Loading...
5A - Consideration of adoption of the Junior Academy Area Plan CITY OF BOULDER PLANNING BOARD AGENDA ITEM MEETING DATE: May 21, 2009 AGENDA TITLE: Consideration of adoption of the Junior Academy Area Plan REQUESTING DEPARTMENT: Ruth McHeyser, Executive Director of Community Planning Maureen Rait, Executive Director of Public Works David Driskell, Deputy Director of Community Planning Susan Richstone, Long Range Planning Manager Charles Zucker, Senior Urban Designer Charles Ferro, Senior Planner Michelle .Mahan, Transportation Engineer Cindy Pieropan, Housing Planner EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The purpose of this item is Planning Board consideration of the draft Junior Academy Area Plan_(Attachment A). At its meeting of January 13, 2009, Planning Board and City Council approved a public process to develop an area plan for the former site of the Junior Academy located at 2641 Fourth Street. Area plans are developed by the city to bridge the gap between the broad policies of the comprehensive plan and site-specilic project review. They establish the city's official vision for an area and are developed as issues and opportunities arise. Area plans are adopted by Planning Board and City Council. The area planning process was reeornmended by staff to address City Council's desire that there be a public process when sites within the city that have been used historically for public or semi-public uses such as schools and churches are sold and redeveloped. The proposed plan includes: 1. Plan objectives initially developed by staff based on the policies in the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP) and refined based on public input at Workshop ft I. 2. Proposed BVCP land use designation of Low Density Residential on the entire site. 3. Two proposed zoning options - Option 1 is to zone the entire property RL-1 and Option 2 is to retain the existing RL-I zoning along the west side of Fourth Street AGENDA ITEM # 07A PAGE 1 and zone the remainder to a "flex district" that would allow attached housing and congregate care uses. 4. Redevelopment principles to provide guidance on site development. 5. Two access options - Option 1 would provide primary access into the site on the Dewey alignment and Option 2 would align two primary accesses with the alleys on the east side of 4''' Street. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that Planning Board adopt the Junior Academy Area Plan (Attachment A). PUBLIC FEEDBACK: The area plan process involved four public meetings (three workshops and an open house) in addition to a project web site and e-mail list that was used to provide updated information to the public. The first workshop resulted in the identification of area plan issues (Attachment B) and objectives (included in the area plan). The second workshop produced a variety of ideas and concepts for redeveloping the site. Participants worked on base maps of the site and surrounding neighborhood, discussed options and created 32 sketches that were subsequently analyzed by staff and organized into five general redevelopment concepts (Attachment C). At the third workshop, participants commented on the various redevelopment concepts for the site (Attachment D). The fourth event was an open house where participants had the opportunity to review and comment on the drab plan. The workshops were attended by from 25 (open house) to 56 (workshop #2) members of the public. Attachment F includes two letters from the property owners' senior housing consultant. Public comment received on the draft area plan that was posted on the project web site and presented at the April 23 Open House is included in Attachment G. The comments vary from support for a park or "open" designation on the site to keeping the current zoning. A majority of the comments voice support for Zoning Option 1 in the area plan, which would designate the entire property Rl,-1. Some of the comments requested more analysis and specificity in the area plan. BACKGROUND: At its meeting of January 13, 2009, Planning Board and City Council approved a public process to develop an area plan for the former site of the Junior Academy. An area planning process was recommended by staff to address the inconsistency between the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan land use designations and the zoning on this site, and to address City Council's interest in a public process when sites that have been used historically for public or semi-public uses such as schools and churches are sold and redeveloped. AGENDA ITEM #t PAGE 2 This site was formerly the location of the Boulder Junior Academy, owned by the Seventh Day Adventist Church. The site is 5.84 acres in size, and is located south of Dakota Place, west of 4"' Street, and north of Boulder Community Hospital's Mapleton Center and surrounding medical offices. To the south and east is the Mapleton Hill Historic Neighborhood. To the east and north is the Newlands Neighborhood. To the west is city-owned open space, accessible by a trail immediately north of the site, a portion of which is located in an easement on this site. Prominent views exist to the west and east, and the site is highly visible from the trail above the site and from the residential area to the cast. All of the adjacent residential development is zoned Residential Low 1 (RL-1) and the adjacent medical uses to the south are zoned Public (P). A staff analysis of the existing density in the surrounding neighborhood was prepared in 2005 as part of the Concept Review process for a previous development proposal for the site. The analysis included a 27.79 acre area in the adjacent neighborhood, from Maxwell Avenue to Alpine Avenue between 4`j' and 6`n Streets, as well as the lots along Dakota Place immediately north of the Boulder Junior Academy site. This area included a total dwelling unit count of 125, which provides a gross density of 4.5 units per acre for the neighborhood. The existing neighborhood includes a mix of housing types, but it is primarily single- family in character. Of the 125 units surveyed within the 27.79 acre "neighborhood area," 98 (78.4%) were single-family detached, 24 (19.2%) were part of a duplex and three (2.4%) were part of a triplex. Lot sizes range from about 6,200 s.f. to about 7,800 s.£ (although there are individual lots that are as small as 3,047 s.£ or as large as 19,378 s.f.). The average size of existing units within the neighborhood area was 1,737 s.f., with a general range from about 1,100 s.f. to about 2,900 s.f. (however, there are homes that are over 4,000 s. f. and a few that are less than 800 s.C in size). The north half of the site is designated Low Density lZesidential and the south half is designated Public on the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP) Land Use Map. The current zoning is not consistent with the BVCP land use designations, with the western 130 feet of the property zoned Public and the rest of the property zoned Low Density Residential (RL-1). Both the split land use designation and the split zoning were likely mapping errors. Staff research indicates that the entire site was zoned single family residential prior to 1971. The current split zoning came into effect in 1971 and appears to be the result of a mapping error. As a result of interest by the previous property owner to redevelop the site, on October 17, 2002 Planning Board initiated a rezoning of this property. Planning Board also initiated a change to the BVCP land use designations. Staff research indicates that in the 1970 BVCP, the entire property was designated Low Density Residential. The current split in land use map designations has been mapped this way since the 1977 Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan was approved. It appears that the AGENDA ITEM # 59 PAGE 3 mapping of a portion of the property as Public in 1977 (when most of it was zoned LR-E and historically designated as Low Density Residential in the BVCP) was likely an error. At the time that the Planning Board initiated the rezoning process, the board noted that consideration of issues like neighborhood character, compatibility, and context would be important considerations for redevelopment of this site. The rezoning was placed on hold in February of 2003, until a development proposal for the site was proposed. In May, 2004 Mount Sanitas, LLC brought forward a Concept Plan application for 26 single family detached residential units with lots ranging from 6,500 to 12,000 square feet in size as well as a proposed rezoning of the western 1.9 acres of the 5.8 acre site from Public (P) to Residential Low - One (RL-1). The application also proposed a change to the BVCP Land Use Designation for the southern 2.7 acres of the site from Public/Semi-Public to Low Density Residential. The proposed concept plan application was not well received by the Planning Board or the neighborhood based on transportation issues, pedestrian connections, open space, density, architecture, house size, and site drainage. Planning Board de-initiated the rezoning in lieu of a more detailed, sensitive contextual redevelopment plan. In April, 2005, Mount Sanitas, LLC returned to the Planning Board with an application for Concept Plan that included a new mixed-density, 42-unit residential development with a proposal to amend the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan's Land Use Designations to Open Space, Low Density Residential, and Medium Density Residential and a rezoning from Public (P) and Low Density Residential (RL-1) to Residential Mixed-Two (RMX-2). The proposed concept plan application was not well received by the Planning Board, staff; or the neighborhood based oil transportation issues, pedestrian connections, unit mix, community benefit, open space, density, architecture, and house sizes. Further, the rezoning and land use plan changes were not supported by Planning Board, staff, or the neighborhood based on a failure to demonstrate consistency with many relevant BVCP policies and criteria. The property was purchased by the current owner, Fourth Street, LLC in 2005. The current owner processed one pre-application request in 2006 involving the redevelopment of the site for 29 to 37 units that included a combination of single family detached, multifamily, and congregate care facilities. AREA PLANNING PROCESS In January, Planning Board and City Council supported an area planning process for the Junior Academy site including: Purpose: Develop an area plan that addresses comprehensive plan land use designations, zoning, housing types, mass and scale, access and circulation patterns. AGENDA ITEM # 59 PAGE 4 Process: 2-4 public workshops to develop a plan that addresses concerns and objectives of the city, landowners, and neighbors; and provides guidance for changes to the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan land use map, zoning, and site planning by the landowners. Three public workshops and one open house were held during January through April: Workshop #1 (January 28) - 37 people attended. The first half of the meeting included an overview of the planning process, background information on the site, introduction of the property owner team, and a question and answer session. The second hal f of the meeting consisted of small group discussions on issues and concerns, and plan objectives. The list of issues and concerns is included in Attachment B. The plan objectives are included in the plan document. Workshop #2 (February 11) - 56 people attended The first part of the workshop included a recap of workshop #1, a presentation of the uses allowed in the different zone districts, information on trip generation characteristics of the site and the different uses, and a presentation from the property owner's senior housing consultant. The second half of the workshop consisted of small group and individual work to develop alternative redevelopment concepts for the site. Workshop #3 (March 30) - 47 people attended The first part of the workshop included a review of the area planning process and the proposed plan outline followed by a review of the results of workshop 42. Staff presented live alternative redevelopment concepts that were based on consolidating the redevelopment concepts developed by participants at workshop 42. Following the workshop, a report was prepared that included all of the concepts developed at the workshop and consolidated them into 5 alternative redevelopment concepts. The report may be found on the project web site at: http://www.bouldercolorado.gov/fiiles/PDS/revised workshop 2 concepts report.Of The five alternative concepts are summarized in Attachment C. Redevelopment Alternative A represented an open area concept for the site was determined by staff to not be feasible since it would have required purchase by the city. The remaining concepts all represented various very low to low density redevelopment concepts for the site. Workshop participants were asked to fill out comment forms that indicated the degree to which each of the remaining four concepts best met the plan objectives. A total of 89 comment forms were received both at the meeting and over the following days. Attachment D summarizes the responses and includes all of the comments noted by respondents. The largest number of respondents supported Concept D which would allow a mixture of housing types on the site including congregate care. AGENDA ITEM # PAGE 5 Open I-louse (April 23, 2009) - 24 people attended The purpose of the open house was to provide the public with copies of the draft area plan and to solicit comments on the draft plan. The comments received are included in Attachment G. ANALYSIS: 1. BVCP land use designation and zoning One of the primary goals of the area planning process is to establish the appropriate RVCP Land Use Designation for the site. Land Use The site is currently split between a Public and Low Density Residential land use designation. The description of the Public/Semi-Public Land Use Designation is provided below: Public/Semi-Public land use designations encompass a wide range of public and private non-profit uses that provide a community service. This category includes municipal and public utility services such as the municipal airport, water reservoirs, and water and wastewater treatment plants. Public/Semi-Public also includes: educational facilities, including public and private schools and the university; government offices such as city and county buildings, libraries, and the jail; government laboratories; and nonprofit facilities such as cemeteries, churches, hospitals, retirement complexes and may include other uses as allowed by zoning. It became clear fairly early in the area planning process that a Public land use designation is not appropriate for the site since: • The site is no longer in public or private non-profit ownership. • Many of the uses contemplated in the Public land use category and the public zoning district are large institutional uses that would not be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood and could potentially have significant negative impacts. At workshop 42, members of the public generated a range of alternative concepts for site development from retaining it as an open area to developing it with a mix of housing types at a density consistent with the surrounding neighborhood. These alternative concepts were consolidated into five alternative redevelopment concepts (see Attachment C). Alternative A (Open Area Concept) was eliminated from further consideration since it would require purchase of the site by the city, which is not feasible. The remaining four concepts were compared based on the area plan objectives (see Attachment E), with Alternatives D (Single family housing along the west side of Fourth St. with a mix of housing including congregate care on the remainder of the site) and E (Low density residential/ single family detached housing) found to best meet the plan objectives. AGENDA ITEM # C_,)/ PAGE 6 A very low density option on the site (Alternative B) would not provide a diversity of housing types or further the city's affordable housing goals. Alternative C, which would leave the area along 4th Street open, is not consistent with the plan objective of continuing the existing character along Fourth Street. A Low Density Residential Land Use Designation (a density of two to six dwelling units per acre) is consistent with both Alternatives D and E, and continues the existing low density residential character of the surrounding neighborhood. Therefore, a BVCP land use designation of Low Density Residential is recommended for the entire site. Zonin Two potential zoning options are recommended consistent with the recommended Low Density Residential Land Use Designation. Zoning Option 1 would zone the entire property Residential Low - 1 (RL-1). Approximately two-thirds of the site is zoned RL-l today, and this option would require the western approximately 130 feet of the property to be rezoned from Public to RL-1. The RL-1 Zone District is a low density single-family detached residential zone with a minimum lot size of 7,000 sq. ft. Zoning Option 2 would retain the RL-I zoning on approximately one-quarter of the eastern portion of the site in order to ensure single family homes along the west side of Fourth Street, with the remainder of the site rezoned to a "flex district" or potentially a new zone district that would be consistent with the Low Density Residential Land Use Designation and would allow attached residential units and congregate care, which are not allowed in the RL-1 zone district. The city's land use code provides for "Flex Districts," as described below: A combination of use, form and intensity standards not reflected in any existing zoning district. Rezoning to a flex district may only be initiated by the planning board or city council as part of an annexation, rezoning after concept review or area plan, and upon the determination that the flex zone would implement the goals of the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan. When rezoning to a flex district the rezoning ordinance shall identify the specific use, form and intensity modules which shall be identified on the official zoning map." The flex district would likely combine the R-4 use module with the intensity and form standards of the RLA district (form module "d" and intensity module "4.") A concern expressed by neighborhood residents is the lack of specifics associated with a "flex" district and with congregate care as a potential use on the site. Many residents expressed support for attached housing and congregate care as potential uses on the site, however the potential number of units and lack of'size limits on attached units or congregate care has been a concern. The city's land use code provides for the following occupancy equivalencies for congregate care facilities: AGENDA ITEM # PAGE 7 • Five sleeping rooms or accommodations without kitchen facilities constitute one dwelling unit. • Three attached dwelling units constitute one dwelling unit. (A dwelling unit is defined as including bathroom and kitchen facilities) 0 One detached dwelling unit constitutes one dwelling unit. The city's code defines congregate care facility as: A facility for long-term residence exclusively by persons sixty years of age or older, and which shall include, without limitation, common dining and social and recreational features, special safety and convenience features designed for the needs of the elderly, such as emergency call systems, grab bars and handrails, special door hardware, cabinets, appliances, passageways and doorways designed to accommodate wheelchairs, and the provision of social services for residents which must include at least two of the following: meal services, transportation, housekeeping, linen, and organized social activities. Staff believes that applying the intensity standards and form and bulk requirements of the RX, 1 zone will provide limits on height and overall density. In addition, staff is proposing.that floor area ratio (FAR) limits apply to all uses, not only single family detached homes, to ensure compatibility in mass and scale with the adjacent residential neighborhood. The Compatible Development Project is considering a FAR of .45 - .55 as a baseline FAR for a 7,000 square foot lot. Since congregate care and attached homes will be a more efficient use of land, with a larger building, staff believes it is appropriate to put in place an FAR at the higher end and therefore, staff is recommending that a FAR of .55 be applied to the gross floor area of the property in the flex zone portion of the site. An alternative concept would be to set a lower base FAR of 0.45 and structure the zone to allow density bonuses up to an FAR of .6 tied to increasing levels of permanent affordability, similar to RMX-2 district which provides for several tiers of density increases based on increased levels of permanently affordable units. The plan also includes a set of Redevelopment Principles to provide guidance for site development and address several of the issues and concerns raised by the neighborhood relative to the character of development on the site and preservation of the hillside in the northwest portion of the site. In addition, the trail access will be maintained and a permanent public access easement and maintenance agreement will be required for portions of the access trail on private property- The property owners recently provided the Ecological Assessment of the property (Attachment -D to the city. Staff has not yet reviewed the assessment. 2. 'T'ransportation A key concern of the neighbors throughout the area planning process has been the potential traffic impacts from redevelopment of this area. As part of the area planning process, trip generation and distribution were analyzed (see Attachment II), which would generally be reviewed at the time of Concept Plan. A preliminary analysis was perfonned which compared trip generation and distribution based on a AGENDA ITEM fl E9 PAGE. 8 range of potential development alternatives, including single-family detached and/or congregate care. If the existing private school land use designation were operating, it .would have the potential of generating at least twice the amount of traffic during the peak hour than any of the other analyzed land use alternatives. The traffic volumes expected to be generated for all of the analyzed land use alternatives would be considered low and the existing street grid system would be expected to continue operating at an acceptable level of service. At the time of Site Review, a full traffic impact analysis will be performed and the results submitted in order to fully assess the impacts of the proposed development on the existing and planned transportation system. In addition, two access options were evaluated during the area planning process. Site access alignment with Dewey (Option 1) would be the city preferred option. This option is more likely to be a driver-expected street intersection due to alignment with the existing intersection and it would also provide less points of conflict between pedestrians, bicyclists, and vehicles. However, site access alignment with the alleys on the east side of 4'h (Option 2) would also be acceptable since it would provide additional connections for the street grid system and would provide shared traffic load between two streets. Staff would evaluate which access alternative best serves the site and overall street grid as part of site review. In order to enhance pedestrian and bicycle access through the site, both options would require pedestrian and bicycle access in alignment with Dewey to be provided. Secondary vehicular connectivity through the site to the south (in aligrunent with Concord) or to the north (in alignment with Valley View) would need to take into consideration the existing site constraints which include a ditch on the south and the multi-use path on the north. Throughout the Area Planning process, neighborhood concerns were raised regarding current traffic conditions on the existing street grid. The following is a list of key neighborhood traffic concerns raised and the associated city response: Request for traffic mitigation on 4`'' Street as part of the development due to a perception of high vehicular and bicycle speeds: Speed data on 4'h Street was collected and analyzed by the city in March 2009. The data revealed an average speed of 23 miles per hour (mph) and an 85`' percentile speed of 27 mph on 4'h St. Based on the Neighborhood Traffic Mitigation Program (NTMP) guidelines, which determ nes when traffic mitigation is necessary, a roadway is required to show daily 85'11 percentile speeds greater than 5 mph over the speed limit. The percentile speed of 27 mph is only 2 mph over the 25 mph speed limit on 4'h St. and does not meet the threshold for physical traffic mitigation. Therefore, city transportation staff would not recommend constructing physical speed mitigation at this time. If traffic mitigation is pursued despite the NTMP based recommendation, extensive public process would be involved. The NTMP funding for this process is no longer available due to budget cuts in 2003. This public process for any proposed traffic mitigation on existing public streets would require balloting of residents within 400 feet of the proposed traffic mitigation device and Transportation Advisory Board (TAB) / City Council consideration. AGENDA ITEM PAGE 9 Concerns that the site access aligned with Dewey would force a large percentage of site generated traffic onto Dewey: It was determined that Alpine, Maxwell, and Mapleton provide the main access into this neighborhood since they provide continuity to Broadway. The trip distribution percentages through Dewey are very low since Dewey only provides continuity to 9`h Street and vehicular travel through Dewey would be the most efficient route when visiting a home on that street. The trip distribution percentages were estimated using professional engineering judgment since the proposed site development is not yet in operation and actual paths of travel cannot be determined. These percentages were not based on actual counts of the local roads adjacent to the site, but on actual traffic counts along maior corridors throughout the city of Boulder. It is standard engineering practice to estimate trip distribution by analyzing the location of the site relative to the rest of the city and how the existing uses (likely destinations) in the city are served by the existing network. See Attachment H for estimated trip distribution percentages. Narrowness of 4"' and Pine: The narrowness of 4`h Street between Spruce and Pine has not yet shown to be an operational concern and would not likely be impacted by the development of this site since trips generated south of the property would likely access Broadway or the site from Broadway by either Maxwell or Mapleton, both located north of fine Street. Request for Concord to continue to dead-end at 9th Street: The extension of Concord Street is not part of the scope of this project or current city plans. 1,'cquest for the portion of 4"' Street north of the site to either be signed as one- way or closed in portions to decrease the number of vehicular trips through the neighborhood and on 41h Street: This is not supported by city transportation staff since 4"' Street provides a significant vehicle, bicycle, and pedestrian through function all the way from Spruce, south of the site, to Kalmia, north of the site (bicycle connectivity is provided to Linden, north of the site). Request to extend North Street through to 4`t' Street: This is not part of the scope of this project or part of an existing network plan. Request for detached sidewalks along 4th Street. As part of the redevelopment, the city's Design and Construction Standards and Boulder Revised Code would require a detached sidewalk along the property frontage on the west side of 4`h St. 3. Affordable Housing Inclusionary zoning applies to all new development of residential dwelling units. Each project is required to provide at least 20% of the total units as permanently affordable to moderate income households. There are, however, a variety of methods for meeting that requirement besides on-site permanently affordable units. As of this date, inclusionary zoning does not provide a mechanism for requiring that the ACENDA ITEM 4 L!5~? PAGE 10 permanently affordable units be provided on-site. However, through such means as city subsidy funds or density bonuses, the city could require that the affordable units be provided on site. It should be noted that the city only subsidizes required permanently affordable units in the cases where those units are affordable to lower incomes or are affordable units provided in excess of those required by inclusionary zoning- With respect to congregate care, there are two types of congregate care units. One type is a dwelling unit including a kitchen, where common services are provided, and the other is a sleeping room, usually with an attached bathroom and is not considered a dwelling unit. inclusionary zoning only applies to dwelling units. So, for a congregate care, stand alone dwelling unit, 20% of the total would need to be provided as permanently affordable units. This requirement can be met with on-site affordable, ownership units, a cash-in-lieu payment of the affordable units or through the acquisition of existing units elsewhere in the community that are then made permanently affordable. In the instance that the congregate care units are of the sleeping room type, there would be no inclusionary zoning requirement. The alternative concept described on page 8 would provide an opportunity for more affordable housing by setting a lower base FAR and structuring a zoning district to allow density bonuses tied to increasing levels of permanent affordability, similar to RMX-2 district. NEXT STEPS Following Planning Board action on the area plan, the plan will be forwarded to City Council for consideration, tentatively scheduled for July 7. Approved By: Ruth McHeyser, Executive Director of Community Planning Planning Department ATTACHMENTS: A. Draft Junior- Academy Area Plan B: Issues and Concerns C: Alternative Redevelopment Concepts D: Workshop 43 Comment Form Responses E: Comparison of Alternative Redevelopment Concepts AGENDA ITEM # 5~ PAGE 11 F: Letters from Property Owner G: Public Comment H. Trip Distribution and Trip Generation Information 1. Ecological Assessment, May 2009 AGENDA ITEM # PAGE 12 DRAFT Junior Academy Arr a, Plan - 'k _ r y 1 as sj~ . s.■' _ _ -:,z:f Prepared by: y City of Boulder Department of Community Planning v May 2009 Cam:, A i Junior Academy Area Plan - DRAFT ! ac Background Site Analysis At its meeting of January 13, 2009, Planning Board and City Coun- The site is bound by Dakota Place to the north, Fourth Street to the cil approved a public process to address comprehensive plan land east, the Mapleton Medical Center to the south, and city open space use designations, zoning, housing types, massing, site access and to the west. A trailhead located immediately north of the site pro- circulation patterns for the 5.84 acre site of the former Junior Acad- vides access to the open space. emy located at 2641 Fourth Street. The area planning process was recommended to address City Council's desire for a public process Topographically the site is defined by a steep slope to the west with for redevelopment sites that have been used historically for public significant views toward the north-west corner of the site and more or semi-public uses such as schools and churches, and to address the limited views toward the Mapleton Medical Center. The north edge inconsistency between the Comprehensive Plan land use designa- of the site is defined by the trail head and trail segment while the lions and zoning. south edge is defined by a drainage ditch. The east edge, facing onto the established residential neighborhood is defined by a hillside Three public workshops and an open house were conducted in Janu- rising upward from Fourth Street to the more level benched portion ary - April, 2009 to help develop a plan that addresses community located toward the center of the site. concerns and objectives. - y` ~4 ern" 'Ilws ¢ Oti • r ety O f C s • ■ s.,.qt' a a • • e a ~ • ,eighborhood Frontage on Slope 4th St Base elevation [indicates height in feet indicated by "0" ve or below base elevation s t e n t i a l N e i 9 h e d b ~ Figure 1: Site Analysis Diagram City of Boulder -2- Junior Academy Area Plan - DRAFT Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designations and Zoning Plan Objectives Community Engagement - Engage community members The Boulder Valley Comprehensive in the area planning process, particularly those in the sur- •69 Plan (BVCP) land use designation rounding neighborhood. Low Density indicates the desired future land use „-0 Residential (LR) for the site and provides guidance Sensitive Infill (Public (PUB) for zoning. The north half of the • Support and strengthen the surrounding neighbor- e hood through appropriate building scale and height; study area parcel is designated Low Av 'ia5i Density Residential and the south compatible character, architecture, site design and p density of new development; and sensitively de- g half is designated Public on the signed and sized rights-of-way. ' a BVCP Land Use Map. The current a E • Define the acceptable amount of infill and redevelop- a zoning is not consistent with the ment with standards for design quality in order to s a 5th S1 BVCP designation with the western avoid or adequately mitigate negative impacts and X51 a 130 feet of the site zoned Public and enhance the benefits of additional infill and redevel- the rest zoned Low Density Resi- opment. 61h St Ell, dential (RL-1). Research indicates that the site was zoned single Tamil urban design Figure 2: Existing BVCP Land Use y • Integrate new development with the existing neigh- residential prior to 1971 and was boyhood by relating positively to public streets, also designated Low Density Resi- sidewalks and paths; providing opportunities to walls dential in the 1970 BVCP. The cur- from the street into the area; and incorporating well- rent split land use designation has designed functional open spaces. been mapped since the 1977 BVCP • Development of the site should feel like a continua- r Public (t') _ was approved. lion of the existing character along 4th Street. 1 U A ya si Environmental Protection - Hillside development will avoid negative environmental consequences to the im- mediate and surrounding area and the degrading of views Residential Low 1 (RL-1), and vistas from and of public areas. 114.! t d T <6 Sih 57 SRS SI 4 Continued 07, Figure 3: Existing Zoning City of Boulder -3- C~ Junior Academy Area Plan - DRAFT c~ Proposed Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan Plan Objectives - Continued Land Use Designation j Access and mobility • Design new neighborhood streets in a well connected A Low Density Residential Land Use Designation is proposed , and fine grained pattern of streets and alleys that ex- consistent with the existing low density residential character of the tends the existing street grid to disperse and distribute surrounding neighborhood. The Low Density Residential land use vehicle traffic and promote bike and pedestrian travel. designation represents a density of two to six dwelling units per • Mitigate traffic impacts that cause unacceptable com- acre. munity or neighborhood impacts or unacceptable oS_A reduction in level of service. Include strategies to reduce the vehicle miles traveled (VMT) generated by the development. • Integrate access to the open space trailhead into the PUB neighborhood. Low Density • Provide easy and safe access by foot to neighborhood Residential centers, community facilities, transit stops or centers, (LR) uavota P, and shared public spaces and amenities, • Ensure that new development and redevelopment 3 is designed in a manner that is sensitive to social, o physical and emotional needs including accessibilityto auks' those with limited mobility; provision of coordinated E o s facilities for pedestrians, bicyclists and bus-riders; and the provision of functional landscaping and open space. Figure 4: Proposed BVCP Land Use • Provide for a safe and efficient transportation network. Housing Proposed Zoning • Further the city's affordable housing goals by providing permanently affordable housing consistent with city Two alternative zoning schemes for the property, both consistent policies and regulations. with the Low Density Residential land use designation, are recom- • Encourage a mixture of housing types with varied price mended. In both alternatives, development of the site should be ranges and densities that fit within the character of subject to floor area ratio (FAR) limits to ensure compatibility with the neighborhood. This could include congregate care, the surrounding neighborhood. Development under RL-1 zoning duplexes, and triplexes in addition to single family will be subject to the FAR limits that result from the city's compat- detached houses. ible development project. Under Option 2, development in the area shown as a "flex district" should not exceed an FAR of .55 on the area's overall gross square footage. City of Boulder -4- JuniorAcademy Area Plan - DRAFT Option 1- Zone the entire Q property Residential -Low 1 t,1 iPNe (RL-1). This would require rezoning the western portion of the site currently zoned Residential - Low 1 Single Family Detached Homes r~ Public to RL-1. f in Character with Neighborhood Llp RL-1 Across Entire Site o b `T~ 13 CID L:1 E:1 G3 1:10 -[1 Lj 110 ED EJ LI o Do o p 0C:1 g o a CD 21 Q CI n° o Q (j LJ cw~ Figure 5: Zoning Option 1 - Residential Low -1: Figure 6: Option 1 - Redevelopment Concept Single family detached housing Option 2 - Retain the Q existing RL-1 zone along ,I1i'Ie Fourth Street for approxi- mately one quarter of the Flex Mix of Residential site and zone the remainder (mixed density housing) dp Senior living 110dings fl to a "flex district" consistent with the low density land single Family Detached Homes use designation. This would RL-1 Along Ch street allow a mix of housing types . in Character With Neighborhood including congregate care. D Q Q 0 P Q 0171 E] a Q a ❑ Ca 0❑ Q Q~ ' E The flex zone should use o Do e o Om P the intensity, form and bulk ° a a ❑ © C7 Ca C~ ❑ ❑ o 1:3 C3 o g standards of the RL-1 dis- Q ofl 0 e d Q ~fl O trict and the R-4 use module. - } Figure 7: Zoning Option 2 - Residential Figure 8: Option 2 - Redevelopment Concept Low - 1 along 4th Street with a mix of housing types on most of the site City of Boulder - - Junior Academy Area Plan - DRAFT Redevelopment Principles r 1. The hillside area in the northwest portion of the site will be preserved, and restored as appropriate. E 2. Single family detached houses will be located along the west side of r L''illd, RG? .i :119 I :u1 s Fourth Street and will be compatible and consistent with the surround- ing neighborhood and reflect a continuity with the existing neighbor- hood character: • Houses will vary in size and design, and conform with the outcome of the city's compatible development project. • Re-grading of the site along 4th Street should improve the relative elevation of new homes to existing houses on the east side of 4th Street.; Garages for houses along 4th Street should be accessed from a rear'; alley. ; 3. Any larger buildings should be located on the southwest portion of the site and generally consistent in size and height with buildings to the Houses should respect south, and should be no more than three floors above finished grade. the character of the r 4. New buildings should respect and be compatible with the diverse Mapleton Hill' r character of the Mapleton Hill neighborhood. Issues such as solar neighborhood. orientation, shading, views and privacy should be addressed in the design process to facilitate the livability of these buildings and for 2' adjacent properties.' u HYYYYYYYYY u'9 S~ . Figure 9: Illustrative 4th r171 r l`i~* -i'YO1•~'d.'_ .Y.i ~4~.rFj-1- -f`~,,c• ` Street section it City of Boulder - 6 - it JuniorAcademy Area Plan - DRAFT r \ ■ % i r : t 410, i' - J i.T4...r1Ji.d 4 MF• _ h :Y t 't- .r R 40 Figure 10: Illustrative 4th Street frontage Specific architectural elements to be encouraged include: Front porches, defined entries and active rooms facing the street are encouraged to create neighborliness and a friendly street f ' Front Porches are frontage. Roof massing should be hierarchical, with a clear expression of pri- encouraged, and too r7 - much architectural mary and secondary masses. Gable, Gambrel, Hipped and Lift-up - detailing should dormers are encouraged. be avoided. simplification, proportion and form should be used to define house design and excessive architectural detailing should be avoided. Projecting architectural elements are encouraged; however, these elements should be approached through simplicity of form rather than applying arbitrary decorative elements and materials. Func- tional bays, turrets, dormers, and gable ends can help to break down the scale of buildings and soften the transition between houses. Deep eave overhangs and exposed rafter tails are encour- aged. Railings should follow the simple construction techniques 'G{ I1'~L ' and detailing found throughout the neighborhood. 11"` M! ~~r ! Building materials should reflect the neighborhood character and diversity. Materials such as brick, stone, siding and wood shingles are encouraged. Trim should be used as a unifying architectural J element and designed in proportion to the scale of the opening or mass and painted or stained to compliment the color palette ap- - - - plied to the adjacent house color. _ Fenestration including proportion of openings to wall area as well as proportion of openings themselves should reflect traditional patterns found in the adjacent neighborhood. r MLk CD City of Boulder -7- Junior Academy Area Plan - DRAFT r EL Access PlanI Site access options are limited due to terrain and adjacent propertyf ownership. Steep terrain and city Open Space to the west preclude i the possibility of vehicular through access any access proposed to I E the south in alignment with Concord Avenue would require nego- tiation with the adjacent property owner, and access possibilities to the north are limited due to the steep grade of Valley View Drive/ - Dakota Place and the location of an existing public trail. There- - fore, all available access options are served by 4th Street on the east 58% 3 0 D CC) a -I side of the property. Two alternatives for principal site access are illustrated in Figures 11 and 12. o 0~ pn ❑ qu S c oCCA OQ ❑ ❑ • Option 1: A primary access in alignment with Dewey Av- ° p d Q~ Cl ❑ _ D ` enue along with a secondary emergency only access near the ®N north or south edge of the property; or Figure 11: Access Option 1 • Option 2: Two primary accesses in alignment with the alleys on the east side of 4th Street. Option 1 would provide less points of conflict between pedestrians, bicyclists, and vehicles. It would also provide alignment with the existing intersection, meeting vehicle driver expectations. Option F13 2 would add an additional conflict point, but also may disperse 0 traffic on 4th Street and slightly decrease the amount of traffic on Dewey. In order to enhance pedestrian and bicycle access through - Ma- the site, both options would require pedestrian and bicycle access 58% 37* 4[10 ❑ r M 0 C3 C3 ❑ in alignment with Dewey. o DO[) ❑ ❑ GC '13 co El 9 r-I 171 Figure 12: Access Option 2 City of Boulder - g - ATTACHMENT B Issues and Concerns (Revised based on input from Workshop #1) REZONING 1. Increased density is a concern - can we perhaps even go to a lower density zone 2. Density should reflect adjacent residential neighborhood 3. Consider multifamily on southern edge adjacent to hospital park 4. Concern as to allowable uses 5. No density - should be a park 6. Cluster/condense the density and create more open space 7. Very large residential (with public use of amenities) 8. Congregate housing types 9. Small scale public events with seniors 10. Consider the Comprehensive Plan goals influencing this area plan 11. Housing affordability 12. Development options including varied densities 13. Cemetery TRAFFIC 1. This is the issue of most concern for many people 2. Concerns include volume of traffic, speed, safety, noise, and overall impact to adjacent neighborhoods 3. Specific issues and concerns include: forcing traffic onto Dewey, the narrowness of 41h and Pine, keeping Concord closed at 911 Street 4. Flow to minimize traffic for a given intensity of use 5. Make 41h Street north of site either one-way or close portions of 41h 6_ North St. through to 411, 7. Line up new streets with existing (no offset streets) 8. Bikes and traffic - too fast down 4'h Street creates safety concern 9. Would like separated sidewalks (landscape buffers) N`IGHBORHOOD CHARACTER 1. Concerned about mass and scale - size of homes- multi vs. single family 2. 41h Street Frontage 3. Neighborhood feel; "street life" preserved, reflect adjacent neighborhoods. 4. Mix of styles heterogeneity 5. Also create "signature" building (focal point) 6. Providing access to site by community to use facilities, etc. 7. Concern no FAR limit in P zone 8. Look at Mapleton historic district guidelines 9. How to ensure quality design AGENDA ITEM # t)M PAGEa1 GREEN SPACE AND VIEWS 1. Preservation of views - view corridors 2. Hillside development 3. Buffer/transition to open space 4. Buffer/transition to existing residential/historic 5. High % of open space desired 6. Buy for open space 7. Preserve part of site for community benefit CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS 1. Duration of Construction - dust from grading 2. Traffic 3. Schedule traffic flow to construction and vice versa SANITAS TRAIL 1. Preservation of trailhead - preserve "current" trailhead 2. Trail Maintenance 3. Parking for trailhead (people don't use 41h) PARKING 1. Concerned about overflow parking in neighborhood, resident parking, staff parking if senior living community 2. Parking could be a problem with commercial use 3. Less street dependent parking - more alley parking 4. Concerns about lack of parking (on-street) ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT 1. Concerned about potential noise and light impacts 2. Can't value property on open space. One edge inaccessible- 3. Net 0 energy designs 4. Minimize impact to site topography 5. Wildlife preservation 6. Don't build on steep slopes 7. Grade considered historical? Restore "natural?" 8. Potential for wildfires OTHER 1. Past Planning Board comments regarding single family on site 2. Previous staff research 3. Conservation easement a possibility? (whole or part) 4. Developer must be accountable for "community/neighborhood benefit" - currently no provisions to require "community benefit" (tangible/measurable) AGENDA ITEM # 5A PAGE, 5. What off-site improvements might be implemented by city or developer to benefit neighborhood (e.g. sidewatks) 6. Could inclusionary zoning be distributed in neighborhood (ADU) 7. Jobs for neighborhood 8. Concern that neighborhoods are losing an old friend In the open space. 9. Topographical permeability (site design and grading that does not create a "gate") 10. Neighborhood benefit e.g. accessible vs. viewable open space IDEAS 1. Push density to east part of site; preserve hillside as open space m- conservati:,rti easement. 2. Want a lot less stuff on the Site 3. Want previous neighborhood input included (again) 4. Like senior housing idea AC:ENAA I TENI 8 } PAGF.a Summary of Alternative Redevelopment Concepts Alternative Redevelopment Comprehensive Plan Uses # Units Additional Information Concepts land use/zoning Open Area BVCP: Urban and Other Park, skating rink, N/A Not feasible; Requires purchase of site by the Concept Parks gardens, or other similar city. Zonine:Public uses A Open j i I Open west - BVCP: Very Low Density or Detached dwelling units, 6-28 1 to 5 affordable units; likely to be 1 or 2 Of 3rd, I Open Low Density public schools; home day dwelling units on-site and the rest as cash-in-lieu. ' Zoninc:Rural Residential, care; religious assemblies units B lower Estate Residential and/or density Smaller Buddiwgs in Low Density Residential along 4th Character with Keighborhood Mixed - t,rLn~n i idl•. BVCP: Low Density Detached dwelling units, 24 - 35 72 - 105 with kitchens; Possible mix: 9 sf housing Residential attached dwelling units; dwelling homes, 45 - 75 congregate care units with W/West Sid Mix of Larger and Smaller ' units Senior Living and Mix of Zoning: Low Density congregate care facilities; kitchens, and 1 - 5 congregate care units C Other Residential 1 Residential zone that would public schools home day with out kitchens. 10 to 16 affordable of 41h open allow attached and care; religious assemblies units; likely to be 5 to 8 on-site units, rest congregate care Open Landscape Area % as cash-in-lieu. Along 4a' St.. . Mixed _ _ _ _ _ _ _ BVCP: Low Density Detached dwelling nits, 24 - 35 72 -105 with kitchens; Possible mix: 9 sf housing Preserve Hillside Residential attached dwelling units; dwelling homes along west side of 4t11, 45 - 75 Zonins:Low Density congregate care facilities; units congregate care units with kitchens, and Mix of Lar a ami Smaller w/single Residential zone that would public schools; home day ltcsidential and Senior Living 1 - 5 congregate care units with out family allow attached and care; religious assemblies 1 kitchens. 10 to 16 affordable units; likely n' detached congregate care That will to be 5 to 8 on-site units, rest as cash-in- along 4th ltesident;a Along 4" in Character allow attached and lieu. b _ gym, neighborhood _ congregate care > ~r Low Preserve Hillside BVCP: Low Density Detached dwelling units; 24 - 35 Open area is meant to be conceptual, and > ~v density Residential pubic schools; home day dwelling would be located appropriately Zoning: Low Density care; religious assemblies units depending on specific development plan. 4 E residential M1 wm~a Residential 4 to 7 affordable units; likely to be 1 to 4 {{{~r Buildings inCharacterwidr units on site and the rest as cash-in-lieu. I_1 Nngbborhood Across Entire Site I v _4 ATTACHMENT D Junior Academy Workshop #3 March 30, 2009 Comment Form Responses 1. Please indicate the degree to which each of the alternative redevelopment concepts meets the plan objectives (circle one answer for each concept). Concept B Doesn't meet plan objectives 41 Meets some plan objectives 12 Not sure if meets objectives or not 2 Meets many of the plan objectives 6 Best meets plan objectives 23 Concept C Doesn't meet plan objectives 55 Meets some plan objectives 14 Not sure if meets objectives or not 5 Meets many of the plan objectives 3 Best meets plan objectives 3 Concept D Doesn't meet plan objectives 26 Meets some plan objectives 4 Not sure if meets objectives or not 1 Meets many of the plan objectives 7 Best meets plan objectives 46 Concept E Doesn't meet plan objectives 15 Meets some plan objectives 11 Not sure if meets objectives or not 11 Meets many of the plan objectives 14 Best meets plan objectives 31 Additional comments on the alternative redevelopment concepts: Estate residential zoning = #1 is a park. Concept A should be considered with a public bond for park and trail use like North Boulder Rec Center- no city funds required. AGENDA ITEM # -A PAGE5 I wish the city had given us the opportunity to purchase the site. I never saw a plan with money amounts of what it would cost each household to purchase it. Is it still completely impossible? Nothing is impossible. Public bond. No congregate care! Build out and FAR should be compatible with surrounding historic neighborhood (not Dakota Place). Traffic studies should be better studied and substantiated before the area plan is finalized. The existing general traffic studies are not enough. FAR should not exceed 65,000 sq. feet. From traffic impacts it seems congregate care is a good fit. Compacted impacts are far better than historic traffic use. I live near the Academy project, fought it, but now like the way it fits in_ The entire site can be best developed with mixed housing and single family transitioning to existing neighborhood. Congregate care is a very appropriate use. Concentrate development along 4`h Street to leave west side as much as open space as possible. Congregate care would offer a huge public benefit. I like open area along hill on 4th Street- this will minimize buildings "looking down" on neighborhood. We need housing for elders in Boulder who will be moving from their current homes making room for families to-occupy the houses the elders are leaving- so congregate care- appropriately scaled- would be great. The two big issues are traffic and neighborhood consistency. I don't care about whether there is a mixture of housing types. Get realistic traffic data before you make assumptions based on the data- 9`h is the arterial east of the neighborhood, not Broadway. The option D taking a balance between the BVCP half the property is zoned public. The best use of public space is toward the back of the site because it may not entirely reflect the neighborhood. The key to D is traffic is lower. Any plan must encourage/require 100% on site affordable when this site can have between 20-35 DU. Should do regardless of owner's investment costs. B and E are best if truly lowest traffic, but D gets there at low DU calculations. Retaining the site's current role as recreation and aesthetic for the neighborhood as well as healing environment for Mapleton Hospital is extremely important to me! 1 am still for keeping in the existing neighborhood character. D and E would give most tax benefit to city. A, B, and C will cost city dollars to maintain- AGENDA ITEM # SA PAGE C looks like the best way to go. Good landscaping on the site will get rid of any eyesores that the current space presents. B would be improved with open landscape area along 4`h. Access options: 2 is better, Dewey is far too narrow to accommodate any more traffic safely. I would like additional members of my family to move here. This is a great solution to this property. Senior citizens are ideal components of a strong neighborhood. I believe this to be a solution to this property. Keep the low density character of neighborhood with area for children's play and public access for recreation and pleasure of space, views, and neighborhood. I love Concept A. But if not A, then B. Senior living with the least amount of single family houses. Since this is one of the last remaining open areas on the western part of the city, I feel that it's imperative to retain foothills views for all of Boulder. Most important - matching the character of the existing residential neighborhood, keeping density and traffic reasonable, preserving views. Have strong preference of Access option #2. 1 like it! Aging Bouldcrites need a place to go without leaving their beloved West End. This is the first plan that seems to fit andLwiII hen.,Iit a portion of the community with little voice. This seems like the best option for Boulder and my area. I live down the street. Smart move, Boulder! A senior center will be less impact- people coming and going- while adding good neighbors. Thank you. Looking good! Spam has done a good job taking into consideration the needs of the landowner, the needs of the neighborhood, and the requirements of the city. Will it fit with the look of the neighborhood? Fxcellent idea! I could see myself moving in. This is exactly what Boulder needs. AGENDA ITEM # J PAGE This will be a great addition to the neighborhood. The senior center will give us great neighbors! Great option for Boulder! This plan will be great for the aging community. Great solution. As an elderly man I think this is much needed. If something is built I'd like to see something that looks nice and fits. Finally a concept that seems to be about helping rather than just making money! (although profit is always a motive). Great idea for the community. I'm looking forward to moving into the senior community myself. When will it be complete'? Best solution yet. Seniors make great neighbors! They care about the community and have knowledge beyond our years! Let's keep them a part of the West End. Good thinking! We are finally getting somewhere with this property! We love the senior care facility. Thank you! Of course I wish this land could remain a park (or become rather) but since no one is willing to front the money for a park, this seems like a great way to develop the land. What a great idea. Allow mix of single family and duplexes (no age limitations, no "senior" housing). Size of duplex buildings not larger than single family buildings- creates more affordable units- comparable to "old" MR-E zoning of adjacent neighborhood. Could have 24+/- buildings, but 35+/- units. I like Plan D and the sensible proportions it provides to the location. This is a good location for a senior living facility. Senior citizens make good neighbors. I understand that city purchase of the site for Open Space is unfeasible currently and thus you're taking A off the list. But other alternatives to an Open Space outcome may still AGENDA ITEM # j~ PAGEaW exist, and that will influence my answer here. I believe this site should be a "Gateway to Mt. Sanitas" public space in some form. I think a senior center will be the best option for Boulder. People are getting older and it gives a good solution to our current aging community. Site appropriate and can handle proposed density and use! This senior care project looks incredible and delivers many benefits to the entire community. Innovative and breakthrough thinking is exactly what our community needs. The city, and especially this neighborhood, needs some senior housing options. I like the idea of residential homes on 4'h Street with the congregate senior housing toward the back of the site. D and E- Seniors seem less impactful. Those people objecting just to object are slowing a fine process. The congregate care project sounds beneficial without compromising any zoning or traffic issues. Let the process work as intended and quit allowing nimby's to ruin a great concept. Plan D reduced growth pressure on rural areas, provides for efficient use of land, infrastructure, and services, and can improve quality of life in Boulder. Plan D offers the possibility of enhancing the character, viability, and function of Boulder and could inject new life into the Mapleton neighborhood community. It opens up the possibility of helping the neighborhood become more connected and sociable. Ultimately, it will increase the value of thi, Teighborhood properties without altering their character: Other benefits: resource and land conservation as well as a viable alternative to sprawl. Conserves the community's financial resources by taking advantage of existing infrastructure, increases walkability by contributing to safe and attractive pedestrian environment, and creates opportunity to recapture the "sense of place" that is largely missing from development projects during the past 50 years. Concept D is diverse, which plan objectives call for. My understanding is that seniors are lower-impact neighbors and would be a good addition to this neighborhood (like the Academy on the Hill). 1 like the diversity of ages and diversity of housing types. Because this site is on the edge of the neighborhood, I don't think it has to have all single-family homes. There's an opportunity for something different! Because the site is on the edge of the neighborhood and has office and industrial use around it, I don't feel that the whole site needs to match single-family houses. There should be diversity of housing types. AGENDA ITEM # SA PAGE I I think it's important to keep infilling where we can in Boulder. I like the idea of keeping projects in scale with the adjacent neighborhood. Senior housing in this area would be very compatible with the neighborhood. Option B has too many dwelling units for this area. Anything beyond a 4`h Street row of single-family dwellings will add to an already heavily trafficked situation. Redevelopment here is almost certain to be a disaster because of its location between the access pincers of funneling on to 41h Street and funneling out of Sunshine and Sanitas overuse. Minimize to the maximum! Option B would be the most similar to the pattern of development along 4"' north of the site. Please remember that staff found that the average home size in the neighborhood was 1700 sq. ft. I'd like to see the layout used in plan C used with the comprehensive plan land use/zoning of plan B. That being 6-12 homes situated back from 4`h Street but not up on the hillside. I like the additional setback in C and feel preserving the hillside is very important. Seniors make really great neighbors. This seems like a sensible solution to this property. A: Best, though unrealistic. B: Good, if houses are limited in size. C: Too much congregate care building sq. ft. potential. D: Same, too much building. E: OK, but B is better since it would keep less building on the site. 1 don't believe C and D are desirable alternatives because 1: congregate care of any size -is too much development for the site, 2. congregate care brings with-it too many downsides: mass of building; light pollution; increased parking; traffic increase; and 3. both C and D allow too much building on the site - potentially very incompatible with neighborhood. A is still the best outcome; obviously the owner of the site isn't going to put "nothing" on it, unless we got really lucky! B: I like that this option allows for very low density for houses. I like that it allows for the space at the west edge of the site to open up and transition. I think that keeping the number of buildings small works better with the limited access to the site. This option seems compatible with and related to properties to the cast and north of the site. It seems most reasonable. E: The reason l like B better than E is that it restricts the number of units better. RL-1 is OK but developers always go as high as they can, so I think "less is more" in this case. I do not want this land rezoned. I oppose congregate care if it increases built/paved space and traffic. I favor lowest density possible: this area would be best as transition area (lowest density) to open space- not condos, duplexes, triplexes. AGENDA ITEM #A PAGE ,3D No rezoning of this property. Don't remove the slope. Single family homes and no more than 24 homes. Make alleys for better fire protection. Please make lowest density because there is only one outlet "0' Street" Traffic is a problem on Dewey and Alpine is icy in the winter. We want less density (single family please). No rezoning! Please keep lowest density possible. Also keep the new plan looking like our current neighborhood: height and size restrictions. We have a young child and are very concerned about the increased traffic that will he created by new housing. We want the lowest density possible. Please don't ruin our peaceful neighborhood. I strongly oppose any rezoning at this time. I strongly favor restricting the total number of units. I strongly favor preserving the whole western hillside. No rezoning and as low density as can be. Don't make barrier to open space with a bunch of building. No congregate care if it means no green areas or little open areas. No flattening of the slope behind BJA. Too much density means a ruinous traffic pattern for our neighborhood. Please lowest density. This is a cul-de-sac. No rezoning please. Please don't cut further into hillside. Restrict the number of units and square footage. No congregate care. I vote for option B of the plans proposed. I don't think that the zoning of the property should be changed. I am not opposed to the senior living, but it should only be allowed in the designated public use zone. Changing the zoning for the site to accommodate the senior living proposal would cause the site to be too dense and would not fit in with the neighborhood Traffic impacts to the neighborhood have not been adequately addressed. The traffic study cited is inadequate. Fewer dwellings mean less traffic and fewer burdens on surrounding neighborhood. The city does not currently enforce speed limits on 4th Street, 9th Street, Alpine, Maxwell, or Mapleton. Concepts C and D would significantly change the character of the neighborhood. In concepts B and E the areas labeled "open" and "preserve hillside" should not be included in density calculations. I still have some concerns about the potential impact of cut and fill along 01 Street. We are in need of a senior housing development in this part of Boulder. It would be a nice touch to the city of Boulder- I vote on limited development if any, height restrictions to 35 feet. AGENDA ITEM # S q PAGE '3,J. 2. Are there any elements missing from the plan outline? Shuttles - limited trips. The traffic info is not valid and we need traffic numbers that are real. Increased traffic and congestion and parking pressure. Parking, parking, parking! Will this become another Um-Hill? What is most missing is accurate traffic stats_ Traffic is the most critical issue and its impact on the surrounding area. The analysis should also address the impact on streets south of Mapleton (i.e. what happens to traffic going south on 4"' Street past Mapleton?) E is poor land planning- Attached units should allow row houses (similar to existing historic row houses on Mapleton) Less parking is optimal - frequent shuttle trips limit 1 car per household/add car share requirement- add electric bike corral- less VMT. You've put this, but I would like to stress minimize -traffic- especially along Dewey which is narrow. I prefer option #2 for access. I do not like the suburban type of development that Pearl has built in Ft. Collins or Colorado Springs. Traffic on Dewey: There will be a lot of it. Serious mitigation is necessary for this. No. There needs to be a buffer between the 2. The best way to accomplish this may be to split the property '/z PERU running N/S. Offsite solutions (think outside the box) to mitigate traffic impacts. 1 know not required for area plan process but this is a nonstarter for me as it comes after the solution to use and is the problem that must be proposing options with B-E choices. Public transportation Without drawings it is hard to see how the layout would flow. I don't think so. 'there might be something missing. Like to see some sort of green space requirement with whatever happens. AGENDA ITEM 4 W-1 PAGE 32 Not sure. Could be- not sure. Not sure yet. Maybe. Not sure. Probably. Probably. I'm sure there are some missing. Please see my attached comments. I do not think congregate care or no congregate care is the defining issue. For this form and to cooperate with this process I will vote for the option with the least development. The plan is very clear. Information is clear- those unclear should read with an objective mind able to conceive. The urban infill trend is a positive one and should be encouraged! It is time for a new era of community development as we move forward to embrace the challenges of meeting our future needs and achieving Boulder's ambitious greenhouse gas reduction goals. The impact on Mt. Sanitas open space and its wild inhabitants will be huge. Why isn't this ahcady pressure-A place included? It is hard to believe purchase is the only way to maintain as open space. Total build out square footage. Again- going back to previous PB comments- 60-65K sq. ft. were recommended. A plan laid out like C with residential instead of congregate care. Access is also very important. I would minimize traffic on Dewey as it is very narrow with limited sight on 9With increased traffic on Alpine I would add 4 way stop at 91n Street. I'm not really sure. Zoning and Comp Plan designation were not errors. I would have liked to see a relevant traffic study. Traffic info at meeting was incomplete. AGENDA ITEM # PAGE The zoning and Comp Plan Designation on this site are not errors in mapping. Both were purposeful. Impact on traffic down Alpine and surrounding streets. Unlike non cul-de-sacs, there's essentially one egress from this site onto 41n Traffic light at Alpine and Stn or it's going to be impossible to cross. There is no mention of light pollution from the development. Light pollution is a serious detriment, frorn all of the proposed alternatives. House size limits need to be compatible, less than 2,500 sq. ft. There should be a degree of flexibility permitted to address subdivision... I am not convinced a grid dropped on this site is appropriate because of the site constraints. Also it should include a Design Guidelines Standards Section. Could be overlooking one or two things. Height should stick to 35 foot restriction. 3. What issues should be addressed in the development principles? Greater understanding or explanation to the residents of this neighborhood of senior community and its benefits. They do not understand nor take the time to truly research for their debate. Residents compile accurate information. Traffic; 6 homes total; no congregate care. RL-1 only Sensibility in neighborhood character and neighborhood "feel." Traffic!! Please keep size and scale and design in keeping with the existing neighborhood of Victorian homes- not the new build-outs. FAR. Traffic and FAR. Make sure development (especially FAR) is compatible with surrounding neighborhood. FAR should be no bigger than 65,000 sq. feet. This site is infill. Boulder has plenty of open space. Cluster mixed development below the blue line is best served, character of single family interfacing on 4th, both sides is best designed in D. Consider extensive TDM for projects to minimize traffic impacts- VMT reduction strategies! AGENDA ITEM # &A PAGE While the school had traffic it was during concentrated times i.e. not during peak dog- walking/walking times of weekends, evenings, etc. There is a lot of foot traffic in this neighborhood. Thanks! Congregate use and SFR are both assessed at 7.96% of market value. SFR is likely more valuable than one or a group of congregate units. Value of adjacent homes likely would not be impacted by proposed uses, but only the market will tell. Reducing traffic impacts. Traffic and neighborhood feel. The neighborhood opposition will favor PE because of lower on-site affordable- Traffic/traffic/traffic. Will need to mitigate impacts. 1. Stop sign at 9"' and Alpine and work a green solution of 2. Public bus partnership to encourage alternate transportation. Character of the current neighborhood. No car congestion. The number of units and square footage of units appropriate to the existing neighborhood. Exit onto 4'h should be right or left turn only. 4 way stop at exit. Traffic (stop signs, roundabouts, speed bumps and electronic speed detectors) - how will this be addressed? We need a specific plan. The project's impact on the neighborhood. The impact to this neighborhood and how long it will take. Density of housing to match density west of 4`t' Street. Height of housing. Size of structures. Please preserve the hillside of the NW. I have lived in Boulder since 1960 except for 1 and % years in NYC. My paternal grandparents moved here in 1938. Please be very careful with this unique property- let's not have all of the old spirit of Boulder destroyed. Traffic is the single biggest concern. Something needs to be done to slow down traffic on 4`h Street, especially with additional traffic this would bring. Once construction starts have it completed quickly and cleanly- Transportation issues should be addressed since most of the residents will no longer be driving. Clean and speedy. AGENDA ITEM # PAGE Will the process be clear? How fast will it be built? Time it will take to build. Time? RTD stop close. Shuttles. Don't silence the neighbors' voices. Keep their opinions and thoughts on the forefront as you move forward with this great plan. What's best for me and the neighbors. Transportation for them and construction period. Make sure it looks like the rest of the neighborhood. Have it happen as fast as possible with the least impact to our community. Make sure views of Sanitas aren't blocked for current residents and also limit the time construction can take place. Keep it fast! The natural beauty of the location. Special attention to traffic patterns and public transportation. .Please-see Itattached t-omments. 1 believe also that public access and use of this site., needs to be-maintained in a real, meaningful way. Thank you! To insure things get built in a reasonable time frame and not over the next 6 years. This is an appropriate site for density, and the smaller congregate senior housing units are an appropriate way to add that density. Integrity of building materials and look. Preserve senior access along 4th People have an inherent resistance to change, and a natural fear of the unknown. As a result, the plan to infill the Jr. Academy site has faced major opposition, whether or not justified from a land use perspective. Traffic/access, open space, protection of trail and trailhead. AGENDA ITEM # SA PAGE 3~ Access to the site. Affordability is an important factor in maintaining a diverse community. With senior care, it would be nice to have an affordable alternative. How many people, cars, and dogs can one area sustain? Too much pressure already. Pity the poor neighbors west of 4'h on Mapleton as well as the rest of us. The huge negative impacts on already over-burdened 41h Street and Mapleton at Sanitas are parking and traffic. I would be willing to trade off some single family homes for attached housing if that allowed for more affordable housing. It has to be a meaningful amount though and the units have to be genuinely affordable. Total square footage and building height/visibility from street- Mass and scale of development and permeability. I prefer Access option #I I. Building height should maintain views. Lot size and floor area ratio should be in character with surroundings. Over 30 units would exceed this. The impact on the neighborhood is probably the primary issue. Building: 60-65,000 sq. foot max/street layout and access big problem for a use like congregate care. Hillside on west edge of property should be left intact on buildable acres- 4.25 units per acre max (4 acres) Adjacent neighborhood FAR .35 - should not exceed. On a site like this with very little access, congregate care of 70+ units is too much. On a site tucked up against open space 70+ units is too much! Being realistic about the entrance/exit streets on thensite. They area big problem.,,. Congregate care is too big for this site, even as a moderate-sized facility. Findings from the planning staff's comments in 2005 are valid re: slope of streets, street grid, water retention, and preservation of hillside on west side of property. Also, per PB comments on 4/21/05: 60-65,000 sq. ft. maximum on site, small house size. Development should decrease as it goes west, just like much of the rest of edge in town. No streets lining up with alleys! Dangerous! This parcel is in fact a cul-de-sac. Pedestrian egress directly to the west could possibly be addressed as "social" paths are apt to evolve despite access at north end. Plus 4'h Street will inevitably get all traffic from the site at at least one point. Traffic light at 9th and Alpine and 91h and Maxwell and speed bumps in adjoining neighborhoods. Traffic! Please do an analysis of how surrounding streets will be affected. AGENDA ITEM # PAGE The danger of excess traffic- lots of kids in this area. The possibility of keeping a large portion open as a park area. FAR and building height restrictions in order to achieve compatibility with existing neighborhood immediately to east of site. Need realistic traffic analysis. Access to open space. Restrict building heights. Compatibility of neighborhood. The city is not enforcing water quality requirements with existing construction (e.g. sw corner of 91h and Maxwell) or neglected hillsides (e.g. w side of 6th Street N of Alpine)_ So I do not trust the city to prevent silt runoff from this site. Larger buildings on the site would not be appropriate. Lot size should be similar to others in the neighborhood. House size should be limited to less than 2,500 sq. ft. Guidelines should be developed that address these issues: 1. Development should consider compatible development recommendations, but should go further since this is being watered down. 2. Lot coverage/lot size -3. Building mass and scale 4. Building materials 5. Subdivision 6. Streetscape 7. Sustainability 8. Landscape- retaining walls 9. Building form Public transportation (access, availability) That the residential streets do not allow for ingress or egress so as much open space with limit on any building and perhaps none would be great! I think a park would be great. Attached Comments: First, thank you for the series of three workshops to date, and the obvious amount of hard work you have put into this process. I particularly thought Susan did an admirable job presenting and moderating the last workshop on March 30. The material provided both at the workshop and in the hand-out is very helpful in defining the issues and the problems inherent in working with this site. I want to comment on the "Junior Academy Area Plan (Outline)". This will supplement my Comment Form also submitted. AGENDA ITEM # S)4 PAGE 3g Site Analysis I would add that significant and unique views from the site also include: the view over the city and the plains from the western top of the site; the unimpeded view of the Sanitas ridge, summit, and valley sweeping up from 4'h Street (and the neighborhoods east and north of the site); the view of the base of the foothills from any number of vantage points throughout Boulder and all the way from Davidson Mesa. Because the site slopes up as a natural transition to the foothills, the long-range views are important. Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan I know the inconsistent zoning is a mystery, but I have never been convinced that it "must be" an error in mapping. I have read (in a letter to the editor) that a revision of the BVCP is now underway. I wonder if a review of the Comp Plan intent for this site is part of that process, or should be. Plan Objectives Community engagement- again, thank you, and well done. Sensitive Infill- I firmly believe this is not an "infill" site, but rather an "edge" site. As such, the issues about its future relate to all issues about the western edge of the city north of Chautauqua. "support and strengthen the surrounding neighborhood" - I am very concerned that any potential developer would try- and get entitlements- to maximize its ownership benefit essentially "on the back" of the neighborhood. I have yet to see in this latest round any indication of how the owner/architect/developer intend to create any benefit to the neighborhood. And I think the city needs to require that as part of the Area Plan. Access and mobility Thank you for the clear acknowledgment on March 30 that there are many fundamental and significant access and transportation issues inherent with this site. I believe that no vehicular access on three sides, and very problematic access on the east, create natural limitations to the potential development of this site. 1 know there will be opportunity to comment more on this in the future. But, I believe this will become a core issue, perhaps the core issue. Environmental Protection lease add potential light pollution to the list of concerns. The adjacent Open Space, the surrounding neighborhoods, and the long-range views mentioned earlier could all be very negatively impacted by "lighting up" this site. AGENDA ITEM # PAGE Comparison of Alternative Redevelopment Concepts Relative to Plan Objectives Sensitive Infill: Urban Design: Compatible integrate with Access and Housing: Environmental character and neighborhood; Mobility: Furthers city's housing goals/ protection continue existing Mitigate traffic impact provides mixture of housing types density character along 4th B Open west of .1 to 5 affordable units - likely 1 or y 3 ,lower - density along 2 on-site and rest cash-in-lieu; 4th • No mix of housing types C 44 Mixed housing • 10 to 16 affordable units - likely 5 with west side to 8 on-site and rest cash-in-lieu. of 4`h open - • Mix of housing types • addresses need for senior housing D 44 Mix of housing • 10 to 16 affordable units - likely 5 to 8 on-site and rest as cash-in- types with / lieu single family v . • Mix of housing types detached along • addresses need for senior 4th housing ~ E Low density . J J / • 4 to 7 affordable units - likely 1 to - r __3 ( residential v 4 on-site and rest cash-in-lieu. ~I > (single family • Does not provide mix of housing detached) w ~ z c~ ATTACHMENT F pearl senior Liming 4\'\\'\v.peRl'Iscii ioi-livilia.coni March 30, 2009 Friends of Mt. Sanitas c/o Board Members Catherine Barnes Kim Keech Nancy Doty Nancy Kornblum Alan Longo Liz Payton Randi Stroh P.O. Box 2208 Boulder, Colorado 80302 Dear Friends of Mt. Sanitas: I am writing on behalf of Pearl Senior Living to provide The Friends of Mt. Sanitas with accurate information on our company and 'current intentions with the Fourth Street, LLC property. On the www.mtsanitas.org website there were references made to my statements at the Junior Academy Area Plan Meeting ##2 that are incorrect, and information posted regarding past projects with which Pearl Senior Living principals were involved as being representative of our intentions for the site which are misleading. We wanted to take this opportunity to provide you with a clarification of my statements and share with you some of our vision for a potential senior living community in your neighborhood. Since your organization's mission per your website is to gather. organize and disperse information on development proposals for the site to the neighborhood and public, we request that you post this letter and a link to our website, www.pearisen iorliving.com, on the Friends of Mt. Sanitas website. We welcome any opportunity to meet with you and your organization in the future to discuss our contemplated vision for the project and receive your input and suggestions. Pearl Senior Living has been engaged by the ownership of Fourth Street, LLC to provide consulting services to help determine if a senior housing community is a feasible development option for the site. We were extremely excited and honored to have an opportunity to explore the possibility of a senior community at such an incredible location and in one of the most desirable communities in the country. After studying the existing senior housing market supply and based upon our own personal experiences in the region, we have determined that there is CREATING. IVIARKETING AND OPE=RATING Remarkable Senior- Lh-ing Corrnumities Agenda Item #_,a Page_ a significant demand for various forms of senior housing products in Boulder. The existing congregate senior housing inventory is dated and, given that the senior population is the fastest growing segment of the area's population, such inventory is insufficient to meet the growing demand. We have also examined the site characteristics and location and find it highly desirable and logistically suitable for a senior community especially given its proximity to many local amenities and senior services. The adjacency of the site to medical office and hospital services not only are desirable for a Boulder senior, but specifically addressed as critical criteria when considering a site for senior housing in the Boulder Valley Camp Plan goals and objectives. We of course do not have to explain to you how special the site is and the desirability of the surrounding neighborhood. Senior Housing communities come in all shapes and sizes and are located throughout the City of Boulder. The principals at Pearl Senior Living have extensive experience working with a variety of senior communities in suburban and urban locations with many different product types and building sizes. In your website you noted that Pearl Senior Living developed the MacKenzie Place in both Colorado Springs and Fort Collins which is not correct. These communities were developed by Mackenzie House, LLC, a Denver based regional developer. My partners Tom Finley and Charles Gee worked for MacKenzie House as senior executives prior to starting Pearl Senior Living with me last year. Both of the MacKenzie House communities are much larger than we would ever contemplate for the Junior Academy site and are philosophically different j in their operational and product approach. It should also be noted that the Union and Oakridge Mackenzie Place Communities in Colorado Springs and Fort Collins are situated on 17 to 22 acres respectively not "about 5.3 acres" as indicated on your web site. There are other communities that were referenced in our web site that we have been involved With that are located on smaller urban iii-fill -Ites of bet;;vee., 1 to 5 acres such as 6rcmenacle on the River in Reno which I personally developed, owned and operated and the Morningstar Assisted Living communities in Denver which have between 70 to 90 units that my partner worked with when he was with MacKenzie House. It is our preference to work on these types of communities since they are usually centrally located and are typically more intimate and unique than the larger communities. When I was asked in the Area Plan Meeting #2 about the optimal size of a typical senior community, I indicated somewhere between 80 to 100 units. Never did I state that this was our development goal for the Junior Academy property, as is suggested on your web site. Only by working within the City of Boulder's stringent development approval process that will include a /ors (mm # page forthcoming Concept Review and by following the appropriate zoning and density provisions will we be able to identify a project size. I also never stated that senior congregate housing was the only type of real estate project that could still obtain financing on the site in the current economic environment. I said that despite the current economic turmoil, senior housing loans continue to perform well nationally and this is evidenced by the extremely low loan default rate of less than 2% for the industry, which is primarily attributed to stringent underwriting requirements by lenders and investors. These projects require an enormous amount of capital for both physical plant construction as well as operating expenses, and therefore they teed to have a conservative investment approach. Pearl Senior Living wants the Friends of Mt. Sanitas to know we are committed to diligently working with both the City of Boulder, as well as with the community to find the ideal fit for the property. It is extremely rare to have an opportunity to place a senior community in such a great location that can serve neighborhood seniors and is close to multiple services and amenities for seniors. Given Boulder's land scarcity, especially in the form of larger assemblages on the west side, the community should seize this opportunity to build something that is truly needed for our aging population and will be a model for sustainable smart growth and a welcome neighbor. There are tremendous benefits to having a senior living community in your neighborhood, and here are just a few: 1. Vehicle Traffic - Senior homes on average have fewer people per household and therefore less overall daily vehicle trips (2.02 trips per day for seniors versus 9.57 for single family residents). Seniors also travel at off-peak rush hour times and have shorter trip lengths. A typical senior resident in our community will be 70 to 80 years of age, usually single and are open to using public and community transportation options. The community can have shared transportation such as a community van and hybrid shared community cars for residents and employees. Significant traffic reductions can be realized for a senior community at this site through a comprehensive Travel Demand Management (TDM) initiative with The City of Boulder that will encourage the consolidation of routine trips to the grocery store, pharmacy, entertainment venues, shopping areas and medical facilities thus reducing Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT's). The TDM can also be designed to encourage employee use of public transportation as well as having employee commuters park in the large public parking facilities at the transit hubs and CAGID lots downtown and use the community shuttle bus to pick them up on a predetermined shuttle schedule. Employee shifts can be Agerwk110m #_S page # staggered not only to insure staff coverage at all times but it can help to eliminate any peak employee traffic times to and from the community. 2. Parking - Seniors have significantly fewer cars per household than single family residents and are more dependent on public and community transportation options. We anticipate that less than 25% of the residents will own a car based upon historical experience. The need for parking will be greatly reduced and will not place a burden on the surrounding neighborhoods. Secure underground parking could be incorporated into the design of the community in order to eliminate unsightly surface parking lots and increase the open permeability of the site. 3. Utility Services - Seniors use less utility services than traditional single family households. They tend to live in smaller spaces and use less electricity in the evenings than the non-senior population. Seniors do not go to work during the day whereas traditional homes may have a working spouse in an office as well as t a stay at home spouse with children during the day. Green building initiatives that save energy will be explored and implemented to the extent possible. 4. Education - Seniors do not increase the burden on public schools, often the largest component of a local community budget. It should be noted that seniors do pay for education through property taxes on the project and are generally very supportive of bond issues related to education. j 5. Public Recreation and Libraries - Seniors tend to use public libraries and recreational facilities less than the general population. 6. Open Space - Congregate Living promotes smart density and compact uevelopi-ient that will allow for more open space and sight peroleauility. In addition, a senior housing community would enhance water quality from increased permeability of the campus due to reduction of driveways, building footprints and surface lots. The community can have a larger amount of green open space attributed to the massing of a congregate building towards southwest corner of the site. Having the trailhead to Mt Sanitas next to a senior community is a welcome amenity. Seniors will enjoy watching the daily activity and some may even take a hike. There may be an opportunity to improve the trail as it traverses through the property. 7. Public Safety - Studies are available that show ambulance and paramedic trips are not significantly increased by senior communities as people may think, i Agm& Item --Page # especially in independent living scenarios which is what we envision for the site. Fire departments support new modern development for seniors that have fire sprinkler systems and state of the art life safety that makes their jobs easier and keep residents safer. Seniors make great neighbors as they add volunteerism and watch-dog eyes for the local neighborhood. 8. Economic Benefits - Senior housing creates jobs especially for the local disadvantaged and low-skilled worker in a rewarding and healthy environment. It also keeps the dollars in Boulder and not leaking out to the surrounding cities. 9. Pedestrian Oriented Campus - The neighborhood residents are welcomed and encouraged to walk through the streets of a senior community on the site just as they would on their own block. This project would not be a gated community but an open campus consisting of a unique collection of building sizes that are pedestrian friendly. 10. Environmental -A senior community on the site can playa significant role in meeting many of the environmental objectives of the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan. The community could incorporate the latest green construction materials and techniques. Community gardens that grow produce for the dining hall as well as community composting and recycling could also be emphasized. The project may also improve flood and storm storage and water quality for the downstream neighbors. 11. Construction Period - A senior community will be constructed in a much shorter time frame than a more traditional low density single family housing product, especially in a less robust real estate market. Therefore, the construction of a congregate senior community will create significantly less environmental noise and traffic disruption for the surrounding neighborhood. The general contractor for such a project can be required to bus workers to the site from a central parking area away from the site and prohibit any neighborhood parking. Commercial contractors for these types of projects typically do not work on Sundays. 12. Special Needs Population - Building for the senior population is much more beneficial for the overall community than traditional single family residential development by adding needed services. It also adds to the intergenerational diversity of a neighborhood and city in general. Many of the seniors in Boulder have to seek housing options in Lafayette, Louisville, Broomfield and Longmont Agenda Item#____ page because most of the current communities in the city are full with waiting lists. As a result, seniors who have lived their entire lives within the City of Boulder have no other choice but to spend their later years in another distant community disconnected from their longtime friends and family. This result is unacceptable because seniors are integral participants in the community and society. The importance of infill locations such as the Junior Academy property relates to the ideal of insuring that seniors remain geographically a vital part of the neighborhood and its greater community. The ability to walk in a safe neighborhood, provide volunteerism to it, take advantage of its proximity to benefits such as the Boulder Community Hospital and Mt. Sanitas trail, all cumulatively enhance the quality of life and personal self-esteem of seniors. Boulder, as a visionary city, should be the trendsetter and promoter of innovations such as integrating senior living in infili neighborhoods because of all of the societal benefits it will offer. Seniors over the age of 70 are one of the fastest growing segments of Boulder's population. These seniors deserve more choice in their housing options and family members and friends will appreciate the central location of the community so they can more easily enjoy their time together. Congregate senior living is a model of sustainability and environmental responsibility. Seniors are moving from large single family homes into compact dwellings that have shared amenities and services. If they chose to live in this environment, they are effectively reducing their carbon footprint significantly. Check out our website www.pearlseniorliving.com periodically for current information on the Junior Academy project and Pearl Senior Living. Please feel free to contact us through email or phone as listed on our web site. Also our website is an excellent source for information on our progressive philosophy and practices. We sincerely look forward to a mutually beneficial dialogue with your group. Best regards, Phil Shapiro, M.H.A.; M.S.P.H. CC: Susan Richstone, City of Boulder Charlie Zucker, City of Boulder Stephen Sparn, Stephen Sparn Architects, P.C. i I Agenda Item V_ Page I r :h1 Ell ir. S e ll i 0 r L i v i l7 J \vww,pearlsen1orlIvin ;.L'v111 Friends of Mt. Sanitas c/o Board Members Catherine Barnes, Nancy Doty Ken Foelske Kim Keech Brad Keech Nancy Kornblum Alan Longo Liz Payton Randi Stroh P.O. Box 2208 Boulder, Colorado 80302 Dear Friends of Mt. Sanitas: As you know, Pearl Senior Living is working with the owner of the former Junior Academy property to help him evaluate the possibility of locating a senior housing development on the f site. In connection with the development team's involvement in the related neighborhood outreach process, we want to participate in a dialogue with the Friends of Mt. Sanitas ("FOMS"). We honestly believe that an open conversation with stakeholders results in a project that is best for everyone, including the neighbors. Accordingly, we are disappointed by FOMS's general refusal to engage in any meaningful discussion regarding the proposed project. FOMS's failure to participate in such two-way talks has 'caused it to propagate false assumptions and base conclusions about the project upon incorrect information. All of this is unfortunate because we believe it is imperative that the neighborhood and the greater Boulder community have access to accurate information so they can make knowledgeable decisions and provide valuable input and suggestions, all of which will ultimately be to their own benefit. Accordingly, this letter highlights current misunderstandings of which we are aware and constitutes yet another offer to meet with the team to discuss the project in more detail. Open Space is not a Viable Option. As an initial matter, we continue to hear comments from one or two FOMS members expressing their opinion that the site should be converted to Open Space or a Public Park. We certainly understand that some neighbors' preference is for the status quo, i.e. no development on the I site. However, the property is a zoned redevelopment site in an urban context. The owner has rights with respect to the property, just like the members of FOMS have rights in and to their own properties, I !Vr/\~?i~L. I' ; <'~NU i}FER~IITNC; Rc,lllctr-koble Sen ol- hiving Col?iltrimities Agenda Item #_~A Paga The owner previously approached both Boulder County and the City of Boulder regarding their purchasing the owner's real property rights and converting the site to Open Space or a park. Neither the County nor the City was interested in purchasing the property. Additionally, the owner has not received any meaningful purchase offer from any of the neighbors. Accordingly, selling the owner's real property rights and converting the site to an Open Space parcel is not feasible at this point. The Proposed Project is not Similar to Former MacKenzie House Proiects. As you know, FOMS previously mistakenly equated two very large MacKenzie House developments, Oakridge in Fort Collins and Union in Colorado Springs with the proposed development for this site. When the development team made FOMS aware of this error, FOMS revised its website. However, the revised website nonetheless again incorrectly inferred that the team is considering a congregate community similar in scale to the Fort Collins and Colorado Springs MacKenzie House communities. As we highlighted previously, this is simply not true. Senior communities come in all shapes and sizes. FOMS incorrectly chose to compare the current proposed project to some of the largest, most suburban projects previously completed by MacKenzie House. Those sorts of projects were appropriate for the particular communities, but are not appropriate on the former Junior Academy site. Tom Finley and I were formally associated with MacKenzie House as development and management executives. We are no longer employed by MacKenzie House, and both of us are i currently focused on designing and operating more intimately-sized communities in select 1 markets with Phil Shapiro as principals in Pearl Senior Living. f We would be happy to visit with you regarding the focus of Pearl Senior Living and share with you our ideas regarding what sort of project would be appropriate for this site. That is why we have consistently lobbied for a joint dialogue and do so again In this letter. Purported Limitation on Square Footage does not Exist. We understand that several members of FOMS continue to believe that, in connection with its review of the prior project proposal for this site, the Planning Board limited the total footprint of I the improvements to 65,000 square feet. This is simply not true. I Rather, one member of Planning Board suggested the 65,000 number in a prior Planning Board 1 meeting. However, that comment is actually not even in the official minutes of the meeting, i which we have reviewed as a part of our effort to understand and address the neighbors' concerns. What the prior Planning Board meeting minutes do show is a diverse expression of opinion by various members of Planning Board, including those who are in favor of increased density on the site and specifically Phil Shull's comment that he does not believe that any square footage limitation is appropriate. Again, we wish that FOMS would have accepted our prior offer to 1 j i meet and discuss the project, which would have provided an opportunity to make sure that everyone understands the factual history as it actually exists. The Proposed Pro'ect is Properly Suited for this Site. We respectfully disagree with the March 31St FOMS newsletter that was previously posted on the FOMS website. Specifically, the newsletter argued that a senior congregate community would not be compatible with the existing neighborhood. However, as you know, the site historically housed a large private school and is currently surrounded by two medical office buildings, the Mapleton Rehabilitation Center, BCH Home Health Care, a cogeneration power plant and maintenance facility as well as single family homes. You have a beautiful neighborhood of magnificent homes with close proximity to multiple cultural facilities, retail shops, restaurants and medical uses. A senior housing congregate community would benefit the neighborhood by, for example, complementing the medical and commercial services adjacent to the site and adding more variety of housing choices in the neighborhood. Further, with the close proximity to other community shopping and entertainment amenities, the site is very well suited for senior use and lends itself to sustainable development initiatives, which a congregate senior community is particularly capable of achieving. Again, had you accepted our offer to dialogue, these are issues that we would have discussed with you in more detail. Benefits of Senior Housing As a general matter, senior congregate housing provides the surrounding neighborhood with benefits in excess of those associated with a mere single family housing project. Accordingly, FOMS's premature rejection of a senior congregate community based upon faulty information is particularly unfortunate because FOMS has prevented itself from understanding the extent of such benefits and how they can positively affect the members of FOMS. Specifically, the only public process to date regarding the team's vision has been the area plan exercise that the City of Boulder initiated to clarify the existing zoning and comprehensive plan i designation of the property. This is a process that has been directed by the City and is designed E t to address "macro" level issues. The team has gladly and openly participated in the process over the past six months, which has involved, among other things, our attending three neighborhood workshops and a neighborhood open house. i I However, many of the concerns expressed by the members of FOMS relate to more "micro" i project-specific issues that the area plan process is not designed to address. We understand the frustration of FOMS in this regard. We too look forward to the concept plan process where we will be able to present our vision for the site and delve into the detail that many of the members of FOMS seek. However, in an effort to respond to the members of FOMS during the area plan process, as you i know, we have solicited FOMS on several occasions to engage with us in the kind of more detailed dialogue that would hopefully respond to its members' concerns in a way that the area plan process cannot. We are discouraged that FOMS has chosen to ignore or decline our ' requests. I ~en~ Ifern # ~ _ _ Page # It is premature for FOMS to judge the merits or compatibility of a senior community at the former Junior Academy site when it has refused to become more educated regarding the subject matter. In that regard, we anxiously anticipate the opportunity to share with the public, through the concept plan process, meetings with FOMS and otherwise, the numerous benefits of senior housing as compared to a mere single family housing development (such as the one that FOMS supports). Such benefits include substantially lower traffic volumes especially during traditional peak commuting hours, reduced parking and overall vehicle use and far less environmental impacts. Compact senior congregate living units with shared amenities and services allow for better stewardship of our resources and meet the true intent of sustainable development. Senior congregate living is a vital part of any diverse neighborhood. Seniors provide desirable intergenerational experiences for the community while promoting senior self esteem and wellness. Conclusion. j i Homeowners in both the Mapleton Hill and Newlands neighborhoods have expressed support for senior congregate living on the site- Even neighbors who disagree with the proposed use or who are undecided are actively engaged with our team to explore issues and provide valuable input that will allow us to present a concept plan that best incorporates their input. Accordingly, notwithstanding the fact that FO MS appears to assume that it speaks for the entire neighborhood, FOMS actually seems to be out of sync with many of its own neighbors. Please accept our renewed invitation to rneet and discuss this exciting opportunity for this site. We can be contacted through links in our website www.pearlseniorliving.'Com or www.themapieton.com. We truly value neighborhood input and believe that clearing up underlying misconceptions opens the way to the most productive dialogue and best results in a project sensitive to the neighbors' concerns. Best regards, ~ i Charles Gee i i AgeA Item Page # ~b ATTACHMENT G I Junior Academy Area Planning Community Open House Comments April 23, 2009 Comments on the Junior Academy Draft Area Plan provided prior to the April 23, 2009 Open House: I am 'unable to make the meeting on 4/24. I was very concerned that the only two options that came out of many hours of meetings still do not replicate the neighborhood feelings and concerns. 1 would not vote on either of these options and I am still in complete favor of RR1 (HUGE homes on big lots) or a park. I understand that the park scenario got thrown out but it needs to stay in the notes and be shown to Planning commission and city council. I am very concerned about scenario two with mixed use and congregate care in the amounts shown as the traffic that would go through the neighborhood would make it unsafe to children and neighbors especially Dewey in the winter months. Please forward my information onto Susan and the others. I am very sorry I am unable to make this important meeting and will see you at Planning and City Council meetings. Regards, Catherine D. Barnes 526 Concord Ave Boulder, CO 80304 I have looked over the two options that are being presented for the Jr. Academy development and am in favor of Option #1. 1 feel that Option 1 will best maintain the character of the existing neighborhood - which is important to me. I chose to buy and renovate an old home in an old neighbor hood dominated by single family homes. The increased density that comes along with Option ##2 would most likely bring a significant increase in traffic along Maxwell Avenue as well as all of the 4th Street feeder streets that directly access Broadway or 9th. Again, I would see this increase in traffic as a significant detriment to the functionality and feel of the neighborhood. Thank you for considering this feedback and forwarding it to the appropriate parties. Regards, John Wvatt A" Rem Page j~ I am a home owner near the 4th Street Jr. Academy. I am in favor of option #1, single family dwellings. I feel that this option will maintain the current feel of the neighborhood. Kelly Wyatt 505 Maxwell Avenue Pg. 3 of Draft plan-- Public space on the BVCP and other zoning map should be preserved. So, the whole draft plan is irrelevant because it suggests violations of these maps. This is what I suspected would happen from the beginning and is PRECISELY why the zoning issues need to be resolved before ANY Area or any other plan is even suggested. I am therefore understandably reluctant to respond to a draft plan that has been embarked upon prematurely, while I am obviously tempted to because of the egress from the site and its effect on my property's narrow street, among other issues. This has brought up developers hopes unjustly and has wasted neighborhood individuals' time in meetings that were predicated on zoning issues that were not made to be unequivocally clear from the beginning. The two maps need to be expanded upon (pg 3) with crossbars indicating their overlap in a third map and the square footage of public/LDR and the overlapped public zone area quantified separately. This is poor public process. I thought the Planning Dept. learned something from the Washington School debacle. This has to stop NOW. Lynn Segal 538 Dewey 303-447-3216 Comments on the Junior Academy Draft Area Plan provided following the April 23, 2009 Open House: 1. The plan should express a preference for zoning option 2. This allows for the most suitable uses of the site- sonic single-family, but a significant amount of senior living and mixed housing types. It should also express a preference for access plan 1, contingent on easement being acquired allowing access from Concord. The plan should also require that any development be LEED compliant, including LEED for neighborhoods. Agenda item # 5A -jaw s2~ 2. I support Concept A; I know that the majority of the neighborhood does also. It was not quantified with a populated list of how those supporting it felt it met the objectives. It is not a given what this land is going to be. I think it is pretty obvious that it is not a fair representation of the community to fail to analyze this Concept A as a reality. It is listed on the Summary of Alternative Redevelopment Concepts. If Council and Planning Board want to deny the citizens what they want for this property, they shouldn't go unrepresented by the Planning staff. And the citizens ought not to be surreptitiously brought in to a planning process that presupposes a particular set of concepts. 3. Option 1, low density single-family homes is better of two options if. a) FAR, height, and mass are no greater than current average in immediate neighborhood; b) lighting is low impact (site elevation will make lighting even more visible from near and far than on lower houses); c) paved area is no greater than in immediate neighborhood. Since this is an edge site, it would ideally be feathered westward from low density/FAR to even lower density/FAR. High mass building at western edge will have a higher visible impact from distance as well as at close range due to its overall elevation than it would if built further east and lower. Duplexes and triplexes, if they mean more people/acre inevitably mean more cars/acre and paving/acre as well as more traffic originating from site. This kind of density is not appropriate in this old, established neighborhood. Canyon and Pearl east of 9th and Broadway, 28th and 30th are more appropriate for duplexes and triplexes. Congregate care is inappropriate for reasons of mass, paving, lighting, and traffic. Total paved area is of concern for both environmental and neighborhood compatibility reasons. This is an excellent location for families with children: low traffic, fewer fumes. Let's keep it that way! 4. The Junior Academy site has many unique characteristics due to its position overlooking, and highly visible from, the western edge of old Boulder. Any development on the site will impact the Mt. Sanitas open space: access to it, wildlife, noise level, etc. Traffic will permanently affect the character of neighborhoods within a wide area to the north, northeast, east, and south. So the rezoning and development debate will need to focus on minimizing this degradation. Restrict FAR to .35 (or less). Allow building on no more than 4 acres, with no more than 4 units per acre. Limit building height to 35 fl:. or less. Within such parameters there can be fruitful debate about site layout and access issues. This will be a major political issue in Boulder over the next few years. Will the Planning Board and City Council be able to reach guidelines acceptable to the majority of voters? Agana km _ pagaj_ The proposed senior facility unfortunately seems the least appropriate option. ("Unfortunately" because in the right setting such a facility could be a positive addition to the city.) The traffic, light, and noise impact should rule it out, on top of how the mass of the buildings would blight the unique foothill landscape. Rather than add to the mass of hospital buildings south of the site, the new development should abate that industrial park quality. 5. I'm in favor of low-density residential. The new development should have less height and mass then the adjacent blocks to the east because there is only one exit to the east. A congregate care facility would not be appropriate and would bring more traffic noise and parking asphalt. Let's keep this spot for families, children, trees, skies, and space. Seth Melville 27105 th Street Boulder, CO 6. I am in favor of low density residential for this site. I would like to see it developed on a scale and in the style of the existing neighborhood to the east so that it looks like a continuation of the same. As well as style and number of homes, the new homes should have the same height, mass, and footprint. Because there is only one exit to the cast the perimeters should be less dense than the low density residential allows. I am against rezoning for congregate care for the same reasons. John Bizzarro 545 Concord Ave. Boulder, CO 80304 7. I agree with option I of low density single-family residential. This is the preferable option given that: the FAR, height, and mass do not exceed the average in the immediate neighborhood, the lighting impact is very low, and that the paved areas do not exceed immediate neighborhood. No new zoning. Tom Parkin 2712 5`h Street Boulder, CO 8. I prefer option no. 1 for the site, establishing it as single family low-density homes. IN addition I would like FAR, height, and mass to be less than or equal to the immediate surrounding neighborhood, lighting impacts to be minimal, and paved areas to be less than or equal to the immediate surrounding area. No new zoning changes. The site simply does not have enough traffic outlets to accommodate any other option. Nancy Bizzarro ~rEde Item _ Page t~y _ 545 Concord Avenue Boulder, CO 80304 9. I agree with option 41. The Boulder Junior Academy site is special in that it is highly visible to much of the neighborhood and in fact larger areas of Boulder. We all have the responsibility to build something that stays true to the look of old Boulder. This means single family home units with size and density restrictions. FAR should be restricted to .35 or less. Also, limit building size to 3 stories and let there be no more than 4 buildings per acre. Restrict lighting ("light pollution") to that of surrounding neighborhoods. Minimize the amount of paved areas to keep the site from looking industrial. No new zoning. Nicole Bizzarro 2710 5`h Street Boulder, CO 10. This is truly one of Boulder's special neighborhoods. And it is greatly due to the "feel" of the neighborhood and its looks. So let's keep the look of the building site consistent with the old neighborhood. Therefore, I agree with option #1. Let's have single family units that are not too big (no more than 35 feet) not too dense (no more than 4 per acre and on no more than 4 acres), and have no more paved areas than the adjacent neighborhoods. As this area should blend in if we do it right. Lighting should be kept at a minimum. No new zoning. We only have one chance to get this right. Please don't think about getting top dollar. Be most concerned with keeping our neighborhood unique, special, and in tune with that "old Boulder" feeling! Stella Bizzarro 27125 th Street Boulder, CO 11. Please use Option 1 with single family dwellings in scale with the rest of the neighborhood and with lot size in scale with existing lot sizes. I am in favor of preserving the NW hillside. Concerned regarding visitor (to the to be built houses) will park. Don't want a situation like Orion Ct. in Wonderland Hills where parking, driving for residents and visitors is ridiculous. Concerned re: light pollution. Senior housing is a great idea, but NOT AT THIS SITE. Thank you for all your hard work. Susie Hankin 432 Concord Avenue Agenda Item # Rage 5~_ 12. I have lived a half block from the property for the last 33 years. I am in favor of option 1 because I believe it will be the lowest density and lowest traffic, noise, and light, and the most consistent with the existing residential neighborhood. Thank you! Dan Hankin 432 Concord 13. Traffic is main concern! I think Access 1 seems more natural, but I am very concerned about the traffic this will create- we live on 4"' and Dewey and have 3 young children. If a roundabout was put at this intersection (4"' and Dewey) I could support Access 1. Otherwise, I would support Access 2 to minimize traffic at this intersection. Zoning (rezoning)- I only support all RL-1 which will keep with the current•density of the neighborhood. How will redevelopment principles be enforced? (Architectural guidelines, plantings, etc. so that the character of the neighborhood is preserved?) Apda IM V r - A ±'0 Box 4962 Boulder, Colorodo 80306-4967 April 28, 2009 Susan Richstone Manager, Long Range Planning City of Boulder 1739 Broadway Boulder, CO 80302 Re: Draft Junior Academy Area Plan Dear Susan: Thank you for your, and the planning staff's, considerable efforts to engage the community in the area planning process for the former Boulder Junior Academy. The workshops have been informative and helpful, and we appreciate that you and your staff have consistently been responsive and accessible. We were anticipating that the Draft Area Plan would reflect many of the comments that we and other neighbors have offered at the workshops. And, given the substantial public process that has taken place, we were expecting a comparable level of substance in the Area Plan itself. In fact, the Area Plan does not address the concerns of the vast majority of the public who participated in the outreach process, offers little guidance to a potential developer, and contains too little information for the Planning Board to make an informed decision. We respectfully request that the following information be included in the Area Plan before it is presented to the Planning Board: 1. Neighborhood analysis. A thorough neighborhood analysis was performed by planning staff in preparation for the April 2f, 2005 Planning Board meeting. The staff went to considerable lengths to determine the existing neighborhood's density, housing sizes, housing type distributions, lot sizes, open space amounts, etc., all in an effort to define the character of the established, adjacent neighborhood. We have repeatedly requested that this information be integrated into the area planning process. If this Area Plan does not include the previous analysis, we request that a new analysis, similar in detail, be included. Without this information, how will the Planning Board be able to determine whether the options presented in the Area Plan "support and strengthen the surrounding neighborhood:' or if they are of "compatible character" as stated in the plan objectives? Agenda Item „ Fagg FRIENDS F MT. S. Ni Ts 1ST 2. Zoning specificity. The community is having difficulty responding to the proposal for a "flex district' when the proposal lacks specifics about which zoning parameters are flexible and to what extent they would be stretched. A flex district sounds like a developer's dream and a neighborhood's nightmare. It is hard to imagine that there could be any expectation that we would embrace such a vague proposal. We view this as a deficiency of the Area Plan but also as an opportunity to reiterate our position. We have consistently been opposed to up-zoning the site to accommodate proposals that wouldn't otherwise be permitted by the existing zoning. Given the uncertainty inherent in flex zoning, we continue to reiterate our support for maintaining the existing zoning (P on the west edge, RL- I on the remainder) or alternatively, zoning the entire property RL- I, as specified in Option I, subject to the outcome of the Compatible Development Project. (Please note that the Planning Board unanimously voted against rezoning the site at their April 21, 2005 meeting.) 3. Density and Mass. The Area Plan needs to provide more detail on the number of units and total square footage allowed under the proposed options. The previous Planning Board recommended a total build-out of 60-65K sq. ft This seems like a perfectly reasonable guideline to include in an Area Plan and one we have repeatedly requested. This is critical to the neighborhood and key to our acceptance of the area planning process. How can the process claim legitimacy if the community's single most desired development parameter is left out of the plan? 4. Environmental analysis. When an area planning process was proposed to Council, the staff memo stated that,"As part of the area planning effort environmental concerns such as transportation, hillside development, energy use, and greenhouse gas emissions may be addressed" We don't think these issues should be ignored and request that an analysis of these environmental concerns for the proposed options be included. Additionally, the Area Plan should provide some information about impacts to the nearby Open Space, particularly trail access and views into the site from the trail, and it should offer guidelines to protect those assets. 5. Hillside delineation. We appreciate the Area Plan's suggestion that the hillside in the northwest portion of the site be preserved and restored and would like to see more specific delineation, in the form of a map and total acreage, of the area to be protected. 6.Affordable housing. The neighborhood supports on-site affordable housing and needs more information about how that would be achieved, especially in a congregate care setting. 7. Compatible development application. The Area Plan needs to be unambiguous about how the Compatible Development Project would apply to both options. It is unclear to us how one would overlay the compatible development parameters on a congregate care site or on a site with attached housing. Additionally, without final resolution of the Compatible Development Project, we're at a loss as to how to evaluate the Area Plan. If possible, it would be ideal for the Agenda Item page # community if the Planning Board's consideration of the Area Plan were to be delayed until the Compatible Development Project is complete. 8. Mapleton Hill design guidelines. The "Redevelopment Principles" portion of the Area Plan should be replaced with a simple statement to the effect that the Mapleton Hill Design Guidelines will govern site and building design. We also reject the recommendation that any large buildings on the site be consistent in size and height with the medical buildings to the south. 9.Traffic Analysis. The third workshop included a traffic analysis presentation that was generally perceived to be inadequate and outdated, given that it was not based on information specific to this site or any site with similar access constraints and traffic patterns. Bicycle commuters, runners, dog walkers and parents with small children frequently use 4th St. because it is a relatively safe, clean and quiet route from north Boulder (Linden) all the way to downtown (Pearl St.). Since this issue has been critical to previous proposals as well, we request a site-specific traffidaccess analysis at the Area Plan stage rather than later in the process.This analysis should include a study of the impact on traffic and circulation in the adjacent neighborhoods at large rather than simply the immediate access points and streets. 10. Issues and Concerns. The issues and concerns identified by neighbors at the first workshop and transcribed by staff remain relevant. Please include these in the Area Plan. They can be found on the City's website at http://wwwbouldercoloradogov/files/PDS/planning`/2Oand'/2Ozoning/issues concems-revised.pdf. We appreciate the many opportunities you have given the public to comment on the Area Plan, and trust that you can see many of the anonymous responses submitted via the Internet for what they are. Some of the comments included are so clearly from cheerleaders for the developer that they're laughable. To count them in the staff's quantitative summary lends them credibility as neighborhood voices and only serves to distort the truth: that the neighborhood is fairly unified in its concerns, and has expressed those concerns over and over, in person, in the workshops. We hope you find these comments to be helpful and not too burdensome and that you will address them in the revised Area Plan that you recommend to the Planning Board. We appreciate the staff effort that this will require. We look forward to your response and welcome the opportunity to discuss our concerns in greater detail. Best regards, Friends of Mt. Sanitas s~ Apda Item Page Comments on Draft Plan & Process Generally the public process has been good, but there are some things that could have improved it: two weeks should have been provided for comments from public; upcoming public comment meetings should be scheduled away from holidays when people are often traveling. Regarding the plan itself, this is a good effort, but I find some content lacking. I was able to attend several of the meetings in the effort to address redevelopment at the Junior Academy site. During the first session several comments were made regarding efforts put forth by citizens on a previous development plan proposed for the site. This input should not be lost and staff noted that this was a good point and would be considered. I did not however see this work mentioned in the draft Area Plan. It should be an attachment of some sort to the plan, summary of process and recommendations etc... Additional detail should be provided regarding a conceptual development plan. I have planning experience and I find the draft plan to be an open-ended opportunity to develop the site without much direction. The following issues should be addressed in the plan: • Traffic Circulation: automobile parking & traffic impacts An updated traffic study should be conducted. This site is not located adjacent to a primary arterial or transit. It has direct access to narrow residential streets and the amount of traffic associated with any of the proposals should be known. • Density Define the amount of density that would be allowed on the site and show this graphically. There are a lot of numbers floating around and it would be nice to see what is envisioned so one can make an informed decision. o What do 72 to 105 kitchen units look like? How big are they 700SF, 1500 SF or larger? o What do 45-75 congregate care units look like? This is almost a doubling in size? o 10-16 affordable units.....ete o How many SF? • Environment / Open Space o Protect the night sky; highest conservation standards should be adopted (Wonderland Hill) o Views from above and below should be protected o Sensitive hillsides: standards should be created to address these site conditions-limit cut and fill, retaining walls should not exceed 3' in height. Concrete, faux stone, should not be allowed • Safety Understand the impact of wild fires (how quickly can seniors be moved from a facility) Apda Item ll _ _ e page # Traffic impacts Steep hill access (pedestrian and auto) in winter conditions Lot coverage • Lot coverage should be defined Circulation • The public should be able to move through the site. • Consideration should be given to the steep grade on this site and how this may be limiting to seniors. Parking • Any large parking areas to accommodate other than SF development should be underground! • Residential parking should be similar to that seen traditionally in the Mapleton neighborhood-not in front Building Mass & Scale • SF development should have minimum lot s size of 7000 SF and an FAR not to exceed .45 and lot coverage of 35%, Should meet solar standards etc. • Larger facilities would need to be studied. The Academy (Mt. Saint Gertrudes) is a good project, It fits within the neighborhood and I would be curious to know the number of units it has distributed on the site. This should be a study the developer and architect should be willing to bring forward since it is a success. This also had a huge public benefit in its rehabilitation of a historic site! Architecture with integrity! I found the sketches provided in the draft interesting, but development is never 2-D. With the tools we have today it is easy enough to provide a model in Sketch-up so one can visualize the mass, scale and lot coverage that is being considered. A simple study of the building envelopes without materials details etc would be helpful; the renderings suffice to show the architecture. In closing I believe the existing zoning on this site should not change. There are too many unknowns regarding the intent of the owner/s. If this was a full-fledged neighborhood plan with design guidelines/standards I may be convinced otherwise. I realize these are difficult times and I am sure the city would like to see something on this site soon, but I don't believe this important and sensitive site lose to open space and a historic district with other important site challenges--should be compromised to satisfy economic challenges. Thank you for your consideration of the comments provided, Carl Stewart and Julie Husband Agenda ltem l_.. Page Access Option 1 ~M f} I AI ino Avg. r 30°x` valley View Dr. p7T Srtlc 1= rZ+~^' a ;n 10% SITE •f. L % Concord AvP_ Vn n L lam' ~L H LA U ,rt~,U 1~7~nR41 f11'N. 50 U/O n ~ a cD M1 Cr2 Q m m hiauieeon A". Figure 7 y Directional Distribution of Situ-Generated Traffic x I FGEN°: _ Access Opposing Dewey _ Percent Directlonol 65% D stdbution 2641 Fourth Street (LSC #'040642) y ° x Access Option 2 Al pint, Ave. 1 35go a Vallrr Viewer Dr. North St. 70 : t ppror~rrw rr Sa;r 7 Sra4. 1=37ti' SITE 5% J. r 3% ~ 3% C or ord Ave. n 5%- ` MmvOl Ave- 50% y r. ~ rs Mapleton Avr. co FigUM 2 Directional Distribution of Site-Generated Traffic LEGEND; _ Percent Directional Access Opposing Alleys - 65% Distribution 2641 Pokirth Street (L5C #040642) Land Use Trip Generation Comparison Vehicle-Trips Generated One Vehicle Trip Average AM PM Generated per Approx. Land Use Description Concept Quantity Weekday Peak Hour Peak Hour Time _ v++ry!,sai: J._~ _ "~.a2'~;y'Li~r i - - - - :W Historic Traffic Pattern - Private School 150 Students 372 122 87 30 sec All Single Family Detached Housing 6 min 6 DUV 57 5 6 10 miry B - max .28 DU's` 268 22 29 2 min C-E min 24 DU's' 230 18 24 2 min 30 sec C-E max 35 DU's` 335 27 36 1 rein 30 sec Congregate Care Units With Individual Kitchens C-D min 72 eDU's' 145 11 15 4 rein C-D max 105 eDU•s- 212 16 22 3 min Congregate Care Beds Without Individual Kitchens C_D min 120 Beds 3119 22 42 1 min 30 sec C-D max - dS 466 32 61 1 min Congregate Care Senior Community With Individual Kitchens C-D 99 eDU's' 200 15 21 Without Individual Kitchens 10 Beds 27 2 4 227 17 24 2 min 30 sec Mixed Single Family 8 Congregate Care Senior Community Single-Family Detached Housing C•D 9 DU's` 86 7 9 Congregate Care With Individual Kitchens 78 eDU's' 158 12 16 244 19 26 2 min 30 sec Notes: 1. Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers; Trip Generation, 8th Edition 2. DU's = Dwelling Units 3. eDU = equivalent Dwelling Unit (1 DU = 3 equivalent DU's in Congregate Care Housing per 9-8-6(g), Boulder Revised Code) Q sb eri i ' w cca ATTACHMENT I Ecological Assessment Junior Academy Property City of Boulder Boulder County, Colorado prepared for: Fourth Street, LLC do Stephen Sparn Architects 1731 151' Street, Suite 250, Boulder, CO 80302 prepared by: Western Ecological Resource, Inc. 711 Walnut Street, Boulder, CO 80302 May 2009 Pago 1.0 Introduction Fourth Street LLC owns the 5.84 acre Junior Academy property located at 2641 4`h Street in Boulder, Colorado (Figure 1). Specifically, the property is located in the NW A of Section 25, Township 1 North and Range 71 West (Figure 2). An Ecological Assessment was prepared to describe the ecological condition of the property and identify any potential constraints to development. This report identifies and describes the vegetation communities and disturbed areas present; documents wildlife habitats and use; and addresses the potential presence of federally listed threatened and endangered species, as well as state species-and communities of concern. Please note, Figures are found throughout the text, Tables are in Section 8.0 and Photographs are in Section 9.0. 2.0 Environmental Setting The Junior Academy property is located in an urban setting with single family residences to the north and east, the Boulder Community Hospital property to the south and southwest, and City of Boulder open space lands to the west and northwest. Construction of the Junior Academy building in the 1950's required extensive modification of the natural topography and the removal of all native vegetation. Specifically, the natural slope to the west was excavated and the material used as fill to create a flat bench for buildings at an elevation of 5,470 feet, and a moderate fill slope of about 15% along 41h Street. The slope was excavated down to the Pierre Shale bedrock (Tweto 1979) in some areas (Photo 1), and it appears that none of the topsoil of the terrace escarpment soil mapping unit (U.S. Soil Conservation Service 1975) originally present on the site was salvaged. This steep slope has large areas without any vegetation (Photo 2) and correspondingly, erosional gullies have developed (Photo 3). The artificial man-made topography along the west property boundary has a slope that exceeds 50% in some places. Overall, the 76 feet of vertical relief ranges from a high of 5,526 feet in the northwest corner to a low of 5,450 along 4' Street. Ditches were constructed at the base of the steep slope to convey stormwater to the south and north and away from the building, Stormwater is conveyed by the South Ditch (Photo 4) to a drainage swale that extends east along the southern boundary to enter the City of Boulder stormwater system. Stormwater is conveyed by the North Ditch to a detention pond with an inlet to the stormwater system. The old buildings were removed in August 2008, and today the disturbed landscape is dominated by numerous species of undesirable weeds, asphalt, bare ground, graveled areas, and numerous areas with fill dirt (Photo 5). A public trail bisects the northwestern edge of the property and the Silver Lake Ditch is located about 150 feet to the northwest. 3.0 Existing Environment The 5.84 acre Junior Academy property is dominated by a 2.77 acre disturbed weedy grassland, a 1.07 acre disturbed woodland, and by 1.90 acres of non-vegetated landscape in the area formerly occupied by the old school building, parking areas, driveway, and a trail. In addition, approximately 0.10 acre of the property is comprised of a rock landscape feature north of the pedestrian trail. Figure 3, the Vegetation Type Map, illustrates the vegetation communities and other features on the property. 3.1 Vegetation A total of 61 plant species were observed on the property in mid-April 2009 (Table 1). Of these, 32 are non-native and eight are listed by the state of Colorado as noxious weeds. a00 M Q 1200 it mvnhaln Ave A c foicat Ave T, Gt~S11ti= ~f c Fd Evergreen Ave rt ^ 9G~ FL w c n C+ ~ OR Ccdar'Avc CPIO)@Ct $ite .~o f3alcam Avr 171 n &Iplnc Ave AneA+orte flr ceeCennrfer r~egf~[anci ~At~e- _ f?Ine Sk S Cany!ns~d: L~r Orod~ll aL- C~n~p11 - Cd~y6~Qr Ca,wn Parf~ Arapaho,- Ave a v Mirrn2 St ~ ~ a Dean P1 MAPQUEST. BASE: 2009 MapQuest Data NAVTEQ orTeleAtlas FIGURE 1. Vicinity Map Junior Academy Property Scale V = 1600' Map N Location ti 61 O a-_--L WESTERN ~ CO l ' ECOLOGICAL LORADO I 40' RESOURCE, INC. 2 R71 W I R70W 1051,19,001, w 105018'00" W WGS84 105°17'}70" VV ~'•.d 1` ` , " I ~v/ 4 lug F~ ~l~f ✓r.~~\ aRwo ~n ~wvE -j" ~5~-~' i '1~`1" r U- a^` r ~~'~v~~Yy-'` f ~ . ~ ~ i•1✓~ 545$ _ d t if ~ ~ f teG~I 1 1 fi~~~~\ f r I( }Ill X41 R _-~nC Ytri o .A M 5401 N J / Jll~'s1' Is r Il \ ~ ` ~rr\~4y f ~~~Ill~ly +l '1 r F ~u J N rA. aPi ~Mi o ~ ff 1 P - , 111111 f l _ 4 / I .r I I 1 A ~ ~`Jr~`t~ •i~ I lr~ r ~~i 11i'f/~~~ fr ! ry ~~~I II t 'i f~ ° 4. ~ ~ l r 1 ~+I .~3J~/ }R~` Jf' 1 ~ 4~` v}~fy1 (~~1, `r II k1~ x t - _ "•J' Project Site l<< JI H i _.~~ca=~~ ti'I ~ ti yf nt \)i 4t-1 I ~`-a 6 .711' o \ . Jy~ Jt. G~~Q~~ ` s ~ •~i~, I , ,I ~ I ~s•~ - ~ A~~ ' b ~ ~ ~ r''1 ~ I 1 __-'---rBo~.~ P~PHC•= Ali r/rl i~ : I ~~w`,•z. - I \ f ;-x~ ."6 t--- boll \ I •,1 t(` L 1' ~ ~ "j t y a P T ~ `:,f'T_-_: 1II I{f rl II~~ Ip s r 54 I _Y-_.`.~ f' ~ ' i+ C? G rt ' e !?II C ~`ti~ 't ~ ~1. u`n gsy~j•F} 1 l4Cy , ~ ~ti~, ~ [~i. !I II~IL~~J~~ ~ 105°19'00" W 105118'00" VV WGS-84 105°17'00'' W BASE: USGS 7.5 Minute Boulder, Colorado Quadrangle FIGURE 2. Project Location Map Photorevised: 1966 Junior Academy Property N WESTERN 1 -T ECOLOGICAL Map ,,r RESOURCE, INC. Scale 1° = 2000' Location iv w.r.~m sn.+r . aoma.r, co eo~az Contour Interval = 40' C61-0 DO (L Trail o rr , ' VaEley Wie`w drive X ;.~ulv Tt P Drain to Stormwater / f J r:./ t System / ~ / J 1 y l / ~ r Jl I : r F \1 ~l r / ? Detention Pond f f'~/ JJ1//f/ ffE L f / 51. F j; \ . J r Dewey + + * + { y t • - . h : i . ~.J .I 1. L 4? I <ti + + y. 1 d~ ' ` F i + { + + + + li + + + + + + 11 ` t E J r Y(IY~ f~ ~ ? P Culvert to~ Culverts Swale Swale LEGEND Figure 3. Vegetation Type Map Property Boundary Junior Academy Property Drainage Ditches Weedy Grassland Disturbed Woodland Non-Vegetated - bare ground & gravel +'tt Non Vegetated - asphalt Detention Pond Date: May 2009 Scale: 1 inch = 100 ft ® Landscaping bra-._ Contour Interval = 2 ft Culverts 4 (W) 40-"N PAX "P-'&' '-1`,a "h PonT f - - 1 Paw i~ 3.1.1 Vegetation Communities Weedy Grassland (Photo 6). This vegetation type is comprised of numerous non-native annual weeds such as cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum), redstem filaree (Erodium cicutarium), both of which are state listed noxious weeds, and alyssum (Alyssum parviflorum), another common weed which blooms in early spring in the Boulder area. These weeds are mixed with small areas of perennial agricultural grasses including smooth brome (Bromus inermis), crested wheatgrass (Agropyron cristatuin), orchard grass (Dactylis glomerata), and Kentucky bluegrass (Poa pratensis). Other noxious weeds present include cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum), Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense), field bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis), and chicory (Cichorum intybus). Detention Pond (Photo 7). The detention pond constructed for the previous development and located on the northeast portion of the property receives stormwater from the North Ditch along the steep embankment. Stormwater enters the pond and then flows via an inlet to the City stormwater system. This detention pond is dominated by a weedy grassland vegetation type, however it also supports a small area (120 ftz) of hydrophytic vegetation near the inlet culvert. Threesquare bulrush (Scirpus pungens) is dominant, but slender rush Quncus tenuis) and smallfruit bulrush (Scirpus n7krocarpu5) also occur. Small stands of saltgrass (Distichlis spicata) and streambank wheatgrass Wvmus lanceolatus) surround the zone of hydrophytic vegetation. The drainage ditch has one very small area of hydrophytes. Disturbed Woodland (Photos 8, 9 & 10). The second vegetation type, a woodland, is characterized by introduced and undesirable trees including numerous Chinese elms Mmus pumila) of varying age classes, as well as green ash (Fraxinus pensylvanica) and Russian olive (Flaeagnus angustifolia) trees. Plains cottonwood (Populus deltoides), a desirable native tree, is present amid the introduced trees, however this riparian tree cannot mature in this environment due to the lack of an adequate water source. Rocky Mountain juniper (Iuniperusscopulorum)and a few saplings of ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa) have invaded the site and are sparsely represented. The woodland understory is generally dominated by weeds, including alyssum, poison hemlock (Conium maculatum), and curly dock (Rumex crispus), along with introduced agricultural grasses such as smooth brome and orchard grass. In the northwest corner of the property, the disturbed woodland has a small stand of little bluestem (Schizachyrium scoparium), a native prairie grass, in the understory. Other desirable but sparsely represented native plants include switchgrass (Panicum virgatum), Indian grass (Sorghastrum nutans), and streambank wheatgrass. However, smooth brome and other non-natives are present as well. Finally, the southwest corner of the property has a few large crack willow (Sal& fragilis) trees, which are non- native, along with green ash, another introduced tree, and the native plains cottonwood and box elder (Acernegundo)trees. The two drainage ditches at the base of the steep embankment are dominated by agricultural grasses and weeds, and have an occasional sapling of plains cottonwood, green ash, and Chinese elm and hydrophytes in a few very small areas. The South Ditch flows to a Drainage Swale along the southern boundary of the property, which has a series of four small basins connected by culverts and dominated by smooth brome and other introduced agricultural plants and weeds. Water for the two drainage ditches is provided by seasonal seepage from the steep embankment and by precipitation events. In addition, a 30 inch diameter culvert diverts stormwater from the adjacent hospital property into the southern Drainage Swale. Water from the Swale enters the City stormwater system on 41 Street. Wetland. On April 29, 2009, Mr. Terry McKee of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) visited the project site and determined that the drainage ditches, Swale, and detention pond were not features regulated by the Corps. See Appendix A. The City of Boulder's updated Wetland Map (City of Boulder 2009) was reviewed and there are no features on the property regulated by the City. 5 it. L 3.1.3 Federal Threatened and Endangered Plant Species The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has identified two federally listed threatened plant species that occur in Boulder County: the Colorado butterfly plant (Laura neomexicana ssp. coloradensis) and the Ute ladies' tresses orchid (Spiranthes diluvialis). There is no habitat on the property for either of these plants. Both of these species are known to occur in sub-irrigated habitats along perennial streams, a habitat type not present on the property. 3.1.4 State of Colorado Plant Species and Communities of Concern A review of the Colorado Natural Heritage Program data for the property and its vicinity revealed the potential presence of one plant species of special concern: wavyleaf stickleaf (Nuttalia sinuata, G3S2) and one plant community of concern: the big bluestem/little bluestem (Andropogon gerardii/Schizachryium scoparium) xeric tallgrass prairie. Wavyleaf stickleaf has been found on gravelly slopes and roadcuts in Sunshine Canyon, Boulder Canyon, an on Flagstaff Mountain, and is known from eight occurrences in Larimer and Boulder Counties, Colorado. The plant has yellow flowers, blooms in the evening and is easily confused with other Nuttalia species. Due to the heavily disturbed nature of the property, infestation with weeds, and lack of gravelly slopes, this plant is unlikely present. Wavyleaf stickleaf was not observed.during site reconnaissance for this assessment. The big bluestem/little bluestem xeric tallgrass prairie community is not present within the property. The weedy grassland present is highly disturbed and dominated by introduced agricultural grasses and weeds. Although a few native prairie grasses occur in the understory of the disturbed woodland, they are mixed with smooth brome and numerous species of weeds. 3.2 Wildlife 3.2.1 Wildlife Habitats and Use As noted in Section 2.0, the landscape of the property has been modified and the original native communities removed. Today, the site is a disturbed habitat comprised mostly of non-native invasive plant species. These disturbed areas provide habitat for wildlife species that are habitat generalists. In the disturbed areas, small rodents likely present include high numbers of the deer mouse (Peromyscus maniculatus) and the house mouse (Mus musculus). With a high prey base of rodents, predators and scavengers likely use the property for foraging. Raccoons (Procyon lotor), striped skunks (Mephitis mephitis), coyotes (Canis latrans), and red foxes (Vulpes vulpes) likely use the property as part of their home range. All of these species can become nuisance wildlife in an urban setting. No den sites were found during the April 14, 2009 site visit. Fox squirrels (Sciurus niger) were observed in the trees along the west project boundary. The urbanized nature of the property limits avian use and diversity to species capable of existing within modified environments. Non-native invasive species including European starlings (Sturnus vulgar&), English sparrows (Passer domesticus), and rock pigeons (Columba livia) are likely the most abundant species using the property. The trees on the south and west sides of the property are likely used for nesting by some passerines. However, no nests (including raptor nests) were located during the site visit. American kestrels (Falco sparverius) and red-tailed hawks (Suteo jamaicensis) likely incorporate the property into their home ranges and use it for hunting. 3.2.2 Federal Threatened and Endangered Wildlife Species A review of the February 2008 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service list of threatened, endangered and candidate species with potential for occurrence in Boulder County identified eight vertebrate species (Table 2) as either historically or currently present within the County. There is no suitable habitat for any species listed in Table 2 within or near the property. 3.2.3 State of Colorado Wildlife Species of Concern The Colorado Natural Diversity Information Source (NDIS) website was accessed on April 16, 2009 to obtain the Boulder County list of species of special concern. Table 3 identifies those 6 'f species that historically could have existed or potentially currently exist on the property. Two species, Townsend's big-eared bat and the common garter snake, could potentially be present on the property. Townsend's big-eared bat. This species may utilize the property for foraging because of its close proximity to rocky outcrops to the west. Townsend's big-eared bat is a western species found in open montane forests (Fitzgerald et al. 1994) or deciduous woodlands at elevations up to 9,500 feet. This bat frequently uses caves, abandoned mines, abandoned buildings, and crevices on rock faces for day roosts and hibernacula. Townsend's big-eared bats breed while in their hibernacula in late fall or early winter. They do not fly till late, well after dark. Their diet includes caddisflies, moths, flies, and other insects. Much foraging occurs over water, along the margins of vegetation, and over sagebrush (Fitzgerald et al. 1994). Because of their late flight, seclusive habits, and their avoidance of mist nets, this species may go undetected in an area until a roost site is discovered. Hibernacula with the appropriate stable temperature and humidity may be a limiting factor to this species distribution (Fitzgerald et al. 1994). Common garter snake. This snake cannot be excluded because the Swale on the south end of the property may provide foraging habitat. In Colorado, the common garter snake inhabits marshes, ponds, and the edges of streams at elevations below 6,000 feet (Hammerson 1999). Generally, it is restricted to aquatic, wetland, and riparian habitats and is seldom found away from water (Hammerson 1999). The common garter snake hibernates in various underground sites or underwater (Hammerson 1999). Mating occurs just after spring emergence from hibernacula. Most young are born in late July and August, with up to 24 born annually (Hammerson 1999). Common garter snakes feed on frogs, toads, fishes, and earthworms. Other small vertebrates are occasionally eaten. 4.0 Boulder County Comprehensive Plan Critical Species & Habitats The Boulder County Comprehensive Plan (BCCP) identifies Significant Natural Communities, Rare Plants, Riparian Corridors, and Critical Wildlife Habitats within the County (Boulder County Land Use Department, 1995). None of these mapped features occur on the Junior Academy property. The closest mapped feature is a significant natural community, "Xeric Tallgrass Prairie, #20", which is located on the open space lands to the west. 5.0 Summary 5.1 Vegetation The 5.84 acre Junior Academy property is heavily disturbed and supports no native plant communities. Approximately half of the species inventoried are introduced plants and they include eight species of noxious weeds. There are two drainage ditches and a Swale located on the property which flow into the City of Boulder's stormwater system, as well as a small area of hydrophytic vegetation (120 ft' in size) in a detention pond which flows to the City's stormwater system. The ditches, Swale and detention pond are not regulated by the Corps and are not shown as jurisdictional features on the City of Boulder Wetland Map. In addition, there is no habitat for any federally listed threatened or endangered plants and there are no significant natural communities present. There is one plant species of state concern known from the vicinity of the property, but it is unlikely present and was not observed during the field inventory. 5.2 Wildlife The disturbed condition of the property provides a low quality wildlife habitat which is utilized by urban adapted wildlife. The site does not provide habitat for any federally listed wildlife species. Potential foraging habitat likely exists on the property for both Townsend's big-eared bat and the 7 No 1~ _71 common garter snake, which are Colorado state species of concern. However, neither of these species has been documented as present on the property. 5.3 Slope on West Side The west side of the property and a small portion of the north side of the property have a cut bank slope with a slope of over 50% in some areas, with exposed shale bedrock and a sparse vegetation cover. Correspondingly, this unstable slope is highly erosive and generally aesthetically unattractive. 6.0 Conclusion The 5.134 acre Junior Academy property has been highly disturbed. The original topography, which likely had a slope that extended to 4" Street, was drastically modified to create a flat area for buildings in the previous development. These modifications eliminated the native prairie common to this area, created a steep, unstable slope to the west, and a flat terrace which slopes to 4th Street. Today, the property is dominated by undesirable introduced weedy plants, which provide habitat for urban adapted wildlife. The property does not provide habitat for any federally listed, state listed, or Boulder County Comprehensive Plan critical species or habitats. This property has a low ecological value and has no ecological constraints to development. 8 Paget 7.0 References Boulder County Land Use Department. 1995. Boulder County Comprehensive Plan. Accessed via the web at http://www.bouldercounty.org/lu/bccp/. City of Boulder. 2009. Stream, Wetland & Water Body Protection Program. Planning and Development Services. Accessed 5/11/09 at http://www.bouldercolorado.govlindex.php? option -com_content&task=view&id =4956&Itemid=22 Colorado Natural Diversity Information Source (NDIS). 2009. http://ndis.nrel.colostate.edu/sxprespnse/statusbycnty_res.asp. Accessed 16 April 2009. Fitzgerald, J. P., C. A. Meaney, and D. M. Armstrong. 1994. Mammals of Colorado. University Press of Colorado, Niwot. 467 pp. Hammerson, G. A. 1999. Amphibians and reptiles in Colorado. 21 Ed. University Press of Colorado and Colorado Division of Wildlife. 484 pp. Kingery, H.E. 1998. Colorado Breeding Bird Atlas. H. E. Kingery, ed. Published by Colorado Bird Atlas Partnership and Colorado Division of Wildlife. Tweto, Ogden. 1979. Geologic Map of Colorado. Department of the Interior, United States Geologic Survey. U.S. Soil Conservation Service. 1975. Soil Survey of Boulder County, Colorado. Washington, D.C. Weber, W.A. & R.C. Wittmann, 2001. Colorado Flora: Eastern Slope. Third Edition. University Press of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado. 9 e; 1 i4eln a fi page h 8.0 Tables 10 TABLE 2 Federally Listed Wildlife Boulder County, Colorado Species Common Name Scientific Name Status Excluded Reason for Exclusion Canada lynx Lynx canadensis Threatened Yes Suitable habitat not present. Preble's meadow Zapus hudsonius Threatened Yes Suitable habitat not jumping mouse prehlei present. Greenback cutthroat Oncorhynchus Threatened Yes Suitable habitat not trout clarki stomias present. Pallid sturgeon* Sraphirhynchus Endangered Yes Suitable habitat not albus present. No South Platte River water depletions. Least tern (interior Sternula antillarum Endangered Yes Suitable habitat not population)* present. No South Platte River water depletions. Mexican spotted owl Strix occidentalis Threatened Yes Suitable habitat not lucida present. Piping plover* Charadrius melodus Threatened Yes Suitable habitat not present. No South Platte River water depletions. Whooping crane* Grus americanus Endangered Yes Suitable habitat not present. No South Platte River water depletions. * Water depletions in the South Platte River may affect the species and/or critical habitat in downstream reaches in other states. 13 Pago TABLE 3 Colorado State Wildlife of Special Concern Junior Academy Property Species Common Name Scientific Name Status Excluded Reason for Exclusion Northern river otter Lutra canadensis Threatened Yes Suitable habitat is not present. Black-tailed prairie Cynomys Special Concern Yes Not present. No local dog ludo vicianus source for colonization. Northern pocket Thomomys Special Concern Yes Suitable habitat not gopher talpoidcs present, below altitudinal range. Swift fox Vulpes velox Special Concern Yes Suitable habitat is not present. Townsend's big- Plecotus Special Concern No Not excluded. eared bat townsendii Bald eagle Haliaeetus Threatened Yes 'Suitable habitat is not leucocephalus present. Lesser-prairie Tympanuchus Threatened Yes Suitable habitat is not chicken pallidicinctus present. Burrowing owl Athene cunicularia Threatened Yes. Suitable habitat is not present. Ferruginous hawk Buteo regalis Special Concern Yes Suitable habitat is not present. Greater sandhill Grus canadensis Special Concern Yes Suitable habitat is not crane tabida present. Long- billed curlew Numenius Special Concern Yes Suitable habitat is not americanus present. Mountain plover Charadrius Special Concern Yes Suitable habitat is not montanus present. Northern leopard Rana pipiens Special Concern Yes Suitable habitat is not frog present. Common garter T17amnophis sirta& Special Concern No Not excluded. snake Boreal Toad Bufo boreas Endangered Yes Suitable habitat not present. Below altitudinal range. 14 9.0 PhotograPhs 15 soft S-7`1t?n 1' ~ 1. W ,k` i.. c{'-rt :+a _ c • t. F Y J :I ►r>o '`t Y^ Y,l rF~ br.~ i~ i~4,f ~.4+: •"i a5 C}~h ,!-,~}~-~K7r~~ - i F'~~'r. ~~'~~r-n+eri HW ~ . r ~ llyt ~ ,Y ~h.t i r :_y, -r v>k. ''-Ir +v - " rr w. 4 a s!s ay . ~ ~~4rC1Q 1J. , Ifs. "I S-, ti. .F}~~ ' ~.~"j xt~ {iq~~f.FAA''~`~ r}`.-'{~.~~T~~~yrVa•Y-. Photo 1. Exposed poorly vegetated shale on west slope (May 11, 2009). ~4~ r~l~~jff i j r f r• r 3 ar r i ~ ~y fF IIyiC r ~F4l, h 1 a`d~u` /,l t r Cf ~n~ ,~i ! fly 4dL tr _ i~ tl~! ;t ltri c t rr t i bf i -,(~nl ~ r~•f,,~ t. _ is I~rt fi j h"~'. (~ti'!! r , 7 A r t ~;f I { f, ~ ~•'~°U-t! ~t _ '+2j I . I~w~'s7 t`r~lf. ~ r f .7 VqP q +~t•~i~ y. y. ~.yH'Y.t.{ t~; r 31 t{ - t. • •.h - `Y,sZ7,~y`~_'4~. ~y'~M14• 5 1 ti~f•• ~ -ir•, ~'c. ~!1~.• ~ "P~ rt9 r~i; ~-r. A,~+ .r r~.1$~i•~f ~ Y. Xy~~-"_ ~'y~r~ S~ `Fly. t+~~ • ~e 4'~~G d. -~~LS' I ~ Y~ r f +c • , 6 r; ty'~AI r~a•+•^~1~ ry't ri(~ 4. -I~~ -i i ~ .2i L.,-,7~4, ,4t rR ~•i r,~, htF~~ ~w~,~ n'1i~~'~, ~f~.Y~`yY) ~ l~. a '.•ir~ h r71 y ~~,y~ ~~y~.~' r.,~'s ily,,.}~~~t > Ir r J •1S "4 a >t~ ' •_t YYi. e . 'F •t-~ » r "!t" ~ ti{ *r~4~-! 4 r 3 >,{~'~"e r t! k-;: ~ 4 C i ,a C •'r ! +~,,F`,~~~,• ~,Y ~t ''jt7' ~t~ 'mot r ~si i`r'Y.r "7S.$ p,y~ y~f .,k~~:. p*M$ 'r ti» w . ,/~../ti.~' "~1r•~ IY reSrf! ~Sr-_. fit'` r i )r ~ 4~ `i ~lw ! f i f ~'~j` a~4 ~••i G~ P 'I Photo 2. The steep and poorly vegetated slope on the west side of the property is unstable (May 11, 2009). 16 -floe foe of v~,. mot._„~~` WSV i. hr ` s ij, 't u.Sy~ivy y ~{y~,' ~i Y~ J ~1~ Jlt - ,}i, ~I f~_ 1 Photo 3. The steep and poorly vegetated slope on the west side of the properly has erosional gullies (May 11, 2009). J. s~ ~ AC`~~ •~~le ~7 ~ti~;~Lir ,Cu~~~Ri+,~,y. ,~li F>/ ~i+t~lpf , ~d y t~f$i 4 r > ei' f, f f,` ? ti~,1j k~ -tit 1 Oil rt'+ ! _ f' t~• OF X1+1+ C y{~ t : 41 Irv,, ~SYl~~u.'i`r~rc~i ~d Ifk Y~, ~ 7'r .1r I•~•`. III \ 5~~ • -`7,• y'~• yY'j tlt ' ~1~ y' i4 ~'.~3ir / ~ - P d I ✓ 7e' ► ~'u R IYit 1r~W •1 w YTk \7',y'.lzf t 16i£dc/G• _ i N ,~~r '+t~~ ~+i .roc 'c~Vd. (fit 1~ ~ ~~l~~J` ••..,1 ti,, ~d,~~ r ~Yi~trf ~ l.~y ~ S•'t w .1 't w- .~;fa,; .•r A~. J, ~ti ~ y r rp,.. ~ ~ it 3 ~ ~v~,:~ i gyp' f ss a* L s 11'J a'~ ~.1~1r:7; n✓•' 1~r Ix '_tA`-i~N Photo 4. The South Ditch with debris and a gravel check dam (May 11, 2009). 17 jjyy ) I ~ J~ r,`A~~,j~,'iil~l~ j,~ S`I''- 1~ ~l0 Photo S. There are numerous areas with fill dirt on the property (May 11, 2009). .r. yam:-- -~~r•f ~ _ -:a:c°, u~r";~ri;~µ ; ~ 41 ~i ~ Idw y~•1t ~ i ..-K of is~Ff I i.a.y,. ~ ~ ~ - i :tw~ yv ~i~ :y • ~ ~ rtr,~ J/ y`JyJ~~~- ~+NN yS. .Y. ~ ~ ' - T. ar`4~q "~r+•'~ ` ` l . ac..' l '~.3,~(6+- . ' 1) Y tY ~^'~`'G',` . Photo 6. Disturbed weedy grassland habitat, looking north (April 13, 2009) y _ .i --1t X71 _ a st p ` C \ ti a ~jpt Ir~> ~1 Irt~ lti.r y tw r 'd lee 1 Nh 3'1r-r a ! `.~,T" a '•T 7'•r i41 y r s 3f# `ax ref t`tf`*d*4sr:a ` 7►Y1 s -'`l L''~,z P`~ Y ~ Q 'qi3~3i rT t t1. a 1 ~.AI'ik Ni~r 1 i _ t - \ T fiJ! Yi'-4'•~ kp ✓ I.' r - V-.,,Y 1 \rtga~ '_,~r4~y a~S\1r 1 'rit ~v ti r + t ~ y1 r•ly, ,1 kr. r ~ ! ~ 4 S ' - iA4 ~ A •.1 rW hri '-t~~.9 ~ ~ ~It'r}~i~ s J'. - J ~ 5 Py} S t~ ~il~~~ F/~~ c i~ y ll,' ~ ~ tl t, ry~~ i, i tf\`•~ ~I r"..~{,{~`,, IL - ! L°.. y ~ 'l. ~I/fwl ` h,~~~~"1 "41J`" li 4 4'~ i 'r ir, ti ~ '`3~ ~ 'SIB 1~h ' 15 It ` " I 7 }r ~ ti t ~.iy ~1„ - ~~l-r~~'•~ 'to It ~r1~?~'~ A}. t~ i~ l a t `i t t r A ~,~'auY \ if 4 y„J~,~. V11 r~~ ti ti E ~Y ~ ~t I t ~s=+ y ~ 4 1f., Slay y~ ` { 1Ls~i1~ 1~,Fa J 1t r#~ x7 S; acs i ,(i-.f ~r y J ,1 eU, { 5~\r, tr.' ,~~,e'~ h}~+4f,'~•. }I'- ~ {,f ~...L i. ,~l ! "~'tii~:.. r..._ ~ r.. i Photo 7. Area of hydrophytes in detention pond, looking southeast (April 13, 2009) 4A IbbMUL IJA Sa{x` p • w rl ~ tea' 'J •N ` ."tt` 1 1 i ~ L,~' ]J r fqq~i•,s. .~,y'^la 't•°. -ti' ---.a It t r'~" Y 5 A. <'1r • - a~. -lY~S i ~l+ [ .y (Yr ••.ftii-,~ - 3YY~ ~..rAi N dc`. .F ti.-+ 4 k .e'• ,.y{,~ Y's?= ti~..',{,~.~r ~ r- .5` .'t' F~ ,1 ~.G ~.~7r c-.cr,J. • - ~ - ,v'-i" ~7 ,as'~~'L s r _ - •r Y,~~-.t~',~,rl~ "'a i ~a~.1;R;1 ~ Y`1' -J r L y'i rr7r r + „d~.iL.r ~ "Lr.1f '=•''E'~'i' . ti.{ F ~ d~--f7 S .ter ~~~>_~'•-4 ~~si' ~ as ti.^ c"Y '^#r Photo 8. Disturbed woodland habitat in background (April 13, 2009) 19 yat 1 x - F- F`x'y~f F F a x slyi y l~ {{{JJ7 S ° r 4 i }~i~ t4. I b~^'_ to etr ~ - _ 'f.7~~{.~ 'y, , ti,i Ji<? Y I - ? ! ~ ...111_xxx"'VVVhttt F ~ n., , a 2 r i fEo- _ _ + J" t A ~x~~~' fti F-~ lit d aV" r}e* ! ~~'f { ~f. {N J, z~N ~'T$^. ' . , y ~ I 'Le> ti ?r' r r A r►.r, i.. ~ - -.<i'~~;'y ~;•"rti 7Xc~~.rs'►S 7oi~ Photo 9. Area of native prairie grasses in disturbed woodland (April 13, 2009) it u ►r ,4 '~'x la , ' r ~ ri 1~ a 1'is. ~ 4 P4f~11.. , ,y} .try{4 'r~ ~.IN r 'Tie „'~TR7 - - f ~ '`1v~~~n F~ h'a•'b^ r~~~- s ?f. '~7.~'; .t, ~y7 tt ~:4a~~ '~_.~tl - r ~ t • ! ~ti.?.tiT.. rS Tt~ i~t ~y ~a i 'xtc, ~ K-W Photo 10. Drainage ditch in southern portion of property, looking southeast (April 13, 2009) 20 r Appendix A. May 1, 2009 Letter from U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 21 DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY ' 3RP5 CP n'TGINLERS, Or-0rtHA DISTRICT _ ['F1C'E• 13 07 q. ;4ad~xc~rth Routevard May 1, 2009 ,I r. DaN id Johnson Western l-colouir;ll Resource, Inc. 711 Walnut Strut Boulder, CO 50302 Rh.: Junior Academy Property, Detention Pond and Two Drainage Ditches Corps File No. NWO-2009-1060-DEN Dca:- \ir. Johnson: Rcterence is made to your April 29, 2009 site meeting with Mr. Terry 11IcKee of my office cowining the above-mentioned property located in the N\V y mection 35, 'f 1 N. 101 AM, Boulder (Yunq% Calorado. This property has been reviewed in accordance with Section -1(1-1 of We Clean Ilawr Ad under which the U.S. army Corps of Fngineers regulates the discharge of dredged and till material. and any excavation activity associated with a dt-C(I1'C and till project in waters of the United States. The detention pond and the two drainage ditches on this property are not waters of the U.S. The November 13. 1956 Federal Register. Part 328 (a) states: The Corps of Engineers generally does not consider non-tidal drainage and irrigation ditches constructed on dry land; and (c) states: The Corps of L whxers generally does not consider artificial lakes or ponds crc,ited by excavating andlur diking dry land to collect and retain water and which are used exclusively 1101- such pLn'pOSCS as stock watcring, irrigationm sc dkg basks. or rice growing, except on a cast;-by-case basis. Based on the lntorma(ion provided, a Department of the Army (DA) Permit will not be required tier work in the detention pond or the two drakage ditches on this properly. Although a DA Permit will 1101 be re(lttirCd for "W in these areas and on this site, this does not ClitninatC; the 1"CgLllrement that other applicable Ideral, stale. and local penAs be obtained as neWed. if there are any questions call Nin Terry RIcKee army office at (303) 979-3120 and reference Corps Idle No. NNVO-2009-1060-DEN. Sincerely. TimO111\T. Carew Chi41: DC -Cl' Rcgu nhm (OIGcc r Utt .lfaffil r_✓.-/ . _pal -