The URL can be used to link to this page

6A - Public hearing to consider a Concept Plan entitled Waterview at 5801-5847 Aparahoe - LUR2010-00058 CITY OF BOULDER PLANNING BOARD AGENDA ITEM MEETING DATE: May 5, 2011 AGENDA TITLE: Public hearing to consider a Concept Plan entitled Waterview, LUR2010-00058, at 5801-5847 Arapahoe Avenue to develop an existing 14.87 acre site (composed of two properties) with 288 attached rental units within three four story buildings at heights up to 55 feet (i.e., over the 40 foot limit in IG and over the 35 foot limit in RH-4). The project site is located on the north side of Arapahoe Avenue immediately adjacent to South Boulder Creek. Applicant/Property Owner: Lookout, LLC REQUESTING DEPARTMENT: Community Planning& Sustainability David Driskell, Executive Director Charles Ferro, Land Use Review Manager Sam Assefa, Senior Urban Designer Karl Guiler, Planner II Public Works Maureen Rait, Executive Director Jeff Arthur, Engineering Review Manager Katie Knapp, Flood/Wetland Administrator 11 Michelle Mahan, Transportation Engineer OBJECTIVE: 1. Hear applicant and staff presentations 2. Hold public hearing 3. Planning Board discussion of Concept Plan. No action is required b Planning Board. SUMMARY: Proposal: Concept Plan review and comment for the proposed development of 288 attached rental units on 14.87 acres (19.36 du/ac). Project Name: Waterview Location: 5801-5847 Arapahoe Avenue Size of Tract: 14.87 acres Zoning: Industrial General (IG) and Residential High - 4 (RH-4) Comprehensive Plan: Light Industrial, Open Space, Other and Open Space, Acquired 45 Agenda Item 6A Page 1 of 55 Project Description: • Development of an existing 14.87 acre site, composed of two properties, with 288 attached rental units within three four-story buildings. Height modifications up to 55-feet to exceed the 35- and 40-foot limits of the RH-4 and IG zones respectively would be required at time of Site Review and would require the project to come before the Planning Board for decision. • Sixty percent of the dwelling units are proposed as one-bedroom units, 35% would be two-bedroom units and 5% would be three-bedroom units. • Parking is proposed to meet parking standards and would be accessed via internal circulation within structured parking wrapped with units and "on-street" parking. • Affordable housing requirements are proposed to be met either with off-site units or payment of in-lieu fees. • See Attachment B for the concept plan and applicant's written statement. ANALYSIS: The detailed Development Review Committee comments (and applicant responses in red) are found within Attachment D. A comprehensive analysis of the proposal follows: Guidelines for Review and Comment The following guidelines will be used to guide the Planning Board's discussion regarding the site. It is anticipated that issues other than those listed in this section will be identified as part of the concept plan review and comment process. The Planning Board may consider the following guidelines when providing comments on a concept plan. 1) Characteristics of the site and surrounding areas, including, without limitation, its location, surrounding neighborhoods, development and architecture, any known natural features of the site including, without limitation, mature trees, watercourses, hills, depressions, steep slopes and prominent views to and from the site; As shown in Figure 1, the subject site is located on the north side of east Arapahoe Avenue immediately adjacent to South Boulder Creek. While the context on the north side of Arapahoe Avenue is largely light industrial with self-storage and automotive uses, the south side of Arapahoe transitions to low density residential, much of which remains within the jurisdiction of the county. The site is nearly 15 acres in size, relatively level and composed of two separate properties, 5801 and 5847 Arapahoe Avenue. To the north of the site is the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) railroad right-of-way and to the south is Arapahoe Avenue, a Boulder County single-family development on Old Tale Road (Canterbury Acres subdivision) and the Flatirons golf course. To the immediate west is a self storage facility and other industrial sites and to the immediate east is the Honda-Acura automobile dealership. Architecture in the area is varied and predominantly industrial in character. Despite previous development approvals on the site (e.g., auto dealership uses and mixed-use industrial, described on page 9), it remains vacant. South Boulder Creek and the associated multi- use path run north-south through the site and a pond is located in the site's northwest corner. These 46 Agenda Item 6A Page 2 of 55 areas are the most wooded on the site. Views towards the mountains are prominent from the location. F- - ~ _ - $ BNSF Rails ay ~r it 4 1 j Ito pp wE { IR=.m.~ - a x ~ yl 'a'• tw 4'11y~ rx 7,/ a xy jrv _ "p. SOUTH BOULDER CP,EEK Multi-Use Path LEGGETT INLET 1 ~ A~ '_r a .,:#~g tk. ~ .us~~~r~~~... .c m'.'~...~`~ Arapahoe AV `Yep ld T DI, Rd I Figure 1- Site Context/Vicinity Map 47 Agenda Item 6A Page 3 of 55 z~y Hirsh Hazard lone 100-YearFlc plain s` Flood Corn EV,);f e. Zone High H andonF.~' Iit r X.t~ hti ~ ~ f f eR- J~ - e~ All r # ~~F \R ti \ r~ ti, ~f ~E 1.` A. 500-Year Flvotploin~ V Figure 2- New floodplain map with designated flood conveyance and high hazard zones. The project site is impacted by the 100-year floodplain of South Boulder Creek as shown by Figure 2 above. A new South Boulder Creek flood mapping study was adopted by the City of Boulder on January 1, 2008. It is a one-dimensional and two-dimensional linked analysis that was completed using a MIKE FLOOD hydraulic model. This study indicates high hazard flood zone along the western side of the site and conveyance flood zone along the northern portion of the site and along South Boulder Creek that runs through the site. The new South Boulder Creek flood mapping study also shows the center of the project site removed from the 100-year floodplain, as illustrated in Figure 2. The new South Boulder Creek flood mapping study has not yet been adopted by FEMA. It is not anticipated that FEMA will adopt the new study until fall of 2012. Until the new study is adopted by FEMA, the City of Boulder is required to regulate to the most restrictive flood map - either the old South Boulder Creek floodplain mapping study or the new South Boulder Creek floodplain mapping study. The old South Boulder Creek flood mapping study indicates that the majority of the project site is impacted by the 100-year floodplain with conveyance flood zone along South Boulder Creek as illustrated in Figure 3. 48 Agenda Item 6A Page 4 of 55 ti `TFff ~ 100-Year Floodplain J!J F~aF' Flood Conveya e Zone /f„ fia fv owl yam- ~ 'F.1 ` a r [4 iea {rt, Z \ v 4 1U0-Year Floodplain ~ ~ zt~ titi ~f. Q f ~t Z Figure 3- Old (FEMA-adopted) 100-year floodplain map with designated flood conveyance zone. The old South Boulder Creek floodplain mapping shows the entire property within the 100-year floodplain. Until the new floodplain maps are adopted by FEMA, any proposed buildings on the property will require floodplain development permits and will be subject to the floodplain regulations. South Boulder Creek and the existing pond located at the northwest corner of the property are both designated wetland areas as illustrated on the map in Figure 4: 49 Agenda Item 6A Page 5 of 55 E - 4 fNi 17-1 714! 11 1, F-L L rJ .4 _ * C r + :YJ, ~M*.. 4 I I"°~, ~ Mfr k ~'GI[~'fRT f[t 'ti `~15t I `rte"` I i n l;f i IiF, Figure 4- Regulatory wetland map. The City of Boulder has a Stream, Wetland and Water Body Protection ordinance (Section 9-3-9, B.R.C.) which regulates development within designated wetland areas and a 50-foot wide buffer area, also illustrated in Figure 4. The current Concept Plan does not show any impacts to these protected areas. The South Boulder Creek corridor is further protected by public easements over the multi-use path, but more specifically an Open Space and Mountain Parks scenic easement "for the purposes of preserving, controlling, and protecting for open space and scenic purposes, the natural and/or scenic conditions" which exists over portions of the creek. No structures are permitted within this easement. These easements are shown in green in Figure 5- 50 Agenda Item 6A Page 6 of 55 ~ q f Scenic i ' easements 5- Ff4 Arapahoe Avenue 0 -TTM Figure 5- Public easements (shown in green) with scenic easements identified by arrows Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP) Designation and Zoning As Figure 6 indicates, the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP) land use designations for the site are 'Light Industrial' and along the creek are 'Open Space, Other' and 'Open Space, Acquired.' The Open Space designations apply to the South Boulder Creek zones, while the majority of areas on the north side of Arapahoe Avenue are Light Industrial. South of Arapahoe, the BVCP land use designations are 'Park, Urban and Other' for the Flatirons Golf Course, 'Very Low Density Residential' for the Old Tale Road community (mostly county properties), and 'Low Density Residential' for the areas at the north end of Cherryvale Road- 51 Agenda Item 6A Page 7 of 55 Open Space, Acquired i i \ Light Industrial P1 Oren Space, Other / Very Low Density Residential Low Density Residential Park. Urban and Other Figure 6- BVCP land use designations in the area. IG IS-2 i P RR-1 sF? RE Figure 7- City zoning (described as follows). 52 Agenda Item 6A Page 8 of 55 Figure 7 below shows the applied city zoning in the area: IG, Industrial General, is the zoning for most of the site (roughly 80%), whereas a smaller 2.5 acre pieces is zoned Residential High- 4 (RH-4). Industrial Service - 2 (IS-2) zoning to the east reflects the automobile dealership, while to the south, low density residential zoning designations, RR-1 (Residential Rural -1) and Residential Estate (RE) exist. P or Public zoning is applied to the golf course. Background The site has several Planned Unit Development (PUD) approvals. The site was originally subject to the Boulder Auto Park PUD (approved in 1985), which permitted the development of the automobile dealership to the east and conceptual development of additional auto dealerships and auto body shops of the subject site of up to 175,000 square feet of floor area. Subsequent PUDs involved amendments to the original plan, one of which was denied by city staff and appealed by the applicant to Planning Board in 1995. Staff denied the amendment on the grounds that the proposal was not within the intent of the original approval and required a Major Site Review rather than an amendment. It is not clear in the city record the outcome of that review, but there is no evidence of Planning Board approval of the application. None of the referenced approvals have since been acted upon on the subject site. In early 2000s, a Concept Plan and Site Review were reviewed which included consideration of 40+ dwelling units, over 200,000 square feet of industrial space, and heights up to 55 feet. While this plan was approved, it was never constructed and the approval has since expired. The BVCP land use designation on the site was changed from Light Industrial to High Density Residential and the site was rezoned to RH-4 along Arapahoe. The land use map change was subsequently changed back to industrial as explained below. The 2000 Major Update to the BVCP, Jobs/ Population study, and Resolution No. 922, resulted in consideration of increasing housing and encouraging mixed use that includes housing on a variety of sites around the city, including sites adjoining the University of Colorado and along multimodal corridors. Resolution No. 922 resulted in the creation of section 9-6-3(g), "Residential Development in Industrial Zoning Districts," B.R.C. 1981 to allow for high density residential development within industrial zoning districts through the Site and Use Review processes if applicable performance standards could be satisfied. This removed the necessity to rezone an industrial zone to a residential zone designation. In 2005, a new Concept Plan was submitted for a total of 137 dwelling units distributed throughout the site pursuant to section 9-6-3(g) above and 46,000 square feet of industrial uses. Perhaps in part due to some neighborhood resistance, this plan did not proceed to Site Review. The property owner requested that the BVCP land use designation for the site be changed from High Density Residential to Light Industrial as part of the 2008 Mid-term review of the BVCP. This change was approved by the City Council based on the following findings- • Light Industrial land use is consistent with surrounding land uses on the north, east and west sides of the property requested for change. • A change to Light Industrial would be compatible with surrounding land uses. • Arapahoe Avenue is a large multi-model corridor which provides a buffer to the residential uses to the south. 53 Agenda Item 6A Page 9 of 55 Although the land use designation was changed back to industrial, RH-4 zoning remains on the southern portion of the site. As stated above, residential uses are permitted within industrial zones per the Land Use Code if the specific criteria referenced above are met. A Use Review is also required for residential uses within industrial zones. Compliance with these criteria would have to be affirmed at time of concurrent Site and Use Review should the current Concept Plan proposal move forward. 2) Community policy considerations including, without limitation, the review process and likely conformity of the proposed development with the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan and other ordinances, goals, policies, and plans, including, without limitation, subcommunity and subarea plans; Staff has identified a number of BVCP policies that are applicable to the project. These are listed within Attachment A. The policies discussed immediately below focus on the broader land use aspects of the project whereas those that follow focus on the specific Community Design policies and the general intent of the Site Review criteria. General policies (including Environment, Transportation and Housing policies) The intensive development of a large site within an industrial area and along South Boulder Creek raises the discussion of the appropriateness of the proposed residential land use and density adjacent to sensitive lands. Broadly, staff finds that the intensification of residential density along Arapahoe Avenue is consistent with the following BVCP policies (full text of the policies are found within Attachment A and staff responses follow each italicized below). • BVCP Policy 1.21, Jobs:Housing Balance. The project will significantly add to workforce housing, which is a needed land use in the city and assists in the reduction of the numbers of persons that need to commute into the city for employment. The use of the land as residential would be consistent with the policy's intent to "converting industrial uses to residential uses in appropriate locations." • BVCP Policy 4.40, Energy-Efficient Land Use. Significant density and a more intense land use pattern would be clustered along a mass transit corridor. • BVCP Policy 6.10, Multi-Modal Development. Arapahoe Avenue has frequent Jump bus service, which promotes the concept of concentrating density on multi-modal corridors and decreasing dependence on the automobile. The site also benefits from the South Boulder Creek multi-use path. • BVCP Policy 7.10, Keeping Low- and Moderate-Income Workers in Boulder. As stated in policy 1.21 above, the development of the vacant site with a residential project would be potentially attractive to those in the local workforce. In regard to developing the industrial site as residential, the following policy is the most applicable- 0 BVCP Policy 5.06 Industrial Zoning. Industrial zoning under the comprehensive plan will provide the opportunity for the location of industries of various types and uses, including those uses considered essential to the Boulder Valley population from a service standpoint. The zoning ordinance will be updated periodically to assure it is adequately accommodating the existing and future needs of a rapidly changing and technologically-oriented global industrial and services employment base. The city will identify areas that should be protected for industrial and office uses. Where appropriate, 54 Agenda Item 6A Page 10 of 55 mixed-use development will be encouraged incorporating residential uses and support services for the employment base. Retaining a portion of the site as residential zoning indicates the intent to enable residential use of the property. Other industrial areas of Boulder have been targeted for residential development - the most prominent example being the Peloton site - also along Arapahoe Avenue. BVCP Policy 1.21 referenced above has guided this approach by encouraging the possibility of "converting industrial uses to residential uses in appropriate locations." At this point, it appears that residential development along the Arapahoe Avenue multi-modal corridor would be appropriate so long as the ultimate design of the project responded well to the Community Design policies, discussed below, as well as to the environmental features on the site. With the concept plan, it is not entirely clear how well the project responds to the preservation and protection of the South Boulder Creek corridor and the wetlands on the site. More detail would be required during the Site Review review phase. Some of the most applicable BVCP policies on South Boulder Creek and environmental protection are listed below (see Attachment A for full text): • BVCP Policy 2.30, Boulder Creek and its Tributaries as Important Urban Design Features. • BVCP Policy 4.09, Wetland Protection. • BVCP Policy 4.20, Preservation of Floodplains. • BVCP Policy 4.21, Flood Management. At time of Site Review, the applicant will have to demonstrate consistency with city flood and wetland regulations to determine compliance with the policies above. Further, the applicant would have to demonstrate how impacts to the sensitive areas and areas within the aforementioned scenic easement will be minimized. The existing zoning regulations allow for consideration of high density residential uses on the site. The IG and RH-4 zoning would permit up to 27 dwelling units per acre where less than 20 units per acre is proposed. Staff finds that if any Site and Use Review application adequately addresses the required criteria for residential uses in industrial zones, successfully addresses the issues related to development in close proximity to riparian environments, and otherwise is a design that excels at meeting the Community Design policies and Site Review criteria, as discussed below, staff would be able to conclude that the site is appropriate for density along the Arapahoe Avenue corridor and one which is consistent with BVCP policies. Community Design policies BVCP policies (e.g., Policy 2.42, Enhanced Design for the Built Environment) and the Site Review criteria (specifically see sections 9-2-14(h)(2)(A) and (B), B.R.C. 1981) aim to create site and building designs that fit into their immediate context by either complementing the existing character of an area or enhancing the existing character. Site design In terms of site design, BVCP Policy 2.42 highlights that projects should have "visual permeability 55 Agenda Item 6A Page 11 of 55 into the site" and should have "well-design functional open spaces with quality landscaping, access to sunlight and places to sit comfortably." The Site Review criteria are more detailed and include lengthy criteria relating to creating quality useable open spaces, attractive landscaping in excess of standards, circulation with an emphasis of accommodating all modes, and parking design that conceals/screens the visibility of parking from the public realm. Many city goals focus on the experience of the pedestrian. Staff understands and can appreciate how the "land-locked" nature of the site, South Boulder Creek, and orientation to views inform and constrain the site design. The site presents a number of design challenges based on the fixed access points and the lack of through-connections to a larger vehicular network in the area. However, the site has great opportunities to create very functional open spaces that can take advantage of mountain views and the creek. Staff finds that the general site design for the project is appropriate based on the following: 1. Buildings are clustered in a manner that locates them away from sensitive riparian areas. 2. Circulation and parking within the project reduce the amount of pavement and create a more multi-modal environment (i.e., "complete streets") that is more permeable and safe for pedestrians. 3. Future connections from the site to adjoining properties would be set up to address the "land- locked" issue discussed above. At time of Site Review, it would be helpful to indicate on the site plan specific areas that would be reserved for new circulation to connect to developments that could occur east and west of the site upon their redevelopment. Areas that will require additional attention are discussed below: Quality and useability of the open space: The site provides the opportunity for significant on-site open space, particularly the more natural settings along the creek, by the pond and in the north east site. The zoning requirements for residential in industrial zones (specifically section 9-6-3(g)) and the Site Review criteria) also require high quality active and passive recreational spaces. Therefore, there will need to be a focus on designing and demonstrating that the more formal spaces on the site will be attractive to active and passive uses, in addition to the natural areas that will need to be protected. At this time, it is unclear about the functionality of many of the open spaces on the site and whether or not the spaces would meet the Site Review criteria and section 9-6-3(g) referenced above. Staff finds that because the site is not within the Parks and Recreation master plan areas for a public park, open space on the site should be designed accordingly to provide similar functions as a public park, including but not limited to greenspaces conducive to sports, picnicking sites, well- designed sitting areas with a mix of sun and shade, ample landscaping and attractive hardscape areas - all of which are designed to attract use. The undeveloped space along Arapahoe will require particular attention to design to the space to be useable and not a dead space disconnecting the building from the streetscape. There will need to be a balance between buffering the space from the traffic and noise impacts of Arapahoe with the use of landscaping or other methods while also not making the site appear walled off or detached from the surrounding context. Staff has provided the applicant with some ideas related to trellises and plantings that could accomplish this. 56 Agenda Item 6A Page 12 of 55 Cross section of the circulation drive: The present driveway design is shown to be 40-feet curb to curb. To implement traffic calming measures and reduce overall impervious surface, staff has recommended to the applicant that the width be reduced to 34-feet [an 18-foot travel lane as required by 9-9-6(d)(3)(A) of the Boulder Revised Code, and 8-feet on each side for parallel parking] curb to curb. Building design The intent of the city's regulations and the BVCP deemphasizes parking and encourages buildings to be oriented directly to streets with a focus on the public realm and place making. While the most important public realms for the project are Arapahoe and South Boulder Creek, emphasis should also be on the relationship of buildings to internal sidewalks or interior open spaces. This relates to the same points as discussed above, where Policy 2.42 also notes, that "buildings should relate positively to public streets, plazas, sidewalks and paths" and be "comfortable to the pedestrian." It further states that "buildings and landscape areas - not parking lots - should present a well- designed face to the public realm, should not block access to sunlight, and should be sensitive to important public view corridors." In general, the design of the buildings would relate well to the internal circulation by concentrating parking internal to the buildings. Staff strongly recommended that the applicant consider individual unit entries along the internal drives to increase the focus on the public realm. Presenting living units directly to the street would significantly improve the building design and increase consistency with BVCP Policy 2.42. Staff is concerned that the architecture may be considered "too busy" and "asymmetrical" and recommended that building forms be simplified with an emphasis on a more unified rhythm. How buildings meet the street/internal circulation and a demonstration that they are conducive to a pedestrian friendly environment with building entries, appropriate fenestration, and attractive landscaping will be important at the Site Review stage. Staff has also questioned the inclusion of the pedestrian bridge, which potentially could create a visual barrier through the site, conflict with the intended permeability into the site and create a pattern of use that removes pedestrians from the street. Staff suggested that the bridge be removed and other alternatives explored. In terms of massing and height, staff is not adverse to height modifications on the property so long as sensitive natural areas are protected, active and passive open spaces are well designed and sensitively is shown to views from the Arapahoe Avenue streetscape. 3) Applicable criteria, review procedures, and submission requirements for a site review; Site Review: The project would require Planning Board approval of a Site Review application due to the requested height modification to build higher than 35 feet. Site Review is also required based on the size of the site, the number of units proposed, and because residential uses are proposed within an industrial zoning district. Submission requirements would be the same as any other Site Review and would have to satisfy the requirements of section 9-2-14(d), B.R.C. 1981. A traffic study would be evaluated as part of the Site Review process. Prior to the public hearing, staff reviews would follow a standard three-week review track where comments or a decision would be 57 Agenda Item 6A Page 13 of 55 rendered at the end of that time. If revisions were required, additional review tracks could be scheduled. Once the application is refined such that a staff recommendation can be made, it is scheduled for Planning Board review. The application could only be approved if Planning Board finds that all the criteria in section 9-2-14(h) and section 9-6-3(g) of the Land Use Regulations are met. The Site Review application is subject to City Council call- up within 30 days of the Planning Board decision. Use Review: Use Review is also required for establishing residential uses within an industrial zone district. This review would be simultaneous to the Site Review and would require consistency with the criteria of section 9-2-15(e), B.R.C. 1981. Preliminary Plat: The project site is comprised of two separate lots. Because the lots are not part of the same subdivision, a preliminary plat would be required at time of Site Review to combine the lots. This would be reviewed to simultaneous to the applications above and is a staff level approval. 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; Floodplain Development Permits: The site is impacted by the 100-year floodplain. Floodplain development permits will be required for all new structures within the 100-year floodplain. CDOT Access Permit: Access to the site must first be approved by the Colorado Department of Transportation. Technical Documents: After Site Review, Technical Documents would be required to allow staff to review more detailed plans to affirm compliance with regulations related to engineering, architecture, landscaping, drainage, lighting etc. Once all the site conditions were found to be compliant with all applicable codes, a building permit for the new structures could be reviewed. Final Plat: Subsequent to approval of the Preliminary Plat, a Final Plat (a Technical Document application) would be required. Building Permits: Each building would require a separate building permit and would have to be consistent with the approved Site Review and Technical Documents. 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; Connections to surrounding areas and properties are inhibited by South Boulder Creek, the BMSF railway along the north lot lines, and existing development to the east. One opportunity for through- connection is to the existing circulation within the adjacent Honda-Acura dealership. The site design in its current iteration permits potential connections not only to the east, but also to the west should redevelopment occur in the future on those lots. Connections with surrounding properties would 58 Agenda Item 6A Page 14 of 55 better integrate the site with its neighbors and would reduce the trips that would have to go onto Arapahoe Avenue for access to neighboring lots. 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; The entirety of the site is impacted by flood plain and wetlands. This is due to the site's proximity to South Boulder Creek and a small pond. Both are significant opportunities as amenities for site users; however, buildings on the site must be designed and sited as to be compliant with applicable flood and wetland regulations. The site also contains a significant number of large mature trees, mainly cottonwoods, along the creek and around the pond. No trees are proposed for removal. 7) Appropriate ranges of land uses; and East Boulder is largely an industrial base for the city and is a major employment center. With the RH-4 zoning that exists, it was contemplated that residential uses in the area would be appropriate, if designed according to standards within the Land Use Code. Locating new residential units on a multi-model corridor in close proximity to a high percentage of employment sites is consistent with city policies to allow for more work force housing in the city. Development of the site as residential helps mitigate the job:housing imbalance identified in the BVCP. 8) The appropriateness of or necessity for housing. See above. PUBLIC COMMENT AND PROCESS: Required public notice was given in the form of written notification mailed to all property owners within 600 feet of the subject site and a sign was posted on the property for at least 10 days. All notice requirements of Section 9-4-10(g), B.R.C. 1981 have been met. An additional courtesy notice of the Planning Board public hearing was also sent to neighbors. A neighborhood meeting was held on April 18, 2011 and was well attended. At that meeting, the following concerns were raised: • Traffic: Significant concerns were expressed regarding traffic and potential conflicts created when vehicles are turning onto Arapahoe from the project site and Old Tale Road. Questions were raised whether a stop light could be installed at the intersection. Arapahoe Avenue was found to be already overly impacted by traffic. • Density: Concerns about the compatibility of nearly 300 additional residential units in an area that is defined by industrial and low density residential uses were expressed. Concerns were raised about the proposed project setting up a greater likelihood of industrial to residential conversions along Arapahoe per the city zoning regulations. 59 Agenda Item 6A Page 15 of 55 Questions were brought up about the city's policies on infill residential development and the future intent of the northwest portion of the site that is not proposed for development at this time. • Flood: There were significant concerns about development near the flood plain and the grading activities that have occurred on the site and that such grading may increase risk of flooding on properties along Old Tale Road. Accounts of a flood in 1967 were raised. There was a perception that county flood regulations may be more restrictive than city regulations for the area based on denied permits on county lots. The city flood administrator was at the meeting to answer detailed questions on flood regulation. • Coordination with Boulder County: In regard to traffic and flood, residents indicated concern about the lack of coordination between the city and county regarding development of the subject property. City staff clarified that any legal decisions relative to development of the property would be based in city regulations, but that does not preclude county comment on any application if they desire to comment. Residents indicated that they would contact the Boulder County Commissioners regarding the project. • Well Water: Questions were raised about whether the proposed buildings would impact well water levels along Old Tale Road. • Building design: Concerns were raised about the proposed heights of the building and the discussion related to how the building height measurement is calculated per the city code. Written public comments on the proposal received during the review process are found within Attachment C. STAFF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION: No action is required on behalf of the Planning Board. Public comment, staff, and Planning Board comments will be documented for the applicant's use. Concept Plan Review and comment is intended to give the applicant feedback on the proposed development plan and provide the applicant direction on submittal of the site review plans. Approved B D id Driskell, Ex u i hector Department of Community Planning and Sustainability ATTACHMENTS: A: Applicable BVCP policies to the proposal B: Waterview Concept Plan and written statement dated March 21, 2011 C: Public comments D: Development Review Committee comments (and applicant responses in red) dated April 8, 2011 60 Agenda Item 6A Page 16 of 55 ATTACHMENT A Applicable BVCP policies The following BVCP policies have been found applicable to the project: 1.21 Jobs:Housing Balance. Boulder is a major employment center, with more jobs than housing for people who work here. This has resulted in both positive and negative impacts including economic prosperity, significant in-commuting, and high demand on existing housing. The city will continue to be a major employment center and will seek opportunities to improve the balance of jobs and housing while maintaining a healthy economy. This will be accomplished by encouraging new mixed use neighborhoods in areas close to where people work, encouraging transit-oriented development in appropriate locations, preserving service commercial uses, converting industrial uses to residential uses in appropriate locations, and mitigating the impacts of traffic congestion. 2.19 Compatibility of Adjacent Land Uses. In order to avoid or minimize noise and visual conflicts between adjacent land uses that vary widely in use, intensity or other characteristics, the city will use tools such as interface zones, transitional areas, site and building design and cascading gradients of density in the design of subareas and zoning districts. With redevelopment, the transitional area should be within the zone of more intense use. 2.30 Boulder Creek and its Tributaries as Important Urban Design Features. Boulder Creek and its tributaries will serve as unifying urban design features for the community. Within available appropriations, the city and county will support the preservation or reclamation of the creek corridors for natural ecosystems, wildlife habitat and cultural resources, for recreation or trails; to provide flood management; to improve air and water quality; and to provide a contrast to urban development. Trail development will be sensitive to the ecology, terrain and privacy of adjacent residents and surroundings. 2.31 Commitment to a Walkable City. The city and county will promote the development of a walkable city by designing neighborhoods and business areas to provide easy and safe access by foot to places such as neighborhood centers, community facilities, transit stops or centers, and shared public spaces and amenities. 2.32 Trail Corridors/Linkages. In the process of considering development proposals, the city and county will encourage the development of trails and trail linkages for appropriate uses such as hiking, bicycling or horseback riding, so as to provide a variety of alternative recreation and transportation opportunities. Implementation of this goal will be achieved through the coordinated efforts of the private and public sectors. 2.39 Sensitive Infill and Redevelopment. Overall, infill and redevelopment will be expected to provide significant benefits to the community and the neighborhoods. The city will develop tools such as neighborhood design guidelines to promote sensitive infill and redevelopment. The city will work with neighborhoods to protect and enhance neighborhood character and livability. 2.40 Physical Design for People. 61 Agenda Item 6A Page 17 of 55 The city and county will take all reasonable steps to ensure that new development and redevelopment, public as well as private, be designed in a manner that is sensitive to social, physical and emotional needs. Broadly defined, this will include factors such as accessibility to those with limited mobility; provision of coordinated facilities for pedestrians, bicyclists and bus-riders; provision of functional landscaping and open space; and the appropriate scale and massing of buildings related to neighborhood context. 2.42 Enhanced Design for the Built Environment. Through its policies and programs, the city will encourage or require quality architecture and urban design in private sector development that encourages alternative modes of transportation, provides a livable environment and addresses the elements listed below. a) The context. Projects should become a coherent part of the neighborhood in which they are placed. They should be preserved and enhanced where the surroundings have a distinctive character. Where there is a desire to improve the character of the surroundings, a new character and positive identity as established through area planning or a community involvement process should be created for the area. Special attention will be given to protecting and enhancing the quality of established residential areas that are adjacent to business areas. b) The public realm. Projects should relate positively to public streets, plazas, sidewalks and paths. Buildings and landscaped areas-not parking lots-should present a well-designed face to the public realm, should not block access to sunlight, and should be sensitive to important public view corridors. c) Human scale. Projects should provide pedestrian interest along streets, paths and public spaces. d) Permeability. Projects should provide multiple opportunities to walk from the street into projects, thus presenting a street face that is permeable. Where appropriate, they should provide opportunities for visual permeability into a site to create pedestrian interest. e) On-site open spaces. Projects should incorporate well designed functional open spaces with quality landscaping, access to sunlight and places to sit comfortably. Where public parks or open spaces are not within close proximity, shared open spaces for a variety of activities should also be provided within developments. f) Buildings. Buildings should be designed with a cohesive design that is comfortable to the pedestrian, with inviting entries that are visible from public rights of way. 4.09 Wetland Protection. Natural and human-made wetlands are valuable for their ecological and, where appropriate, recreational 62 Agenda Item 6A Page 18 of 55 functions, including their ability to enhance water and air quality. Wetlands also function as important wildlife habitat, especially for rare, threatened and endangered plants and wildlife. The city and county will continue to develop programs to protect and enhance wetlands in the Boulder Valley. The city will discourage the destruction of wetlands, but in the rare cases when development is permitted and the filling of wetlands cannot be avoided, new wetlands will be created or degraded wetlands will be restored. 4.20 Preservation of Floodplains. Undeveloped floodplains will be preserved or restored where possible through public land acquisition of high hazard properties, private land dedication and multiple program coordination. Comprehensive planning and management of floodplain lands will promote the preservation of natural and beneficial functions of floodplains whenever possible. 4.21 Flood Management. The city will protect the public and property from the devastating impacts of flooding in a timely and cost- effective manner while balancing community interests with public safety needs. The city will manage the potential for floods by implementing the following guiding principles: a) Preserve floodplains b) Be prepared for floods c) Help people protect themselves from flood hazards d) Prevent unwise uses and adverse impacts in the floodplain e) Seek to accommodate floods, not control them 4.40 Energy-Efficient Land Use. The city and county will encourage the conservation of energy through land use policies and regulations governing placement, orientation and clustering of development and through housing policies and regulations. The conservation of energy is served by the development of more intense land use patterns; the provision of recreation, employment and essential services in proximity to housing; the development of mass transit corridors; and efficient transportation. 5.06 Industrial Zoning. Industrial zoning under the comprehensive plan will provide the opportunity for the location of industries of various types and uses, including those uses considered essential to the Boulder Valley population from a service standpoint. The zoning ordinance will be updated periodically to assure it is adequately accommodating the existing and future needs of a rapidly changing and technologically-oriented global industrial and services employment base. The city will identify areas that should be protected for industrial and office uses. Where appropriate, mixed use development will be encouraged incorporating residential uses and support services for the employment base. 6.12 Neighborhood Integration. The city and county will strive to protect and improve the quality of life within neighborhoods while at the same time facilitating the movement of vehicular, bike and pedestrian traffic. Improving access and safety within neighborhoods by controlling vehicle speeds will be given priority over vehicle mobility. Transportation actions will not be implemented solely to shift a problem or impact from one location to another. Neighborhood needs and goals will be balanced against the community benefit of a transportation improvement. 7.04 Populations with Special Needs. The city and county will encourage development of housing for very low and low income populations with special needs including facilities for the older adults, people with disabilities and other populations requiring group homes or other specialized facilities where appropriate. The location of such housing should be in proximity to shopping, medical services, entertainment and public transportation. Every effort will be made to avoid concentration of these homes in one area. See Policy 2.40 Physical Design for People and Policy 63 Agenda Item 6A Page 19 of 55 6.05 Accessibility.) 7.06 Mixture of Housing Types. The city and county, through their land use regulations and incentive programs, will encourage the private sector to provide and maintain a mixture of housing types with varied price ranges and densities, which attempt to meet the affordability needs of a broad range of the Boulder Valley population. This includes families, essential workers, older adults, persons with disabilities, at-risk children and adults and vulnerable, very low income residents. (See Policy 2.18 Mixture of Complementary Land Uses and Policy 2.42 Enhanced Design for the Built Environment.) 7.10 Keeping Low- and Moderate-Income Workers in Boulder. The city will explore policies and programs to increase housing for low and moderate income Boulder workers, particularly essential workers, by fostering housing opportunities through mixed use and multi- family development, developing permanently affordable housing on vacant and redevelopable sites, by considering the conversion of commercial and industrial zoned or designated land to residential use, and providing preferences within city-subsidized projects for housing Boulder's workforce. (See Policy 2.21 Mixed Use.) 64 Agenda Item 6A Page 20 of 55 WOOD r v 1 P B A W PAVLT. BfRGNER JAIAJARCHITECTj PC - y~ NMN NN 13 1 71 __j Fr-f--~ F- F- F i MEE s,a s sx WATERVIEW 65 CONCEPT PLAN REVIEW 1. The project anticipates a variance for height modification to allow WATERVIEW buildings within both the IG and RH-4 zoning to increase in height, not BOULDER, COLORADO to exceed 55 feet relative to historic grade as measured by the 1963 topographic map. Per zoning, IG is limited to 40 feet maximum height CONCEPT PLAN REVIEW and RH-4 is limited to 35 feet maximum height. MARCH 21, 2011 2. Public infrastructure improvements are anticipated to include bus stop Introduction: improvements along Arapahoe Road. Wood Partners is pleased to present this proposal for the WATERVIEW 9-2-14(e) Additional Application Requirements for Height Modification apar tments, a new multi-family rental housing community located at 5847-5801 The required documentation providing shadow analysis will be provided WOOD Arapahoe Road in Boulder, Colorado. This site presents a unique and exciting I, A i;1 N 1 11 ti design opportunity, as it includes portions of South Boulder Creek and its within the Site Review process. associated riparian areas, the South Boulder Creek scenic, pedestrian and Compliance with State Statutes and Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan: equestrian easements, the existing bikeway, wetland influences, mature trees, and the pond on the northern end. These many site elements directed us to a The site meets all of the criteria for residential development in the industrial design solution that achieves the density required to make the project feasible zoning district, per Section 9-6-3(g) as confirmed in previous reviews. while disturbing none of the elements listed above. To achieve this goal, we have designed a project that consolidates the density in three, 4 story buildings In relation to the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan: that encapsulate the parking required to accommodate our residents and their guests. As a result of this approach, residential units are oriented outward, 1.02 Principles of environmental sustainability: which gives most units views to these splendid natural and existing site amenities and/or magnificent views to the west, while concealing from view Environmental sustainability for this project include building efficiency over 90 percent of the parking. The buildings are sited to provide visual and through design details, building envelope, material and product physical permeability into and through the site, as well as view corridors to the selections, Energy Star certified products, site orientation, and west from the bikeway and open spaces. consolidated density resulting in plentiful open spaces. Process: 1.21 Jobs: Housing Balance: Given the zoning, size and location of the site, we anticipate a three step process The proposed project is proximate to many business and industrial per the Title 9 review procedures: facilities. The project will provide a viable workforce housing opportunity and contribute to the improvement of the job I housing 1. Concept Plan review and Comments balance and reduce the in-commuting from outside the City of Boulder. 2. Site Review 3. Technical Documents and Building Permits 2.30 Boulder Creek and its Tributaries as Important Urban Design 4. Compliance with Title 9 Land Use Regulations: Features: The project will be fully compliant with Title 9. South Boulder Creek and its environs is a major natural feature through the site. The contemplated development does not intrude on or disturb 9-2-13(e) Additional Information or Processes (within Concept Plan Review) this resource, and thereby preserves the many benefits of the existing natural environment and ecosystem. WATERVIEW BOULDER, COLORADO MARCH 21, 2011 CONCEPT PLAN REVIEW P B A 66 YU11Ua RUM PAVI i. BERGRER lA!IiI HiTECT/PC COPYRIGHT 27611 PAUL T GERGHER, AIA, ARCHITEC'K PC/ ALL RIGHTS RES ERVEO 2.31 Commitment to a Walkable City: d) Permeability CONCEPT PLAN REVIEW The site offers a bus stop on the Arapahoe Road frontage, as well as The project creates visual and physical permeability through the site direct connections to the bikeway that exists in a north-south direction from Arapahoe Road and from the bikeway system on the east side of through the site. Both of these systems are established, well used, and the development. will provide residents the opportunity to travel to their destinations without the use of an automobile. e) On-Site Open Spaces: The project development is compact, and as a result site coverage by 2.32 Trail Corridors 1 Linkages: buildings, parking and drives is minimized. This design permits The project will provide linkage to the existing bikeway trail system extensive opportunities for functional and contiguous open spaces, through the site. quality landscaping, active and passive outdoor areas, and undisturbed existing natural features including the riparian area along the creek. WOOD 2.40 Physical Design for People: I, A 1% 1 N f 1% ti Buildings: The proposed development will be designed in a manner that is sensitive f) to the social and physical needs of its residents and guests. The site, There are 3 buildings proposed for the development, 2 of which buildings, and all interior and exterior amenities will be accessible to surround parking facilities that will provide the majority of parking those with limited mobility. required for the project, as well as other functions such as bicycle parking, recycling stations and trash facilities. The 3' a building (Building 2.42 Enhanced Design for the Built Environment: #3) will contain the rental / recreation center that will include rental offices, cyber cafe, fitness center, community room, and other ancillary a) The Context: spaces. There will be a pool and spa facility adjacent to Building 3 for The project site is situated between a storage facility to the west and an the use of residents and their guests, as well as additional parking automobile dealership to the east. The northern boundary is the Colorado facilities for bicycles. Buildings 2 and 3 will be connected via a bridge and Southern Railroad, and the southern boundary is Arapahoe Road, for access to parking and project amenities. All units within the project with large-lot single family residences to the south. As a result, the will have private porch or balcony spaces, and many grade level units project will create a new and positive identity, as well as a grid and will have private walks from the walkway system directly to their units. framework for future development. The project contemplates 288 - 300 dwelling units, composed of b) The Public Realm: approximately 60 percent 1 bedroom units, 35 percent 2 bedroom units, and 5 percent 3 bedroom units. The unit sizes will range from 720 The project relates positively to Arapahoe Road by being set back to square feet to 1250 square feet. provide contiguous open space and landscape opportunities, while protecting residents from noise created by vehicular traffic. The project 4.09 Wetland Protection: further protects the existing creek, open space and bikeway features by not interfering with their presence. Additionally, over 90 percent of All buildings are sited to avoid any and all wetland boundaries. project parking is not visible and, therefore, views into the site are of buildings, landscaped areas, and pedestrian ways, not parking. 4.20 Preservation of Floodplains: The proposed site design has no building development in the currently c) Human Scale: defined City of Boulder Flood Conveyance Zone. The project creates pedestrian interest and compatibility by providing The proposed site design has no development of any kind in the walkway and tree lawn systems through the site that relate to residential currently defined City of Boulder High Hazard Zone. unit porches and entries, by building entries, internal bikeways, patterned paving elements, street furniture opportunities, lighting, and WATERVIEW many and various open space areas. BOULDER, COLORADO MARCH 21, 2011 CONCEPT PLAN REVIEW P B A 67 YU11Ua RUM PAVI i. BERGRER lA!IiI HiTECT/PC COPYRIGHT 27611 PAUL T GERGHER, AIA, ARCHITEC'K PC/ ALL RIGHTS RES ERVEO CONCEPT PLAN REVIEW 4.39 Energy Conservation and Renewable Energy: Conditions: The project encourages the conservation of energy by condensing Adequacy of infrastructure, utilities: all current utilities are anticipated to be development and thereby reducing site coverage. Additionally, adequate for the proposed development; the site is on an arterial, Arapahoe orientation of residential units for solar access is also considered. As a Road. byproduct of the design, residences contain fewer exterior walls, on , average, than less dense designs, thereby producing a more energy- Traffic: a traffic study has been prepared to assess trip generation by this efficient living environment. Building envelope, equipment, and project. It is included in this submittal. The proposed site development has a ENERGY STAR appliances will all be specified for high efficiency. main entry drive, centerlined on Old Tale Road, which exists on the south side of Arapahoe Road. There is also a right-in, right-out drive proposed at the 4.40 Energy Efficient Land use: southwest corner of the site. WOOD The project is located on a mass transit corridor, in addition to direct to the bikeway, which provides opportunities for residents to Wetlands: the project respects all current wetland boundaries. it ti i; > > f access ti avoid the use of automobiles. Floodplain: all buildings are above the floodplain. 4.42 Waste Minimization and Recycling: Grading: the site has minimal topography where development is proposed. During and after construction, the project will place a high priority on Grading will be moderate for buildings and landscaping. The site shall be the recycling of waste. Construction waste will be minimized by accessible. repetitive systems and dimensioning that maximizes the use of materials. The buildings will have recycling collection centers that are convenient Private drives / access easements: roadways within the project shall be private to the residents and encourage residents to recycle. drives with public access easements. Roadways and emergency access drives will be sized to accommodate emergency vehicles. 6.02 Reduction of Single Occupancy Auto Trips: Reduction of single occupancy auto trips can be achieved by the Fire and life safety: the site plan will maintain all emergency vehicle turning project's proximity to a large segment of Boulder's workplace, by access radius requirements. Access to the site will be via the main entrance on to the trailway system and mass transit, and the encouragement of Arapahoe Road, or the secondary access in the southwest corner of the site, also carpooling. Additionally, project amenities including fitness center, pool along Arapahoe Road. and spa, will provide recreation opportunities that will not require residents to travel off-site. Pedestrian access: primary routes are via walk systems intersecting the multi- use walk proposed along Arapahoe Road, and the existing bikeway system. The 6.04 Multimodal Strategies: walk along Arapahoe Road is proposed as a 12 foot wide multi-use path, with street trees and other landscaping. A bus stop is also located along the Arapahoe The ease of connection to bus lines, the bikeway and trail systems will Road frontage, approximately 100 feet east of the main entrance drive. all encourage non-auto transit. Parking: Parking is provided for residents and guests in 2 parking structures 7.10 Keeping Low and Moderate Income workers in Boulder: within the footprints of buildings 1 and 2. All this parking is shielded from The 1, 2, and 3 bedroom units, together with the built and natural public view, as well as from the project residences. There are 8 spaces, on amenities and the project location, will attract young to middle-age grade, within the footprint of Building 3 for the use of staff and prospective professionals and persons of moderate income. Residents are likely to renters. The remaining parking is surface parking, all located to be include single individuals, roommates, young couples empty nesters, inconspicuous or out of site of public view. Bicycle parking is also retirees, and perhaps some young families. The units will be designed to accommodated, both in the garage structures and at other exterior locations. appeal to all these groups and the project will, therefore, cater to the WATERVIEW I} orkforce of Boulder. BOULDER, COLORADO MARCH 21, 2011 CONCEPT PLAN REVIEW P B A 68 YCHUa RUM PAVI i.BERGRER lA!IiI HiTECT/PC COPYRIGHT 2611 PAUL TGERGHER,AIA, ARCHITEC'K PC/ ALL RIGHTS RESERVEO Describe how the proposed development meets and addresses content plan CONCEPT PLAN REVIEW criteria: A) Techniques and strategies for environmental impact avoidance, minimization or mitigation: The proposed development will include building efficiency through design details, building envelope, material 1 and product selections, Energy Star certified products and site orientation. The project will result in many large and contiguous open spaces, and leave the natural South Boulder Creek habitat and environs undisturbed. The project will remove no existing trees. WOOD Housing provided at this location will be conducive to reduced I, A 1% 1 f 1% ti automobile trips and attractive for workforce proximity to jobs and amenities. The location also encourages RTD ridership and direct bikeway access. Pedestrian activity is encouraged through open space, access, and the biketivay. Buildings have been situated to provide view corridors through the site, both from Arapahoe Road looking north as well as from the bikeway looking west. Additionally, residential units shall have views toward South Boulder Creek, the Flatirons and mountain peaks, and other open spaces within the site. B) Techniques and strategies for practical and economically feasible travel demand management: Focused on South Boulder Creek and the bikeway, and including the bus stop on Arapahoe Road, the project will encourage the use of alternative transit methods. C) Proposed land use and housing type, mix, sizes, percentage affordable units, special design characteristics to assure affordability. The existing zoning, IG for the majority of the site and RH-4 on the remainder, will be maintained. The project proposes approximately 288 apartment units, of which 60 percent will be 1 bedroom, 35 percent will be 2 bedrooms, and 5 percent will be 3 bedrooms. At present, the developer contemplates paying the fee in fulfillment of the affordable housing requirement, in lieu of providing affordable units on site or at another location. Conclusion: Waterview is a project that will fulfill a portion of the housing need that currently exists in the City of Boulder, and it will accomplish this goal with the utmost respect for the site and its natural attributes. Waterview will also be a place its residents will love to call home, because, by design and WATERVIEW implementation, it will anticipate their housing needs and desires, it Xvill be convenient and efficient, and it will fulfill and exceed their expectations. BOULDER, COLORADO MARCH 21, 2011 CONCEPT PLAN REVIEW P B A 69 YU11Ua RUM PAVI i. BERGRER lA!IiI HiTECT/PC COPYRIGHT 27611 PAUL T GERGHER, AIA, ARCHITEC'K PC/ ALL RIGHTS RES ERVEO ii~ 0. -TTT~ - , ' - - - 192~~ ' CONTEXTUAL SITE PLAN r r 1 & ZON I NG I AA Poo ~ r- ~ ~~('F Lit.. WOOD s RAIN S" r~+ PA K 1 ti 1 11 Tf~Ac A~A - 44 G l~ y , I . 04 ► N (a- 4 .0 Apt, c of li L :0-- mom ARAPAHOE AVE r,. let 1 r ! W0 T' i tl f at Al WATERVIEW BOULDER COLORADO MARCH 21, 2011 CONCEPT PLAN REVIEW P B AG~y~G gLpVV ~J{J 70 PAVI T. BERGHER lA A1A HIiCR EC PC C0PFRIGRTQX11 FAULT BERG ERAIAARENITECTRIALLRICKSRESERVED CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN ` `tom cotOAAft D A01'1 A I I X~ POND I ~ - PROPOSED 81KE PATH I , REST AREA PULL-OFF t WOOD NORTHEAST SITE II I~ 1 PROJECT MIX EMERGENCY BLDG. TYPE 1-BED 2-BED 3-BED TOTALS GARAGE ACCESS RD is EXISTING BIKE PATH PARKING LINE OF HIGH 1 f i / \ BLDG.1 68 34 8 110 170 HAZARDZONE x / BLDG.2 64 34 4 102 270 F r,( i BLDG.3 40 33 3 76 TOTALS 172 101 15 288 440 G UNIT% 60% 35% 5% BUILDING #1 TOTAL SURFACE PARKING 68 TOTAL PARKING PROVIDED 508 LINE OF CITY OF BOULDER CARS PER UNIT = 1.76 GARAGE #1 CONVEYANCE ZONE CARS PER BEDROOM = 1.21 i BUILDING HT, MAX. 4 STORIES 1 N.T,E- 55' POTENTIAL FUTURE TOTAL OPEN SPACE CALCULATIONS 1 DENSITY SITE CONNECTION IG RH4 TOTAL SITE AREA 14.87 ACRES NORTHEAST SITE AREA 2,7 ACRES a ➢ NET SITE AREA 12.17 ACRES 100% I v PEA NET SITE COVERAGE BY STRUCTURES 139,905 SF 26% NET SITE COVERAGE BY PARKING+DRIVES 59,103 SF 12 % 72'-4" NET RESULTING OPEN SPACE 7.6 ACRES 62 M t \ y a ¢ +?X OPEN SPACE (WETLAND FIGURED AT 50%) 5.9 ACRES 48% A 0 r,: NET OVERALL DENSITY = 23.6 DUTACRE J ~O BUILDING AREA BUILDING #2 0- BUILDING #3 J BUILDING #1 127,258 SF BRIDISSA BUILDING #2 117,478 SF LEVEL. BUILDING #3 87,810 SF GARAGE #2 TOTAL BUILDING AREA (WITH DECKS) 332,546 SF LINE DF Cm vF 84' 0" BOULDER GARAGE #1 50,150 SF CONVEYANCE ZONE POOUSPA GARAGE #2 79,550 SF J / TOTAL GARAGE AREA 129,800 SF - GROSS BUILDING AREA 462,346 SF FAR (BUILDINGS + GARAGES) O.87: 1 RENTAL r f ; FAR (HABITABLE BUILDINGS ONLY) 0.63:1 1. ' ECREATION III 119'•7" N J w 41MONUItENT CENTER StCNAGE 1 -b- MO9LIMENT N - WATERVIEW SICNAGE 1 ° ) Il- 1:11. I,I BOULDER, - COLORADO W'- O" V LANDSCAPE BUFFER A D A I A X 0 E N 0 I 0 MARCH 21, 2011 CONCEPT PLAN REVIEW APPROX. LOCATION OF BUS 12' MULTIUSE PATH D L 0 T I L E A 0 A 0 STOP 180ARDING AREA 0 50, 150' P B A 71 25, 100' PAVL T. BERGNERIAIA/ A HiTECT/PC L ll Co PYRICMT®7d11 PAUL T RERGNER,AIA, ARCHITECT PC) ALL RIGHTS RESERVED SITE SECTION AT PLAZA WOOD Tl :1r MI ' I ~ ' j yry, 31, C { T rlF 5'-0" , 5'-0" , T-0" 81-0" , 241-0" 8'-0" 71-0" , 51-0" , 5'-0" , Iloe SIDE TREE PARALLEL 2-WAY ROAD PARALLEL TREE SIDE WALK LAWN PARKING PARKING LAWN WALK 74'-0" WATERVIEW BOULDER, COLORADO MARCH 21, 2011 CONCEPT PLAN REVIEW 72 P B A YUllUa RUM PAVI i. BERGRER lA!IiI HiTECT/PC COPYRIGHT 27611 PAUL T GERGHER, AIA, ARCHITEC'K PC/ ALL RIGHTS RES ERVEO mopp licit- - ,y„ _ lot,` T_ I _ 1r M, 9 ! ,k y. } 1r 'r limp i Iwo -77 r. i w r 'Y r a ~ TEL s-YI ~71 A~ ~ ~ /".~f~-.T ,~~a Ejkl°PY>tfr'1'.~^~' A, • x??« a = ~ - t o I t:~yy~ V r' ~Y~ .lat ai I tr ~~7'.f x. ^ jJ ~ ,~'"x w Ir" ~~tN' ~ ~ 2 ~ f'" ~r 1 1, t b Y t R! 157 ~ ~ ~!tYLt + - ~S' _ - ! 0 , ' \ .,rj ++T y,, ~c 1 J"~ I~ 1, ~I I~_ 1. - WATERVIEW BOULDER7 COLORADO MARCH 21, 2011 CONCEPT PLAN REVIEW WOOD 73 11AK1N1I1 P B A PAVL T. BERGRER/AIA/0. HITECT/PC CGPVRIGHT V X11 PAULT RERGNER, AIA, ARCH ITEC'[ PCIALL RIGHTS RESERWD BUILDING ELEVATION ALONG ARAPAHOE ROAD v A~ I STUCCO PANEL SIDING CORRUGATED METAL SIDING STANDING SEAM METAL RAILING METAL ROOF III - ► STEEL C_CHANNEL STEEL PEDESTRIAN - _ i BRICK VENEER BRIDGE 1-7 F- ~rr 41. IN ► WATERVIEW BOULDER, COLORADO MARCH 21, 2011 CONCEPT PLAN REVIEW WOO D I,ARINf1, 4 P B A 74 PaVI i. BERGRER lalala HiTECi/PC CCP RIGHTQ7611 PAUL TGERGHER,AIA,ARCHITECT PC/ ALLRIGHTS RESERVED - _ 7m• & - SITE GENERATED P1 WE ' 7 a , W f - ' TRIP DISTRIBUTION - - _ WOOD K - _ - =a m v - _ a5mn s -Mes nctls EE _ fs-c _ JJJ a= _ - - I K OLD TALE RD _ Lp =Z F.E.R s.. 1 - 1 - zma 6l 196. I C y ! - - FL- U LEGEND WATERVIEW XX% DIRECTIONAL DISTRIBUTION OF SITE GENERATED TRIPS BOULDER COLORADO A-1 ~IPa:~a L -T NOCHANGESP;Ero6E~~AOE I1H DR kIN,WITHCJTWRIT-_NPERM ICNOFH4RRISKxI-ERSM~TH MARCH 21, 2011 CONCEPT PLAN REVIEW ISSUE DATE:, 03-14-4~~~~I DsNOEN MEK DATE REVIS.ONCOMMENTS WATERVIEW Umms KOCHGR SMITH CHR'OEY'. MEK DRAWN 31 RAK BOULDER, COLORADO SITE GENERATED TRIP 1 ` ` • • " ` JODNUik ms 391 Speer BI Suite 390 oe P B A TRIP GENERATION DISTRIBUTION Denver, Colorado 80204 75 ANALYSIS Phone (303) 6236300 1 lu I, Fax (303) 6236311 T. 7 eRT.'E81 !7W7 r[cTr Pa CGPYRIGHT 2 7611 PAUL T 19 ERGH ER, AIA, ARCHITECT PC ALL RIGHTS RES EIII . u' ! f 6 SITE GENERATED }r~ o TRIP ASSIGNMENT y 4 LLi - - x z J/ _ WO 0 D Asa a:... . ~ RIF s-. n 7 - Him lr IF ?%I- Ifts OLD TALE RD SIMI a MIS ` 1 3 I r - - 6 - a1 L ' , + TI I "Vo LEGEND 44 - - AM(PM) PEAK HOUR 4fV WATERVIEW F %X %%i TRAFFIC VOLUME (VPH) _ N - TOTAL DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUME - - Q!~ BOULDER, COLORADO NoCWCESNRE-ORE MAET0THIS DR4uANA,Y OL,VVE-,ENPERMSSONCr,ARRSKOCHER SMITH MARCH 21, 2011 CONCEPT PLAN REVIEW ISSUE DATE: 814.11 Bsv:BBY MEK DATE REVISION COMMENTS WATERVIEW HARRIS KOCHBR SMITH CHKDBY MEK DRAWN BY'. W BOULDER,COLORADO SITE GENERATED TRIP 1L, 391 SpeSpeer Blvd„ Suite :oBNUf eK naves 802 TRIP GENERATION ASSIGNMENT Denver, Colorado fioo4 P B /-'1 76 ANALYSIS Phone (303) 623-6300 2 Fax (303) 623-6311 Pav r. aexcxea rninru wr[cTr Pc CGPYRIGHT 467611 PAUL T GERGHER, AIA, ARCHITEC'K PC (ALL RIGHTS RESERVEO Attachment C: Public Comment -----Original Message----- From: Richard Leddon [mailto:rlleddon@mac.com] Sent: Friday, April 01, 2011 12:35 PM To: Guiler, Karl Subject: 5847-5801 Arapahoe Ave. Hi Karl, hope you are doing well. Just got the notice for the Concept Plan Review & Comment on the Waterview Project. My wife and I would like to suggest that the city consider adding stop lights at the intersection. Making a left turn from Old Tale road is very dangerous and deserves some consideration for safer traffic control. This looks like a great development and good use of land. Thanks, Richard Leddon 1507 Old Tale Road Boulder, CO 80303 rlleddonpmac.com 720-841-3989 (cell) 720-304-3517 (hm) From: fred tomlin [mailto:123zyg@gmail. com] Sent: Monday, April 11, 20114:27 PM To. Guiler, Karl Subject: Re: Proposed Waterview development Hello Mr. Guiler Not only was the body of the message not sent, it did not appear in my "sent " folder either, yet you (and others at that time) got an email from me with no message. Yes, basically I am opposed to the development for 3 reasons 1) There is a lack of Industrial Zoned land in boulder. To convert some of it to residential would only make worse the lack. 2) since this would be surrounded on 3 sides by land in industrial use, there will be many complaints about noise, fumes, etc. from the residents. 3) 1 assume 4-story buildings are allowed or the developer would not have proposed them, but that seems awfully out of character with the neighborhood. And how many cars trips will be added to already-overused Arapahoe with an additional 288 dwelling units? 77 Agenda Item 6A Page 33 of 55 -----Original Message----- From: Porsche Young [mailto:porsche@learningpower.us] Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2011 8:21 PM To: Guiler, Karl Subject: Re: Waterview public hearing notice Dear Karl, I am unable to attend the meeting on May 5. However, please let the planning board know that I have MAJOR difficulties with this project. 1) I am concerned with the higher level of ground as a result of tons of fill dirt recently dumped on the property. In the case of a flood, this higher level of dirt will create a dam that will funnel water onto Old Tale. Why hasn't anybody studied this? How could this be allowed? 2) Why can such a development be considered with absolutely NO consideration about the effect of such a development on the neighboring properties on Old Tale and Gapter? 3) Arapahoe is already swamped with automobiles. How can the road absorb the increased traffic that this development will create? Why hasn't anybody studied the traffic issue? 4) We have shallow wells on Old Tale and Gapter. How will such a major development affect our water supply? Why hasn't anybody thought about this? 5) Since the residents of Old Tale and Gapter are in the county, why has there been no discussion with the county about this project? Isn't the city of Boulder also located in the county? Why have the county officials not been consulted about such a huge project? 6) I am appalled with the lack of information we property owners have received about this project. We attended an "informational, preliminary meeting" on Monday evening, only to learn that the developers are MUCH further along than informational and preliminary. I understand that the property is owned by a developer, and that some project will eventually be built there. However, THIS IS NOT THE PROJECT FOR THAT SPACE! Thank you Porsche Young 1548 Old Tale Road 78 Agenda Item 6A Page 34 of 55 From: Judrenfroe@aol,com [mailto:Judrenfroe@aol.com] Sent: Friday, April 22, 20115:18 PM To: Guiler, Karl Subject: Waterview development on Arapahoe Avenue These are my comments after attending the neighborhood meeting on April 18th and reviewing the materials on the Internet. 1. The density, building style and design, site plan, and number of parking spots are atrociously inappropriate for this location. Surely I misunderstood that there are an average of 4.5 parking spaces per unit. (But if you recall, I asked you to repeat it twice.) 2. The City's decision to grant a filling permit that raised the elevation of the flood plain by 6 inches, to the detriment of Old Tale Road and part of Cherryvale Road residents can only be described as unconscionable- It also has the unavoidable effect of expanding the flood plain. 3. If the driving force for ungodly density along Arapahoe at the eastern edge of the City is that it is a multi-modal corridor, why the need for 4.5 parking spaces per unit? That space could better be used as open space/recreation/environmental preservation, rather than the minimal space set aside for that. 4. The proposed 55 foot height is completely unacceptable. 5. Putting only the highest density residential into the Industrial parcels, rather than some mixed use that might provide some benefit to adjacent Industrial uses, and to the on site residential, is objectionable. 6. It was deceptive to emphasize not going into the industrial space on the east side of the creek, when in fact all the developer is doing it (a) setting it aside for later development, and (b) limiting the access options there so they have to go through the auto dealership and exist at the light on Cherryvale. Judy Renfroe P.O. Box 17100 Boulder, CO 80308-0100 Judrenfroe caaol.com 79 Agenda Item 6A Page 35 of 55 From: Brad Peterson [maiIto:Peterson@hbcbouIder.com] Sent: Friday, April 29, 20119:42 AM To: Guiler, Karl Cc: Ray Hedberg Subject: Waterview concept review Mr. Guiler, I am writing in connection with the Waterview concept review. At the recent public meeting, there was substantial criticism of the proposed development, and I know that others have written to you expressing concern. I write to address a few, additional issues. First, the proposed development seeks a height variance of as much as 20 feet. This is excessive and unreasonable given the surrounding developments. The commercial developments to the west are mostly one-story buildings; the commercial developments to the east are also mostly one-story buildings; and the residential development to the south is mostly one-story homes. For the applicant to request a variance of 20 feet to permit it to building four-story apartment buildings is unreasonable and is simply unfair to the adjacent property owners. As proposed, the apartment complex would be unreasonably tall and dense. Second, the City and the County have historically done a poor job of coordinating flood issues. I know the City has taken the position as recently as 2002 that the City and County needed to better coordinate flood control, and I encourage the City to work with the County. The infill at the development has created a low dam that will cause flooding of the homes to the south in the event of a flood. If the applicant were permitted to build the proposed development, that would create an even higher dam and would cause more flooding. Third, the proposed density is excessive. The applicant proposes to build 288-300 apartment units, having from one to three bedrooms per unit. The proposed density of 23.6 DU./acre is excessive, particularly, given the residences to the south. The applicant's concept plan acknowledges that the homes to the south are "large-lot single family residences", and these homes sit on lots ranging from approximately 3/4 of an acre to one acre. Fourth, at the public meeting, I believe the applicant represented that the buildings were to be set back from Arapahoe 150 feet, so that their height should not be as much of a concern. In looking more closely at the concept plan, the east building is only set back 20'-8" from Arapahoe; the west building is only set back 128'-9" at the closest point, and is set back 146'-7" at the farthest point. Thus, the proposed buildings are close to Arapahoe and will be inappropriately imposing edifices. Lastly, a small part of the real property is zoned RH-4. The applicant uses this small parcel to bootstrap itself into an application for residential development of the adjacent parcel, which is zoned IG. The applicant acknowledges that its development will establish "a grid and framework for future development" (Concept Plan 2.42(a)). If the applicant were seeking a much smaller apartment development on both the RH-4 and IG zoned parcels, that would not be as objectionable. It is objectionable, however, to use the contiguity of the RH-4 and IG parcels to seek a substantial height variance and the construction of dense, imposing buildings so close to Arapahoe. Thank you for forwarding this email. I look forward to seeing you May 5. 80 Agenda Item 6A Page 36 of 55 C. BRAD PETERSON HUTCHINSON BLACK AND COOK, LLC 921 Walnut Street Suite 200 1 Boulder, CO 80302 T 303.442.6514 1 F 303.442.6593 Peterson (EDhbcbouIder.COm www.hbcboulder.com I http://www.hbcboulder.com/ebrochure.pdf CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message is confidential and may be privileged. If you believe that this email has been sent to you in error, please reply to the sender that you received the message in error; then please delete this e-mail. CIRCULAR 230 NOTICE: Pursuant to IRS guidelines, we are required to advise you that this communication was not written and cannot be used for the purposes of avoiding Federal tax penalties that may be imposed on you, unless specifically stated. -----Original Message----- From: Porsche Young [mailto:porsche@learningpower.us] Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2011 6:57 PM To: Guiler, Karl Subject: waterview Dear People, I certainly wish some wise person could explain how it is possible to build such high density housing IN THE FLOOD PLAIN????!!! This is as intelligent as building nuclear reactors on a major fault line. Why is this plan even being considered? Why can Waterview build 288 rental units when we, on Old Tale Road, cannot add to our basic footprint? Thank you. Porsche Young 1548 Old Tale 81 Agenda Item 6A Page 37 of 55 Attachment D CITY OF BOULDER Planning and Development Services + 1739 Broadway, Third Floor • P.O. Box 791, Boulder, CO 80306-0791 j_ phone 303-441-1880 • fax 303-441-3241 • web boulderplandevelop.net CITY OF BOULDER LAND USE REVIEW RESULTS AND COMMENTS DATE OF COMMENTS: April 8, 2011 Response Key., CASE MANAGER: Karl Guiler WP- Wood Partners, Project Developer PROJECT NAME: Waterview PBA - Paul T. Bergner, AIA, Architect LOCATION: 5801-5847 ARAPAHOE ROAD HKS - Harris Kocher Smith, Civil COORDINATES: N03E02 OSLA - Oustide LA, Landscape Architect REVIEW TYPE: Concept Plan Review 8+ Comment REVIEW NUMBER: LUR2010-00058 APPLICANT: Wood Partners DESCRIPTION: CONCEPT PLAN REVIEW AND COMMENT: Request for citizen, Planning Board, and city staff comment on a proposal to develop an existing 14.87 acre site, composed of two properties, with 288 attached rental units within three four story buildings. This plan will neither be approved or denied, but rather is an opportunity for the city and residents to comment on the general aspects of the proposal. The latest Concept Plan is a revised plan informed by city reviewer comments on a previous submittal. IDENTIFIED MODIFICATIONS FROM THE LAND USE REGULATIONS: 1. Section 9-7-1- Height modifications to permit buildings at greater than the permitted height limits for the site (40 feet, IG zone and 35 feet, RH-4 zone). 2. Section 9-7-1- Height modifications to four-story buildings where three-stories is the maximum in the IG zoning district. 1. REVIEW FINDINGS The comments below reflect a review of the revised conceptual plans submitted for the development of the 14.87 acre site. This plan will neither be approved or denied, but rather is an opportunity for the City and residents to comment on the general aspects of the proposal. These comments and neighborhood correspondence will be forwarded to the Planning Board for review. The Planning Board hearing on this item is tentatively scheduled for May 5, 2011. The applicant is welcome to submit a written response to these comments prior to that hearing. However, staff advises against any revised plans prior to Planning Board, as staff will not have had the opportunity to review the plan before the scheduled hearing. As stated within this document, staff appreciates the applicant's willingness to work with city reviewers on creating a plan more appropriate/less impacting for the site and one that is more in line with city policies related to site and building design. Noteworthy improvements have occurred since the last iteration of the plan as a result. Staff hopes that the applicant will continue to be open to improvements to the plan before moving forward to Site Review. Comments within this document focus on areas of improvement, including but not limited to, simplifying the building design and focusing on the importance of creating high quality active and passive open space on the site. PBA - Present building design is conceptual. Design evolution will demonstrate conformance and sensitivity to staff, neighbors, and planning board comments and recommendations. The following key issues have been identified for the project: 1. Is the overall concept and land use consistent with city goals - namely would the project be consistent with Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP) policies? Address: 5801 ARAPAHOE RD Page 1 82 Agenda Item 6A Page 38 of 55 2. Would the site design and building design be appropriate within the project's context and result in high quality active and passive open spaces and attractive, unique architecture conducive to pedestrians? 3. Development near a critical open space corridor and riparian areas. Does the proposal appropriately respond to these constraints? These key issues and staff responses will be forwarded to Planning Board for its comment and are discussed in more detail below. They will also be discussed in the forthcoming staff memorandum for the May 5th public hearing (tentative). If the applicant would like to meet to discuss the comments herein, staff would be happy to set up a meeting. Please contact the Case Manager, Karl Guiler, at 303-441-4236 for scheduling of either of these meetings. A neighborhood meeting on the project is scheduled for Monday, April 18th at 6pm at Spice of Life Catering at 5706 Arapahoe Avenue in Boulder. II. CITY REQUIREMENTS Affordable Housing Marc Cittone, Housing Division, 303-441-4187 Each new residential unit developed on the property is subject to 9-13 B.R.C., 1981, "Inclusionary Housing." The general inclusionary housing requirement is that all residential developments must dedicate 20% of the total dwelling units as permanently affordable housing. For rental projects this requirement may be met through the provision of on-site or comparable existing or newly built off-site permanently affordable units owned by a housing authority or similar agency, through the dedication of land appropriate for affordable housing or by payment of a cash-in-lieu contribution. For developments of 5 or more units, cash-in-lieu amounts are calculated as $117,890.12 per required affordable unit or the lesser of $23,578.02 per market rate attached unit or $98.24 multiplied by 20% of the total floor area of the market rate attached units (to encourage smaller units, the required cash-in-lieu contribution declines when the average floor area of market rate units is under 1,200 square feet). Cash-in-lieu amounts are adjusted annually on the first of July and the amount in place when the payment is made will apply. Per 9-13 B.R.C., 1981, and associated regulations, permanently affordable dwelling units must be proportionate in type (such as detached, attached or stacked units) and number of bedrooms to the market rate units. Attached permanently affordable units must have a floor area equal to at least 80% of the market-rate units, up to a maximum required floor area of 1,200 square feet. Permanently affordable dwelling units must be functionally equivalent to market rate units and must meet the "Livability Guidelines and Standards for Permanently Affordable Housing." Covenants to secure the permanent affordability of the units must be signed and recorded prior to application for any residential building permit and any applicable cash-in-lieu contribution must be made prior to receipt of a residential building permit. Permanently affordable units must be marketed and constructed concurrent with market-rate units. Additional requirements for the provision of off-site units apply and can be found on-line at www.boulderaffordablehomes.com click on "Are you a developer". WP - WP is evaluating all options and alternatives to insure compliance with City code. Building Design Karl Guiler, Case Manager, 303-4414236 The design of all buildings on the site will be subject to the Site Review criteria of 9-2-14(h), B.R.C. 1981. A preliminary assessment of the architecture is found in Section III of this document. Drainage Brian Campbell, 303-441-3121 1. The applicant will be required to utilize best management practices to help mitigate stormwater quality impacts associated with the development of the site. The city requires that the applicant minimize directly connected impervious areas on the site and construct and maintain structural best management practices. Directly connected impervious areas can be minimized by routing roof and parking lot runoff through landscaped areas rather than directly to a storm sewer facility. Structural best management practices typically include features like water quality ponds, constructed wetlands, treatment channels, and sand filters. Detailed water quality requirements can be found in Section 7.13 of the city's Design and Construction Standards and in the Denver Urban Drainage and Flood Control District's Drainage Criteria Manual Volume 3. Water quality requirements must be address in the Preliminary Stormwater Report and Plan submitted at the time of Site Review. HKS - Understood Address: 5801 ARAPAHOE RD Page 2 83 Agenda Item 6A Page 39 of 55 2. The applicant is notified that detention and water quality ponds intended to detain and treat stormwater runoff for the entire property shall be located in "Drainage Easements", with access for city maintenance vehicles and maintenance responsibilities detailed in the subdivision agreement. HKS - We request that detention not be required for this project, inasmuch as we are located immediately adjacent to a major drainageway. We will be working with staff on water quality. Flood Control Katie Knapp, 303-441-3273 The project site is impacted by the 100-year floodplain of South Boulder Creek. A new South Boulder Creek flood mapping study was adopted by the City of Boulder on January 1, 2008 and is a one-dimensional and two-dimensional linked analysis that was completed using a MIKE FLOOD hydraulic model. This study indicates high hazard flood zone along the western side of the site and conveyance flood zone along the northern portion of the site and along South Boulder Creek that runs through the site. The new South Boulder Creek flood mapping study also shows that the center of the project site removed from the 100-year floodplain as illustrated below. l High Ha2ard Zone 1tKl-'Year Floodplain~ FIood Corn F vajcrLnne Hirah Hazard Zon~ 4 ~ 1 R r I` ! S I _r ~ r fs' •u o n 1 ~ 5^iearFloodplain) y.' v~:-1 1 +l~ ' r~ 11 f Z ~rE VWr ~i I ;r t 1-!~11tltM-(Its;"it+~ 9 -4+r The new South Boulder Creek flood mapping study has not yet been adopted by FEMA. It is not anticipated that FEMA will adopt the new study until fall of 2012. Until the new study is adopted by FEMA, the most restrictive between the old South Boulder Creek floodplain mapping study and the new South Boulder Creek floodplain mapping study will control. The old South Boulder Creek flood mapping study indicates that the majority of the project site is impacted by the 100- year floodplain with conveyance flood zone along South Boulder Creek as illustrated below. Address: 5801 ARAPAHOE RD Page 3 84 Agenda Item 6A Page 40 of 55 r J NIT Is 100-YearFloodpla in F > A21~ M, alp Flood Condeya e ne Awl sza, le el Z' 100-Year Floodplain VTr ti~A rr ~ k .4 1 fr ' It is important that the applicant show the different floodplain zones on the site plan and consider all of the flood zone impacts to the site during the conceptual design phase. The conveyance flood zone is reserved for the conveyance of floodwaters so that flood risks are not increased on adjacent properties and the 100-year floodplain boundaries are not increased. The applicant is required to demonstrate that any obstruction placed within the conveyance zone will not result in a rise in the 100-year floodwater elevation or increase the flood risk to adjacent properties. The concept plan shows parking areas, a pool/spa area (with associated fencing) and monument signage within the flood conveyance zone. A floodplain development permit will be required and must include a hydraulic analysis that demonstrates that the project will not cause a rise in the 100-year flood water elevation. The concept plan includes parking areas with the 100-year floodplain. Per Section 9-3-3(a)(8) of the B.R.C., no person shall establish an area for automobile parking in any portion of the floodplain where flood depths exceed eighteen inches. This requirement must be considered as the grading plan for the site is developed and finalized. All residential units within the 100-year floodplain must be elevated at or above the flood protection elevation (two feet above the 100-year flood water elevation). HKS - All comments understood. WP - it is our understanding that we can pull permits on the site with the current grading and floodplain study. W. W. Reynolds, their consultants, and WP civil consultant (HKS), will continue to work with staff on the SW corner engineering. Fees Please note that 2011 development review fees include a $131 hourly rate for reviewer services following the initial city response (these written comments). Please see the P&DS Questions and Answers brochure for more information about the hourly billing system. Fire Protection David Lowrey, 303.441.4356 No major concerns with the site. Access seems to be acceptable. The bridge that connects the two building must have a minimum clearance of 15 feet per our design standard and city ordinance. Address: 5801 ARAPAHOE RD Page 4 85 Agenda Item 6A Page 41 of 55 PBA - Minimum pedestrian bridge minimum clearance of 15' is noted. Land Uses Karl Guiler, Case Manager, 303-441-4236 1. The Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP) land use designations for the site are `Light Industrial' and along the creek are `Open Space, Other' and `Open Space, Acquired.' 2. Per Table 8-1 of chapter 9-8, "Use Standards," the development of residential units within the Industrial General, IG, zone requires Use Review pursuant to section 9-2-15, B.R.C. 1981. Residential units within industrial districts are also subject to the extensive criteria of section 9-6-3(g), "Residential Development in Industrial Zoning Districts," B.R.C. 1981. At time of Site Review it must be demonstrated that all criteria are met. Specifically, please review section 9-6-3(g)(6)(E), B.R.C. 1981 for additional open space standards for properties more than one half mile from a neighborhood park. This may significantly impact the site design. Landscaping Elizabeth Lokocz 303.441.3138 This conceptual design addresses many of the Oct. 22, 2010 comments. This site has many challenges. Some are well addressed or have the potential to be addressed through additional design development. Please consider the following as the project moves forward: 1. Site Review criteria stresses streetscape and the public realm. Little information is provided to comment on, but staff strongly recommends evaluating any conflicts prior to Site Review submittal. With the limitations of the surrounding flood zones, a detached sidewalk and street tree planting are important elements. It appears that the required ten foot utility-tree separation may conflict with the existing sewer main on the west side of the property. The exact location and depth of that line should be determined and any potential for a variance request identified and discussed with engineering staff as early as possible. Elimination of street trees should be the last alternative considered and is strongly discouraged. HKS & OSLA - We will investigate the location of the existing utilities and work around them. We concur that street trees are an important part of the streetscape and the pedestrian experience along Arapahoe. The double row of trees could be a great addition to the pedestrian environment. 2. The open space in the southwest corner of the lot needs to be integrated into the r overall design. Due to restrictions of the Conveyance zone, many of the typical elements (shade structures, landform, etc.) that could be used to help separate this space from the street and promote its use are not feasible. Options to consider' that could be allowed include planting, a pedestrian connection from the street to ` the exposed southwest corner of the parking garage, art, decorative paving (with minimal grading), pedestrian scale lighting and perhaps shade structures if supported on posts that would not interfere with flood waters. The image to the at of right illustrates a similar combination of elements that could be successfully used in a?f.•`;t the conveyance zone. Staff strongly recommends evaluating a double row of trees flanking either side of the new sidewalk adjacent to Arapahoe. A double row of trees would provide a better pedestrian experience and help create a street buffer. OSLA - The SW corner is a very valuable area of the site and will be further integrates into the usable open space for the residents while screening back Arapahoe Road. W hope to include trees and shrub beds, walks anc.' of this area and links to other corners of the site. The other more active open spaces, such as the proposed pool, will need additional detail at Site Review. The proposed bridge between the east and west sides of the lot is visually interferes with the overall site and building design. An at- grade physical and visual connection through the easternmost building might be a better solution for connecting residents to the pool area and adjacent common amenities. Creating permeability through this building could provide a framed view of the creek and path beyond connecting the residents to a great existing amenity. OSLA - We will prepare more detailed plans (ie - detailed paving, barbeque area, gas fire pit, garden, dog park, passive & active areas for the community, and the pool area) as we develop the program. This will be included in the SDP submittal set. OSLA - The bridge provides access to the parking garage for residents living in Building #3. The bridge will allow you a "wow" view of the creek and beyond, as you get farther into the site. Evaluate the internal street section provided which appears overly wide. Note that the tree lawn should be the actual planting area and not measured to the face of curb. There is adequate air space to support large maturing trees; provide Address: 5801 ARAPAHOE RD Page 5 86 Agenda Item 6A Page 42 of 55 an eight foot planting strip to sustain their growth. Consider how the space between the back of walk and building face will be treated. How will at grade entries be accommodated? OSLA - We agree that the standards for the tree lawn should be measured from face of curb. We will match the right size trees with the space allowed. 3. Water Quality may be a challenge on this site and could be well integrated into the site and landscape plans through the use of bio-detention and green roofs. The proposed tree lawns adjacent to the private internal streets could easily be designed to treat street runoff. Water quality treatment could help guide the overall site and landscape design and result in a low maintenance (and relatively low cost) landscape. Staff recommends considering low maintenance native plants with an emphasis on native non-mown grasses to the greatest extent possible. The images below are one example of a successful application. Although these buildings are residential, they acknowledge the former industrial use of the site. Waterview could also provide a residential setting within the surrounding industrial context. OSLA - We agree and will take on the challenge of low water plants and bio-swales with the planting strips where appropriate. We will certainly be looking to the native palette as we transition from our site to the north and east (pond and creek) and blend into the Boulder Creek Trail. 4 try I _ Jam' ~ t C'yP 3 r> I nv~ ~11 4, .-a , a s4.....y z I s r.~'-1 ,fir} A 4. Note that a tree inventory is a requirement for Site Review submittal and would typically include all the trees on the site that are six inches and over. On this site, any trees in the developable areas should be included; trees within buffers need not be included, but any potential grading impacts should be noted on the preliminary grading plans. In particular, the trees in southwest corner of the lot and around the proposed pool should be assessed. OSLA - Agreed. Legal Documents Julia Chase, City Attorney's Office. None at this time. Miscellaneous The applicant is responsible for obtaining approvals for any relocations or modifications to irrigation ditches or laterals from the impacted ditch company. This includes the crossing of any irrigation ditch or lateral for vehicular or utility purposes and the release of stormwater runoff into any ditch or lateral. The applicant is advised that revisions to any approved city plans necessary to address ditch company requirements may require reapplication for city review and approval at the applicant's expense. (Brian Campbell, 303-441-3121) Neighborhood Comments Karl Guiler, Case Manager, 303-441-4236 Staff has received several phone and email inquiries and comments on the Waterview concept plan. The email comments will be forwarded by fax to the applicant for review. Review Process Karl Guiler, Case Manager, 303-441-4236 Based on the acreage of the site (over two acres) and the number of units proposed (over 20), a Concept Plan is required per Table 2-2 within Section 9-2-14(b), B.R.C. 1981. "Concept Plan Review and Comment" requires staff review and a Address: 5801 ARAPAHOE RD Page 6 87 Agenda Item 6A Page 43 of 55 public hearing before the Planning Board. Planning Board, staff and neighborhood comments made at the public hearings are intended to be advisory comments for the applicant to consider prior to submitting any detailed "Site Review" plan documents. The Planning Department and Planning Board will review the applicant's Concept Review & Comment plans against the guidelines found in Section 9-2-13(f), B.R.C. 1981 (see section V below). Site Design Karl Guiler, Case Manager, 303-441-4236 The overall site design and layout will be subject to the Site Review criteria of 9-2-14(h), B.R.C. 1981. A preliminary assessment of the site design is found in Section III of this document. Transportation (Michelle Mahan, 303-4414417) Vehicular Connectivity 1. At the time of Site Review, the applicant is required to submit plans showing the existing Arapahoe infrastructure and right-of-way in relation to the required widening. The applicant is responsible for constructing a 2 foot wide curb and gutter beyond the existing 5 foot wide bike lane. The plans must reflect the additional Arapahoe right-of-way dedication to include the back of curb. All public rights-of-way and easements are required to be dedicated concurrently with the final engineering submittal and prior to the time of building permit. All rights-of-way and easements required to be dedicated to the city must be reviewed and approved through a separate Technical Document Review process. Application materials and requirements are located on the 3rd Floor of the Park Central Building, and can also be found on the city's web-site at: www.bouldercolorado.gov 2. In order to minimize vehicular conflicts with pedestrians and bicyclists along the Arapahoe frontage multi-use path, the westernmost site access should be shown to be for emergency use only at the time of Site Review (section 9-9- 5(c)(1) of the Boulder Revised Code). PBA - We believe the westernmost access is required to have the project function correctly and fluently. We will further investigate this issue. Also, we have heard the neighbors concerns and will work with the City's traffic engineering department. 3. See comment under Informational Comments, Site Design in regard to the recommended reduction in width of the proposed driveways through the site. OSLA - Reducing the pavement is advantageous as it will permit more planting space at the first floor (between walk and Building).. 4. The proposed site access centerline must be aligned with the Old Tale Road entrance on the south side of Arapahoe. Any turning movements beyond right-turn only will be required to be evaluated as part of a Traffic Impact Study submitted at Site Review. HKS - The proposed access will be aligned with Old Tale Road. A traffic study will be prepared and submitted at the time of Site Review. WP - We contemplate and support a traffic signal at our main entry drive (Old Tale Road). 5. A CDOT access permit will be required for the proposed alteration(s) to the Arapahoe access(es). The CDOT access permit must be applied for concurrently with Site Review submittal and must have final approval prior to final engineering plan approval. A CDOT access permit must be reviewed and approved through a separate Technical Document Review process. Application materials and requirements are located on the 3` Floor of the Park Central Building, and can also be found on the city's web-site at: www.bouldercolorado.gov 6. Per section 9-9-6(d)(3)(B) of the Boulder Revised Code, turnaround spaces must be provided for dead-end parking bays of eight stalls or more. Turnarounds must be identified with a sign or graphic and marked "no parking". At the time of site review, all required turn-around spaces must be clearly labeled and dimensioned. A signage and striping plan in conformance with MUTCD standards will be a requirement at the time of final engineering submittal or building permit submittal. 7. Per section 9-9-6 (d)(2)(C) of the Boulder Revised Code, accessible parking spaces are to be 8 feet wide with an additional five foot wide diagonally striped aisle. Section 4.1.2(5)(b) of the Federal ADA Accessibility Guidelines requires that one in every 8 accessible spaces be 8 feet wide with an additional 8 foot wide diagonally striped aisle for van accessible spaces. 8. Per section 4.6.2 of the ADA Accessibility Guidelines, accessible spaces must be dispersed and located closest to the accessible entrances. At the time of Site Review, the accessible entrances must be illustrated on the plans and the above requirements must be shown to be met. Address: 5801 ARAPAHOE RD Page 7 88 Agenda Item 6A Page 44 of 55 HKS - All comments understood Bike/Pedestrian Connectivity 9. Per the Transportation Master Plan, a 12-foot wide multi-use path and an 8 foot wide landscape buffer are required to be installed along Arapahoe Avenue. A public access easement will be required to be dedicated to include the area 21 feet off the back of curb (to cover the sidewalk width plus one foot beyond the back of walk). All public rights-of- way and easements are required to be dedicated concurrently with the final engineering submittal and prior to the time of building permit. All rights-of-way and easements required to be dedicated to the city must be reviewed and approved through a separate Technical Document Review process. Application materials and requirements are located on the 3rd Floor of the Park Central Building, and can also be found on the city's web-site at: www.bouldercolorado.gov OSLA - OK 10. The applicant should consider providing a connection to the multi-use path from the northeast corner of the proposed development. OSLA - OK - we will look at that as we develop the site plan with amenities along the perimeter. 11. Bicycle parking is required to be provided in accordance with sections 9-9-6(b) and 9-9-6(g) of the Boulder Revised Code and section 2.11(E) of the City of Boulder Design and Construction Standards. The proposed bicycle parking locations and number of parking spaces must be shown on the plans at the time of Site Review. • The necessary spacing between all proposed bike racks and any adjacent walls, accessible routes, required clear sidewalk/multi-use path widths, etc, must be clearly dimensioned in accordance with City of Boulder Standard Detail number 2.53. • Per section 9-9-6(g) of the Boulder Revised Code, bicycle parking is required to be located in convenient, highly visible, active, well-lighted areas but shall not interfere with pedestrian movements. • Per section 2.11(E)(2) of the DCS, bicycle parking should generally be provided within 50 feet of the main building entrance. OSLA - OK Traffic Impact Study 12. Per the submitted trip generation, the site is expected to generate over 20 vehicle trips during the peak hour. A traffic impact study will be a requirement of the Site Review. Traffic impact study parameters will be forwarded to the transportation engineer preparing the study. The transportation engineer should contact Michelle Mahan (303-441- 4417) to discuss the study parameters prior to initiating the study. HKS - Understood 13. At the time of Site Review, a Travel Demand Management (TDM) plan is required to be submitted which outlines strategies to mitigate traffic impacts created by the proposed development and implementable measures for promoting alternate modes of travel. The TDM plan should be submitted as a separate document with Site Review resubmittal. In order to take advantage of the transit stops located along the Arapahoe Avenue frontage, and to meet TDM Site Review criteria, the following comments should be addressed: • The JUMP provides service to the site via Arapahoe, immediately adjacent to the site, with an existing stop located along Arapahoe. An 8'x40' concrete boarding area will be required to be installed along the Arapahoe frontage between the curb and sidewalk. The west end of this boarding area should be located at least 100' from the Arapahoe/Old Tale flowline intersection. This boarding area must allow a 5'x8' accessible loading area at the front (west end) of the bus pad. The plans will be required to show this bus pad and the associated tree grates. All improvements must be in accordance with RTD Bus Transit Facility Design Guidelines and Criteria. • Staff recommends the provision of eco-passes for residents. If employee eco-passes are proposed as part of the final TDM plan, a financial guarantee will be required prior to building permit application. • The subject property is adjacent to the Northwest Rail FasTracks Corridor that was intended to connect Denver to Boulder and Longmont in 2014. RTD has proposed that a passenger station be located along the section of this corridor between 55th and 63rd Streets in Boulder. Currently, there is no public funding to build this station and other related facilities. RTD has proposed that interested private developers work with RTD, local jurisdictions and other property owners to construct a passenger platform and related facilities at this proposed station location. Currently, the city's position on this issue is neutral, and thus, it can not offer a commitment to support zoning changes or any other public resource investments that may be required to approve a transit oriented development at this location. However, the city does wish to Address: 5801 ARAPAHOE RD Page 8 89 Agenda Item 6A Page 45 of 55 make area property owners aware of this potential opportunity and plans to work productively with area property owners regardless of the types of development proposed. • The applicant should contact Chris Hagelin (303-441-1832) with GO Boulder, to discuss additional TDM options. Utilities Brian Campbell, 303-441-3121 1. On-site and off-site water main and wastewater main construction per the City of Boulder Design and Construction Standards (DCS) as necessary to serve the development, as well as perpetuate the overall system, will be required. All proposed public utilities for this project shall be designed in accordance with the DCS. A Utility Report per Sections 5.02 and 6.02 of the DCS will be required at time of Site Review or Preliminary Plat application to establish the impacts of this project on the City of Boulder utility systems. 2. The applicant is notified that, though the city allows Xcel and Qwest to install their utilities in the public right-of-way, they generally require them to be located in easements on private property. 3. The applicant should note that trees are not permitted within ten feet of underground utility lines. At Site Review, the applicant will need to demonstrate that their plans can meet both landscaping and utility requirements. OSLA - OK Wetlands Katie Knapp, 303-441-3273 If improvements are proposed within a delineated wetland or wetland buffer area, as defined under the City's streams, wetlands and water body protection ordinance, an applicant for construction approval shall satisfy and comply with all applicable regulations and requirements as set forth in Section 9-3-9, "Streams, Wetlands, and Water Body Protection," B.R.C. 1981, including any necessary identification, analyses, avoidance and mitigation measures, and improvements needed to address wetlands protection requirements. A draft of the required wetland permit application should be included with the site review application. Zoning Karl Guiler, Case Manager, 303-441-4236 1. The project site has two zoning designations: IG, Industrial General, and RH-4, Residential High. IG zoning areas are where a wide range of light industrial uses, including research and manufacturing operations and service industrial uses are located. Residential uses and other complementary uses may be allowed in appropriate locations. RH-4 zoning areas are primarily used for a variety of types of attached residential units, including, without limitation, apartment buildings, and where complementary uses may be allowed. 2. As stated in the Informational Comments below, the site has had a variety of Planned Unit Development (PUD) approvals, which have since expired. The site was previously approved for automotive uses as part of the Boulder Auto Park PUD, which resulted in the construction of the adjacent automobile dealership. Any new Site Review on the property will supersede these previous PUD reviews. III. INFORMATIONAL COMMENTS Area Characteristics and Zoning History Karl Guiler, Case Manager, 303-441-4236 The site has an extensive history concerning Planned Unit Development (PUD) approvals. The site was originally subject to the Boulder Auto Park PUD, which permitted the development of the automobile dealership to the east and conceptual development of the subject site. A more recent application, #LUR2001-00032, entitled the Waterview Development was approved- None of the previous approved developments have been constructed on the site and are considered expired. A previous Concept Plan for a Toyota dealership on the site was reviewed in 2007, but never proceeded to Planning Board. In 2008, the Planning Board and City Council also changed the BVCP land use designation on the entire site to Light Industrial. This concept plan is a revised plan from one reviewed earlier this year. For area characteristics, please review the Concept Plan review criteria in Section V below. Legal Documents This confirms that the City has been contacted by Jean Morrill, Attorney for Wood Partners, with a request to begin the process of reviewing several agreements for possible release: the 1982 out-of-city utility agreement, the 1986 Development Agreement, and the 1986 Subdivision Agreement. Regarding the 2003 Development Agreement that does not include a release clause, an application may be made for a "Rescission of Development Agreement" directly to City of Boulder Planning & Development Services, 1739 Broadway Boulder, CO 80306. These steps are not required by the city Address: 5801 ARAPAHOE RD Page 9 90 Agenda Item 6A Page 46 of 55 and the applicant should be aware that any subsequent Site Review approvals on the site and any associated development agreement would supersede any previous development agreements linked to PUD approvals or Site Review. Site and Building Design Karl Guiler, Case Manager, 303-441-4236 BVCP policies (e.g., Policy 2.42, Enhanced Design for the Built Environment) and the Site Review criteria (specifically see sections 9-2-14(h)(2)(A) and (B), B.R.C. 1981) aim to create site and building designs that fit into their immediate context by either complementing the existing character of an area or enhancing the existing character. The existing character of the area is a mix of one to two story industrial/commercial buildings, as well as large lot single family homes along Old Tale Road south of the site- Because the site and building design are intrinsically interrelated, they are discussed together- Site design In terms of site design, BVCP Policy 2.42 highlights that projects should have "visual permeability into the site" and should have "well-design functional open spaces with quality landscaping, access to sunlight and places to sit comfortably." The Site Review criteria are more detailed and include lengthy criteria relating to creating quality useable open spaces, attractive landscaping in excess of standards, circulation with an emphasis of accommodating all modes, and parking design that conceals/screens the visibility of parking from the public realm. Many city goals focus on the experience of the pedestrian. Staff understands and can appreciate how the "land-locked" nature of the site, South Boulder Creek, and orientation to views inform the site design. The site presents a number of design challenges based on the fixed access points and the lack of through connections that connect to a larger vehicular network in the area. However, the site has great opportunities to create very functional open spaces that can take advantage of mountain views and the creek. Staff appreciates the applicant's efforts to address the previous DRC comments on the project and meeting with staff to improve the site design by: 1. Creating a design that better responds to the open space and flood concerns by clustering development on the site away from sensitive riparian areas. 2. Redesigning circulation and parking within the project to reduce the amount of pavement and creating a more multi- modal environment (i.e., "complete streets") that is more permeable and safe for pedestrians. 3. Reorienting and positioning circulation to enable future connections from the site to adjoining properties to address the "land-locked" issue discussed above. At time of Site Review, it would be helpful to indicate on the site plan specific areas that would be reserved for new circulation to connect to developments that could occur east and west of the site upon their redevelopment. Areas that will require additional attention are discussed below: Quality and useability of the open space: Users of the site would benefit from a greater amount of open space - particularly the more natural settings along the creek, by the pond and in the north east site. That said, the zoning requirements for residential in industrial zones (specifically section 9-6-3(g)) and the Site Review criteria require high quality active and passive recreational spaces. Therefore, there will need to be a focus on designing and demonstrating that the more formal spaces on the site will be attractive to active and passive uses. At this time, it is unclear about the functionality of many of the open spaces on the site and whether or not the spaces would meet the Site Review criteria and section 9-6-3(g) above. OSLA - We would propose the inclusion of a non-impact trail around the pond. Staff finds that because the site is not within the Parks and Recreation master plan areas for a public park, open space on the site should be designed accordingly to provide similar functions as a public park, including but not limited to, greenspaces conducive to sports, picnicking, well-designed sitting areas with a mix of sun and shade, ample landscaping and attractive hardscape areas - all of which are designed to attract use. The undeveloped space along Arapahoe will require particular attention to design to the space to be useable and not a dead space disconnecting the building from the streetscape. There will need to be a balancing of buffering the space from the traffic and noise impacts of Arapahoe with the use of landscaping or other methods while also not making the site appear walled off or detached from the surrounding context. An interim designed presented prior to formal submittal showed an open space courtyard partly framed by the building on the southside in an area now shown for parking. This would be a more optimal open space design that would activate and increase the functionality of the open space. As stated in the 'parking' section below, staff recommends a parking reduction to free up additional land area that could be used as framed open space. See the Address: 5801 ARAPAHOE RD Page 10 91 Agenda Item 6A Page 47 of 55 Landscape comments above for additional suggestions. OSLA - We will be taking a comprehensive look at all the open space on the site. Our current thinking is to incorporate informal walking paths near the perimeter of the site, linking overlooks, small seating areas and small barbeque spots. We will also be providing informal open areas for places "to throw Frisbees"; and a fenced dog park. The area SW of building #2, is an opportunity to provide a larger scale informal open space and gathering area while screening back Arapahoe Road. Cross section of the circulation drive: The present driveway design is shown to be 40-feet. Previously, staff had recommended a driveway cross section with a total width of 44-feet comprised of 16-feet for on-street parking (both sides), 10 feet for bike lanes (both sides), and two-way circulation of 18 feet. However, staff has reconsidered this recommendation and realizes it would be an excess of impervious surface and would detract from traffic calming. In order to implement traffic calming measures and reduce overall impervious surface, staff now recommends that the width be reduced to 34-feet [an 18-foot travel lane as required by 9-9-6(d)(3)(A) of the Boulder Revised Code, and 8-feet on each side for parallel parking]. PBA - Agree. Driveway design will be revised in conformance with staff recommendations. Building design The intent of the city's regulations and the BVCP deemphasizes parking and encourages buildings to be oriented directly to streets with a focus on the public realm and place making. While the most important public realms for the project are Arapahoe and South Boulder Creek, emphasis should also be on the relationship of buildings to internal sidewalks or interior open spaces. This relates to the same points as discussed above, where Policy 2.42 also notes, that "buildings should relate positively to public streets, plazas, sidewalks and paths" and be "comfortable to the pedestrian." It further states that "buildings and landscape areas - not parking lots - should present a well-designed face to the public realm, should not block access to sunlight, and should be sensitive to important public view corridors." The revised design of the buildings would relate significantly better than the previous concept that had buildings pulled away from streets and internal circulation and where head in parking was the dominant site feature in front of buildings. Staff had also presented concerns about the proposed exterior open stairwells and tuck-under parking, which made the ground level of the buildings unappealing and detracted from the overall building designs. The new building designs, which concentrate parking internal to the buildings and present the living units directly to the street is a significant improvement to the building design. Staff strongly recommends that the applicant consider individual unit entries along the internal drives to increase the focus on the public realm. PBA - Noted Staff had previously requested higher quality materials with additional masonry/materials, which could add more visual variation to the buildings. The renderings provided indicate a greater material selection, which would result in increased visual interest. However, staff cautions the applicant in proceeding with the present design as it may be considered "too busy" and "asymmetrical." Staff encourages the materials used, but recommends that building forms be simplified with an emphasis on a more unified rhythm. How buildings meet the street/internal circulation and a demonstration that they are conducive to a pedestrian friendly environment with building entries, ample fenestration, and attractive landscaping will be important at the Site Review stage. PBA - Present building design is conceptual. Design evolution will demonstrate conformance and sensitivity to staff, neighbors, and planning board comments and recommendations. Staff also questions the inclusion of the pedestrian bridge, which potentially could create a visual barrier into the site and may conflict with the intended permeability into the site. Staff suggests that this bridge be removed and other alternatives be explored. PBA - Bridge is required to make project function - to get residents safely from garage to their unit, and back, on a convenient level (3rd floor) and in a weather protected environment. Bridge also aids in the accessibility of the project. Bridge is 18'+1- from grade to bottom of span, so do not believe that it is a visual impediment. Bridge design will be as transparent as possible. Bridge design pays homage to the industrial nature of the neighborhood. Views FROM the bridge will be scenic and significant. In terms of massing and height, staff is not adverse to height modifications on the property so long as open spaces are designed to be functional to active and passive recreational uses and attempts are made to mitigate impact to views from the Arapahoe Avenue streetscape. Flood Control Katie Knapp, 303-441-3273 A floodplain development permit will be required for all development within the 100-year floodplain. The floodplain development permit shall contain certified drawings demonstrating that: Address: 5801 ARAPAHOE RD Page 11 92 Agenda Item 6A Page 48 of 55 a. The proposed residential buildings will be elevated to the flood protection elevation. b. Any proposed structures or obstructions in the floodplain, including trash enclosures and raised planters, will be properly anchored to prevent flotation, collapse, or lateral movement and be capable of resisting hydrostatic and hydrodynamic loads. c. If the proposed first level parking areas are wet floodproofed, they will have the required openings intended to counteract hydrostatic pressures on the walls. The design shall, at minimum, provide a total net area of not less than one square inch for every square foot of enclosed area. The openings may be louvered to buffer exterior temperatures from the interior of the structure, subject to assurances that the total net area required considers any reduction in opening area created by such louvered devices. The landscape design shall not prohibit flood waters entering and exiting the openings during flood events. d. The buildings will be constructed with electrical, heating, ventilation, plumbing, air conditioning equipment, and other service facilities that are designed and located (by elevating or floodproofing) so as to prevent water from entering or accumulating within the components during conditions of flooding. It is recommended that the applicant develop a Flood Emergency Operation Plan that addresses activities and procedures designed to plan effective response from disaster events. Signs Chandler Van Schaack, 303.441.3137 The revised plans show three monument signs proposed for the frontage along Arapahoe Ave. Pursuant to section 9-9- 21(d)(6), B.R.C. 1981, no more than one freestanding sign may be maintained for each street frontage of the property. Further, if a property has more than one street frontage, the freestanding sign permitted for each frontage must be located adjacent to that frontage, and the minimum permissible horizontal distance between freestanding signs on the same property is seventy-five feet. PBA - One project sign will be provided at main entry, desire additional sign at western access. Please note that signage approval is not included in either concept plan or site review approval, and that sign permits will be required for any signs located on the property. Aside from the issues mentioned above, there may also be issues with placing monument signs in the flood zone. For additional information about signage please contact Chandler Van Schaack; for additional information regarding placing signs in the flood zone please contact Katie Knapp at 303.441.3273. Zoning Karl Guiler, Case Manager, 303-4414236 Site size Previous city records of the site indicate a total acreage of 14.28 acres as opposed to 14.87 acres indicated within this application. The applicant shall submit a land survey at time of Site Review confirming the acreage of the site. As a reminder, zoning calculations on future submittals should be clearly split between the two zoning districts (as done on the subsequent March 23, 2011 submittal) and should not include gross land area within the Arapahoe Avenue right-of-way. Future dedications of land within the right-of-way may be required at time of Site Review. It appears that these dedications may have been required as part of the original annexation and may not have been completed. Staff is looking into this issue further. Density !G- The IG zone permits up to 27 dwelling units per acre. The concept plan information indicates that with 212 units within the land area of IG, this limitation would not be exceeded. The RH-4 portion indicates a total number of 76 units. The total density proposed is 288 dwelling units, which would be roughly 19 dwelling units per acre. RH-4- Density within the RH-4 zoning district is determined by the required amount of open space provided per dwelling unit, as noted in the 'open space' section below. Building Setbacks Buildings on the site within the IG zone are subject to the `f form module and within the RH-4 zone, the `h' form module. Please consult Table 7-1 of chapter 9-7 for setback regulations and also note the additional setback requirement along interior lot lines per section 9-6-3(g)(6)(C), B.R.C. 1981 within the IG zone. Please be sure to confirm if any setback modifications will be required at time of Site Review. Building Heights The IG zone permits a total height of 40 feet and the RH-4 zone permits 35 feet. Please note that these height limitations are measured from the lowest point within 25 feet of the tallest side of each building. Please also note that buildings are Address: 5801 ARAPAHOE RD Page 12 93 Agenda Item 6A Page 49 of 55 limited to three-stories. Because some buildings are proposed over three-stories and the applicable height limits and both districts, modifications to the standards must be requested through the Site Review process and can only be approved if the Site Review criteria of section 9-2-14(h), B.R.C. 1981 are met. Height modifications are subject to Planning Board approval and call-up by City Council. As a general rule, projects with height modifications should contain superior useable open spaces exceeding the standards of section 9-9-11, B.R.C. 1981 and the specific open space criteria of section 9-2- 14(h)(2)(A), B.R.C. 1981. PBA - Noted. Project requires modification to allow 4 stories at all buildings and 55' maximum height, measured as noted above. Building Floor Area IG- In the IG zone, there is a floor area ratio (FAR) maximum of 0.5. Per section 9-6-3(g)(6)(D), B.R.C. 1981, this restriction only applies to non-residential uses. RH-4- The RH-4 zoning district has no FAR limitation. Building mass and bulk, however, must be found consistent and compatible with the surrounding area per the Site Review criteria of section 9-2-14(h), B.R.C. 1981. Development Standards Please be advised that the project would be subject to all of the development standards of Section 9-9, Development Standards. Parking The parking requirements for both the IG and RH-4 are the same in that one parking space is required for each one- bedroom unit and 1.5 spaces are required for each two-bedroom units. During the review process, it was discovered that the bedroom counts and total parking calculations were incorrect and an updated calculation was submitted to the case manager. Please make sure that the concept plan should be updated to include the revised numbers including the errors identified on the updated form related to the one-bedroom units. Based on the revised information (including clarification over the phone), 353 total parking spaces would be the requirement based on bedrooms, or 1.225 parking spaces per unit. Please note that per Table 9-2 the parking requirement, the number of parking spaces increases if the number of one-bedroom units is greater than 60%. It appears that this will not be required if the one-bedroom units do not exceed 172 units. Staff advises against having 60% or more units in order to avoid an increased parking requirement which would impact the site design. PBA - All site (non-garage) parking presently shown (0.23 spaces per unit) is required for leasing, guests, deliveries, etc.. Garage parking will be reduced in an amount to be determined. In order to increase areas that could be better used as open space and in recognition of the transit along Arapahoe, staff suggests that the applicant consider a modest parking reduction at time of Site Review. Parking reductions can be approved if it is adequately demonstrated that the criteria of section 9-2-14(h)(2)(K), B.R.C. 1981. Prior to Site Review, please also review the parking standards within section 9-9-6, B.R.C. 1981 for accessible parking requirements, bicycle parking requirements, and required stall and circulation dimensions etc. Open Space IG- The IG zone requires 600 square feet of open space per unit. Therefore, a total of 127,200 square feet of open space within the IG portion is required. With the amount of land devoted to open space, including the northeast site, it appears this requirement would be met. Please note that in the IG zone a minimum of 60 square feet of private open space is required per unit. RH-4- The RH-4 zone requires 1,200 square feet of open space permit. Therefore, the 76 units within this zone would require a minimum of 91,200 square feet within the confines of the areas zoned RH-4. Please confirm that this requirement is being met within the RH-4 zone prior to moving forward to Site Review. Please also review the useable open space standards within section 9-9-11, B.R.C. 1981 for guidance on what site features qualify as open space, as well as section 9-2-14(h)(2)(A), B.R.C. 1981 for qualitative criteria. The Site Review should include detailed information such as the placement of utility boxes, as these features can greatly impact the quality of open spaces and should be appropriately placed and screened. Please also review section 9-6-3(g)(6)(E), B.R.C. 1981 for additional open space standards for properties more than one half mile from a neighborhood park. This may significantly impact the site design. This section states, "If the site is not located within the service area of a neighborhood park, as identified in the Parks and Recreation Master Plan, a minimum of forty percent of the required usable open space shall be configured as a common contiguous area that will provide for the active and passive recreational needs of the Address: 5801 ARAPAHOE RD Page 13 94 Agenda Item 6A Page 50 of 55 residents." At present, staff is concerned this may be difficult to achieve. At time of Site Review a detailed landscape plan and site plan must clearly show the usage and specific design for all formal open spaces on the site and a narrative should indicate how the intent of this section (and the Site Review criteria related to open space and landscaping) are met. PBA - Noted. We believe we meet the 40% contiguous open space requirements. Calculation will be provided demonstrating conformance. Outdoor Lighting Please note that development of the lot will require compliance with Section 9-9-16, Outdoor Lighting. Solar Access Please review Section 9-9-17 of the Land Use Regulations before Site Review submittal to determine compliance with the requirements of that section. The Solar Access regulations are meant to protect adjacent properties from shadowing that could reduce the effectiveness of solar facilities. Please be advised that the RH-4 portion of the property would become part of Solar Area II (25-foot solar fence), however, the IG zone would not be subject to the solar access regulations. For regulations on ensuring solar access within the development, please review the section 9-2-14(h)(2)(G), B.R.C. 1981 of the Site Review criteria. Subdivision As the development in composed of two separate properties that are not within the same subdivision, approval of a preliminary and final plat would be required to eliminate the interior lot line prior to approval of any building permits. Further, it appears that portions of the property may extend into the area used as Arapahoe Avenue. If surveys indicated this at time of Site Review, the plat must indicate portions to be dedicated to the city as public right-of-way per the annexation agreement on the property. These areas may not be used in the zoning calculations. Occupancy of Dwelling Units Please note the occupancy limits set forth in Section 9-8-5. IV. NEXT STEPS 1. Neighborhood meeting on Monday, April 18, 2011. 2. Written responses to the DRC comments could be submitted for forwarding to the Planning Board if desired by the applicant. 3. Planning Board meeting tentatively scheduled for May 5, 2011. V. CITY CODE CRITERIA CHECKLIST Guidelines for Review and Comment The following guidelines will be used to guide the Planning Board's discussion regarding the site. It is anticipated that issues other than those listed in this section will be identified as part of the concept plan review and comment process. The Planning Board may consider the following guidelines when providing comments on a concept plan. 1. Characteristics of the site and surrounding areas, including, without limitation, its location, surrounding neighborhoods, development and architecture, any known natural features of the site including, without limitation, mature trees, watercourses, hills, depressions, steep slopes and prominent views to and from the site; The site is nearly 15 acres in size, relatively level and composed to two separate properties- 5801 and 5847 Arapahoe Avenue. To the north of the site is the BNSF railroad right-of-way and to the south is Arapahoe Avenue, a Boulder County single-family development on Old Tale Road and the Flatirons golf course. To the west is a self storage facility and other industrial sites and to the east is the Honda-Acura automobile dealership. Architecture in the area is eclectic and more industrial in character. Address: 5801 ARAPAHOE RD Page 14 95 Agenda Item 6A Page 51 of 55 Despite previous development approvals on the site, it remains vacant. South Boulder Creek and the associated multi-use path run north-south through the site and a pond is located in the site's northwest corner. These areas are the most wooded on the site. Views towards the mountains are prominent from the location. This section will be expanded upon in the staff memo to Planning Board. 2. Community policy considerations including, without limitation, the review process and likely conformity of the proposed development with the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan and other ordinances, goals, policies, and plans, including, without limitation, subcommunity and subarea plans; Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan: All projects that undergo Site Review must also be found consistent with Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP) policies. The applicable polices are listed in Section VI of this document below. Staff will provide a detailed analysis at time of Planning Board review regarding consistency with BVCP policies. 3. Applicable criteria, review procedures, and submission requirements for a site review; Site Review: The project would require Planning Board approval of a Site Review application due to the requested height modification to build higher than 35 feet. Site Review is also required based on the size of the site, the number of units proposed, and because residential uses are proposed within an industrial zoning district. Submission requirements would be the same as any other Site Review and would have to satisfy the requirements of section 9-2-14(d), B.R.C. 1981. Prior to the public hearing, staff reviews would follow a standard three-week review track where comments or a decision would be rendered at the end of that time. If revisions were required, additional review tracks could be scheduled. Once the application is refined such that a staff recommendation can be made, it is scheduled for Planning Board review. The application could only be approved if Planning Board finds that all the criteria in Section 9-2-14(h) of the Land Use Regulations are met. The Site Review application is subject to City Council call-up within 30 days of the Planning Board decision. Use Review: Use Review is also required for establishing residential uses within an industrial zone district. This review would be simultaneous to the Site Review and would require consistency with the criteria of section 9-2-15(e), B.R.C. 1981 for approval. Preliminary Plat: The project site is comprised of two separate lots. Because the lots are not part of the same subdivision, a preliminary plat would be required at time of Site Review to combine the lots. This would be reviewed to simultaneous to the applications above and is as staff level approval. 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; Floodplain Development Permits: The site is impacted by the 100-year floodplain. Floodplain development permits will be required for all new structures within the 100-year floodplain. CDOT Access Permit: Access to the site must first be approved by the Colorado Department of Transportation. Technical Documents: After Site Review, Technical Documents would be required to allow staff to review more detailed plans to affirm compliance with regulations related to engineering, architecture, landscaping, drainage, lighting etc. Once all the site conditions were found to be compliant with all applicable codes, a building permit for the new structures could be reviewed. Final Plat: Subsequent to approval of the Preliminary Plat, a Final Plat (a Technical Document application) would be required. Building Permits: Each building would require a separate building permit and would have to be consistent with the approved Site Review and Technical Documents. 5. Opportunities and constraints in relation to the transportation system, including, without limitation, access, linkage, signalization, signage, and circulation, existing transportation system capacity problems Address: 5801 ARAPAHOE RD Page 15 96 Agenda Item 6A Page 52 of 55 serving the requirements of the transportation master plan, possible trail links, and the possible need for a traffic or transportation study; Connections to surrounding areas and properties are inhibited by South Boulder Creek, the BMSF railway along the north lot lines, and existing development to the east. One opportunity for connection is to existing circulation within the adjacent Honda-Acura dealership, which the proposed plan includes. The site design has been improved to permit connections not only to the east, but also to the west should redevelopment occur in the future on those lots. Connections with surrounding properties would better integrate the site with its neighbors and would reduce the amount of trips that would have to go onto Arapahoe Avenue for trips to neighboring lots. 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; The entirety of the site is impacted by flood plain and wetlands. This is due to the site's proximity to South Boulder Creek and a small pond. Both are significant opportunities as amenities for site users; however, buildings on the site must be designed and sited as to be compliant with applicable flood and wetland regulations. The site also contains a significant number of large mature trees, mainly cottonwoods, along the creek and around the pond. 7. Appropriate ranges of land uses; and East Boulder is largely an industrial base for the city and is a major employment center. With the RH-4 zoning that exists, it was contemplated that residential uses in the area would be appropriate, if design according to standards within the land use code. Locating new residential units on a multi-model corridor in close proximity to a high percentage of employment sites is consistent with city approaches to allow for more work force housing in the city. Development of the site as residential helps mitigates the job: housing imbalance identified in the BVCP. 8. The appropriateness of or necessity for housing. See above. Vl. Applicable BVCP policies The following BVCP policies have been found applicable to the project: 1.21 Jobs:Housing Balance. Boulder is a major employment center, with more jobs than housing for people who work here. This has resulted in both positive and negative impacts including economic prosperity, significant in-commuting, and high demand on existing housing. The city will continue to be a major employment center and will seek opportunities to improve the balance of jobs and housing while maintaining a healthy economy. This will be accomplished by encouraging new mixed use neighborhoods in areas close to where people work, encouraging transit-oriented development in appropriate locations, preserving service commercial uses, converting industrial uses to residential uses in appropriate locations, and mitigating the impacts of traffic congestion. 2.19 Compatibility of Adjacent Land Uses. In order to avoid or minimize noise and visual conflicts between adjacent land uses that vary widely in use, intensity or other characteristics, the city will use tools such as interface zones, transitional areas, site and building design and cascading gradients of density in the design of subareas and zoning districts. With redevelopment, the transitional area should be within the zone of more intense use. 2.30 Boulder Creek and its Tributaries as Important Urban Design Features. Boulder Creek and its tributaries will serve as unifying urban design features for the community. Within available appropriations, the city and county will support the preservation or reclamation of the creek corridors for natural ecosystems, wildlife habitat and cultural resources; for recreation or trails; to provide flood management; to improve air and water quality; and to provide a contrast to urban development. Trail development will be sensitive to the ecology, terrain and privacy of adjacent residents and surroundings. 2.31 Commitment to a Walkable City. The city and county will promote the development of a walkable city by designing neighborhoods and business areas to provide easy and safe access by foot to places such as neighborhood centers, community facilities, transit stops or Address: 5801 ARAPAHOE RD Page 16 97 Agenda Item 6A Page 53 of 55 centers, and shared public spaces and amenities. 2.32 Trail Corridors/Linkages. In the process of considering development proposals, the city and county will encourage the development of trails and trail linkages for appropriate uses such as hiking, bicycling or horseback riding, so as to provide a variety of alternative recreation and transportation opportunities. Implementation of this goal will be achieved through the coordinated efforts of the private and public sectors. 2.39 Sensitive Infill and Redevelopment. Overall, infill and redevelopment will be expected to provide significant benefits to the community and the neighborhoods. The city will develop tools such as neighborhood design guidelines to promote sensitive infill and redevelopment. The city will work with neighborhoods to protect and enhance neighborhood character and livability. 2.40 Physical Design for People. The city and county will take all reasonable steps to ensure that new development and redevelopment, public as well as private, be designed in a manner that is sensitive to social, physical and emotional needs. Broadly defined, this will include factors such as accessibility to those with limited mobility; provision of coordinated facilities for pedestrians, bicyclists and bus-riders; provision of functional landscaping and open space; and the appropriate scale and massing of buildings related to neighborhood context. 2.42 Enhanced Design for the Built Environment. Through its policies and programs, the city will encourage or require quality architecture and urban design in private sector development that encourages alternative modes of transportation, provides a livable environment and addresses the elements listed below. a) The context. Projects should become a coherent part of the neighborhood in which they are placed. They should be preserved and enhanced where the surroundings have a distinctive character. Where there is a desire to improve the character of the surroundings, a new character and positive identity as established through area planning or a community involvement process should be created for the area. Special attention will be given to protecting and enhancing the quality of established residential areas that are adjacent to business areas. b) The public realm. Projects should relate positively to public streets, plazas, sidewalks and paths. Buildings and landscaped areas-not parking lots-should present a well-designed face to the public realm, should not block access to sunlight, and should be sensitive to important public view corridors. c) Human scale. Projects should provide pedestrian interest along streets, paths and public spaces. d) Permeability. Projects should provide multiple opportunities to walk from the street into projects, thus presenting a street face that is permeable. Where appropriate, they should provide opportunities for visual permeability into a site to create pedestrian interest. e) On-site open spaces. Projects should incorporate well designed functional open spaces with quality landscaping, access to sunlight and places to sit comfortably. Where public parks or open spaces are not within close proximity, shared open spaces for a variety of activities should also be provided within developments. f) Buildings. Buildings should be designed with a cohesive design that is comfortable to the pedestrian, with inviting entries that are visible from public rights of way. 4.09 Wetland Protection. Natural and human-made wetlands are valuable for their ecological and, where appropriate, recreational functions, including their ability to enhance water and air quality. Wetlands also function as important wildlife habitat, especially for rare, threatened and endangered plants and wildlife. The city and county will continue to develop programs to protect and enhance wetlands in the Boulder Valley. The city will discourage the destruction of wetlands, but in the rare cases when development is permitted and the filling of wetlands cannot be avoided, new wetlands will be created or degraded wetlands will be restored. Address: 5801 ARAPAHOE RD Page 17 98 Agenda Item 6A Page 54 of 55 4.20 Preservation of Floodplains. Undeveloped floodplains will be preserved or restored where possible through public land acquisition of high hazard properties, private land dedication and multiple program coordination. Comprehensive planning and management of floodplain lands will promote the preservation of natural and beneficial functions of floodplains whenever possible. 4.21 Flood Management. The city will protect the public and property from the devastating impacts of flooding in a timely and cost-effective manner while balancing community interests with public safety needs. The city will manage the potential for floods by implementing the following guiding principles: a) Preserve floodplains b) Be prepared for floods c) Help people protect themselves from flood hazards d) Prevent unwise uses and adverse impacts in the floodplain e) Seek to accommodate floods, not control them 4.40 Energy-Efficient Land Use. The city and county will encourage the conservation of energy through land use policies and regulations governing placement, orientation and clustering of development and through housing policies and regulations. The conservation of energy is served by the development of more intense land use patterns; the provision of recreation, employment and essential services in proximity to housing; the development of mass transit corridors; and efficient transportation. 5.06 Industrial Zoning. Industrial zoning under the comprehensive plan will provide the opportunity for the location of industries of various types and uses, including those uses considered essential to the Boulder Valley population from a service standpoint. The zoning ordinance will be updated periodically to assure it is adequately accommodating the existing and future needs of a rapidly changing and technologically-oriented global industrial and services employment base. The city will identify areas that should be protected for industrial and office uses. Where appropriate, mixed use development will be encouraged incorporating residential uses and support services for the employment base. 6.12 Neighborhood Integration. The city and county will strive to protect and improve the quality of life within neighborhoods while at the same time facilitating the movement of vehicular, bike and pedestrian traffic. Improving access and safety within neighborhoods by controlling vehicle speeds will be given priority over vehicle mobility. Transportation actions will not be implemented solely to shift a problem or impact from one location to another. Neighborhood needs and goals will be balanced against the community benefit of a transportation improvement. 7.04 Populations with Special Needs. The city and county will encourage development of housing for very low and low income populations with special needs including facilities for the older adults, people with disabilities and other populations requiring group homes or other specialized facilities where appropriate. The location of such housing should be in proximity to shopping, medical services, entertainment and public transportation. Every effort will be made to avoid concentration of these homes in one area. (See Policy 2.40 Physical Design for People and Policy 6.05 Accessibility.) 7.06 Mixture of Housing Types. The city and county, through their land use regulations and incentive programs, will encourage the private sector to provide and maintain a mixture of housing types with varied price ranges and densities, which attempt to meet the affordability needs of a broad range of the Boulder Valley population. This includes families, essential workers, older adults, persons with disabilities, at-risk children and adults and vulnerable, very low income residents. (See Policy 2.18 Mixture of Complementary Land Uses and Policy 2.42 Enhanced Design for the Built Environment.) 7.10 Keeping Low- and Moderate-Income Workers in Boulder. The city will explore policies and programs to increase housing for low and moderate income Boulder workers, particularly essential workers, by fostering housing opportunities through mixed use and multi-family development, developing permanently affordable housing on vacant and redevelopable sites, by considering the conversion of commercial and industrial zoned or designated land to residential use, and providing preferences within city-subsidized projects for housing Boulder's workforce. (See Policy 2.21 Mixed Use.) VII. Conditions On Case Not applicable to Concept Plans. Address: 5801 ARAPAHOE RD Page 18 99 Agenda Item 6A Page 55 of 55