5B - Concept Plan Review and Comment LUR2009-00068 for Violet Crossing
CITY OF BOULDER
PLANNING BOARD AGENDA ITEM
MEETING DATE: December 17, 2009
AGENDA TITLE:
Public hearing and consideration of Concept Plan Review and Comment #LUR2009-
00068, Violet Crossing, northeast corner of the intersection of Broadway and Violet
Ave., for a rental residential development with 78 market rate apartments and 18 affordable
apartments on 4.66 gross acres, located in the MU-2, Mixed Use-2 and RM-2, Residential
Medium-2, zoning districts.
Applicant / Owner: Terry Palmos
REQUESTING DEPARTMENT:
Community Planning and Sustainability:
David Driskell, Executive Director
Charles Ferro, Land Use Review Manager
Elaine McLaughlin, Senior Planner
OBJECTIVE:
1. Hear applicant and staff presentations
2. Hold public hearing
3. Discuss Concept Plan. No action is required by Planning Board.
STATISTICS:
Proposal: A 96-unit rental residential development with 78 market rate rental
units and 18 permanently affordable rental units.
Project Name: Violet Crossing
Location: 4474 N. Broadway (Northeast corner of Broadway and Violet)
Size of Tract: 4.66 acres (gross) (202,859 SF)
Zoning: Mixed Use - 2 (MU-2) and Residential Medium -2 (RM-2)
Comprehensive Plan: Mixed Use Business (MUB) and Medium Density Residential (MR)
AGENDA ITEM Pa c 1
SUMMARY OIKEY ISSUES:
1) Is the proposed plan compatible with the goals, objectives, and recommendations of
the North Boulder Subcommunity Plan (NBSP) and the Boulder Valley
Comprehensive Plan (BVCP)?
2) Are the massing and scale of the proposed buildings compatible with the character of
the surrounding area?
3) Does the proposed development appropriately respond to the site's flood hazards?
BACKGROUND:
This is the third Concept Plan Review for this site. Two previous reviews were completed: the
first in December 2006, and the second in June 2007, which included a total of 78 residential
units and approximately 9,400 square feet of retail/office space. In comparison, the current
Concept Plan is proposed as entirely rental residential with no office or retail uses.
Existing Site and Context: The roughly triangular-shaped site, located at the northeast corner of
the intersection of Violet Avenue and Broadway is essentially flat, trending from northwest to
southeast in an approximately two percent slope. Views from the site toward the west are
primarily of the foothills. The north side of the property is bordered by Fourmile Canyon Creek
that also flows from northwest to southeast. Refer to Figure 1 and Attachment A Vicinity Map.
There are several existing mobile homes and other structures on the site, including two older
retail buildings, all of which are set off of the roadway by approximately 85 feet. Many of the
mobile homes are older and in a deteriorated state. There is also a significant amount of existing
deteriorated pavement throughout the site. There are a number of existing trees on the property
that vary in size and vigor.
The site is adjacent to the recently built Uptown Broadway mixed use development to the north,
Blue Spruce Used Auto Sales to the west, along with service industrial, live-work units, and the
Ponderosa Mobile Home Park further to the north. The predominately single family Crestview
West neighborhood is located to the south of the site and further southwest, across Broadway, is
the Wonderland Neighborhood that is also predominately single family residential. To the north
and east of the property is the Boulder Meadows Mobile Home Park with a trapezoid-shaped area
adjacent to the subject property that is primarily used for storage. Across the Fourmile Canyon
Creek is a portion of property owned by the City of Boulder reserved for a future library. Figure
1 illustrates the surrounding context.
Flood Constraints. The site is impacted by the high hazard, conveyance, and 100-year flood
zones. Additionally, the grades on the west side of the property are currently lower than the crown
of Broadway which may impact flood considerations on the site as well as building height
calculations along Broadway. Figure 2 illustrates the current flood zone boundaries on the site.
r ~~z1
AGENDA ITEM #t,~l_'age 7
~ r.in~r rrt~ •.,i ~ 'a' ,r 'I M
tit .1~
tom` ETI C7'`N P r= AVE= r r 1st } T r r fF rl ' ~F ~ ~ Qt~,, ~tArf V, ~
WO - - , 1 ~i'R-fir R I~r~~S t( F)L~ f~l
Z -
I yr- fY r,
{1 J 1 1 I 1 t B Il~'l r LF-tt^ a :Y AU I'
.r.4 I ! ` aAr;d.it.~ /)e _
,l I iJ; r ~rt I , S~ ,I'~LTL!}~,1 J ~ ~pp~`~v ' j~,,'~!`~/p{I ~"•r _ ~ J~ I
Mf.f • ! ~ _ 44--
,f
i ~ f -r.fs~~ s ~ « it - - '(^AR[10 T ~~V~'F+~-°I
IN.
1 ~c• I__ ~ ; 9 ~i., t r~_'°~'-~:~c•~~ll~t~~'r~t`~;Srl~!~~~~'~li~ ~ ~ ~ll~
4+i._ n E -■(~'-d r+7 f~~ Vim 1 r~ .t. S r~ ::'#►f;;v~ `Y c .!'_r J~i-. -
p T . S /r
jj,
%
414
%
' r' 11 f ;i`r.~ s~ 'i" I=cl y,li;i7 1~s t Nh r 7[;;{ . Y i 'i'
I1Ir ~I,,r r 1 I f _t L _ 't _ ,r'S LI."w~~I
r^ r`~t - ~'ii ~ F~'~''-!~.'~J.~. F+} '71 q~ t4': ~ +.t•.-~1 ~ z T t:~lr~-''-Y- tCat ~ "'a.
,,~I '~r~~1i SIJ'•~ ~I 1 ~i li.~~~~ ~ ;'7~- 'ty 1 i., tr<1 ~~t~i F ~ •L
i (`_~4'.°a~~:. T1 rz ~~17a~.: K+ ~-'~'y !"gC i'~1~- ~ t ~~~4 r ! ~ . Ir L~yy il~ a
Y ~ (l
1 , - } f - =1.,Ir~.~ , -4~S ~ •o~! +~t ~Y~`' . A ~ tl
~~F I I •a; 1 I 7 _ ~~r '..j~~r r~11 r ~~,~~.a..~s~-, J'I.l.li
•i' !y~*;r a ~ t
I_j
• :r. :Y~ 1il4rii _ ~~1 i3•~f 1 T~e i r
744
Figure 1: Existing Site and Surrounding Built Context
r«, I 1
r
L~ ~ y ti
qr. I Mw? ~ .mss ~ ~I~n
r y' • C
~y~o a n?1
` If
Fig. 2: Focused At.crial of Existing Site. Fib. 3: Flood Zone. Constraints
(with land use, zoning, existing trees, buildings) Purple high hazard; salmon-' conveyance,
pink 100 year flood
AGENDA IT•UVI j--~ Pale 3
Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP) Designation: The property is designated Mixed
Use Business (MUB) on the western portion of the site and Medium Density Residential (MR) on
the eastern portion of the site. According to page 64 of the BVCP for areas designated MUB,
"business character will predominate, although housing and public uses supporting housing are
encouraged." Also as noted on page 63 of the BVCP, areas designated MR can "accommodate
residential development from six to 14 dwelling units per acre." The BVCP has a number of
policies to evaluate new residential development and a consistency analysis of the relevant
policies is provided inAttachinent C.
North Boulder Subcommunity Plan (NBSP): The project site is located within the boundaries
of the NBSP Plan which sets forth the, "official vision for the future of the North Boulder
Subcommunity" and is the basis for decisions regarding the long-term preservation and
development of North Boulder. The NBSP sets forward specific actions to be carried out by the
City, other public agencies, and the private sector
related to future development. The NBSP was
also the basis for re-zoning of a portion of North H 0 Yarmouth u
Boulder in 1997 and establishes a street and figs
pedestrian/ bicycle network. The Plan was -
adopted by Planning Board and City Council in = I'
1995. It was amended in 1996 and 1997 in - r - {
relation to the Village Center boundaries and Meado ws
Mobil e
Crestview East and West annexation conditions. H craze
- Park
Key concepts of the NBSP related to the project Rose~+x_~oci
site include establishing:
• a "Village Green" with 100-foot width on
both the north and south sides of Fourmile
Canyon Creek - to "act as a gateway,
gathering area and transition"
• a mixed use transition from the Village Center
to neighborhoods in the surrounding areas; vide
• appropriate uses of residential, some office Mixed Use Transition to
®
uses, and neighborhood scale restaurant(s) to Key Adjacent Industrial
help "frame" the Village Green. Main St. Business Area ' Residential
• a residential neighborhood with a diverse mix Mixed Use Transition to Village Green
of unit types and price ranges; Adjacent Residential
• a mixed use area with a balance of Figure 4: NBSP Proposed Village Center with Site in Context
cominercial and office uses;
• a transportation plan for all modes with an emphasis on creating a walkable community.
As shown in Figure 4, the NBSP designates a Village Center from the Yarmouth/Broadway
intersection to Fourmile Canyon Creek. The west portion of the project site is designated as a
"mixed use transition to the adjacent residential" and a portion of the Village Center and Green.
The eastern portion of the site is designated as residential. A link to the NBSP is provided
herein. http://wtvw.bottidercoloratio.yoy/filcsiPDS/)IamiinQ'No antMU20zonini/NorthBoulderSub Phn.pcii
AGENDA ITEM # a e 4
As indicated on page 16 of the NBSP, the Village Center is intended to accommodate an intense
mix of land uses including residential, office, retail, and civic uses and is meant to serve as the
heart and focal point of the North Boulder Subcommunity area. In 2002, the Uptown Broadway
development was approved as the core of the Village Center area with approximately
223 dwelling units and approximately 50,000 square feet of mixed use commercial space with
building heights of approximately 44 feet.
The NBSP Auto/Transit and separate Ped/Bike maps indicate a grid pattern of streets within and
around the subject property. As shown on the maps below, 13"' Street is intended as a through
street to connect to the north, and pedestrian/bicycle facilities are also proposed along 13`x' Street
through the subject property.
r lt_
- - -F
,-ten ~
- - - - Jwa V1
ACATE ROW AGATE ROW I - - -
_ l ~I~CI1T Ili -
Auto/Transit Map: Proposed Bicycle/Pedestrian Map: Proposed
On-Street Bike Route F-~ Ped/Bike Underpass
Transit Route On-Street Bike Lane E_--4 Off-Street Pedestrian Patl
Exact Location Undetermined Sidewalk/Path - Key Routes Exact Location Undetermi
a Transit Super Stop - Off-Street Multi-Use Path Improved Bike/Ped Cross
Off-Street Ped-Only Path
Vacate Existing Right-of-Way Civic Site
Roads Conceptual Locations
Figure 5:
North Boulder Subcommunity Plan Right-of-Way Plans:
Auto/Transit Map (left) and Bike/Pedestrian Map (Right)
AGENDA I'T'EM #I~&a e 5
Zoning: The project site is designated under two different zoning districts with the western
portion of the property zoned MU-2 (Mixed Use Residential-2) and the eastern portion of the
property zoned RM-2 (Residential Medium -2). Refer to Figure 6 below. Per Section 9-5-2,
B.R.C. 1981, the Mixed Use Residential-2 areas are,
"adjacent to a redeveloping main .street area, which core intended to provide a transition
hetiveen a main street connnercial area and established residential districts. Residential
areas are intended to develop in a pedestrian-oriented pattern, with buildings built up to the
street with residential, office, and limited retail uses."
The RM-2 areas are medium density residential areas which are, "primarily used for attached
residential development where each unit generally has direct access to ground level. "
Per subsection 9-9-2(d), B.R.C. 1981, any building additions or site improvements shall be
regulated according to the zoning district in which such additions or improvements are located.
IMS BMS MU-2'
A 3A ° 4
d
F
4CP
i
¢ _14 L , il~~` PJ
~ -t r-- fil
RM`1 MU-2 RM-2~
- ; t, ~P
ti ■ qr; e r -"FJ 0 Ulu L ffiJ EJ u
IJFJ vi in
R L-2 ; R(E fl
Figure 6:
Zoning Context
AGENDA tTE.Vl ~f' Page ~
PROJEC'T' DESCRIPTION:
As shown in Figure 7, the Concept Plan is proposed with 96 residential rental units within 11 two-
story buildings (labeled A through K) arranged in a formal grid pattern surrounding surface
parking. A portion of the Village Green, in varying widths, is proposed to align the southern shelf
of Fourmile Canyon Creek and includes a formal "color garden." Primary access is proposed from
Broadway on the west side of the property with secondary access proposed from Violet, and a new
extension of 14x1 Street at the east end of the site. There are 18 residential units proposed to be
permanently affordable rental units. The majority of the project's parking and a carport are
proposed in the center of the site as well as on the east side of the site and garage spaces are
proposed to be integrated into buildings E, J, and K. Also proposed is a water quality detention
pond on the east side of the property. On-street parking is proposed along Broadway, along with a
bus stop and bike parking, and the 14"' Street extension is also illustrated with on-street parking.
Table 1 provides a summary of the square footage and unit count proposed per building. Also refer
to Attachment E, for half-scale drawings of the Concept Plan.
The Concept Plan would require a request to amend the N 3SP Right-of-Way Plan for the
reassignment of 14'h Street as a through street, instead of 13`h Street. The applicant also proposes
all residential where the NBSP Land Use map indicates mixed use for the front (west) half of the
site as well as varying widths for the Village Green from 60 to 120 feet from the centerline of the
creek, rather than a set 100-foot dimension from the centerline.
Buildings A, B, and C: Each of these buildings are proposed as two stories in height with eight
units and a total of 8,572 square feet within each building. Parking for these units would be
within the surface lot. Elevation sketches were not provided for these buildings but the applicant
has indicated that the building materials and style will be similar to the sketches provided for
buildings H and I, shown below in Figure 8.
Building D: This building is planned to contain 12 units in a two-story configuration for a total
of 10,678 square feet. Architecture is planned to be in keeping with the materials and style
presented in Figure 8 including stucco, brick, broad arches as a first floor entry/garage element
and corner tower elements.
Building E: This building is proposed to have four units in 3,142 square feet with tuck-under
parking. It would face the 13`' Street extension into the site, not anticipated to be a through
street, but rather an access into the site. The image shown in Figure 9 illustrates the rear (parking
lot) elevation of Building E.
Building F and G: Building F is proposed with six wilts in 4,850 square feet and Building G is
proposed with eight units in 6,400-square feet. Sketches weren't provided however, the applicant
has represented that the buildings materials would be similar to those of Buildings H and I shown
in Figure 8.
AGFNDA ITEM i~J,i Page 7
i vcos.ee
t.
'.r
a 23' r.
i 1 -
kc~lv
ul,~uc.ee
chwy
\ 1 TIIA; NJ.wf
l - _ r II Acute
- .ia cA;r~oar I -
• e
01
r
TP.A
OL'AI I
`i - ~ i 1, • l
57 P ` '
I\OAOApNATRUYI ~M IOIFT.AVE. 1J~
N
Figure 7:
Violet Crossing Concept Plan
Buildings labeled A thru K
Table 1:
Square Footage Tally and Unit Count per Building
Building Total Gross Floor Area Total Units
A 8,572 8
B 8,572 8
C 8,572 8
D 10,678 12
E 3,142 4
F 4.850 6
G 6,400 8
H 10.394 12
1 10,394 12
1 7,118 9
K 7.118 9
89,522 96
Source: Kephart Associates
AGENDA ITEM 1'a *e 13
Buildings H and 1: Represented in the illustration of Figure 8, these two interconnected buildings
are proposed with 12 units and 10,394 square feet each. As shown in the sketch, a mix of
materials is proposed including varying colors of stucco, red brick and lap siding. The front
faces of the buildings are articulated along the demising walls of the units. The units shown to
project forward are illustrated with broad column porches. Some of the units are also illustrated
with pergolas as part of the entry porch. Double hung windows are proposed throughout. A taller
corner element is proposed on the building adjacent to the intersection of Violet and Broadway
capped by a tall parapet with decorative vents. The building mass has an articulated front fagade,
and narrow cornice bands occur over the inset portions of the building while the building bays
that extend forward have a taller parapet. The projecting bays also have second story balconies
above the entry porches with use of double French doors capped by transom windows.
STUCCO
tiff ~ ~'r' ~~1 Ia L r^~I~ _
@' ~41 j ar~> Y-4
Figure 8:
Sketch of Proposed Buildings H and I Along Broadway
7 -71-
d ~ I C
Figure 9: Building E Rear Facade Facing Parking Lot
AGENDA ITEIA L-" Page 9
Land Use, Density, and Parking Calculations. The dual zoning designation on the site requires
an analysis of density based on the differing zoning district criteria. Density for the MU-2 zoning
district requires a maximum 0.6 FAR (floor area ratio), and density for the RM-2 zoning district
requires 3,500 square feet of lot area per dwelling unit.
MU-2 Density: As indicated in Table 2, the portion of the site that falls within the MU-2 zoning
district meets the intensity requirements of subsection 9-8-1, B.R.C. 1981 of 0.6 FAR
Table 2:
MU-2 Developable Area and FAR
Area Calculation
Site Data Notes
Acres Sq. Ft
Gross Acreage: 4.66 202.859 sf
ROW Dedication 0.12 5,400 sf
Drainage & conveyance easements 0.97 42,637 sf
Net Developable Site Area 3.57 155,822 sf
MU-2 Area Net Developable Area 2.78 121,000 sf 77 percent of developable area
Floor Area Proposed within MU-2 68,262 sf Excludes a 3,312 sf of Bldg. D within RM-2
Floor Area Ratio within MU-2 =0.56 FAR 0•6 FAR permitted
RM-2 Density. The area within the RM-2 zoning district requires 3,500 square feet of lot area per
dwelling unit. There are 22 units proposed on 1.75 net acres (76,459 sf) = 3,475 square feet per
dwelling units, indicating that the area within the RM-2 portion of the site will require refinement
to meet the density standard of one dwelling unit per 3,500 square foot lot area.
Required Parking. The parking standards for both MU-2 and RM-2 were used to calculate
required parking, and the Concept Plan is illustrated with the total of 98 parking spaces as required
for the combined zoning districts. There is also on-street parking illustrated on the plan on
Broadway and 13t1i and 14t1i streets that add an additional 36 parking spaces. This is summarized in
Table 3.
Table 3:
Required and Provided Parkin
Zoning District Calculations Required Provided
MU-2 Zone 1.0 space per 1 to 2 bedroom unit 78 73
1.5 space per 3 bedroom unit n/a n/a
MU-2 Total 78 73
RM-2 1.0 space per I bedroom a nit 18 27
1.5 space per 2 bedroom unit n/a n/a
RM-2 Total 18 27
Subtotal 96 98
On-Street 36 spaces 36
TOTAL 96 134
AGENDA ITEM Paee 10
Comparison of Proposed Concept Plan wish Previous Concept Plan Review. The previous
Concept Plan review in June 2007 had a mix of residential with commercial on the first floor of
the buildings facing Broadway. The massing of the buildings was larger at three stories with a
44 -foot height requested and the style was more contemporary, as shown in Figure 11. See
Attachment ~ for minutes of the previous Concept Plan review.
5it;CpN,~Sgn'RY ~'tVCiO 'MASONRY
~MN1kl15CtE1.. / ' rAf1 fF11 Mn.
NASONRI' tr - I _ - - T_~,•l ~~-vJ-~ Mh5C1M RY
l ,r ICI I _ s~~^+
~KCO F 1 I I -
71
~~t 1 s
Figure 11: June 2007 (Previous) Concept Sketch of Buildings along Broadway at Violet
At the last Planning Board Concept Plan review of June 14, 2007 (minutes provided in Attachment
B) Planning Board and staff indicated the following key issues with the previous Concept Plan
submittal:
1) Building height, scale and mass along Broadway and Violet; and
2) Creating an appropriate architectural style, massing, and form transition from the Village
Center and Uptown Broadway development to the north with the more traditional single
family residential Crestview West neighborhood to the south.
ANALYSIS:
Key Issues. The following key issues have been identified by staff to help guide Planning
Board's discussion of this application. Planning Board may add to this list or provide additional
comments on the key issues listed.
1. Is the proposed concept plan compatible with the goals, objectives, and recommendations
of the NBSP and the BVCP?
Proposed Use of the Site as Residential. Both the NBSP and the BVCP indicate that the
front (Broadway) half of subject property should have a inix of uses, with "Mixed Use
Residential" defined for the site within the NBSP and "Mixed Use Business" for the property
per the BVCP. The applicant has indicated that with the build out of the Uptown Broadway
development, there are a number of retail/commercial vacancies directly adjacent to this
property. The applicant also provided a "windshield survey" that identifies the nuinbcr and
location of those vacancies as shown in Table 4 below as the primary reason to request a
change the Land Use Map of the NBSP.
AGENDA ITEM # Pare it
Table 4:
Location and Square Footage of Nearby Retail/Office Vacancies
Percent of
Location Type Square Number of Total
Footage Vacant Spaces Vacancies
-Uptown Broadway Retail-Office 16,509 sf. 11 61%
Yellow Pine Retail-Office 2,194 sf. 2 11%
)Easy Rider Retail Office 965 sf. 1 5%
Yarmouth Office 9,166 sf. 4 23%
28,834 sf. 18 100%
Source: Palmos Development Co.
As indicated in the data provided by the applicant, the highest percentage of retail-office
vacancies appears to be located directly adjacent to the subject property within the Uptown
Broadway development to the north. The next highest percentage of vacant space is located
nearby within the mixed use buildings along Yarmouth, two blocks north of the subject property
and also along Yellow Pine in the Holiday Neighborhood. While staff does not have data to
demonstrate if this vacancy rate is abnormally high - perhaps due to the struggling economy, this
data does illustrate that currently there is a large vacancy rate in North Boulder's mixed use
developments. Rezoning would not be required as the MU-2 zoning district does not have a
requirement for a percentage of retail and office, and attached residential is a by-right use.
Transportation Connections. An amendment to the NBSP Transportation Map concurrent
with Site Review will be required for the extension of 14th Street to connect to the north in lieu
of at 13t" Street extension. As shown previously in Figure 5, the NBSP transportation map
illustrates 13t1i Street extending through the site and across Fourmile Canyon Creek with a
pedestrian / bicycle connection crossing Fourmile Canyon Creek in the alignment of
14t" Street. Additionally, the NBSP indicates the Fourmile Creek Trail on the north side of the
creek. The Concept Plan illustrates the extension of 14t1i Street to serve as a vehicular
connection, with pedestrian facilities provided through the site, in the location of the
13t1i Street plan line. A draft agreement was made that the city would construct a vehicular
bridge over the creek on 14t1i Street, and the applicant would construct a pedestrian bridge over
the creek in the 13i1' Street alignment.
The Policy Resolution Group (PRG) is responsible for considering the request, and
determining if the proposed project is consistent with the plan. If PRG determines that the
request is appropriate, no amendment is required that involves Planning Board or City Council.
As with the previous Concept Plan review, staff is generally supportive of an NBSP
amendment as the 14t1i Street alignment would regliire less grading and would permit a less
significant structural vehicular bridge over the creek, whereas a vehicular connection at 13t1i
Street would require a more structural bridge connection to respond to the steeper grades which
exist in that particular area of the site. While the proposed roadway and bicycle / pedestrian
alignments help to improve overall site design, concerns exist over attaining the right-of-way
required to align 14t11 Street as the vehicular connection due to the existing storage area for the
Boulder Meadows Mobile Home Park.
r -P
AGENDA ITEM "Page 12
Further, staff reconunends slightly modifying the site plan to ensure that there is more direct
visual connection from Violet into the site, such that the pedestrian bridge is clearly
identifiable from Violet Ave.
Summary of Consistency Analysis with NBSP and BVCP Goals, Policies and Objectives.
Staff finds that the Concept Plan addresses most of the key recommendations and policies of
the NBSP and the BVCP with regard to provision of a pedestrian-oriented development,
concentration of higher densities along multimodal corridors, and as a transition from the
Village Center to the single family residential development to the south. Approval of the
current Concept Plan will require amendment of the NBSP Auto/Transit Right-of-Way plan,
and staff is generally supportive of the proposed change.
2. Are the proposed building massing and scale compatible with the character of the
surrounding area?
In the previous Concept Plan review of June 2007, both Planning Board and staff expressed
concerns about the three-story mass and scale proposed in this transitional location, as well as
the contemporary character of the architecture which created a marked contrast to the
residential neighborhood directly to the south. The Concept Plan illustrates two-story buildings
throughout the site with a more traditional architectural style than the previous plans, to
address Planning Board's comments.
Buildings H and I. As indicated in the NBSP, _
the project site is intended as the south cGanchorf) SIOI N6
STUCCO
of the Village Center. As currently proposed,- ea oK
Buildings H and 1 have an urban appearance
that could establish the site as the south anchor
to the Village Center. However, staff notes that
specific architectural elements and features such
as the exaggerated scale of the front entries and
heavy brick arches could be simplified to be a
better transition to the single family residential
buildings across Violet Avenue. For example, -=1•' _
as can be seen in the Concept Plan sketch in
Figure 12, the heavy brick entry columns, '
i~
arches, and pergolas are somewhat exaggerated
in proportion to the pedestrian. These elements _ tl
tend to overwhelm the front facade and shroud
the building's entrances from the street. The
NBSP recommends that building entries should Figure 12:
not only be visible from the street, they should Front Facade of Buildings H
be appropriately scaled to the pedestrian and
provide pedestrian interest. In addition, the
proposed mixture of materials with stucco, brick siding, lap siding, in combination with tall
parapets next to narrow cornice bands create a facade that appears unnecessarily complicated.
Staff recommends simplifying the facade and limiting the palette to high quality, authentic
AGENDA ITEM #56 Paae 13
finish materials to help bridge the contemporary styles to the north with the more traditional
single family residential character to the south.
Building E. Staff notes that the elevation sketch provided for the four-plex Building E at the
center of the site does not read as a residential building but has elements more closely
associated with a walk-up office building (refer to Figure S on page 9). Similar to Buildings
H-I, this building is proposed with very heavy arches on the fagade that don't seem to relate to
the local context or help to create a transition. The lower level is shrouded. Though not
discernable in materials or purpose, it appears to be comprised of metal fencing. The applicant
has noted that this fagade is presenting garage doors. Each end of this small building has a stair
tower capped by a gabled roof. While not as visible as the Broadway buildings, the architecture
of this four-plex is nonetheless important. As such, entries should be visible from the street and
heavier more exaggerated elements such as the arches and the tower elements should be
softened for a more pedestrian scale consistent with the NBSP.
Summary. In general, staff notes that the two-story configuration of the building mass,
particularly along Broadway and Violet, helps to transition to the primarily one- and two-
story residential that is the predominate scale in the Crestview West neighborhood. In addition,
the applicant has transitioned away from the contemporary style of the last Concept Plan, to
buildings that have more traditional architectural elements. Refinements should be made to the
architecture to further strengthen the pedestrian scale and help bridge the architectural
character along Broadway.
3. Does the proposed development appropriately respond to the flood hazards on-site with
provision of Village Green and channel improvements?
A floodplain development pen-nit was recently issued for proposed channel improvements on
this section of Fourmile Canyon Creek that will remove most of the site from the High Hazard
zone through a combination of grading along the north and south sides of the creek and overlot
grading. A CLOMR (Conditional Letter of Map Revision) was also approved by FEMA (the
Federal Emergency Management Agency). After the charmel improvements are completed, a
LOMR (Letter of Map Revision) will be required for approval by FEMA to revise the
regulatory floodplain boundaries. However, until the channel improvements are completed and
a LOMR application submitted and approved, the proposed development will be subject to the
floodplain regulations and the current floodplain boundaries.
Objectives and recommendations outlined in the Founnile Canyon Creek Master Plan and
NBSP include, but are not limited to, protection and enhancement of natural hydrologic
functions and water quality, protection and enhancement of wildlife habitat, and preservation
and restoration of flood storage capacity. The NBSP illustrates a Village Green on either side
of the creek not only to create a passive recreational area, but to allow flood channel
improvements. The objective of the Village Green as noted in the NBSP is to, "Provide a large
Village Green on both sides ofFourmile Canyon Creek (at least 300 x 300 at Broadway and at
least 100 on either side of the creek for the remaining distance of the Village Center. " The
Concept Plan illustrates varying widths of 60-feet to 120-feet from the centerline of the creek,
similar to the Uptown Broadway development on the north. Staff supports a reduced width of
AGENDA ITEM 14
the Village Green in places such that there is a more natural, undulant quality to the open
space. However, at the time of Site Review, a design which meets engineering requirements,
promotes a natural flood channel design, and assumes high quality open space will be required
at greater detail.
Proposed Village Green. The applicant is illustrating open space with annenity improvements
adjacent to the creek channel consistent with the NBSP Village Green concept. While the open
space is shown to vary in size, it is the access to the Village Green that should be reined in
Site Review to ensure visibility and connectivity to the space as a public amenity. The NBSP
designates the Village Green as a "Community Facility" with the goal to, "foster a sense of
community by creating vibrant areas for people to gather." Because the Village Green is
intended as a civic space, this space should be refined at Site Review to ensure visibility and
accessibility from Broadway into the Village Green area, as well as from the planned
pedestrian/bicycle connections from Violet Avenue into the site. One means to achieve this
visual connection from Broadway is to reintroduce the plaza space illustrated in the previous
plan at the interface of the Village Green with Broadway, and north of Building H. While the
plaza would no longer servo a retail purpose, the plaza space could ensure that the Village
Green is kept as a civic space open to the public rather than an open space area to serve only
the future residents of Violet Crossing.
PUBLIC COMMENT AND PROCESS:
Staff received several emails from adjacent property owners expressing concern over the traffic and
parking primarily. Those emails arc provided in Attachment D. In addition staff spoke with two
residents who own existing mobile homes on the site who were concerned about displacement.
Staff referred them to Housing and Human Services as a resource.
On Dec. 2, 2009. the applicant hosted a Good Neighbor meeting. Because this was essentially a
"follow-up" to previous neighborhood meetings, the applicant provided updates to the attendees on
how the Concept Plan had been revised. Attendees, in general, indicated support of the change to
the land use from Mixed Use to all Residential and the reassignment of 14`1' Street as a through-
street instead 13'11 Street. The attendees expressed concern about the amount of parking being too
little to accommodate the future residents and potential that there would be overflow parking from
the site into their neighborhood to the south.
STAFF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION:
No action is required by Planning Board. Planning Board, Public and staff comments will be
documented for use by the applicant. Concept Plan Review and Comment is intended to give the
applicant preliminary feedback on the development concepts, and give direction for future site
review applications.
AGENDA TITM #_i331',gv 15
Approved By:
e ~
Davi Driskell, Executive Director
Department of Community Planning and Sustainability
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Vicinity Map
B. Minutes from Previous Concept Plan Review - June 2007
C. Guidelines for Concept Plan Review
D. Comments received from neighbors
E. Applicants written description and project plans for Concept Plan
AGENDA ITEM Pa a 16
Attachment A:
Vicinity Map
City of Boulder Vicinity Map
A S
'IMS - 1
BMS" j
Rosewood Av I j
o - - ^ n MH
s~o . z
S
a -
^ AU-2
Subject Area
^ 4474 N Broadway
t
P
RL-2 V
RL-1
Union Av _ -,i - -
- I- ` -
r Subject
Upland/Av
_ RRA .
Utica Av
~ i ~L ~ I l I I I
Location: 4474 N Broadway
Project Name: Violet Crossing 00, of
Boulder Type: Concept Plan Review NORTH Telnrarmrapf Spkl Ns mapd
es graphw! raprestnlaWn olivn Dray, ino Cry tr8o er®ouider
Review Number: LUR2009-00068 preNdesn0Wdrren!y,a;prasscdOrlmpued.asro
1 inch=25dfeet w accuracy endkr comp7efeness of iris Inform orlon
Applicant: Terry Palmos conle;ned hereon.
AGENDA ITEM #f7(3Paj!e 17
Attachment B
Minutes from 2007 Concept Plan Review -June 14, 2007
CITY OF BOULDER
PLANNING BOARD ACTION MINUTES
June 14, 2007
1777 Broadway, Council Chambers
A permanent set of these minutes and a tape recording (maintained for a period of seven years) are
retained in Central Records (telephone: 303-441-3043). Minutes and streaming audio are also
available on the web at: http://www.ci.boulder.co.us/planning/planningboard/agendas
PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT:
Elise Jones, Chair
Bill Holicky
Willa Johnson
Phil Shull
Adrian Sopher
Richard Sosa
PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT:
Andrew Shoemaker
STAFF PRESENT:
Brent Bean, Senior Planner
Charles Ferro, Planner II
Jerry Gordon, Deputy City Attorney
Cristina Martinez, Civil Engineer I
Elaine McLaughlin, Senior Planner
Cindy Pieropan, Housing Planner
Robert Ray, Land Use Review Manager
Mary Ann Weideman, Administrative Services Manager
1. CALL TO ORDER
Chair, E. Jones, declared a quorum at 5:08 p.m. and the following business was conducted.
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
On a motion by W. Johnson, seconded by A. Sopher, the Planning Board approved (6-0, A.
Shoemaker absent) the May 17, 2007 Planning Board minutes as amended.
3. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
Jeff McWhirter, 5435 Illim Way, commented on environmental factors related to the Hogan-
Pancost development proposal and urged the Planning Board to visit the site.
4. DISCUSSION OF DISPOSITIONS, PLANNING BOARD CALL-UPS
AGENDA ITEM ) Page 18
1409 North Street
The Planning Board clarified some information regarding the Floodplain Development Permit at
1409 North Street and did not call-up this item
5. ACTION ITEMS
B. Public hearing and consideration of Concept Plan Review and Comment #LUR2007-
00012, Violet Crossing, for the property located at 4474 N. Broadway. The proposal includes
development of 78 residential units and approximately 9,400 square feet of retail / office area
on 4.66 gross acres, in the Mixed Use Two (MU-2) and Residential-Medium Two (RM-2) zoning
districts.
Case Manager: Charles Ferro
Applicant/Owner: Terry Palmos
Staff Presentation
Charles Ferro, Planner 11, presented the case to the board.
Applicant Presentation
Nancy Blackwood, Oz Architecture, presented the proposal.
Public Hearing
Susan Peterson, 4347 13°' Street
Elizabeth Black, 4340 N. 13th Street, pooled time with Winn Franklin, 4380 13th Street
Jim Miller, 4390 Broadway
Stephen Schaller, 1480 Quince Avenue
Jason Bush, 2990 Shady Hollow Drive
Steve Haskins, 90 Lee Hill Road
Ed Byrne, 4324 Snowberry Court
Astrid Paustian, 4390 13'11 Street
Andy Allison, 1056 Terrace Circle
Charissa Pateel, 4436 Broadway
Sally Martin, 1527 48th Street
Cam Fraser, 1205 Upland Avenue
Board Discussion
The Planning Board discussed the following key themes:
Height
The board was agreeable to the idea of a variance for three stories at the north side of the site provided
the height was minimized.
AC:ENDA ITEM Pate 19
Villaac Green
The board commented that the 150 feet included in the North Boulder Subcommunity Plan should be
maintained as much as possible. However, the 150 feet doesn't necessarily need to be a constant given
the color garden, etc.
Parkin
The board mentioned the idea to address on-street parking to potentially slow traffic. The board is
willing to adjust setbacks to accommodate on-street parking. However, the directive for the past three
years has been to maintain Violet as rural so this idea would have a significant impact to the plan. The
board questioned the access from 14th Street to the buildings and parking in the courtyard and
expressed concern about parking on the east side near the park space. Additionally, access over the
water quality pond seemed awkward. The board stated that the parking plan is not the best but is
willing to work with it given past board direction. However, the board would like to see something
even better, including more trees in the center of the parking lot. The board expressed concern
regarding building G and F's garage doors facing city owned park property and said that the applicant
should experiment with reorienting G and F towards Violet to hide parking from Violet and adjacent
open space.
Amendment to North Boulder Subcommunity Plan
The board had no concerns with the amendment to the North Boulder Subcommunity Plan for the 13'11
Street and 14th Street connections.
Architecture
The board commented that transitional architecture seems appropriate on the site and the pedestrian
experience should be addressed at all access points. The board also commented on eliminating or
reducing the number of architectural bridges. The board expressed the need for multiple building
types and sizes to address the different areas on the site and said that larger building modules will not
work for all areas of the site (and that smaller modules throughout the site should be considered at Site
Review). The board also expressed concerns regarding the proposed architecture being somewhat cold
and busy and said a transitional blend of traditional and contemporary references would be appropriate
for the site.
Office/Retail
The board was pleased with the non-residential uses. The board commented on including residential
uses in Building B. The board expressed concerns that buildings D and E do not have office potential
and that first floor office spaces (on Broadway) will do little to active the sidewalks as engaged public
spaces. Similarly, spaces between buildings Al, A2, B1, and B2 have to be functional and inviting for
pedestrians in order to be useable. The board also expressed concern that a 1,500 square foot
restaurant would be supportable.
Motion
No action is required on behalf of the Planning Board.
AGENDA I"ITEIVI 443 P,2, 20
Attachment C:
Guidelines for Concept Plan Review and Comment
The following guidelines per subsection 9-2-13(g), B.R.C. 1981 will be used to guide the
Planning Board's discussion regarding the site. It is anticipated that issues other than those
listed in this section will be identified as part of the concept plan review and comment process.
The Planning Board may consider the following guidelines when providing comments on a
concept plan.
1. Characteristics of the site and surrounding areas, including, without limitation, its
location, surrounding neighborhoods, development and architecture, any known
natural features of the site including, without limitation, mature trees, watercourses,
hills, depressions, steep slopes and prominent views to and from the site;
The roughly triangular-shaped subject site is essentially flat, trending from northwest to
southeast in a roughly-two percent slope. The north side of the property is bordered by Four
Mile Creek that also flows from northwest to southeast, and is currently impacted by the 100-
year flood zone, and both the high hazard and conveyance zones. Broadway, State Highway 7,
borders the property on the west, and [violet Street classified as a minor collector roadway
borders the property to the south. There are several existing mobile homes and other
structures including two older retail buildings which are all set well off of the roadway by
approximately 85 feet. Many of the mobile homes are older and would likely not meet current
federal standards for manufactured housing, and thus could not be relocated elsewhere.
The site is approximately one-quarter mile to Foothills Community Park to the west,
Wonderland Lake and foothills trail heads to the southwest, and just south of the Uptown
Broadway and Holiday mixed use neighborhoods built over the past five to seven years. Single
family residential neighborhoods of Crestview West are located to the south of the subject
property. Across Broadway to the west is the Blue Spruce auto dealership and other service
industrial uses. Views from the site are primarily of the foothills.
2e Community policy considerations including, without limitation, the review process
and likely conformity of the proposed development with the Boulder Valley
Comprehensive Plan and other ordinances, goals, policies, and plans, including,
without limitation, subcommunity and subarea plans;
The site has split zoning of MU-2 (Mixed Use - 2) along the front half of the site and RM-2
(Residential Medium- 2) at the rear half. The BVCP land use designations are Mixed Use
Business (along Broadway) and Medium Density Residential.
The NBSP defines the front half of the site as "Mixed Use: office and residential with soiree
limited neighborhood-serving restaurant uses at Broadway and Violet' 'and for the cast side of
the site, "mixed density residential uses at an overall average of 8-12 dwelling units/acre." The
applicant will need to apply to amend the NBSP right-of-way plan related to 13'x' and 14`x'
streets.
AGENDA ITEM # Pa =e 21
The proposed project is also subject to the vision, recommendations, and guidelines for the
Village Center area of the NBSP plan. The following is a consistency analysis of the proposed
concept plan with specific relevant recommendations and guidelines of the NBSP plan
Village Center area 819, pa,,~e_IS forFast of Broadway, South ofthe Creek:
This area should provide a transition from the Village Center to neighborhoods in the
surrounding areas. Appropriate uses include residential, some office uses, and
neighborhood -scale restaurants *(5) to help `frame" the village green.
The Concept Plan is not consistent with the intent of this recommendation. While not
specifying a "Mix of uses" the recommendation is implicit in a combination of uses. It
doesn't note "residential or other uses" it recommends residential and other uses. " In
particular, a neighborhood-scale restaurant is not included in the proposed Concept Plan
as is recommended in the NBSP plan.
Provide a large village green on bolls sides of Fourntile Canyon Creek (at least 300'x 300' at
Broadway, and at least 100' on either side of the Creek for the remaining distance of the Village
Center), with a transit center nearby and adequate bike parking.
The applicant has proposed between 60 and 120 feet of Village Green space on the south
side of the creek similar to the Uptown Broadway development on the north side of the
creek. It is possible to vary the width of the Village Green, however, at the time of Site
Review, a design which meets engineering requirements, promotes a natural flood channel
design and high quality open space will be required.
Uses and Phasing
A. Provide a horizontal and vertical mixture of uses: retail/ commercial, residential,
office, open areas, and civic uses.
With the entire site proposed as residential, the concept plan is not consistent with this
guideline. The lack of a mix of uses is not consistent with either the NBSP land use
designation or the intent of the MU zoning for the site. However, the applicant has
provided information that indicates a significant saturation of vacant retail/office space
in the immediate area. Staff would support the site being primarily residential, as a
horizontal mix of uses would occur with the Uptown Broadway retail immediately to
the north.
B. Provide a wide range of dwelling types for a range of incomes.
There appears to be a number of different dwelling unit types proposed on the site, that
would encourage a range of incomes, as well as 18 permanently affordable units
proposed. However, few details were provided on the units themselves. Therefore, at
the time of Site Review, consistency with this guideline will be determined.
AGENDA ITEM # P. 2e 22
C. Provide housing which appeals to families, seniors, and adults. Vary housing types
and sizes and include attached and detached houses, apartment buildings, and
apartments above shops or offices.
There does not appear to be any detached houses proposed within the site. Additional
detail regarding specific unit types will be required at the time of Site Review and
consistency with this guideline will be determined at that time.
D. Provide a large village green on both sides of Fourmile Canyon Creek (at least 300'x
300' at Broadway, and at least 100' on either side of the Creek for the remaining
distance of the Village Center), with a transit center near-by and adequate bike
parking.
There is an open space on the north end of the site adjacent to Fourmile Creek, it is
indicated as a "color garden " much in the same manner as the previous Concept Plan
review. There is also an area located between buildings A and B that is labeled
` plaza" and there is little or no detail on this plaza site. At the time of site review, it is
recommended that greater detail be provided within the plaza space which could
become an important .site amenity if connecting a transit facility along Broadway and
the color garden and providing site furnishings such as benches and bike racks,
consistent with this guideline.
E. Provide space and utility services for a public farmer's market and other outdoor
neighborhood retail uses.
The space labeled as 'plaza " could serve as a public farmer's market within the site.
However, there would not be a direct connection to "other outdoor neighborhood
retail" on the site as only residential uses are proposed.
Building and Site Design
A. Provide one and two-story buildings along the street with pedestrian-interest windows
on the ground floor and office or residential uses above.
The Concept Plan illustrates two-story buildings aligning Broadway. However, in a
marked departure from the NBSP plan for this location there is no ground floor retail
that could provide pedestrian-interest on the ground floor, nor are there any office uses
planned above the firstfloor. While pedestrian interest can still be established with
pedestrian-scaled architectural details, there typically is less desire for street-level
window openings in a residential context due to issues ofprivacy.
B. Provide pedestrian-scale architecture throughout the area. Minimize blank walls and
left-over space.
The preliminary architecture presented does appear to provide pedestrian-scale
architecture on the units facing Broadway. However, for the rendering provided on the
AGENDA ITEM aftt!e 23
four Alex building (E) there are more monolithic elements of broad columns and
arches, along with entries that appear shrouded. The walk-up layout of the building
also has more of an office building appearance to it, rather than a residential-scaled
building and seems out-of-place on the site. Refinement of all the architectural
elevations will be expected at the time of Site Review that demonstrate consistency with
this guidelines as well as the expressed need to provide a more "transitional "
character to the architecture between the contemporary mixed-use buildings to the
north and the traditional single family residential development to the south.
C. Provide pedestrian entrances to buildings from all streets.
As noted under "B" above, the buildings along Broadway do appear to meet this
guideline, however, the concept for the four Alex building E that was provided does not
have pedestrian entrances to buildings from a street, but rather is a "walk-up " type of
configuration.
D. Closely line storefronts along the sidewalk in order to create a pedestrian friendly
setting. To avoid monotony, storefronts may be staggered. some should be located
immediately adjacent to the sidewalk, others should be slightly setback to provide
seating or a plaza/ landscape area.
As there are no storefronts proposed on the site, the Concept Plan is not consistent with
this guideline. While the residential buildings along Broadway appear to have
articulated frontfacades and some staggering of the buildingfaces, the overall intent in
the mix of uses inherent in this guideline is not represented in the Concept Plan. In
addition, while the entries to the buildings along Broadway face the street, there are
large, very heavy entry elements with broad brick pillars and heavy archways that
isolate the building entries from the street.
E. Encourage the development of'faeilities at a neighborhood scale.
There are no neighborhood facilities indicated within the Concept Plan, therefore, staff
notes that the Concept Plan is inconsistent with this guideline as well.
F. Design buildings with flexible spaces that can accommodate different uses over time.
With the expressed intent to provide 78 residential units and no other uses, and with
limited detail on architecture, it appears that the single use would be challenging to
convert to other uses over time such as combinations of a retail-residential or office-
residential building over time. Therefore, as currently proposed, the Concept Plan
does not meet this guideline.
G. Provide transitions between the new Village Center uses and existing surrounding
residential areas.
AGENDA ITEM tMPaue 24
i
The single use Concept Plan of residential-only is a departure from the NBSP plan for
a mix of uses on the site. Similarly, the architectural style should be reflective of the
context which is contemporary to the north with Uptown Broadway and more
traditional in the single family residential Crestview West neighborhood to the south.
The architecture of the H-1 buildings along Broadway appears to be much more
traditional in style, with few contemporary elements, which would be a contrast to the
adjacent Uptown Broadway. A greater focus on architectural elements that provide a
better transitional style is necessary at the time of Site Review application. Refer to
comments provided under "Building Design. "
H. Context of existing adjacent buildings and open space should also be considered in
the design of the proposed structures.
With regard to the context of existing structures, refer to comment "G" above. Then,
with regard to the adjacent open space, the layout of the Concept Plan does appear to
address both the street as well cis the adjacent open space amenity of the Fourmile
Creek corridor. With remapping of the corridor and the CLOMR that was recently
granted by FEMA, it is understood that the site will not require additional grading to
elevate it, as was proposed in the earlier Concept Plan submittals. However, as noted
on page 4, the proposed development will be subject to the floodplain regulations and
the current floodplain boundaries until a LOMR is approved by FEMA and the
regulatory floodplain mapping is revised. Therefore, until that time, all residential
structures within the 100 year floodplain must be constructed so that the lowest floor
level is elevated to the flood protection elevation which is 2 feet above the flood water
elevation of the 100 year flood event.
Streets and Parkin
A. Provide on-street parking within all streets in the Village Center.
On-street parking along Broadway is supportable, as it would be consistent with the
Uptown Broadway street frontage.
B. Locate off-street parking behind and to the sides of buildings, not in the front
Disperse parking into small, strategically-located lots.
The Concept Plan is consistent with, and accomplishes this guideline well.
C. Locate off-street parking behind and to the sides of buildings, not in the front.
Disperse parking into small, strategically-located lots.
Surface parking is located in the rear of buildings fonling Broadway and Violet. The
proposed surface parking configuration is contained and is less visible from Broadway
and Violet than previous iterations.
AGENDA ITEM #_Si~PaEe 25
D. Design parking areas with an emphasis on high-quality pedestrian access and
circulation. Plant street trees and landscape strips in parking areas and along
walkways.
As was recommended in the previous Concept Plan, pedestrian linkages to the multi-
use paths along the creek corridor and through the parking area should be emphasized
through use ofpatterned concrete or other means. For example, the connection from
the internal parking area out to the multi-use path could be framed by an allee or
cluster of trees that could serve as a gateway to the multi-use paths. Additionally a
stronger emphasis on the pedestrian connection from the internal parking area to the
Color garden (and between buildings C and D) could be established through similar
methods that draw pedestrians to these on-site ameniities. Additionally, north /south
pedestrian linkages should be provided from buildings D and E to the surface parking
area.
3. Applicable criteria, review procedures, and submission requirements for a site
review;
The size of the site meets the threshold for Site Review and the application must
therefore meet the criteria found in Section 9-2-14, B.R.C. 1981. Because there are no
modifications to the standards proposed, as was the case in previous concept plan reviews, for
the same site -including height- a determination on the case would typically be done by staff
with a call-up to Planning Board. The requested NBSP right-of-way modification will require
a determination by the Policy Resolution Group (PRG). If PRG determines the change from
13`1' Street to 14`h Street is not consistent with the NBSP, the request will be referred to
Planning Board.
4. Permits that may need to be obtained and processes that may need to be
completed prior to, concurrent with, or subsequent to site review approval;
As noted, the application must be demonstrated to be consistent with the Site Review criteria of
section 9-2-14(h), as well as the North Boulder Subcommunity Plan. In addition, given the
existing flood constraints on the property, all city regulations of the floodways master plan
must be met and any additional flood permits required for development must be secured prior
to construction.
5. Opportunities and constraints in relation to the transportation system,
including, without limitation, access, linkage, signalization, signage, and circulation,
existing transportation system capacity problems serving the requirements of the
transportation master plan, possible trail links, and the possible need for a traffic or
transportation study;
A traffic study will be required to project future traffic, determine if full access is appropriate,
determine if'access restriction is needed initially or if it will become necessary over time, and
determine the steps required to restrict access if needed. Since a majority of the site-generated
traffic will be using Violet during the peak hour, the study should also determine whether the
AGENDA ITEM #MPa a 26
existing westbound left turn lane needs to be exlended or if adcliiiowd Icft turn lanes care
necessary for the 13t1i114`h Street connections. The Traffic Impact Stucly should also provide
analysis to support any proposed amendments to the North Boulder Suhcommunity Plan
including modifications to connectivity in the 13th Street and 14`1i Street corridors.
6. Environmental opportunities and constraints including, without limitation, the
identification of wetlands, important view corridors, floodplains and other natural
hazards, wildlife corridors, endangered and protected species and habitats, the need for
further biological inventories of the site and at what point in the process the information
will be necessary;
There are a number of existing trees of varying sizes and species on the subject site. The
BVCP policies and site review criteria encourage preservation of long-lived trees. If the
applicant were required to modify the grading to a substantial degree to accommodate the
flood plain issues, most of the existing trees would be eliminated, inconsistent with these
policies and criteria. However, if'the flood plaint issues are eliminated, stql
recommends preservation of all healthy, maturing trees on the site, wilh integration of the Nees
into the site plan. Because of the linear planting of'many of the trees, and the grid-litre pattern
of the site plan, it is likely that this could be accomplished, adding a much greater sense of
place to the overall plan. At the time of Site Review applications, as holed on page 5, a detailed
tree inventoty including tree species, location, size and condition prepared by a Certs'lied
Arborist shall be required. The narrative indicates that some overlot grading is necessary;
evaluate the extent of the grading needed against any tree preservation opportunities.
7. Appropriate ranges of land uses;
Establishment of an entirely residential land use configuration on the site is not consistent with
the recommendation within the NBSP plan. The NBSP plan defines the intent for this site by
indicating, both on page15 and on Land Use map on page 34, that the area at the north east
corner of Broadway and Violet (western portion) .should, "provide a transition fi•orn the
Village Center to neighborhoods in the surrounding areas. Appropriate uses include
residential, some office uses, and neighborhood scale restaurant(s) to help "fr-arne" the village
Green. Staff would support the change from a mix of uses in this location to a medium density
residential use as a positive transition between the Uptown Broadway mix of uses to the north
and the single family residential to the south.
8. The appropriateness of or necessity for housing.
While the west half of the site under the application is inconsistent with the articulated land
use within the.NBSP plan, the application overall does provide for housing on the entire site
that would be consistent with the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan policies that indicate a
job- to-housing imbalance where there are not enough housing units to support ernplo.yees
within the city. However,. for the east half of the site cs.s residential is supported by the NBSP
plan, the Comprehensive Plana and the zoning for medium density residential.
ACF,NDA ITEM #'Paze 27
Attachment D:
Neighbor Comments Received
From: Susan Peterson [mailto:susanp@cadence.com]
Sent: Monday, November 16, 2009 3:01 PM
To: McLaughlin, Elaine
Subject: Violet Crossing Questions
Hi Elaine -
I am a North Boulder resident with some questions about Violet Crossing,
I was recently sent the attached concept, and have a few questions/concerns:
x Is each unit 2 story? If so, looks like about 50 dwelling units, 80 parking spots - is that
right? Will a density variance be required?
x Will there be at least 10% affordable housing units included at the site?
x What's the target price range for the units? We need more middle income housing.
x Looks like the plan encroaches on the greenway set back - why?
x What are the implications on the flood plain?
x What's the plan for mitigating additional traffic on 13th?
Any clarification you can provide would be appreciated.
Susan K. Peterson
(303) 594-3844
-----Original Message------
From: Chris Brown [mailto:CB@ChrisBrownPhotography.com]
Sent: Monday, November 16, 2009 10:27 AM
To: McLaughlin, Elaine
Subject: Violet Crossing
Dear Elaine:
Would you be so kind as to send me the following information about
this project:
1. The City procedures for calculating the number of parking spaces
required for this type of development.
2. The number of on-site parking spaces that would be required for
this project, and the number included in their preliminary plans.
3. The number of bedrooms in the preliminary plan.
4. Am T correct in assuming that there is currently no parking
allowed on Violet Street and Broadway adjacent to this property?
5. Is this likely to change?
Thank you very much for your assistance.
Chris Brown
303-449-7532
AGENDA ITEM aee 28
From: Elizabeth Black [mailto:elizabeth@elizabethblackart.com]
Sent: Monday, November 16, 2009 11:11 AM
To: McLaughlin, Elaine
Cc: kentshorroclc@hotmail.com; 'Win Franklin'; christopher@chrisbrownphotography.com
Subject: Palmos Development, Violet Crossing
Hi Elaine and Planning Board,
Thank you for the opportunity to comment cn the Violet Crossing Site Plan. I am very pleased to see that the plan has
changed to an all-residential plan, and that the size of the buildings has decreased down to two stories. I think that these
changes will go a long ways toward making the development serve its original intent in the North Boulder Sub-Community
Plan. The NBSCP envisioned the Palmos property as serving as a transition from our less dense neighborhood to the
south, to the commercial development to the north of the creek. I think that the current version of the site plan that I have
seen, with all-residential units and a maximum height of 2 stories provides that transition very well. I want to thank Mr.
Palmos for making these changes.
One remaining concern I have is parking. The site plan does not show any on-street parking on either Broadway or Violet
surrounding Violet Crossing- If parking is not adequate on site, any overflow parking from Violet Crossing will have only one
place to go: 13th Street between Upland and Violet. Our section of 13"h is a rural residential street, with grassy and rocky
verges, and an active irrigation ditch on the east side. There are no sidewalks, curbs or gutters. (Here in Crestview West,
we believe the best traffic calming device to be a pedestrian walking down the middle of the street.) We are not set up to
handle large numbers of overflow cars safely, nor do we want to be. The neighborhood actively opposed sidewalks during
our annexation, and still does. We will be EXTREMELY grumpy and resentful if we have to pay to upgrade our street to
benefit a developer who will make more money by not providing adequate parking. Our neighborhood should not have to
bear the costs of someone else's development.
An additional point about on-site parking: With the advent of SMART-grid technology and electric cars, it seems that very
soon„ there will be a strong demand for parking places with electrical outlets. That combination is impossible to achieve if
you are counting on overflow parking spreading out into the neighborhoods. Using car batteries as overnight storage for
power or changing our vehicle fleet to electric power is only possible if there are outlets for each car. Boulder is known as a
forward thinking City, and is strongly committed to Climate Smart principles. I hope that you keep these future trends in
mind as you proceed with new dense developments. It would be a shame to design a 21st century development with 20"'
century assumptions about automobile powering systems.
The second concern I have regards the right-of way for Violet Avenue. I believe that in Crestview East, Violet Ave (between
the 4 Mile Canyon Creek bridge and 28th) has extra right of way on its north side, as it passes the Boulder Meadows Mobile
Home Park. I believe that at one time, there was the possibility of widening Violet, and so this extra width was secured.
There is also space to widen Violet on its north side from the eastern boundary of the Palmos property east to the creek, as
the City owns the park land in that area. However, there is a single bottleneck to widening Violet at the Pali-nos property.
The Palmos concept plan shows residences very close to the street, precluding the widening of Violet on its north side at its
intersection with Broadway, and through the Palmos property.
If you proceed with this concept plan as presented, then I think you need to be very sure that you will NOT be widening
Violet at any time in the future. You are creating a bottleneck here at Violet and Broadway, and destroying your options.
do not think it is fair to say that you will merely widen Violet on its south side in this area. By doing that, you will once again
be laying the costs of developing the Palmos properly onto the neighbors. Houses on the south side of Violet are very close
to the street, and can ill afford to give up land to make a street wider for the cars that are being added to the system by the
development next door. Their quality of life would be significantly impacted if Violet were to be widened on its south side. If
you think there is any chance you will be widening Violet in the future. then now is the time to acquire the ROW that you
need on its north side through the Palmos Properly.
Thank you very much,
Elizabeth Black
Elizabeth Black
4340 N 13th St.
Boulder, CO 80304
303-449-7532
www.elizabethblackart.com
AGENDA ITEM fk`]Paze 29
From: Elizabeth Black [mailto:elizabeth@elizabethblackart.com]
Sent: Thursday, December 10, 2009 10:59 AM
To: McLaughlin, Elaine; Knapp, Katie; Campbell, Brian; Mahan, Michelle
Cc: boulderplanningboard; christopher@chrisbrownphotography.com; 'Win Franklin';
kentshorrock@hotmail.com
Subject: Palmos Development, Violet Crossing; issues and solutions
Hello Elaine, Katie, Brian, Michelle and Planning Board,
The neighborhood met with Mr. Palmos and had many of our questions about Violet Crossing answered. We
were very pleased to hear about many of the changes Mr. Palmos has made to his plan. We especially liked
the following:
1. Parking: We strongly support all the extra parking that Violet Crossing is providing to its residents. I
think this will go a long way toward helping the neighborhood support this plan. It would be nice if there
could be even more.
2. Zoning: We are very pleased to see that there is no commercial space planned for this
development. I think the current plan will provide a better transition to the neighborhood, and will
significantly ease the parking situation.
3. Architectural Style: The neighborhood liked the proposed style much more than previously proposed
styles.
still have a couple of concerns about Violet Crossing:
1. Transportation; ROW for future Violet widening: In Crestview East, Violet Ave (between the 4 Mile
Canyon Creek bridge and 28th) has extra right of way on its north side, as it passes the Boulder
Meadows Mobile Home Park. I believe that at one time, there was the possibility of widening Violet,
and so this extra width was secured. There is also space to widen Violet on its north side from the
eastern boundary of the Palmos property east to the creek, as the City owns the park land in that area.
However, there is a single bottleneck to widening Violet at the Palmos property. The Palmos concept
plan shows residences very close to the street, precluding the widening of Violet on its north side at its
intersection with Broadway, and through the Palmos property.
If you proceed with this concept plan as presented, then I think you need to be very sure that you will NOT be
widening Violet at any time in the future. You are creating a bottleneck here at Violet and Broadway, and
destroying your options. I do not think it is fair to say that you will merely widen Violet on its south side in this
area. By doing that, you will once again be laying the costs of developing the Palmos property onto the
neighbors. Houses on the south side of Violet are very close to the street, and can ill afford to give up land to
make a street wider for the cars that are being added to the system by the development next door. Their quality
of life would be significantly impacted if Violet were to be widened on its south side. If you think there is any
chance you will be widening Violet in the future, then now Is the time to acquire the ROW that you need
on its north side through the Palmos Property.
2. Drainage and Detention: Currently there is not an adequate crown on Violet Street adjacent to the
Violet Crossing development. As a result, when there is a heavy rain, all the water flows down across
the Palmos property and Violet Street, and into 13th Street. There is not adequate drainage in the 13th
St neighborhood, since the City has allowed developers to fill in borrow ditches as properties have
developed. As a result, the only drainage here is provided by the Violet lateral of the Silver Lake Ditch.
Currently, drainage from Mr. Palmos' property comes across Violet, into the ditch and 13th St., and
floods homeowners on the east side of 13th street. (Please contact Bob Harberg or Peter Rosato with
questions about this situation, as they have been on a neighborhood tour regarding these issues.) We
would like the following changes to be considered as a part of the development of Violet Crossing:
a. Re-establish an adequate crown on Violet Street, to contain sheet flow from rains to the
north side of the street, so they do not flow south across Violet and into the irrigation ditch
lateral or 13th street.
AGENDA ITEM # ' Pa c 30
b. Engineer the detention ponds to include a borrow ditch from the detention ponds back
to the creek, heading in an east-north-east direction, through the adjacent park property and
back to Four Mile Canyon Creek. The land in this area slopes to the east as well as the south,
and it is possible to provide outflow from the ponds back to the creek, at minimal expense. If
you do not provide an outflow to the ponds back to the creek, then they will overtop and flood
the neighborhood to the south, where there is not adequate drainage to handle these flows.
3. Cut-through traffic: In the past, 13th street has had problems with cut-through traffic from people
trying to avoid the light at Violet. A cat was killed and a dog was severely maimed. Subsequently, the
light at Violet was retimed and cut-through traffic has declined somewhat. We are concerned that with
the development of Violet Crossing, we will once again experience more cut-through traffic. We have
many more children on the street these days, and the consequences could be much more serious. We
would like the following changes to be considered:
a. Make sure that the light at Violet is timed properly so that people actually use it and do not
try to avoid it. It may need to be re-timed with the extra traffic from Violet Crossing. It also may
need to stay green longer so that all the cars can get through.
b. Allow left-hand turns onto Broadway from the Violet Crossing driveway on Broadway.
This driveway is fairly close to the light at Violet, so there will be good breaks in the traffic for
them to take advantage of. Left-hand turns are currently allowed from other properties along
North Broadway, including Lucky's Market, all the side streets, and all the commercial
properties along North Broadway.
Thank you very much for your consideration of these issues. I believe that if you address these outstanding
issues, Violet Crossing will be a much better development and the neighborhood will support it more
enthusiastically.
Elizabeth Black
Elizabeth Black
4340 N 13th St.
Boulder, CO 80304
303-449-7532
From: WIN FRANKLIN, JR. [mailto:winfrankjr@msn.com]
Sent: Friday, November 20, 2009 8:03 PM
To: McLaughlin, Elaine
Subject: Re: LUR2009-00068/4474 North Broadway/Palmos
Elaine, I have a couple of additional remarks (is this development still known as Violet
Crossing?).
In previous plans for this property, there was a ROW issue with 14th Street north of the creek.
Has this been resolved? Also, relating to 14th Street, I see only buildings J & K have access to
14th. Is this making good use of this street as an entrance/exit to this property and easy access
to the proposed on-street parking?
Also, in previous plans, the entrance/exit to Violet was not aligned with 13th Street so as to
discourage use of 13th Street as an access/egress to the property. Has this changed?
Is there any on-street parking planned for Violet as with the west and east streets? I understand
the property is providing the minimum on-property parking. Is there going to be any
visitor/overflow parking on-property? Is there any plans for below level parking as was proposed
in previous plans?
AGENDA ITEM {1cPaee 31
As a point of clarity, I noticed in at least one of your correspondences, you referred to the creek
as Four Mile Creek. This creek is located up Boulder Canyon and run along Fourmile Canyon
Drive. The creek running through this property is Four Mile Canyon Creek.
Thank you for your response, Win.
Original Message
From: WIN FRANKLIN, JR. [mailto:winfrankjr@msn.com]
Sent: Friday, October 30, 2009 9:35 AM
To: McLaughlin, Elaine
Subject: Re: LUR2009-00068/4474 North Broadway/Palmos
Elaine, am I correct that this site is now being presented without any retail whatsoever (both MU-
2 and RM-2) and will now be totally residential? Is the present site plan available online for
review? This is quite a change from previous concepts. Thanks, Win.
Original Message
From: WIN FRANKLIN, JR. [mailto:winfrankjr@msn.com]
Sent: Friday, October 23, 2009 7:30 PM
To: McLaughlin, Elaine
Subject: LUR2009-00068/4474 North Broadway/Palmos
Just received Concept Plan Review notice for subject property. Is this a new review of the same
plan that was previously submitted? If so, are there changes? I notice that the eastern property
(RM-2) of this development is not highlighted on the map. Does this mean that this area is not
included in this review? Thank you for your response. Win Franklin, Jr., 4380 13th Street.
December 9, 2009
North Broadway Center Neighbors
RE: Neighborhood Meeting for the Proposed Development on the North-East Corner of Broadway
and Violet
Dear Neighbors:
I would like to thank you for attending the neighborhood meeting last Wednesday December 2, 2009
to discuss the proposal for the development located generally on the North-East corner of Broadway
and Violet. As we discussed at the meeting the City Planning Board was generally supportive of the
prior mixed-use proposed development which contained approximately 100,000 square feet of
building area, multiple three story buildings and a significant amount of commercial space. However,
based on multiple factors including comments we received from the neighborhood, we have revised
the current proposed development as follows:
1. We reduced the project by approximately 15,000 square feet
2. We eliminated all 3 story buildings, all buildings are now 2 story
3. We removed all commercial uses which should reduce traffic
4. We changed the architecture from "modern" to a more "traditional" design
AGENDA ITEM a Page 32
Furthermore, based on your input from the meeting we are going to explore the following:
1. Installing speed bumps on 13`h Street south of Violet
2. Installing "no parking" signage and/or a permit parking only area on 13,h Street south of Violet
3. Having language in residential lease agreements that prohibits tenants from parking on 13th
Street
4. Supplying Eco Passes for the tenants/residents in the proposed development
5. Installing a left turn signal at the light when turning south onto Broadway from Violet
6. Confirming the Broadway-Violet stop light sequencing is properly calibrated
One item we forgot to mention at the meeting is that commonly in residential rental developments
there is a vacancy rate of 5% to 10%. Therefore, at any given time 4 to 8 living units will likely be
vacant and thus will not have any cars in the parking area.
Thank you again for attending the meeting and please feel free to contact Terry Palmos at 303-449-
0951 Ext. 2 with any additional questions or thoughts.
Regards,
North Broadway Center, LLC
AGE+ADA ITEM &Ng,, 33
Attachment E:
Applicant's Whitten Description and Plans of Conce t Plan
community o planning oarchitecture
Violet Crossing
Concept Plan Written Statement
October 19, 2009
Violet Crossing is an important transition from the urban village to the north to the single
family residences to the south. The proposed two story buildings scale down from the 3 story N
buildings of Uptown Broadway. The blend of traditional forms in the architecture at Violet CA
Crossing is compatible with the neighborhood. The highly detailed arbors and arched entryways a
along the streets will provide richness at a pedestrian scale as well as provided a connection to
the homes in the adjoining neighborhood.
y
n
n
The proposed community includes 78 market rate apartments and 18 permanently affordable
condominiums. The dwellings have been organized into 11 buildings with no more than 12
apartments pct building. The sizes of the buildings help create a residential scale urban edge as
well as create a sense of individuality and uniqueness. o
O
x
Summary of Updated Concept °
0
Compared to the 2007 June Planning Board Illustrative Site Plan, the current plan has made the
following improvements: w
0
w
In the 2007 proposal, Buildings Al, A2, D, E, F &G were 3 story structures, The current
proposal has all 2 story structures to better transition to the single family residences immediately
adjacent at the south end of site. No height variances are anticipated.
Current proposal complies with allowed FAR and is significantly less than allowed.
0
w
The 2007 proposal included retail/office space- Current proposal eliminated retail allowing for W
additional residential units to support retail at Uptown Broadway and to the west of the site.
.p
v
The overall building atea for the site has been reduced The 2007 proposal had approximately
100,000 square feet. The current ptoposal has approximately 89,522 square feet; approximately s
10,000 square feet less than the original proposal
ro
r
Environmental Impact Considerations rt ;
A Flood Plain Development application was submitted to the City of Boulder in November
2003. The plans show removal of most of the site from the High Hazard gone through a
combination of grading along the north and south sides of the creek and overlot grading. The
plan allows for the development of the site.
A new Four Mile Canyon Creek flood channel will be designed in compliance with applicable
regulations. The developer will construct the flood channel with the costs shared by the City.
KEPHART O
AGENDA ITEM ?Pare 34
The Wetland Map has been amended to more accurately represent the actual wetland boundary
along the adjacent reach of Four Mile Creek. The wetland mitigation will be designed in
compliance with the applicable regulations.
The enhanced landscaped water quality pond will remain as originally proposed on the southeast
comer of the site.
A Zeriscape design will be utilized for the landscaping. This methodology will conserve the
water usage for irrigation within the development.
The owner intends to integrate green technologies in the building designs. A renewable energy
source is being considered with the incorporation of photovoltaic panels on the roofs of the
carports.
Compliance with NBSP Development Guidelines
The general nature of the neighborhood is one that is evolving from a largely rural area with a
mixture of residential and commercial uses, without a clearly defined character, to a more
innovative urban neighborhood, consistent with the broader Noxth Boulder Subcommunity
Plan.
Major open space has been provided on the south side of the creek, consistent with the North
Boulder Subcornmunity Plan (NBSP To meet the intent of the NBSP, a series of open space
nodes have been created to connect both sides of the creek together. These include the color
garden, the community green, and the water quality pond. All are linked with the
pedestrian/bike trail.
Two story buildings front Broadway Boulevard and Violet Avenue and provide a variety of
details/materials at the street level to enhance the pedestrian experience. The buildings along
Violet Avenue have front doors that address the street and are scaled to be compatible with the
single family across the street. The proposed maximum building height of 35' and 2 stories will
be in compliance with the NBSP guidelines.
The development guidelines of the NBSP are respected with short blocks and pedestrian
friendly/tree lined streets organized on a grid arrangement. In accordance with the Plan, the
residential buildings front the public streets creating a pedestrian streetscape. Garage doors and
parking are concealed within the site.
To comply with the inclusionary zoning, 18 of the total 96 residential units will be permanent
affordable housing, which is 1 unit shy of the 20% contribution. The owner will provide cash in
lieu for the balance. It should be noted these affordable units have been provided with covered
parking and are located on the more desirable east portion of the site, adjacent to park space,
'1'he proposed land use is an entirely residential community with 78 market rate apartments and
18 permanently affordable condominiums. The apartments will be a mix of market rate and.
AGEADA ITEM # (QPaQe 35
affordable condominiums. To offer diversity in the conununity, the apartments will range in size
from 500 square foot studios to 1075 square foot 2 bedroom apartments.
Vehicular and Pedestrian Circulation
A trip generation analysis and trip distribution report is included with this submission.
Vehicular access points from arterial streets have been minimized with one connection off of
Broadway and one connection off of Violet. Buildings ) & K are accessed from 14`' street
extended.
A bus stop is proposed on the northeast corner of Violet & Broadway. From this corner, there
are multiple pedestrian access points into the site: between buildings I & H, H & G, and G & F.
A multi use connector trail has been provided, connecting the private drive aligned with 13'h
street and trail along the creek. A bridge over the creek starting from the color garden will
connect to the future library providing pedestrian & bicycle access.
Violet Crossing has a network of internal paths that are well linked to external connections.
These paths lead to the pedestrian /bike trail, the urban walks along Violet and Broadway, and
to the proposed bus stop. The site is highly connected being along a major bus route and is close
to a primary bike traiL Bike racks will be conveniently distributed through the project to
encourage usage. Residents will be informed of the recreational and commercial amenities
proximate to the site and the walkable routes to these locations. The community expects to
promote usage of the City of Boulder's and RTD's ECO pass as well as the local high frequency
bus. By supporting these programs and by being a pedestrian friendly community, Violet
Crossing expects to minimize the vehicular impact on the adjoining neighborhoods.
w
etorie. ■I
ti
e
w
a
AGENDA ITEM i'' Page 36
t ~ I ~ ~I J
r I
1Sm DATA
r PARBNC 1411105 REQUIRED
■ , _t l ll Qom. ores: 4.66 amRO~.BS4311(1601D) 6
-t - -6 ROW 17[doaor 412aa6 (440DA (3%) ran
MU-21a 10 maoa110 2owoarll.NI t6 71
NK teas 453 (19).459,1) (97Y4 1.55P" Pa 3ItWd a W nra da
UdrnWpWlsvrcwae.(42.63r-)(22 )
.4_ E~XIST1iG EII~(i. _ - - - - - (4 r,weC.Vm U d D- W ad(:a,yce eosa,prel W 2 Tow 71
r r•.- , DeraapEllktSre ksii57 aaas (I S5,1322 so 00%j
Rkt2z r 1.05pate Pr lleRmml..1 16 21
. ll i. 2Z0MNG BRFAgWM( et Ste Areal LS spate Per 2 memo aq rJa da
(ddAWXa )NE7L2781 (121,000gft)0.6FAR=
~~y`'•,~1 72,600st a f1aramammma R%t2 Idol 27
_ J rlwl 1 69-26251 poaldea
,1 r r 3 - Tow % 96
D MtlN [)M2:1.7Saaa{75.4SB41P 350891otaadlsaA- 'Mmpwedpw"1.wwgm[ etr_0tI.%q de erra~
221warlaa ab•td pdigpsnidad'ndr RM2rmnmsylplrrrrr dr psrlilg
°YILI-AGE GREEr s \ PROPOSED T2 aAsproeded 1adeA%42mk*cioredl80re91eprrrltalH
LIBRARY . 'r 1OPEN SPACE 8f8AXO0AM to rcaased rCMI
a a1069 at far M4Cw p.Creo
575744-.Ij 0~-Sp - t Surma
166pP-gm---k reemel ry~ 9~1 pa14eu) Wuwdwof F4aas Tou176a prm arssl lad llna
Opm*m442% d gmssiesn
1'+ s' \ B11■19~ sr - _ 74286!x sf 2 8.S724 B
ItET BEINIT 4 7 857251 B
96ud4.S3=m-21.19(111Zaoe - 1467851 12
5a. A411-20otr AtmTuh(papastA qR 1N2sf
bag Awm tammW 8572 sf 4 2 tk0v 6
{
I, V_` EbgB(gamtohe red 85R4 12U14 2 b.41109 B
i ~l 1 _ - ( wa - • X0(4 ta41:<*1 8549 ]I 4191st2 - 147914 12
14791ti
97C~ ldal aed 1 28a Ilea l.ffi6f 4191 st 2 12
E1
• -''`1j T Wage) 4,4814 2 1.1181+ 9
I x1\1C ~G~IOH ~ 548504 401 (+ru l.8Y,5! D 4.44? s1 iaal prey (4mU 8SAlo3 996
d` W14NW9 tmaN.) 14391st
_ 4 - ~ wr - Bdgl(goys Walaeu) 1439451 ad Mead 89,5725E
Toll n,5t49
S^TD rmaUepaomddcq 13124
lr ~ C ~ Om RM2xk
Total ~26t9
k
a
ed
PROPOSED
t s.
• ®°4 SCR 50. RAt2FharMe lau4s FRWrl~ot%desatta0peur6sUpuamddtl9D
P1 A2 IL
DEVELOPMENT
Bp1974ataot area) 89149
•i 1 X111 4t l• BAIBfqronro6Y aee) 89714
I i nn +eo nr i \ mn
■ULTWSE 7041 ,7.9189 Vicinity/Context imp
3 \ CONNECT
aamddrpatmofbkI 13129
4
t ~ - 13,E TRAIL MAMlL OmRA82 ode •
ACCESS TmW 21,2609
EXISTING ;11 3
EASEMENT I CARPORT
I h I ~x
~ ' c ~ 1r;T 4k
4 '4
k
I - 1 \
PROPERTY LINE
~PEDIBIKE TRAR
1 -
NWTER QUALITY
l K i u POND
- 161 I l?; :7. , ~ ,1r ~~1)
H,.
• ~ a ~ i - I I I l i
t ell 5-'~ '4►~ r I rr x w w
' , -
scale 1:40'
a B
,P ST( P
7. ZRM LEGEND
SOLE 1240
VIOLET AVE. MW-E ~MR•E MU-0 o
-
200 400
BROADWAY RO.W. N
- - - a - ORAISX 0 MR•D ■ BYSX
MU-2 RM•2 T ~LR-0 ER-E ■ wS.X
Illustrative Site~Plan
10.19.2009
lip
J Tf T T TT • T T
r110)
SIDING
' f STUCCO
~r
Y. BRICK
r
rt-
1 ,
i
23
r1'fi~
y S _ -
_f #70
t vl>:w 3
r
h
r ,
- I ~ 4r N -
STUCCO
BRICK
SIDING
VIEW 2 -
VIEW I
ILI
RIM
Key Map
A _.L
rchitectural Concept ` - - - -
_ _ - 10.19.2U09,
lip
1.
to I
~ 4.
I
t - s
f AI
F `-ti