plans of Phase II buildings. He said the parking garages must be highly functional. • Requested more information regarding sunlight penetration into courtyard areas at Site Review. • Expressed some concerns over traffic at the 28`n Street access. • Expressed that student housing developments are not generally attractive for families in need of affordable housing. He supported off site options. • Would like a better understanding of the streetscape along Euclid. • Preferred that there not be a proliferation of stair towers. A. Sopher: • Expressed concerns regarding proposed trees over the parking garages and recommended four feet of soil on the parking deck to accommodate large trees. • Requested additional information on building floor plans. • Would like to see a better relation and connection betwcen open spaces on the west side of 2A and the east side of 2A. Open spaces on-site should be better integrated west to east. • Would like to see the applicant do more to increase the value of the open spaces and buildings on the north side of the site, similar to the streetscape that is proposed along Euclid. • The treatment of Euclid will be very important to the success and pedestrian scale of Phase II and Phase III. • Phase III relation to the existing First Christian Church will also become very important. • Sense of arrival from 28`" Street will also be very important. • Larger open spaces are fine but smaller, more intimate spaces with permeability are also important. • Views through building IIA are very important from 28`~ Street, as well as from the interior of the site. Modifications to building IIA should be explored to open up views and provide a link between spaces. • A variety of roof forms are proposed along 28`"Street. He would like to know more about how they will all work together at Site Review and said too much complexity in the forms can be confusing. • Brownstones along Euclid should have individual entrances from the street in both phases. • Parking on Euclid should be parallel, not angled. R. Sosa: • Likes linkages and connections to Phase I and III. • Phase III retail (on southeast comer of Euclid and 28`h Street) should be more sensitive to the church and should be one story. • Open spaces behind building ZA are semi private and may benefit from being disconnected from 28"'Street. • The treatment of Euclid will be very important to the success and pedestrian scale of Phase II and Phase III. W. Johnson: • Liked the corner retail anchor on the northeast comer of Euclid and 28`h Street. • Did not like the retail anchor on the southeast comer of Phase III. She said the church should remain prominent. • Phase II should address Euclid in a similar manner as Phase II and should be pedestrian oriented. • Expressed concerns regarding shade and open spaces and felt that the height of 3B along Euclid should be lowered to allow additional sunlight in to the courtyard. • Expressed concerns regarding the access along 28`h Street disrupting a pedestrian comdor. B. Holicky: • Overall, he liked the site plan. • Views through building IIA are very important from 28`h Street as well as from the interior of the site. Modifications to building IIA should be explored fo open up views and provide a link between open spaces. • Would like to see a better relation and connection between open spaces on the west side of 2A and the east side of 2A. Open spaces on-site should be better integrated west to east. • Pedestrian access west to east from 28`h Street is important. • Liked individually access brownstone units on Euclid. • Having additional building height along 28`h Street is supportable if the design is appropriate. Elevations along 28`h Street should be cohesive. Elements should hold the comer but not overwhelm the streetscape or the church. He supported making the corner more prominent and removing some of the mass and volume out of the mid section of the building. • Mechanical units should be hidden and designed into the building rather than using screening. • The church should remain the most prominent element along 28`h Street. Two story maximum. • Balconies should have closed rails. • Open spaces areas should be less specific and multi-purpose. • He liked the internal pathways but said the pathways may be simplified. E. Jones: • Rooflines on the north side of building I should be reconsidered to be more interesting. • Views through building IIA are very important from 28`h Street as well as from the interior of the site. Modifications to building IIA should be explored to open up views and provide a link between open spaces. • Would like to see a better relation and connection between open spaces on the west side of 2A and the east side of 2A. Open spaces on-site should be better integrated west to east. ~!5 t~,~~ %a- y • Plaza spaces should be kept open and tens structural. Spaces should be oriented toward student residents. Motion No action is required on behalf of the Planning Board. Recess The Planning Board recessed at 6:47 p.m. and reconvened at 7:03 p.m. B. Public hearing and consideration of Concept Plan Review and Comment #LUR2007-00012, Violet Crossing, for the property located at 4474 N. Broadway. The proposal includes development of 78 residential units and approximately 9,400 square feet of retail /office area on 4.66 gross acres, in the Mixed Use Two (MU-2) and Residential-Medium Two (RM-2) zoning districts. Case Manager: Charles Ferro Applicant/Owner•. Terry Palmos Staff Presentation Charles Fero, Planner II, presented the case to the board. Applicant Presentation Nancy Blackwood, Oz Architecture, presented the proposal. Public Hearing Susan Peterson, 4347 13`h Street Elizabeth Black, 4340 N. 13`h Street, pooled time with Winn Franklin, 4380 13`h Street Jim Miller, 4390 Broadway Stephen Schaller, 1480 Quince Avenuc Jason Bush, 2990 Shady I-Iollow Drivc Steve Haskins, 90 Lee Hill Road Ed Byme, 4324 Snowberry Court Astrid Paustian, 4390 13`h Street Andy Allison, 1056 Terrace Circle Charissa Pateel, 4436 Broadway Sally Martin, 1527 48`" Street Cam Fraser, 1205 Upland Avenue Board Discussion The Planning Board discussed the following key themes: Height The board was agreeable to the idea of a variance for three stories at the north side of the site provided the height was minimized. VillaPe Green The board commented that the 150 feet included in the North Boulder Subcommunity Plan should be maintained as much as possible. However, the 150 feet doesn't necessarily need to be a constant given the color garden, etc. Parking The board mentioned the idea to address on-street parking to potentially slow traffic. The board is willing to adjust setbacks to accommodate on-street parking. However, the directive for the past three years has been to maintain Violet as rural so this idea would have a significant impact to the plan. The board questioned the access from 14`h Street to the buildings and parking in the courtyard and expressed concern about parking on the east side near the park space. Additionally, access over the water quality pond seemed awkward. The board stated that the parking plan is not the best but is willing to work with it given past board direction. However, the board would like to see something even better, including more trees in the center of the parking lot. The board expressed concern regarding building G and F's garage doors facing city owned park property and said that the applicant should experiment with reorienting G and F towards Violet to hide parking from Violet and adjacent open space. Amendment to North Boulder Subcommunity Plan The board had no concerns with the amendment to the North Boulder Subcommunity Plan for the 13`h Street and 14`h Slreet connections. Architecture The board commented that transitional architecture seems appropriate on the site and the pedestrian experience should be addressed at all access points. The board also commented on eliminating or reducing the number of architectural bridges. The board expressed the need for multiple building types and sizes to address the different areas on the site and said that larger building modules will not work for all areas of the site (and that smaller modules throughout the site should be considered at Site Review). The board also expressed concerns regarding the proposed architecture being somewhat cold and busy and said a transitional blend of traditional and contemporary references would be appropriate for the site. Office/Retail The board was pleased with the non-residential uses. The board commented on including residential uses in Building B. The board expressed concerns that buildings D and E do not have office potential and that first floor office spaces (on Broadway) will do little to active the sidewalks as engaged public spaces. Similarly, spaces between buildings A1, A2, B1, and B2 have to be functional and inviting for pedestrians in order to be useable. The board also expressed concern that a 1,500 square foot restaurant would be supportable. Motion No action is required on behalf of the Planning Board. Recess The Planning Board recessed at 9:03 p.m. and reconvened at 9:10 p.m. ~ ~ C. Public hearing and consideration of Site Review #LU1t2006-00072, First Presbyterian Church, for the property located at 1603 Walnut Street. The proposal includes demolition of existing "Annex" building and development of a new 30,781 square foot "Annex" building as part of the overall First Presbyterian Church campus in the Downtown -5 (DT-5) zoning district. The application includes a request for a maximum building height of 51 feet, along with modifications to setback and land use intensity standards. Case Manager: Elaine McLaughlin Applicant/Owner. Tom Zimmerman/The First Presbyterian Church of Boulder, a Colorado Non-Profit Corporation Staff Presentation Elaine McLaughlin, Senior Planner, presented the case to the board. Applicant Presentation Tom Zimmerman, applicant, presented the proposal. Public Hearing Jon Olsen, 1637 Pearl Street, #301 Alexander Bracken, 125 Brittany Lane, Lafayette Marlys Lietz, 4176 St. Croix Jim Fletemeyer, 1540 Cress Court John Spitzer, 2323 20~' Street Board Discussion The Planning Board discussed the project and provided the following direction for the applicant to address: 1) Streetscape canopy, 2) Articulation of building massing, especially at the tower 3) Relief from the two-story Walnut facade, and 4) Stair location on 16`h Street The board also noted as a matter of advisement that the applicant should consider outdoor open space for youth. Motion On a motion by W. Johnson, seconded by R. Sosa, the Planning Board continued (6-0, A. Shoemaker absent) this item within 40 days of June 14, 2007. Recess The Planning Board recessed at 10:50 p.m. and reconvened at 10:55 p.m. D. Public hearing and consideration of Site Review # LUR2007-00002 for the property located at 1655 Walnut. The proposal includes development of a four-story building with up to thirty four residential units on a 28,111 square foot site in the Downtown- s (DT-5) zoning district. The application includes a request for a building height of up to 55 feet. The applicant is seeking creation of vested property rights in accordance with Section 9-4-12 "Creation of Vested Rights," B.R.C. 1981. Case Manager: Brent Bean Applicant/ Owner: MCV Walnut Investments LLC ~ 5~ Staff Presentation Brent Bean, Senior Planner, presented the case to the board. Applicant Presentation Andy Bush, Owner, presented [he proposal. Jeff Dawson, Architect, presented the proposal. Public Hearing George Waldie, 1825 Walnut Street Steve Clifford, 1637 Pearl Street, #302 Diane Lorenz-Olsen, 1637 Pearl Street, #301 Mim Dixon, 1618 Spruce Street Jeff Borchardt, 2800 7"'Street Sarah Schupp, 1430 55`~ Street Tom Zimmerman, 2505 Walnut Street E.J. Meade, 1920 Mapleton Avenue John Hoeffler, 2088 Alpine Avenue Greg Franta, 3950 17`h Street John Spitzer, 2323 20`n Street Vicki Neighbor, 1540 Pine Street David Zessin, 1941 Pearl Street Board Discussion The Planning Board had limited discussion on the courtyard, streetscape, and massing: Courtyard The Planning Board expressed some concern about the scale of the courtyard and how it may or may not work as aquasi-public space. It was noted that the courtyard primarily benefits the residents and is an element that makes the entire building work. streetscape The Planning Board commented that the residential use works well along Walnut, especially with it being down to the ground. However, a buffer, perhaps a garden space to create the residential feel would be beneficial. Massin The Planning Board expressed comfort with the size and scale of the 4th story. It was stated the design is very good. Motion On a motion by W. Johnson, seconded by P. Shull, the Planning Board approved (6-0, A. Shoemaker absent) Site Review # LUR2007-00002 for the property located at 1655 Walnut, incorporating the staff memorandum dated June 14, 2007 as findings of fact, subject to the following conditions of approval: CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. The applicant shall be responsible for ensuring that the development shall be in compliance with all approved plans dated May 30, 2007 and on file in the city of Boulder Planning Department, except as modified by these conditions of approval. ~5~7 2. The applicant shall comply with all previous conditions contained in PUD #P-89-27 and the Development Agreement recorded at Film No. 1617, Reception No. 1031180 on March 6, 1990, except as may be modified by this approval. 3. Prior to a building permit application, the applicant shall submit a Technical Document Review application for the following items, subject to the approval of the City of Boulder Planning and Development Services Division: a. Final architectural plans, including materials and colors, to insure compliance with the intent of this approval and compatibility with the surrounding area. The architectural intent shown on the approved plans dated May 30, 2007 is acceptable. Planning staff will review plans to assure that the architectural intent is performed: 1. All residential units shall have a minimum 60 square foot private deck accessible from the unit shown on the final site development documents. 2. Mechanical equipment placed on the roof shall not exceed a height of 6' and shall be screened in accordance with city standards. 3. Additional landscaping shall be added along the fronts of the building between the sidewalks and patio areas, and at the entry gate to the courtyard. b. Final storm water plans and report in accordance with City of Boulder Design and Construction Standards for all storm water improvements. Drainage shall be constructed pee Section 7.10(C)(1)(c) of the City of Boulder Design and Construction Standards (DCS), an "n" value of 0.016 shall be used for all calculations involving street runoff. The Cross Section calculations in the Preliminary Stormwater Report - 1655 Walnut use a manning's "n" of 0.013. c. Final utility plans and report in accordance with City of Boulder Design and Construction Standards for all sewer, water, and street lighting improvements. 6. MATTERS FROM THE PLANNING BOARD, PLANNING DIRECTOR, AND CITY ATTORNEY The Planning Board reviewed the calendar and noted that First Presbyterian Church continued item will be scheduled on July 19 as well as the Capital Improvement Program and Washington School item. It was noted that the First Presbyterian Church item should be scheduled first. 7. DEBRIEF/AGENDA CHECK The Planning Board expressed concern about the lengthy meeting and applications that are already scheduled into October. The board commented on asking questions of staff prior to the meeting when possible. In the future, staff will only schedule three projects on one night. It was noted that a DVD on transit-oriented development is available for the Planning Board to review. 8. ADJOURNMENT The Planning Board adjourned the meeting at 12:43 a.m. APPROVED BY Bo Chai ~ 2~ o DA E ATTACHMENT C l~ I City of Boulder Vicinity Map , ~L_ R M -2 - R L -1 ~ rt ~ ~ _ , RH -5 r ~ RL_1 ; P i. - -r-._r Colo~-ado q v L* r,` _ _-y Subject Area ~ _ 970 28th St Fronta a g _ ~ i - E College J-~v ~ _ - I ~ _ ~ ~i _ ~ ~ R H - 3 Aclams Cr _ i i P ~t RH-S _ ~ tp _ _ i r- , _ ' ~ T-- II - ' > ; F = ~ RL-1 n r ' i t.._.-... I 1Subject rF AClYfJr~ A~? k' B T=1.... a„ mN , Location: 970 28fh St Frontage ~ ~ ~ Project Name: Landmark Lofts II C"itl~of ~"~~~i~ ~I Review Type: Site Review ~07~`i~c~' ? / The information depicted on this map is provided Review IV umber: LV p1j0~7-~006~ i as graphical representation only. The City of Boulder R !~L provides no warranty, expressed or implied, as to 1 inch equals 300 feet the accuracy and/or completeness of the information i Applicant: 970 28th Street -Phase Il, LLC i contained hereon. i' - - - f r ATTACHMENT D ~K c~~nin development April 7, 2008 Mr. ivlatt Dyroff West Paint Properties 18, LLLP 2033 11th Street, Suite 6 Boulder, CO 80302 Dear iv1r. Dyroff: As a neighboring property owner to our proposed Landmark Lofts Phase Ii site, we are notifying you of the results of our Shadow Analysis, and its solar impact on the roof of your adjacent property. "1•he Shadow Analysis (reference attached Sheet SDI5.1 Shadow Projections) shows that the majority of the solar shadow of our proposed buildings is within the allowable `'solar fence" established by the City of Boulder. Avery small portion o}.the shadows will have minimal impact on the roof of your existing buildings. This impact will be for only a f'ew hours of the day, during only a Icw days of the year in mic!-llecember through early January when days arc the shortest. City Staff has recommended approval of our Phase II project. If yon have any questions, please contact the Case Manager in the City of Boulder Planning and Development Services department, Mr. Charles herro, at (303) ~4}-d012- Further, please don't hesitate to call us with any questions. We have attctzzpted to reach you by phone, leaving voicemaiis and emails, but have been unsucccssfitl. Very truly yours, 97028r>;t S"fKI?F;T PHAST; II, LI,C James I',. Chapin Attachment: Sheet SD 15.1 Shadow Projections ce: Charles l~erro, City of I3oulder 1 `)19 14th Street, Suite 800 Roulcler, (ut~ 80302 ~ Te2 303.7.`i9.840U ! Pctx 303.447.ll50 ~~ww.cttanindevelopmerrt.com • - - ~ ~`J I. a r~~~- JT I ~ l}-,~ _ ~ i - T /I - ~ - - ~ ~ LAN~MAR ~ LOFTS I I ~ ~ I ~ I - - - - 1 - 131dg IA C 31a 16 .~~=1 ,1, 7 51d 2h II.I~ Eld 7F ~ I -_i - ~~L ~ . ~ i ~ IP I ~ - ~ f~i ~ - - r i ~ / -~L-I ~ ° ~',r ~ ~/,-I ~ ~~,i.~~ ~ ~chanin - - - - ~ - c ~ ~ i ..i_ ' .L `r I +1 ~S-i! _i ?r'w.' -k-=. ~ ~ y ` _ I I`, i~ Y ~ ' ~ J ~ i 1 `w~G J'f t / I ``r~ II ~ ~ r iY'4 k-~. I ~.-~-v. 1 4'i._ ~:F~ i .P,-_,~-._r->.~ ~ ~ ~v~!"~.. - ~ ~2'~~~- ~a.'ts'~'r I Ir' 4.,- k , a O x..~ r 'Y ' ~r ~ _ ; - ~ ' r' 'I- i4-=~ r^*--v 3, c J ~ Y i d I U z / E i~'' 7 ~c 1 5~ v.\ ~ 'i I f, x t,~ r ~J ^ ~,r ~.i~.N r l.`.~ ~ } \ . ~'I~~ 1.~~''- I 7 ~ F ~ ` LL ' ' r r ~ ~'I ~ ;I: r-r ~ I `j F , 1 1 I a7, f °i i ~ p I~~~ : , u~ H r I ~ j, ~ ~ I~~F .Z ~ ';i-7~-C-'"' e' ,C-- s ~z~ a-.--=~"G t.~...~~-r-i-~-'~ t ~ Y(- r /7 ~ j _ p~ - ~ ~ W I~` k-1 ~~~-~1"' ~.~i ~-fir _ ~I~_ T ~ 1;;_ r ~ ' a~~_sv 'i" ~ q~I Y . . I I ' l ~ . ~ i, - i ~ ( 1. y s , ~TS a I' I v ~ o ~ ~ ~b'G ~ ,yt ri ~ ,i, JJJ I ~ ~ ~ dll ~ . LANDMARK LOFTS ' ~~------~>-,.~,.__r_~_ ;,~;~1.~ { ~ ~n ; ~ , ~ 1`ucglSrG ~ r' ~Li5~~2 I' _PI1C15~~~--- L~.J - I ~~L IG$ it I I` ~3~ •:S,~~a i _ ~ y 4'...I~ I n' 5375 5 ~ _ ~ _ ..p ~M~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ' 1nn ~ (rte e G _ i ~ r ~ m v Np ? I ; °~~.-R" J.. II ~ o ~ ~i~ SUF fiAiE ~ I n B c _,t~ -~,r"-"`'I ~ _ - 1 - I a' .n ( it ~ _ 1~or~~dBlD_G 3ocoa I ~ II,~"-~iC I ~ I i - - ~ - I mud noduj I~~~ III` , , Mul p ~ - T ~ . ~ Z - - Y a ,dr~„ uw., ~ S D 15.1 SHADOW PROJECTIONS 1.4, I -zo , ...~.........._......._..---..,..,.._.r_............_. ~hanin development April 7, 2008 Mr. Pohaku Hui Pohaku Hui, LLP 2110 Meadow Avenue Boulder, CO 80304 Dear Mr. Hui: As a neighboring property owner to our proposed Landmark Lofis Phase II site, we are notifying you of the results of our Shadow Analysis, and its solar impact on the roof of your adjacent property. The Shadow Analysis (reference attached Sheet SD 15.1 Shadow Projections) shows that the solar impact of our proposed buildings is within the allowable "solar fence" established by the City of Boulder, and will therefore have no impact on the roof of your existing buildings. City Staff has recommended approval of our Phase II project. If you have any questions, please contact the Case Manager in the City of Boulder Planning and Development Services department, Mr. Charles Ferro, at (303) 441-4012. Further, please don't hesitate to call us with any questions. Vely truly yours, 970 28'n STREE -PHASE II, LLC Jam s F.. Chapin Attachment: Sheet SDI5.2 Shadow Projections ce: Charles Ferro, City of Boulder 1919 19th Street, Spite 300 I Boulder, CO 80302 ~ Tel 303.939.8400 ~ Fas 303.447.1150 www.chanindevelopment. tour ' _ r- r \ ...J~ 53'J7- _ ~ ~ ~ _ ~ /I „ l -i v ~ I. ~ ~ ~ ~ _ _ LAND~AR LOFTS i I I U .h I I r L._ ~ SI n r, 1~ I~ ~ ~ III ~ ~ ~ I' 1 ~ Bld ~ ~ ~ ~ BId9?a ~ Itlg 28 ~ ~ ~ _ -~~ydb J ~ ~ PP `9~' V ~ 7,v: ~ ~ it ~;~n 1" A~ r~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ° Y. / ~ ~ ~ti"~ ~ u iii 1~ ~ ~ b ~ 1 L p ~ ~l ~ T\ x J r~' I ~~y o ~ Q e ~\~~<tl l d-~i,`, T!~~ ~ t p~ , \ ; . t It ' ~~F\\ , , ~ ,~7~r . - a i ~'a ~ ; } r ~ - , _ _ , T ~r 'l~Y ````w"` i r \ y i r' ~ \ ' _ I~'.. 53 O 6 z . i ~ , i y\\ ~L \ ~.u~ ) ~ \ fVa ~ • ~ ~ 33 ~3 ~ 1 ~ I~~ 4 (oLB~ ~4 ' I LAND..MARK LOFTS - ~ ~ l a~m~~I~ k.. i ~ it y~ r ? I ~ ~ , $~6 I ~,E}ag52-~~-- - - ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~,ey, i ..r BLDG 5 a c ¢ b ' i, 13 r r'- 1i5 L~P GJ I m ~ J~~4 ~ '"•I l ~ Im ~ I I~~ ee o Imo,--~= I ° ~ ~ ~ d m r, . ~ . ~ ~I ~ I `_1L ~ ~ ©no~ BIDG 3 oeou 3NVV~ o ~ I ~ ~ ~ I _ - a a. _ I _ ~ I ~'i 3 I ~ [ ~ ~ doeeada edenuad-. ~'.y"• _ I d ~ ~ I .a.,;~ ,y?..~ ~leae}rte ru;.~ _ ~ i_ § I ~ ~ ~ t- - =1-f - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ - ~ ~.f z L-- - _ _ _ I' . _ lei..,, I,.. ~ _ r ' ~ ,oa rvo. e..we.. $ SHADOW PROJECTLONS ~Q ~ 5• JI' Landmark Lofts II Site Review Submittal Written Statement 3-20-08 Site Review Application The site is owned by 970 28'" Street -Phase II, LLC. Landmark Lofrs II is a continuation of Landmark Lofrs I which is currently under construction. Phase II is meant to compliment Phase I with similar architecture, market demographics, location, etc. The objective of the project is to develop and build a high density residential project with a small mixed use retail component. The proposed project will contain 129 for sale condominium units for a total residential area of 112,054 square feet and retail space totaling 1,900 square feet. These square footages will be contained in five buildings above grade and attached below grade with two separate parking structures. All related sketches, renderings, and elevations are included in this submittal package. The applicant anticipates applying for building permits sometime during the summer of 2009, breaking ground on the first buildings in the first quarter of 2010 with anticipated total build out for the project occurring sometime in 2011. The project will be self-contained and will not require any City of Boulder maintenance. A Home Owners Association will be established to care for, and maintain any related public areas for the project. The Property In August of 2005 Chanin Development, Inc purchased the property through a subsidiary company named 970 28`" St. -Phase 2, LLC. Jim Chanin is the General Partner for this company. The purpose of the purchase is to raze the existing structures and redevelop the parcel as ahigh-density mixed use project in keeping with the RH-3 rezoning of the area. The property is 2.31 acres and is located on 28`" St frontage Rd., and Euclid Avenue directly west to the University of Colorado. The property address is 970 28'" St. The rectangular shaped parcel was rezoned in September 2004 to RH-3 residential with the intention of encouraging redevelopment of the site with a combination of residential and retail creating a more urban, useable, and revitalized entrance to the City of Boulder. Concept Plan Review On June 14, 2007 the Concept Review was presented to the Planning Board by the applicant. The board had comments on the plan, and those comments are attached to this submittal document. The general consensus of the Board was favorable for the site plan, with some specific suggestions. Enclosed with this submittal are the new project drawings and site plans. The applicant has redesigned the project in order to meet the comments and requirements of the planning staff and the Planning Board Members. Landmark Lofts II Site Review Submittal Written Statement Page 2 Changes to Site Plan/Responses to Concept Plan Comments The Board had numerous questions as outlined in the minutes of the June 14, 2007 meeting. With the more specific site review requirements, we have detailed the Euclid Avenue extension as a residential urban "main street" with the contemporary brownstones with shops and a street lawn facing South. We have added this same concept to the North side fronting on the multi-modal comdor and fire lane. The open space entry point from 28`h Street has been enhanced by providing atwo-story open link from the plaza to the central open space running East/West through the center of the site. The parking garage entrance has been moved south of the multi-modal corridor eliminating any conflict. The traffic study indicates that the trips per day from the parking structure are very low due to the student population vs. other modes of transportation. The concept of the Euclid Avenue extension is changed to accommodate parallel parking for Phase II, as well as, the church site creating an urban residential street frontage with the Brownstones fronting on a tree lawn. This along with raised and textured cross walks will provide for traffic calming. The open space courtyards have been simplified and made less specific as far as programmed usage per the Planning Board's comments. The Project The project consists of five visually separate condominium buildings totaling 129 residential units with a retail segment on the southwest corner. The units will range in size from one bedroom/one bath, 516 square foot units to a three bedroom/three bath, 2,000 square foot unit. On-site affordable units and cash-in-lieu will be provided in order to comply with the city of Boulder's affordable housing program. Sub-grade parking is provided, with additional surface parking provided along the north side of Euclid. The project has been designed to meet most of the new RH-3 code with the following requested exceptions/variances: 1. A 6.6% parking reduction due to the projects close proximity to public transportation, pedestrian bike routes and infrastructure and the 29`h Street and Arapahoe Village retail areas. At-grade and below grade bicycle storage areas area provided. 2. Building height to 55 feet and five stories. The additional height allows for combined garage access and increased open space, while maintaining the desired density. 3. Side yard setback variable for the Southern most building module. The setback from the south property is one foot horizontal for every two feet of vertical which would require a setback of 27.50 feet fora 55 foot high building. The proposed setback is 15 feet. The setback reduction Landmark Lofts II Site Review Submittal Written Statement Page 3 enhances the projects "main street" contemporary "Brownstone" aesthetic along the south side of Euclid and addresses planning board's comments from concept review. 4. A minor solar exception due to the extreme grade differential between the northeast corner of the project and the property further to the northeast. Further, and in keeping with what the developer believes is the intent of the new zoning district, the project has been designed to enhance the entrance to the City of Boulder. It is an architectural statement integrating landscape, quality housing, parking, retail, and usable open space into a place of lasting significance. The entire Landmark Lofts II team is comprised of local Boulder companies, and local Boulder residents. Knudson Gloss Architects has been engaged by Chanin Development to perform both the land planning and schematic design aspects of this project. They have taken into account the demographics of the potential residents and how they live. Pedestrian circulation, connectivity to its surroundings and adjacency to the University of Colorado are all reflected in the design of this project. The residents of Landmark Lofts II will have many amenities included in the project for their enjoyment. Outdoor features include beautifully landscaped courtyards with a shade structure, outdoor seating areas, pedestrian paths that connect to sidewalks, and the University of Colorado, the City of Boulder bike path network, the 28`h and Arapahoe shopping, the new 29`h Street shopping center, and public bus transportation throughout the city. Indoor features include a commons room, with audio/visual area, a full workout facility, and ameeting/conference room with wireless Internet access. An additional aspect of the project benefiting the residents of Landmark Lofts II, as well as, the other residents of this neighborhood is the retail component on the southwest corner. This component will most likely become a small grocery/deli shop benefiting local residents on a practical level, but will also act as a social gathering place for the pedestrians accessing the adjacent University of Colorado. With pedestrian underpasses to the north and south across the street, a high volume of local foot and bicycle traffic passes this corner. It is a natural location for a neighborhood oriented retail use. The developer believes this will enhance the livability of the project as well as the neighborhood, and will encourage and support pedestrian travel. Useable Open Space As referenced above, careful consideration has been given to useable open spaces and the overall enjoyment of the project by its residents. The project includes a large open area for residents to socialize passively and actively. Pedestrian traffic flows through the project have been planned with walkways providing connectivity throughout the entire project. Walkways are accented with areas of decorative concrete pavers. Outdoor features include large landscaped seating areas with shade structures, benches, tables, functional architectural lighting, landscaped planters/terracing, and activity areas. All of these amenities will be open and available for access by residents, and visitors of the project. Landmark Lofts II Site Review Submittal Written Statement Page 4 There is a unique opportunity for this project to meet the City of Boulder Transportation Demand Management (TDM) criteria. The University of Colorado and the newly improved underpass/tunnel which directs pedestrian traffic onto the University campus is directly south from Landmark Lofts II. Both the occupants of the project and the surrounding neighborhood will utilize this underpass to access the University. In order to encourage walking and bicycling modes of transportation, Landmark Lofts II has included a number of features. There are attached bicycle storage aeeas with each building. Also, the on-site walkways connect to City of Boulder sidewalks directing pedestrian traffic immediately into the underpass connection to the University. The retail component of the project will also encourage walking and riding bicycles as it will enhance the neighborhood feel. Foot traffic will be able to travel on all sides of the property as a multi-modal corridor has been included on the northern and eastern sides of the property; as well as, having public sidewalks on its southern and western sides. Landmark Lofts II development will plan to provide a permanent water quality pond or similar form of water quality treatment such as a stormceptor. The majority of the proposed parking for the project will be structured and therefore protected from storm water runoff. Typically, the majority of storm water pollutants that developments are concerned about come from open parking areas. With no open parking, the possibility of pollutants entering storm water on site is minimal. Water quality for the parking garages will be mitigated through the use of sand/oil interceptors to remove any pollutants from interior snowmelt, etc. All stone runoff on site will be from rooftops or landscape areas, both of which have a very limited potential for pollutants. Site runoff will be directed across landscape areas where possible, providing initial water quality treatment. Overall, the proposed redevelopment plan will greatly reduce the amount of stone water pollutants compared to the existing site conditions because all of the existing surface parking lots will be replaced with covered garages. The proposed project will utilize the existing water mains serving the existing site. There is currently an 8" main located in the 28th Street Frontage Road, and an 8" main located to the east in Adams Circle. A new 8" main is proposed along the existing alley on the south side of the site to provide a looped connection between Adams Circle and the 28th Street Frontage Road. All services for the site will be located along this main. Detailed demand calculations for fire and domestic flows are included in the Utility Report included with the project submittal. Sanitazy sewer service will be provided by extending the existing 8" sanitary main located in Adams Circle west down the alley on the south side of the site. Sewer load calculations are included in the Utility Report submitted as part of this package. All other utility services (gas, electric, telephone, cable TV, etc.) will be provided by the existing infrastructure on site or in the immediate vicinity. The intent of the pedestrian connections through the project is to promote a feeling of porosity, openness, and connectivity beyond the project. Accessibility standards will be met throughout the project including parking standazds, accessible routes, including five multi-stop elevators, and unit design. The buildings will meet the City of Boulder height regulations on a per building basis. The buildings step from west to east following the natural grade of the site, and are oriented around courtyards Landmark Lofts II Site Review Submittal Written Statement Page 5 arranged to maximize south exposure to the courtyards. Appropriately, 50% of the units face the front or side to these courtyards, the other 50% view outwards from the site. The private personal open space (patios and balconies) occur at the courtyard level, third floor level and fourth floor level which is stepped back. These balconies and patios do not stack up vertically for three stories as in a more typical three story condo or apartment project. The perception will be that there are fewer units than there actually are. The balconies are partly recessed and have solid guardrails to both prevent views of balcony "stuff' and to contain interior noise, as well as diminishing exterior noise infiltration. The project has been designed to present a pleasing visual massing both internally and externally. The facades of the buildings stagger as much as sixteen feet in the horizontal and the distance between building elements range from eighteen feet to as much as forty-nine feet in the courtyards. The building modules are articulated vertically by insets, level two and level three roof forms balconies, patios, stair towers, parapets, and elevator towers. The facades are further broken up by the use of different materials, colors, and plane breaks, both horizontally and vertically. The materials are all timeless and durable and will present a permanent quality image to the City and the projects inhabitants and visitors. The address is 970 28`x' Street Frontage Road. The total acreage of the parcel is 2.45 gross acres, 2.34 net. The zoning code does not speak to an anticipated or allowable density for the RH-3 zone. The stated objective of the RH-3 zone is "to allow higher residential densities in close proximity to a primary destination, a transit center, or a multi-modal corridor." The applicant agrees with the cities goals for the zone and believes that the governing factor related to density should not be a per acre number, but rather the quality of the project. In other words, it is not how dense you make it, but how you make it dense. Summary This is a challenging site, taken in conjunction with the adjacent Landmark Lofts I., the First Christian Church, the original Golden West Manor and its new addition. Great care has been taken to meet the site conditions and provide an excellent, livable high density residential project. The contemporary urban architectural response respects the design of the iconic First Christian Church and the first phase of Landmark Lofts, while maintaining a strong individual identity. The projects forms, materials and mixed use components are an appropriate response to the area as it transitions to a higher density urban environment. The project represents a major aesthetic improvement to Boulder's main north-south traffic comdor in and out of the downtown area, complimenting the existing roadway and building upgrades already in place and under construction. The project encourages walking and bicycling as modes of transportation, and enhances the sense of community within the neighborhood. Many on-site features and amenities are planned to enhance the owner's and their guest's enjoyment of the property. The project exceeds the open space requirements, meets all accessibility codes, and makes provisions for affordable housing units. We are very proud to make this site review submittal to the City of Boulder for Landmark Lofts II, and look forward to working with the city through the approval process. • ~ ATTACHMENT E SITE REVIEW CRITERIA CHECKLIST Section 9-2-14(h), B.R.C., 1981 (1) Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan: ~(A) The proposed site plan is consistent with the purposes and policies of the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan. The proposed development supports the following applicable BVCP goals and policies encouraging high density, mired use infill development: 1.21 Jobs: Housing Balar:ce 2.07 Design of MajorF.ntryways 2.I3 Support for Residential Neighborhoods. 2.17 Protection of Residential Neighborhoods Adjacent to Non-residential Zones 2.18 Mixture of Complementary Land Uses 2.19 Compatibility of Adjacent Larsd Uses 2.20 Design of Newly-Developing Areas 2.21 Mixed Use 2.22 Incentives for Mired Use 2.31 Commitment to a Walkable City 2.39 Sensitive InTll and Redevelopment 2.40 Physical Design for People 2.42 Enhanced Design for the Built Environment 6.10 Multimodal Development 6.13 Neighborhood Streets Connectivity 7.02 Supply of Affordable Housing 7.03 Permanently Affordable Housing 7.06 Mixture of Housing Types 7.09 Balancing Housing Supply with Employment Base ~~B) The proposed development shall not exceed the maximum density associated with the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan residential land use designation. Additionally, if the density of existing residential development within a three hundred- foot area surrounding the site is at or exceeds the density permitted in the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan, then the maximum density permitted on the site shall not exceed the lesser of: ~L(i) The density permitted in the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan, or, ~~(ii) The maximum number of units that could be placed on the site without waiving or varying any of the requirements of Chapter 9-8, "Intensity Standards," B.R.C. 1981. The RH-3 zone was a new zoning district created in 2004 to implement strategies, from Resolution 922 adopted by City Council at the culmination of the Jobs/Population study, to consider the potential,for higher housing densities on parcels adjoining the University of Colorado. In addition, RH-3 was established to meet the city goal of providing more affordable housing in the community. The intent of the RH-3 zoning district is to provide redevelopment opportunities for areas of the City in the process of changing to high-density residential uses and limited, pedestrian oriented neighborhood retail uses. RH-3 zoning is intended to serve areas in close proximity to either a primary destination or a transit center in order to maximize travel by foot, bicycle, bus or rail. The proposed development is within the density provided for by the BVCP(SS dwelling units per acre) as well and requires no modification to Section 9-8, "Intensity Standards." (C) The proposed development's success in meeting the broad range of BVCP policies considers the economic feasibility of implementation techniques required to meet other site review criteria. The proposed development considers the economic feasibility of implementation techniques required to meet other site review criteria and will not result in economic impacts to the City. Retail uses will benefit sales tax revenues within the City. (2) Site Design: Projects should preserve and enhance the community's unique sense of place through creative design that respects historic character, relationship to the natural environment, and its physical setting. Projects should utilize site design techniques which enhance the quality of the project. In determining whether this Subsection is met, the approving agency will consider the following factors: (A) Open Space: Open space, including, without limitation, parks, recreation areas, and playgrounds: (i) Useable open space is arranged to be accessible and functional; Open space is arranged to be accessible and function for al[ residents and will serve both active and passive recreational activities through the provision of recreational activities with a combination of open areas, formal and informal planting areas as well as communal, grade level open spaces. Each unit will also have a minimum of 60 square feet of private open space to further offset the proposed density. Buildings have been designed so that open space areas are easily accessible to all nnits. N/A (ii) Private open space is provided for each detached residential unit; Not applicable, the proposed development will not incorporate detached residential units. N/A (iii) The project provides for the preservation of or mitigation of adverse impacts to natural features, including, without limitation, healthy long-lived trees, significant plant communities, ground and surface water, wetlands, riparian areas, drainage areas, and species on the federal Endangered Species List, "Species of Special Concern in Boulder County" designated by Boulder County, or prairie dogs (Cynomys ludiovicianus) which is a species of local concern, and their habitat; There are no environmentally sensitive species or habitats on the site. The site is primarily paved currently. Although some mature trees will be removed, the proposed landscaping will be a great improvement over what exists today and will provide for a significant increase in tfte amount of trees on-site. ~[(iv) The open space provides a relief to the density, both within the project and from surrounding development; The proposed open space on-site provides a relief to the proposed project density for all residents and will serve both active and passive recreational activities with a combination of large open areas, formal and informal planting areas as well as commwial, grade level open spaces. Each unit will also have a minimum of 60 square feet ofprivate open space to further offset the proposed density. ~[(v) Open space designed for active recreational purposes is of a size that it will be functionally useable and located in a safe and convenient proximity to the uses to which it is meant to serve; Buildings have been designed so that open space areas me easily accessible to all units. A majority of the units will front open space areas, however, The proposed open space will serve both active and passive recreational activities with a combination of open areas, formal and informal planting areas, as well as communal, grade level open spaces. N/A (vi) The open space provides a buffer to protect sensitive environmental features and natural areas; and There are no environmentally sensitive species or habitats on the site. N/A (vii) If possible, open space is linked to an area-or city-wide system. Not applicable. There is no established area-wide or city-wide open space system in the area. (B) Open Space in Mixed Use Developments (Developments that contain a mix of residential and non-residential uses) (i) The open space provides for a balance of private and shared areas for the residential uses and common open space that is available for use by both the residential and non-residential uses that will meet the needs of the anticipated residents, occupants, tenants, and visitors of the property; and The proposed open space provides for a balance ofprivate and shared areas for the proposed residential uses and common open space that is available for use by both the residential and non-residential uses that will meet the needs of the anticipated residents, occupants, tenants, and visitors of the property through dedicated outdoor seating areas along 28`t' Street as well as courtyard space adjacent to the proposed commercial spaces on the southwest corner oft/te site. (ii) The open space provides active areas and passive areas that will meet the needs of the anticipated residents, occupants, tenants, and visitors of the property and are compatible with the surrounding area or an adopted plan for the area. The site will.rerve anticipated residents with a combination of open areas, formal atzd informal piatziing areas as well as commuttaf, grade level open space. The site will also maintain formal open space (outdoor patios) areas for the proposed commercial user. _~((C) Landscaping ~~(i) The project provides for aesthetic enhancement and a variety of plant and hard surface materials, and the selection of materials provides for a variety of colors and contrasts and the preservation or use of local native vegetation where appropriate; The proposed landscape and streetscape plans will be a significant improvement over what currently exists on-site and will provide for a variety of plant and hard surface materials. N/A (ii) Landscape design attempts to avoid, minimize, or mitigate impacts to important native species, plant communities of special concern, threatened and endangered species and habitat by integrating the existing natural environment into the project; Not applicable. There are no threatened and endangered species existing on- site. (iii) The project provides signiftcant amounts of plant material sized in excess of the landscaping requirements of Section 9-9-10, "Landscaping and Screening Standards" and Section 9-9-11,"streetscape Design Standards," B.R.C. 1981; and The proposed landscape and streetscape plans will contain appropriately sized materials in excess of applicable landscape requirements and will be verified at the time of Technical Document Review. ~[(iv) The setbacks, yards, and useable open space along public rights-of--way are landscaped to provide attractive streetscapes, to enhance architectural features, and to contribute to the development of an attractive site plan. The proposed landscape and streetscape plans will be a significant improvement over what currently exists on-site and will provide for a variety of plant and hard surface materials to provide a pleasant pedestrian environment. ~[(D) Circulation: Circulation, including, without limitation, the transportation system that serves the property, whether public or private and whether constructed by the developer or not: ~[(i) High speeds are discouraged or a physical separation between streets and the projectis provided; Vehicular traffic will not occur on the interior of the site with the exception of accesses to parking garages which meet all required site triangle distances. The design for Euclid will include tree islands to help discourage high speed traffic along Euclid. Additionally, on street parking will create a physical barrier between pedestrians and the sidewalk area. ~(ii) Potential conflicts with vehicles are minimized; Vehicular traffic will not occur on the interior of the site with the exception of accesses to parking garages which meet all required site triangle distances. As noted above, on street parking will create a physical barrier between pedestrians and the sidewalk area and help to slow traffic along Euclid. [(iii) Safe and convenient connections accessible to the public within the project and between the project and existing and proposed transportation systems are provided, including, without limitation, streets, bikeways, pedestrian ways and trails; Connections to transportation systems, streets, bikeways, pedestrian ways and trails are safe, convenient, and accessible through the site through a series of pedestrian paths as well as the designated bike path on the 28~~' Street frontage road. ~(iv) Alternatives to the automobile are promoted by incorporating site design techniques, land use patterns, and supporting infrastructure that supports and encourages walking, biking, and other alternatives to the single-occupant vehicle; Alternatives to the automobile are being promoted through a Transportation Demand Management Plan, installation of bike racks, as well as the provision of convenient pedestrian connections throughout the site to surrounding properties as well as to the pedestrian underpass connection underneath 28`x' Street. Additionally, a bus stop exists directly north of the property along the 28`x' Street frontage road. ~[(v) Where practical and beneficial, a significant shift away from single- occupant vehicle use to alternate modes is promoted through the use of travel demand management techniques; The proposed TDM will provide a shift away from single-occupant vehicle use to alternate modes with the installation of bike racks and the provision of Eco Passes to encourage alternate modes of transit. ~(vi) On-site facilities for external linkage are provided with other modes of transportation, where applicable; Visitor bike racks will be provided on site to encourage external pedestrian and bicycle linkages. [(vii) The amount of land devoted to the street system is minimized; and There is no significant street system within the project. Curb cuts have been minimized to provide only necessary access to underground parking garages. Euclid will remain a private driveway owned by the First Christian church, although it will be improved to include street trees and formalized on-street parking. (viii) The project is designed for the types of traffic expected, including, without limitation, automobiles, bicycles, and pedestrians, and provides safety, separation from living areas, and control of noise and exhaust. The site has been well-designed for the expected traffic needs. Based on the proximity of the site to CU and the pedestrian underpass, a great deal of pedestrian traffic is anticipated to continue through and around the site. Consideration has been given to pedestrian safety and the movement of pedestrians and bicyclists through the site through a network of pedestrian connections. The vehicular circulation patterns in the area arc not expected to change and living areas are well separated from Cuclid to reduce noise and exhaust from vehicles. Emergency service for both Phase I and II of Landmark Lofts will occur via the emergency access driveway on the north side of the site. ~(E) Parking ~[(i) The project incorporates into the design of parking areas measures to provide safety, convenience, and separation of pedestrian movements from vehicular movements; Parking areas will be contained in underground garages, however, parking garage accesses meet all required site triangle requirements and have been designed to reduce conflicts with pedestrian movements. ~[(ii) The desigl of parking areas makes efficient use of the land and uses the minimum amount of land necessary to meet the parking needs of the project; Parking areas will be contained in underground garages, making an efficient use of the property. [(iii) Parking areas and lighting are designed to reduce the visual impact on the project, adjacent properties, and adjacent streets; and Parking areas will be contained in underground garages and will have little to no visual impacts on the project, adjacent properties, and adjacent streets. ~[(iv) Parking areas utilize landscaping materials to provide shade in excess of the requirements in Subsection 9-9-6(d), "Parking Area Design S ~j ~ ~ Standards," and Section 9-9-12, "Parking Lot Landscaping Standards," B.R.C. 1981. Parking areas will be contained in underground garages and will not contain any landscaped areas. ~[(F) Building Design, Livability, and Relationship to the Existing or Proposed Surrounding Area ~[(i) The building height, mass, scale, orientation, and configuration are compatible with the existing character of the area or the character established by an adopted plan for the area; The proposed building scale and height are consistent with the purposes and objective with drove the recent shift to high density residential zoning for the area. The proposed massing creates a feeling of four distinct buildings along Euclid and two distinct buildings along 28~~' Street. Material types, door and fenestration detailing, balcony location, and building articulation also help to create more of an individualized unit feel, especially along the Euclid corridor. While building heights will reach 55 feet, fourth floor elements have been shifted toward the middle of the site to minimize solar impacts to the north and to maintain more of a three story appearance. Additionally, the applicant has configured the western portion of the site to allow the prow of the First Christian Church to remain the most prominent element along 28'x' Street and has provided architecture. ~[(ii) The height of buildings is in general proportion to the height of existing buildings and the proposed or projected heights of approved buildings or approved plans for the immediate area; The proposed building heaths are within the developing character of the area. Several four story, 55 foot tall building have recently been approved in the immediate area including Landmark Lofts, Phase I at 1000 28'x' Street as well as the Golden West Manor addition at 1055 Adams Circle (which fronts the 28"' Street Frontage). (iii) The orientation of buildings minimizes shadows on and blocking of views from adjacent properties; Fourth floor building elements have been shifted toward the middle of the site to minimize solar impacts to the north. As indicated by the applicanNs solar drawings, based on the section drawings included on sheet SD16, there appears to be instances where the actual building shadows encroach onto the walls of buildings in Phase I more than the solar fence would allow. A solar exception from Section 9-9-15, B.R.C., 1981 is required; however, per Section 9-9-15, B.R.C., 1981, solar area II is designed to protect rooftops to maximize solar gain of rooftop solar equipment. In this particular case, there will be no roof top encroachment of building shadows. ~[(iv) If the character of the area is identifiable, the project is made compatible by the appropriate use of color, materials, landscaping, signs, and lighting; Overall, there is no defined character in the area, however, Phase I of Landmark Lofts and the Golden West Manor addition will be contemporary structures incorporating a mixture of traditional and contemporary materials and architectural styling. The proposed development will also be a blend of contemporary materials and architectural styling and will be compatible with new and existing structures in the area. ~v) Buildings present an attractive streetscape, incorporate architectural and site design elements appropriate to a pedestrian scale, and provide for the safety and convenience of pedestrians; The building design and streetscape elements have been considered to maintain a pedestrian scale in the area and to provide for the safety and convenience of pedestrians by providing planting strips on both sides of the sidewalk along 28~h and by providing outdoor seating activities along 28'x' Street as well to help activate the sidewalk. An ample landscape setback has been provided along Euclid along with a building massing that establishes 4 distinct buildings. Additionally, porch location and material types help to further articulate the building facades to create a rhythm of individual unit modules. ~(vi) To the extent practical, the project provides public amenities and planned public facilities; No public facilities were required as a part of the proposed redevelopment, however, the proposed retail uses will serve the public, in particular, residents of the neighborhood. [(vii) For residential projects, the project assists the community in producing a variety of housing types, such as multi-family, townhouses, and detached single- familyunits as well as mixed lot sizes, number of bedrooms, and sizes of units; The proposed development contributes to the city-wide mix of high density attached housing as required by the zoning district. (viii) For residential projects, noise is minimized between units, between buildings, and from either on-site or off-site external sources through spacing, landscaping, and building materials; Per the applicant's written statement, sound transmission between units will be addressed through final wall, floor, ceiling assemblies at the building permit phase, however, per the applicant's written statement, a sound transmission coefficient of 50 or better will be provided. Additionally, exterior terraces and balconies are separated by two full stories vertically and by approximately thirty feet horizontally between buildings. Plantings in raised planters will also help to absorb reflected noise within the development. t . ~ ~ _ ~(ix) A lighting plan is provided which augments security, energy conservation, safety, and aesthetics; A detailed lighting plan demonstrating compliance with Section 9A-16, B.R.C.,1981 at the time of Technical Document Review. Security, energy conservation, safety, and aesthetics will be taken into account in the review of the outdoor /parking garage lighting plan. _ ~(x) The project incorporates the natural environment into the design and avoids, minimizes, or mitigates impacts to natural systems; The building site is within an existing urbanized area and will not impact any natural systems. (xi) Cut and fill are minimized on the site, the design of buildings conforms to the natural contours of the land, and the site design minimizes erosion, slope instability, landslide, mudflow or subsidence, and minimizes the potential threat to property caused by geological hazards. There is approximately 9 feet of fall on-site from west to east. Building modules will progress down the slope in response to the grade. Cut and fill is minimized by maintaining relatively uniform elevations between doors and the street level elevation. There is a severe grade differential to the north and to the west that has historically been accommodated by retaining walls. ~(G) Solar Siting and Construction: For the purpose of ensuring the maximum potential for utilization of solar energy in the city, all applicants for residential site reviews shall place streets, lots, open spaces, and buildings so as to maximize the potential for the use of solar energy in accordance with the following solar siting criteria: ~(i) Placement of Open Space and Streets: Open space areas are located wherever practical to protect buildings from shading by other buildings within the development or from buildings on adjacent properties. Topography and other natural features and constraints inay justify deviations from this criterion. In order to maximize open space and penetration of sunlight, building locations have been staggered with large south facing penetrations. Building heights also vary to allow maximum sunlight and have been located as far south on the site as possible to minimize shadows on adjacent buildings and open space. As noted in staff's memo, there is a significant topographical difference between the Phase II property and the surrounding properties, making compliance with the solar regulations somewhat difficult. ~[(ii) Lot Layout and Building Siting: Lots are oriented and buildings are sited in a way which maximizes the solar potential of each principal building. Lots are designed to facilitate siting a structure which is unshaded by other nearby structures. Wherever practical, buildings are sited close to the north lot line to increase yard space to the south for better owner control of shading. The site has been an existing subdivided lot in an urbanized area, therefore, lot orientation was predetermined, however, buildings have been sited as Sly a close as reasonably possible to the northern property line while allowing the 25 foot emergency access easement to remain unobstructed. Additionally large flat roof expanses will allow for rooftop solar systems. [(iii) Building Form: The shapes of buildings are designed to maximize utilization of solar energy. Buildings shall meet the solar access protection and solar siting requirements of Section 9-9-17, "Solar Access," B.R.C. 1981. Per the applicant's written statement, all flat roofs will be designed to accommodate unshaded solar collectors oriented within 30 degrees of true East-West. {iv) Landscaping: The shading effects of proposed landscaping on adjacent buildings are minimized. Landscaping has been proposed so it will not impact solar potential of adjacent buildings. N/A (H) Additional Criteria for Poles Above the Permitted Height: No site review application for a pole above the permitted height will be approved unless the approving agency finds all of the following: N/A (I) Land Use Intensity Modifications N/A (.17 Additional Criteria fnr Floor Area Ratio Increase for Buildings in the BR-I District ~[(K) Additional Criteria for Parking Reductions: The off-street parking requirements of Section 9-7-1, "Schedule of Fonn and Bulk Standards," B.R.C. 1981, maybe modified as follows: ~(i) Process: The city manager may grant a parking reduction not to exceed fifty percent of the required parking. The planning board or city council may grant a reduction exceeding fifty percent. The proposed parking reduction is 6.6% ~[(ii) Criteria: Upon submission of documentation by the applicant of how the project meets the following criteria, the approving agency may approve proposed modifications to the parking requirements of Section 9-7-1, "Schedule of Form and Bulk Standards," B.R.C. 1981, if it finds that: (a) For residential uses, the probable number of motor vehicles to be owned by occupants of and visitors to dwellings in the project will be adequately accommodated; The applicant has required a minor parking reduction of 6.6% or 11 parking spaces. Based on the amount of available street parking in the area, the site's proximity to CU and public transit opportunities, staff supports the proposed reduction. (b) The parking needs of any non-residential uses will be adequately accommodated through on-street parking oroff-street parking; Parking for non residential uses will be accommodated on-street along Euclid. Additional parking to serve accessory commercial uses in the RH-3 zone district is not required by the land use code. (c) A mix of residential with either office or retail uses is proposed, and the parking needs of all uses will be accommodated through shared parking; Not applicable. No on-site parking for retail is required in RH-3 or proposed. On-street parking will accommodate commercial needs. (d) If joint use of common parking areas is proposed, varying time periods of use will accommodate proposed parking needs; and Not applicable. No on-site parking for retail is required or proposed. (e) If the number ofoff-street parking spaces is reduced because of the nature of the occupancy, the applicant provides assurances that the nature of the occupancy will not change. The proposed parking reduction is not based on the nature of the occupancy. N/A (L) Additional Criteria for Off-Site Parking: The parking required under Section 9-9-6, "Parking Standards," B.R.C. 1981, maybe located on a separate lot if the following conditions are met: 9?~~ ~J~ ~ I j ATTACHMENT F Landmark Lofts Phase 2 . 970 28th Street, Boulder, Colorado r~V® T Transportation Oemand Management (TDM) Plan . v r as o Date: December 17, 2007 a * Revised March 18, 2008 Drexel, Barrell & Co. Project description: The Landmark Lofts project is a proposed high-density residential development consisting of approximately 132 units with 1,902 S.F. of ground level retail located at 970 28th Street in Boulder. The site is located east of 28th Street and south of East College Avenue. Due to close proximity to the University of Colorado, there is expected to be a significant student population and associated foot traffic, matching the surrounding area. For details of the site layout and proposed project amenities, etc., see the Site Planning documents submitted to the City of Boulder. TDM Plan Details Program Description Points Mana ement and Parkin Strate ies 1. Clustered Parking Parking spaces have been limited and on-site spaces are contained within 4 underground parking structures. This will provide more open space for bike and walking paths, as well as landscaping. 2. Parking Management Fewer parking spaces are provided than requried by City Code as student 8 residents are less likely to make automobile trips on a regular basis, or need a car in general due to the proximity to the University. Additionally, the F/HR Bus Route runs along the 28th Street Frontage Road on the west side of the site, and an official stop is located approximately 200 feet north of the site. 3. Site Maintenance Plan The property management company will provide full maintenance of the 12' multi- 3 modal path as well as internal sidewalks. This will include snow and ice removal in a timely manner. Details shall be provided as part of the Development Agreement. Facilities and Desi n 1. Bicycle Racks/Lockers The project proposal is to provide 113 bike parking spaces (17 are required) in a 3 mix of secured bike storage within the underground parking garages for residents and standard surface parking spaces for vistors. Additionally, there are storage lockers for residents located within the parking garages. 2. Bike Station Covered, secure bike parking/storage will be provided within the parking garages 6 for residents. 3. Onsite Amenities The project provides 1,902 S. F. of retail space and associated outdoor patio 3 areas. At this time it is unknown exactly what retail buisnesses will occupy these spaces, but it is expected to be local services such as cafe, small convenience store, or other shops to be utilized by local residents. These sort of services will reduce the need for residents to get in a car and travel into town. Additionally, due to the proximity to the University, the site is ideally situated to allow residents to access a wide variety of services within a short walk or bus ride. 4. Site Lighting Site lighting shall be provided along both the internal sidewalks and the 12' multi- 3 modal path to create a safe environment for pedestrian travel at night. 5. Commuter Information The project will provide a place for RTD Bus Maps, GO Boulder Maps, and 4 Kiosk associated local travel info to be distributed in a visible location. H:\E5573\Drainage\E5713TDM PLAN.xIs,EXISTING OS to access drive 3/19/200811:33 AM 6. Traveler Friendly Site The Landmark Lofts Phase 2 site is ideally located within the Cily of Boulder for 5 Design easy access to the University of Colorado and the City's multi-modal system. The overall site design will compliment the City system, providing a new multi-modal path to remove pedestrians from a vehicle travel corridor and provide a more direct connection to the 28th Street underpass. Bike racks and internal sidewalks will be plentiful in order to allow easy pedestrian movement and access anywhere on site. All vehicle parking is within underground garages, removing that element from the pedestrian experience on site. 7. Protected Walk/Bike A multi-modal 12' wide path for pedestrians and bikes to travel will be constructed 4 Corridors along the east and north sides of the site. This path will connect the northwest corner of Adams Circle with the Frontage Road just south of underpass under 28th Street that accesses the University. Currently, a large number of pedestrians and bikes are utilizing the existing alley south of the site to access the underpass. With no existing sidewalks the pedestrians/bikes are currently in direct conflict with the vehicular traffic also using the alley. The proposed 12' path through the site will provide a safe corridor completely seperate from vehicle traffic. Marketing Strategies 1. Bus Riders Guide The property management company will provide a bus riders guide in a central 2 location for new residents, especially new students in the fall, to reference. 2. Bicycle Riders Guide The property management company will provde a guide to residents that provides 1 pertinent information on bike storage, rack location on site, and nearby bike path locations. 3. Transportation Options The applicant will provide a display for brochures, bus maps, bike maps, and othe 2 Marketing associated materials to be available for residents to review, with emphasis at the time of year when new students are moving in. 4. Special Events The property management company/homeowners association will investigate the 3 demand for hosting a "bike tour" of the campus and surrounding areas once a year for new residents. This would involve contacting a local bike shop to see if they would be willing to host such an event, and providing flyers/advertisement for the event on the property. Currently there is interest from local shops to provide this type of service, and if there is enough resident interest to justify the event, a program like this will help encourage new residents to ride a bike instead of drive. 5. Survey A once a year survey of the residents will be administered by the property 2 management company to collect information on residents transportation habits. The survey template shall be provided by the City and results will be provided to the City. This information can be used by the City in its analysis of overall travel habits in the City of Boulder to help determine what TDM programs are the most effective. Incentive Strategies H:\E5573\DrainagelE5713TDM PLAN.xIS,EXISTING OS to access drive 3/19/2008 11:33 AM 2. Neighborhood Eco Eco Passes will be provided to the residents of the development through the 8 Passes home owners association. Due to the fact that a large percentage of residents may be students and will receive passes through the University, the exact details of the Eco Pass program shall be determined through additional discussions with City staff and RTD. The owner would like to limit the impacts of residents being forced to pay fees for two passes (through home owner's fees and University fees) and will work with the City and RTD on this issue throughout the development process. If a large percentage of the residents have a bus pass through the University or employer, the site manager may also choose to provide individual bus passes to the remaining residents instead of purchasing for the entire deelopment, if that is a more cost effective solution. A financial guarantee for the first 3-years after the certificate of occupancy covering the required Eco- Pass costs for all the residents shall be provided prior to building permit. . ;Grand,Total- 67 H:\E5573\Drainage\E5713TDM PLAN.xk,EXISTING OS b access Mive 3/19/2008 11:33 AM n ATTACHMENT ~ Charles Ferro -Landmark lofts 11 ~w~~ F~ ~ , ~m,.~~~u~„ , ._ri._~ . _ . .r w. _ ~ From: Dou Koplen To: Date: 10/18/2007 11:35 AM Subject: Landmark lofts 11 Sir: I am adamantly opposed to five, five story monsters on 28th. I am appalled that you would even consider such a proposal. Why should some developer be handed this gift? If they bought the property under the impression that they could get the city to waive its heighth and density regulations, not to mention the parking and set back requirements, then too bad for them. I don't know if this is silnply a ploy -asking for ridiculous things so that they can get more than they should by snaking that look like a reasonable compromise. This is an outrageous proposal. Don Koplen 2455 Topaz Drive Boulder Do You Yahoo!? Tired of Spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com film//(~~\Tlnrnmanfc anA Cottinae\farrrl\T nral Snttinac\Tamn\XPnmxxiica\d717dCA2f'(1R(1 '2/10/7(1(18 - (3/19/2008) Charles Ferro - R. Radocy/2860 Penn. Ave/Comments on Landmark Lofts From: Bob Radocy To: Charles Ferro <ferroc@bouldercolorado.gov> Date: 10/19/2007 8:47 AM Subject: R. Radocy/2860 Penn. Ave/Comments on Landmark Lofts Dear Mr.Ferro/City of Boulder, The variations requested for 970 28th St. Frontage/Landmark Lofts should be rejected completely due to their detrimental effect on the traffic and parking in the area. The East Ridge neighborhood (Penn. Ave. between the Frontage and 30th St.) is the closest single family residential area to this proposed development. Parking on this street is already almost non-existant during the day and into the evening due to spill over parking from the university and residents of Gold Run who do not have enough parking in their own complex. East Ridge has qualified for a special parking permit system but there are eight neighborhoods currently with this qualification and city funding will not support the parking zones I am told. My residence in particular as well as several others on the west end of the street have no drive ways so we must park on the street. This neighborhood is also under city surveillance for abuse of the residency codes. Five or more unrelated persons are living in many of these homes and each has a car. The city requirements of 1.5 parking spaces per 2 bedroom unit for this type of development is already inadequate. Lowering these requirements will make things even worse. Where exactly does the city think these people are going to park. It is totally naive of city officials to think that every single person in these units will not have a car! The extra residency cars will park on the nearest public streets (ie. Penn. Ave). Not Acceptable. Absolutely no threshold variations should be allowed for setback, height and especially the number of stories 3 - 5. The closest intersection to this development is 28th street and Colorado, which is our backyard. Does the city have any idea how many cars that they are going to add to this intersection making "U" turns around the island on Colorado Ave, when this development is complete? Has anyone even looked at the traffic patterns and considered the congestion? This development and its placement have not been well thought out. The city needs to consider the impact of these high density residential developments on existing neighborhoods, especially East Ridge. The city's decisions on high density residential development in the area are slowly but surely destroying out quality of life and the quality of the real estate on Penn. Ave. We have lived in this neighborhood since 1975. We raised a family here and we'd like to retire here but the city is making our lives more difficult every year. Please act in a reasonable manner and begin to respect the requests of ~ ~h g~ _C .'4~ (3/19/2008) Charles Ferro - R. Radocy/2860 Penn. Ave/Comments on Landmark Lofts Boulder neighbors, taxpayers and citizens who truly care about the city and have a right to live in a quality residential area that they have invested their lives in. Best Regards, Bob and Lesley Radocy 2860 Penn. Ave., Boulder, CO. 80303 303.443.2416 (w) 303.444.4720 PS. We'd like to be made aware of the final outcome of this application for variances. ~