5B - Site Review (LUR2008-00012) application for 1580 Canyon CITY OF BOULDER
PLANNING BOARD AGENDA ITEM
MEETING DATE: August 7, 2008
(Item Preparation Date: July 25, 2008)
AGENDA TITLF,: Public hearing and consideration of Site Review application
#LUR2008-00012,1580 Canyon. The proposal is for a new four-story, 55-foot tall, mixed-
use building of 28,693 square feet, which would include 14 residential units, on-street retail
space facing Canyon, and 18off-street parking spaces within a subterranean parking structure
and on the grade level of the structure. The development is proposed on a corner lot of
approximately 11,122 square feet zoned Downtown Five (DT-5). Modifications are required
to permit the height above 35-feet, an additional story above three-stories, and a 0 foot rear
yard setback, where 15 feet is the code standard. The applicant also requests vested rights
pursuant to Section 9-2-19, B.R.C. 1981.
Applicant/Property Owner: Brian C. Joseph
KEQUESTING DEPARTMENT:
Ruth McI•Ieyser, Acting Planning Director
Robert Ray, Land Use Review Manager
Karl Guiler, Planner
OBJECTIVE:
1. Hear applicant and staff presentations
2. I-Iold public hearing
3. Planning Board discussion
4. Planning Board take action to approve, approve with conditions, or deny
SUMMARY:
Proposal: SITE KEVIEW: Proposal to redevelop the existing Robb's
Music site adjacent to LiquorMart with a new mixed-use four-
storybuilding of 55 feet in height, to include l 4 residential
units, on-street retail and 18off-street parking spaces within a
subterranean parking structure, and at grade within the south
side of the structure. The following modifications, which can
be approved through Site Review if consistent with the criteria
of Section 9-2-14(h), B.R.C. 1981, are required:
• Height Modification to permit a building of SS feet, where
35 feet is the by-right limit.
• Modification to permit four stories, where three stories is
the by-right limit.
AGENDA ITEM # SB PAGE # 1
• Setback modification to permit a rear yard setback of 0 feet,
where 15 feet is required.
• Setback modification to permit a maximum front yard
landscape setback of 20 feet, where 15 feet is the
maximum.
• Waiver of Section 9-9-6(d)(3)(B), B.R.C. 1981, which
requires a turnaround space.
Project Name: 1580 Canyon
Location: 1580 Canyon Boulevard (southwest corner of Canyon &
16~' Street)
Size of Lot: 11,122 square feet
Zoning: DT-5 (Downtown 5)
Comprehensive Pian: Regional Business
NOTE: Staff is not recommending approval of the application based on
the Site Review criteria of Section 9-2-14(h), B.R.C. 1981. A detailed
discussion of how the project relates to those criteria is found in the
`ANALYSIS' section below.
The primary issue is that staff finds that the building, as designed, would
not be scaled appropriately to transition to the nearby Goss-Grove and
Chamberlain residential neighborhoods, nor to the existing commercial
development along Canyon Blvd., which are generally one, two, or three
stor when oin eastward on Canyon.
KEY ISSUES:
1. Is the proposal consistent with the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan
(BVCP)?
2. Is the proposal consistent with the Downtown Urban Design Guidelines?
3. Would the allowance for afour-story building at 55 feet be consistent with
the Site Review criteria?
4. Are the proposed modifications to setbacks consistent with the Site Review
criteria?
BACKGROUND:
Existing Site /Site Context
The quarter-acre (i.e., 11,122 square foot) site is located at the intersection of Canyon
Boulevard and 16~' Street adjacent to LiquorMart (see Attachment A). It is situated
at the eastern edge of a downtown area that has recently experienced change due to
the underlying zoning (i.e., DT-5), which allows the highest floor area of the
AGENDA ITEM # SB PAGE # 2
downtown zone districts; this change is evident in recent redevelopment along
Canyon. The site is also within the Central Area General Improvement District
(CAGID), which requires no commercial on-site parking, and is on the outer edge of
the DT •r_,oning.
Just across 16`" Street to the east in the less intense Transitional Business (BT-2) zone
are one to two level offices and a bank. The Goss-Grove residential neighborhood, a
potential local historic district, is situated within 200 feet to the southeast and the
Chamberlain locally-desilmated historic district is approximately 250 feet to the east.
The North Boulder Farmer's Ditch to the south defines the interface between the RH-
2 (Hig}1 Density Residential) of~Goss-Grove and DT-5 (Downtown) zoning.
Directly north of the site is the First Presbyterian Church, which is roughly 50 feet in
height. The north side of Canyon, which is within the DT-5 zoning district, contains
some of the most urban buildings in Boulder, most of which were constructed in
recent years, have four-stories and maximize the _55-foot height limit. To the west of
the site are properties also within the DT-5 zoning district that are generally of a
similar scale (e.g., one story) to the existing building on the site. Beyond these
buildings are Boulder's Central Park, Boulder Creek, and the city's municipal
buildings. The immediate context is shown on the graphic below.
.~Y ii ~ - _ _ - ~ Chamberlain Historic District ~
S
• ~ _ ~ ~
First Presbyterian Church ~
~
any°_ n B _ ~ ~
sua,recr sire , ~ ~ t
1~` _
Li uor Mari
9
~ ~ r
y w North Boulder Farmer's Dltch
~ ~
j - ~ ~ ~
~ ~
_ _ , e ~ ~ ~
1.-
Goss-Grove Neighbort,
food . b~~ ~ ~ ~ ~
- I i 1
_ ~ _ Grove St
r - _
1 D'T_ -'1•~_ _ o
~i c-~, _ ~
AGENDA ITEM # SB YAGE # 3
The site is generally flat and within walking distance to the Pearl Street pedestrian
mall, the central bus station, Central Park, and the Boulder Creek Path. The site is
adjacent to floociplain areas, but outside the regulatory floodplain. Vicws of the
Flatirons are prominent from this location.
Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP) Designation
The BVCP Land use designation for the site is Regional Business which, as
Boulder's downtown, contains major shopping facilities, offices, financial
institutions, and government facilities serving the entire Boulder Valley and
abutting communities. Residential uses are commonly integrated within these
areas. The desibmated land use changes to High Density Residential
immediately to the east of the site across 16`" Street and just south of the
nearby North Boulder Farmer's Ditch. 'T'his defines the area as transitivnal, as
noted above.
Project Description
The existing one-story building that previously contained Robb's Music is proposed
to be demolished and replaced with a f~~ur-story, 55-foot tall building that would be
similar in scale to those recently constructed buildings on the north side of Canyon
west of this area. The context is different, however, because it is surrounded by one-
storybuildings and the subject lot size of 11,122 square feet is notably less than those
lots developed with the comparable projects, which are in some cases closer to an acre
in size -some larger.
Proposed mixed-use building: The building would contain 3,161 square feet of retail
uses on the ground floor fronting on Canyon Blvd., and the three floors above would
consist of 14 dwelling units. The project would be served by a total of 18 parking
spaces that would be accessed from a ramp off of 16`'' Street. A small interior parking
area is proposed on the ground level that would provide three parking spaces for the
commercial use. This amount of parking would exceed the number of spaces required
for the project (technically, vnly 14 would be required based on one parking space per
residential unit in the DT-5 zoning district; commercial parking is not required in
CAGID). The applicant explored access from a shared access easement with
LiquorMart to the south; however, agreement with the neighbor was not reached.
Floor area: With a total floor area of 28,693 square feet, the total FAR (Floor Area
Ratio) of the building would be 2.58 FAR. DT-5 zoning permits a base FAR of 1.7,
plus a parking bonus of 0.5 for parking internal to the building and a residential bonus
of 0.5, totaling up to 2.7 FAR. Parking contained within the subterranean parking
garage would not be included within the calculation, since it would be completely
below grade, while parking on the enclosed ground floor would be included as part of
the 0.5 FAR bonus discussed above. The average dwelling unit size would be 1,450
square feet. A breakdown of the floor area is as follows:
- Residential: 20,308 square feet
- Commercial: 3,161 square feet
- Parking/storage: 5,224 square feet
AGENDA ITEM # SB PAGE # 4
- Total: 28,693 square feet (2.58 FAR)
Setbacks and height: As part of the Site Review, the applicant is requesting two
setback modifications: one is to permit a rear yard setback of 0 feet, where 15 feet is
required; and the other is to permit a maximum front yard landscape setback of 20
feet, where 15 feet is the maximum.
In addition to setback modifications, the applicant is also requesting a height
modification, which requires Planning Board review and decision, to permit a four-
stvry building of 55 feet in height, where the "by-right" standard is three-stories and
35-feet:
Although the general design of the building has changed, the modifications and
general scale of the building is similar to that reviewed by Planning Board during
Concept Plan review (Case #LUR2007-00033). Minutes from that meeting are found
in Attachment B.
ANALYSIS:
1. Is the proposal consistent with the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan
(BVCP)?
As a downtown infill project, the general aspects of its density, intensity, and
mixed land use would be consistent with the following policies:
• 2.04, Compact Land Use Pattern
• 2.26, Mixed Use and Higher Density Housing
• 2.28, Role of Central Area
The project, although within the downtown area, is at the edge of dvwntown where
sensitivity to existing development, especially residential development, must be
addressed. In this case, the project is close to the historic Chamberlain and Goss-
Grove neighborhoods, which were built to single-family scales. Staff finds that the
building as designed would not be scaled appropriately to transition to those
neighborhoods, nor to the existing commercial and residential development along
Canyon Blvd., which are generally one, two, or three story when going eastward on
Canyon. Thus, the project has been found inconsistent with the following policies
related to compatibility:
• 2.17, Protection of Residential Neighborhoods Adjacent to Non-residential
Zones.
~ 2.19, Compatibility of Adjacent Land Uses.
• 2.39, Sensitive Infill and Redevelopment.
• 2.42, Enhanced Design for the Built-Environment.
More specifically, policy 2.17, Protection of Residential Neighborhoods Adjacent to
Non-residential Zones, requires that "appropriate actions will be taken to ensure that
AGENDA ITEM # 5B PAGE # 5
the character and livability of established residential neighborhoods will not be
undermined by spill-over impacts from adjacent regional or community business
zones." Although the use of the site would be consistent with downtown land uses, its
scale would not be compatible with the scale of surrounding development and thus,
incompatible with the character of an established residential neighborhood -namely
Goss-Grove.
Although some level of transition is created by the adjacent Transitional Business
(BT-2) zoning, which has a lower FAR, the project would not be consistent with
policy 2.l 9, Compatibility of Adjacent Land Uses, which requires that `with
redevelopment, the transitional area should be within the zone of more intense use.'
As proposed, the level of intensity would effectively go from a building of 2.58 FAR,
4 stories, and 55-feet, to buildings of no more than 0.5 FAR, no greater than 3 stories
and 35-feet.
Policy 2.42, Enhanced Design for the Built-Environment, discusses the importance of
fitting a project into its context, as follows, "projects should become a coherent part
of the neighborhood in which they are placed. They should be preserved and
enhanced where the surroundings have a distinctive character. Where there is a
desire to improve the character of'the surroundings, a new character and positive
identity as established through area planning or a community involvement process
should be created for the area. Special attention will be given to protecting and
enhancing the quality of established residential areas that are adjacent to business
areas." Staff continues to find that the scale of the building should be reduced or its
design modified to appear less prominent, in order to more appropriately fit into the
inunediate context and become completely consistent with BVCP policies.
Lastly, the Planning Board should take note of policy 3.21, Canyon Boulevard
Cultural Corridor, which notes, "the city will encourage public and private projects
within the Canyon Boulevard Corridor to have an arts focus and to incorporate
public art." With a public plaza on the north side of the building, the applicant
should consider public art (e.g., sculpture) to be consistent with this policy.
Conclusion
Staff responses to all applicable policies are found in Attachment C. Overall, staff
concludes that the project would not be consistent with Policies 2.17, 2.19, 2.39, and
2.42 in the BVCP as discussed above and in the attachment. In order for Site Review
to be approved, it must be found per Section 9-2-14(h)(1}, B.R.C. 1981, that projects
are consistent with all aspects of the comprehensive plan.
2. Is the proposal consistent with the Downtown Urban Design Guidelines?
As the design of the building has changed since Concept Plan review, the comments
below are a reevaluation of the building relative to the Downtown Urban Design
Guidelines. Pictures of the Concept Plan version and new version are provided as
follows (please note that the scale and vantage points of the images do not match):
AGENDA ITEM # 5B PAGE # 6
_ r -
- -
_
II
. 1 I ~
~ k ~ ? ~
t.: l _ 1 ~o~
4 ,j, ~
Figure 1- Concept Plan design (2007)
~ ~ f
y
c -
~ - - I :..ems
~e 5~ : l"•.
i ~ ~ i 1,l I
I . w-
~~,.~~-fie. ~~e _ ...,...t
Figure Z- Site Review design (2008)
Staff has not found the proposal to be completely consistent with the guidelines,
although the applicant has made efforts to be more consistent with some. A
discussion of the most applicable guidelines follows:
• 2.4- Consider the Height, Mass, and Scale of Buildings -Staff's position on
the issue of scale has changed little since the Concept Plan review. This
guideline states, "For new structures that are significantly taller than adjacent
buildings, upper floors should beset back a minimum of 1 S feet from the front
AGENDA ITEM # SB PAGE # 7
facade to reduce the perceived height." As discussed above, staff finds that a
reduction of building mass and height at this location is important, since it is
necessary to appropriately transition the building intensity down to the
adjacent Transitional Business and High Density Residential zones to the east
and south, which have lower building scales.
Planning Board and staff have recommended that the applicant set the
building further from Canyon and reduce the size of the fourth floor to make it
less noticeable, and thus, consistent with this guideline. Since Concept Plan
review, the applicant has set the building back further (i.e., 7 feet; from 13 feet
to 20 feet) and altered the 4a' floor accordingly. Staff finds that the alterations
to the 4`h floor have effectively reduced its apparentness by meeting the 15
foot inset recommended by the guidelines; however, as noted in the Site
Review discussion below, the accentuated lower levels continue to create what
would appear as a large office building at the corner location.
As stated during the Concept Plan review, staff does not recommend a
building of 55 feet and four stories at this location, because of the transitional
aspects of the site. Staff continues to reconunend a shorter three-story
building that has its 3rd floor pulled in a minimum of 15 feet to meet the
intent of this guideline and result in a building that is more compatible with its
immediate surroundings. However, staff as well recognizes the progress made
on the 4'~ floor and finds that if the design of the building were made more
human-scaled and less institutional in appearance, the massing of the building
may appear more appropriate.
• 2.6- Create Pedestrian Interest at the Street Level -Staff found the Concept
Plan version of the building consistent with this guideline; however, staff is
concerned that with the loss of the previous architectural variation at and
above the street level, the level of pedestrian interest has been diminished.
The guideline suggests, "Combining building materials that can be visually
contrasted [a1soJ helps to achieve a sense of human scale." Where the
previous design appeared to be more human scaled, the current design appears
more monolithic. Staff has recommended more architectural variation, more
landscaping and additional entries to the building, or other means to meet the
intent of this guideline.
• 29-Maintain the Rhythm Established by the Repetition of the Traditiona125-
foot facade tividths -Staff finds that one of the advantages of the previous
design was its respect for smaller facade widths, which made the building
more human-scaled. The new design has single facade elements that exceed
30 feet. Staff finds that narrowed building elements and lesser repetition of
large building modules may improve the appearance of the building and
decrease its perceived mass.
• 2.12- Recognize the Special Character of the Area South of Canyon Boulevard
- This guideline emphasizes that buildings should be set back the greater of
either 78 feet from the centerline of the right-of--way, or 25 feet from the front
setback to achieve a desired "boulevard effect" along Canyon. Staff finds that
AGENDA ITEM # SB PAGE # 8
with the increased setback of 20 feet from the original 13 feet, and the
relocation of the west parking spaces to within the building, the project is
more in compliance with this guideline. The setback of 20 feet is consistent
with other approved buildings along Canyon Blvd. (see key issue #4 below).
Lastly, the guideline notes that the south side of Canyon should retain a more
"park-like character," rather than the more urban character recognized on the
north side of Canyon, in order to protect views. Development of this site
would affect, but not eliminate, views of the Flatirons. It could, however, set a
precedent for relatively large structures on the remaining developable sites
along the south side of Canyon, which could have greater impact on the
prominent views along Canyon. The guideline, however, does indicate there
is a "block by block" character, so assuming the Central Park and City campus
remained at current levels of development, it could be interpreted that the
proposed development maybe appropriate. The guideline is, otherwise, not
specific.
• 6.9- Maintain the Boulevard' Character of Canyon- a Single Row of Street
Trees nn Either Side of the Street, The Building Setback Line, and the Center
Planting Strip. -This guideline discusses the intended tree planting schemes
to realize the `boulevard effect' discussed above. It is questionable whether
this guideline could in fact be rnet, since mature tree plantings along Canyon
do not appear possible, because of the structured parking that is proposed up
to the front lot line impacting areas for future tree root systems. The plans
show the location of proposed tree trunks approximately two feet away from
where the parking garage is proposed. Staff finds that the parking garage
should be pulled back a minimum of IO feet to allow for adequate tree
plantings and root systems. This was an issue identified at time of Concept
Plan review.
Staff conclusion
Staff continues to have concerns that the proposed height and mass of the building at
the subject location, as enumerated above, would not be compatible with its
immediate surroundings. Further, staff is concerned that design changes to the
building since Concept Plan review have reduced the quality of the design and made
the project less consistent with the guidelines, namely guidelines 2.4, 2.6, 2.9, and
6.9.
Downtown Design Advisor~Board (DDAB) review
DDAB reviewed the project at its June 11, 2008 meeting. DDAB generally found that
the 4-story height, mass and scale of the building were appropriate for the subject site,
although two Board members felt that a three story building would be more
appropriately scaled for the current surroundings. The Board identified a "dull
seriousness" of the front facade, similar to staff
s concern about lacking pedestrian
interest, but disagreed that planters would be appropriate to increase the aesthetics
along the frontage, given the planters' potential to block access to retail glazing.
DDAB members generally agreed that the building was too complex in its variety of
materials, openings and massing elements and should be simplified. Minutes from the
DDAB meeting are found in Attachment F.
AGENDA ITEM # SB PAGE # 9
3. Would the allowance for afour-story building at 55 feet be consistent
with the Site Review criteria?
Planning Board's assessment of the Concept Plan version of the building was that it
was appropriately scaled given the perceived future intensification of development
along the Canyon corridor toward Twenty Ninth Street, although it was requested that
the proposed fourth floor either be made less apparent or removed (see Attachment
B). Although this perception maybe valid in the future following policy and zoning
changes along Canyon, staff s analysis is strictly tied to the intent of the current Site
Review criteria, which is to evaluate building mass and scale to ensure compatibility
with the "existing character of the area." Essentially, for the modifications to building
height and number of stories to be granted, the Planning Board would have to find
that the project is consistent with the Site Review criteria of Section 9-2-14(h), B.R.C.
1981. Staff's analysis is as follows:
Section 9-2-14(h)(2)(~, Building Design, B.R.C. 1981 -Site Review requires
that "the building height, mass, scale, orientation, and configuration are compatible
with tl:e existing character of the area." Staff finds that the building, although similar
to the recent development on the north side of Canyon, would not be entirely
consistent with the scale of development along the south side of Canyon and its
immediate surroundings. Staff has found that the recessing of the fourth floor and the
changes to the roof have made the floor less noticeable, as requested by Planning
Board, but the lower floors of the building have not been correspondingly changed
such that the massing is greatly reduced.
The Concept Plan version contained elements that appeared as two stories along
Canyon, with the third floor set back, and the only emphasized feature a building
module over the proposed entry. Overall, the lower floors of that design were found
to be more human-scaled with enhanced pedestrian interest. The current design has
been set back further than the previous design, but has emphasized modules
throughout its fa4ades that appear to accentuate the scale of the building and make it
more institutional and less human-scaled.
Staff remains committed to the concept that a building at this location at the edge of
downtown, and on a smaller sized lot, must appropriately transition to the lower
scaled areas to the east and south. Staff concludes that the current design does not
entirely respect this transition and, therefore, finds that the project would not be
entirely consistent with the BVCP policies that intend to "seek appropriate building
.scale and compatible character of new development or redevelopment" (Policy 2.13)
and "ensure compatibility, accessibility and appropriate transitions between land
uses that vary in intensity and scale" (Policy 2.19), as discussed in key issue #1
above. Compliance with the BVCP is required to meet the Site Review criteria.
Although there are other buildings constructed at or near 55 feet in height along
Canyon Boulevard, staff does not recommend a building of 55 feet and four stories at
this location, given the site's specific context as discussed above. Staff understands
the applicant's argument of the building's compatibility with the church feature across
the street being near 55 feet; however, that element is recessed nearly 50 feet into the
AGH;NDA ITE1~I # SI3 PAGE # 10
site and does not present a notable amount of mass along the streetscape. The fourth
floor of the subject building would be set back approximately 3S feet and would be a
wider building feature.
Other buildings of SS feet and four-stories have been approved in the downtown along
the north side of Canyon, because of their immediate urban context, their respect for
views, minimal impact to neighboring residential properties, and their compatibility
with other large buildings in their proximity. Staff concludes that the site specific
location dictates a more subdued building scale or, at minimum, a change to the
design that makes the building appear less massive.
-Section 9-2-14(h}(2), Site Design, B.R.C. 1981-Site Review requires that "open
space be accessible and.functional."The open space on the north side of the building
would be very accessible, but its functionality is questionable in part because it would
be in shade most of the time; but, more importantly, it has a design that creates the
potential to be stark and uninviting. Because of this tendency toward the stark and
uninviting, more could be done to improve the character of the space, such as
increasing the level of pedestrian interest along the streetscape with increased
variation and material changes on the building, adding more landscaping (e.g.,
ornamental trees and greenspace), creating more inviting seating areas, and providing
the opportunity for the growth of mature trees along Canyon, which would be
inhibited by the location of the proposed subterranean parking garage. Given the
intent to provide quality open space and create the desired "boulevard effect" along
Canyon (as discussed in the design guidelines), staff finds the allowance for mature
trees significant.
Staff has suggested that the applicant consider Guideline 6.6 of the Downtown Design
Guidelines, which discusses the creation of "outdoor rooms" and Guideline 6.13,
which recommends street furnishings that contribute to a unified appearance of
downtown developments. Public art, as noted in BVCP policy 3.21, Canyon
Boulevard Cultural Corridor, could also enhance the space.
Section 9-2-14(h)(2}(C}, Landscaping, B.R.C. 1981 -The plan indicates that the
Landscape and streetscape Design standards would be met. However, the plan does
not provide "significant" amounts of plant material sized in excess of those
requirements, as required by Site Review. There are areas around the building that
have the minimal amount of plantings, which could be greatly enhanced with mare
variety and significantly-sized plantings to make the streetscapes more attractive and
less stark.
The plan, which indicates subterranean parking up to the property line, also precludes
the possibility of mature tree plantings along Canyon, only providing a narrow space
for root systems, where the design guidelines aim to create a "boulevard effect" along
Canyon by setting buildings back from the streetscape and providing formal tree rows.
Additional plantings in the tree lawn would also create an improved buffer from
Canyon and add to the aesthetics of the north-facing open space.
Conclusion
Because the project does not provide the level of quality, in terms of quality of open
AGENDA ITEM # 5B PAGE # Ii
space and landscaping expected of Site Review projects, staff finds the project would
not meet the Site Review criteria related to open space and landscaping listed below:
• (Sec. 9-2-14(h)(2)(A)(i)- Open Space) Useable open space is arranged to be accessible
and
functional;
• [Sec. 9-2-14(h)(2)(C)(i)- Landscaping) The project provides significant amounts of
plant
material sized in excess of the landscaping requirements of Section 9-9-10, "Landscaping
and Screening Standards" and Section 9-9-I1, "StreetscapeDesign Standards,"B.R.C.
1981, and;
• [Sec. 9-2-14(h)(2)(C)(iv)- Landscaping) The setbacles, yards, and useable open space
along public rights-of--way are landscaped to provide attractive streetscapes, tv enhance
architectural features, and to contrihute to the development of an attractive site plan;
Further, unless there are further efforts to reduce the scale of the building and/or its
perception of scale, staff does not find the building design to be consistent with the
following criteria:
• Sec. 9-2-14(h)(2)(F)(i)- Building Design) 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, and;
• [Sec. 9-2-14(h)(2)(I')(ii)-Building Design) 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.
4. Are the proposed modifications to setbacks consistent with the Site
Review criteria?
Staff does not see any negative effects of the proposed rear setback. The
existing building is already located within that setback and siting the south
building wall further north would not necessarily make the building more
compatible with the neighborhood, nor would the space created by the setback
be useable proximate to the loading area of LiquorMart.
The proposed front setback is apppropriate, because it achieves the intent of
the Downtown Urban Design Guidelines, as discussed above, which
encourage greater setbacks along Canyon to achieve the "boulevard effect."
The proposed building setback would be 20 feet, which is consistent with
other buildings approved along the corridor as the following table indicates:
Buildin Location Setback from centerline Setback from front lot line
1095 Canyon 67 feet 27 feet
1155 Can on 70 feet 30 feet
1801 13` 60 feet 20 feet
1301 Can on 60 feet 20 feet
I S80 Can on 60 eet 20 eet
AGF,NDA ITEM # 5B PAGE # 12
Site Review requires that building orientation be "compatible with the existing
character of'the area" and that the orientation "minimizes shadows on and blocking of
views from adjacent properties" Staff find that these criteria can be made based on the
location of other buildings approved in the vicinity, as illustrated above, and also
since most shadows from the structure would fall into the publicrights-of--way around
the building and onto surface parking areas. Views of the Flatirons would be
obstructed from certain points, but not to an extent that is found unacceptable given
its urban context. Therefore; no aspects of the building location with the proposed
modifications have been found to be inconsistent with the criteria.
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 site and a sign posted on the property
for at least 10 days. All notice requirements of Section 9-4-10(g), B.R.C. 1981 have
been met. Staff has attached public comment received during the course of staff
review and has notified those who commented of the public hearing (see Attachment
G).
STAFF FINDINGS AND RF,COMMENDATION:
Planning staff finds that this request is inconsistent with the Site Review criteria,
predominantly, the following criteria listed below:
• [Sec. 9-2-14(h)(1)(A)- BVCP~ The proposed site plan is consistent with the purposes
and policies of the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan; Staff concludes the project
would not be consistent with Policies 2.17, 2.19, 2.39, and 2.42 related to neighborhood
compatibility and general design primarily because of the scale within a transition area.
• [Sec. 9
2-14(h)(2)(A)(i)- Open Space] Useable open space is array:ged to be accessible
and functional; Staff concludes that the open space on the north side of the building
would not be functional, because it would be in shade most of the time and has a design
that creates the potential to be stark and uninviting, with muiimal landscaping and lesser
potential of mature tree plantings due to the underground garage location.
• [Sec. 9-2-14(h)(2)(C)(i)-Landscaping] The project provides significant 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; Staff has found that the project would generally meet landscape
requirements, but would not provide landscaping in significant amounts and in excess of
standards.
• [Sec. 9-2-14(h)(2)(C)(iv)-Landscaping) The setbacks, yards, and useable open space
along public rights-of--way are landscaped to provide ath•active streetscapes, to enhance
architectural features, and to contribute to the development of an attractive site plan;
With only the minimum landscape standards met and the inhibiting nature of the
subterranean garage proposed up to the tree lawn area, the plan would not significantly
contribute to an attractive site plan, which is a primary goal of Site Review.
AGENDA ITEM # SB PAGE # 13
• jSec. 9-Z-14(h)(Z)(F)(i)- Building Design) The huilding height, mass, scale, orientation,
and confrguration are compatible with the existing character of the area or the
character established by an adopted plan for the area; Staff has concluded that although
the height, mass, and design take cues from recent development on the north side of
Canyon, it does not properly transition to the lower scales of the adjacent Transition
Business and High Density Residential zones that have lower FAR (Floor Area Ratio)
limits (i.e., 0.5 FAR) and have more subdued building scales and intensities.
• [Sec. 9-2-14(h)(2)(F)(ii)- Building Design) 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. Staff has found that most
buildings to the south and j ust east of the subject structure are of a lower stature and
generally, are less than the 35-foot height limit. Because the design of the building is
found to not successfully minimize the mass of a building of 55-feet, the height is not
found to be appropriate based on the current design.
Therefore, staff recommends that Planning Board deny Site Review #LUR2008-
00012incorporating this staff memorandum and the attached Site Review Criteria
Checklist (Attachment E) as findings of fact.
Approved By:
Ruth McHeyser, Acting Director
Planning Department
ATTACI-IMEN'I'S:
A. Vicinity Map.
B. August 23, 2007 Planning Board minutes.
C. Staff response to applicable BVCP policies.
D. Applicant's written statement and response to the Site Review criteria.
E. Staff response to the Site Review criteria.
F. June 11, 2008 DDAB minutes.
G. Public comment.
H. Proposed plans dated May 19, 2008.
S:IPLAN~PB-ITI;MSIMEMOS~ICG.1580 Canyon.SR.doc
AGENDA ITEM # SR PAGF, # 14
ATTACHMEN I' A
City of Boulder Vicinity Map
- ~ V~ ~
pT- 3~'~ _ - DT- Z~ ~ ~ _
~4 = ~ ~ rlESl,~_ ti
tt
4 ' ~
,
. _ atnu DT- ~2 ~ I Sub"ect Area
~ L. 1580 Canyon Blvd ,
~j~.-,~:-- ~ - -
DT- 5~~~, BT- 2-~ -
~ 11 - I 1 ' ~ -~it-p,t (=,1 1~1v v ~ .aL~l _
~
II
- `..i 1. ~ 1 , I , I 1
1 ~ ~N 1 1 .R
11u7 y~,1t_ ~ 1
P Grav_c_St
~,;1- , p-r' 1~~c ~ ~ W_L1J W~~ ~1.1LI_L_I - i
, - 1
" \ Q'ra'pahoe~A,y~~I
~I
~ I I I I I I ~ ~ I
- ~ ~~~111_1__ll
_l11 ~JJJ ~ R - ~ ~ ~ ~ , ~ . ~ subject
_1 ~ I
~ ~ ~
_ ~
Location: 1580 Canyon Blvd ,,,~,v
Project Name: 1580 Canyon Blvd ~ City o,. ~+'%j~
Review Type: Concept Plan Review Boulder '4j
8 Comment N ~ RT H The Into; mation depkaed rn tms map is provAed
a~ ®raphitzi' represerla:ron Cnly.: he City o! Boulder
Review Number: LUR2007-00033 prcr?~des nn wsranty, expressed orimp7iod, es to
1 inch equals 350 feet ''edrx"'racy ardla completeness rt the information
Applicant: Brian Joseph mrtaired hereon
AGENDA ITEM # SR PAGE # l5
ATTACHMENT B
Public hearing and consideration of Concept Plan Review and Comment application
#LUR2007-00033, 1580 Canyon. The proposal is for a new four-story, mixed-use building
at 55-feet, which would include 10 residential units totaling 21,158 square feet, 3,758 square
feet of on-street retail, and 21 off-street parking spaces within a subterranean parking
structure and at grade on the west side of the structure. The development is proposed on a
corner lot of approximately 11,122 square feet zoned Downtown Five (DT-5).
Applicant/Owner: Brian C. Joseph
Case Manager: Karl Guiler
Applicant/Owner Presentation
Brian Joseph, 175 Mistyvale Court, Boulder and Jeff Dawson, OZ Architecture
presented the project to the board.
Staff Presentation
K. Guiler presented the project and staff's key issues to the board.
A. Sopher asked if the applicant is pursuing an additional easement.
J. Dawson replied that one easement exists and said they are pursuing an additional
easement.
B. Holicky asked if bonuses are a possibility beyond current 0.5 FAR in the BT-2 zone.
K. Guiler replied that they are not a possibility in the BT-2 zone.
Public Hearing
Carol Kelly, 4824 Brandon Creek Drive, Boulder
Board Discussion
Canyon Corridor Redevelopment
A. Sopher noted that:
• Canyon Blvd. is the link between Boulder Canyon and transit connections to the
larger region including Foothills Parkway
• this is a highly underutilized corridor in the city
• the existence of historic structures needs to be recognized
• the walkability of Canyon Blvd. should be considered
• further development to the east will probably occur over time
• this is not a gateway site
• there is room for higher density and heiglrt in this zone
• the nature of landscaping along the corridor should be considered
• the nature of the connection of Canyon to 29°i Street moving east in relation to
historic structures should be considered
AGENDA ITEM # SB PAGE # 16
R. Sosa noted that:
• this is a boulevard that is a walkable corridor, but varies greatly in character from
Pearl Street
• the south side represents a significant asset to Boulder
• the massing on the north side is acceptable, but may not be appropriate for the south
side
B. Holieky noted that:
• views are important and questioned how the impact of the views that are left on
Canyon can be maximized
• taller buildings along Canyon Blvd. are necessary to create a boulevard effect
W. Johnson noted that:
• the building is too massive and would not be in balance with the First Presbyterian
Church on the north side of Canyon Blvd.
• preserving the nearby trees is desirable
J. Dawson mentioned that Liquor Mart is not planning on further development in
conjunction with this project and expressed that the trees near the parking structure could
possibly be preserved.
P. Shull noted that:
• this is not necessarily a pleasant walking zone
• a level of greenness would help
• the church on the north side of Canyon is so canted back from the street edge that it
may effect the development on the south counterpart
• we are at a transition zone at this block
Mass and Scale
P. Shull
• liked the design
• suggested considering moving the mass to the southwest corner
• asked if the color of the 4`'' floor is darker for areason---the applicant responded that
they are open to changing colors and materials for reducing the impacts of having a
4~' floor
• in general does not support flat roof 4`~ floor solutions- wants articulation and
transparency of design
R. Sosa
• suggested that there may be opportunities to do something more creative on a smaller
scale
B. Holieky
• emphasized the importance of future planning of the corridor
• considered the height to be appropriate
• suggested a greater setback for the 4a' story in order to ease the transition to the south
where there is a house across the; ditch
AGENllA ITEM # 5B PAGE # 17
W. Johnson
• supported two story buildings and suggested that the 4~' story of this project be
eliminated
• noted that Liquor Mart property will most likely redevelop in the future
A. Sopher
• considered the mass and scale appropriate to this location
Access, Setbacks and Parkin
A. Sopher noted that:
• tuck under parking may not make sense in the future if LiquorMart redevelops
• a different method of providing parking should be explored
• parking, as shown, will not allow for the preservation of the existing trees along
Canyon
• an appropriate scale street needs to be created in regards to the mix of buildings
• there should be more setback along Canyon - 2U foot setback may be more
appropriate than the proposed 13 foot setback
W. Johnson, R. Sosa and P. Shull
• encouraged pursuing a southern easement for a better parking and access solution
P. Shull
• is open to parking reduction on site
W. Johnson
• asked if there is room to reduce the size of the parking structure to allow trees to
remain along the streetscape
B. Holicky suggested that:
• the front setback does not need to be more than 10 feet from where it is now
• an interesting roof may help
• the 4`t' floor could come forward nn the west elevation
• Canyon sidewalk is primary open space on site
The board generally supported the following setbacks:
• 0 setback on south is OK except for 4'~' floor
Trees
The board supported preserving the existing trees and agreed that street trees are essential.
Architectural Issues in relation to the Downtown Design Guidelines
The board supported working toward a good design and said the guidelines are not
necessarily appropriate for this site.
Uses
The board supported the proposed uses on the site.
AGENDA ITEM # 5B PAGE # l8
A. Sopher
• did not support residential use on 1 S` floor
R. Sosa
• supported having life on Canyon Blvd. in terms of uses '
Additional Comments
B. llolicky noted that the 16~' Street elevation arch and bay windows feel foreign along with
the Victorian railings.
P. Shull noted that a three story building is more supportable than a four story building.
Motion
No action is required on behalf of the Planning Board, public comment, staff; and Planning
Board comments will be documented for the applicant's use.
AGENDA 1TEM # 5B PAGE # 19
ATTACHMENT C
Applicable Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP) policies to the proposal
I.ZI Jobs: Housing Balance
Boulder is a major employment center, with more jobs than housing for people who work here.
This has resulted in both positive and negative impacts including economic prosperity,
significant in-commuting, and high demand on existing housing. The city will continue to be a
major employment center and will seek opportunities to improve the balance of jobs and
housing while maintaining a healthy economy. This will be accomplished by encouraging new
mixed use neighborhoods in areas close to where people work, encouraging transit-oriented
development in appropriate locations, preserving service commercial uses, converting industrial
uses to residential uses inappropriate locations, and mitigating the impacts of traffic congestion.
The project would be a mixed-use project adding ten additional residential units to the downtown
within easy walking distance to the R'I'D bus station, employment centers, and places of leisure. The
project would also be located along a corridor well-served by transit.
2.04 Compaet Lund Use Pattern
1'he city and county will, by implementing the comprehensive plan, ensure that development
will take place in an orderly fashion, take advantage of existing urban services, and avoid,
insofar as possible, patterns of leapfrog, noncontiguous, scattered development within the
Boulder Valley. The city prefers redevelopment and infill as compared to development in an
expanded service area in order to prevent urban sprawl and create a compact community.
The project is a prime example of infill development within the Downtown Five (DT-5) coning
district, which allows for higher intensity development, rather than more suburban, relatively
inefficient land development.
Z.17 Protection of
Residential Neighborhoods Adjacent to Non-residential Zones
The city and county will take appropriate actions to ensure that the character and livability of
established residential neighborhoods will not be undermined by spill-over impacts from
adjacent regional or community business zones or by incremental expansion of business
activities into residential areas. The city and county will protect residential neighborhoods from
intrusion of non-residential uses by protecting edges and regulating the impacts of these uses on
neighborhoods.
1580 Canyon is located in sensitive interface area between the more intense land use associated with
the downtown and the lower-scaled established character of nearby neighborhoods like Goss-Grove
and Chamberlain. To achieve the aims of this policy, the adjacent zoning district to the east is
transitional business (BT-2), which has a much lower development potential than DT-5. Although the
project appears to be within the allowable limits of the DT-5 district, its proposed scale and height
would not respect the area of transition and not be compatible with immediate surrounding
development.
2.1 B Mixture of Complementary Land Uses
The city and county will strongly encourage, consistent with other land use policies, a variety of
land uses in new developments. In existing neighborhoods, a mixture of land use types, housing
sizes and lot sizes may be possible if properly mitigated and respectful of neighborhood
character. Wherever land uses are mixed, careful design will be required in order to ensure
compatibility, accessibility and appropriate transitions between land uses that vary in intensity
and scale.
The project is appropriately designed to concentrate retail uses along the ground floor frontage of
AGENDA 1'TF,Nl # SB PAGE # 20
Canyon Boulevard, while providing access to the residential areas from the more subtle 16`" Street
side. Residential would be more insulated from the busy Canyon corridor by being situated on upper
levels.
2.19 Compatibility of Adjacent Land Uses
In order to avoid or minimize noise and visual conflicts between adjacent land uses that vary
widely in use, intensity or other characteristics, the city will use tools such as interface zones,
transitional areas, site and building design and cascading gradients of density in the design of
sub areas and zoning districts. With redevelopment, the transitional area should be within the
zone of more intense use.
Although the neighboring zoning district of BT-2 to the east is a transitional zone created to buffer the
higher urtensity land uses of downtown with the established single-family-scaled neighborhoods in the
vicinity, the project itself should respect this transitional aspect, given its close proximity to one and
two story office uses and single-family homes. The land uses proposed on the site are not
inappropriate; however, the building design should be altered to be less imposing in order to create a
step down in massing to those neighboring areas of lesser scale. As a redevelopment project, this
would meet the intent of this policy to create the transition within the zone of more intense use to
minimize the conflicts between the different land use intensities.
2.21 Mixed Use
The city will encourage well designed mixed use development that incorporates a substantial
amount of affordable housing in appropriate locations, including some commercial centers,
corridors and industrial areas. In reviewing mixed use projects, the city will consider impacts to
adjacent neighborhoods. (See Policies 5.0G, 5.07 and 6.10.)
The project contains an appropriate offering of mixed uses for the downtown, but at a scale that would
not be appropriate so close to buildings of significantly lesser scale. Further, the project would not
provide affordable housing near the downtown, but rather market-rate units that would take advantage
of Flatiron views.
2.26 Mixed Use and Higher Density Housing
The city will consider mixed use and higher density housing along certain multi-modal
corridors through an area planning process that engages the public and addresses issues such as
the urban design, street network, and compatibility with the surrounding area.
The project has not been found compatible with the surrounding area as discussed in other related
policies. However, the location is opportune for mixed-use and higher density housing along the well
used multi-model corridor of Canyon Boulevard. This aspect of the project should be retained, but at a
lesser more compatible scale to neighboring buildings and neighborhoods.
2.28 Role of Cent~•al Area
The central area will continue as the regional service center of the Boulder Valley for office,
retail, financial, governmental, medical, cultural and university activities. As such, it will remain
the primary activity center and focal point of the Boulder Valley. The central area includes
distinct, interrelated activity centers such as the Downtown Business District, University of
Colorado, Canyon Boulevard Cultural Corridor, and Boulder Valley Regional Center. A variety
of land uses surrounds these activity centers, and transportation alternatives provide direct
connections between them.
As a mixed-use project, 1580 Canyon would be consistent with the intentions of Boulder's downtown.
2.39 Sensitive Infill and Redevelopment
Overall, infill and redevelopment will be expected to provide significant benefits to the
AGENDA ITEM # 5B PACE # 21
community and the neighborhoods. The city will develop tools such as neighborhood design
guidelines to promote sensitive infill and redevelopment. The city will work with neighborhoods
to protect and enhance neighborhood character and livability.
The Downtown Urban Design Guidelines pertain to the subject project. Although the project is
consistent with many of these guidelines, there are several related to development along Canyon
Boulevard that are not respected. The guidelines are not specific to neighborhood compatibility, but
do aim to have buildings that arc similarly scaled to surrounding buildings. The proposed building
would be consistent with recent construction along the north side of Canyon, but when compared to
development along the south side of Canyon and in surrounding neighborhoods, it would appear over
scaled. As a project on the edge of downtown, a lesser massing and height would be more appropriate
for the building so as to respect the scale and character of the nearby Goss-Grove and Chamberlain
neighborhoods.
2.42 Enhanced Design fnr the Built-Environment
'Through its policies and programs, the city will encourage or require quality architecture and
urban design in private sector development that encourages alternative modes of transportation,
provides a livable environment and addresses the elements listed below.
a} The context.
Projects should become a coherent part of the neighborhood in which they are placed. They
should be preserved and enhanced where the surroundings have a distinctive character. Where
there is a desire to improve the character of the surroundings, a new character and positive
identity as established through area planning or a community involvement process should be
created for the area. Special attention will be given to protecting and enhancing the quality of
established residential areas that are adjacent to business areas.
The project is appropriately and attractively designed to maintain the character of downtown.
However, its location on the edge of downtowns requires the building to better respect the lower-scale
established residential and commercial area to its east and south. If the height and scale of the building
were decreased, it could be more compatible with its surrounding context, while also retaining its more
urban design and mixed use components.
b) The public realm.
Projects should relate positively to public streets, plazas, sidewalks and paths. Buildings and
landscaped areas-not parking lots-should present awell-designed face to the public realm,
should not block access to sunlight, and should be sensitive to important public view corridors.
'The ground floor is designed to relate well to the public streets and the applicant is proposing aplaza-
type design along Canyon. However, the setback of the front of the building does not take into account
the larger setback for Canyon to create a "boulevard effect" as described in the Downtown Urban
Design Guidelines. Also, a building at 55-feet along Canyon would block sunlight onto Canyon and
potentially affect the identified public view corridor of the Flatirons. Parking would also be visible
from Canyon on the project's west side, which is not within the intent of this policy.
c) Human scale.
Projects should provide pedestrian interest along streets, paths and public spaces.
Aside from the height and scale of the building, the design of the ground level facades of the building
are well designed and would provide for pedestrian interest along Canyon Boulevard.
AGENDA ITEM # SB PAGE # 22
d) Permeability.
Projects should provide multiple opportunities to walk from the street into projects, thus
presenting a street face that is permeable. Where appropriate, they should provide
opportunities for visual permeability into a site to create pedestrian interest.
For an urban project on a smaller site, the number of access points to the building is appropriate and
does not present a fagade that appears disconnected from the street. Rather, the building would relate
well to the public realm and would appear inviting.
e) On-site open spaces.
Projects should incorporate well designed functional open spaces with quality landscaping,
access to sunlight and places to sit comfortably. Where public parks or open spaces are not
within close proximity, shared open spaces for a variety of activities should also be provided
within developments.
The project does incorporate private open space for the use of its residents. In addition to individual
decks and patios, a second floor roof garden is proposed as a communal space. If designed well to
match the renderings, it could be a functional place with appropriate landscaping that will have notable
access to sunlight_ Although this space should be successful, it appears that the project would not
entirely meet the intent of the open space section of the Land Use Code, since above grade spaces can
only count for 25% of the required open space. This can be modified through Site Review, since the
Code allows for open space reductions in Downtown (D'I') districts when a project adequately provides
open space for building tenants or nearby public open spaces, like the pedestrian mall and Boulder
Creek.
f) Buildings.
Buildings should be designed with a cohesive design that is comfortable to the pedestrian, with
inviting entries that are visible from public rights of way.
See `Permeability' section above.
3.21 Canyon Boulevard Cultural Corridor see page 74]
The city will encourage public and private projects within the Canyon Boulevard Cultural
Corridor to Gave an arts focus and to incorporate public art.
At this time, the project does not anticipate the incorporation of art. However, it is something that is
encouraged with any project at the subject site, especially given that the site is a gateway to downtown.
6.10 Multimodal Development
The transportation system will accommodate the planned }and use pattern, which includes
higher densities and mixed use in the core area and activity centers, a variety of densities in the
fringe areas, compact community size, and the possibility of one or more city auto-free zones in
the future. Three intermodal centers will be developed or maintained in the downtown, the
Boulder Valley Regional Center, and on the university's main campus to anchor these three
activity centers to regional transit connections and to serve as hubs for connecting pedestrian,
bicycle and local transit to regional services.
1'he mixed-use project, which includes ten (10) residential units, would be located on Canyon
Boulevard, which is a multi-modal corridor with many transit opportunities. Residents on the site and
customers to the site would have immediate access to several bus lines, and would be within walking
distance to the RTD bus station downtown. Ahigh-density, mixed-use project is appropriate for the
AGENDA ITEM # SB PAGE # 23
subject location, so long as it is appropriately designed to transition to those areas outside the limits of
downtown.
7.02 Supply of
Affordable Housing
There is a growing concern about the availability of affordable housing for low and moderate
income families in the Boulder Valley. The city will continually monitor and evaluate its policies,
programs and regulations that affect land cost, development fees, and other associated
development costs to ensure that these costs are compatible with the overall goal of affordable
housing. Where appropriate, incentives and regulations will he employed to encourage
construction of affordable housing or to mitigate the costs of constructing and acquiring
permanently affordable housing. (See Policy 2.221ncentives for Mixed Use.)
The applicant does not anticipate the incorporation of affordable units into the subject building.
Requirements arc either to propose 20% of the units as permanently affordable or pay in lieu fees. In-
lieu fees are proposed in this case.
AGENDA ITE1~I # 5B PAGE # 24
ATTACIIMENT ll
RESPONSE TO COB COMMENTS - 1580 CANYON BOULEVARD
QZ ARCHiTECTURE®
1820 holsom Strcct
Boulder, Colorado 80302
phone 303.449.8900 fax 303.449.3886
a.
G
The following is a summary of the Planning Board Action Minutes, dated August 23r`~,
2007. The comment is summarized in BOLD type, the response follows. For mare
detailed information on the changes that have been made since Concept Plan, please see the
Narrative, Architectural, Landscape, and Civil llrawings.
PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT:
Phil Shull, Vice-Chair
Willa Johnson
Adrian Sopher
Richard Soya
Bill Holicky
PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT:
Elise Jones, Chair
Andrew Shoemaker
STAFF PRESENT:
Brent Bean, Senior Planner
Larry Donner, Fire Chief
David Gehr, Assistant City Attorney
Karl Guiler, Planner II
James Hewat, Historic Preservation Planner
Brian Holmes, Planner II (Zoning Administrator)
Heidi Joyce, Administration Supervisor
Meghan Lawson, Assistant. Zoning Administrator
Ruth McHeyser, Acting Planning Director
Maureen Rait, Public Works Director
Robert Ray, Land Use Review Manager
Greg Toll, Wildland Fire Management Chief
1580 Responses to Planning Board Comments from 08-23-07
1. Concern for Landscaping and the Boulevard
-Tress will be added to maintain the boulevard effect along Canyon. A 12' sidewalk
plaza will be incorporated to provide pedestrian circulation along Canyon.
Ci:\2006\16080 1580 CanyonlCity I'rocessl5ite Review\6_V?ritten Statement\158U,_Response to City Corxnnents.doc
0 E N V E A B D U L D E R i U M M 1 T C 0 U N T Y
Agenda ll8~q #~~_(~#~S__
2. A Concern for the mass of the building. Mass is necessary to create the
boulevard effect, but the fourth floor should not be over bearing.
-The building has incorporated a fourth floor to encourage the feel of the boulevard
effect, however this fourth floor has been significantly stepped back to reduce the feel
of the mass along Canyon Blvd. The fourth floor has been stepped back to reduce the
feel from the pedestrian level and the residential neighborhood to the south. The
fourth floor has significant articulation to minimize the mass including stepping back
the transperant glass elements of the fourth floor 10' miniTnum on the north and south
facades and the solid elements step back an additional S'.
3. Flat roof not supported.
-Curved roof elements have been added to the fourth floor to soften the roof/parapet
line, however these elements have been broken up to reduce the feel of the mass of
the fourth floor and accentuate the articulation of exterior elements.
4. Desire for transparency in materials.
-More glass has been incorporated, especially at the fourth floor level to create a
Ighter, more transparent feel for the building. Lighter colors will be utilized on the
upper floor making the building feel lighter.
5. Setbacks and parking
-The setback has been increased to 20' on the north side (canyon blvd) of the
building. Parking is eliminated on the west side. All at grade parking is located
within the building walls.
6. U' setback ok on South except for fourth floor
-The fourth floor steps back 10' to the nearest glass element and steps back an
additional 5' to the next element.
7. Bay windows and Victorian railings feel foreign on 16`h street.
-The architectural character of the building has been revised to a more
Contemporary design to help incorporate into the downtown
Architecture, yet still provide a residential feel to the neighborhood on
the south.
8. Access to the site.
-The applicant worked extensively with Liquor Mart to reach an agreement to share
the current access curb cut off of 16°i street. Various options were formally proposed
m~~~~~~_
by the applicant and not responded to by Liquor Mart,.and no alternative options
were provided in the Liquor Mart response. The only option to access the 1~8U
Canyon site was to create a new curb cut 20' north of the south property line as
indicated on the Site Development Plan.
NARRATIVE AND GENERAL CRITERIA - 1580 CANYON BOULEVARD
OZ ARCHITfCTURE®
1820 Folsom Street
Boulder, Colorado 80302
phone 303.449.8900 fax 303.449.3886
~a
(A) Statement of Current Ownership:
• l 580 Canyon Development I_LC
(B) Project Objectives: (See Site Review, Site Plans, and Architectural Drawings)
• `The project includes the demolition of the existing one-story Robb's Music building and
its accvmpanying parking lot. In their place, afour-story, apprvximately 2.5,000 square
foot mixed-use building with one level of below gnade parking. The below grade parking
will. have approximately 14 spaces for residential use only. The ground flvar of the
proposed building is to have a 3,000 square feet of retail space, and approximately 4
surface parking spaces for short term use. The second, third, and fourth floors are
proposed to have approximately 16 residential units ranging between 600 and mare than
2,000 square feet.
• In general, the architectural character of the new building will be in context with recent
development of Canyon Boulevard. The building will have a height of primarily 3 stories
along Canyon Boulevard. The fourth story steps back significantly on the north, east and
south ends of the building respectively. Major vertical accents on the east and north
facade will mark the building entries and celebrate significant pedestrian elements.
• The first fluor utilizes masonry at the pedestrian level to continue the downtown
boulevard feel. The residential uses utilize a combination of stucco to give a
distinguished feel from the retail space below. The fourth floor penthouses will utilize a
combination of light colored stucco and metal panel to give a lighter feel. The fourth
fluor penthouse volume will be a special material and shape accented with large glass
openings to take advantage of the spectacular views of the Flatirons and foothills.
(C) Approximate Construction Schedule:
• Construction Start: Fall 2008
• Construction Complete: Fall 2009
(D) Special Agreements, Conveyances, Restrictions or Covenants that will govern the tJse
and /or Maintenance of the Project:
• Home Owners Association
6:\2006\16080 1580 Canyon\City Process\Site Review\6 Written Statement11580_ Narrative.doc
0 E N Y E R 8 0 U l 0 E A i U M M I T C 0 U T Y
Ager~ Iler~~ # Inge
Introduction:
The 1580 Canyon site is generally bounded by Canyon Boulevard on the north and 16cn
Street on the east and is owned by 1580 Canyon Development, LLC. Liquor Mart is
southwest of the site and their parking lot extends from the Robb's music site to 15th
Street. The property is currently zoned DT-5, Downtown business, and is identified as
part of Area I in the BVCP. The property includes a one story retail building surrounded
by surface parking. The Liquor Mart service area is on the south side of the site. The
1580 Canyon site is about 2 blocks from Pearl Street, 2 blocks from the downtown transit
center, and 3 blocks from the civic center park and city library.
The property east of the project is zoned BT-2, Business Transitional, and includes a two
story office building with parking on the east side of the lot. All other surrounding
properties are zoned DT-5. The First Presbyterian Church is north of the site across
Canyon Boulevard and looks to be nearly 55' in height. A two story office building is
east of the site across 16th Street.
The general nature of the neighborhood is one that is largely light retail and office
without a clearly defined overall character. The applicant held a neighborhood meeting
prior to the Concept Review planning board hearing to discuss the proposal and get
feedback on the project approach. The comments received in this meeting and from the
City of Boulder Concept Review have been incorporated in this Site Review Submittal.
The existing site is relatively flat, gently sloping down at approximately 2% from the
northeast to the southwest. A number of mature trees exist along the streets surrounding
the property. The site has distant views northwest, west, and southwest to the foothills
and the nearby Flatirons.
REQUESTED MODIFICATIONS FROM THE LAND USE REGULATIONS
1. Section 9-7-1, B.R.C. 1981, Height Modification to permit a building of 55 feet,
where 35 feet is the zone limit.
2. Section 9-7-1, B.R.C. 1981, Modification to permit four-stories, where three stories is
the zone limit.
3. Section 9-7-1, B.R.C. 1981, Setback waiver to permit a rear yard.setback of 0 feet,
where 15 feet is required.
4. Possible Land Use Intensity Modification based on the amount of open space
proposed.
Acp~de Ilexa
General Criteria for Site Review:
I. Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan:
A. Consistency with the purposes and policies of the BVCP:
• The proposed site plan for 1580 Canyon Blvd. places amixed-use infill project
with a number of residential units into an underutilized site on the edge of the
downtown area. The project is an excellent example of sustainable, quality,
community-oriented design as defined in the BVCP.
• The 1580 Canyon site is within the Non-Historic Area. The guidelines state that
this area, "offers unique opportunities for design options and creation of variety in
building farms." The prvposal'respects the guidelines including the use of
traditional facade elements, floor to floor heights, human building scale,
pedestrian interest at the street level and an alternating rhythm of facade widths.
1580 Canyon will create a very walkable pedestrian environment along Canyon
Blvd and transition around the corner to a more residential landscape and
architectural treahnent.
• The residential portion of this mixed-use project accomplishes many of the city's
goals as outlined in the BVCP including the creation of compact "living places"
within the city, the reduction of traffic congestion, the promotion of walkable
neighborhoods, the reduction of all types of environmental pollution, the
development of energy efficient communities through clustered growth and the
provision of a variety of alternative unit types in proximity to shopping and
employment centers within the heart of the city.
• The character of the architecture and urban open space reinforce the Canyon
corridor allowing this new building to positively contribute to the downtown
business district's urban environment.
• While the scale and massing of the new building is reflective of the surrounding
development and recent construction along Canyon Boulevard, the building is
also designed with subtle features that make it uniquely its own.
• The proposal includes a retail space at the ground flour fronting on Canyon Blvd.
Similar to other buildings along Canyon this space will activate both the
pedestrian environment and animate the architecture of the facade. Sign bands,
canopies, an outdoor seating area, lighting and enhanced paving at the base of the
building will attract patrons and improve the Canyon streetscape.
• The development's proximity to the Downtown Boulder, the provision of bike
parking and the inclusion of residential uses in a commercial district promote
multi-modal transportation and help to limit traffic generation around the site.
B. Consistency with the density criteria:
• The proposed development will include 16 residential units. This residential
density is supported and actually promoted in the DT-5 zone where the City
grants a residential bonus of up to 1.0 FAR on site in addition to the 1.7 base
FAR. A maximum of 2.7 FAR, or 30,029 square feet, is allowed on this site
within this zone district. This proposal does not exceed this limit and provides
residential uses in over 50% of the building floor area.
II. Site Design:
~a?+da keaf 1! Pei
A & B. Open Space:
• A number of open space and park opportunities are available to the tenants and
residents of the 1580 Canyon development. Boulder Creek and its trail network
are just south of the 1580 Canyon site providing access to numerous open space
and recreation opportunities throughout Boulder. Boulder High, the Central Park,
the Municipal Campus, Swoboda Memorial Park, Canyon Park and Pearl are all
within approximately i/ mile from the site. Additional open space pockets are also
nearby.
• The useable open space is located along the north portion of the site adjacent to
the building and the private open space is on decks and balconies adjacent to each
residential unit. On the north side, a hardscape plaza with bike parking and street
trees will enhance the pedestrian experience along Canyon. The urban plaza
space will be wheelchair accessible.
• The east side of the site along the ROW will include a broad lawn and planters to
reinforce the residential character of this side of the project. Individual sidewalks
leading to walk up unit entries will add charm to this side of the building.
• The urban environment will be supplemented with new street trees and an
enhanced plaza area in front of the proposed retail, while sensitivity to the
adjacent residential area will be shown with planters along the 16a' Street cojridor.
• This project is in a previously developed urban area so there are no sensitive
environmental features or natural areas. We will use a swale along the east side
of the site to improve water quality running off the plaza.
• Those areas that function primarily as pedestrian ways, such as sidewalks along
the streets and access drives, are also considered as open space, because they
contribute to the livability of the neighborhood.
• The boulevard setbacks and street trees along Canyon will create a stately urban
street environment that will promote pedestrian traffic and activity.
C. Landscaping:
The plan shows an urban treatment of the walks and playas surrounding the
building. There will be enhanced paving at the main pedestrian entrance. We
propose to replace all the trees within the ROW and will use plants that are within
the City of Boulder's recommended street tree and plant material list. All plant
material, regardless of where located will be grouped according to their specific
water requirements (hydrozones).
• There are no native species currently on the site. We will not use any plants that
are deemed "nuisance" plants.
• The use of trees and shrubs on the 16a' street facade will soften the building from
the residential neighborhood.
D. Circulation:
• High speeds are discouraged by stop signs at the parking structure vehicular entry
and exit.
• The design team has worked to minimi:ce potential vehicle conflicts with
pedestrians. Vehicles entering and exiting the parking structure will do so from
16`t' Street. "I~his will minimize the interaction of vehicles and pedestrians on
Canyon and the plaza.
• The primary vehicular entrance to the residential parking structure below grade
will be off of 16th Street. Retail parking will be provided on the first floor within
the exterior walls.
• This mixed-use project promotes the use of alternative transportation by reserving
approximately 3/4 of the floor area for residential uses in the downtown business
district. These residents will not need to drive to entertainment, recreation,
shopping or even work, and will thereby reduce the number of daily travel
demands into and out of the downtown area.
• Transportation options are abundant for this project due to its location in
Downtown Boulder. The developer will provide bike racks for visitors and is
looking into bike lockers in the parking garages for owners. As a mixed-use
development, it is possible for people to live, work, shop and dine without using
their cars.
• Bike parking on site and improved walks and plazas along Canyon Boulevard that
lead to the R'I'D station west of the site create external linkages to other modes of
transportation. Proximity to Pearl Street discourages the need for single occupant
vehicle tz-ips.
• Pedestrians will access the site ftom both Canyon and 16th Street. The north side
of the building will be converted into an urban retail environment using enhanced
paving, lighting, signage, and landscaping to make this area a safe but exciting '
focal point within the.neighborhood. The paving, shade trees in grates, planters
and bike racks will help to reinforce an active retail theme at the base of the
building.
• Improvements on the north and east sides of the buildings to upgrade the ROW
will encourage local residents to walk and ride to destinations around the city.
Bicycle racks and benches will be conveniently located on the site.
• There are na additional streets provided on site as a part of this project.
• Vehicle traffic on the site is primarily located on the south east corner of the
:roperty where the parking entrance is proposed.
• Emergency vehicles currently have access to ail four sides of the building. If a
new building is proposed on the site to the south or west this access would be
down to three sides. All city construction standards will be met using applicable
city codes and design and construction standards for site and building demolition
and construction.
E. Parking:
• CAGID parking for commercial uses, although not required in the RB1-X zone, is
being provided on the surface level behind the retail space. Residential parking
will also be provided in the structure below grade and separated from public,
commercial parking to ensure the security and safety of the building residents.
Elevator access from each parking area is conveniently provided at each parking
area for access to the building uses above. By forcing vehicular traffic onto the
southwest corner we have created a safe pedestrian environment.
• Parking is housed below-grade beneath the building to make efficient use of the
land and to use as little of the site as possible for the parking needs of the
building.
• Parking areas on site are below grade or within building walls so no landscaping
is required to screen them.
F. Building design, livability and relationship to the existing or proposed
surrounding area:
• The building will be 55' maximum in height and is consistent with the height of
The First Presbyterian Church to the north, as well as other buildings along
Canyon in the DT-5 zone. The Canyon facade is set back 20' froze property line.
The massing and scale of the proposal are designed to establish a 3 story primary
building volume that steps back away from Canyon Blvd and the alley at higher
levels. This is also similar to existing buildings along Canyon.
• An architectural element is planned along the center of the facade along the 16a'
Street frontage. This element will announce the primary residential building entry
and help distinguish the residential entry from the primary retail entrance.
• The orientation of the building on the site is regulated by the DT-5 zone and sets
the building back from Canyon to respect the flow of traffic, maintain the R.O: W.
and maintain views to the Foothills along Canyon Blvd.
• The building will be compatible with the character of other buildings along
Canyon Boulevard through the use of masonry, stone, glass and stucco materials.
The forth floor has incorporated a high percentage of glass to create a lighter,
more transparent feel. Building colors will be similar to the existing buildings
along Canyon Boulevard with an emphasis on natural hues and material accents.
Landscaping will include large trees along Canyon to improve its boulevard-like
character.
• Signs and lighting will comply with the City of Boulder's requirements.
• The building combines a modulated facade with a regular street and ornamental
tree pattern, a small urban retail plaza„ and an outdoor seating area adjacent to the
residential entrance to' create an attractive pedestrian scaled streetscape. The
building module is articulated with lintels and articulated steel over the retail-
scaled windows. Pedestrian scaled materials at the street level will include brick,
and stone or concrete masonry units. Ample site lighting and textured concrete in
the plaza make for a safe and accessible pedestrian em~ironment.
• This project will include a number of different unit sizes ranging from less than
1,000 square feet to over 1,500 square feet. These units will be within walking
distance to shopping and employment opportunities in the Downtown Business
District.
• Each demising wall between units as well as the floors of the building will be
designed to minimize sound transmission between spaces. The use of insulated
glazing and masonry materials at the lower levels of the building will help
mitigate sound transmission through exterior walls from traffic and pedestrian
noise at the street. The upper floors will be set back away from the street to
provide additional noise reduction and to increase privacy.
• No lighting plan is available at this stage.
-58----~~~ a3
• This project is in an urban environment. No natural systems currently exist on
site. Street and ornamental trees, xeriscape plants in planters and vine screens are
currently the only elements of the natural environment proposed for the site's
landscaping.
• Since the project is located in an urban area with high densities, the appropriate
location for the parking structure is partially below grade. This location on site
will preserve Downtown Boulder's excellent pedestrian environment. Therefore,
the project requires excavation to extend down to one level below grade with the
parking entrance located at the southeast corner of the site. This location is ideal
due to the slope (see Civil). With careful consideration of the parking and
structural design, there will be no slope or instability issues.
• The first floor north facade has 54% transparency utilizing storefront system
glazing to open the retail space to the plaza.
G. Solar Siting and Construction:
• Solar access shall be maximized, and passive solar techniques incorporated into
the architectural design of the buildings. Since the site is on the south side of
Canyon there is limited impact to surrounding properties. A solar access study
will be completed during site review. Step backs at the third and fourth floor will
Limit the impact of the building on adjacent properties. The property is in Solar
Access Area III.
• Units along the southwest portion of the site are set back from the lot line to
capture the southern sun. In the event that a building is proposed to the
immediate south, this setback will help preserve the available natural light.
• Strong consideration was given to natural light access for units on the south side.
As a result the building has a significant setback for more than SU% of the Z"d and
3Td floor facades to allow natural sunlight to reach the unit interiors.
~~~cr~n~3 Eln~ Ik 5,~ f~~9e #
ATTACHMENT E
CRITERIA FUR REVIEW
No site review application shall be approved unless the approving agency finds that:
{1) Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan:
____(A) The proposed site plan is consistent with the purposes and policies of the Boulder
Valley Comprehensive Plan.
The Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP) has community design policies that
call for sensitive infill and neighborhood compatibility with redevelopment projects-
especially in areas where divergent land uses and/or intensities are proximate. They
are as follows:
• Policy 2.17, Protection of Residential Neighborhoods Adjacent to Non-
residential zones.
• Policy 2.18, Mixture of Complementary Land Uses.
• Policy 2.19, Compatibility of Adjacent Land Uses.
• Policy 2.21, Mixed Use.
• Policy 2.39, Sensitive Infill and Redevelopment.
• Policy 2.42, Enhanced Design for the Built Environment.
In summary, the policies seek to reduce the impacts that regional business areas
would have on existing residential neighborhoods by providing appropriate
transitions between areas of different land use andlor intensity (generally within the
zone of most intense use [Policy 2.18], and that infill projects become a coherent part
of the neighborhoods in which they are placed with `special attention given to
protecting and enhancing the quality of established residential areas that are adjacent
to business areas." [Policy 2.42]
The project, although within the downtown area, is at the edge of downtown where
sensitivity to existing development, especially residential development, must be
addressed. In this case, the project is close to the historic Chamberlain and Goss-
Grove neighborhoods, which were built at more single-family scales. The proposed
building is not appropriately scaled to transition to those neighborhoods, as well as
the existing commercial and residential development along Canyon Blvd., which is
generally, one, two, or three story when going eastward on Canyon. For this reason,
the project is not found to be completely consistent with the purposes and policies of
the BVCP.
X [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:
X (i) The density permitted in the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan, or,
The BVCP land use designation for the site is Regional Business. Although this
designation does not have a limit on density, it is generally intended for high density
residential development given its location in care areas of downtown or the Boulder
AGENDA ITI~M # SB PAGE #l
Valley Regional Center, where density is expected. The project, with 14 units on a
0.25 acre site, would equate to almos# 55 units per acre, which would be denser than
other downtown projects given the smaller lot size. Nevertheless, the density would
not violate the BVCP.
_(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.
X (C) The proposed development's success in meeting the broad range of BVCP
policies considers the economic feasibility of implementation techniques require to meet
other site review criteria.
The development would not be rendered infeasible in meeting the BVCP policies or
the Site Review criteria.
(2) Site Design: Projects should preserve and enhance the community's unique sense of
place through creative design that respects historic character, relationship to the natural
• environment, 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;
The majority of common open space would be provided along Canyon Blvd. on
the north side of the proposed structure. The space would be very accessible,
but its functionality is questionable, because it would be in shade most of the
time and has a design that creates the potential to be stark and uninviting.
Because of this aspect, more could be done to improve the character of the
space, such as, increasing the level of pedestrian interest along the
streetscape with more variation and material changes on the building, adding
more landscaping such as ornamental trees and seating areas meeting
Guideline 6.6 of the Downtown Design Guidelines, and providing the
opportunity for the growth of mature trees along Canyon, which would be
inhibited by the location of the proposed subterranean parking garage.
X (ii) Private open space is provided for each detached residential unit;
The project is composed of entirely attached residential units. Nevertheless,
each would have a minimum of 60 square feet of private open space, as
required by the- 9T-5 zoning.
_(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 (udiovicianus) which is a species of Eocal concern, and their habitat;
The site contains several mature Ash trees, which will not be able to be
retained due to the placement of the proposed building. Replacement trees are
AGENDA ITE1~1 # SB PAGE ~ 3~0
proposed.
_(iv) The open space provides a relief to the density, both within the project and
from surrounding development;
The open space on the north side of the building provides a separation (20
feet) from the street that is greater than the 0 foot setback permissible in the
district and allows the necessary "boulevard effect" encouraged by the
Downtown Design Guidelines. As a downtown project, the importance of open
space providing relief to the density is less than other areas of the city.
However, given the transitional nature of the site, more open space on upper
levels of the project coupled with design changes, could better provide relief.
X (v) Open space designed for active recreational purposes is of a size that it will
be functionally useable and located in a safe and convenient proximity to the uses to
which it is meant to serve;
The site is a quarter acre sized lot in a downtown zoning district. No active
recreation open space is provided or intended for such a site.
X (vi) The open space provides a buffer to protect sensitive environmental
features and natural areas; and
There are no sensitive environmental features and/or natural areas in the
immediate vicinity of the project to protect.
X (vii} If possible, open space is linked to an area- or city-wide system.
The site is linked to the city's sidewalk systems, which provides convenient
and expedient access to the Boulder Creek Path roughly three blocks to the
south.
_(B) Open Space in Mixed Use Developments (Developments fhaf 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 tha# 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 project would provide an appropriate balance between private and shared
areas, although the quality of the shared spaces should be considered, as
discussed in criterion 9-2-14(h)(2)(1), B.R.C. 1981 above.
_(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.
As an urban downtown project, active spaces are minimal and not necessarily
feasible. Private spaces would meet the needs of anticipated residents etc.
and would provide notable views over downtown and towards the mountains.
Improvements could be made to increase the level of pedestrian activity in the
open space along Canyon.
AGI~,NI)A ITEM # SB PAGE #
_(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;
A majority of the landscape areas are hard surface materials, which could be
greatly enhanced with more landscape plantings. With the building proposed
at 0 setback on three out of four sides, landscape areas are minimal and do not
necessary provide a level of color and contrast expected with Site Review level
projects.
X (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;
No important native species or those of special concern would be impacted on
the already developed site, On-site landscaping would be an updated design
over current greenspace and trees.
_(iii) The project provides significant 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," S.R.C. 1981; and
The plan indicates that the Landscape and Streetscape Design standards
would be met. However, the plan does not provide significant amounts of plant
material sized in excess of those requirements. As noted above, there are areas
around the building that have the minimal amount of plantings, which could be
greatly enhanced with more variety and significantly sized plantings to make
the streetscapes more attractive and less stark. The plan, which indicates
subterranean parking up to the property line, precludes the possibility of
mature tree plantings along Canyon only providing a narrow space for root
systems, where the design guidelines aim to create a "boulevard effect" along
Canyon by setting buildings back from the streetscape and providing formal
tree rows. Additional plantings in the tree fawn would also create a better
buffer from Canyon and would add to the aesthetics of the north-facing open
space.
_(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 downtown design guidelines note that "in areas with detached sidewalks,
well designed landscaping and street trees should be provided." With only the
minimum landscape standards met and the inhibiting nature of the
subterranean garage proposed up to the tree lawn area, the plan would not
significantly contribute to an attractive site plan, which is a primary goal of Site
Review.
_(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:
:1GI;NDA ITIn~I ~i SB 1':~(;I~;
X (i) High speeds are discouraged or a physical separation between streets and the
project is provided;
High speeds would be difficult on the site given that the circulation is confined
to an enclosed parking access drive that frequently turns, descends on a ramp,
and eventually dead-ends in the subterranean parking garage.
_(ii) Potential conflicts with vehicles are minimized;
Concern about the entry to the garage along 96t" Street has been raised by staff
and the Downtown Design Advisory Board (DDAB}. It has been suggested that
additional signage and/or lighting be used to alert pedestrians of outgoing
vehicles. Implementation of such ideas would minimize potential conflicts.
X (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,
pedestrianways and trails;
The site is small and would not accommodate any significant transportation
connections aside from the redevelopment of the Canyon Blvd. sidewalk with a
wider pedestrianway more indicative of urban locations fronting commercial
uses. This pedestrianway would connect the site to the greater city sidewalk
system.
X (ivj Alternatives to the automobile are promoted by incorporating site design
techniques, land use patterns, and supporting infrastructure that supports and
encourages walking, biking, and other alternatives to the single-occupant vehicle;
The project is a good example of a mixed-use development in the downtown
area, where residents would have convenient walkable access to the
downtown or to bus transit along Canyon providing connections to other parts
of the city and/or outside of Boulder. Bike racks are required to be established
in the project to encourage bike usage as an alternative to the automobile.
X (v) Where practical and beneficial, a significant shift away from single-occupant
vehicle use to alternate modes is promoted through the use of travel demand
management techniques;
The applicant has provided a Travel Demand Management plan consistent with
this criterion.
X (vi) On-site facilities for external linkage are provided with other modes of
transportation, where applicable; '
As noted above, the project would have bike racks facilitating the use of
bicycles and sidewalks providing convenient walkable access to downtown or
the Boulder Valley Regional Center. These facilities are consistent with other
projects in the downtown promoting other modes of transportation than the
vehicle.
X (vii) The amount of land devoted to the street system is minimized; and
AGENDA ITEM # SI3 PAGE ~
All circulation on the site is confined to within the structure and underground.
The amount of land is minimized to the utmost extent.
X (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.
As discussed above, the project would accommodate automobiles, bicycles,
and pedestrians. Externalities of automobiles would be confined to the
subterranean parking and would not impact the residential uses.
X (E) Parking
X (i} The project incorporates into the design of parking areas measures to provide
safety, convenience, and separation of pedestrian movements from vehicular
movements;
As most parking is confined to within the bui{ding, separation from pedestrian
areas is done to the most practical extent. The area of most interface would be
along 16`h Street where the site's only access would be located.
X (ii) The design of parking areas makes efficient use of the land and uses the
minimum amount of land necessary to meet the parking needs of the project;
All parking on the site is confined to within the structure and underground.
The amount of land is minimized to the utmost extent.
X (iii) Parking areas and lighting are designed to reduce the visual impact on the
project, adjacent properties, and adjacent streets; and
Parking is completely concealed within the building and would not present any
visual impact beyond the entry garage door. Efforts were made to move
access to an access easement to the south of the structure in a manner much
like an alley. This was not successful, as agreement with the adjacent property
owner could not be achieved.
X (iv) Parking areas utilize landscaping materials to provide shade in excess of the
requirements in Subsection 9-9-6(d), "Parking Area Design
Standards," and Section 9-9-12, "Parking Lot Landscaping Standards," B.R.C. 1981.
Parking areas are screened within the building and require no parking lot
landscaping.
_(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;
Although the height, mass, and design take cues from recent development on
the north side of Canyon, it does not properly transition to the lower scales of
the adjacent Transition Business and High Density Residential zones that have
lower FAR (Floor Area Ratio) limits (i.e., 0.5 FAR) and have more subdued
AGENDA ITEM ti 5B PAGE
building scales and intensities. The project would be more than double the
FARs of those areas at over 2.0 FAR. This FAR is permitted, but more could be
done to the design to lower its apparent mass.
For instance, the configuration of the building has emphasized modules
throughout its second and third floor facades that appear to accentuate the
scale of the building and make it appear less human scaled. The fourth floor is
designed to be less noticeable and is generally successful, but until the lower
floors are deemphasized and/or the building is reduced in overall scale by a
combination of design and a loss of a floor, the current design is not found to
be compatible with the existing character of the area, where one and two story
buildings in the immediate vicinity (some ofsingle-family scale} predominate.
The orientation is, otherwise, found appropriate.
_(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;
A modification to the three-story limit and 35-foot height limit are requested.
Therefore, the project must meet all the Site Review criteria to permit the
modifications. The height is in general proportion to the height of other
recently developed buildings along the Canyon corridor and within the same
zoning district. The height is also comparable to the Presbyterian Church
across the street, which is roughly 50 feet tall compared to the subject
property, which would be 55-feet tall.
However, most buildings to the south and just east of the subject structure are
of a lower stature and generally, are less than the 35-foot height limit. Because
the design of the building is found to not successfully minimize the mass of a
building of 55-feet, the height is not found to be appropriate based on the
current design. Although there is an example of a building of nearly that height
across the street (i.e., the aforementioned church), that highest element of the
church is confined to a smaller building element more than 50 feet from the
Canyon Blvd. lot line. The subject property would have a larger amount of
mass at the higher levels at roughly 35 feet from the Canyon lot line.
X (iii) The orientation of buildings minimizes shadows on and blocking of views
from adjacent properties;
Most shadows from the structure would fall into the public rights-of-way
around it and onto surface parking areas. Views of the Flatirons would be
obstructed from certain points, but not to an extent that is found unacceptable
given its urban context.
_(iv} If the character of the area is identifiable, the project is made compatible by
the appropriate use of color, materials, landscaping, signs, and lighting;
The use of colors and materials of the building are compatible and consistent
with recent large scale projects in the area -primarily on the north side of
Canyon. The existing character of the area changes just to the east and south
of the project to buildings that are at lower scales. As discussed above, it has
not been adequately demonstrated that the building would appropriately
transition to those areas.
AGENDA ITEM # SB PAGE #
_(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 current design of the streetscape is adequate for an urban context with
ample fenestration, but lacks enough visual interest and diversity and quality
landscaping to be an inviting place for pedestrians. Appearing stark, the north
facing open space could benefit by more ground level detailing, more building
entrances, additional seating areas in "room like" situations (as suggested by
the downtown design guidelines), and supplementary landscaping, such as
ornamental trees to make the streetscape more attractive. Further, the space
would ultimately be more effective and functional, if there was the potential for
large mature trees buffering the space from Canyon. This is currently not
possible given the proposed subterranean garage's location close to tree root
systems. The building itself is also not appropriately scaled to the pedestrian
with its looming second and third floors that are emphasized and somewhat
monotonous, rather than a building that appears shorter and more elaborate -
essentially, one that would be more human-scaled.
X (vi) To the extent practical, the project provides public amenities and planned
public facilities;
No planned public facilities are targeted for the site. One public amenity that
would be offered is the proposed public plaza space on the north side of the
building.
X (vii) For residential projects, the project assists the community in producing a
variety of housing types, such as multi-family, townhouses, and detached single-
family units as well as mixed lot sizes, number of bedrooms, and sizes of units;
The project would provide only attached housing, which is expected in the
downtown area. With 14 units, the project would provide a variety of unit sizes
ranging from one level units of roughly 800 square feet to multi-level units of
roughly 1,400 square feet to penthouse units in excess of 2,000 square feet.
X (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;
There would be one principal building on the site. Noise between units would
be typical to any other attached residential structure. As a higher end project,
building materials are expected to be of a quality that minimizes noise transfer
as much as feasible.
X (ix) A lighting plan is provided which augments security, energy conservation,
safety, and aesthetics;
A lighting plan has not been provided at the Site Review stage and will be
required as part of a Technical Document submittal, at which time the impacts
and compliance of the lighting with code will be evaluated.
X (x) The project incorporates the natural environment into the design and avoids,
minimizes, or mitigates impacts to natural systems;
AGk;NDA ITEM # SB I'ACGE #
The site is already developed with a building and parking areas where the
natural environment is absent. Thus, the project would not impact any natural
systems.
X (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.
Extensive excavation would be required on the site, in order to provide the
proposed subterranean parking. As a level site, this grading activity would not
create slope stability, subsidence, or any other geological hazard, so long as
proper shoring and other stabilizing efforts are done correctly and according to
detailed grading plans.
X (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:
The project would be composed of one principal building that is sited on one lot in a
manner similar to other lots of similar orientation in the area. The building will largely
be open to solar access and is unlikely to be obstructed, unless development on the
Liquormart site to the south creates a building of similar stature. This is unlikely,
since a portion of that site where development may go is immediately adjacent to the
scaled down Goss-Grove neighborhood ofsingle-family structures. Although the
proposed building would shade the spaces to its immediate north, the building's form
would be conducive to solar panels. Most shadows from the building or from
proposed landscaping would impact existing parking areas and portions of the right-
of-way, but would not impact adjacent property's solar access potential.
X (i) Placement of Open Space and Streets: Open space areas are located
wherever practical to protect buildings from shading by other buildings within the
development or from buildings on adjacent properties. Topography and other natural
features and constraints may justify deviations from this criterion.
See above.
X (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.
See above.
X (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.
See above.
X (iv} Landscaping: The shading effects of proposed landscaping on adjacent
buildings are minimized.
AGF;Ni)A ITEM #i 5B PAG.E ~ ~JC J
See above.
N1A (H) Additional Criteria for Poies 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:
Not applicable to this project.
N/A (i) The light pole is required for nighttime recreation activities, which are
compatible with the surrounding neighborhood, or the light or traffic signal pole is
required for safety, or the electrical utility pole is required to serve the needs of the
city; and
NIA (ii) The pole is at the minimum height appropriate to accomplish the purposes for
which the pole was erected and is designed and constructed so as to minimize light
and electromagnetic pollution.
NIA (1) Land Use Intensity Modifications
Not applicable to this project.
N/A (i) Potential Land Use Intensity Modifications:
(a) The density of a project may be increased in the BR-1 district through a
reduction of the lot area requirement or in the Downtown (DT), BR-2, or MU-3
districts through a reduction in the open space requirements.
(b} The open space requirements in all Downtown (DT) districts may be
reduced by up to one hundred percent.
(c) The open space per lot requirements for the total amount of open space
required on the lot in the BR-2 district may be reduced by up to fifty percent.
(d) Land use intensity may be increased up to 25 percent in the BR-1 district
through a reduction of the lot area requirement.
NIA (ii) Additional Criteria for Land Use Intensity Modifications: A land use intensity
increase will be permitted up to the maximum amoun# set forth below if the approving
agency finds that the criteria in Subsection (h)
"Criteria for Review" of this Section and following criteria have been met:
(a) Open Space Needs Met: The needs of the project's occupants and visitors
for high quality and functional useab{e open space can be met adequately;
(b) Character of Project and Area: The open space reduction does not
adversely affect the character of the development nor the character of the
surrounding area; grid
(c) Open Space and Lot Area Reductions: The specific percentage reduction
in open space or lot area requested by the applicant is justified by any one or
combination of the follawing site design features not to exceed the maximum
reduction set forth above:
(i) Close proximity to a public mall or park for which the development
AGENDA 1"I'F,NI # 5B PAGE ~
is specially assessed or to which the project contributes funding of
capital improvements beyond that required by the parks and
recreation component of the development excise tax set forth in
Chapter 3-8, "Development Excise Tax," B.R.C. 1981: maximum one
hundred percent reduction in all Downtown (DT) districts and ten
percent in the BR-1 district;
(ii) Architectural treatment that results in reducing the apparent buik
and mass of the structure or structures and site planning which
increases the openness of the site: maximum five percent reduction;
{iii) A common park, recreation, or playground area functionally
useable and accessible by the development's occupants for active
recreational purposes and sized for the number of inhabitants of the
development, maximum five percent reduction; or developed facilities
within the project designed to meet the active recreational needs of
the occupants: maximum five percent reduction;
(iv) Permanent dedication of the development to use by a unique
residential population whose needs for conventional open space are
reduced: maximum five percent reduction;
(v) The reduction in open space is part of a development with a mix of
residential and non-residential uses within an BR-2 zoning district that,
due to the ratio of residential to non-residential uses and because of
the size, type, and mix of dwelling units, the need for open space is
reduced: maximum reduction fifteen percent; and
(vi) The reduction in open space is part of a development with a mix of
residential and non-residential uses within an BR-2 zoning district that
provides high quality urban design elements that will meet the needs
of anticipated residents, occupants, tenants, and visitors of the
property or will accommodate public gatherings, important activities, or
events in the life of the community and its people, that may include,
without limitation, recreational or cultural amenities, intimate spaces
that foster social interaction, street furniture, landscaping, and hard
surface treatments for the open space: maximum reduction 25
percent.
N/A (J) Additional Criferia for Floor Area Ratio Increase for Buildings in the BR-1
District
Not applicable to this project.
N/A (i) Process: For buildings in the BR-1 district, the floor area ratio ("FAR")
permitted under Section 9-7-1, "Schedule of Form and Bulk Standards,"
B.R.C. 1981, may be increased by the city manager under the criteria set forth in this
Subsection.
N/A (ii) Maximum FAR Increase: The maximum FAR increase allowed for buildings
thirty-five feet and over in height in the BR-1 district shall be from 2:1 to 4:1.
N/A (iii) Criteria for the BR-7 District: The FAR may be increased in the BR-1 district
to the extent allowed in paragraph (ii) of this Subsection if the approving agency finds
that the following criteria are met:
AGENDA ITEM # SB PAGE #_L~S
(a) Site and building design provide open space exceeding the required
useable open space by at least ten percent: an increase in FAR not to exceed
0.25:1.
(b}Site and building design provide private outdoor space for each office unit
equal to at least ten percent of the lot area for buildings 25 feet and under and
at least 20 percent of the lot area for buildings above 25 feet: an increase in
FAR not to exceed 0.25:1.
(c) Site and building design provide a street front facade and an alley facade
at a pedestrian scale, including, without limitation, features such as awnings
and windows, well-defined building entrances, and other building details: an
increase in FAR not to exceed 0.25:1.
(d) For a building containing residential and non-residential uses in which
neither use comprises less than 25 percent of the total square footage: an
increase in FAR not to exceed 1:1.
(e) The unused portion of the allowed FAR of historic buildings designated as
landmarks under Chapter 9-11, "Historic
Preservation," B.R.C. 1981, may be transferred to other sites in the same
zoning disfrict. However, the increase in FAR of a proposed building to which
FAR is transferred under this paragraph may not exceed an increase of 0.5:1.
{f) For a building which provides one full level of parking below grade, an
increase in FAR not to exceed 0.5:1 may be granted.
NIA (K) Additions! Criteria for Parking Reductions: The off-street parking requirements of
Section 9-7-1, "Schedule of Form and
Bulk Standards," B.R.C. 1981, may be modified as follows:
Not applicable to this project.
NIA (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.
NIA (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;
(b) The parking needs of any non-residential uses will be adequately
accommodated through on-street parking oroff-street parking;
(c) A mix of residential with either office or retail uses is proposed, and the
parking needs of all uses will be accommodated through shared parking;
(d) If joint use of common parking areas is proposed, varying time periods of
use will accommodate proposed parking needs; and
Ac>E>vwa iTt.a~ sB t~AC~ tr 1
f-~j
(e) If the number of off-street parking spaces is reduced because of the
na#ure of the occupancy, the applicant provides assurances that the nature of
the occupancy will not change-
NIA (L) Additional Criteria for Off-Site Parking: The parking required under Section 9-
9-6, "Parking Standards," B.R.C. 1981, may be located on a separate lot if the following
conditions are met:
Not applicable to this project.
NIA (i) The lots are held in common ownership;
NlA (ii) The separate lot is in the same zoning district and located within three
hundred feet of the lot that it serves; and
N/A (iii) The property used for off-site parking under this Subsection continues under
common ownership or control.
AGENDA IT~,M # SB PAGE #
A'fTACHMEN'I' F
Downtown Design Advisory Board Minutes for June 11, 2008
Project: 1580 Canyon Mixed-use
Board Members: Jack Mudd (absent)
David Fiiek
Lisa Egger
Fenno Hoffman
(:harles Rogers
General Comments from the Board
• The Board generally approved the building's size, height and number of stories.
• The Board agreed that the scale of buildings in this area should transition within the
adjacent zoning and not within the Canyon buildings themselves.
• 'I'hc Board questioned the building's materials and detailing as generally confusing and
too complex.
• The Board praised the presentation documents.
1. Downtown Design Guidelines
• 2.4- Consider the Height, Mass, and Scale of Buildings-
The building's 4 story height, mass & scale were deemed appropriate f~~r this site fronting
Canyon Blvd, near downtown and surrounded by sites very likely to redevelopment in a
pattern consistent with other recent projects nearby and with this project. This project will
continue a Boulevard pattern of more significant urban facades along Canyon. Two
members of the Board felt that a three story building would be more appropriately scaled
for the current surroundings.
• 2.6- Create Pedestrian Interest at the Street Level-
The Board questioned the dull seriousness of the north facing retail facade and the
presence of planters that block access to retail glazing and aeknowledgecl that city
requirements force this awkward situation. Otherwise, the setbacks, planters, awnings and
paving patterns create considerable pedestrian interest.
• 2.9- Maintain the Rhythm Established by the Repetition c}f the T
raditional 2S foot facade
widths-
The complexity of the massing, the variety of opening proportions and the number of
materials and colors were considered generally too complicated. The North bays along
Canyon do suggest the rhythms of the historic 25ft lot widths downtown and as a
repetitive element, the bays help fornlally organize the primary front facade. 1-lowever,
the variety of materials, openings and massing elements elsewhere were considered
somewhat chaotic. The Board recommended simplifying the upper stories with a smaller
palette of materials and simplifying the massing and openings to emphasize the very good
bays and relate to them more directly and generally quiet the elevations that face the
AGENDA ITEM tl SB PAGE #
other, quieter, streets.
• 2.12- Recognize the Special Character of the Area South of Canyon Boulevard-
The Board agreed that the character south of this site was in transition (Liquor Mart
Parking and some small, dated office buildings aren't particularly "special") and also that
the zoning to the south of this site would accomplish a transition between the
appropriately larger scaled buildings along Canyon and smaller houses further South. The
buildings along Canyon should be scaled primarily for Canyon and that scale will protect
what's behind it. Regarding the cast garage entrance, there was some concern about
warning pedestrians about exiting cars. Most parking in this area is now surface lots and
poople don't expect garage doors, so some indication, perhaps a paving pattern should
emphasise the driveway where it crosses the sidewalk.
• 6.9- Maintain the *Boulevard * Character of Car2yon- a Single Row of Street Trees on
Tither Side of the Street, The Building Setback Line, and the Center Planting Str~ip.-
Thc applicant complied with the intent of this section, but the Board questioned the
results. The Board asked staff to explore developing a Landscape Plan for major streets
that limits the tree species and further specifies the tree spacing to encourage more formal
tree lines across multiple frontages along major streets. Mapleton Avenue was cited as a
good example. The Board also asked staff to review the current planter requirements and
setback limitations for ways to avoid planters that block prime retail frontage and disrupt
pedestrian activity and are more consistent with traditional urban street design, rather than
with conventional suburban standards. The applicant welcomed this effort, agreeing that
planters shouldn't block prime retail frontage.
AGI+;NDA ITr VI # SB PAGE #
ATTACHMENT G
S A M K E N T
1611 Grove Street Boulder, Colorado 80302-6319
Mr. Karl Guiler
City of Boulder
P.O. Box 791
Boulder, Colorado 80306
March 1, 2008
Dear P•9r. Gui 1 er,
This letter is in response to the Development review appli-
cation notice I received regarding the property at 1580 Canyon
Blvd.
I am very much against the application as it now stands.
After living in the Goss-Grove street neighborhood for twenty
years I feel Imy viewpoint is relevent. The key word is
neighborhood. Yes, zoning allows for the "transition" area
along 15th street. But just because it would be allowed (by
modification) doesn't mean that the transition has to result
in increased density as we move closer to the core area.
Transitioning down to the exisiting neighborhood scale is
truly desirable. This will help keep our neighborhood what it
has been for nearly a hundred years, an accessable yet quiet
place to live, not one surrounded by oversized developments
that end up cutting us off-walling us in, rather than slowly
blending into downtown Boulder.
Neighbors I have talked to-including homeowners-and I
feel that the asked for height modifications and setbacks
will negatively affect:our neighborhood.
When we attended a preliminary meeting on this matter
last year it seemed to me that the city shared some of these
same concerns. We hope those concerns are still in the fore-
front.
Sincerely,
`C~ -
Sam Kent
A~rrcfa key ~ _ Fh~e
Karl Guiler - 1580 Canyon Review
.Y.,-~-~
From: "Don James"
To:
Date: 3/3/2008 10:54 ~1M
Subject: 1580 Canyon Review
Dear Mr. Guiler,
Thank you for providing information about the project slated for 1580 Canyon. After review of the information
provided in the 2/22108 notice and physically viewing the proposed site, I object to three of the four modifications.
The modifications I object to are:
Height Modification to permit a building of 55 feet
Modification to permit four-stories
. Setback modification to permit a rear setback of 0 feet
The proposed height, size, and density of the project appear to be too great for the footprint of the property. Also,
the small number of onsite parking spaces for the proposed project will negatively impact parking pressure in the
surrounding neighborhood.
Don James
XYZ Corporation
James TravelPoints
1750 14th Street '
Boulder, CO 80302
303-442-2340
A~tda Ilerla II 5g ~
1ilc://C:~Documents and Settings\guilkllLocal SettingslTcnlp\XPGrpWise\47~:13D8Ts13CU... 3/10/2008
O
March 3, 2008
City of Boulder
Planning and .Development Services
P.O. Box 791
Boulder., Co. 80306-0791
Re: SITE REVIEW
Review Number: LUR 2008-0001.2
1580 Canyon Blvd.
We are interested parties by virtue of our Ownership of the
property at 1750 15th Street (Liquor Mart) which is adjacent to the
property under review. It is in this capacity as interested parties
that we present the following comments for consideration by the
Applicant anal th.e City of Boulder when reviewing the above
referenced Application.
1. CANYON BOULEVARD ACCESS. Review and
approval should be conditioned upon the Applicants
maintaining uninterrupted ingress anal egress for the
Liquor Mart over the existing access point off Canyon
Boulevard at the north east portion of the Liquor Mart
property both during construction of the project and by the
owners and occupants of the 1580 Canyon Boulevard
property upon completion of the project.
2. 16th. STREET ACCESS. Review and approval. should be
conditioned upon the Applicants maintaining
uninterrupted ingress and egress for the Liquor Mart over
the existing access point of 16th Street on the east portion
9750 - 95TH STREET • BOULDER, COLORADO 80307_ • (303) 449-3374 FAX: (303) 938-9463
WWW.LI000RMART.COM
Ag~da # 5 . Pie ~ ~
of the Liquor Mart property both during construction and
by owners and occupants of the 1580 Canyon Boulevard
property upon completion of the project.
3. NOISE MITIGATION.
A. Applicant should be required to put both prospective
owners and tenants of the completed project on
notice of the noise impacts associated with the
delivery vehicle traffic for the adjacent retail
operations of the Liquor Mart. It is recommended
this notice be in the form of a Plat Note and a
separate Notice Statement which should be placed on
the public real estate records at the Boulder County
Clerk and Recorders Office.
I3. These noise impacts should also be taken into
account when considering any modification of set
back requirements for project elements adjacent to
the Liquor Mart delivery areas on the north east
portion of the Liquor Mart property.
C. Finally consideration should be given to addressing
incorporation of noise mitigation elements into the
construction of the improvements on the 1580
Canyon Boulevard property.
These comments should not be construed as an objection to the
Application for 1580 Canyon Boulevard, but merely to point out
potential conflicts between the proposed residential use and the
existing retail use that are best addressed proactively in the Site
Review process rather reactively if complaints were to arise from
future residents of 1580 Canyon Boulevard.
Jack G. Stoakes
General Manager
Liquor Ma1-t
da~~~ Sz3 ~e~_.~
(7/23/2008) Karl Guiler -Project at 1580 Canyon
from: Brian Kelly
To: <guilerk~ bouldercolorado.gov>
Date: 5/30/2007 4:52 PM
Subject: Project at 1580 Canyon
Dear Planning Board,
I recently received mail regarding a project at 1580 Canyon Blvd and
would like to make a comment before the review process begins. i am
concerned about the size and height of this suggested project, the
current Robb's music is rather small compared to the 25,000 square feet
of the new project, plus the additional height to 55 feet. I feel as
though the limit on height should be continued, or else future
developments will point to the building at 1580 Canyon and say that we
can go that high, or even higher. I don't want downtown Boulder to
become clogged with tall buildings ruining the wonderful views we are
fortunate to have.
Sincerely,
Brian Kelly
1824 17th Street
Boulder, Colorado 80302
Agenda ke~1 # ~ f~8 ~
AERIAL PHOTO AND VICINITY MAP
ATTACHMENT H
1
¢ ~ l;:
~
I~~ ~ ~rr~ i; 'YM • ~ ~ ~ - 1b%Mrr I } '1>',~ ` I ' I J
ti ~ f v~ L f•-.
'F, , ~ , - ~ ~ U 1
'lift a~ ~..~~`'x ~ ~ ~ ;y ~~i it _
TTT... • y r II l
+r: - I ? ~~IA~~~' ' ` . w +r~'~~~~ti«?', r of I' ~ , I
;•~i y ~ ~ ~~~'Jr.i~ t IrR'.`~'"1°4 ~I ~'n ~_t `i~", S ~L
i! r 11.x, y t? rte` C~i d81~
L 7 I. I
.~~"ir'`~L .cR~ ` ,~.}a~i ~.~~fy 11'!', a• I it~'I 1 ~r ~ I _I.i 1
~ ~
~y1~_,,,j , ~ ~+~f M.~ ~cli
~f~`iT'LC .~~9. 1r~~.`5 ~ 1 ~ ~ -t / ~ ~ K,~-L
rI yyy~~~ r~., /y Yv ,~1, j r
0 2S SO 100
AERIAL PHOTO - VICINITY MAP
ARCHITECTURE
URBAN DESIGN ~ ~ , ' ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ' ~ ~ r I I I
1 CANYON y ~ ~ I
~a INTERIOR DESIGN DEVELOPMENT ' I I ~ ~ ~ , ' I . ~ ~ ~ r
EXISTING SITE PHOTOS
~ ~a,. ~ ' j ;
~ ~ ' ~ - 4i,
n ~ 1.: .
VIEW LOOKING I'JORTI iWEST " ` r~ - - _ VIEW LOOKING NORTHEAST
~ j.~..
p~M 'r> ~ ~ bF'i
mr'•' r ~ Ij y,~ ln. K ,
t f++Ll~i
`
s r1y
r
~ r~~°r ' VIEW LOOKING SOUTH
+ 4c. {i :L+ f. ~s I y~Yq•.J,r ~~j 'vA` .y bi
RK; ~,~'.c ~3 'Sri, ~«a~y
_ ? iu
h - „ l C k 1~ : ~ .1 ~
~ ~ t
1
~.YY ~'s%ti
- -
VIEW LOOKING SOUTHEAST VIEW LOOKING SOUTHWEST
ARCHITEQUAE r~ I ; ' ~ , ~ ~ : , ~ ~
URBAN DESIGN ~ :1 1 1 1' 11
CANYON ' ~ ~ ~
INTERIOR DESIGN DEVELOPMENT ' ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ` ~ ` "
EXISTING CONTEXT 16TH AND CANYON INTERSECTION PHOTOS
~ „1, , ~T~~ ~ ~
ti'l~'. ,
~r ~
` f r r t ~~p. r~. ,
A n•~ie~S , 1 ~ I ry{o A i+; ' ~ c'N1`.' 4 " ml~. [r Fp'~°~ ~ ~Jn} f
~N~,
y G% - ~ ~ '~tj%ri,.K~ ~ S: 1. 1 ~ ~R : ~ ~<l. - QI: ~~I~W ti i
~ ` 'a'l(1
~ r
~ 9 i'
1
,fF
`A'
- ~ `
~1•
- ~ - - _ ~ sw sE - - - - _
NW NE
r ~l v w `~AF
~ `j' yi1 J- ,~c. ~if 1 Lin' ,1.
~f
-0~ .Z r=r~, ~ - 'F fir.. as ~t~ ~T r ~~t~~:~;
t ~ ! .
i i~ .i'+' + ~ { - ~ _ _ , i r~ ~ SAY ~l i
ti
t'e. ~ t.+' , ~ 4~' ~J~'
~~II sl
,~k.X Iru4'.. ~.,r a1
ARCHITECTURE
• o i ~.~ir
UABAN DESIGN ~ ~ 1 1 , 6 1 1 1 1' 6 1
CANYON ' ~ ~ ~
~m INTERIdR DESIGN DEVELOPMENT ' ~ ° ' ~ ~ ~ r I ~ ' o o
- -
~ s
~r 1
LFGC•Nff' ` ~ l
r f81fY1NG TREES ~ t Y
~ /
i ~ 1•NM
` s g aaeRACxs CANYON 60!lLfVARD
~ ~ ' fHADF 1REE5 _ - _ _
\ \ /
• I~ J I DECIDUOUS fHRUDS i T(lRr I
`J
EVERGREEN fNRUDf
3-RLa
ORNAMFNIAL GRASSES / ~ ~ ~ - ~ I 5
3-MKL
DFRENNlAlSAND OrtOUNOCOVfRf I ~Yl:_. _ I - C ~ ^ I (tI'' ~V'"' _ Ij.?IL
OROU4NT i01FiNNTDLUfGRASSDIENp N1Rr i- ~ ¦ ~ j-AiK!
NONdOLOREO SCORED CONCRETE
® (pattrrnauhown) ~ I I ~ I ~ I I ~ I ~ 8-anl
COLORED AND SCORfD(ONCRElEDAVlNG ~ii - ~ ~ ~ ~ - 10-It'f.ti
(colon.;Ibt m(x for6arr color witbalDr mlM amm~) ¦ ~/~j
I ImVERTfD~UDIKE RA(Kf - - _ . ~~r _ ~ I--I(_: -I~ ~ _ - L1Kr ' / , -
R. NCH i r/ • ? -
vUNreR I 1 ,
II -PLANTER MALLS o.l).rl FNi Wi 1-PJJ / 1 IIC
lT00 )t00 J
?•SYR aeNi'H p.MyR I..
i W
10•I'RG d-ERG 10.1-RG ~ ~ ~ ~ C
!5'FIfG1iGl5T-1,N•PIAQ: F'l.•LVTCRti ~ e
pIliNTN07E5.' Ix ,aa - -V1 H"
r. Ailplammatrnahhallmeerspetiltationsofthe.Nnentan.AsrD<iauonulVwserymen(MN)Iornumberonegrade. All ~
rreesshahbeballydandburlapprdorequlvvlrnLAllplanimatenalrrhvtJhaveaflwire,twineorothercontainment ~
matrrials, except for burlap, renrOVed bom trunk and root hull of the plvniprior to p/antinq, ~
z, ireesshall not be pluntrd rlosenD fe•L•t to any sewer or water(Ine. Tree plantng shall be coordinated with Xcel Energy.
Locations ofall utilit/csshall be vedfed in the iMd prior to planting. I I
3~ All shrubs shall be planted noless than;'from any sidewalk or curb. All street trees in planting ships to becentered . I. u'" _ MKL
between curb and si ewalk. nD ~ j.
a. GradesshaflbesettoallowforproperdraMageawaytromstnrctures. Grades shall maintain smoothproflesandbc6ce ~ y~•:, I-NC
of surface debris, bumps, and depressions. ~ t ~ ~ I - - - 6-pr'G
5. Drvdoperssnallensurethatthelandscapeplanlscoordinatedwiththeplansdonebyotherconsultantssothatthr
praposeJgraJing,stormdrainage,orotherronstrudionsdoesnotconNctnorprecludeinstallationandmaintenanceof 1~- ~ 3RlB
landscape elements on this plaD.
~ ~ I PLANTLRYUT.S
6. Alfshru6bedareasshallbemulchedwithlayerofwoodbarkmu/choverweedban+erfabrictoadepthofq' Perenrialr /
and groundrovcrareasshallbemufrhedwlthaj°fayerofshreddedbarkmulch. / n_I ~ B11JCh~
y. Drlortolnstagatfonofplan[ma[er/als,areasthathavebeencompactedordlsturb^dbyconstrudionactivityshallbe I p-,til,~pl
thaoughlylDOSened,•orgarricsoilamendmentsshal/beincorporatedatNerateofatleastthree(~)cubfcyardsperrooo ~ _ ~!r
squore lent of yndscape area. ~ ~ j ~ l 3,, hs~
8. A!I free lawn arras will be sodded with low-wvter demand blaegrvss blend (lncfuding butnoUimited fo She following ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ P j-eSh
~ /
blends: Eclipse, TouchJown, Dreaknest, D/acksburg and Cibertyas grown by OK Doke Sod Farms). All sloprtsteeper than ~ j
q:rwiNhaveerorionconrrolfabric. ~offRto - _ -
tuacaw \ ` 6KC
9. Alllandscapr (plant materials and grass) wilt be irdgaied with an automatic system. Turf areas will have v spray:one, \1 \
shrubs and ornamental grasses will have a drip zone and perennials/ground covers (part of the drip zone) w111 have
micro jet sprays. r
R1Rr
ao. ContractorshallverifyallmaterialquantitiesprrortoinstallaLion Actual numberofplantrymbolsshallhaveprior/ty _ 1
over the quantity designated. ~ .
n.Re%rto theCtry of aouldrr Design and Construct(on Streeuaping Standarrh for all work wirhin pubhrarcas,including ~ l\\~ ~ 'L~'~
speciftations for free grates. ~ iM'^ ~ ' a
S17L' )'KIANGLeS
u. Refer to [he Civil Engineer Drawings for Grading and Utility information. - - __-i~ ~
s3. ThispfanmeetsorexceedsCityofBoulder/andscapecoderequbements. ~ _C\\\
I \
I - - I- -
unmmpo ortlYtxN~ • -
rtu~aeugn• - - _
PN•~ I .t.
,
DOI:Nel/ftearrbtml
outside la ~ erceTiscter)asssrrw
~.r...,~ LANDSCAPE PLAN
ARCHITECTURE ~ , F Ft
J~ URBAN DESIGN ~ ~ ~ 1 ~ ~ ~ 1 1' 1
LJo INTERIOR DESIGN ~ DE ELOPMENT ' 1 ~ ' ' F ° t t t t F " t ' F' L ' , t
~ • ~ /
MAX HEIGHT = 5389.0'
~ I CREAM STUCCO OR METAL PANEL
°
N PAINTED METAL
-
- BROWN STUCCO
o
I ~
iV ~
i
_ :O. _ _ - - -
I
F
° TAUPE STUCCO OR METAL PANEL
cV _
- ~ _ ~_PAINTED METAL ACCENT
- _ '1--,- -
RED BRICK
° RED SANDSTONE
FIRST FINISH FLOOR = 5337.0'
' - - - - -
LOW POINT = 5334.0'
NORTH ELEVATION
STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF
MAX HEIGHT = 5389.0'
~ - - - - METAL PANEL
0
~ ~ ~.r, I ~
o
ti
N
b- - - - ~ - - - - 1 - - - - - - - - - - - -
~ _ 'i
° ~ ~ TAUPE STUCCO OR METAL PANEL
CV
-HAiGI INgCAIFS ApFA 10 8E - - - - - - -
75% CtE19 FOR 9ff iPoNA;I£ - i `
1217 3 fpiA AFFA YNYfNH _ - _ - - _ _ - _ - _ _ ~ _ ; -.I _ _ _
11.6 5 C1FAR FOR 9ff 1RIkIGIE - I ~ ~ - - ~ RED BRICK
~ - - RED SANDSTONE
~ FIRST FINISH FLOOR = 5337.0'
~owaun - - - ~ - - - ~ - - - - - -
r'8~ ~ ICE ar a+~~ ~ - - - - - -
LOW POINT = 5334.0'
7i8 SAi$ 01T O.C ALOt ` ~ -
OVERHEAD DOOR
GARAGE WINDOW DETAIL EAST ELEVATION
0 2 4 8 16
ARCHITECTURE " 1 11
URBAN DESIGN ~ ~ 1' ~ , 1 " 1 1 ' 1 1 ` ' ~ ' , ~ 1
CANYON
m INTERIOR DESIGN DEVELOPMENT '1 ~ ~ 1 ' " ' ~ "
MAX HEIGHT = 5389,0'
i----
- I ~ STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF
° ~ _ METAL PANEL
N
- ~ - I __i-~
a - - TAUPE STUCCO OR METAL PANEL
o I -
N
-o - i ~ - I-- -
~n o ~I~ _ _
N j ~ u
r1- -
F _ _ -
0
_ - -
~ FIRST FINISH FLOOR =_5337.0'
LOW POINT = 5334.0'
SOUTH ELEVATION
STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF
MAX HEIGHT = 5389,0'
- -_--^_--r_---_ ~ -
cV I I.~ _ I
-.rs- -
. TAUPE STUCCO OR METAL PANEL
0
~
N _ I
e
---I -
o - - - - ~ PAINTED METAL
i
N
-~----T - - - - - - - - - -
- RED BRICK
° - - ~ " ~ ~ PAINTED METAL
- -
' " ~ FIRST FINISH FLOOR = 5337.0'
-I ~
LOW POINT = 5334.0'
WEST ELEVATION
0 1 4 8 16
~
~
ARCHITECTURE I , ' .
URBAN DESIGN ~ I' ~ , 1 / 1 ' 1 I ~ , 1 ' , ~
CANYON
J m INTERIOR DESIGN DEVELOPMENT ' ~ ~ ~ ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ' ~ ~ '
r~ ~
Y4
~~1
_ -
r' I I
I
I
I ~ 1
I ~ ~ - NORTHWEST CORNER VIEW
I ~ - ~
1
~~r
I_
I ~
r
~ ~
~ I I i i , , r,
c..~. , ~ y ~ ~ ~ ~ a
I ~ ~ jy` ~ ~ ~
.
• -
~ ~ ~ .
rte ~ . i ~ ~ I ;,~,F. ~1. ~ ' {;v ~ } ~ ~ ~ ; ~ -
~ . - ~ - ~ ~ ~ qtr I ~ -
_ ~ I I ' ~ i .j _ :L ~ i~ ~yti~ ~
~ I ~ _ 1 ' ~ J) ~
-
PERSPECTIVE FROM CANYON AND 16TH Il -
~ ~
AERIAL PLAZA VIEW
ARCHITECTURE I ~
~ ~ :iii
URBAN DESIGN ~ ~ CANYON , j , ' ~ ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ' ~ ~ ~
~o IIlTERIOR DESIGN DEVELOPMENT ' ~ ~ ~ ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ' ' ~ ' 1.~
-
- - - -
i I ~ ~
~ ~ ~
I - ~ ICI l u 7~ C
i _ _ ,i. ~ j -
i -
I I
~ ~
VIEW FROM SOUTHWEST
_ ~ i
~ ~ - i
- _ ~ I~
_
-
I - j .L i..
~ i
~ , ,
- ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - 1-~
r
i, r
1,
F
,,n _ - _ _ _ ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
1. _ ~ i _ ~ I f
~ ~ ~ ~ 7 ~ - - ~ ~
AERIAL FROM SOUTHWEST
VIEW FROM SOUTHEAST
ARCrIrrECruRE
URBAN DESIGN ~ ~ ^ ~ , . ! 1 1 t ' ~ 1 I • ~ • . 1 1 ~
CANYON
~o INTERIOR DESIGN DEVELOPMENT ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ° ~ ' ~ ~ ~
• r~ ~
`f ,1 p
v '~6 ~~'~J~yfejr .J .y
M• q
Y
r
AERIAL CONTEXT PHOTO ~ `r ~ ~
\ i ht '
i ~ K f•y O t ti A
' z z ,~'s ,iif ~ 1 ~ ~s
p Ir r`~ ~ ~ ~ ~
l ,~y ,rr ? ='CI l t<I R l LlL' r r}I:tia~x'~ ~ t r;',
1
r Z E-'r°.,. r r~~, /y"~Y ~ f #jf~~~ 4 ~ 11.x.'
_ ~ I
~ Mrr .6t~ r ~ r~
r / _ i. 11 ,tirY ~ Y _ y.1 .
~'R.. _ ~ ~ r.
4
-w -.r
..m a 1 1 r .
ORIGINAL PHOTO PERSPECTIVE FROM CANYON AND 17TH LOOKING WEST
ARCHITECTURE
r i ~rl
URBAN DESIGN ~ ~ ~ I' ~ , ~ 1 1 1 1 ' ~ 1 1
CANYON ~ ~ ~ ! 1 1 1
m INTERIOR DESIGN DEVELOPMENT 11 ~ ' r" ~ ~ ` r 1 ` ~ , 1
1~ ' VIEN! PQI'~' ~ -
l ~ ~ ' f
x y ' : r1~ / 1
4 r-' r ,'W ~ i '~i ~
AERIAL CONTEXT PHOTO - ,~1 ~
.1 ~ ~ ti
_I tip` i
t .
~ ~ - i. ~
f ~ • ~ M'• ''f'
r
y.fa + .a_.
' 'I
i
i 'J~~
~ 1 i
f
~l. ~
r r ti~ i ~i~, ~ ~ r. ill,: I: ~ ~ ~
/ - ~ ~ i ~ '
I~~''~
.t , y_L. S i ~ x
Af.,
ORIGINAL PHOTO PERSPECTIVE LOOKING SOUTH ON 16TH
ARCHITECTURE
~ ~ :~i~
URBAN DESIGN ~ 1 ~ , ' I 1 1 I ' ~ 1 I ~ ~ ~ ~ ' ' ~
CANYON
~m INTERIOR DESIGN DEVELOPMENT ' ~ ~ ~ ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ° ~ ' ~ ° ~ ,
1 1'. t 4/ ~ i /
. ~ 4 ~ ~ _ ' ~ llr ~J I / , ~
~ ~i ~ i f~ t;fj '
• ~ in I ~ is • 'Vi , • ~
C '0 1 i~.~' ~r~- - ~ i. ~ .
- ~ r~
r~.
AERIAL CONTEXT PHOTO . ~ ~ ~ S Y t •p
1
1 i( Q~+
. ~ 1 ~ 'i l 1.1111 J ~ 1 I
VI ~ y,l I
~ ~f; R,,41 ~i.: _ ~ +I~` !aw- .fib y~
7 ,,~r~~_~~,•/a~'1~~ .I' 1 1 ~ - ~r _~la ~'~~T rte'
ais~~.
. Y. - ~ ~ ~ ~ 4 I" 11'-112 r - l ,.y ~ I ~ 1 Y~ .
-A~. I ~ ~ ` f..J• )~ill~ 71..~i, 7~~y~'~{'~I'rIe I,y~~„t~
' i .l. `+.a~ 5 4°'i - ~ v~ !~~i '.1 1 '~I~ 1l'l~ Ja. yf. ~ IE.T
iV. _~-f,.. ^I~i = _ ~ _ _ +11~'!~~ ,pia 1 ~ i{1~k~`vl ~k.". f,':?tit,. ~~t1
ORIGINAL PHOTO PERSPECTIVE LOOKING NORTH ON 16TH
ARCHITECTURE ~ I ~ '
URBAN DESIGN ~ ~ : ® ! ® 0 ° ~ P A 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~e INTERIOR DESIGN ~ CANYON 1 u ; i 1 1 i ; 1. 1 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~o ~ ~1
DEVELOPMENT