Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
5B - Concept Plan LUR2009-00007 - Table Mesa Housing (currently titled The Armory)
CITY OF BOULDER PLANNING BOARD AGENDA ITEM MEETING DATE: Apri12, 2009 AGENDA TITLE: Public hearing and consideration of Concept Plan LUR2009-00007, Table Mesa Housing (currently titled The Armory), located at 4640 Table Mesa Drive and 555 Tantra Drive. The applicant is proposing redevelopment of the existing dormant Army Reserve Training site with a variety of residential housing types (e.g., row houses, duplexes, single family homes and affordable units) totaling 43 units on 212,437 square feet, or 4.87 acres (includes both properties). The proposal would ultimately require a rezoning from RL-1 (low density residential) to RM-1 (medium density residential). Applicant: Peter Stainton Property Owner: U.S. Department of the Army REQUESTING DEPARTMENT: Ruth McHeyser, Executive Director of Community Planning David Driskell, Deputy Director of Community Planning Karl Guiler, Planner II OBJECTIVE: Define the steps for Planning Board consideration of this request: 1. Hear applicant and staff presentations 2. Hold public hearing 3. Planning Board discussion of Concept Plan. No action is required by Planning Board. SUMMARY: Proposal: Concept Plan review and comment for the proposed redevelopment of the existing dormant Army Reserve site with a variety of 43 residential units. Project Name: Table Mesa Housing (currently entitled The Armory) Location: 4640 Table Mesa Drive & 555 Tantra Drive AGENDA ITEM # SB PAGE # 1 Size of Tract: 212,437 square feet per applicant (excluding any areas of the lot in the Table Mesaright-of--way), or 4.87 acres. A site survey would be required at time of Site Review. Zoning: RL-1 (Low Density Residential - 1) Comprehensive Plan: Public KEY ISSUES: 1. Is it appropriate to consider a change to the BVCP land use designation concurrent with a rezoning request, or if the applicant would like to pursue it, is it more appropriate at the time of the next BVCP major update? 2. Would the proposal be consistent with BVCP policies? 3. Would the architectural and site design be appropriate in the context of the existing neighborhood? BACKGROUND: Existing Site /Site Context The development site is located on a rectangular lot on the south side of Table Mesa Drive between 46th Street to the west and Tantra Drive to the east. The Table Mesa interchange with U.S. 36 is just east of Tantra Drive. To the north of the site across Table Mesa is the existing Church of Latter Day Saints and abutting to the south are Summit Middle School and the City-owned Parks and Recreation maintenance facility (from west to east). Abutting to the east are (from north to south) an animal hospital, asingle-family home (i.e., 555 Tantra), and three multi- story condominium structures. The abutting area to the east is zoned for medium density residential (RM-1). To the immediate west are single-family homes (mostly one to one-and-a-half stories), which are part of the Majestic Heights neighborhood. Ten of these properties abut the Army Reserve site. These properties and the subject property are zoned for single-family residential (RL-1). The site has been zoned for low density residential since its annexation in 1961. Most of the areas to the west are RL-1 zoning and were developed with single- family homes as part of the Majestic Heights and Martin Acres neighborhoods in the late 1950s. Areas to the east and south of Table Mesa Drive are zoned RM-1 and consist of a variety of condominiums, apartment buildings and a small commercial center at the corner of Tantra and Table Mesa. Higher density zoning, RH-5, is found near the Table Mesa/U.S. 36 interchange. See Figure 2 on page 4 for zoning. The site is generally level, but there is some topographic undulation, which gently slopes down from the southwest corner to the northeast corner. Most of the mutual lot line with the single-family homes is demarcated by a small bluff for most of the AGENDA ITEM # SB PAGE # 2 west property line. The applicant notes a 6 to 9 foot drop off in that area, although the southwest corner has matching grades between the properties. A number of mature deciduous trees exist in the property's northwest corner. The existing building on the site was constructed in 1970. i%~ - _ _ ~ ~ r Low Density Residential Medium Density Residential _ p ~ - Community Business , r~ ~-~-J~ a - ~ 1 it ~ 1 ~j 4J ~ 4640 TABLE MESA ~ ~ ~r ~ ~ ~f Q _ _ _ ~ ,f Cl D ~ ~ c~ ~~r L~ ~ E7 I d ~ ~ ~ ~ D n ~ ~ ~ o 4n~ Q ~ ~Public 0 Q:- o ~i ~ Q ~ _ o c n r-, ~ n Figure 1-BVCP land use designations around site. Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP) Designation: The land use designation for the site is Public (see Figure 1 above). This category includes a wide range of public and private non-profit uses that provide a community service and reflects the public ownership of the property and its former use as an Army Reserve facility owned by the federal government. Once the site is no longer in public ownership, a change to the land use designation will be appropriate. If a rezoning is requested, the rezoning could not be approved unless the BVCP land use designation were updated to reflect the proposed zoning, as BVCP land use and zoning cannot be in conflict. Therefore, an application to change the BVCP land use designation would be required. If the project were to proceed under the current zoning, staff would bring forward a change to the BVCP land use designation to Low Density Residential during the BVCP update. AGENDA ITEM # SB PAGE # 3 u U 'LI p [J ~y nn~ Q LJ LJ t~ RH-5-High Density Residential ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ n~ ~ ~ ~J ~ ~ 4640 TABLE MESA ~ ? ~ ~ RM-1-Medium Density Residential iL~ ~ RL-1-Low Density Residential ~ ~ m ~ ~ ~ _ _ ~ 0° p ~ o ~ ~ a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ Q p ~ Q n ~ n Figure 2- Zoning around site. Project Description: As part of this Concept Plan application, the applicant is proposing a redevelopment of the site for medium density residential, which would require a change to the BVCP land use designation from Public to Medium Density Residential and a rezoning from RL-1 (Low Density Residential) zoning to RM-1 (Medium Density Residential) zoning. As noted above, the RM-1 zoning is immediately contiguous to the east. This change would accommodate the applicant's proposed development of 43 residential units in the following numbers: • 9 single family units (as condominiums). • 20 duplex units. • 14 row house units (4 proposed as permanently affordable units, or 10% of the total). The proposed plan is shown on page 5. Also see Attachment J for the applicant's written statement and Attachment K for the concept plan. The city's Development Review Committee comments are found in Attachment C and AGENDA ITEM # SB PAGE # 4 f ~ include identified code modifications that would be required at time of Site Review. v r ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ } :a ' ~ ~ , , ~ - ~:t~~~l1tF~ Elf ~ € . ~ J r -Tli9LE h~ESh DRIVE - •,~u-::~-.-- -,~~i - 1 ~ - ^ nar ;~6 r~-~~- ' 1. ~ I t 4~;, i l~':$ ~ i s o ~ ~4 a ',rill ,is~, ~ ~ .t a ~ i a Z i q s ~y ~--.1.~ -'?-is-Y'f ~ S~ ` 3 C. I +e` ~ ~ - I - r+1 I1 - FJ.Fril2~ if r:~ I t w. ~ ~ ~FACIlI iV ! C' ~ u f r - 4 y,~ s a S I f' . ` ~ fir. ? ~'_h I~I•- - I ~ . Access to the units would be from Tantra Drive through an existing single family lot at 555 Tantra Drive with an emergency access point off of Table Mesa Drive. A small network of private access lanes are proposed within the development with all units fronting on the internal drives. The bus stop on Table Mesa would be linked to Summit Middle School via a pathway through the east side of the site. In rezoning to the RM-1 zoning district, each unit would require 3,000 square feet of open space. With 43 units, 129,000 square feet of useable open space would be required for the development. To meet this requirement, the applicant has proposed a greenspace measuring approximately 80 feet by 220 feet, or roughly 17,600 square feet adjacent to Table Mesa Drive and open space between the units. AGENDA ITEM # SB PAGE # 5 The space along Table Mesa would also be utilized for community gardens and stormwater detention. Previous Concept Plan: The applicant submitted a similar Concept Plan in 2006, which also included consideration of change in the BVCP land use designation from Public to Medium Density Residential. The plan did not include the property at 555 Tantra and had 40 units, including a mix of attached housing units (duplexes and row houses), around the perimeter of a large central open space as shown below: ~ 'fa6ie Mesa Drive -f Planning Board (and much of the ~ , : F~ ~ ~ ~ f ~ ` neighborhood) did not support the - f, rbr , ~ proposal because of the "6:~ , , ~ ~ _ _ ~ ~ complications of only one access j ~ ~ _ I,r~~ `i ; ~ ( point from Table Mesa, where - A - ~ - traffic and westward left turns are ; ~ ` - ~ ~ problematic, and the t` f [ -,L ' ' 4 incompatibility created by locating ~=i i ` a high-use access lane serving all ~ ~ r 40 units along the backyards of i ' ~ ~ ~ s ,I _ existing single family homes. The f,~ ' ~ s ~ 14 plan was also found to not ~ , - ~ transition appropriately from low ~ ~ F. ~ ~ ~ ~ density residential to medium is W i I ~ density residential to the east. t ~ z ~ ~eurRaz _ ~ ~ ~ x ~A~K ~ ~ ~ ; Planning Board requested a second ~ t~~ ~ ~ F-.~? ~ r . • I Concept Plan that increased the _ N level of compatibility between the i. F A ~ _ properties and also one, which - { ~ n took principal access from Tantra • Drive. Staff also had concerns ` i'° . _ - ~ about the maintenance and { , ~ + ~ x~ ` v _ - ~ ~ usability of the central greenspace ~ r ~ ; r ~ ~ given its proposed size and ~ ~ R _ i~ F~ ~ suggested smaller, more functional • ~ ~ ! spaces throughout the - _ - ~ development. Minutes from the ~ ~x -1F ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ l 1Qd ` 2007 meeting are in Attachment ~ D. Tom; - i Property Sale: Questions have been raised during the previous review process and currently about the legality of the transfer of the federally owned property to a private developer. This is because there are regulations that require surplus public lands to be offered AGENDA ITEM # 5B PAGE # 6 first to public entities. The City Attorney looked into this matter during the previous review and concluded (see WIP dated Dec. 19, 2006 in Attachment E) that the transfer appeared to be legal, since the land is not considered surplus by the Army and that a land transfer agreement existed between the Army and the applicant. However, this is a matter that is the responsibility of the applicant to demonstrate if there are further questions. Environmental Remediation: Questions regarding environmental clean-up on the site have also been raised. The applicant has provided staff with information that affirms that an Environmental Baseline Survey was done on the property in 2006. The information also indicates that there was a small oil spill on the property in 2003, which was contained. The following year contractors came and removed hydro-carbon impacted soil from the spill area and the holes were backfilled with clean dirt. An attached letter from the State of Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment indicates the suitability to transfer the property to the applicant (Attachment F). The letter notes that further environmental remediation would be necessary to finalize the transfer. If necessary, staff would request more environmental information at the Site Review stage to determine the suitability of the site for residential development. ANALYSIS: 1. Is it appropriate to consider a change to the BVCP land use designation concurrent with a rezoning request, or if the applicant would like to pursue it, is it more appropriate at the time of the next BVCP major update? The applicant's proposal entails a medium density residential project, which would require not only a BVCP land use designation change to Medium Density Residential, but a rezoning from RL-1 to RM-1 (Medium Density Residential - 1). In order for a rezoning to be approved, one of the following criteria on the next page would have to be met in the affirmative. Section 9-2-18(e), B.R.C. 1981 states specifically: The city's zoning is the result of a detailed and comprehensive appraisal of the city's present and future land use allocation needs. In order to establish and maintain sound, stable, and P desirable development within the city, rezoning of land is to be discouraged and allowed o~aly under the limited circumstances herein described. Therefore, the city council shall grant a j-ezoning application only if the proposed rezoning is consistent with the policies and goals of the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan, and, for an application not incidental to a general revision of the zoning map, meets one of the following criteria: (1) The applicant demonstrates by clear and convincing evidence that the proposed rezoning is necessary to come into compliance with the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan map; (2) The existing zoning of the land was the result of a clerical error; (3) The existing zoning of the land was based on a mistake of fact; (4) The existing zoning of the land failed to take into account the constraints on development created by the natural characteristics of the land, including, but not limited to, steep slopes, floodplain, unstable soils, and inadequate drainage; AGENDA ITEM # SB PAGE # 7 (S) The land or its surrounding environs has changed or is changing to such a degree that it is in the public interest to encourage a redevelopment of the area or to recognize the changed character of the area; or (6) The proposed rezoning is necessary in order to provide land for a community need that was not anticipated at the time of adoption of the Boulder Palley Comprehensive Plan. As stated above, rezoning within the city is rare and generally discouraged. In a general overview of the criteria based on current conditions, staff does not find that a rezoning could be considered for the site, unless the applicant were to demonstrate with convincing evidence that the proposed medium density residential land use would be "necessary to come into compliance with the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan map "per criterion (6) above. In such case, the burden of evidence is on the applicant to show how an increase in density is consistent with BVCP policies such to justify a change in the BVCP land use designation. The BVCP land use amendment could be filed at any time by the applicant, if the "criteria for eligibility for changes that may be considered at any time" within the BVCP were met. Like the rezoning criteria, the proposed change would have to be found consistent with the policies and overall intent of the comprehensive plan. Staff's assessment of BVCP compliance is discussed in key issue #2 and the amendment procedures and criteria for considering a BVCP land use designation change are found in Attachment G. In general, staff finds that the site's location on an arterial (i.e., multimodal corridor) and its adjacency to a shopping center and school and RM-1 zoning, suggest that a change to BVCP Medium Density Residential maybe appropriate to consider. Increased density along multi-modal corridors is generally encouraged by some BVCP Policies. For example, BVCP Policy 4.40, Energy-Efficient Land Use, states, "the city and county will encourage the conservation of energy through land use policies and regulations gove;•ning placement, orientation, and clustering of development through housing policies and regulations. The conservation of energy is served by tlae development of more intense land use patterns; the provision of recreation, employment and essential services in proximity to housing; the development of mass transit corridors; and efficient transportation. " Also related, BVCP Policy 2.26, Mixed Use and Higher Density Housing, states, "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 theurban design, street network, and compatibility with the surrounding area." Staff finds that based on this policy, intensifying the use of sites along multimodal corridors on a case by case basis is not the preferable approach to determining appropriate BVCP land use and zoning. Often applicants cite their site's location along multi-modal corridors as justification for increasing density or intensity on sites. It would be more appropriate for the city to holistically evaluate through an area planning process before changing BVCP land use and zoning. This could be done at the next major update of the BVCP, which begins this year, and through the anticipated evaluation of land use and design along multi- modal corridors, which also begins this year. That said, although rezoning is generally discouraged and BVCP land use changes on a site by site basis are not typically desired, a change in the BVCP land use designation on AGENDA ITEM # SB PAGE # 8 the site from Public will nevertheless be necessary given the change in ownership from a public entity to a private entity. This could be considered a situation where the city may want to take a "fresh look" at the land use of the site. If the city found that there were compelling reasons to increase density for the reasons discussed above and that the request was considered consistent with the policies and overall intent of the comprehensive plan, then the option to consider the change on a site specific basis remains an option. 2. Would the proposal be consistent with BVCP policies? The applicant's written statement (Attachment J) notes that the project would be consistent with BVCP policies as an infill development with a variety of housing types (including four affordable units, or 10% of the total) with increased density along a transit corridor (i.e., Table Mesa). Further, the site is immediately adjacent to medium density zoning (i.e., RM-1). As stated above, staff agrees that there are aspects about the project that would be consistent with BVCP policies; however, the applicant may wish to provide more information about how the project would relate to key BVCP policies on neighborhood compatibility and the broader goals of affordable housing, as discussed below. Nei,2hborhood Compatibility If the city is to evaluate the proposal on a site specific scale, staff finds that the project's compatibility with the surrounding area is one of the most important considerations. The BVCP Policies listed below are the most applicable: • BVCP Policy 2.13, Support for Residential Neighborhoods; • BVCP Policy 2.19, Compatibility of Adjacent Land Uses; • BVCP Policy 2.39, Sensitive infill and Redevelopment; • BVCP Policy 2.40, Physical Design for People; and • BVCP Policy 2.42, Enhanced Design for the Built Environment. The following are important excerpts from these four policies: "The city will seek appropriate building scale and character of new development or redevelopment. " -BVCP Policy 2.13 "With redevelopment, the transitional area should be within the zone of more intense use." -BVCP Policy 2.19 `infill and redevelopment will be expected to provide significant benefits to the community and the neighborhoods " -BVCP Policy 2.39 "The city will take reasonable steps to ensure that new development and redevelopment be designed in a manner that is sensitive to social, physical, and emotional needs. Broadly defined, this will include factors such as accessibility to those with limited mobility; provision of coordinated facility for pedestrians, bicyclists and bus-riders; provision of functional landscaping and open space; and the appropriate scale and massing of buildings related to neighborhood context. " -BVCP Policy 2.40 AGENDA ITEM # SB PAGE # 9 `Projects should become a coherentpart of the neighborhood in which they are placed. " -BVCP Policy 2.42 If the property were up-zoned to RM-1, staff has communicated to the applicant that an appropriate transition within the development would be necessary to be consistent with Policy 2.19, which requires that "with redevelopment, the transitional area should be within the zone of more intense use." Overall, staff finds the general layout of the project is superior to that presented in 2007 to Planning Board and would take into account the "provision of coordinated facility for pedestrians, bicyclists and bus-riders " as stated above. The new plan appears to be more connected and sensitive to the surrounding context as compared to the previous design, which appeared independent from surrounding development with only one access from Table Mesa and a high traffic access lane serving duplexes and row houses along rear yards of existing single family homes. The new design has a backyard to backyard layout, which would potentially create a more appropriate buffer from low density to medium density on the site. However, staff has concerns about how the mass and height of buildings and locations closer to the mutual lot line along that side could impact the existing single family homes. Sections within Attachment K show a comparison of existing height of adjacent single family homes, which would be higher in elevation above the proposed homes. However, it should be noted that this would not be the case further south on the property where there is no grade change between the properties. As ascertained by the submitted rendering, single family buildings in that area also appear larger than those to the north and could create greater impact to existing neighbors because of their height and size. If the project proceeds to Site Review and is ultimately successful in the BVCP land use designation change and rezoning, it is likely that floor area and height limits, and other bulk seducing methods maybe required to ensure compatibility between the properties and to be consistent with the BVCP policies stated above, which focus on appropriate building scale and massing. The city is currently evaluating such measures in single family neighborhoods as part of the "Compatible Development" project. Lastly, staff finds that if the BVCP land use designation and zoning for the site were to be changed, it would be more appropriate to not change the BVCP land use and zoning for the single family uses along the west lot line and to only change the eastern portion of the site to BVCP Medium Density Residential land use and RM-1 zoning. In such case, staff would advise that the general lotting pattern or building envelopes (if not subdivided) of the single family homes be similar to those to the west, which average nearly 7,000 square feet per lot (close to the minimum lot size in the RL-1 district). The applicant proposes building areas of roughly 6,000 square feet. This option, however, would decrease the open space on the eastern part of the site and would reduce the allowable density on that side. AGENDA ITEM # SB PAGE # 10 Community Benefit Community benefit is another important consideration of whether the site would be consistent with the BVCP, such that a BVCP land use designation change and rezoning could be supported. Community benefit is typically required with certain types of annexations, but based on BVCP Policy 2.39, Sensitive Infill and Redevelopment, stated above, "Infill and redevelopment will be expected to provide significant benefits to the community and the neighborhoods," which would apply to this proposal. Generally, staff does not find that the proposal would `provide significant benefits to the community and the neighborhoods." Nevertheless, the following community benefits can be considered: 1. Pedestrian connection: A pathway connection from the Table Mesa bus stop would connect to Summit Middle School to the south. This would be consistent with the following BVCP policies: • Policy 2.31- Commitment to a Walkable City; and • Policy 2.32- Trail Corridors/Linkages. To implement the path, the city would likely require a public access easement. 2. Mixture o~Housin,~ types: With duplexes, row houses, and single family homes, the project would provide a mixture of housing types consistent with BVCP Policy 7.06, Mixture of Housing Types. One benefit through a BVCP land use change and rezoning is the fact that a mixture of housing types would not be possible under the existing RL-1 zoning, which only permits detached housing. 3. Permanently affordable housing: BVCP Policies in Section 7 relate to the provision of permanently affordable housing (e.g., 7.02, Supply of Affordable Housing, 7.03, Permanently Affordable Housing, and 7.14, Integration of Permanently Affordable Housing). With increased density, the potential for more affordable units on the site would be possible. The applicant is proposing four permanently affordable housing units on the site, which would total slightly less than half of the required 20%, or nine units. The inclusionary zoning ordinance allows for in-lieu fees to substitute for any deficiencies in meeting this requirement. However, staff finds that the subject site would be a prime location for all permanently affordable units to be on-site. This, in combination with other identified benefits, could be considered "significant" per BVCP Policy 2.39, since the site is located on a multi-modal corridor. 4. Public streets vs. private streets: The project is not proposed to be subdivided and thus is proposed with a small network of private streets with all units as condominiums. RM-1 zoning, like RL-1, only permits one principal dwelling per lot, so the request to not subdivide would require a modification pursuant to Section 9-9- 2(b), B.R.C. 1981. Although there are no planned rights-of--way through the site per the Transportation Master Plan (TMP) and public streets are not required by code, the code does speak. to AGENDA ITEM # 5B PAGE # 11 not permitting private streets for subdivisions per Section 9-12-12(a)(2)(N), B.R.C. 1981. While this does not apply directly in this case; it does raise an issue as to whether public streets through the site could be considered a community benefit. Residents may prefer public streets since any established HOA (Homeowners' Association) would not have to maintain the streets and sidewalks and also the fact that the rights-of--way would contain basic public improvements like detached sidewalks and tree lawns that contribute to a neighborhood feel and a greater sense of connection to the surrounding context. Providing a public right-of--way connection through the site connecting Table Mesa and Tantra in an appropriate manner could be considered for consistency with BVCP 6.13, Neighborhood Streets Connectivity, which states, "New neighborhood streets will be designed in a well connected and fine grained pattern of streets and alleys to effectively disperse and distribute vehicle traffic and to promote bike and pedestrian travel." As public streets would afford residents a similar level of public infrastructure as other neighborhoods, staff would recommend that the property not be rezoned, until such time that the applicant agrees to propose public rights-of--way through the site. It is likely that this would affect the applicant's proposed density; however, since some open space (which determines density) would be within the public rights-of--way. 3. Is the general site and architectural design appropriate in the context of the existing neighborhood? Below are staff's general assessments of the proposed plan. A more detailed analysis of the project's consistency with the Site Review criteria of Section 9-2-14(h), B.R.C 1981, would occur if the project proceeded to that review stage. Site design 1) Layout: In general, the site design (including the building footprints and road placements) appears to address the neighborhood context better than the 2007 concept plan. For instance, the orientation of buildings and general footprints match that of surrounding development. It also connects to Tantra Drive (as discussed below) and Table Mesa (by fire lane), which would enable the development to feel more cohesively connected to the neighborhood with a variety of entry points, rather than the relatively isolated design that was previously presented. The plan, however, does not take into account the impacts that could occur from the adjacent city-owned facility on Tantra Drive. 2) Access: The alternative access from Tantra Drive would better connect the project to the surrounding neighborhood and is also a safer entry and exit point to the project, as compared to only Table Mesa, as previously proposed. Staff has also encouraged the applicant to consider shared driveways for the single family homes. 3) Pedestrian Connectivity: The proposed pedestrian connection between the bus stop and the school to the south would also better connect the project to its AGENDA ITEM # SB PAGE # 12 surroundings and would be consistent with BVCP Policies 2.3, Commitment to a Walkable City, and 2.32, Trail Corridors/Linkages, as discussed above. Staff finds that a more direct, centrally located and less circuitous path would provide additional community benefit, since the proposed path location along the east side would not provide a significant improvement over the alternative of walking along Tantra Drive. 4) Greenspace: Staff is concerned that the proposed greenspace along Table Mesa maybe largely unusable due to the proximity to high traffic noise. A space of similar size to that proposed could be placed more internal to the development by moving the row house structures closer to Table Mesa. This would buffer the space from the roadway and create a more quiet and safe place for active recreational activities. Staff is also concerned about the space's proposed use for stormwater detention, and also as a proposed location for community supported agriculture, which staff greatly encourages, but questions the location immediately adjacent to a busy roadway, where automobile contaminants could affect crops. During the previous review, staff suggested that more common open space within the development in the form of pocket parks could be beneficial. This observation would apply to the current plan as well. City code criteria (i.e., Section 9-2-14(h), B.R.C. 1981) and policies (namely, BVCP Policy 2.42, Enhanced Design for the Built Environment) also encourage functional common spaces that are designed and located to accommodate a range of uses, as well as to take advantage of views, which is important from this location, where views of the Flatirons are prominent. Further, it also appears there has not been a focus on preserving the existing mature trees on the site. The preservation of mature trees is a key requirement of Site Review. Bnildin~ Design 1) Streetscape: Staff finds the general design of buildings to be interestingly varied with a mixture of flat and angled roof elements and deviating wall planes. The buildings also have contemporary forms and fenestration -all of which would be conducive to visual interest as viewed from the internal drives. Although this appears to be successful within the development, a closer situation of buildings to Table Mesa should be considered to activate that Streetscape and present an appropriate face of the project, so long as massing is not imposing. 2) Color and materials: Although staff is concerned about the massing of single- family homes along the west side, staff finds the general form and design of buildings to be aesthetically pleasing and would appear to create attractive streetscapes within the development. Staff questions the "Mediterranean" look, however, and suggests that the applicant look at the colors and materials of the surrounding area and incorporate those into the project to support greater compatibility. AGENDA ITEM # 5B PAGE # 13 GUIDELINES FOR CONCEPT REVIEW AND COMMENT: The following guidelines are to be used to guide Planning Boards' discussion regarding the site. It is anticipated that issues other than those listed in this section will be identified as part of the Concept Plan review and comment process. The Planning Board may consider the following guidelines when providing comments on a Concept Plan. Guidelines for Review and Comment The following guidelines will be used to guide the Planning Board"s discussion regarding the site. It is anticipated that issues other than those listed in this section will be identified as part of the concept plan review and comment process. The Planning Board may consider the following guidelines when providing comments on a concept plan. 1) Characteristics of the site and surrounding areas, including, without limitation, its location, surrounding neighborhoods, development and architecture, any known natural features of the site including, without limitation, mature trees, watercourses, hills, depressions, steep slopes and prominent views to and from the site; The subject property is generally rectangular in shape and is located south of Table Mesa Drive just west of Tantra Drive. The site is mostly level but does contain some topographical variation. More specifically, there is a slight drop off in elevation (roughly 6 feet) along most of the property's boundary with single-family properties to the west and a more gradual elevational change in the southwestern corner of the property. Generally, slopes in the area are gradual and slope to the northeast on and around the property. As the site was used as an Army Reserve facility (now dormant), the site is mostly open with impressive views of the Flatirons to the west. Although the site is mostly devoid of trees, there are trees along the mild slope forming the backyards of the single-family homes to the west. Most of the notable mature trees are found in the northwestern corner of the property. In regards to built environment, single-family homes built in the late 1950's align with the west property line of the lot as noted above. These homes are predominantly one to one and half stories in height. Summit Middle School lands and aCity-owned Parks and Recreation facility are found along the rear abutting property line from west to east. Along the east property line are an assortment of two to two and half story (more contemporary) condominium buildings, asingle-family home, and a veterinary clinic at the corner of Tantra and Table Mesa. Across Table Mesa from the property is a Mormon church. Generally, most of the area developed in the late 1950's with more recent development to the east. AGENDA ITEM # SB PAGE # 14 2) Community policy considerations including, without limitation, the review process and likely conformity of the proposed development with the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan and other ordinances, goals, policies, and plans, including, without limitation, subcommunity and subarea plans; The project would not conform to the current RL-1 zoning and has been designed to fit within the parameters of RM-1 zoning. Thus, the applicant has requested preliminary consideration of a rezoning to medium density residential zoning, considering the proximity to the RM-1 zone to the immediate east. The proposal's compliance with BVCP policies are discussed in the Anal. section above. 3) Applicable criteria, review procedures, and submission requirements for a site review; The project would be subject to all the criteria in Section 9-2-14(h) of the Land Use Regulations. Submission requirements would be the same as any other Site Review and would have to satisfy the requirements of Section 9-2-14(d). A traffic impact study will be a requirement of the Site Review if trip generation, discussed below, is shown to generate 20 vehicle trips or greater during any single hour. Also at time of Site Review, a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) plan is required to be submitted which outlines strategies to mitigate traffic impacts created by the proposed development and implementable measures for promoting alternate modes of travel. In addition, staff has requested a Preliminary Utility Connection Report and Plan and a Preliminary Storm Water Report and Plan to be submitted at the Site Review stage to ascertain compliance with the City of Boulder Design and Construction Standards. Review of the Site Review application would follow athree-week review track where comments or a decision would be rendered at the end of that time. If revisions were required, two additional review tracks could be scheduled. If the project required Planning Board review, it would be scheduled during that time. If the project could be decided by staff, it would be subject to Board or citizen call-up. 4) Permits that may need to be obtained and processes that may need to be completed prior to, concurrent with, or subsequent to site review approval; Prior to Site Review submittal, revised trip generation, trip distribution, and trip assignment must be performed and the results submitted per sections 2.03(J) and 2.03(K) of the City of Boulder Design and Construction Standards. A traffic impact study is required for any residential development that is expected to generate 20 vehicle trips or greater during any single hour. AGENDA ITEM # SB PAGE # 15 Concurrent to Site Review, the project would require a Comprehensive Plan land use designation change and a rezoning. Following approval of these requests and the Site Review, Technical Documents would be required to allow staff to review more detailed plans to affirm compliance with regulations related to engineering, architecture, landscaping, drainage, lighting etc. Once all the site conditions were found to be compliant with all applicable codes, a building permit for the new structures could be reviewed. 5) Opportunities and constraints in relation to the transportation system, including, without limitation, access, linkage, signalization, signage, and circulation, existing transportation system capacity problems serving the requirements of the transportation master plan, possible trail links, and the possible need for a traffic or transportation study; Opportunities: Redevelopment of the site would create pedestrian connections from an existing bus stop along Table Mesa to the existing school to the south of the property. Vehicular connections from Table Mesa to Tantra could also be provided for greater connectivity. Constraints: Access to the site is the principal constraint. To address concerns about traffic along Table Mesa, the applicant has considered, at the city's suggestion, access through an existing lot developed with a single family home to the east. 6) Environmental opportunities and constraints including, without limitation, the identification of wetlands, important view corridors, floodplains and other natural hazards, wildlife corridors, endangered and protected species and habitats, the need for further biological inventories of the site and at what point in the process the information will be necessary; Opportunities: The site has impressive viewlines toward the Flatirons to the west. The site has minimal vegetation, but does contain a number of mature deciduous trees in the northwestern corner that should be retained. Constraints: Given the previous use of the property as an Army Reserve site, the possibilities for site contamination with vehicle maintenance and equipment storage on the site exist. The applicant has notified the City that environmental studies have been done to the property noting that it is safe for redevelopment. More detailed information about the development suitability of the site will be required at Site Review. 7) Appropriate ranges of land uses; and The site is zoned for single-family residential. The applicant is requesting consideration of a future rezoning to medium density residential. Residential appears to be the most appropriate use of the property given its proximity to other residential uses and the advantages of being located immediately adjacent to a bus stop for awell-used transit route. The extent of the residential uses is largely dependant on the impact the number of AGENDA ITEM # SB PAGE # 16 units would present to the neighborhood and the ultimate design of the property and how it successfully or unsuccessfully meets BVCP policies to justify an increase in density. At this time, staff does not find that the project meets all BVCP policies as discussed herein. 8) The appropriateness of or necessity for housing. The proposed project proposes a variety of housing units, four of which are noted as affordable. This would be less than the nine required by Section 9-13-4(a) of the Land Use Code, which notes that 20% of the units must be permanently affordable (20% of 43 = 9). The applicant has the option to pay in-lieu fees to cover the deficient five units. However, staff finds that affordable housing greater than the requirement maybe appropriate in this case given the sites immediate proximity to transit and also as a justification for the rezoning in meeting or exceeding BVCP policies on affordable housing. 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. The applicant held a neighborhood meeting on March 9, 2009. The meeting was generally a constructive question and answer session with a general positive tone toward the proposal among most of the neighbors. Questions ranged from the interface between the subject site and lots to the west to particulars about the site plan. The most prominent concerns related to the height and scale of proposed buildings, parking impacts (if students were to live in the development), and access from Tantra. The discussion topics are summarized in the neighborhood meeting summary in Attachment H. Staff has also received several written comments on the proposal -some that oppose the rezoning and have concerns related to traffic, density, and building bulk, and others that are proponents of the project. Some are in favor of a project moving forward due to their concerns about existing negative impacts from the vacant building on the site. Public comments are found in Attachment I. STAFF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION: Nn action is recl~Eired on i~ehalf of tltc Planning Board. {'ublic comment, st~~i`1", and Panning Board_conimrr~t__s_~vll be dE~cun~c~itcd for il~e applicaftt's usc. Concept Plan Review and comment is intended to give the applicant feedback on the proposed development plan and provide the applicant direction on submittal of the site review plans. AGENDA ITEiVI # SB PAGE # 17 Approved By: ~ Ruth McHeyser, xo~cutive Director of Community Planning Planning Department ATTACFIMENTS: A: Vicinity Map B: Applicable BVCP policies to the proposal C: Development Review Committee (DRC) comments on the proposal D: Planning Board minutes from Feb. 1, 2007 E: Weekly Information Packet Memorandum regarding sale of property dated December 19, 2006 F; Letter from State of Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment regarding the Finding of Suitability to Transfer dated November 21, 2005 G: Procedures and criteria far a BVCP land use map change II: Summary of March 9, 2009 neighborhood meeting. l: Public comment J: Applicant's written statement dated January 19, 2009. K: "The Armory" concept plan AGENDA ITEM # SB PAGE # 18 ATTACHMENT A pity of Boulder Vicinity Map _ - . ~ RE R~-~ ~ i~ 1 4~ ~ S'y i ~ ~T I ~ ~ ~ FAH-5 I~ ^Tabfe Mesa Dr - _ _ z ° I ~i ~ RL- 1 ~ ~ • - - I :Y ~ r _ 5uhjectArea _ ~ 4640 Table Mesa Dr -i - . - - • ~ ~ ~ 1 f~~ _ Hanover Av ~ - i I i Q~r~~y.AY_~ ~ _ Location: 4fi4a Table Mesa t7r F~roject Name: Table Mesa Hatlsi»g ~ir3'?f '~~1~~ Review Type: Concept Plan Reviewn~''7'}' 13orrhle~• a»I~ CC7Ir1I111e»t IVo~ l ~ Th:~aiumananuaaKSeaonen~sma~:s:~a.~:a sy GraL~i:~+etcKd:m oNr ilw CSy s9 PaJ:r+ Review NtlfCiiler: LUF22Q06.000194 c+cvdssr~awananly.u~e~:u,m~ed.asto 1 inch eq[rals 400 feet ~~~~°~«axnyMxnasa af:ha n!«ma[an Applicant; Stephe» Spar» AGENDA ITEM # SB PAGE # 19 ATTACHMENT B Applieable Saulder Vallee Comprehensive Plan (BVCP) policies to the proposal 2.04 Compact Land Use Pattern. The 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 inflll as compared to development in an expanded service area in order to prevent urban sprawl and create a compact community. The proposed project is a prime example of infill development as a redevelopment project within Area I planning area in Boulder. The development would take advantage of transit options and existing infrastructure along the Table Mesa corridor. 2.13 Support for Residential Neighborhoods. In its community design planning, the city will support and strengthen its residential neighborhoods. The city will seek appropriate building scale and compatible character of new development or redevelopment, desired public facilities and mixed commercial uses, and sensitively designed and sized rights-of--way. The applicant has not appropriately demonstrated that the proposed development, in its arrangement, use, and building scale, would be compatible to surrounding development. The proposed design appears to be largely disconnected from its surroundings and independent from the neighborhood. With access lanes located roughly 20 feet from adjacent single-family homes, the sensitivity of the right-of--way location is in question. 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 subareas and zoning districts. With redevelopment, the transitional area should be within the zone of more intense use. The proposal's design and land use does not provide an appropriate transition of intensity from low to medium density residential uses, in order to increase compatibility with adjacent single-family homes. An access lane with potential high-use would be located immediately behind existing single-family homes and could potentially impact the privacy and enjoyment of those properties. The proposed plan would also place 12 duplexes along that access lane with massing that is not compatible with the massing of the single family homes. Further, the proposed design does not take into account noise that is known to emanate from the City-owned Parks and Recreation facility on Tantra Drive. This does not imply that low density uses cannot be compatible with adjacent medium density, but rather that a more appropriate transition and site design would be necessary to enhance compatibility. 2.31 Comnzitzzzent to a Walkable City. The city and county will promote the development of a walkable city by designing neighborhoods and business areas to provide easy and safe access by foot to places such as neighborhood centers, community facilities, transit stops or centers, and shared public spaces and amenities. The site is a clear opportunity for providing pedestrian connections from the transit stop on Table Mesa to Summit Middle School to the south of the site. The applicant has proposed several connections through AGENDA ITEM # 5B PAGE # 20 the site. A multi-use path also exists around the school through City-owned open space. Connections could be made to that network. 2.32 Trail Corridors/Linkages. In the process of considering development proposals, the city and county will encourage the development of trails and trail linkages for appropriate uses such as hiking, bicycling or horseback riding, so as to provide a variety of alternative recreation and transportation opportunities. Implementation of this goal will be achieved through the coordinated efforts of the private and public sectors. See above. 2.39 Sensitive Infll and Redevelopment. Overall, infill and redevelopment will be expected to provide significant benefits to the 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. It has not been adequately demonstrated at this time that the proposed development would appropriately fit into the existing neighborhood character. Although medium density uses exist to the east of the site, the plan falls short of demonstrating sensitivity to the single-family homes to the west by placing an access lane roughly 20 feet from the rear yards of those homes and duplex structures at 2 and half stories along that access lane. Without an appropriate redesign, the current proposal would not enhance neighborhood change and livability. 2.40 Physical Design for People. The city and county will take all reasonable steps to ensure that new development and redevelopment, public as well as private, be designed in a manner that is sensitive to social, physical and emotional needs. Broadly defined, this will include factors such as accessibility to those with limited mobility; provision of coordinated facilities for pedestrians, bicyclists and bus-riders; provision of functional landscaping and open space; and the appropriate scale and massing of buildings related to neighborhood context. The site is generally level and is located along a major transit route. This opens many opportunities for those with limited mobility to live on the site and take advantage of the open spaces provided and the transit linkages with easy access. Despite this, the proposed plan has not yet been adequately designed to fit within the neighborhood context as noted in responses to Policies 2.13, 2.19, and 2.39 above and 2.42 below. 2.42 Enhanced Design for 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. AGENDA ITEM # SB PAGE # 21 The neighborhood does not necessarily have a distinctive character, but the opportunity to create a distinctive character on and around the site is possible through formulating an appropriate transition of residential intensity on the site that takes into account the low density uses to the west and existing development to the east. At this time, the proposed development is found to be insensitive to the single- family uses to the west and in sum, appears more as an independent entity than an integral part of the neighborhood. Because of this, the proposal does not appear to place much importance on the context of the area. 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 proposal would provide a notable greenspace that would add to the public realm. The greenspace would not be readily visible from Table Mesa, but could be accessed through a number of pedestrian paths that enter the site from that side. The space would provide impressive views of the Flatirons if not obscured by buildings. Little information is provided at this time, however, on how the buildings along Table Mesa would appear. The relation of buildings around the greenspace is also in question considering that those buildings may appear visually disconnected from the space with the private yards that create the impetus for fencing and other visual barriers. c) Human scale. Projects should provide pedestrian interest along streets, paths and public spaces. As noted above, visual interest of buildings framing the central greenspace maybe compromised by the potential for fencing that could occur with the proposed private front yards shown on the plan. Further, the visual interest of the pathways through the site maybe minimal, since they are proposed in remnant spaces with views of roadways and the backs of buildings. 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. The plan depicts several pedestrian entries into the site and viewlines toward the central greenspace. 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 central greenspace is an important aspect of the plan, but maybe overly large to be entirely functional. It maybe more prudent to decrease the size of that space and create other meaningful spaces distributed throughout the site. AGENDA ITEM # SB PAGE # 22 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. At this time, it is unclear how the proposed buildings along Table Mesa Drive would relate to that right-of- way. 6.09 Transportation Impact Traffic impacts from a proposed development that cause unacceptable community or environmental impacts or unacceptable reduction in level of service will be mitigated. All development will include strategies to reduce the vehicle miles traveled (VMT) generated by the development. New development will be designed and built to be multimodal and pedestrian- oriented. Strategies to reduce the VMT generated by new development will include all modes of travel as well as travel management programs such as the Eco Pass. The design of new development will especially focus on providing continuous modal systems through the development, on connecting these systems to those surrounding the development and on providing connections between the modes. (See Policy 3.05 Growth to Pay Fair Share of New Facility Costs.) The city will provide tools and resources to help businesses manage employee access and mobility and support public-private partnerships such as transportation management organizations to facilitate these efforts. The proposal has been designed to take into account usage of a bus stop along Table Mesa Drive and has pedestrian connections through the site to the neighboring school property. Trip generation figures, however, have yet to be evaluated considering the existing traffic issues on Table Mesa and the fact the proposed development would rely on only one ingress/egress point. Neighbors have already cited existing traffic problems along Table Mesa Drive. 6.13 Neighborhood Streets Connectivity. New neighborhood streets will be designed in a well connected and fine grained pattern of streets and alleys to effectively disperse and distribute vehicle traffic and to promote bike and pedestrian travel. The proposed development would not be consistent with this policy, since the development on the lot would depend solely on one access point. This could be problematic with any development on the lot given the traffic issues that already exist in the area, but would be worsened by the maximized deiisit)~ requested for the lot. Given the number of units proposed, alternate access points to disperse the traffic would better meet the intent of this policy. 7.01 Local Solutions to Affordable Housing. The city and county will emphasize locally developed solutions to meet the housing needs of their low and moderate income households, including those who work but may not live in Boulder County. The city and county further recognize that such needs may not be met solely through private development. To facilitate availability of housing for this segment of the population, appropriate federal, state and local programs and resources will be used both locally and in collaboration with other jurisdictions. The city's pursuit of additional affordable housing programs will include an analysis of the unmet need for such programs as well as an analysis of the financial, social, demographic and community resources and constraints. The proposed project would include 6 affordable units. This would be less than the eight required by Section 9-13-4(a) of the Land Use Code, which notes that 20% of the units must be permanently affordable (20% of 40 = 8). This is not problematic, as the applicant has the option to make a payment in-lieu o f AGENDA ITEM # SB PAGE # 23 providing the deficient two units. However, since there is a request for greater density on the site and given the immediate proximity to transit, it would be more prudent to provide at least the 8 affordable units. This would make the project more consistent with this policy, since new development is commonly a solution to achieving affordable housing need. 7.04 Populations with Special Needs. The city and county will encourage development of housing for very low and low income populations with special needs including facilities for the older adults, people with disabilities and other populations requiring group homes or other specialized facilities where appropriate. The location of such housing should be in proximity to shopping, medical services, entertainment and public transportation. Every effort will be made to avoid concentration of these homes in one area. (See Policy 2.40 Physical Design for People and Policy 6.05 Accessibility.) Affordable housing is proposed immediately adjacent to Table Mesa Drive where there are opportunities for residents to use transit and/or walk to the retaiUcommercial uses to the immediate east. This would be particularly advantageous to very low and low income populations with special needs, senior citizens, and/or people with disabilities. 7.06 Mixture of Housing Types. The city and county, through their land use regulations and incentive programs, will encourage the private sector to provide and maintain a mixture of housing types with varied price ranges and densities, which attempt to meet the affordability needs of a broad range of the Boulder Valley population. This includes families, essential workers, older adults, persons with disabilities, at-risk children and adults and vulnerable, very low income residents. (See Policy 2.18 Mixture of Complementary Land Uses and Policy 2.42 Enhanced Design for the Built Environment.) The proposed project includes a mixture of affordable housing, duplexes, townhomes, and row houses. How these units are distributed on the site is in question, since the project does not appear to provide an appropriate transition of residential intensities. AGENDA ITEM # SB PAGE # 24 CITY OF BOULDER ~,/~4~' Planning and Development Services ~ ~ 1739 Broadway, Third Floor P.O. Box 791, Boulder, CO ATTACHMENT G ~r phone 303-441-1880 fax 303-441-3241 web boulder) ~W CtTY OF BOULDER LAND USE REVIEW RESULTS AND COMMENTS DATE OF COMMENTS: February 6, 2009 CASE MANAGER: Karl Guiler PROJECT NAME: The Armory (formerly named Table Mesa Housing) LOCATION: 4640 TABLE MESA DRIVE COORDINATES: S03W02 REVIEW TYPE: Concept Plan Review & Comment REVIEW NUMBER: LUR2009-00007 APPLICANT: PETER STAINTON, FOUR STAR REALTY DESCRIPTION: CONCEPT PLAN REVIEW AND COMMENT: Request for citizen, staff and Planning Board comment on a proposal to redevelop the existing Army Reserve Training Center site with a variety of residential housing types (e.g., row houses, duplexes, and single family homes) totaling 43 units. The units would be accessed off of Table Mesa Drive (fire lane) and Tantra Drive (primary access). The proposal would ultimately require a rezoning from RL-1 (low density residential) to RM-1 (medium density residential). This plan will neither be approved or denied, but rather is an opportunity for the City and residents to comment on the general aspects of the proposal. POTENTIAL CODE MODIFICATIONS FROM THE LAND USE REGULATIONS AT TIME OF SITE REVIEW: The following are the identified modifications that may be required at Site Review should the project proceed to that stage: • Section 9-7-1, B.R.C. 1981- Modification to 20 foot front yard setback to a building and parking at 11 feet. • Section 9-7-1, B.R.C. 1981- Modification to interior side yard setback to permit buildings at 0-3 feet where 5 feet minimum or greater (dependant on building height} is required. • Section 9-9-2(b), B.R.C. 1981- Modification to permit more than one principal building on the lot. I. REVIEW FINDINGS The comments below reflect a review of the conceptual plans submitted for the redevelopment of the U.S. government owned Army Reserve property. This plan will neither be approved or denied, but rather is an opportunity for the City and residents to comment on the general aspects of the proposal. These comments and neighborhood correspondence will be forwarded to the Planning Board to review. The Planning Board hearing on this item is tentatively scheduled for April 2, 2009. The applicant is welcome to submit a written response to these comments prior to that hearing. The following key issues have been identified for the project (more may be added if necessary in the staff memorandurn): 1. Would Planning Board consider a Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP) land use designction change on the site and a rezoning on the property? 2. Would the site design and architectural design be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood? 3. Would the proposed project be consistent with the requested RM-1 zoning? Overall, staff finds the revised site design is a notable improvement above the previous design in its layout and how it would better connect to its surrounding•cantext. However, the greatest challenge for the project is demonstrating that the rezoning criteria would be met. More specifically, a rezoning can only be approved if at least one of the criteria for a rezoning under Section 9-2-18(e), B.R.C. 1981 can be met. As stated in Section 9-2-18(e), B.R.C. 1981, "the rezoning of land is to be discouraged and allowed only under the limited circumstances." Staff has preliminarily reviewed the criteria and finds that there would be Address: 4640 TABLE MESA DR ;agenda hem ~ ~~3 Paga z~ limited opportunities for granting a rezoning, since 1) there was no clerical error in the initial zoning, 2) there was no mistake in the initial zoning, 3) the applied zoning did not ignore natural characteristics of the site, 4) the surrounding environs are not changing at an unanticipated degree, and 5) no unanticipated community need would be fulfilled by the a rezoning to a greater density. Therefore, a rezoning would only be likely based on the applicant demonstrating "by clear and convincing evidence that the proposed rezoning is necessary to come into compliance with the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan map." In this case, rezoning to medium density residential would not necessarily bring the zoning into compliance with the existing "Public" BVCP land use designation. Nevertheless, staff understands it may be appropriate to change the BVCP land use designation on the site, since the site would no longer function as a public entity. Since current zoning is RL-1, Low Density Residential would be applied. Consequently, to request density greater than low density residential, the applicant would have to argue that a BVCP land use designation change to medium density residential would be consistent with the BVCP. This would be based on specific BVCP policies, as discussed within this document. It may be appropriate to increase density on the site, based on BVCP policies that encourage concentrating density along multi-modal corridors and proximate to transit. In this case, Table Mesa has high bus frequency and the Table Mesa bus station is within walking distance of the subject site. Further, the project would be a compact, infill development with a diversity of housing types that are near established amenities. Lastly, staff sees potential in the fact that the site is immediately adjacent to existing medium density zoning. However, a change in the BVCP is a legislative policy decision made by Planning Board and City Council. As stated throughout this document, staff is not convinced that the size and scale of buildings on the site would be compatible with development to the west and furthermore, although the project would provide four permanently affordable units and a diversity of housings types as encouraged by the BVCP, staff is not convinced that project would result in "significant benefits to the community' (see BVCP Policy 2.39 Sensitive Infill and Redevelopment). This will likely be a key consideration when reviewed by Planning Board and City Council. These conclusions are discussed in more detail below and will be discussed in the forthcoming staff memorandum. The applicant has also expressed intent to hold a neighborhood meeting prior to Planning Board. Please contact the Case Manager, Karl Guiler, at 303-441-4236 for scheduling. II. CITY REQUIREMENTS Access/Circulation (Michelle Mahan, 303-441-4417) 1. The proposed modifications to the existing traffic island on Tantra drive must be shown and dimensioned on the plans at the time of Site Review. In addition, the modifications must be supported by the traffic impact analysis. 2. The city is interested in constructing a photo enforcement vehicle parking space along the property's Table Mesa frontage. The space dimensions would be 30'x10' with 10 foot radii. The front (east end) of this space would be approximately 180' west of the Table Mesa~Tantra intersection. Although the construction of this space and the relocated section of multi-use path will not be the responsibility of the property, they should be depicted on the plans at the time of Site Review in order to ensure proposed landscaping, utilities, etc. will not be impacted. 3. At the time of Site Review, the curb returns shown for the Tantra access drive must be replaced with a standard drive cut in accordance with city standards. 4. The application materials state that the access drive will climb approximately 7 feet to reach the looped private drive. At the time of Site Review, the plans must demonstrate that the grade requirements for "other residential" outlined in Table 2-2 of the City of Boulder Design and Construction Standards will be met. 5. The shared drive cut on Tantra between the proposed duplex and the existing Veterinary Clinic should be narrowed and the access to the proposed duplex taken from the interior of the site- 6. All access/circulation through the site will be required to provide adequate clearance for emergency vehicles. Generally, a minimum 14 foot wide clear width exclusive of on-street parking is necessary for emergency vehicles, along with a SU-30 compliant turning radius. Appropriate "no parking fire lane" signage must be shown on the plan. Please note that staff has assumed that all other off-street parking requirements would otherwise be met. 7. See Fire Protection comments regarding a required turnaround between buildings RH10 and RH11. The turnaround Address: 4640 TABLE MESA DR ,~9enda Item # Page # ~fo dimensions should be in conformance with Figure D103.1 of the 2006 International Fire Code. 8. Per Section 2.10 of the DCS, emergency access lanes must be entirely contained within a minimum, continuous 20 foot wide emergency access easement or public right-of-way. Vertical clearance from the surface of the emergency access lane must be at least 15 feet. 9. Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP) policies aim to provide appropriate pedestrian connection through sites and this site is an opportunit~J to have a more direct connection from Summit Middle School to the bus stop along Table Mesa Drive. Given the location of the Table Mesa bus stop along and the school to the south, staff would expect demand for pedestrian travel through the site to increase once redeveloped. North/south pedestrian connectivity through the site within an access easement should be provided. Staff recommends widening the sidewalk segment along the southern property line to 8 feet until it connects to the southwest corner of the site and bicycles can be accommodated by the internal access drives. A pedestrian connection should be provided between this sidewalk and the sidewalk along the west side of the site. A public access easement should be dedicated which extends one foot beyond the edges of walk. 10. A 4 foot wide sidewalk and an 8 foot wide landscape buffer are required to be installed along the Tantra property frontage. The plans will be required to clearly show and dimension the required sidewalk and landscape buffer. 11. The sidewalk interior to the site should be revised to continue along the north side of the Tantra entrance drive. 12. All driveways must have an unobstructed sight triangle measured as 15 feet along the edge of the driveway and 15 feet along the public right of way line, with a line connecting these two lines. Exceptions are made for t;~unks of trees whose branches are higher than 8 feet above the roadway, objects less than 30" tall, or objects that are no less than 75% visually permeable. The Site Review plans must show the trees/shrubs in conformance with this standard. 13. Prior t4 Site Review submittal, revised trip generation, trip distribution, and trip assignment must be performed and the results submitted per sections 2.03(J) and 2.03(K) of thE~ City of Boulder Design and Construction Standards. A traffic impact study is required for any residential development that is expected to generate 20 vehicle trips or greater during any single hour. A traffic impact study will be a requirement of the Site Review if trip generation is shown to exceed the threshold. If a traffic impact study is warranted by the trip generation, the transportation consultant or engineer preparing the study must contact Michelle Mahan (303-141-4417) to discuss the study parameters prior to initiating the study. 14. At the time of Site Review, a Travel Demand Management (TDM) plan is required to be submitted which outlines strategies to mitigate traffic impacts created by the proposed development and implementable measures for promoting alternate modes of travel. • The applicant should contact Chris f-lagelin (303-441-1832), Senior Transportation Planner with GO Boulder, to discuss viable TDM options specific to this project. • The TDM plan must be submitted as a separate document with Site Review submittal. 15. A new 50' bus stop pad will be required to be installed al~~ng the Table Mesa frontage, to the east of the proposed emergency access. In addition, a 6x13 shelter pad and :>helter should be installed behind the sidewalk a~~d aligned with the front of the bus pad. The Site Review plans will be required to show and dimension this bus pad, shelter pad, shelter, and the associated tree grates. The existing bus shelter may be relocated or a new shelter installed. A public access easement will be required to be dedicated for any portion of the bus pad/shelter that is located outside of the public right-of-way. 16. All rights-of-way and easements are required to be dedicated concurrently with the final engineering submittal and prior to the time of building permit. All rights-of-way and easements required to be dedicated to the city must be reviewed and approved through a separate Technical Document Review process. Application materials and requirements are located on the 3`d Floor of the Park Central Building, and can also be found on the city's web-site at: www.bouldercolorado.gov Ditch 1. The applicant is responsible for obtaining approvals for any relocations or modifications to irrigation ditches or laterals from the impacted ditch company. This includes the crossing of any irrigation ditch or lateral for vehicular or utility purposes and the release of storm water runoff into any ditch or lateral. The applicant is advised that revisions to any approved city plans necessary to address ditch company requirements may require reapplication for city review and approval at the applicant's expense. Steve Buckbee, 303-441-3279 Address: 4640 TABLE MESA DR ~cnda item # ~ ~ Pegg # 2 2. The Base Line Land and Reservoir Company owns the Anderson Extension that passes in front of the subject property. The Anderson Extension Ditch starts on the south side of Table Mesa at 46th and travels in a diagonal direction to the north side of Table Mesa at Tantra. The Anderson Extension pipe should be shown on the drawings and protected during construction. Drainage (Steve, Buckbee, 303-441-3279) 1. Storm water quality enhancement and detention ponding are issues that must be addressed during the Site Review Process. A Preliminary Storm Water Report and Plan in accordance with the City of Boulder Design and Construction Standards must be provided by the applicant at time of Site Review application. Additional items that must be considered when developing a drainage plan include but are not limited to: • Adequate space to accommodate drainage and water quality facilities • Offsite drainage infrastructure improvements • Evaluation of negative impacts to downstream properties from existing offsite flow • Water quality for surface runoff using "Best Management Practices" • Groundwater discharge • Erosion control during construction activities 2. The applicant will be required to utilize best management practices to help mitigate stormwater quality impacts associated with the development of the site. The city requires that the applicant minimize directly connected impervious areas on the site and construct and maintain structural best management practices. Directly connected impervious areas can be minimized by routing roof and parking lot runoff through landscaped areas rather than directly to a storm sewer facility. Structural best management practices typically include features like water quality ponds, constructed wetlands, treatment channels, and sand filters. Detailed water quality requirements can be found in Section 7.13 of the city's Design and Construction Standards and in the Denver Urban Drainage and Flood Control District's Drainage Criteria Manual Volume 3. Water quality requirements must address at a conceptual level in the Preliminary stormwater Report and Plan submitted at the time of Site Review. Engineering Installation of underground utilities may provide a conveyance for any contaminated groundwater associated with the old armory site. Include any existing site environmental, groundwater or soils studies with the Site Review application to establish the existence or absence of contamination on the site. Steve Buckbee, 303-441-3279. Fees Please note that 2009 development review fees include a $131 hourly rate for reviewer services following the initial city response (these written comments). Please see the P&DS Questions and Answers brochure for more information about the hourly billing system. Fire Protection No issues with the concept plan- Access for fire is much better than previous submittals. As this process moves along I would ask to see more details on the emergency access off Table Mesa as well hydrant locations. The access area between RH10 and RH11 exceeds 150 feet and would require a turn around for fire apparatus. I believe it is early in the process and this may change as other comments are made. I would only like to point this out at this time. David Lowrey - 303.441.4356 Inclusionary Zoning Cindy Pieropan, HHS, 303.441.4187 The proposed project consists of 43 total units. The Inclusionary zoning requirement is 20% of the total or 8.6 units. The applicant has proposed that 4 units be permanently affordable. Inclusionary zoning requires that at least half of the requirement be provided as on-site units, with the ability to request a variance to this 10% on-site requirement. In this case, half or 10% would equal 4.3, so in order to meet the "minimum of one-half" requirement, 5 permanently affordable units should be included in the project. In order to vary this requirement, the applicant needs to demonstrate that providing more than 10% of the required units off-site would accomplish additional permanently affordable housing benefits or that there are zoning, environmental or legal restrictions that make it unfeasible to provide the minimum number of on-site permanently affordable units. The Applicant has not included any such information to justify providing less than 5 permanently affordable units on-site. The proposed project includes three different housing types: Single family detached (21 % of the total); duplexes (46.5%); and row homes (32.5%). Four of the row homes are proposed to be permanently affordable. This is inconsistent with section 9-13-3 (f) "Permanently Affordable Unit Types° which requires that in mixed unit type developments, the on-site Address: 4640 TABLE MESA DR ~nc~nr~ Item ~ e4~w~ & 28 permanently affordable units have the same percentage distribution as that of the market unit types. This distribution may be varied if there are additional affordable housing benefits to be achieved through such a variance. No justification for such a variance was included in the submittal. The applicant is proposing both a redevelopment plan and an up-zoning of the property. Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan Policy 2.39 "Sensitive Infill and Redevelopment" states, in part "Overall, infill and redevelopment will be expected to provide significant benefits to the community and the neighborhoods." Given the additional density that will result if the Applicant's rezoning request is approved, providing more on-site permanently affordable housing beyond the minimum required would be appropriate in order to justify the increase in density. Further, the proposed development's proximity to transit makes it a desirable location for permanently affordable housing. Land Uses Karl Guiler, Case Manager, 303-441-4236 The Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP) land use designation for the property is `Public.' If the land were developed under the current RL-1 (Low Density Residential) zoning, no comprehensive land use designation change would be required - in such case, staff would bring an amendment to the land use designation from Public to Low Density Residential to the Planning Board and City Council during the next major BVCP update. However, if the density were to be increased above that permitted in RL-1, a land use designation change would be required. Aland use designation change request from the applicant could be considered under the procedures of `Changes that may be considered at any time' found on page 56 of the BVCP, if there is an associated rezoning. The change could only be requested if all six criteria in the BVCP section are met. Approval to change the land use designation must be reviewed by the County and ultimately by the City Planning Board and City Council. The request can be sent to the County Land Use Department at any time, but would only be forwarded to City review if there was no objection to the change. Ultimately, any land use designation change must be found compatible with BVCP policies (e.g., affordable housing, diversity of housing types, development that is sensitive and compatible with surroundings, etc.) and compatible with the surrounding area. Review Process Karl Guiler, Case Manager, 303-441-4236 Concept Plan review is required per Section 9-2-13(b) of the Land Use Code. "Concept Plan Review and Comment" requires staff review and a public hearing before the Planning Board. Planning Board requested the second Concept Plan in their analysis of the prospect of changing the land use designation and zoning on the site. The board also strongly recommended that alternate access to the site from Tantra Drive be investigated. Planning Board, staff and neighborhood comments made at the public hearings are intended to be advisory comments for the applicant to consider prior to submitting any detailed "Site Review" plan documents. The Planning Departrr~enl and Planning Board will review the applicant's Concept Review & Comment plans against the guidelines found in Section 9-2- 13(f), B.R.C. 1981. There is no approval or denial decision on a Concept Plan application. Utilities (Steve, Buckbee, 303-441-3279) 1. On-site and off-site water main and wastewater main construction per the City of Boulder Design and Construction Standards (DCS) as necessary to serve the development, as well as perpetuate the overall system, will be required. All proposed public utilities for this project shall be designed in accordance with the DCS. A Utility Report per Sections 5.02 and 6.02 of the DCS will be required at time of Site Review or Preliminary Plat application to establish the impacts of this project on the City of Boulder utility systems. 2. The applicant is notified that, though the city allows Xcel and Owest to install their utilities in the public right-of-way, they generally require them to be located in easements on private property. 3. In all areas other than single family residential, there shall be no more that 350 feet of fire access distance between hydrants. No exterior portion of any building shall be over 175 feet of fire access distance from the nearest hydrant. Fire access distance means the distance between two hydrants, or the distance from a hydrant to any external portion of any building, measured along public or private (but accessible to fire equipment) roadways or fire lanes, as would be traveled by motorized firefighting equipment. 4. The applicant should note that trees are not permitted within ten feet of underground utility lines. At Site Review, the applicant will need to demonstrate that their plans can meet both landscaping and utility requirements. 5. A Preliminary Utility Plan meeting section 4.03 of the City of Boulder Design and Construction Standards will be required as part of any Site Review submittal. Address: 4640 TABLE MESA DR ~4,~1~ Iteri ~ ~~4a ~ ~9 6. The landscape irrigation system requires a separate water service and meter. A separate water Plant Investment Fee must be paid at time of building permit. Service, meter and tap sizes will be required at time of building permit submittal. 7. All water meters are to be placed in city R.O.W. or a public utility easement, but meters are not to be placed in driveways, sidewalks or behind fences. Zoning Karl Guiler, Case Manager, 303-441-4236 The project site is zoned RL-1, Residential -Low 1. This zoning district is primarily used for established detached residential development. The applicant is considering a rezoning of the property to RM-1, Residential -Medium 1. This would require a rezoning (and BVCP land use designation change as noted in 'land uses' above.). A rezoning could only be approved if at least one of the criteria found in Section 9-2-18(e), B.R.C. 1981 were met (this is discussed in more detail in the Informational Comments below). Please also note that any requested land use designation change and rezoning could be handled concurrently with a Concept Plan or Site Review. However, staff finds that it would be more appropriate for those applications to be processed at Site Review after a Concept Plan is reviewed by Planning Board. III. INFORMATIONAL COMMENTS Area Characteristics and Zoning History Karl Guiler, Case Manager, 303-441-4236 The current usage of the site is for a US Government owned Army Reserve facility, which is currently dormant. The property is now in contract for sale to a local ownership entity. The site currently has a land use designation of "Public" and is zoned `RL-1.' Boulder Valley School District (BVSD) BVSD submitted a letter dated February 2, 2009 pertaining to the proposal. This letter will be faxed to the applicant.. Building Design Karl Guiler, Case Manager, 303-441-4236 Streetscape Staff finds the general design of buildings to be interestingly varied with a mixture of flat and angled roof elements and deviating wall planes. The buildings also have contemporary forms and fenestration -all of which would be conducive to visual interest as viewed from the internal drives. Although this appears to be successful within the development, a closer situation of buildings to Table Mesa should be considered to activate that streetscape and present an appropriate face of the project. Mass and scale Staff is not convinced that the scales and heights of buildings -particularly along west lot line -would be compatible with existing single family development to the west. Although there are sections that show a plane of the existing height of adjacent building over the proposed buildings, this would not be the case further south on the property where there is no grade change. As ascertained by the submitted rendering, buildings in that area also appear larger than those to the north. If the project proceeds to Site Review and is ultimately successful in the BVCP land use designation change and rezoning, it is likely that floor area and height limits, and other bulk reducing methods may be required to ensure compatibility between the properties. The city is currently evaluating such measures in single family neighborhoods as part of the "Compatible Development" project. Color and materials As stated above, staff finds the general form and design of buildings to be aesthetically pleasing and would appear to create attractive streetscapes within the development. Staff questions the "Mediterranean" look, however, and suggests that the applicant look at the colors and materials of the surrounding area and incorporate those into the project to make it fit more harmoniously. Land Uses Karl Guiler, Case Manager, 303-441-4236 Amendment to Land Use Map As noted above, approval of the project would require a land use designation change in the BVCP from `Public' to `Medium Density Residential'. Medium Density Residential areas are those that allow 6 to 14 units per acre. The proposal would be 8.2 units per acre gross (8.8 units per acre net). Please review the procedures for BVCP changes on page 56 of the BVCP. Most importantly, the applicant would have to argue that the project met criterion (a), which states, "The proposed change is consistent with the policies and overafi intent of the comprehensive plan." Please also see the comments under Rezoning (and associated BVCP land use designation change) required comments under `Zoning.' Address: 4640 TABLE MESA DR i,;~~~~`d fter~ ~ -5g ~Ar~~- At this time, staff does not find that the project addresses all of the applicable BVCP policies as enumerated below, particularly those related to neighborhood compatibility and community benefit: BVCP Policies Below are applicable BVCP policies to the proposed project: 2.13 Support for Residential Neighborhoods. In its community design planning, the city will support and strengthen its residential neighborhoods. The city will seek appropriate building scale and compatible character of new development or redevelopment, desired public facilities and mixed commercial uses, and sensitively designed and sized rights-of-way. The proposed design appears to be generally compatible with existing development based on its arrangement of single family buildings in a similar pattern to the existing single family buildings to the west. The stepping from single family uses up to medium density on the site's eastern side would create a transition of land use intensity on the site to match the surrounding land uses, which are low density residential to the west and medium density residential to the east. The scale of buildings on the subject site would, however, be notably larger than those homes to the west. It cannot be concluded, at this time, if that scales are appropriate. Greater setbacks and smaller homes may be necessary to make the existing and proposed developments more harmonious. 2.19 Compatibility of Adjacent Land Uses. In order to avoid or minimize noise and visuaf 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 subareas and zoning districts. With redevelopment, the transitional area should be within the zone of more intense use. If medium density land uses are to be permitted on the site, it must be demonstrated that the site design creates an adequate transition #rom low density to medium density (west to east) by means of open space, building, and roadway placement. The single family backyard to backyard layout (along the west lot line} would be an appropriate interface that would buffer the existing homes from the more intense medium density uses further east. Vehicular noise would be buffered by building placements and vehicular activity would be distributed throughout the site, rather than being concentrated to areas where impact to existing homes could be greater (like the 2007 design). As stated above, building scale and distances from the property lines may potentially be incompatible with existing development to the west. 2.37 Commitment to a Walkable City. The city and county will promote the development of a walkable city by designing neighborhoods and b~;siness areas to provide easy and safe access by foot to places such as neighborhood centers, community facilities, transit stops or centers, and shared public spaces and amenities. The site is a clear opportunity for providing pedestrian connections from the transit stop on Table Mesa to Summit Middle School to the south of the site. The applicant has proposed several connections through the site. A multi-use path alto exists around the school through City-owned open space. 2.32 Trail Corridors/Linkages. In the process of considering development proposals, the city and county will encourage the development of trails and trail linkages for appropriate uses such as hiking, bicycling or horseback riding, so as to provide a variety of alternative recreation and transportation opportunities. Implementation of this goal will be achieved through the coordinated efforts of the private and public sectors. See above. 2.39 Sensitive Infill and Redevelopment. Overall, Infill and redevelopment will be expected to provide significant benefits to the 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. ' As discussed above, the placement of buildings on the site appear to be generally sensitive to existing neighborhoods, but the scale of buildings may not be compatible with the size of existing homes to the west. Given the impacts of Infill development, significant benefits to the community from the project are expected. In this case, Infill development along Address: 4640 TABLE MESA DR multimodal corridors provide community benefit to the city in terms of creating the incentive for residents to use transit or ride bikes as alternatives to the automobile. This development would contribute to this goal. The development also would provide a variety of housing types within its boundaries, four permanently affordable units, and a trail linkage to Summit Middle School to the south. Whether these are "significant" benefits to the community, is a principal issue. The applicant should explore other community benefits on the site, such as providing all required permanently affordable housing units on site, land and/or facilities for public purposes over and above that required by the city's land use regulations, environmental preservation, or other amenities determined by the city to be a special opportunity or benefit. 2.40 Physical Design for People. The city and county will take all reasonable steps to ensure that new development and redevelopment, public as well as private, be designed in a manner that is sensitive to social, physical and emotional needs. Broadly defined, this will include factors such as accessibility to those with limited mobility; provision of coordinated facilities for pedestrians, bicyclists and bus-riders; provision of functional landscaping and open space; and the appropriate scale and massing of buildings related to neighborhood context. The site is generally level and is located along a major transit route. This opens many opportunities for those with limited mobility to live on the site and take advantage of the open spaces provided and the transit linkages with easy access. 2.42 Enhanced Design for 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. With a vehicular connection to Tantra Drive, fire access from Table Mesa, and pedestrian linkages through the site to the school, the general design attempts to connect to its surrounding context. Further, the layout of buildings is done to create a more appropriate transition from low density to medium density, than previously proposed, to match the land ~ uses on either side of the lot. To protect and enhance the quality of established residential areas -namely the Majestic Heights neighborhood to the west - it would be critical for building scales and designs on the site to not overwhelm existing development or significantly change the character of the area. This has not been fully addressed. 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. Generally, the project is laid out with buildings facing streets. Open space is also situated to the public realm of the Table Mesa right-of-way. Internal open spaces could also take advantage of prominent Flatiron views from the site. c) Human scale. Projects should provide pedestrian interest along streets, paths and public spaces. Buildings are oriented to frame internal streets, pedestrian paths, and the common open space. 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. The common open space along Table Mesa would provide a view into the site. Several pathways and sidewalk`s enable pedestrians to enter the site and cross the site to the Summit Middle School to the south. Address: 4640 TABLE MESA DR 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 functionality of the common open space is in question due to its proximity to the vehicular noise of Table Mesa and also, its intended function as a stormwater detention area. The space includes a community garden, which could provide a unique alternative use of the space. The project would benefit by more functional open spaces (e.g., pocket parks) throughout the development providing relief from the noise of Table Mesa and the density within the project. 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. Based on the preliminary designs submitted, the design approach appears appropriate with interesting building and roof forms and adequate fenestration. Most buildings are oriented to pedestrian areas and would be conducive to visual interest. A closer location of the row houses to the street could enhance the pedestrian interest along Table Mesa Drive. 6.09 Transportation Impact. Traffic impacts from a proposed development that cause unacceptable community or environmental impacts or unacceptable reduction in level of service will be mitigated. All development will include strategies to .educe the vehicle miles traveled (VMT) generated by the development. New development will be designed and built to be multimodal and pedestrian-oriented. Strategies to reduce the VMT generated by new development will include all modes of travel as well as travel management programs such as the Eco Pass. The design of new development will especially focus on providing continuous modal systems through the development, on connecting these systems to those surrounding the development and on providing connections between the modes. (See Policy 3.05 Growth to Pay Fair Share of New Facility Costs.) The city will provide tools and resources to help businesses manage employee access and mobility and support public-private partnerships such as transportation management organizations to facilitate these efforts. The proposal has been designed to take into account usage of a bus stop along Table Mesa Drive and has pedestrian connections through the site to the neighboring school property. Neighbors have already cited existing traffic problems along Table Mesa Drive. At the Site Review stage, a traffic study would be required to further evaluate the traific impacts of the project. 6.10 Multimodal Development. The transportation system will accommodate the planned land 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. The land along multimodal corridors will be designated as multimodal transportation zones when transit service is provided on that corridor. In these multimodal transportation zones, the city will develop parking maximums and encourage parking reductions. To minimize the negative impacts from automobiles, the city will develop strategies to facilitate and encourage the use of small, fuel efficient automobiles, particularly for urban commuting. , Designating the BVCP land use on the site Medium Density Residential is a valid consideration given its location on the multimodal corridor of Table Mesa Drive and the site's proximity to the commercial node at Tantra and Table Mesa. Of course, the development would have to be considered compatible to surrounding development in terms of its scale, layout, intensity, and use, and as an infill project would have to provide significant benefits to the community per Policy 2.39 Sensitive Infill and Redevelopment. 6.13 Neighborhood Streets Connectivity. New neighborhood streets will be designed in a well connected and fine grained pattern of streets and alleys to effectively disperse and distribute vehicle traffic and to promote bike and pedestrian travel. Address: 4640 TABLE MESA DR The proposed development would provide an appropriate connection to Tantra Drive and a fire lane connection from Table Mesa. 7.01 Local Solutions to Affordable Housing. The city and county will emphasize locally developed solutions to meet the housing needs of their low and moderate income households, including those who work but may not live in Boulder County. The city and county further recognize that such needs may not be met solely through private development. To facilitate availability of housing for this segment of the population, appropriate federal, state and local programs and resources will be used both locally and in collaboration with other jurisdictions. The city's pursuit of additional affordable housing programs will include an analysis of the unmet need for such programs as well as an analysis of the financial, social, demographic and community resources and constraints. The proposed project proposes a variety of housing units, four of which are noted as affordable. This would be less than the eight required by Section 9-13-4(a} of the Land Use Code, which notes that 20% of the units must be permanently affordable (20% of 43 = 8.6 rounded up to 9). The applicant has the option to pay in-lieu fees to cover the five units not provided on site. Given the incentive to justify the increased density on the property, affordable housing greater than the requirement would be appropriate in this case given the sites immediate proximity to transit. 7.04 Populations with Special Needs. The city and county will encourage development of housing for very low and low income populations with special needs including facilities for the older adults, people with disabilities and other populations requiring group homes or other specialized facilities where appropriate. The location of such housing should be in proximity to shopping, medical services, entertainment and public transportation. Every effort will be made to avoid concentration of these homes in one area. (See Policy 2.40 Physical Design for People and Policy 6.05 Accessibility.) Affordable housing is proposed near Table Mesa Drive where there are opportunities for residents to use transit and/or walk to the retail/commercial uses to the immediate east. This would be particularly advantageous to very low and low income populations with special needs, senior citizens, and/or people with disabilities. 7.06 Mixture of Housing Types. The city and county, through their land use regulations and incentive programs, will encourage the private sector to provide and maintain a mixture of housing types with varied price ranges and densities, which attempt to meet the affordability needs of a broad range of the Boulder Valley population. This includes families, essential workers, older adults, persons with disabilities, at-risk children and adults and vulnerable, very low income residents. (See Policy 2.18 Mixture of Complementary Land Uses and Policy 2.42 Enhanced Design for the Built Environment.) The proposed project would include a mixture of single family homes, duplexes, row houses, and affordable housing. Landscaping Elizabeth Lokocz 303.441.3138 In November 2006, the City of Boulder adopted a Climate Action Plan (CAP). The intent of the CAP is to guide Boulder towards a sustainable energy future that dramatically reduces greenhouse gas emissions from current levels, while meeting the needs of present and future generations. A sustainable energy future is a critical component of the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan, which is a tool designed to protect the natural environment of the Boulder Valley while fostering a livable, vibrant and sustainable community. The following comments are made in support of the CAP. 1 _ As project plans become more refined, a landscape plan is required that is consistent with, and exceeds, city code requirements. See Sections 9-9-11, 12, 13 and 14, B.R.C. 1981 for all applicable requirements. 2. A detailed tree inventory including the species, size and condition of all existing trees on the site will be a requirement at Site Review (see 9-2-14(h)(2)(iii), B.R.C. 1981) and should be submitted with the initial application. The proposed site plan acknowledges the existing mature trees on the site, but does not appear to include them as elements worthy of preservation. Special attention should be given to incorporating any healthy mature tree into the overall layout and circulation plan. 3. The internal vehicular and pedestrian circulation pattern, although private, should establish a pedestrian friendly streetscape and shade hardscape whenever possible. Refer to the site review criteria of Section 9-2-14(h), B.R.C. 1981 as a guide for designing the streetscape elements. Staff would prefer a detached sidewalk and 8' tree planting strip. Final dimensions of the sidewalk may be dictated by Transportation review, but regardless of the sidewalk dimensions and location, a pedestrian friendly environment should be established. Evaluate the Address: 4640 TABLE MESA DR spacing and size of the proposed trees to meet a minimum of one tree for every 40 linear feet (the minimum street tree requirement). Staff recommends larger maturing shade trees wherever possible project. The existing streetscape along Table Mesa Drive is inconsistent given the single family residences. The project should identify how the proposed open space will interface with the public. A formal or informal streetscape could be supportable, but shall again meet the minimum street tree requirements of one tree for every 40 linear feet of frontage. More may be appropriate based on the street tree spacing requirements of Chapter 3, Design and Construction Standards. 4. Parking areas containing more than 5 cars are required to be screened from adjacent lots per 9-9-14(a) BRG 1981. This appears to be applicable to the parking lots for Buildings 16, 17, 18 and 21. See the section for additional detail on screening and exclusions from the requirement. 5. The Community Gardens are a great addition to the overall proposal. However, their location should be evaluated to provide the best location which is unlikely to be adjacent to roads where de-icing chemicals can be introduced. The existing location is also likely to be shaded by the proposed building #10 and trees. Although some areas of shade may be an asset, the garden should be in full sun a minimum of four hours daily. Staff assumes the community gardens will be for the residents of the project only and a mare central, easily assessed location may be more appropriate. The detention required and resulting cross section should also be determined early in design development to determine if the Park will provide useable open space and how the proposed amenities might moderate any adverse impacts of the detention. 6. Staff supports the pedestrian circulation system connecting to the surrounding neighborhoods including the elementary school to the south. However, looping the system behind the buildings on the east and south side may not be the best solution. The pattern appears redundant adding unnecessary impervious surface and cost to the overall project. Amore direct connection to the school to the east of Building 19 may be an improved solution. Neighborhood Comments Karl Guiler, Case Manager, 303-441-4236 Staff has received several written comments on the proposal. These comments will be faxed to the applicant. Parks and Recreation Mike Gurrola, 303-413-7228 A small number of Parks and Recreation staff utilizes the Tantra Park Shop at 585 Tantra Park Drive. Park staff generally begins work at 6 or 7 am and at 4 am for snow removal operations. Staff will be instructed to back-in vehicles so that the back-up alarms are not triggered in the early morning hours, however, there will be some early morning noise from trucks and other equipment. The yard is used to store vehicles, equipment, and stockpiles of various landscape materials. The site is kept orderly however the developer is encouraged to provide privacy fencing and appropriately placed landscaping materials to minimize any negative visual impact the Tantra Yard may have to the homeowners. Risk Management and security is a primary concern for all city properties. The added population adjacent to the Tantra property may increase the risk of vandalism and theft in the Tantra Yard. Currently, the lighting from the Army Reserve parking lot is helpful in adding protection to this property. Adequate fencing and lighting in the development will help deter anyone from accessing the Tantra Yard from the new development. Plan Documents Karl Guiler, Case Manager, 303-441-4236 1. On the plan sets that will be forwarded to Planning Board, staff suggests the following clarifications to the site plan: • Clarify the location of the front lot line along Table Mesa. • Revise open space calculation to not include fire lane. • Add the unit the total number of each unit type (i.e., 9 single family, 20 paired homes, and 14 row houses.). 2. The applicant may wish to consider an alternative name for the development in order to avoid confusion over the "Armory" project in north Boulder. Site Design Karl Guiler, Case Manager, 303-441-4236 Neighborhood Context/Site layout Address: 4640 TABLE MESA DR ~~n~ndaltem# ; wb~3~ ~5 . In general, the site design (including the building footprints and road placements} appears to address the neighborhood context better than the 2007 concept plan. For instance, the orientation of buildings and general footprints match that of surrounding development. It also connects to Tantra Drive and Table Mesa (by fire lane), which would enable the development to feel more cohesively connected to the neighborhood with a variety of entry points, rather than the relatively isolated design that was previously presented. The plan continues, however, to not take account the impacts that could occur from the adjacent city-owned facility on Tantra (see Parks and Recreation comments above). Compatibility with adjacent single-family uses The new plan is arguably more compatible vis-a-vis the 2007 design, which included the proposal for a high traffic access lane along the existing single family homes rear yards separating existing single family homes from larger duplex structures along the west side. The new design has a backyard to backyard layout, which would potentially create a more appropriate buffer from low density to medium density on the site. However, as stated above, staff has concerns about how the mass and height of buildings and locations closer to the mutual lot line along that side could impact the existing single family homes. Greenspace Staff is concerned that the proposed greenspace along Table Mesa may be largely unusable due to the proximity to high traffic noise. Issues about the externalities of open space adjacent to busy roadways are also discussed in the `landscaping' section above. A space of similar sized to that proposed could be placed more internal to the development by moving the row house structures closer to Table Mesa. This would buffer the space from the roadway and create a more quiet and safe place for active recreational activities. Staff has suggested in the past that more common open space within the development in the form of pocket parks could be beneficial. City code criteria and policies also encourage functional common spaces that are designed to encourage use by their location, their design, and also ability #o take advantage of views, which is important from this location, where views of the Flatirons are prominent. It also appears there has not been a focus on preserving the existing mature trees on the site. The preservation of mature trees is a key requirement of Site Review. Access The alternative access from Tantra Drive would better connect the project to the surrounding neighborhood and is also ~ more safe entry and exit point to the project. Please see `Access/Circulation' above for more access requirements. Individual access to the proposed detached garages may not be code compliant based on the angles of entry from the driveways. Please review and take into account for any revised plans. Staff also encourages the applicant to consider shared driveways for the single family homes. Pedestrian Connectivity The proposed pedestrian connection between the proposed bus stop and the school to the south would also better connect the project to its surroundings and would be consistent with BVCP policies 2.3, Commitment to a Walkable City, and 2.32, Trail Corridors/Linkages. Staff finds that a more direct, centrally located and less circuitous path would provide additional community benefit, as discussed in the `landscaping' section above, since the proposed path location along the east side would not provide a significant improvement over the alternative of walking along Tantra Drive. Zoning Karl Guiler, Case Manager, 303-441-4236 Lot size The gross property size is listed as approximately 228,432 square feet. This total includes a remnant prescriptive right within a portion of the Table Mesa roadway and the single family lot on Tantra Drive. From the submitted Improvement Survey Plat, staff has deduced that the single family lot on Tantra is 10,645 square feet. When the north area within the right-of-way is deducted, however, the square footage of that area is 15,995 square feet versus the 12,911 square fFet indicated on the previous Concept Plan indication. If possible, please provide an explanation for this discrepancy. At time of Site Review, an official survey would be required to clarify the size of the lot. Compatibility with zoning Hypothetically, a by-right development on the property could yield over 30 single-family homes under the RL-1 zoning. Of course, the number in actuality would be significantly less due to required compliance with lot frontage and shape requirements and the necessity for dedicating right-of-way to access the lots- During the previous Concept Plan review, the applicant hypothesized a RL-1 development of 19 lots accessed from a roadway and cul-de-sac (compliance of that design to the subdivision regulations and design and construction standards were not evaluated). The actual proposed concept, however, does not comply with the current zoning. See below. rezoning [and associated BVCP land use designation change) required The proposed development of a variety of 43 housing units would not be compatible with the current zoning and would Address: 4640 TABLE MESA DR require a rezoning on the property. A rezoning can only be approved if at least one of the criteria for a rezoning under Section 9-2-18(e), B.R.C. 1981 can be met. As stated in Section 9-2-18(e}, B.R.C. 1981, "the rezoning of land is to be discouraged and allowed only under the limited circumstances." Staff has preliminarily reviewed the criteria and finds that there would be limited opportunities for granting a rezoning, since 1) there was no clerical error in the initial zoning, 2) there was no mistake in the initial zoning, 3) the applied zoning did not ignore natural characteristics of the site, 4) the surrounding environs are not changing at an unanticipated degree, and 5) no unanticipated community need would be fulfilled by the a rezoning to a greater density. Therefore, a rezoning would only be likely based on the applicant demonstrating "by clear and convincing evidence that the proposed rezoning is necessary to come into compliance with the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan map." In this case, rezoning to medium density residential would not necessarily bring the zoning into compliance with the existing "Public° BVCP land use designation. Nevertheless, staff understands it may be appropriate to change the BVCP land use designation on the site, since the site would no longer function as a public entity. Since current zoning is RL-1, Low Density Residential would be applied. Consequently, to request density greater than low density residential, the applicant would have to argue that a BVCP land use designation change to medium density residential would be consistent with the BVCP. This would be based on specific BVCP policies, as discussed within this document. It may be appropriate to increase density on the site, based an BVCP policies that encourage concentrating density along multi-modal corridors and proximate to transit. In this case, Table Mesa has high bus frequency and the Table Mesa bus station is within walking distance of the subject site. Further, the project would be a compact, infill development with a diversity of housing types that are near established amenities. Lastly, staff sees potential in the fact that the site is immediately adjacent to existing medium density zoning. However, a change in the BVCP is a legislative policy decision made by Planning Board and City Council. As stated throughout this document, staff is not convinced that the size and scale of buildings on the site would be compatible with development to the west and furthermore, although the project would provide four permanently affordable units and a diversity of housings types as encouraged by the BVCP, staff is not convinced that project would result in "significant benefits to the communit}~' (see BVCP Policy 2.39 Sensitive Infill and Redevelopment). This will likely be a key consideration when reviewed by Planning Board and City Council. Building Heights In the RM-1 zone (and RL-1 zone), building height would be limited to 35 feet using the definition of `building height' in the Land Use Code and City Charter. Any buildings over that height would require Planning Board review and approval of a height modification as part of a Site Review. Building Mass For a point of reference, the RM-1 zone contains no limitations on building bulk and the RL-1 zone currently has a 0.8 FAR (Floor Area Ratio) limit, although the latter may change drastically in the future based on the results of the "Compatible Development" project currently under way in the city. The size, massing, and height of buildings have been a critical issue with redevelopment in Boulder. Please be advised that in order to ensure compatibility of the proposed buildings on the site to existing development, specific height and size limitations and other bulk reducing factors may be imposed on the development at time of Site Review. Staff is particularly concerned about the potential size of building.^ along the west property line. Building Setbacks In a preliminary review, it appears that a modification to the front 20 foot setback from Table Mesa would be required for one of the single family residences to be 11 feet. Further, with parking proposed in that area, a modification to permit parking within that setback would be required. It also appears that interior side yard setbacks would have to be modified to permit the garages along the west lot line. Modified setbacks can only be approved if found appropriate through the Site Review process. Such setbacks would have to be compatible with the context of the area. Other modifications may be identified based on the proposed heights of buildings and more clear information on the location of property lines. {t is unclear on the current plan were the exact location of the front line is. Development Standards Please be advised that the project would be subject to all of the development standards of Section 9-9, Development Standards. Staff has extracted the most pertinent sections to this proposal, which are noted below through the `solar access' section: • Section 9-9-2(b}- No more than 1 principal building shall be placed on a lot in the RM zoning districts unless approved under Site Review. • Section 9-9-4-Any development on the property would be subject to the City of Boulder Design and Construction Address: 4640 TABLE MESA DR i=;;;~n~a iter~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Standards. • Section 9-9-5(a)- Vehicular access to the property from the public right-of-way shall be controlled in such a manner as to protect the traffic-carrying capacity and safety of the street upon which the property abuts and access is taken, ensuring that the public use and purpose of public right-of-way is unimpaired as well as to protect the value of the public infrastructure and adjacent property. See section `access/circulation' section for more information related to the proposal. Parking Minimal information regarding parking has been provided. Without knowing the number of bedrooms and unclear information on garage sizes, it is not possible to determine the number of spaces that would be required for the development. The applicant should refer to Section 9-9-6, Parking Standards, in the Land Use Code and provide this information {albeit preliminary) before the scheduled Planning Board hearing. Parking for bicycles according to Section 9- 9-6(b) would also be required on the site. Please note that back out for parking spaces must be no less than 24 feet. Open Space MR-1 zoning requires 3,000 square feet of open space per unit. Therefore, 43 units would result in a total requirement of 129,000 square feet of open space meeting the standards of Section 9-9-11 of the Land Use Code. In a preliminary review of the plan, it appears that this requirement is met, although please take into account the following: • The fire lane would not be considered useable open space. • Individual and above grade decks and balconies can only account for 25% of the required open space, or 32,250 square feet. • Paths less than 5 feet in width do not count as useable open space. Landscaping (existing trees) Development of the site will require compliance with the landscaping and screening standards of Section 9-9-12. In a preliminary review of the application, staff would find it appropriate to locate the existing mature trees on the proposed site plan and indicate if the trees are to be retained or removed. Staff has visited the site and is concerned several mature deciduous trees that are located on the northwest corner of the site. It may be prudent to identify the trees and note whether they would be removed or not prior to Planning Board review of the project. A buffer from the City-owned Park and Recreation facility by the southeast corner should be a consideration. Outdoor Lighting Please note that development of the lot will require compliance with Section 9-9-16, Outdoor Lighting- Solar Access Please be advised that the property would become part of Solar Area II (25 foot solar fence) if rezoned to RM-1. However, given the proximity next to RL-1, development on the west side of the property would have to comply with Solar Area I (12 foot solar fence) on that side. Please review Section 9-9-17 of the Land Use Regulations before Site Review submittal to determine compliance with the requirements of that section. Occupancy of Dwelling Units Please note the occupancy limits set forth in Section 9-8-5. IV. NEXT STEPS Neighborhood meeting- Staff has strongly recommended a neighborhood meeting on this proposal and has contacted the applicant accordingly. A meeting is yet to be officially scheduled and should occur prior to Planning Board, Please contact the Case Manager, Karl Guiler, at 303-441-4236 for scheduling. Planning Board- These comments and neighborhood correspondence will be forwarded to the Planning Board to review. The Planning Board hearing on this item is tentatively scheduled for April 2, 2009. The applicant is welcome to submit a written response to these comments prior to that hearing. V. CITY CODE CRITERIA CHECKLIST Guidelines for Review and Comment Address: 4640 TABLE MESA DR %~Uflu~ ~(2ffi ~ The following guidelines will be used to guide the Planning Board"s discussion regarding the site. tt is anticipated that issues other than those listed in this section will be identified as part of the concept plan review and comment process. The Planning Board may consider the following guidelines when providing comments on a concept plan. 1) Characteristics of the site and surrounding areas, including, without limitation, its location, surrounding neighborhoods, development and architecture, any known natural features of the site including, without (imitation, mature trees, watercourses, hills, depressions, steep slopes and prominent views to and from the site; The subject property is generally rectangular in shape and is located south of Table Mesa Drive just west of Tantra Drive. The site is mostly level but does contain some topographical variation. More specifically, there is a slight drop off in elevation (roughly 6 feet) along most of the property's boundary with single-family properties to the west and a more gradual elevational change in the southwestern corner of the property. Generally, slopes in the area are gradual and slope to the northeast on and around the property. As the site was used as an Army Reserve facility (now dormant), the site is mostly open with impressive views of the Flatirons to the west. Although the site is mostly devoid of trees, there are trees along the mild slope forming the backyards of the single-family homes to the west. Most of the notable mature trees are found in the northwestern corner of the property. In regards to built environment, single-family homes built in the late 1950's align with the west property line of the lot as noted above. These homes are predominantly one to one and half stories in height. Summit Middle School lands and a City-owned Parks and Recreation facility are found along the rear abutting property line from west to east. Along the east property line are an assortment of two to two and half story (more contemporary) condominium buildings, asingle-family home, and a veterinary clinic at the corner of Tantra and Table Mesa. Across Table Mesa from the property is a Mormon church. Generally, most of the area developed in the late 1950's with more recent development to the east. 2) Community policy considerations including, without limitation, the review process and likely conformity of the proposed development with the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan and other ordinances, goats, policies, and plans, including, without limitation, subcommunity and subarea plans; The project would not conform to the current RL-1 zoning and has been designed to fit within the parameters of RM-1 zoning. Thus, the applicant has requested a rezoning to medium density residential zoning, considering the proximity to the RM-1 zone to the immediate east. The proposal's compliance with BVCP policies are discussed in the 'land uses' section above. 3) Applicable criteria, review procedures, and submission requirements for a site review; The project would be subject to all the criteria in Section 9-2-14(h) of the Land Use Regulations. Submission requirements would be the same as any other Site Review and would have to satisfy the requirements of Section 9-2-14(d). However, staff has requested a Preliminary Utility Connection Plan be submitted at the Site Review stage to ascertain compliance with the City of Boulder Design and Construction Standards. Trip generation figures would also need to be evaluated to gauge for any possible transportation/circulation impacts. Review would follow athree-week review track where comments or a decision would be rendered at the end of that time. If revisions were required, two additional review tracks could be scheduled. If the project required Planning Board review, it would be scheduled during that time. If the project could be decided by staff, it would be subject to Board or citizen call-up. s 4) Permits that may need to be obtained and processes that may need to be completed prior to, concurrent with, or subsequent to site review approval; Concurrent to Site Review, the project would require a Comprehensive Plan land use designation change and a rezoning. Following approval of these requests and the Site Review, Technical Documents would be required to allow staff to review more detailed plans to affirm compliance with regulations related to engineering, architecture, landscaping, drainage, lighting etc. Once all the site conditions were found to be compliant with all applicable codes, a building permit for the new structures could be reviewed. Address: 4640 TABLE MESA DR /,c~~l~c#a Item ~ ~ ~`~,.c~ -~i 9. 5) Opportunities and constraints in relation to the transportation system, including, without limitation, access, linkage, signalization, signage, and circulation, existing transportation system capacity problems serving the requirements of the transportation master plan, possible trail links, and the possible need for a traffic or transportation study; Opportunities: Redevelopment of the site would open up the opportunity to create pedestrian connections from an existing bus stop along Table Mesa to the existing school to the south of the property. Constraints: Access to the site is the principal constraint. In order to address concerns about traffic along Table Mesa, the applicant has considered, at the city's suggestion, access through an existing lot developed with a single family home to the east. 6) Environmental opportunities and constraints including, without limitation, the identification of wetlands, important view corridors, floodplains and other natural hazards, wildlife corridors, endangered and protected species and habitats, the need for further biological inventories of the site and at what point in the process the information will be necessary; Opportunities: The site has impressive viewlines toward the Flatirons to the west. The site has minimal vegetation, but does contain a number of mature deciduous trees in the northwestern corner that should be retained. Constraints: Given the previous use of the property as an Army Reserve site, the possibilities for site contamination with vehicle maintenance and equipment storage on the site exist. The applicant has notified the City that environmental studies have been done to the property noting that it is safe for redevelopment. More detailed information about the development suitability of the site will be required at Site Review. 7) Appropriate ranges of land uses; and The site is zoned for single-family residential. The applicant is requesting consideration of a future rezoning to medium density residential. Residential appears to be the most appropriate use of the property given its proximity to other residential uses and the advantages of being located immediately adjacent to a bus stop for awell-used transit route. The extent of the residential uses is largely dependant on the impact the number of units would present to the neighborhood and the ultimate design of the property and how it successfully or unsuccessfully meets BVCP policies to justify an increase in density. At this time, staff does not find that the project meets all BVCP policies as discussed herein. 8) The appropriateness of or necessity for housing. The proposed project proposes a variety of housing units, four of which are noted as affordable. This would be less than the nine required by Section 9-13-4(a) of the Land Use Code, which notes that 20% of the units must be permanently affordable (20% of 40 = 8). The applicant has the option to pay in-lieu fees to cover the deficient five units. However, staff finds that affordable housing greater than the requirement may be appropriate in this case given the sites immediate proximity to transit and also as a justification for the rezoning in meeting or exceeding BVCP policies on affordable housing. Vl. Conditions On Case Not applicable to Concept Plans. a Address: 4640 TABLE MESA DR l~ ~~r,i~ II~I~ ~ ~ 8 r~: ~5,` ATTACHMENT D Approved ~•larch 1, 21107 CITY OF BOULDER PLANNING BOARD ACTION MINUTES ` February 1, 2007 1777 Broadway, Council Chambers A permanent set of these minutes and a tape recording (maintained for a period of seven years) are retained in Central Records (telephone: 303-441-3043). Minutes and streaming audio are also available on the web at: http://www.ci.boulder.co.us/planning/planningboard/agendas PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Elise Jones, Chair arrived 6:22 Simon Mole, Vice Chair John Spitzer Phil Shull Adrian Sopher, absent Richard Sosa STAFF PRESENT: Ruth McHeyser, Acting Planning Director Robert Cole, Land Use Review Manager David Gehr, Assistant City Attorney Karl Guiler, Planner Heidi Joyce, Administrative Specialist 1. CALL TO ORDER Vice-Chair, S. Mole, declared a quorum at 6:12 p.m. and the following business was conducted. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES None 3. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION None 4. DISCUSSION OF DISPOSITIONS, PLANNING BOARD CALL-UPS None 5. ACTION ITEMS A. Public hearing and consideration of Concept Plan LUR2006-00094, Table Mesa Housing. The applicant is proposing redevelopment of the existing dormant Army Reserve Training site with a variety of residential housing types (e.g., row houses, duplexes, cottages, townhomes, and affordable units) totaling 40 units on a 204,876 square foot, or 4.7 acre property_ The proposal would ultimately require a rezoning from RL-1 (low density residential) to RM-1 (medium density residential). F.. ~j Applicant: Peter Stainton Property Owner: Department of the Army Public Participation Shawn Coleman, 3250 O'Neil Cir. #A23, Boulder, CO David Cole, 610 S. 46`h Street, Boulder, CO Ann Fenerty, 2805 Stanford Ave., Boulder, CO Ruth Blackmore, 705 X 41S` St., Boulder, CO Linda Mark, 610 S. 46`h St., Boulder, CO Jay Burch, 620 S. 46`h Street, Boulder, CO David Finell, 4655 Hanover Ave., Boulder, CO Board Discussion S. Mole: Proposed development does not transition well to properties to the west (i.e., 46`h Street); backyard to backyard better transition; Concerned about duplexes; applauds applicant considering rethink of project; encouraged connection to Tantra; Project could create bad traffic situation otherwise; Wants to see a new concept plan before making any decision about rezoning. E. Jones: Project does not fit well now; needs to come back for second concept review, does not meet comprehensive plan's goals of community integration and enhancement; encouraged more affordable housing and should be integrated throughout the project; I site well-suited for smaller homes consistent with medium density zoning; access is f huge issue, ring road doesn't work; greenspace is oddly sized, supports cut through b/t bus stop and school, school should have option for expansion onto property; Commene~.s ecologically sensitive plan. R. Sosa: Does not support 47`h Street access to Table Mesa- too dangerous, look at access off of Tantra, density issue linked to level of service; Shift green space to wes± and front single-family housing on to green space. Does not support any rezoning at this point. Needs to see elevations showing architecture and massing. Put the density and massing on Tantra side. J. Spitzer: Agreed with comments made by fellow Planning Board members. Could include a mix of open space. Affordable and moderate income housing. Carve out a portion and allow school to expand. Project should include more community benefits; applicant should look into cottage concept ("A Chautauqua feel"). P. Shull: Does not like plan as it stands. No second access = no project. The project needs secondary access -needs to embrace context of neighborhood. Traffic study is also important. Access point needs to be further south -ring road not supported -site could support more density, but house sizes should be capped. Does not want to see 4000 sq. ft. homes -would like a denser project with more modest homes with quality TSB X42 open space -great site for affordable housing: Intensity on site is a big issue. No support for rezoning, unless right plan. B. Public hearing and consideration of Concept Plan LUR2006-00103, Trinity Commons. The applicant is seeking additional comment from the board in response to the board's previous commentary on September 7, 2006 regarding the proposed development of the parking lot at the corner of Mapleton and Broadway. The revised concept is for a new three-story building containing 26 residential units (13 one-bedroom affordable units and 13 two-bedroom market rate units), a community/church meeting space of 4,700 square feet, and 1,460 square feet of office space. Three-levels of underground parking for 136 parking spaces would be directly below the new structure. Applicant: OZ Architecture Property Owner: Trinity Lutheran Church Public Participation Doris Hass, 2207 Bluebell, Boulder CO Bruce Neumann, 1029 mountain Meadows, Boulder, CO Cindy Brown, 4800 Broadway, Boulder, CO Jim Hult, 2338 Broadway, Boulder, CO Susan Waltrup, 1133 Cranbrook Ct., Boulder, CO E. Jones: Commended applicant, impressed with revisions on meeting PB comments and outreach to community. Supports the concept plan and the idea of Special Ordinance to allow it. Thinks project could be a catalyst for more good development near the downtown. Supports permanently affordable units. Ordinance should lock in language about community benefits of meeting space and non-profit aspects of office space. J. Spitzer: '1 his is a very exciting project. However, does not support ramp onto Mapleton....adds asuburban flavor and loses possibly three on-street parking spots; supports environmental energy, heated parking makes us nervous. Questions the isolation of the greeenspace in NE corner and impact of ramp on plaza space. Ramp would have to be steep and is not necessary. The upper right hand side elevation from Mapleton is a little institutional looking; should be more neighborly; Suggests two units on east explore idea of stairs coming down; maybe place less emphasis on gothic elements. S. Mole: Supports project, would like to see it happen. Values meeting space as community benefit, esp. the kinds of meetings; ordinance could set a good precedent. Affordable housing is a significant benefit. Project would present huge benefits. P. Shull: Great building, however, it is not allowed. Density is OK if a better fit. This is a benefit. A lot of building. What will come off of building with budget constraints? Worried about loss of building quality due to cost. Good downtown fabric. OK with special ordinance. Applicant should work on east elevation to be more sensitive to neighbors. ~5~ ~ ATTACHMENT E WEEKLY INFORMATION PACKET • MEMORANDUM To: Mayor Ruzzin and Mernbe of City Council From: Argil Calonne, City Atto ' David J. Lehr, Assistant City Attorne Date: December 19, 2006 Subject: INFORMATION ITEM Donald D. Puckett U.S. Army Reserve Center, 4640 Table Mesa, Boulder, CO The purpose of this information item is to provide the City Council with some information about the conveyance of the Donald D. Puckett U.S. Army Reserve Center property at 4640 Table Mesa Drive. The Donald D. Puckett U.S. Army Reserve Center located at 4640 Table Mesa, Boulder, CO ("Property") is owned by the Federal government and formerly operated as a maintenance, storage and training facility for the U.S. Azmy Reserve ("Army"). The Army used this site for classrooms, a shooting range, and Army vehicle storage and maintenance. The Army has entered into an agreement with Peter Stainton and Four Star Realty & Property Management, Inc. ("Four Star") which is in the process of completing a new facility at Fort Carson, Colorado as consideration in the exchange for title to the Property. From representations made to the City by Army officials, the Property is not considered ' "excess property" as defined under 40 U.S.C §102(3). Therefore, the federal government is not required to dispose of the land under the General Services Administration's procedures for the disposition of surplus real property set forth in 40 U.S.C §1301. Instead, it will be transferred to Four Star as part of an exchange, as authorized by 10 U.S. C. § 18240. A copy of that statute is attached for your information together with a letter dated Apri126, 2006 from Colonel Danny G. Nobles. As stated in the Army's letter, an exchange agreement setting forth the terms of the transfer of the Property between the Army and Four Star was executed on April 12, 2006. The City requested a copy of this agreement, but was informed by David Robinson, Chief of Facility Acquisition, Army Reserve, that it is not a matter of public record. The transfer of title will occur upon the Army's acceptance of the completed facility at -Fort Carson, Colorado. Enclosures Exhibit A April 26, 2006 Letter from Danny Nobles, Colonel, U.S. Army Exhibit B ] 0 U.S.C. § 18240 cc: Frank Bruno, City Manager Stephanie Grainger, Deputy City Manager Ruth McHeyser, City of Boulder Planning & Development Services Robert Cole, City of Boulder Planning & Development Services Karl Guiler, City of Boulder Planning & Development Services K:IPLCLI~x-wip Donald D. Puckett.doc Q~PA€t'r'MEN7 QF THE ARMY - ASEl67AN7 GM18a QF 6TAFF FOR RJSTALLATION M/~NACtMGNT 600 ARMY PLNTA60N WASHINGYl7N, QC ?Q370-06W DAIM-AR 2t3 Aprfl 2008 Me. Elizabeth HanBOn City of Boulder Planning Department 1739 Broadway Suite 300 . Boulder, CO 80302 Dear Ms. Hanson: This letter is to inform you of pending transfer of ownership of US Qvvernment property known as Donald D. Puckett U8 Arrny Reserve Center, 4640 Table Mane Drive, Boulder, Colorado Q03a3-fi639 to Mr. Peter H. StaintQ~ and Four Star Realty & Property Management, Ina (Four Star). An exchange agreement to affect that transfer was Signed on Aprl! 12.2006 by the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army for Instaliatians and HouS(ng (DASA (i&H)). Transfer of title and deed exol,ange w111 occur after completion o¢ construction of considerations at Fort Ca?aon, Colorado by Mr, Siainton end Four Star and acceptance of those considerations by the Army Reserve. Mr_ Stainton and Faur Star rriay apply to you for Site revleW and rezortinQ 2:5soCiated wtih redevelopment of the Puckett Army Reserve Cer~er site pfiorto transfer of title and deed exchange, The Army Reserve has no objection to that application. Please direct questions regarding this action to Mr. David Robinson, Chief of Facfllty Acquisition, Army Reserve at 703-601-1947. ~r. DANM' • Colonel, U.S. Army - Director; ArrnyReserve Division CF: Mr_ Rot~ert Cola, City of Boulder Planning Department, 1739 Broadway, Suite 300, Boulder, CO 80302 ~ - . . Ms. Peter Pollack, City of Boulder Planning Department, 1739 troadway, Suite 300. Boulder; CD 80302 Mr. Peter H. Swinton, Four Star Realty & Property Management, Inc_, 1938 Pear! Street, Suite 2D0, Boulder, CO 80302 ~rlnc~a oo ® pxycloa fap~ ; ~ - 10 U.S.C.A. § 18240 United States Code Annotated Currentness Title 10. Armed Forces (Refs & Annos) Subtitle E. Reserve Components 'F~Part V. Service, Supply, and Procurement `f~hapter 1803. Facilities for Reserve Components (Refs & Annoy 1824D. Acquisition of facilities by exchange (a) F~cchange authority.--In addition to the acquisition authority provided by section 18233 of this title, the Secretary of Defense may authorize the Secretary of a military department to acquire a facility, or addition to an existing facility, needed to satisfy military requirements for a reserve component by carrying out an exchange of an existing facility under the control of that Secretary through an agreement with a State, local governrnent, local authority, or private entity. The acquisition of a facility or an addition to an existing facility under this section may include the acquisition of utilities, equipment, and furnishings for the facility. (b) Facilities eligible for exchange.--Only a facility of a reserve component that is not excess property (as defined in section 102(3) of title 40} may be exchanged using the authority provided by this section. (c) Equal value exchange.--In any exchange carried out using the authority provided by this section, the value of the replacement facility, or addition to an existing facility, including any utilities, equipment, and furnishings, to be acquired by the United States shall be at least equal to the fair market value of the facility conveyed by the United States under the agreement. If the values are unequal, the values rnuy not be equalized by any payment of cash consideration by either party to the agreement. (d) Requirements for replacement facilities The Secretary of a military department may not accept a replacement facility, ar addition to an existing facility, to be acquired by the United States in an exchange carried out using the authority provided by this section until that Secretary determines that the fadlity or addition-- (1} is complete and usable, fully functional, and ready for occupancy; (2) satisfies all operationa{ requirements; and (3) meets all applicable Federal, State, and local requirements relating to health, safety, fire, and the environment. (e) Consultation requirements.--The Secretary of a military departrnent authorized to enter into an agreement under subsection (a) to convey an existing facility under the control of that Secretary by exchange shall consult with representatives of other reserve components to evaluate-- (1) the value of using the facility to meet the military requirements of another reserve component, instead of conveying the facility under this section; and (2) the feasibility of using the conveyance of the facility to acquire a facility, or an addition to an existing faality, that would be jointly used by more than one reserve component or unit. s4~,~ 1. ~ __F_,~ C:~Documents and Settings~ham~11.0001Lncal SettingslTempl7d'grgwisdm4640 Table Mesa Bx B doc ~ (f} Advance notice of proposed exchange.--(1) When a decision is made to enter into an agreement under subsection (a} to exchange a facility using the authority provided by this section, the Secretary of the military department authorized to enter into the agreement shall submit to the congressional defense committees a report on the proposed agreement. The report shalt include the following: (A) A description of the agreement, induding the terms and conditions of the agreement, the parties to be involved in the agreement, the origin of the proposal that lead to the agreement, the intended use of the facility to be conveyed by the United States under tJ~e agreement, and any costs to be incurred by the United States tv make the exchange under the agreement. (B) A description of the facility to be conveyed by the United States under the agreement, including the current condition and fair market value of the fadlity, and a description of the method by which the fair market value of the facility was determined. (C) Information on the facility, or addition to an existing facility, to be acquired by the United States under the agreement and the intended use of the facility or addition, which shall meet requirements for Information provided to Congress for military construction projects to obtain a similar facsiity ar addition to an existing fadlity. {D} A certification that the Secretary complied with the consultation requirements under subsection (e). (E).A certificatior} that the conveyance of the facility under the agreement is in the best interests of the United States and that the Secretary used competitive procedures to the maximum extent practic~bfe to prated: the interests of the United States. (2} The agreement described in a report prepared under paragraph (1) may be entered into, and the exchange covered by the agreement made, only after the end of the 30-day period beginning on the date the report is received by the congressional defense committees or, if earlier, the end of the 21-day period beginning on the date on which a copy of the report is provided in an electronic medium pursuant to sed:ion 480 of this title. (3) Section 2662 of this title shall not apply to an exchange carried out using the authority provided by this section. (g) Relation to other military construction requirements.-The acquisition of a fadlity, or an addition to an existing facility, using the authority provided by this section shall not be treated as a military construction project for which an authorization is required by section 2802 of this title. CREDITS} (Added Pub, L. 108-375, Div. B, Title X)CVIII, ~ 2809(a)(1), Oct. 28, 2004, i18 Stat. 2125, and amended Pub,L, 109-163. Div, B, Title 70NIII, § 2808(a}, Jan. 6, 2006, 119 Stat. 3508,) HISTORICAL AND STATUTORY NOTES ' Revision Notes and Legislative Reports 2004 Acts. House Conference Report No. I08-767, see 2004 U.S. Cade Cong. and Adm. News, p. 1961. Statement by. President, see 2004 U.S. Code Cong. and Adm. News, p. S37. C:\Documeau and Setbngslharrti1I.000~Loca1 5ettinp~slTempl7~grpwise1~n4640 Table Mesa Ex B.doc ~ ~ / 2006 Acts. House Conference Report No. 109-360, see 2005 U.S. Code Cong. and Adm. News, p. 1678. Statement by President, see 2005 U.S. Code Cong. and Adm. News, p. 554. Amendments 2006 Amendments. Subset. (a). Pub.L. 109-163, § 2808{al{11. added at the end the following new sentence: 'The acquisition of a facility or an addition to an existing facility under this section may include the acquisition of utilities, equipment, and furnishings for the facility." Subset. (t). Pub. L, 109-I63, >~2808(a)(21Linserted "induding any utilities, equipment, and furnishings, to be" after "existing facility,". Temporary Authority to Indude Cash Equalization Payments in Exchange. pub.L. 108-375 Div. B, Title XXVIII, § 2809(c), Oct. 28, 2004, 118 Stat. 2127, as amended Pub.L. 109- 163 Div. B, Title XX1/III, § 2808(b), Jan. 6, 2006, 119 Scat. 3508, provided that: "(1) Notwithstanding subsection (c) of section 18240 of title 10, United States Code, as added by subsection (a) fPub.L. 108-375, Div. B, Title XXVIII, § 2809(a), Oct. 28, 2004, 118 Stat. 2125, which enacted this section] the Secretary of Defense may authorize the Secretary of a military department, as part of an exchange agreement under such section, to make or accept a cash equalization payment if the value of the facility, or addition to an existing facility, including any utilities, equipment, and furnishings, to be acquired by the United States under the agreement is not equal to the fair market value of the fadlity to be Conveyed by the United States under the agreement. All other requirements of such section shall continue to apply to the exchange. "(2) Cash equalization payments received by the Secretary of a military department under this subsection shall be deposited in a separate account in the treasury. Amounts in the account shall be available to the Secretary of Defense, without further appropriation and until expended, for transfer to the Secretary of a military department-- "(A) to make any cash equalization payments required to be made by the United States in connedlon with an exchange agreement covered by this subsection, and the account shall be the only source for such payments; and "(8) to cover costs associated with the maintenance, protection, alteration, repair, improvement, or restoration (including environmental restoration) of facilities, and additions to existing facilities, acquired using an exchange agreement covered by this subsection. "(3) Not more than 15 exchange agreements under section 18240 of title 10, United States Code [this . section], may include the exception for cash equalization payments authorized by this subsection. Of those 15 exchange agreements, not more than eight may be for the same reserve component. "(4) In this section, the term `facility' has the meaning given that term in section 18232(7 of title 10 United States Code. "(5) No cash equalization payment may be made or accepted under the authority of this subsection after September 30, 2007. Except as otherwise specifically authorized by law, the authority provided by this C:~Documents and Settings~hamilI.0001):_ocal SettingslTemplXPgcpwise~m4640 Table Mesa Fx B.doc ~:a>; - subsection to make or accept cash equalization payments in connection with the acquisition or disposal of facifrties of the reserve components is the sole authority available in law to the Secretary of Defense or the Secretary of a military department for that purpose. "{6) lVot later than March 1, 2008, the Secretary of Defense shalt submit to the congressional defense committees a report on the exerdse of the authority provided by this subsection. The report shalt include the following: "(A) A description of the exchange agreements under section 18240 of title 10, United States Code [this sectionj, that included the authority to make or accept cash equalization payments. "(6) A description of the analysis and aiteria used to select such agreements for inclusion of the authority to make or accept cash equalization payments. "(C) An assessment of the utility to the Department of Defense of the authority, including recommendations for modifications of such authority in order to enhance the utility of such authority for the Department. "(D) An assessment of interest in the future use of the authority, in the event the authority is extended. "(E) An assessment of the advisability of making the authority, including any modifications of the authority recommended under subparagraph (C), permanent." 10 U.S.C.A. § 18240, 10 USCA § 18240 Current through P.L. 109-382 (excluding P.L. 109-304, P.L. 109-364) approved 12-01-06 C-1Documents and Seiungs~leamii1.000~Loca1 Settings\TemplXPgrpwise1m4640 Table Mesa Fac 13.doc ATTACHMENT F ~~~T~ of ca~a~~~a 13+11 D\YCnG- Gnv~rnor f.--~„ Douglas H 13enevenlo. Execulrve Director \.U~4 ~ ~ L~EJK`stE~ to u<aecdng and improving the health arxi envunnmenl of the people al ColoraUo N ~ s_~- , C 4300 C hei ~y Crezk. Dr- S_ Lalx~ralory Services Division ~a Denier. COIO(ad0 80246-1630 8100 low.ry 61vd. ~ , Phone (303) 692-2000 Denver, Colorodo 80?30-6~2R r875~ _ i DD L+ne (30316gt-7700 f30.3) G92-3090 C',olorado Depnrtruenr Located n G~Ma~e. Golcx~do of Public Hrtlel, nap nwwf~-cdphe state caul and Environment No\'embcr ?l . ?U0~ VI r. Richtir~ War(i 11 eadq u a rt crs 96`11 R~<~ional EZcadiness Corntnand McKeal~ l lal 1, E3ui1dillg l0 St~~pli(:n :'l- Douglas Arnt(xl Furccs Ccntcr rltlcntion: En\-ironlncntai Divisiatt (`'y`ard) Salt Lake City. L?tah 8~1 13-7UU7 Rc~ Draft Finttl - l=~lnding o!-Suitability to Tr:~ltsfer (I=05T): Donald U. Pucks[ United States ~1rn}y IZcscn•e Center, Boulder, Colorado. dated C~c[ober 2UU5. Dear 1~4r. 1~'ard: The Colora(la Department of Public Hcalih and En~~ironlncnt, Haiardous Ntaterials and VJ:tste Management 1)ivlsion (the Dig-ision) h;ts cotnplcted our re~ie\\~ of the aho~'e fitted document. The Arnt}' lets assured the Di\~ision that through ~•isua] inspections ~u3d/or ~n~irunmental samplio~ that lh~ prol)erty idcnt i Gcd in this transfer does not cantaln ha•cardous }~~astes or h:l~ardous subslaltccs that pos(: an unacceptable risk to hunrut health ur the em~ironntertt. At this torte, the Dlalsion has no independent data ar I:not~~le(lge to \~erify or relate tltis inli~l~tnatiun- Accordingly, lh~ Division concurs \yith the ;~nlty'~s Iinding that llte Uultald D_ Packet United States I~nny IZescr.~ Cialtc:r, Boulder. Colorado, is suitable Ic~r trans(cr. "I-h~ l~in(liltg orSullahiltty to -l-ransler l)roccss rcyuires that huildin~s and panels that arc Loin~~ to he Iranslorrtd be rcrnodialud prior to lrans[er, ahd that the dce(Is tr:utsfcrri!}~~ such bttil.(iinVs or parcels contain covenants walTanting that all remedial aciiott found to he ncc~ssary after th(; dale of such ~Iranstcr ill be cunducle(l by the United States_ In addili(~n, the transferee should be Wools a\\ are th;ll the Contprchenslve Enrirunmental l;csponse, Compensation, and Li:l6ihty Act (CL-'RCLr~). sec~ion 12U(h) Wray impose additional restrictians and rcyuiremcnis on the decd of transfer. Therefore. the transferee should rc~•icw the actual transfer docurncnts ro dctcrntinc the additional reslnctions or rcyuircmenls un its use of the transferred pmpel-ty. "1-he I?ivlsiun is conuttillcd to ensuring that the transfer of the Uc~nald D. Pucka ~Iltiled Stabs ~1nny Reser~•u C'cnter procccils efliciently_ Participaliutt by the C)i\'ision in the f~nS-l~ hrucess iti intende(l to CIISUrC that 1110 tranStt'I' ;lCllVlittS aCC done In a IllanllCr 1lGlt f$ l)I'l~llellYC Ot 1111111x11 )lcall)1 allll Tl)c clt\•lronmcnl. and that c(mlattlinatic)n as,uci;lte(I \vith a properly has b~cn rrntcdlalc~l in a nt;uutrr Thal is protective o£ all users of the property. The Division's comments are intended as further protection of human health and the environment. If you have any additional questions or comments please fee] free to contact me at 303-692-339. Sincerely, t~1cl~(,~i~-- Momca D. Sheets Federal Facilities Remediation and Restoration Unit Hazardous Waste Materials and Waste Management Division cc. Sara rackson, Army Reserve Office Ed Tyner, 95`~ Regional Readiness Command 7eff Edson, CDPi~E bile -Donald D. Pocket Army Reserve Center FOST Plane ATTACHMENT G II. Amendment Procedures The Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan is a joint policy document that is adopted by the city of Boulder and Boulder County in their legislative capacities. Any amendment to the plan is also legislative in nature. The plan is updated periodically to respond to changed circumstances or community needs. Changes to the comprehen- sive plan fall into three categories: • Changes that may be considered at any time • Changes that may be considered during amid-term review • Changes that may only be considered during the five-year update For changes to the plan: ' • Where the "county" alone is referred to in the policy, the policy may be amended by the county, after referral to the city. • Where the "city" alone is referred to in the policy, the policy may be amended by the city, after referral to the county. • All other policies will be construed to be joint city and county statements of policy, and are to be amend- ed by joint action. • Where a particular "area" is not specified in the policy text, the policy will apply to all areas. This section describes the different types of changes, the process for making changes, the criteria for c'.etermin- ing which process to follow, and the procedures for approving proposed changes. The types of changes, when they may be considered, and whether they are subject to approval by the city (Planning Board and City Council), the county (County Planning Commission and County Commissioners), or the city and county (Planning Board, City Council, County Planning Commission, and County Commissioners) is summarized in the following table: Type of Change When Process If related to rezoning or City approval subject to county referral if annexation, may be considered at an time meets criteria and related to annexation or Land Use Map y rezoning, or in Area I All others, at Mid-term or 5 year All others, city and county approval update Change from Area Ilb to Ila May be considered at any time City approval subject to county referral if meets criteria Changes to the Area 11/111 Mid-term (minor changes) boundary 5 year City and county approval Policies Mid-term (minor only) Joint policies approved by city and county; 5 year city or county policies by relevant jurisdiction • Amendment Procedures • Referral Process Mid-term City and county approval • Land Use Map 5 year • Descriptions • Plan and Program Summaries Any time City approval • Urban Service Criteria and Standards i ~aulder Valley Comprehensive Plan • Boulder ColnraGo -,:..u~.; 5 "c"am ti ~ Plans Changes that may be considered at any time (Z)Criteria for changes in designation of land from Area IIB to Area The following changes may be considered at any time '~A' and require approval by the city Planning Board and (a) The proposed change is compatible with the city's City Council. existing and planned urban facilities and service systems, as demonstrated by such factors as: a. Types of changes that may be considered at any (i) The full range of urban facilities and services are available, or will be available within three time if they meet the criteria in Subsection b below: years, as specified in the urban service stan- dards to be provided through city capital • Land Use Map changes improvements and private investment. • Changes to the Master Plan and Program sum- (ii) The timing, design and operation of required maries facility and service improvements are consis- Changes to the Urban Service Criteria and tent with the city's Capital Improvements Standards Program, master plans and urban service • Changes to the Subcommunity and Area Plan standards in the comprehensive plan. section (iii) Off-site improvements that are provided by • Changes in designation of land from Area [IB to developers ahead of scheduled capital Area IIA improvements will not result in premature demand for additional city-provided b. Criteria for eligibility for changes that maybe improvements. (iv) City off-site capital facility costs to serve the COnS~defed at any tlme: property can be recovered by development excise taxes and development exactions. (1} land USF Mdj) Changes: (b) The proposed change would be consistent with the The Lartd Use Map is not intended to be a zoning city's ability to annex within three years, .as map. It is intended to provide policy direction and demonstrated by such factors as: definition for future land uses in the Boulder Valley. The property is currently contiguous to the Thus, a change to the land use designations may be city or there is a reasonable expectation of considered at any time if it is related to a proposed contiguity within three years, based on change in zoning or proposed annexation and meets expected development trends and patterns. (ii) The public costs of annexation and develop- all of the following criteria: ment of Area IIA properties can be accc.ni- modated within the city's Capital (a) The proposed change is consistent with the poll- Improvements Program and operating bud- cies and overall intent of the comprehensive plan. get. (c) 'I°he proposed change would be consistent with a (b) The proposed change would not have significant logical expansion of city boundaries, as demon- cross=jurisdictional impacts that may affect resi- strated by such factors as: encouraging a contigu- dents, properties or facilities outside the city. ous and compact development pattern; encourag- ing infill and redevelopment or a desired opening (c) The proposed change would not materially affect of a new growth area; enhancing neighborhood the land use and growth projections that were the boundaries or edges. basis of the comprehensive plan. (d) The proposed change does not materially affect Procedures for changes that may be considered at the adequacy or availability of urban facilities and any time: services to the immediate area or to the overall ser- vice area of the ciry of Boulder. (1) Requests for changes may be initiated by the city or the proper- tyowner: (e) The proposed change would not materially affect A request initiated by the property owner must be sub- the adopted Capital Improvements Program of the mitted in writing to the city's Planning Department city of Boulder. and must address the criteria for processing the (f) The proposed change would not affect the Area request separately from ~a mid-term or five-year II/Area III boundaries in the comprehensive plan. review. 56 - - Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan • Boulder Colorado Plans (Z) The city will make a referral with preliminary comments to the • Changes to the Master Plan and Program sum- cauntyland Use Department for comment. maries • Changes to the Urban Service Criteria and Standards For land use changes and changes from Area _IIB to .Changes to the Subcommunity and Area Ptan IIA, the county will have 30 days after receipt of the section referral to provide written notice to the city as to .Changes in designation of land from Area [IB to whether the proposed change meets the criteria. If the Area IIA subject to the criteria in Section l.b.(2) county determines that the proposed change does not above meet the criteria, then the requested change will be processed at the time of the next mid-term or five- 2 (han es that re ujre a royal b the cit Plannin Board, ~It year review and will require four body review and g q PP . Y Y 9 Y approval. COU0C11, County Planning Commission and County Commissioners. (3) Requests for land use changes and changes from Area IIB to IIA • Changes to the Land Use Map (other than those will be considered based on the criteria in Section l.b.(Z) above at allowed by city approval in SectionL.a.(1) above) a public hearing of the city Planning Board. • Changes to the Plan Amendments section • Changes to the Land Use Map Description sec- If there is an accompanying rezoning application or tion annexation petition, this review may be concurrent • Minor additions or clarifications to the policy with consideration of those matters. Changes deter- section mined to meet the criteria in this section may still be • Minor Service Area boundary changes subject to deferred by the city Planning Board or City Council to the criteria set forth below the mid-term or five-year review upon a finding of • Boulder Valley Planning Area expansions and good, cause- contractions, i.e., changes to the Area III outer boundary subject to the criteria set forth below Z. Mid-term reviewchanges Changes to the comprehensive plan may be proposed b. Criteria for minor service area boundary changes in a mid-term review. Amid-term review may be irri- and BOU~der Va~~ey P~dnning Area eXPanSIOnS and (On- tiated at some point between five-year major updates as needed. The purposes of the mid-term review are to tfaetlOnS: address objectives identified in the last major update and progress made in meeting those objectives, pro- (1) Minor adjustments to the service area boundary vide an opportunity for the public to request changes to the plan that do not involve significant city and Minor adjustments to the service area boundary are county resources to evaluate, make minor additions small, incremental service area expansions that create or clarifications to the policy section and to make more logical service area boundaries. Chanties in des- minor adjustments to the service area boundary. The ignation of land from Area III to Area II may be eligi- mid-term review is not intended to be a time to con- ble to be approved as a minor service area boundary Sider major policy changes. adjustment based on the following criteria: (a) Maximum size: The total size of the area must a. Types of changes that may be considered as Part of be no larger than ten acres. the mld-term reVleW: (b) Minimum contiguity: The area must have a The following changes to the Boulder Valley minimum contiguity with the existing service Comprehensive PIan may be considered at the mid- area of at least 1/6 of the total perimeter of the term review: area. (1) Changes that require approval by the city Plannjng Board and (c} Logical service area boundary: The resulting ser- ~Ity ~OUf1Cll: vice area boundary must provide a more logical • Land Use Map changes located in Area I subject service area boundary (Area [II/II), as deter- to~the criteria. in Section l.b_(1) above mined by factors such as more efficient service . provision, a more identifiable edge to the Boulder Palley ComprehPnsivF PIan • Boulder Colorado - - ATTACHMENT H Army Reserve Training Center Proposed Redevelopment 4640 Table Mesa Drive Neighborhood Meeting Monday, March 9, 2009 Discussion topics from flip chart: (most common concerns in bold) Most of the items discussed were questions about the project and not items or issues of concern. The responses to these questions as they were discussed in the neighborhood meeting are italicized. , ~ Who is responsible for garden maintenance? Applicant: HOA. The HOA will control this, but the gardener, anticipated to be Community . Roots Neighborhood 1%arms, will maintain the garden. • Concern about garden next to Table Mesa (pollutants from traffic, roadway) The "Crowe Foundation" is not concerned about this. They have other community gardens that are adjacent to busy streets. The neighbors pointed out that this is a better alternative to grass. • Rental studio units over garages? Applicant: No. Not allowed by city by-right or HOA covenants, and only a'/z bath will be allowed with no kitchen. Applicant discussed the fact that these studios are small and intended to be a Name office space to encourage telecommuting, not as rental space. • Western edge of property o Easement o Power lines o Retaining wall Applicant noted that the retaining walls would be the rear wall of the garage. This western property edge will be worked out in further detail through the design process. There is not an electric power easement currently on the Armary property, and the lines are not on the Applicant's site. TYie lines are in an easement on the East end of the existing lots on 46`t` street properties, not the applicants' property. Applicant noted that one detached garage may not be feasible because of the proximity of a outbuilding that is built on or claw to the East property line of an owner on 46`" street. • Interface with existing houses to west; Some neighbors: "Plan much better. " Mast neighbors were pleased with the single family hames adjacent to the existing single family homes, and thought that the concept was a good transitian between the higher density to the east and the existing single family lots an South 46`h Street. Some neighbors noted that they thought the concept was a big impravement on the original cancept that had a road on the East edge of the property. • Square footage of housing units, basements? Applicant: possible basements, general range = 2,000-2,300 sf w/o basements & garages. A n~a Item #~Pa9®# 9~ Basements may be incorporated into the unit designs, but will be limited in homes with tandem garage homes. Basements, if meeting the city code definition, are not included in F.A.R. • Height of buildings relative to neighboring buildings homes The neighbors asked about the height of the buildings on the site. Applicant displayed the cross section to show that the homes on the Armory site would be lower in elevation height than the existing homes on 46`'' street given the grade differential. Applicant noted that the existing homes on 46``' street can be 35 feet tall, which is much higher than the Armory buildings can be when the sloping grade is factored in. • Parking, width of streets Project design includes 2 to 4 off street parking spaces per unit. Streets are 28' wide with parking on one side for guests. • Fire lane access/ access to units Not public access, no public vehicular access from Table Mesa. The fire lane does provide access to two single family homes from the project interior (not from Table Mesa). Access to the row homes is via the interior street layout, and not from the fire lane. • Likelihood of student rentals/associated noises & parking impacts? Student rentals are not likely due to the price of the homes, but would not be prohibited. The project is not intended or designed to be a student rental project, but rather as a primarily owner occupied neighborhood. • Toxics from Army -who will clean up if pollutants found? Applicant: U. S. Government responsible (even after purchase); environmental mitigation has already occurred. An environmental assessment/cleanup has already been accomplished by the~Government and the Applicant has also had an EPA protocol study done by Landmark Environmental Inc. to confirm that the site is acceptable for residential development. It is the Applicant's understanding that if contamination is discovered it is ultimately the Government's responsibility to clean it up. • Nice transition within development. Some neighbors noted that the transition worked nicely from homes to medium density. Additional Comments: o Convenient for commuters riding bus to Denver o Garden is better than plain grass in open space o Adjacent property values may rise with new development o Current vacant property attracting crime, police calls o Views seem to be affected less than with first proposal o Access from Tantra -proximity to Table Mesa, congestion stacking at peak hours o Veterinary clinic staying where it is? Not owned by applicant. o How will fire lane be blocked to prohibit access from Table Mesa? Applicant: bollards/chain o HOA can be used to enforce covenants re: rentals, parking, etc o Can development timeline be speeded up to address crime issues`? Guiler, Karl ATTACHMENT ~ Frorn: Sheri Tappert _ _ Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2009 5:12 PM To: Guiler. Karl Gc: Subject: Armory Proposal Concerns Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Hi Karl, We've spoken once before by phone; I'm a neighbor of the armory property who lives at 525 S. 46th Street. After reviewing the proposed plans and attending the public presentation at the library, I still have concerns: traffic and property values. First, I am extremely concerned about the effect that the density of the current proposal will have on traffic patterns and volume. 46th Street currently already suffers from an increasingly heavy traffic volume for a residential street; this volume threatens public safety and impairs the quality of life of its residents. We have lots of pedestrians, runners, dog walkers, and bicyclists (including young families with small children) who must contend with this traffic and I've been personally told by the police department that the area of 46th Street between Table Mesa and Hanover Street is a known problem spot for excessive traffic and speeding. The problem is particularly bad during the rush hours and at the end of the school day at Summit Middle School. We have an increasing number of drivers-- -including Fairview High School students---who cut down 46th Street (to turn right cnt~ Hanover and then left onto 93 South) in order to avoid congestion at the Table Mesa and Broadway intersection. As someone who walks and bikes in the area, and as someone who spends a great deal of time in my yard tending to the garden, I can attest that the traffic can be loud, unpleasant, and most worryingly, dangerous to runners and bicyclists. While the armory property will and should be developed, building medium-density rather than low-density dwellings will increase the traffic volume turning onto and off of both Tantra and Table Mesa. The area already gets congested and medium-density zoning will cause more Summit Middle School traffic to try to avoid that congestion by taking 46th Street. Second, my single-family home will not hold the same property value if it is adjacent to a medium-density zoned area as it would if it were located next to a low-density zoned neighborhood. My home is far-and-away my biggest investment and I shouldn't suffer just so that the developers can make more money by building as many structures as they can on the armory property. When I chose to purchase my home, I did so knowing that the armory property was zoned for public use. If anything, I'd hoped the city would someday expand on Tantra Park in that space. When the developers purchased or obtained the armory property, they did so knowing that it was NOT zoned for medium-density development. While I am not opposed to changing the public use zoning to low-density zoning in order to provide more housing within Boulder and in order to enable the armory property owner to develop that property, I strongly oppose changing the current public use zoning to medium- density zoning. We already have a traffic problem in our area and, the higher the density of the development, the worse the traffic will become. The heavier volume will create a greater risk to public safety, be a detriment to the quality of life for us residents who live in the immediate area, and negatively impact our property values. Thank you for taking my concerns into consideration. I look forward to seeing you at the Planning Board's April 2 review. Sincerely, Sheri Tappert Guiler, Karl From: Sent: I uesday, March i 0, 2009 7:30 PM To: Guiler, Karl Subject: the armory I just wanted to add that I do believe the concept plan for the Armory is a nice transition from what there is to the north and to the east, multi-family housing, some nice, some run down, to the single family ranch homes to the west of the property. With the table mesa park and ride within walking distance, I do think that providing high density makes a lot of sense in this area for young professionals who may be working in boulder one year, then onto another job in denver the next year. Considering the nondescript neighborhood of track homes to the west, I am surprised to see the 2200 s.f. single family homes and personally would expect a "deal" for one of thoses in that location, and again, think this is a perfect place for higher density. Catherine Blichfeldt Guider, Karl From: Michael J Preston Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 2009 4.25 PM To: Guiler, Karl Subject: re: The Armory, 4640 Table Mesa Drive (development plan) Dear Mr. Guiler, I was quite pleased with the tone of the meeting at the library last evening. I think we were all on our good behavior, and i think that the considerable improvement in the development plan was largely responsible for that. I like the idea of a garden with fruit trees fronting Table Mesa, but I was a bit off-put by the discussion of this at the beginning of the meeting. I want to see a sound redevelopment of the Armory property, because that is something Boulder will need to serve the needs of a slowly expanding population. It also cleans up a property which, to put it frankly, is not a lot better rieighbor than a shuttered strip mall. I was pleased with the planned houses on the West side of the Armory property, designed to back up neatly to the older houses on the east side of 46th street. I think the neighborhood would like some kind of "guarantee" that there will be a good interfacing of the older and the proposed neighborhoods--in short, no effectlve "bait an,~ switch" tactics employed. I would like to caution the developers that the northernmost two houses on the west side will have to have some "noise mitigation" or "soundproofing" worked into their design because of the noise pollution from Table Mesa. I was pleased that there is sufficient parking (probably) for the residents of the proposed development. That is a major concern of neighbors on all sides. Now it's up to the City to make its decision without footdragging. I think the neighborhood's attitude is "get it done, but do it right." Best wishes to all, Mike Preston Guiler, Karl From: Sent: Monday, March 09, 2009 1:20 PM i"v: Guiler, Karl Subject: 4,640 Table Mesa Proposed Redevelopment.. 'Dear Karl, I am a 20 year resident of the Martin Acres neighborhood, farmer 3 year president of the Martin Acres neighborhood association (MANA) and a 25 year Boulder Realtor. In fact, over the years i've sold over &00 homes in south Boulder over the years, including Ewo that I know of that back to the farmer army reserve facility at 464Q Table Mesa Drive. I support the approval of the concept proposed by the applicant. I believe that a re-zoning of the property to allow for a mixture of residential real estate housing is an improvement to the existing zoning which allows only single family homes for these reasons: 1) I like the way the plan transitions from the east, with a few multi-dwelling properties, to west, with single family homes. This transition mirrors the existing development with multi-dwelling and retail on Tantra Drive to the east and single family on 4bth Street to the west. 2) The lot sizes, structures sizes and building,.heights are in line with the neighborhoods that border this property- Additionally, I see the access to the proposed redevelopment off of Tantra Drive, rather than Table Mesa, a significant improvement to the last round of conceptual drawings for the proposed redevelopment. Kind Regards, Steve Altermatt Need a job? Find emAloyment help in your area. Ag21'1dA ism ~ Pegs # March G, 2{]09 (Name) (Address} TO: Planning Staff, Planning 1'~oard RE: 4640 Table Mesa Drive Concept for Redevelopment As a neighbor living directly to the East of the proposed development of the Puckett Army Reserve base, I would like to voice my support of the concept proposed by the applicant, I believe that the diversity of different housing types and the transition from two story single family homes on 6,000 square foot lots backing to 46``' street, to duplexes and multi unit buildings on the East side of the site is appropriate and better than a concept which would only include single family homes. The diversity of housing types should provide not only different types and sizes o~ homes, but also a variety of price points. I alse support the green space on Table Mesa, which is a nice break from the parking lots to the East.. If the applicant is able to obtain approval for a community garden area as part of the rainwater detention open space, I believe that the garden would provide a great community benefit, especially if it is tied to the Growe Foundation's work with school children and the school lunch program. Sincerely, Nial (Odell Guiler, Karl From: Chris Riley Sent: Monday, March 09, 2009 10:14 AM To: Guiler, Karl Subject: 4640 Table Mesa Drive Concept for Redevelopment Karl, I`m a 20-year homeowner of a home on South 46th Street adjacent to the former Puckett Army Reserve facility at 4640 Table Mesa Drive and I would like to express my support for the proposed development concept for the site which includes single family and multi-unit structures. The lot and structure sizes of the homes along the west perimeter of the development are similar to the properties on South 46th Street and their building height is less impactful. The location of the garages of those homes offers a buffer to backyard neighbors that's unique in Martin Acres. The development concept smartly adds housing density towards the eastern portion of the property with a mix of duplex and multi-unit buildings which mix well with existing retail and multi-dwelling properties along Tantra Drive. The mix also expands the price points of the development, and thereby diversity. I also understand that the concept includes a landscape buffer along Table Mesa Drive which might possibly be used as a community garden and whose size and location present a visual impact by the development along Table Mesa Drive similar to the existing structures. For those reasons, I support the approval of the concept proposed by the applicant. Karl, if you have any questions, you may reach me at 303-941-7158. Chris Riley March 7, 2009 Richard G. Bastar IV 510 S 46th Street Boulder, CO 80305 TO: Planning Staff, Planning Board RE: 4640 Table Mesa Drive Concept for Redevelopment As a neighbor living directly to the West of the proposed development of the Puckett Army Reserve base, I am voicing my support of the concept proposed by the applicant. I believe the diversity of different housing types is appropriate for the 4640 Table Mesa Drive Concept. The transition from single family homes backing to 46th street to duplexes and multi unit buildings on the East side of the site is a great idea. Both are a better concept than one which would only include single family homes. I support the green space on Table Mesa because it gives a nice break from the parking lots to the East. Sincerely, Richard Bastar IV ~~'B ~ ~ ~z5" Guiler, Kari From: Michael J Preston Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2009 1:11 AM To: Guiler, Karl Subject: re: 4640 Tabler Mesa Drive ("the Armory") Hi! I really do believe that Boulder must have reasonable in-fill, and so I read the information available with considerable interest. I have a *lot* of questions about this version of the proposal. I trust that my neighbors and I will be able to air our questions on March 9th. Take care, Mike Preston Treasurer, Majestic Heights Neighborhood Association hem ._Page Guiler, Karl From: Ika Brazda Sent: Friday, February z0, 2009 9:41 AM To: Guiler, Karl Subject: The Armory project To Planning Board. I would like to inform the Planning Board about the "Armory" project on Table Mesa Drive that has recently been submitted by Mr. Peter Staiton. I live at 555 Tantra Drive, and I am extremely concerned about the safety and security in this area. About 3 years ago, the Adobe Animal Clinic was burglarized. This is the building immediately north from us. One month ago, there was a sexual assault on women 2 houses south from us. Another red flag for me was that 5 days ago, a police officer came up to our car expressing concern about transients trespassing in my yard and the surrounding areas, such as the old vacant military area (and future Armory project) In my opinion, the school property neighboring with this empty space is a very dangerous environment for the children. I also believe that this applies to the neighboring homes around the area, where there are also many at risk children. I would love to see this project start as soon as possible in order to upgrade this community development layout, as it deserves. Thank you Ika Brazda Boulder 2-20.2009 ftem ~ ~-g ~ Pag®~ ~ Guiler, Karl From: Mark Bowen _ Sent: Monday, February 09, 2009 11:04 PM To: Guiler, Karl Subject: Review of Project Name: The Armory Dear Sir: I live near the project proposed at 464@ Table Mesa Dr. My address is 4793 Tantra Dr. I strongly oppose the proposed development at The Armory on the following grounds: 1. Traffic is already becoming congested in this area. 2. This area, as a green space or park, could provide a wildlife corridor. As a biologist I regularly see deer, fox, and other wildlife in my neighborhood. They can pass through Boulder from the NCAR area to the S. CU property. But must pass through many neighborhoods to do so, The more green space in the area S. of Table Mesa the better the area will be for wildlife and their movement. sincerely, mark Mark D. Bowen Agenda Ism # ~ J' Pale # Guiler, Karl From: _ Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2009 3:18 PM To: Guiler, Karl Cc: wgk-tempo earthlink_net Subject: Re: LUR2009-00007 (4640 Table Mesa Drive) To whom it may concern: I am a property owner in close proximity to the proposed rezoning area. Although the information provided through the city's mailed notice contained little detail about the project, comparison to the applicant's prior request (LUR2006-00094, December 2006) indicates the intent to INCREASE the number of units from 40 to 43 and maintain an access roadway onto Table Mesa. The feedback to that prior plan was unanimously negative. I, hereby, repeat my objections. The state of traffic loading on Table Mesa is such that use of it at any time 6-9 AM and 2-7 PM is essentially precluded. There is no possibility of entry/exit to/from Table Mesa without the help of the traffic signals at Tantra or Moorhead. RTD buses impede the flow regularly where they stop at that location. Sounds of horns, screeching tires, breaking glass, and crunching metal are now almost a daily event (I'm sure traffic accident statistics can be found to support this}. This is a dangerous area. Under no circumstances might it be considered reasonable to increase the driving population in this area, let alone INCREASE the housing density. And it must be seen as even less prudent to consider adding any new intersection into Table Mesa (other than widening to allow RTD busses a safe stopping location). I whole-heartedly support your judgment to deny this rezoning application. Sincerely, William G Kefauver Agenda Item ~ Page ~ . Guiler, Karl From: David Cole Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2009 3:50 PM To: Guiler. Karl Cc: Subject: Preliminary Comments: 4640 Table Mesa Drive & 555 Tantra Drive Prelimiinary Comments: 4640 Table Mesa Drive & 555 Tantra Drive In general, I appreciate the applicants attempt to address some of the neighborhood and city concerns voiced during the 2006/07 application process. However, I find that there are still many concerns that I feel have not been adequately addressed, and would require a substantial re-work of this plan. Proaertv Transfer Issues: 1. I remain concerned with the unusual manner of transfer for this parcel. Amore vigorous review of the statue (40 U.S.C., 103(3)) by the new city attorney might be beneficial. At a minimum, I feel that the spirit of the excess property transfer legislation is being circumvented. 2. Has environmental remediation been completed? Comments in 2006 indicated additional remediation work was necessary. 3. I continue to support community uses for the parcel such as Summit Middle School improvement or expansion, extension of Tantra Park, and traffic mitigation and safety measures aimed at redesigning school access and parking away from South 46th Street and to Tantra Drive, a signalized intersection. Zoning and BVCP• 1. I am an abutter and I am opposed to a re-zoning of this parcel. The 2006/2007 neighborhood petition in opposition of a re-zoning is on record. 2. I do not believe any of the re-zoning criteria stated in Boulder Revised Code 9-2-18 has been met. The parcel is capable of being redeveloped within the parameters of the existing RL-1 zonine~. 3. I am not opposed to thoughtful redevelopment of this parcel within the parameters of the existing RL-1 zoning designation. However, I do think the land transfer issue, and potential pudic uses should be more rigorously explored and resolved first. 4. I believe a redevelopment that remains within the parameters of the existing RL-1 zoning would more closely align with Policies: 2.04, 2.13, 2.39, and 2.42. 5. I do not believe the applicant has demonstrated why additional density should be put upon this site. Massing, Scale, and Intensity: 1. The overall density, massing, scale, intensity, and height essentially remain unchanged or have increased from the 2006 plan, and are not compatible or comparable to the western side neighbors. 2. Primary dwelling rear set-backs and massing at the western property line for SF units #7-9 (20 foot set-back, two story height} are not compatible or comparable with South 46th Street homes (typically 50 foot set-back, one to one-and-a-half stories). For these three properties the property line elevation difference ranges from near zero to roughly four to five feet. 3. Detached two story garages (SF #2-6) at the western property line are not compatible with the existing neighborhood. These structures are approximately 1000 square feet, with their entire second story appearing to be livable space. This appears to be an attempt to provide unauthorized and "under the radar" future secondary living units mere inches from the back yards of South 46th Street residents. Ifem ~ Pag®~ 7~>J 4. The overall density, massing, scale, intensity, and height does not appear to scale down from the eastern boundary either, and in fact appears to be greater within the central and eastern side of the property than the existing Tantra development. 5. To be harmonious with the surrounding community, the design, scale, massing, height, and set- back would embody the spirit of the collective community comments evolving from the Compatible Development in Single-Family Neighborhoods, Strategy Report, dated January 12, 2009. In summary, I feel that the proposed plan remains far too intensive in density, massing, and scale to integrate effectively within the existing community. To integrate effectively, I believe that absolute building elevations should not exceed the elevation of the existing Tantra properties, and should scale uniformly lower to one to two stories towards the western boundary. Likewise, massing, scale, and density on the eastern boundary should be lower than the existing Tantra structures, and should step down uniformly towards the west. Western set-backs should be increased. I strongly believe that a maximum density and intensity that remains within the framework of the existing RL-1 zoning regulations is most appropriate for this property. I would appreciate receiving notification of the Planning Board Hearing. I am grateful for the opportunity to provide comments in a way that I hope will be a benefit to the overall community. Respectfully Submitted, David A. Cole Windows Liver'": E-mail. Chat. Share. Get more ways to connect. See how it works. Item ~ ~g Pag®# ~ f Guiler, Karl From: Sent: Monday, January 26, 2009 8:37 PM To: Guiler, Karl Subject: concept plan review number LUR2009-00007 In reference to the proposed development, we are extremely in favor of this development. The Armory that has laid in ruin and disrepair for the last 5 or more years has become a gathering place fvr transients and graffiti and the overgrowth of weeds and mice and rodents breeds disease and does not reflect the beautiful landscape of Boulder. If you want to speak to us personally, we can be contacted at the Adobe Animal Hospital directly adjacent tv the East of the property in review. Thanks, Dr. Joseph and Joelle Bock Benda Item # ~ Page # r~" Guiler, Karl From: Margie 1Nortzman Sent: Monday, January 26, 2009 9:14 AM To: Guiler, Karl Subject: The Armory -Concept Plan Comments Dear Karl, I am a resident of s 44th street in Boulder and have received notice of the development review application at 4640 Table Mesa Drive and S55 Tantra Drive - The Armory. I would like you to know that I am in favor of keeping the location as low a density as possible. My main concern is traffic congestion and safety on both Tantra and Table Mesa Drives. Thank you, Margie Wortzman Item S :Page # ~ ~ Guiler, Karl From: Jacque Sent: _ Friday, March 20, 2009 6:29 PM To: Guiler, Karl Cc: Jay Burch Subject: Table Mesa Project Sir, My husband and I reside at 620 South 46th St., directly beside the old Armory for which a rezoning and large residential project has been proposed. We are opposed to the rezoning and the heavy density residential project. We feel that this will turn the neighborhood into a nightmare of noise, pollution, overcrowding, crime and traffic congestion. We feel it will severely impact our quality of life and our homes value. We would like to see the current plans for the development as proposed. Could you please send a copy? I tried to find them on line under the Planning Boards "Hot Topics" but there was no link to anything. If you need us to send a check, please just let us know how much to send, where to send it and who to make the check payable to. Please let us know when meetings on this project are scheduled. We missed the last one due to illness. Could you let us know what happened? Sincerely, Jacque Jay Burch and Jacqueline Trump Burch ABendaltem ~ Pag®~ ~ ~`T ATTACHMENT J January 19, 2009 City of Boulder PI`aruung and Development Services 1739 Broadway Boulder, CO 80303 R~ILTON®MCEVOY A R C H I T E C T S Regarding: The Armory Concept Review Written Statement Table Mesa and Tantra Drive Dear Plamiing Staff, This submission to the City of Boulder is a request for Concept Review for an in-fill development of approximately 5 acres of residential uses at the existing Puckett Army Base, also known as the Armory on Table Mesa Drive in South Boulder. This proposed neighborhood of a variety of housing types will provide a choice of quality housing available on the Table Mesa corridor that is convenient to Boulder and the Highway 36 transportation corridor. Project Summary: • Location: 4640 Table Mesa Drive plus 555 Tantra Drive • Previous Use: Army Reserve Training Center, Maintenance Facility, Storage Yard, Equipment Repair, and Indoor Shooting Range • Proposed Use: Medium Density Residential or RM-1 Zoning • Existing Comprehensive Plan Zoning: Public • Underlying Zoning: RL-1 • Proposed Zoning: RM-1 • Gross Area of Site: 228,432 sq. ft., 5.244 acres (Includes 555 Tantra Drive) • Net Area of Site: 212,437 sq. ft., 4.877 acres (Less~Table MesaRight-Of--Way) • Proposed Units: 43 Units, Single Family, Paired Houses and Row Houses • Planning Reviews: Comprehensive Plan Revision, Re-zoning, Site Review Existing Site The Puckett Army Base was formerly used by the US Army as a Reserve Base for storage and maintenance of large military equipment and for a staff training center. It was eliminated from service in recent years and since has been a vacant site. The project site is located on a 5 acre rectangular piece of land that is surrounded by built out development on the south of Table Mesa Drive between 46r'' Street to the west and Tantra Drive to the east. Peter Stainton of Four Star Realty has contracted to purchase the property from the US Army and has provided the Army with an alten~ative base location more suitable for the Army operations. Also, the single family home and business at 555 Tantra Drive is under contract for purchase for construction of a Site access road and the location of one duplex residential structure. PaoJErr coNCEPrs et~~.CENC~s RESTORATION ~ CORPOPHTE DESIGN 5377 Manhallan Circle, Suite 101 p~~ F3oulder. Colorado 90303 kn ~ 5 (303) d43 4353 ~ FAX 443 5535 The Armory Residential Project Written Statement . January 19, 2009 Page 2 Neighborhood Context This property is surrounded by established development. To the north is Table Mesa Drive with a large church and parking lot. The east side is bounded by a veterinary clinic and medium density housing and then Tantra Drive, a neighborhood collector street that connects two multi- family residential projects with IZM-1 zoning to Table Mesa Drive. Between the clinic and the medium density housing there is a small house at 555 Tantra Drive that will be used for access to the site from Tantra Drive. On the southern side of the property is the Summit Middle School, a Parks and Recreation Maintenance Facility and a large City of Boulder Park with Public Zoning. To the west is an established RL-1 zoned neighborhood of single family homes in a subdivision known as Table Mesa South. Ten of these homes abut the west property line. Table Mesa Drive is an established main east west four lane arterial street that connects to Broadway to the west and to Highway 36 to the east. Table Mesa Drive becomes South Boulder Road east of the city limits and connects to Louisville and Lafayette. This arterial street is a regional RTD bus route and provides mass transit connections to the downtown Boulder bus depot and to the Table Mesa Park and Ride for local and regional commuters. Proposal The project goal is to provide appropriate, compact, affordable and moderately priced housing. Given the City's stated goals of providing more affordable housing and increased density along transit corridors we believe a well designed medium density residential project is appropriate for this site. To complete this project, various Planning approvals will be necessary including a modification to the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan, Concept Plan Review and Site Review. We believe that this project meets many of the Goals and Policies of the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan including the following: • Provide a diversity of housing options and sizes with 10% affordable units on site. • Provide energy efficient housing that is efficiently designed and compatible with the neighborhood • Create a pedestrian friendly neighborhood that provides pedestrian amenities on site • Provide pedestrian connections to transit comdors and a large neighborhood park • Provide more housing within the established city limits which helps offset the Jobs/Housing imbalance • Provide increased housing density adjacent to transportation corridors • Establish a transition zone between two different housing districts and between single family neighborhoods and established commercial uses Project Description Ilger~ item ~ ~U Page ~~r The Armory Residential Project Written Statement January 19, 2009 Page 3 The applicant is requesting a change to the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan, currently designated a Public Use to RM-1 Zoning for a mix of residential housing types. Concurrent with Re-Zoning of the property, the applicant requests approval of a Concept Plan Review and Site Review for the development of 43 residential units. Existing structures on the site would be demolished. The following housing types are being requested: • 9 Single Family Detached Home-style Condominiums • 20 Paired Home-style Condominiums 10 Row Home-style Condominiums • 4 Affordable Row Houses These 43 units will be constructed in 28 structures with 4 affordable units contained within the Row Homes. Nine single family homes will be constructed adjacent to the existing Table Mesa neighborhood to the west. The center and eastern portion of the site will contain duplex houses. Along the north side of the site but south of the project Park, there will be two Row Home buildings with 7 units in each. Access through 555 Tantra Drive, to the east, will leave sufficient site area for one duplex building. This duplex will match the 8 existing three story town houses on the west side of Tantra Drive with access from Tantra Drive. Access to the site will be provided from Tantra Drive through an existing single family lot at 555 Tantra Drive. The entry drive will need to climb up to the west to connect to a looped Private Street which is internal to the site. This street connects to a Fire Lane with emergency access from Table Mesa Drive. An existing bus shelter along Table Mesa Drive may require relocation due to the Fire Lane. Two way traffic will be allowed on the looped drive with limited parking along the outside of the loop. Site Access Access will be provided through 555 Tantra Drive and will require modification of the existing traffic island in Tantra Drive. Tantra Drive connects to Table Mesa Drive 275 feet to the north of this new street cut with a full movement, signal controlled intersection. Table Mesa Drive provides access to Broadway to the west and to Highway 36 to the east and is a major east to west arterial transportation comdor with coruiections to Louisville and Lafayette via South Boulder Road. The location of the new entry drive concentrates new traffic impacts adjacent to major traffic corridors and has the least impact on existing residential developments. Internal Street Design A main entry drive from Tantra Drive will climb approximately 7 feet to reach a looped Private Street that is central to the site. The location of the Private Street is separated from all adjacent Agenda ttem # Pag®# The Armory Residential Project Written Statement January 19, 2009 Page 4 neighbors by a minimum of 92 feet to the west property line and 98 feet to the east. A 28 foot wide street section will allow two way traffic and limited parking around the perimeter of the loop with a 20 feet clear width for fire apparatus and emergency equipment. A curved street section that is more narrow than the average residential street will reduce traffic speeds and a continuous traffic flow will lessen the confusion that cul-de-sacs might have while dedicating the minimum amount of impervious surface to street pavement. At the northwest corner of this loop there will be a Fire Lane connection to Table Mesa Drive. A portion of the Fire Lane will continue the 28 foot street width to provide access to the two Row Homes with 7 units in each and to three single family homes. Since the project will be developed as a single lot with condominiums, a Private Street is allowed for internal access within the site. Access to the duplex structure, adjacent to the main entry drive, will be provided directly from Tantra Drive via an established shared easement with the property adjacent to the north. A center traffic island in Tantra Drive is currently designed for this access to this duplex unit. All of the required parking for residents is provided within the dwelling units and only guest parking is dedicated to the street side. Twenty five of the units have room for two additional parking spaces in a private drive way. Site Design Layout of the site started with the single family homes along the west property line to best match the size and scale of the existing homes and provide a buffer. Ten of the existing Table Mesa neighborhood lots abut the site to the west and they sit higher than our site due to the existing grade change that reaches as much as 9 feet of differential. This significant grade drop along the west property line adds to the natural buffer between the new development and the existing single family homes west of our site. Access from Tantra Drive was extended from the east and the internal street was looped to eliminate the possibility of a dead end traffic pattern. A maximum number of residential units has been distributed around the perimeter of the sita to minimize the new traffic impact on existing neighbors and to minimize the land area used for paved surfaces. Natural slope of the site drops 15 feet from the southwest to the northeast corner of the site where the combination of prof ect open space and a detention pond are planned. This same area provides a distance and noise buffer between the northern most Row Home building and fable Mesa Drive and is planned for active open space uses such as neighborhood community gardens. The existing site is very flat in the middle section, however, the existing site slope can be used for our advantage in over lot grading to eliminate importation of fill material. With a combination of north to south street layout, orientation of the Row Homes and individual building design, a maximum number of units are oriented due south for maximum passive solar heat gain. With the exception of only one unit in the duplex structure at 555 Tantra, all of the units face due south and have living spaces oriented to the winter sun for maximum passive Ager~a ftem # Page # ~8_ The Armory Residential Project Written Statement January 19, 2009 Page 5 solar heat gain. Passive Solar Design and Energy Efficiency are important themes for the project and are maximized by the home orientations, placement of the windows and concentration of living space on the south facing side of each building. A portion of the Paired Homes and Row Homes have flat roof areas specifically designed for maximum solar panel installation: These flat roofs are screened with parapet walls to minimize the grade level view of photovoltaic and domestic hot water collectors which will be offered for sale with each dwelling unit. Pedestrian Circulation and Open Space A 4 foot wide pedestrian sidewalk will be attached to both sides of the 28 foot wide Private Street and will connect to the bus shelter on Table Mesa Drive and to the school site at the south property line. This connection will allow pedestrians to flow from Table Mesa to the school and the large City Park adjacent to Summit Middle School. Connectivity to this City Park will be an asset to Project as well as the connection to Hanover Avenue which extends to the Table Mesa Shopping Center. To offer a continuous wallcing opportunity within the site, a pedestrian path is extended along the east side of the property and connects to the open space to the north. This path will extend east to west through the open space and provide a complete loop around the site for runners and walkers. Existing brick from the Armory Building will be crushed on-site and used for the pedestrian path surfacing thus reducing the amount of waste generated by the redevelopment. A wide section of open space will connect the internal looped drive to the project park at the north end of the site. Landscaping will include the planting of fruit tress for harvesting by the neighborhood residents. The western section of the park will have plots for community gardens that can. be reserved by the residents. A large open area will be Ieft for field games such as football, soccer and frisbee. A solid, sound mitigation fence will separate the park from the traffic on Table Mesa Drive. Open Space requirements for this project total 129,000 sq. ft. The project includes 131,580 sq. ft. of on site grade level Open Space. Also, planned are aver 11,500 sf. ft. of elevated private decks that are allowed to count as overall project Open Space. Housing Types A variety of housing types are proposed in size, price range and design. An effort will be made to appeal to a broader range of people by offering a variety of housing types and price ranges. Single Family Houses: Nine, two story, Single Family Homes are planned along the west property line to be similar in size and scale to the existing neighbors to the west. To minimize the appearance of garage doors facing the public street, 5 of the units are plamled with garages in the rear yard. Another two homes will have a tandem garage served by a single door. Homes that do not face the right of way will be allowed a double wide garage and matching garage door. These homes have roof lines oriented for Ager~a Item ~ S~ Pag®# The Armory Residential Project Written Statement January 19, 2009 Page 6 maximum south facing solar collectors, and south facing windows in living spaces for passive solar heat gain. Each home is sited on a minimum of 6,000 sq. ft. of land area with a private south facing yard and will have amenities such as front porches, private decks and trellised patios. Porches face the street side of each home to encourage a more pedestrian friendly neighborhood. Paired Homes: 18 Paired Homes are planned in the center of the looped drive and along the south and east property lines. All of these units are designed to face south with living spaces oriented to the winter sun for maximum passive solar heat gain. Two levels of living space will be built above grade level garages and entries. Eight of the units incorporate tandem garages with a single garage door facing the public right of way. The units along the east property line have internal auto parks that provide access to garages that are oriented 180 degrees to the street. Out of nine buildings, only two have double garage doors facing the street. All of these homes have outdoor decks focused on the south west and east sides and incorporate flat roofs for the installation of solar collectors. A majority of window area is focused on the south wall with properly sized roof overhangs to function as a passive collector and a shaded condition in the summer. Two paired home units will b.e constructed adjacent to the main entry drive. This building will match the 8 existing three story town houses on the west side of Tantra Drive with access from Tantra Drive. This building type is designed to step with the steep rear yard existing along Tantra Drive. Row Homes: 14 row homes will be constructed in two buildings that run east to west just north of the looped private drive. Two levels of living space will be built above grade level garages and entries. Each Row Home will have a two car garage facing the internal car park that separates these two buildings, therefore, none of the garage doors will face public rights of way. The south building will have a front side facing south towards the internal drive and the north building will have a front side facing Table Mesa Drive. The main living level is one floor above the garage and the living spaces are designed to face south in both buildings for maximum passive solar collection. One third of each building will have a flat roof section for the installation of solar collectors and to conceal roof mounted mechanical equipment. Four of the Row Homes will be sold as affordable units. These four units are placed internal to the row of standard size units, therefore, the width will not be apparent in the exterior design. A total of 8.6 Affordable Housing Units are required by this development, therefore, 46.5% of the required affordable housing will be provided on the site. The balance will be paid into the City Affordable Housing Fund to help with the purchase of City sponsored housing. Agenda Item ~ Page # The Armory Residential Project Written Statement January 19, 2009 Page 7 Architecture A common simplified and contemporary theme is planned throughout the project for continuity in design. All of the buildings will incorporate flat roofs for solar collectors, sloped roofs to lower the apparent wall height, private decks and tandem garages when the door faces a public right of way. The design concept is contemporary but with traditional colors to best fit with the context of the neighborhood. Two story, Single Family Homes, with primarily pitched roofs, are used as a buffer to the existing single family neighbors to the west. These homes are planned with 92 foot deep lots with a minimum of 6,000 sf. ft. The site then transitions to three story Paired Homes in the middle and along the east and south sides of the site, thus staying compatible with existing three story town homes along the west side of Tantra Drive. Exterior materials include authentic cement based stucco with masonry accents for low maintenance and durability which can be provided ul a variety of colors to manipulate the building mass into smaller more human scaled wall panels and overhanging elements. The exteriors will share a common theme of exterior painted steel rails to surround private upper level balconies or decks. Exterior walls are purposefully designed to minimize three story continuous wall panels by integration of building off sets, upper level cantilevered floors, private deck placement and the use of trellis frames over larger exterior window groupings. Roof shapes incorporate flat roof sections and sloped roof sections to again break the exterior into smaller ' masses. Single width garage doors are planned for units that face the rights of way to minimize the size of garage doors that face the street. Dwellings that do not face the street will have side by side garages and double wide garage doors. Home interiors will include a Bonus Room that allows flexibility of use for home offices, tele- commuting, home exercise space or a Guest Bedroom. We expect some buyers to be young professionals that will request a home based office for their professional consulting efforts. Tele- commuting from home will be encouraged in marketing materials to emphasize reduced car trips to other work sites. Curb side, front yard porches are planned for all of the Single Family Homes to be snore pedestrian friendly and to encourage interaction within the neighborhood. All homes are oriented towards the sun with living spaces on the south side of the home leaving garages, bedrooms and stairs along the north wall. Primary windows will face south for passive heat collection with egress windows in bedrooms facing east or west. The south facing yards of each single family home will be made as private as possible by restricting north facing windows and their size. This design practice also reduces the heat loss through the north wall. The Row Homes incorporate the swine exterior design elements as the Paired Hoines. A combination of pitched and flat roof sections are combined with a variety of window pattenis so that the individual units have no obvious repetition. Exterior walls are purposefully designed to agenda Item ~5f3 Fag®~ 8 The Armory Residential Project Written Statement January 19, 2009 Page 8 minimize three story continuous wall panels by integration of building off sets, cantilevered floors, private deck placement and the use of trellis frames over third floor window openings. North facing,. second floor decks will have partial roofs to provide some winter protection and to further articulate that facade facing Table Mesa. Small fenced yards will be provided for each south facing unit, that fronts on the internal street, in a 3Q foot wide front yard set back to the southern Row Home structure. All of the garages far- the Row Homes face an internal car park between the buildings, therefore, none of the garage doors face a public way. We look forward to working with the neighborhood, Planning Staff and Planning Board to transform this site in a workable and liveable residential community. Sincerely, r - Phil McEvoy, Archit et Railton McEvoy Archi ts, Boulder, .C. Ageer~fa Iterrr~ Paga ~ ATTACHMENT K w...w t p , r^ti.r~ . ~t ~ ~ Y ~~w r, , t ~ d ,'r ~ ~f ~jrl 1. t 1~.', 1 ~ Y~''''~.; Ir'fi'~:Iq~; " ti ^~.;.ff r ~`i ' s: ti} ~'R ~ . ~ ti? - t I•~ .=r 1. ~ rz , ~ - ~ ~ ; ~ . ~ ~ ` ~ t 1 ~ ~ _ - J ~ I r _ ~ _ Mf ~ 'li 5 , ~ ~ r ar}, ' ~ fC .ate ~ • • ~ 111 -1 -t 'r t _ ! -~y~ y . ~ I. "]e+~y .tit - _ t k _ ; tiu - ~ _ _~t ~ '~r~ ~ ~ , ~ \ ~ L ~ :l ~6' {il'~k I~Y '.y~~_-w_ r 'l -4. j 1~~' Imo. ~ ~ ~ \ O V i~ `r y, ~ y jT{ 1 ~ ; y J Q 1 ~ 1 1 l , t s _ f ~ j rl ~ 0 T ~ _ ~ ti ~f; _ ,~n~~V r ~AN1~ SHEET INDEX: *COVER RENDERING *EXISTING AREA PHOTOGRAPHS *EXISTING CONTEXT *CONTEXT PLAN *IMPROVEMENT SURVEY *SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN *REGIONAL MAP *SITE SECTION 1 CHARACTER SKETCHES ~ *EXISTING SITE PHOTOGRAPHS *SITE SECTION 1 CHARACTER SKETCHES ~ ~ na 1 , 4~ f ~ ~ . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ _ ~ - TANTRA PARK ~ ~m .r FA - - - ,-±~rr~rw.¦ry TAN1'RA DRIVE tit.. ~j.-..t,t.;.r,~a,~sk « .~1~i ~ . ~ ~ ti; w ~ U r , ~ w I; ~ f` VEJ NARY 'j ~ G # y~ sti ~ ~ (Y CHURCH & _ ~ 4 c~ r R7D PARKINGt,r` NT~ ur w ` ~ ' D ~ Z ~ RIVE r~ Y ~ ~ ~ ~ A ' r ~ i. ' . ~ 81' G i~i'RANCE-DRIVE ~ .:iwt ~ r; ~ x ~ ~ ~ _ ~ I ~i ~Tr ~ } - - .s~ t~ r . t Z'~ ¦ ~ C7 ? ~ Y~;~ ~ i a ~ - ~ Q w yy F-- 7 F l' ~ 0 ~ ~ m O ~ - CRUSWED _ ~ ~ ~ - 0 (L " ~ . ~ ~ ' ~ ~ ~ ~ • GRAVEL ~ / SUMMIT ~ `t W ~ ~~1 ~ ~ . ~4 tx q PARKING / MIDDLE SCHOOL ~ ~ r ~ _ ~ 4 I ~ PAVED • ~ u ~ ~ ~ ~ w ~ ~ ~t~,,++ CHURCH t ~ , _ ~ I r ~ ~ PARKING ~ , , - AREA ~ . ~ ?`t U z PARKING ~ ~ ~ ~ Z - ~ ' w CHURCH W ' U N ~ a ry~ r , 1 =-tea ~ ~ ` ~F•~'• F. .s ~ ...ARx ~ f. ' . y{, Y ~I' „S'° ~,'j'~ ~ 1 ~ • d ~ 1, ~ ~L r ~ ~ P ~ .t: I ^Yt a ~~'r I~ r 1 .i , ~ .tea ~ F ~ ~ y~`~ V L _ ~ _ ~ ~ SOUT48TM S~ ~ ET . ~ ~ W tss ~ t_ li.a u1. ~ F~~' ~ ~ ~k w ~ _ fir. u.? u 1f~ w~ LL' - - ~ , : r ' '~r,';TY ~ ~~..r,:"Y tiI ~ ~ ~-t: ~ r, "'•'-j t v I !'It ~ _ t ~ _ ~ ~ qY ^r1' l'r; ~t3+ a 7 IMPROVEMENT SURVEY PLAT LOCATED IN THE NORTHWEST 1~4 OF SECTION 9, T 1 S, R 70 W OF THE 6TH P. M., Nonni 1/r SECTION 9 * OF THE 6T CITY AND COUNTY OF BOULDER, STATE OF COLORADO NORTHWEST CORNER OF 4 SECTION 9, T1 S, R70W FOUND 2• BR rASO 12 INCH DIAN GS OF THE 6TH P.M. __._-~__~~~r-.__-~-~_.__~~-~ _.-_---~_.r~_"--.----_ PIER JUST BI FOUND 2.5' ALUMINUM CAP MOWING LEVE 10' BELOW ROAD SURFACE Sfl' $TREEi' RIWT-OF-WAY 'r ~ ~ I e M e S 8 D Y' 1 V e - IN RANGE BO% WITH LID - = (PER ASSESSeOR'S MAI•) r ~ - ~ ~ - ~ - - J MARKED 'WATER' ~ e Sa s a- n as as N 643$'24" E 330.017' ~ s ~ ~ ~ ss ® ax u as r x ee ss as z.^ ad . . ' . - I 15' RIGHT-OF-WAY STRIP TO THE ~ 30' S7REET RICH t- -wAY I e ~ CITY OF BOULDER _BOOK 1211,_PAOE 391 c PFR A55ESSCR' MAP) I _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ a ___c°. _c _r___ c S _ _c6 -.---___c c _t c c - - - w °`°e-_c____°_. c ° _I- c c c--- c P c = 1'c ° -~~v `-c-°°°° c ,.-F r..°r°_°._ - _f` I I . mOY ea, I e+ae xu' ea r. LON4"~:7£ aS ee ye•` - ASPHALT q h I I f SLY 1CONCRE3E DEWALN x", ~y a /J// _ milt fa e..~! . _ a TI _ - 1 ~ C7 I S.1glx OS ! ~ ~T w eya>- m C nvvr EN iR yTt lar I 'o ; ~J4T` ~ - elw' 4 WP ~A1 ~ aaaf' o3vr' LI h) ~y I°'I n•~ ~ ~ ~ ~ y QYY OF BONDER I I^ Ck NIGH7-Or-WpY TO LITY OF BOULDER. FYU 61, RH 27693 aha ' r I M1NTY [ASEMEN% I i eAC t ~ I F" ~ ~ 5 Rvt 202fi2a6 i f_L_~ . rar ,ex5 ; I I 1 ; 1 555aaa { . ur n.a•, "e' y i ~ a Iy' , LOT 1 i eav ~ 9 r i .°°e i I i w~ IY i~ ~ i ~ # I . eaa• .ear ~ i I ~ ~i N >w l .ear ~ I I ~ ~ 5 ~ " I I I~ ~ I s r 1 I , ear a 1 I I c a~ ~ VS --'7 J I i. r ' .ur I ~ ~ ,eae- ' I l ; ; w~ ~ J I } I . e., , esr 1 0 ~ 1~ I _ I I I ~ • a , 2 I I .ear .wr Lr,i ' lI a I I .xr px.. I I O ~ N r I 1 I ,~er,r eA' eac• ea.a• i "*,i ~ c: I I - . - - ~ce?S - ~,ea0'_ TIDAL - - e~ s -.ea.a_ - ~ _ - se}d _ - ~ q !I f a LOT 2 I b ;oi 3 II ~ I >M4 ~ I I I f+ C O I I I ; ; I e I ~e~a GNE STGRY = 3 I ~ t ~ o bn.r I ~i BUILDn+G II " I i - I I ~ e~ m- .1~ i =o~-i a6sn TAB,.E Mfsp duaE r? I ~ BRICK BUILDING eae•k n.r I f f e'I (TO BE DEMOLISHED) I ~ + j i oI I I I ` i 4640 TABLE MESA DRIVE I~ I ~ I o I I IW f I ~ o I ~a~.~~-~~.--x81s'T 4~ Fear ea~i' ~ e:r. i r,7i I I ~I i 4 I I eaa',I-GM r ~e~ I 1 ~ "I~' i i ,p! u I nr ear _ -__~k/ ~eaa• f ,ur ~ ~ j I 3~., 1~ I° ~C ~ i ~ a: I LOT 3 I ` III ~ -ea.r .eal"E'l •ea.z• 1 ~ I .e7.~ ~ B I I ° A{Ck~SI a 1 = ~ ~DA'Sd`N1' E 100.00' ' ~ ~ 1 .d . I II I rr S ~ °°E'~ a ar.r ex." Irk ^ EA C I L ,r _ I -E~ "Yyr~ x act' . alr OaY le .nr x eaY I v'V 'n ~ no' ~ n v ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - - - _ _ ~ 'I i IA 6 .eav ~ m' aae ~ „ ~ 75' ti f' -I yl i tEl ~e.r I ~ ~ I l i ~ ~ I I . exr .ear sf r, ~ a., .our ~ ~sYl~ `-^w~ LOT 2 ` ~ I I I i Mtl.ar ~ qI [sneaEaae' TM~ H'.'~ H>" ~ el Y 1 r+ I ~ I I : I ~ 1 I n-axa u•~ _ r,C xasr nr,~ o „v-nea+ . r ,v. ~ 1 i 1 ~el' [ - em.7 xear xeaB' •m.e'~' nx[ 'Da! .ear .OSr .eac I a':1 ~ 71__ v~ I ~ I I S . case-ax+ss' IK 3• d~ e' aa' + ORIYE x ; •,y 1 I ~ I L 0 T 4 W i O I ~ _ xme• .exe• .eae ee e•. 'jam .as.r .nar ..><r I u , 1~~%I m eeeer 1 ev.ss ` k ~ I f i ~ i. .m.Y 5,..r .e..r .wa' w• a. er ~°~a ~I r 1 I U i ~ I is 4xme.:ne' .mr xeae• .eae• ,ur ssr .a1r ,aar ~I • $ "~~+~or'an`i Ie• I I i - I I I • • o - I ° ~a~a, r I Vt ~ I ~ ~ I ppp L I ; o' ~ I i I I ~ . e.r . ur ..sw • ur . mr . ur . ar , ns °ar' m-rmne ~r•i x~. wsx • °r'`n° ~ rr,~ ' iry 11IVI X141 Y ~ti ~ I, Z I W I YI.1 4nc'e'nu I ors r el .r• °ii ~ O o 11~y1~I44 . rar , aa,' . ur . ur r ; m i eNet9'SB'26' E 100.07 ~ O D i LOT 5 ~ , IL] ~ 4 ~ y I~d p~ i H--a i ~ ,o 1f ear,;3 = ~ CI Q I Z ' .nY , alT x eLa' "eax w ka' • KY , Ky r Iaa• a Dae' d g M75-~~ iRA ~ ~ ~ I- n s». e r I ~ I d c 801-7 iW11RA g I I o Y I ~ .ear .nr .m, I 8 % a F ,mr .nS e0.1' xea=' _~7` ne' I~ ~~I.wR e~Y u U O i i ear .m.r ,ns, ms•, ~ _ _ - a'(.~i-n ~ ~ I i ~ ; .mr .DSx ,aa: •ex .ear I I I I w m 4 0 O I q I I L 0 T 6 0 e ear . nr nn • aar • nr +e:rx wa I BRICK I nr, I ~ I I w nev-q "I BVI LDINO }ear I Io J Z i I (TO BE DEMOLISHED) i` CI Ru a-aww I I t w. a-un er I 4 . n-a• I 1 i} m I aer. I I I - - O .sr .err - _ - I I rr.r .rr r_r o esr _ ~ati.a. I I ~ -I ee r. sa.r ee.s•y ~ i I L e g e n d _ I I ~ ~ .ia ® MANHOLE + •eer I I . rr rsat' . rr.r i 671 7AYSRA II y y j , nr . svX I * ~ r~IIE ~ bV , / , e7 a' SPOT ELEVATION O r i • eer ' i~ :::e°PRa I r//J Rrl 1 -E-ELECTRIC LINE ~ ~o i I x a 655~7a~1RA ~ II I . eer ~ I -c-GAS LINE Q ~ ; ear •Der .ear .esr ,rr.r +ers "+"r , r~rzsreram~. 1i I lu 1 !e I I 1 - w- WATER LINE ' an rAxrRA S u i err,, ~ , I ~ I i -SS-SANITARY SEWER LINE I ~ a~ ~ 4 i ~ ~ I 1a: ~ 8 bf4 TIWTRA ' I -ST-STORM LINE I . .ns ,svs' ,ear , eo' •N-x ~ g ~ ORavE $ II ! 1 4 1 iIXY I 1 ~ ea Y.~ :SOS Va' ~ I .4 FIRE HYDRANT = y i ~ N I v SIGN ~ i •ez.r ~ I O I I I OVERHEAD LIGHT POLE F o .wr rf°'r '"ei nY' i R ~ .ers' .nr 1 PP m POWER POLE i tea" I I HAVILAND HEIGHTS m WATER VALVE t - - _ Feu, ,m.r •"e"' i CONDOMINIUMS } EB ELECTRIC BO% +aa •"aa' I o GM GAS METER I eer] I 11 WM WATER METER of i i ~ s2ppj~rRA g ~y+ I 9aa' x 90Yx . n.r nr I i I!q;.r rifSOlr ~ S~ I TE TELEPHONE BO% ~ I I - Ia xma,~• i ° I 1 TV CABLE TV BO% I s23 TANTRA J ~ 1r uENr a>Ip n-G- 7D sHE n7v a ULOER roR/ ~ ~ = r.~eDR ~ TE ? TELEPHONE PEDESTAL i err ?°:~,r WATER, wER OR GAS PtP INES - BCf%s I 11. PACE 146 /J ~ st sxiir Yqr,). Uk COK CrC HANDICAP RAMP i ~ _ I ~ _ rAT___ ,Oar •r+~" .wr enr. eT.a•. _ ~}1 FOl - o - CHAINLINK FENCE - ~ 7 I cul WOOD FENCE i ee eer q r .ea~ .ear a,r + isET 1 .00` .BY t4.7}' DRE I t~ IN I a 5=8938'-2{)30 a ' v-a SURVEY CONTROL POINT o r ~"v'~~~~ H r~ d #4 REBAR WITH YELLOW - - ~ ~w ~ PLASTIC CAP ~ i xe I ~ .r.r Jy~ H , , esY ,ear ~ 1?v. L J TREE WITH DIAMETER ° I 5 tvJ SET #5 REBAR WITH i ~ •r~x SET ~ 2" DIA ALUMINUM CAP I a ~ `n'' STAMPED "SELLARS" I "I COLORADO LS 27615 I " ,"Tr ,nr Property Description j Q Line Table Cnrve Cl (PROVIDED BY LAWYERS TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY) SET SET 1 1/2" DIAMETER 1 w ~ ALUMINUM CAP IN CONC. I a LINE BEARING CHIORO RADIUS m 1985.40' THE NORTH 660.00 FEET OF THE WEST 330.00 FEET OF SECTION 9, STAMPED "SELLARS" ~ ~ I ARC LENGTH = t36.BT LI N 86'24'3$" W ]1..59' TOWNSHIP 1 SOUTH, RANGE 70 WEST OF THE 6TH P.M., COUNTY OF COLORADO LS 27615 ~ I CHOR{} N 8B'23'09' 'N F L2 N 00"21'40" W 2.00' BOULDER. STATE OF COLORADO, FOUND #4 REBAR IN 1 I L3 S 89'38'20" W 527-70' 136'64 4 p AND LOT 2, HOWARD HILL SUBDIVISION, O CONC. SOUTH 0.26 FEET J I COUNTY OF BOULDER, FROM PROPERTY CORNER STATE OF COLORADO NORTH IMPROVEMENT SURVEY'' PLAT a.74sALE. i"=~LJx_~fr 4~~0 ~>4~LE MES,4 DRIVE, BOULDER 0 CONCEPT P~,4N REVIEW, J>4NUAR1' 19, 2008 , I I. ,bI.I4h McEV~Y la~~llt;:s f C~ U r :1 f l; FiAILTON ' McEVOY ARCHITECTS • BOULDER 5377 Manhattan Circle, Suite 101 Boulder, Colorado 80303 (303) 443-4353 FAX 443-5535 ~1:~a..!" ' t~11VER~iTY~ ; 1r.C, ~ i, _ • °.'y +~+rr..,; fri~~ ; ~S~.t~ A~~~,,, 4Y ~aC7F ~"'"Al.. ?~,~„~ti ~ Yt.~+i 'F~-lPa~ •'r~ir', .,~,.•,"~'=t.,a; ` ~I N 't . , : , ~p .aR Y.>, - ' , ¢ASELINE RgAfl ~ t. _ ,:ryr 1 • ~v~• - r r.. Q;'r '~~r ll, r-;~_,, .y i~'S=f. 7i -~~y.~ ~r-; !fs ~ f'.- -r':•#I ! ~i~+. ~g~•tT' ~-0' rr-: P1 Y ~ ~•.?W'~ 6 .~y, ,•a"s,, v.;.•.~^ 'tia;slOr .,tit ~,It 'r ~n .,5~ ~ f,~ ,.S"', [_~Jr~` ~~~r. S,. .,~,.~~~•~~;:'n~: i.. .C I1~~'A : i , ~~1 ~~~'~'x+•.~~I,1r~~f~~-~ ~ I I ~F..~,y• -i ; ..,.}~''+t , BA~~~AI\ ~ F.l',.~ ~ f w , M1~ ~ r ' . S. T 'J: \ - J 1 y\ ~I '11t ~It. n 1~ O• LL ~~iF ` ~ ~~r ~ . I".$I'{.V~r' . ~ ~ ~ Ji'JlJi" ' 4 ;i t t Y ~ i' e r'1 ~ ~ 4 1 ti~ ~•,dn~~ ( ~ Y'•~ , ~1 4 `{w r {r+•r MEAD~WS ~ ~ ^~,-1~ i1 7'i~'Y#`..j' ~ r . .r} ~'•''T•~:.~: ' „ TM i;rrtt,. : r a :J ( ~'F'~~,,~` t: ,'f' ~ i.`~~„•'! , r r ~ "~P~NTEFt` • ,rs. : ~ ' - i r !'r. { ~ gN''1'HE PARI(WA , f ~t ~':~I ~a~ r • ~ f,. f r ~ \~~h AMt~SVILLAGE ~ ~•4,,, , ~'r'~. ? • •SH,Q ING C~ R. , ..r yr ~ f~kFF •Yij,' .;W r' `y r 1 •r-' ~ 1{A ~ ~ ~Mlr~r . ~r ' r~ 'G•~ r"'). y 1, ~-~,1#1~ a ~ .~I ~ I - ~ r t !a ~ I t•~F~'~5~ , ~ N 'O :~;f r. .C`'1'"~'P~-~w~1~.i , ~'~c 5~'~rt ~rk '~~r. ~ +~~•1. i{ AA~s ` ;rrT"" ~ ~~,:~Ty1.. ~i•k ~~I. ~ 1 r;':! Kam: ~ 4 !~}n: rt q ~r } ~1.~j~~~ ~.,•J, 'T1 , ' fi",'1~1.f~ "l°•.Y"; M?t Y!':~ .K} x.,(;, ~J+tt>~'r (i: '~•4+~ ' F r' '',q t ! ~,L ~•i.. • i ~ g~s ' ~\l\~ . j, f~, 'r• y ~,:~r•,. i ~w - f~ , ~'t',~,•wr •~`s:~~', 4~~ ~ K~?',; ~ 'i,•?*5",;• Ftf n ~~w- ~ •~r'y," i/` ' I,A wA ry a r1 sly. r f • 1 t s ' r. ty r 'I?A- . w.~t~ ~ o ~ + j f t i~; ~ f ,M °y 141l~ ~"?3"d~ l',I~ .q,? is' `r s. t 11' S r ar f. ~ w ~w~~ . rf; 'e jai T, ;-r' ~"'`r i• S~ I~~, ;fi'~" ~ r'ytt ~ ' t r~ a •i~¦¦¦¦r•~ • r ; I ~ ~ I'c~( • f ' [~'r~~ i., '1 ,~y~ 't'1~~'-,J+ ki~.~?L~'~~~. ~e~~ I_`Jl:~}. ~ s. ~ .s 'y ~.i t a,'a~ y~ ~~r. .P' rl{'"II O ~ y~ +y{ l ,~r„, . fir'. ~ ( ~ I• ~ ry 1,~~. ~~f ,i1't•-~;•• • , : J[`.r~ ~ ~ i, ~ ~ ,4 '4F, XE 1 ~ ~ a ~ E ( , . ~,a, ~ ~ P 9 'r 1 f~ 1 .,1 ~/h:~r 1 ~.~t'{ ~e."• If i' yi. ~ ) ~ r- ~ f •1 I y ~I~. VL I uy~" F ~r~ - },~11 i F}~d.)~) (,!f',~t J< ~.S' I~x f..` 5a! ' ~ ( " _ << ~ ' + .:7 ? ar" , f I ~ ~ ~ . iCL ~ ~ ~IY: `.r~rb ir. , ~ f .4 wlEr. ,~,.fjy 1 d• ' i)(- ~1~\. ~r~ /}~f:,~+ ~ , r r ~ r t'I~' © ~ ~ ' , y,~r~ti~ ~ `I•;~~. °,~t1'i' ;~r;'i lt-i' f [~yy F y'. ,v,~. js fir. ~ P~«~'. :r'°~: ~ ti HORIZONS 4~ ~t } 7 w 1 ~;r+~{~ + r~J. t ~+r ,:'•44"~r,.jj1,,~ ,J~$~ q ~t~I. ,4 ~LEMENTRY~ cr ~ - ~ O ~,f ` • ~ + 1~• •I •ti_s ~ ` ~'i i1 ~ r~r•~#,~' , ~.`t'~, e, r ~ = ,r . ~RA~~R ~ is ~ (Y ,•F.f.tiv V4.17,~.. , ? ~~°%'$y~ r ~t: kfi ,,,~,:.~r yy" w/~\. a~ - ~f,i ~S ~ ! "c ~,~.~p' g.R~~ JCHOOL WS I~~ q II Q ~ (n ~ a,. 4 I ','15 } :~•ti ,y ~~f. t t .Jx.~. ~ Y'r ~ I? f •V.~ ~fi~.~ 7i;` Lt r +IJ , . f' ` T''F~ Tr\ k ; 5~1 ~I ' ' +srl. K`t+ -.j`,~ ',t °'f ~.~y:Jy~ L~ -e~ ~ .^,~~~~j.}J_' 'r Zj;. ! ! r.~~) y~ •IT,~,JI ~k~, a~.,~ r• , - ~ ^ ~ r1' W , F 4Y'; -,la~: sy~ I .i ~~'},~.~Y'.; 5( .Z a, ,y-. J~Ifi ~.~lyy...,~"~{. ; JA,~ .k fI`~ ~ ~~/.f~t'., ~.-Tt rl L~ 1 ?\•r'_?, ~t~,l.~_,,~ ~ ±f.~ is \(~L } ~i q~. _ A ,t~,_ ji~~;*'~R'.t~. r( ~ ~}i~ p vF~`rr~-."~{,}"„~~..~.i ~~11.. 1~~ ~1. !{r, ~4 .f w ~.'!';+~a *4~•i l,, ri ~eelii,'y.. .Ff}~'` _ 'I _ ~ _ .,~~t f r. _ ..'t _ rW W w ~t a ~ ~ `•.sf. ~l~Y, t ,'.~,'frr l y~~,~~ ry . ~1~~ `t- (q r J r! 'r'r~ 1 . •'.'~f r ~ , ~y , .l ' Grp ~a•~M:I~i { } ~~f L f C.y. _.'°;;s^ 1`1" , ~yt.. ~f }.,~~t~:yt• 1;{f~ fit';,. ~!•'~~/r~ "`~'?r 'c ~Qd •'t! # ~r l; {~,'y/~- r ~ J11 •i'` ~,7 \rj,, ~Q~ -y;~hs a •1+,}yf~rr ; ~~~r; 'r #rt ~ti dr fI '~j~~~~. s4~ ~ ~J+t•%. t ~ v ~}a~i' ,,fir h r.,~ 'r~'~1 ~ ~(:k: ~ ~J,rrr `'G'Is \rY l•rA'~~ ` `.tsl~~~~ i { 1": ~'~i,~,.((~ i _,tre9~ tt (•4' X •~:il.Yr; F c~ , . ~t•~~ `P) t•7~ \ ~':t J? 'Yn~F ~45~'~ W z ~ ~ ~ ,.5{i_< , jJ :r ` 1 ~~t , i^:~~Ry •;kl , ,e•: r s.i ~ \ ( .rt~ I ~r 5{ !~t'i~ ~ ry ~i ~ r I f~r~ i Rr p. r ~ • '1 r Y ~ ¦~e°~2 .i , ~i` 9 ~,,fr ~rr r • ~tr r '~•f~ty-.faG~. rr~`;:3 ~`'S}}yitlr~r~~•'~\Ya+ t ~r.l2 ` 4'+e.CC~" .(?`").f`~ ,Frv J~~J~. ~~0i.'~.. t # r+r~ aQh7~ rU~r L~ rti y'J ~ r w 4~'r r i\ _'1 , '+t, f~ r ~ r i`*~•~: r. ' ti~ ~ ,rY •f ,i.,,t• 2 J" ' ~t; ~ Y~~l k l:~y.~.~' ~ VA Q a V s}~ `f~IS, L • .y 1y' 1~'J.q,A,~1: \ ~,•~~,t`,_4 4Y,'ftr ~'i~'~ ~-1, .Y:.1~ 'I ~r ~r ~~Y1.. Y~ ~ 1, n,~' J. It.~ ,I~/~~fr ir, 'i r~IN W ,y~+ , S.. ' • . 1~ r, , y, ~r ~rf ~J iJ~~ _ f ~ 1 ,C y ~ • ~Y j5 + e t ~ ~ 1t' ' i. , ;•1+~' ; ~;r+ I , _l ~,r, t ~ O '"J 1, o-' ~,~1 a Cr T 'fir i,- ~ ' ,r d}1 ';tai y rF r-.: T'- ~ .'i r I T•y, f - ~ .r~tj ; k' ~ 5•': 4r j aE{ L r.~/p_yry 1.1"~ . ~ f~~.yyy (yf ~ /r ~f~°fy{'~'# r+'(\$. ~ f .s7r ` y . ~ ry+~ ` ,I•y •l. \ ~r~„`. y~~,•.,1'iy-7~:, iJ Air `t~ p••R1+~ ~.«I'-r ~I`f l f°~' -`Y}r,.F r' ~ I{`.; T y \R3\±~ `'S~!{S' y F'r.'~r, ! 4.1 ' ` f ' ~~+~'~~!•'rR I~\ Ol ~ S',•.L ~yS i~'~,~ ~ ,fr k_ '~+~~,`J~ ~ ~'S,',:1 ~ ~ ~il..~~Y .ti~7 1l•t'i. ~l~ '7.. J,'~~ 1. •f~, ~.1 ~l._ t,~'~1 ! ~f y; 4 ~ ~J r.\~. ~ •.v •r`l { ~z4\•..~~'~3 ~~1i.'~si~r. ~'~c rh .~t ;~..i t ~;..i:s,: j, "~y3~ ~f?"•i ~IT'I, f_ ~t ~ ~~rr ~ z p t~ 1,' L car= a•< t \t~,~w`.t ~-t1 ftt y ~ .f.• • ! d6^p ~y.y,'S ,il }.••.J., .,l " ~ 1' U _ r4. , ~c /~},yJ/~ ,.:~~F'.Fr~y`•7{p•!,E r7!w ,}p r~'IN ~;...1, r/...,,.~t ,fr/•, i•~ 5~5~. ' r; O ,i' e - ! ../F , yY u~ 4~. C_•l:"' M~ fi ~~~r~. 3e~. r- 'r~f ~~A/~ ~~.f'~~'~, ~{l~ •q~ •'S ("L+,c,~j, 11M1,.. ,rr,... ;LL'., (J ;y~: ii', ~1- ;.;..t~n.~:Z.~•`li 1~ P~~IC ',t `'~L~'ry,~: T~~/,off r,' ,l`~ ~~j y'•Tr-c .jai" i.~ t 51~~5 ~ :`~~j~•,r,~ "Tx, +.i,~:,rFLEMENT,~~,~~ti~~t,rv. .{'i(f~~ ,rr~~, r, .SIla. •r ^'.J ~ ~ ~ ~ 1-. t * ''A rP I` ':7 i- '}r . ~r'Iti • ! ~e` ~ ~ f f~ t ~ - a Q . . ,•,rrv, ,~t.::~,, „~l 1•SCHOQC,,~.r ~'~•~~~:rY:y''.J t,,t,J? I ~~~i~„ • }fl°~t?'~'r`.:' s~~e7! /k'/ '_f .~~`r~vy~ • I~~~x'r,A.~~ ' <"~~;•,,J; a< »J (,'l<~r, ry • f~) \~'i,~ ...:1~r~,f ~~yf' q?' ,r r rf !'r.~i,~ d ~ ~ j~ 5 r } ..c 'r r. >,(s, . x.. : • , kf ` f.. _ ~ :`{r~:r~ MME . 1rS# ~1?.::"t~- Y ,y ~..1 q 7~f ~Y :i ~r~ ~'r ~ Y 't I `I ~ ~ 0 e -•qS 'i.r~~ ,f.~fi~- ~:r. G FJ-( .y~ r.,r,. '.~}rre 7 ,r l~~, ti' 9=:~ ~ .4 5. / ;?,..5. T!x"+;y .,v t }r •i •<1 B1 ~ ~ f'~ ~b ~ ,,'"'r f' t ~ ;t r 'I~IQ f j. w. ! 1, , ~'{;;~ry,, ~ f i r~,~l~ t! - ~~j r s ' , j" t „ f ,~s, d~w`~= ~ r;~`, a -t q <'?; ~ r\ r.. ~ •i,,r,,.,..,o • ~ ",z 5..'•~' ~ ~ ?,t- .4 ~ t•~ f fRr .~h,. A. 'T'rr[~`'(.~I~~'r O~! ~R,;;~ _ lr"'~ J it 7r~4°~~ ,}.Y'r~, ~yF~ :4/~i44~ ~I .~y ~L; t •~,r : ~lyr /t ,;pb~yt'h+ ,~g:~;~\ .I~w-f.; :~};g"~',%`.'~~ •r.~`rr'~'.,i fl ~t• ~.r 1.{ r w~K'•~f~~ l,,Y~ c,~;~;t t~x. '~;'~'j~'' ,,y.. y,...~~,I r ~jr•' ~"~la ~(J;1*: 'fit ?{~,yJ} a7%'~'~'arii r ' 'r;•. , ~ C'JR'r.',~~~iL r. ~f / " ~F!'fF ~rT4^, (,f~ Z r• .r r ~'i, ~ ~R:~.ir ~ :~l '..l ~f~' fti F^+* ~.1~. 1'k~_~ ~,~~n~ ? w•, }Y....flrk~ F ~ja tt ~--,r ~f yr\ 'd• n~\ q'+ir ~~7r.~,.~~~~. ~.1 ~ .s.~+~1) { ,~',•~j ,r, .~F r~.1j11~ART •17• ~ ~ t;~`Z••+ ~ `~1 .t;o ~4'r fit. r ,fit F 'i r. i b'"y .r. + ^ 'F' err .y' ,r ~JJ r• ~'1'a x . 'r ~AR^~~:~y i t I r { ~ ~ ~.r .r,'~.i14 f~..`r. •'lC- , , nro_ Yt. .tea Yys ,[fit "R+r' ~ ,,v,K= j.;' a; r:. :;J=' ~ ~ f' / ? i'•~r u~.e-. s,r _~r yJ s {~4~ ~~j/`t`~• Y~rs r}.,~ ~ ~.,,~',~i , - t~ 't.. , 1., J _t..~ ~pJ? ~;f~ . 4 t ~ rr., ' Q '=k ~.v~ 'y.,ar}! }"`~f •i`'~. \ r'. lI ii :~(7r.,~~f."i+ 1 , ~:'•r ~^yr~ y\ t W~ ~f~~ ~•i'. •T{~i.~.rtS-i ~ f~.. ~ r ` e ~ ~ Q -.a 1 „1 1. ~P^`~<e'-~ l~' X ~ a~ .-tip .:~,r !'r".',a. `I '-i! ~ 'f~.lf~ ~ ~ ~ ~ r d" + ,4r?'•~~ ~ r.~~'y~ f: . ~ , • _ , _ s'. ~6 ~ r° ' x- t~ ~ ~ ' : 4 s~,i; . ~ a ~ , •r:,~ rl~+'' j'1~; t k; i't ' - ~ , RT • ,1 •,:f_ -.tr, i fd' ~ •n : .r J,~.S~J~ , . ~ ~M$5~"~ ~ - r~M 1' r+-4. M k' ~ al..~?f'i I ~f %+`l~Io?s~ t ~Y ~ar ~r ~r. ~ - Y F t-'. re." • :~E~~T P :n. r 'r l": 6,}~\ r.`•., ,J,r• .r ~ 15t ~ PAR F~ T ~''d r~rrr~-~''tT~ I,I'1'S~, r-'~` ~ ~~"1 "~I~t::~'*" ~ °4'. ~t'~!~Y'•' r,+l ' ~'i~'' r r 5'#"!r ' ~h. _ " ' r, e. II~~ r ` - ~'r'~~t r~$".~`,t'-'.~'- , r ,I7• . .~r~L S l~Rl1(E , J ,.r ; , _ ~ t ~ , r1" •t"•'~ } rj~~ ,l: '7. ,~f~~~. }~Mtr..i ~FN^a ,'~e~., •t ~ ~Y~" rv. i ~r~i{.f~ F~'-~ ` j~ :x'r ~ ~ y~•tt+• j:_ _ o-~y ' -p+.~5"Ir'C'•~,t!Si?,t. Y~?f.}~~""a` r , r.,} {rj$',~xh •-K I", ~ I. ' ri,i~ W Cla j , k •T ~~,)~.f'~i+'i ??•";r7•~,f\ d4':!t ,4r-~`4 {~SSy~~t~a~,, :6- '°'.r•4Y .i"'.. 1'•;~~~~ r? `r•~T ~M .i y. r- - '~'-'r~ra :el. 15 E 1 ~.~'~,rf' ~.,5^• „ JJJ--~~~--~~'~~~~~ 'i I rv~`" f~ •.~r 1,~.<. a. ~h,:...I 'r 3 •~S ~~S. •y{' p V~ Ir ~ ' ~ 'r ~ i .t +1 c • RfSi[Y.w , : ~ f \ •rr~, 1- r a t~ [C r At S ' ~ „VV-- " , . ~ _ ' ~ ' r, ` fl~;e 4 r'~:-r~T'{~~{.I, ~_I r.~ .,i,+w ti;~;',~- ~1,r.., ~ r •..5 t~~ ~ „t r~~}1 t_r~k!s~ i<, ~_e1~ - 0. F~ \~Q~~Y~ 5 i' ; ~ Y~,, (~f~7r .l +~~'rj: <C`.~~T.r+fJ i ~ ~1+ r•v ~ { f ~L~.,.'' V i x•:~,~ ~ ii ~r~ • C ',1 1 ~ f,,.\,~!',", ~.y''a', _ ~ . Hn c .r\•, t ~ • ~ ,'~Y( w„ v~'/ EMI; A \ t" ~ ~ • r i~ _ , tS ~r l - 'r ~ rdf ` ~ ~ 1 ~ ~J r t7 ~ ( L.~J~ ~ ~ K >;a y 94+4 ~ n~ ~ ~T ?1 ~ _'G•. r ^ 1 r r ~~C rw• ~ ,n 't~'fy + ~'4.~'w`~.. r: ~ ` T;':~ ar ,y.~ ~ yyi ''~r • ''~}i~PPING CANTER+' } C~+ I;i,r: ~ ,1~ ~ r w..= ',~Y' r'' SCJMMIT R~. el CU BgULDEI ~ \ 'J ;4' , ' r r ' r `;fT't~~ t yT 4r ~ 5 s~}' ' ~ c~! {~z y,'a' '?r t;. ~ Ct ~f r ~ Ld' x-17"'' ~ I~L~ S' _ Cf ~i ~ SQUTI"~ f w r' f Y ,,Y ! I'`y, } 1 . _''idS~ E, w }.~t, i' I~rj 1..~;~ ~ ~ 'o tl ~ , ;i~nj r nt,,,", I~, pt: f s." ~v .~,hw .r"- ts -:,S~NOOL 1 ' V ~r ~ ~ ~ i t ~ ~ " ~ i 4` r+- T "-.ri.+•..N FW. j E ~I";'`_ TF ,7 r v ~'i. r` sr ,~bf ,r k, } 1~...1ir J. ~ iii.., rr~ .f?x' r )a 1 jl\'• . ~ ~ ~ , ,~Y ~~•qf{, .fl~1 f . ~ ; Q ~ ~ -r~:~'~ ;YANTRA'~'~,+ a. ,r 1. CUT NNIS `i" ,,t?r" J +a ~rs^.~ l: ` 7 r: 1- ~ ~ .r +•o~~a+ ? a+ r • 'tl 1 • hf~: -•`:~+1p L yti1~~' 1F'•, 1, r + f' w~ '.,`;I ~ ~ ,j~~~~~~~' ~ ~ ` 1 r' PARK! t Kw? s,fi~-CFlgjk x ~ , ~ F: , ~ Iy! `~~p~( ~ ~rl ~ n Ilya r N` 3, ~ i f . ~ FAC~ITY I. 1 inch - 700 feet ~_lv~,'~j#.~•1 'r~: k i•'~+J ,~P FAI~~"~ ~ (~vJ~:a~~ .:''..5 ? , 1'Zi 'i• (`i ~ s. ~~'I r `Y`i':' f X , r" . .`~Y. ~ ~ 4 , r 1 I - ~ ,t ~ , ~ m _ 7' ~ _ o r, _ 1 3 ~ n o • • . ~ V , ac y _ . ' k 'y EXISTING ENTf~Y DRIVE EAST'S~,DE OF.SITE LOOKING SOUTH ~ ~ Ira m ~ ~ EE ~ i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - M ~ ~,j' ~ ~ AST'SIDE OF SITE LOOKING SOUTH a j ~ E ~ R. ~ ~ ~ , _ti - ~ _ _ ~ _ ? ~ : G y r r l 1` Ir W NO~iTW T CORNER OF SITE .u~~r.. f H ~ ,.fit" ` ~ ~ ~ - - _ . 6, , ;~.,5 , . , .r~ ~ . ~ ~ ~''y ' ` 'f VIEW OF SITE LOOKING SOUTHEAST 0 ~ ~ ~ 'r~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 H~. P" 1 I _.~v}~.., ~ ~ ~ ~~~e~ yYi. _ _ ' y~ ~ ~ ~ti~~ ~y~`,~` r `t H ff .~I a ~ ~ ~ ~ r Ly l `d. '1 ~ ~ N a. ,F _ • ~ ~ F .ti. . +r- r "!'i;. ~ ~ +i NORTH END OF 51TE LOOKING WEST µ ~ f•, . ~ ' ...i SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SITE; 1 `.J `SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SITE s ~r ~ d':" / ~ 4 1 0