Loading...
Meeting Packet - Planning - 9/15/2011 CITY OF BOULDER PIX*P~ PLANNING BOARD MEETING AGENDA DATE: September 15, 2011 TIME: 6 p.m. PLACE: Council Chambers, 1777 Broadway 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The August 4 and 18 Planning Board minutes are scheduled for approval. 3. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION 4. DISCUSSION OF DISPOSITIONS, PLANNING BOARD CALL-UPS/CONTINUATIONS 5. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS A. Public hearing and recommendation to City Council on proposed amendments to Title 9, "Land Use Code", B.R.C. 1981, regarding use standards and for breweries, brewpubs, distilleries and wineries. - Item postponed to Thursday, October 20. B. Public hearing and consideration of a request to subdivide the three acre Washington School property, pursuant to chapter 9-12, "Subdivision," B.R.C. 1981, into two lots and three outlots in accordance with the previous Site Review approved on February 25, 2009. Applicant/Owner: Wonderland Hill Development Company 6. MATTERS FROM THE PLANNING BOARD, PLANNING DIRECTOR, AND CITY ATTORNEY 7. DEBRIEF MEETING/CALENDAR CHECK 8. ADJOURNMENT For more information call (303) 441-1880. Board packets are available after 4 p.m. Friday prior to meeting, online at www.bouldercolorado.gov. at the Boulder Public Main Library's Reference Desk. or at the Planning and Development Services office reception area. located at 1739 Broadway. third floor. CITY OF BOULDER PLANNING BOARD MEETING GUIDELINES CALL TO ORDER The Board must have a quorum (four members present) before the meeting can be called to order. AGENDA The Board may rearrange the order of the Agenda or delete items for good cause. The Board may not add items requiring public notice. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION The public is welcome to address the Board (3 minutes* maximum per speaker) during the Public Participation portion of the meeting regarding any item not scheduled for a public hearing. The only items scheduled for a public hearing are those listed under the category PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS on the Agenda. Any exhibits introduced into the record at this time must be provided in quantities of ten (10) to the Board Secretary for distribution to the Board and admission into the record. DISCUSSION AND STUDY SESSION ITEMS Discussion and study session items do not require motions of approval or reconmiendation. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS A Public Hearing item requires a motion and a vote. The general format for hearing of an action item is as follows: 1. Presentations a. Staff presentation (5 minutes maximum*) b. Applicant presentation (15 minute maximum*). Any exhibits introduced into the record at this time must be provided in quantities of ten (10) to the Board Secretary for distribution to the Board and admission into the record. c. Planning Board questioning of staff or applicant for information only. 2. Public Hearing Each speaker will be allowed an oral presentation (3 rnninnutes maximum*). All speakers wishing to pool their time must be present, and time allotted will be determined by the Chair. No pooled time presentation will be pennitted to exceed ten minutes total. • Time remaining is presented by a Green blinking light that means one minute remains, a Yellow light means 30 seconds remain, and a Red light and beep means time has expired. • Speakers should introduce themselves, giving name and address. If officially representing a group, homeowners' association, etc., please state that for the record as well. • Speakers are requested not to repeat items addressed by previous speakers other than to express points of agreement or disagreement. Refrain from reading long documents, and summarize continents wherever possible. Long documents may be submitted and will become a part of the official record. • Speakers should address the Land Use Regulation criteria and, if possible, reference the rules that the Board uses to decide a case. • Any exhibits introduced into the record at the hearing must be provided in quantities of ten (10) to the Secretary for distribution to the Board and admission into the record. • Citizens can send a letter to the Planning staff at 1739 Broadway, Boulder, CO 80302, two weeks before the Planning Board meeting, to be included in the Board packet. Correspondence received after this time will be distributed at the Board meeting. 3. Board Action a. Board motion. Motions may take any number of forms. With regard to a specific development proposal, the motion generally is to either approve the project (with or without conditions), to deny it, or to continue the matter to a date certain (generally in order to obtain additional information). b. Board discussion. This is undertaken entirely by members of the Board. The applicant, members of the public or city staff participate only if called upon by the Chair. c. Board action (the vote). All affirmative vote of at least four members of the Board is required to pass a motion approving any action. If the vote taken results in either a tie, a vote of three to two, or a vote of three to one in favor of approval, the applicant shall be automatically allowed a rehearing upon requesting the same in writing within seven days. MATTERS FROM THE PLANNING BOARD, DIRECTOR, AND CITY ATTORNEY Any Planning Board member, the Planning Director, or the City Attorney may introduce before the Board matters which are not included in the formal agenda. ADJOURNMENT The Board's goal is that regular meetings adjourn by 10:30 p.m. and that study sessions adjourn by 10:00 p.m. Agenda items will not be commenced after 10:00 p.m. except by majority vote of Board members present. *The Chan may lengthen or shorten the time allotted as appropriate. If the allotted time is exceeded, the Chair may request that the speaker conclude his or her connuents. CITY OF BOULDER PLANNING BOARD ACTION MINUTES August 4, 2011 1777 Broadway, Council Chambers A permanent set of these minutes and a tape recording (maintained for a period of seven years) are retained in Central Records (telephone: 303-441-3043). Minutes and streaming audio are also available on the web at: http:/hvww.bouldercolorado.gov/ PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Aaron Brockett Bill Holicky Willa Johnson Tim Plass Andrew Shoemaker, Chair Mary Young PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Danica Powell STAFF PRESENT: David Driskell, Executive Director of Community Planning and Sustainability David Gehr, Assistant City Attorney Susan Richstone, Comprehensive Planning Division Manager Charles Ferro, Land Use Review Manager Sam Assefa, Senior Urban Designer Louise Grauer, Senior Planner Jessica Vaughn, Planner I Bob Harberg, Utilities Planning and Project Management Coordinator Christie Coleman, Engineering Project Manager Katie Knapp, Civil Engineer II Debbie Fox, Administrative Specialist III 1. CALL TO ORDER Chair, A. Shoemaker, declared a quorum at 6.05 p.m. and the following business was conducted. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES On a motion by M. Young, seconded by A. Shoemaker, the Planning Board approved 5- 0 (B. Holicky recused, D. Powell absent) the July 7 Planning Board minutes, as amended. On a motion by T. Plass, seconded by B. Holicky, the Planning Board approved 5-0 (A. Brockett abstained, D. Powell absent) the July 21 Planning Board minutes, as amended. 3. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION 3 4. DISCUSSION OF DISPOSITIONS, PLANNING BOARD CALL-UPS A. Site Review for Height Modification Correction, LUR2011-00027, 809 Pine Street B. Floodplain Development Permit, LUR2010-00035, 3005 Arapahoe Ave. The board did not call up these items. 5. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS A. Public hearing and consideration of a recommendation to City Council on the following proposed code changes downtown: 1. Add a 1.0 floor area addition for non-residential uses in conjunction with a housing linkage fee in the DT-5 zone district. 2. Add a 65-foot building setback from the centerline of the Canyon Boulevard right- of-way in zone districts P and DT-5, from 9th to 16th Streets. Staff Presentation L. Grauer and S. Assefa presented the item to the board.. Public Hearing 1. Sean Maher, 3565 Catalpa, Boulder - Executive Director of Downtown Boulder, Inc. and Downtown Boulder's Business Improvement District (BID). Spoke in support of the staff recommendation due to the high demand of office space in a vibrant setting like downtown Boulder. 2. Chris Cornelius, 2331 Broadway, Boulder -Downtown Management Commission Board Member. Spoke in support of the staff recommendation. 3. Susan Graf, 2440 Pearl - President and CEI of the Boulder Chamber. Spoke in support of workforce housing and Class A office space and supports the staff recommendation. 4. Charles Hunker, 7318 Clubhouse Rd. - Retail business owner downtown and DBI Board Member, spoke in support of the staff recommendation. 5. Rich Majors, 2120 13th Street - Owner of 1580 Canyon site. Spoke to the impact of the 65' setback will have on his property and asked for a change in the rear yard setback due to the 20% loss in FAR. 6. Adrian Sopher, 3008 Folsom Street - Architect and consultant to Liquor Mart. Spoke in regards to the connections plan that could be extremely impactful due to the future connections. Board Discussion M. Young expressed concerned about the environmental impact that full build out will have, as it will generate an additional 2,000 car trips totally 4,500 additional tons of metric tons of C02, per the EPA website. A. Shoemaker and T. Plass will support the staff recommendation. A. Shoemaker responded to M. Young's comment that downtown Boulder was designed to hold more of those car trips versus the suburbs due to the high level of alternate mode use. He felt this conversion will add to the Boulder brand, create additional community and help Boulder transform from a bedroom community into a vibrant community hub. T. Plass liked the approach to create an overall vision downtown, as opposed to changing for one parcel. He expressed concerns that the linkage fee needs to be set at an appropriate level, but supports the change to allow office space in DT-5 for the same maximum FAR as residential uses. 4 W. Johnson was concerned for the loss of affordable development funds, but also feels that the city should be flexible to the market conditions. She likes the idea of a sunset provision, as she would like to see more of a mix with residential. B. Holicky expressed concerns about creating a downtown without residential and doesn't agree that planning should be contingent on market conditions. He would rather the City took a longer term view and doesn't agree that Boulder is a bedroom community since 56,000 people commute into Boulder. He felt that the city needs to create more housing, not more jobs. He would favor the 0.5 floor area addition for office use, since he feels that if development provides all office use at the higher FAR, it could be a detriment to the core. A. Brockett agreed with B. Holicky. He felt this change makes the code flexible to the market, helps create a more vibrant core in downtown and he would not want to take it away the flexibility due to the pendulum swing that could happen again between residential and commercial. On a motion by A. Shoemaker, seconded by A. Brockett, the Planning Board recommended approval (6-0, D. Powell absent) for the Planning Board to support the proposed code changes for City Council consideration and action with respect to code changes DT-5 FAR bonus for commercial. M. Young would like a sunset provision to review code change and make adjustments, as needed. A. Shoemaker would not support it as a friendly amendment. W. Johnson proposed a sunset at 2015. A. Shoemaker rejected it. M. Young proposed a resolution to revisit the change in code at the end of three years to review how well the commercial uses and linkage fee are working and seeing if it needs any adjustments. W. Johnson felt that three years wasn't enough time and, in turn, suggested five years. A. Shoemaker seconded it and requested staff report back with all the data so that the city council could reconsider. Staff noted that every program that every single FAR project would come to planning board. On a motion by M. Young, seconded by A. Shoemaker, the Planning Board recommended approval of a resolution to revisit the DT-5 change in five years to review how well it is working. (4-2) D. Powell absent, B. Holicky and A. Brockett opposed). On a motion by T. Plass, seconded by B. Holicky, the Planning Board recommended approval (6-0, D. Powell absent) to support codify a 65-foot setback from the centerline of canyon blvd right of wad from 0th to 16th streets for properties in the public (p) or DT-5 zones. B. Floodplain 101 Presentation and Public Hearing and Recommendation to City Council of an Ordinance Amending Chapter 9-3 "Overlay Districts", Section 9-16-1 "Definitions." B.R.C. 981 to Amend Floodplain Regulations in Order to Protect Critical Facilities and Mobile Populations in the 500- and 100-year Floodplains. Staff Presentation K. Knapp gave a presentation to the board on Floodplain 101. C. Coleman presented the item to the board. 5 Public Hearing 1. Susan Graf, 2440 Pearl Street - spoke to a concern that there hasn't been a good public comment on the process and asked for more time to allow more businesses to review and give input. 2. John Tayer, 4310 Ludlow Street- asked for the PB to postpone any action on this until there is more time to review and comment since they did not get the ordinance until 3:00 p.m. today. Board Discussion The board discussed with the Deputy City Attorney, staff and public about the process the recommended code changes took and the best way to move forward to help meet everyone's needs. On a motion by W. Johnson, seconded by M. Young, the Planning Board approved (6-0, D. Powell absent) the proposed code changes for City Council consideration and action, as shown in Attachment A, with any necessary wordsmithing, as recommended by all parties. 7. MATTERS FROM THE PLANNING BOARD, PLANNING DIRECTOR, AND CITY ATTORNEY A. S. Richstone discussed the agenda for the Joint Planning Board/Landmarks Board meeting on August 18. B. D. Driskell gave an update of the Energy Futures project. C. Date for the Joint PB/BDAB tour - 3rd Thursday in September 22, 4:30 p.m. 8. DEBRIEF/AGENDA CHECK 9. ADJOURNMENT The Planning Board adjourned the meeting at 9:21 p.m. APPROVED BY Board Chair DATE I i0lo), 6 CITY OF BOULDER PLANNING BOARD/ LANDMARKS BOARD ACTION MINUTES August 18, 2011 1777 Broadway, Council Chambers A permanent set of these minutes and a tape recording (maintained for a period of seven years) are retained in Central Records (telephone: 303-441-3043). Minutes and streaming audio are also available on the web at: http:/hvww.bouldercolorado.gov/ PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Aaron Brockett Willa Johnson Tim Plass Danica Powell Andrew Shoemaker, Chair Mary Young PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Bill Holicky LANDMARKS BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: BOARD MEMBERS: Mark Gerwing Kurt Nordback Liz Payton Lisa Podmajersky, Chair John Spitzer STAFF PRESENT: David Driskell, Executive Director of Community Planning and Sustainability David Gehr, Deputy City Attorney Debra Kalish, Senior Assistant City Attorney Susan Richstone, Comprehensive Planning Division Manager Charles Ferro, Land Use Review Manager Sam Assefa, Senior Urban Designer Elaine McLauglin, Senior Planner James Hewat, Historic Preservation Planner Katie Knapp, Civil Engineer II Heidi Schum, Civil Engineer I Debbie Fox, Administrative Specialist III 1. CALL TO ORDER Chair, A. Shoemaker, declared a quorum at 6.05 p.m. and the following business was conducted. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 3. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION 4. DISCUSSION OF DISPOSITIONS, PLANNING BOARD CALL-UPS 7 A. Wetland Permit, LUR2011-00044, 4474 North Broadway The board did not call up these items. 5. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS A. Public hearing and consideration of two requests related to redevelopment of the former Daily Camera site (1048 Pearl and 1023 Walnut) into 160,000 s.f. of commercial office and retail space in two buildings connected by a bridge over the alley: o Concept Plan Review Comments from Planning Board o Concept Level Landmarks Alteration Certificate Approval from Landmarks Board Applicant: Victoria Canto Property Owner: Karlin Pearl Street LLC Staff Presentation E. McLaughlin and J. Hewat presented the item to the board. Questions from the Board to Staff T. Plass questioned whether the 61 ft height on building across the street and the 55 ft height on the proposed building are measured in the same way? Staff responded the heights are from the GIS database and are likely measured 25' of the building to the low point. T. Plass questioned the view sheds and whether alleys represent significant view sheds? Staff responded the current situation is already blocked, so it isn't considered significant. The significant view shed is from Pearl Street. K. Nordback questioned the air lease and what it means when the 20 years are up? Staff responded that the existing lease has been renewed once and likely to be renewed by future councils. There is a payment for the lease. M. Young questioned what the parking requirements are? Staff responded the building is in the Central Area General Improvement District that only requires parking for residential, so there isn't a parking requirement. But the applicant is likely to provide it for Class A office space. L. Podmajersky asked for clarification if the height was 49', specifically on the Pearl Street side. Staff responded that 49' was due to issues of slope over the entire site and that dictated the 49' height on Pearl Street. The building is higher on the Pearl Street side and would be measured independently. The shade structure on the roof and has to be considered as part of the overall height, therefore included in the 55' overall height. L. Podmajersky asked about the open space requirement. Staff responded it is 10-20% in DT5. There is an allowance known as a Land Use Intensity Modification due to the proximity to things like the mall. It allows the applicant to reduce it 0% if they meet the criteria. L. Podmajersky asked how high at street face the new non-contributing building located across the street is? Staff responded that it is likely 36-38 feet, possibly a little taller. s J. Spitzer questioned whether the ground level plan outlined on page A2, is in the spirit of 30 feet widths at the storefront level? Staff responded that the Landmark Board's purview is limited to the exterior of building. It is the applicant's choice to design the interior. M. Gerwing asked if the bridge on the alley is the same width and height as the existing one? Staff responded yes, that it is 15ft high through the alley for fire access. L. Payton asked about the current building's FAR? Staff was not able to provide that information during the meeting. L. Payton questioned the community benefit modifications? Staff in responded that community benefit is enacted at annexation, but there is a potential code change that will potentially allow an additional 1.0 FAR for non-residential, if the housing linkage fee is paid. L. Payton questioned what staff is doing to ensure this is a vibrant urban space? Staff responded the applicant will need to strongly consider the corner to create value for the community. A. Brockett asked what would be the amount of the housing linkage fee, if the DT-5 code change goes through? Staff responded it has not been calculated yet. K. Nordback asked if the parking was included in the FAR calculation? Staff responded that everything above grade counts, below grade does not. There is loading space above grade, with approximately 7 loading spaces and carshare. L. Podmajersky asked to what extent the city can make requirements about how large the office spaces or number of tenants can be in the building? Staff responded that the code doesn't dictate what type of retail can go into the building, the market does. M. Gerwing asked if the staff did an analysis of the alley in regards the design guidelines and use? Staff responded that analysis of the alley was limited but does take into consideration the Downtown Design Guidelines section on alley design. Applicant Presentation Vicki Canto, Vice President of Development and Matt Scwabb, founder of Karlin Real Estate and Chris Shears, Project Architect, presented the item to the board. Board Questions for the Applicant K. Nordback asked where the entrances will be for the street level retail, from lobby or street? Applicant: It will likely be from the street, with the office space entrances from the lobby. W. Johnson asked for the applicant to explain the arcade/overhang on I I . Applicant: The intension is to make the storefront as transparent as possible and it may be better to set back the building as part of the solution to handle the NE corner. W. Johnson asked the applicant as to how committed they are to public having access to the rooftop? Applicant: that isn't known yet. 9 W. Johnson asked if the potential tenants are known and what scale and type? Applicant: Tenants want larger floor plates, but there have been no commitments thus far. W. Johnson asked if the Walnut Street office space have below grade office space? Applicant: Yes, it is a possible alternative. T. Plass asked if they considered incorporating the existing building versus demolishing it? Applicant: It was considered with the Walnut Street building, but not possible due to the issues with the buildings on the east and west. They are likely to reuse the structure of the building on Walnut. D. Powell asked by whom the rooftop space, beyond the cafe, will be used or leased? Applicant: A good deal will be used by tenants, except for the Walnut side, which will have urban agriculture/green roof or storm water detention. Could it be a restaurant? Applicant: Yes. L. Podmajersky asked how committed they are to not having financial institutions in retail spaces? Applicant: It is not the intention, because not best use for Pearl Street, but they are not there yet in terms of looking at specific tenants and leasing. L. Podmajersky asked if they considered smaller modular buildings to follow more traditional patterns and offer more variety and diversity. Applicant: That is not likely for the potential tenants. L. Payton asked what is the goal of the building? Applicant: Goal is both economic and contextual, based on the needs of the community. K. Nordback questioned whether there are plans/changes for the walkway between Walnut and Pearl? Applicant: It needs work, but they will be studying and working on the design. M. Gerwing asked if they considered planar construction versus mass? Applicant: The process starts with larger forms, then the planes and combination of 2 best approaches. A. Brockett inquired about how the automated parking will work and whether it will be available to tenants and visitors? Applicant: It is contingent upon cost, soil and structure issues. Public Hearing 1. Hugh Moore, Main Street, Gold Hill, 80302. Chair of Historic Boulder. Representing Historic Boulder, Moore spoke in9eneral support the concept as proposed, but suggested the NE corner be less abrupt at 11 and Pearl, as it will hide the view of the Flatirons. 2. David Hose, 900 Pearl #201. Owner of Tajona/Resident of Tajona building. He likes the project, but has concerns about the 300 parking spots, as it will cause significant traffic issues. 3. Elizabeth Allen. She spoke in opposition because the community meeting wasn't representative of the community, from her assessment, it was only the people that will benefit from the building who were in attendance. 4. William Shutkin, 2103 Mapleton. He spoke in support of the project so that Boulder remains a leader in urban design. 10 5. Phil Shull, 497 Pearl Street. Spoke in general support of the project though expressed issues with the alley, concern that the building is too static, and recommended that the corner be revised. 6. Catherine Scheweiger, 628 Maxwell. She expressed that the historic district should have been excluded from the FAR bonus, the building is too large for the historic district and won't contribute to the streetscape. 7. Ed Byrne, 250 Arapahoe #30. He asked the board to support the project. 8. Gwen Dooley, Plan Boulder County. She questioned the demonstrated need for the amount of office space, whether the transportation/parking be supported, noted that the massing is misleading and questioned whether the building will cast a permanent shadow. She also noted that the form is too modern to fit in with the historic scale and asked if the Camera building will be honored somehow in the new building? 9. Kevin Patrick McCarthy, 733 Pearl Street. He questioned whether the uniqueness and vision is being addressed and was dismayed that having no parking wasn't an option. He also expressed concerns about the urban canyon affect and suggested backing the building away from the street to let light in. 10. Adrian Sopher. He noted that the conditions of approval on page 43 of 45, 2b and 2c are contradictory to allowing the view of the flatirons. Applicant Rebuttal The applicant did not have any questions or comments in response. Adjourn of the Landmarks Board On a motion by K. Nordback, seconded by J. Spitzer, the Landmarks Board approved 5-0 to adjourn the meeting until the September 6 Landmarks Board meeting. Board Discussion Mass and Scale In summary of the discussion, the board found the massing and height acceptable on the Walnut side, but there were concerns with the Pearl Street side. There were a wide variety of opinions regarding this aspect, ranging from the possibility of the four stories being too heavy to it being acceptable. The 30' bays are satisfactory under the circumstances. It was unanimous that the building needs to be unique, in line with the times, with suburb detailing and attention to detail. The windows were specifically cited as an item that should not be generic. The board had consensus that the glass box on NE corner does not work as currently configured. The board varied on the range of views for how the corner could be utilized, but was in agreement that the corner is important. There was consensus that the west side glass box is better suited to the building and vital public space. The roof top opportunity is important for public use. It was asked to use cues from the historic buildings and from the fact the site was the home of the city's newspaper. Viewshed The board felt the street doesn't function properly now, so the new building should to come up to the street to continue the flow from the Mall. It was suggested to take cues from Tom's Tavern/Salt, as that entry gives a symmetrical aspect at an angle and steps down. This would also create harmony at that intersection. However, it was noted that the corner doesn't need glass to preserve the view. This could also be an opportunity to present new views on rooftop. It was emphasized that the applicant should not take away from the meeting that the board does not care about the view. 11 Alley/10th Street Walkway There was unanimous agreement that the alley needs a management plan. In regards to the bridge, the board varied on its opinion as to whether it is appropriate, too wide, too heavy and uninviting. One recommendation was to light it up to bring more life to the area. Parking The board varied on its opinion of the parking. Some felt it would be best to look at other options to get people to the office, such as bike share, other garages in the area, or a bus like Crispin Porter, instead of having parking at all. Others found the automated parking to be an intriguing way to address the below grade parking and retail space. In either situation, it was agreed that having real trees planted, especially by the plaza, would be good. Additional Comments It was recommended that the building should memorialize in some way, the Daily Camera newspaper, or highlight the evolution of the corner. It was suggested to be creative, not with just a framed picture. Some examples were to have historic headlines in the cement or old papers lining the lobby, or an informational display. Applicant Rebuttal The applicant did not have any questions or comments in response. 7. MATTERS FROM THE PLANNING BOARD, PLANNING DIRECTOR, AND CITY ATTORNEY 1. Sept 1 - 2 Board members will be absent, so the meeting may change dates. 2. D. Powell not in on 15th of September 8. DEBRIEF/AGENDA CHECK 9. ADJOURNMENT The Planning Board adjourned the meeting at 10:00 p.m. APPROVED BY Board Chair DATE 12 CITY OF BOULDER PLANNING BOARD AGENDA ITEM MEETING DATE: September 1.5, 2011 AGENDA TITLE: Public hearing and recommendation to City Council on proposed amendments to Title 9, "Land Use Code," Boulder Revised Code, 1981, regarding definitions and use standards for breweries, brewpubs, distilleries and wineries. REQUESTING DEPARTMENT: Community Planning & Sustainability David Driskell, Executive Director Susan Richstone, Comprehensive Planning Manager Charles Ferro, Land Use Review Manager Bev Johnson, Senior Planner City Attorney's Office David Gehr, Deputy City Attorney EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this item is for Planning Board to consider a recommendation to City Council on amending the Boulder Revised Code, 1981 (B.R.C.) to better accommodate changes in the brewery, distillery and winery industries in Boulder. The craft beer, distillery and urban winery industries are rapidly growing in popularity and number in Colorado, particularly along the Front Range. In Boulder, there are currently 11 of these businesses in the industrial districts and five brewpubs in the commercial districts and the number is expected to grow in the near future. All of the breweries, wineries and distilleries in the industrial districts have tap or tasting rooms in the manufacturing facilities, where the general public may buy or sample the products produced on the site. The combination of manufacturing, tours and product tasting attracts visitors from throughout the region and contributes to the city's local food industry and economic vitality. In response to the growth of these businesses, some brewers have approached the city about adding food service to their tap or tasting rooms. Currently, the Land Use Code (Title 9, B.R.C.) restricts the location, size and function of restaurants in the industrial districts in order to preserve industrial land for manufacturing and research and to concentrate commercial uses in the city's activity centers. While this goal remains important, it must also be balanced with the city's economic vitality goals and, importantly, the desire to encourage "eating while drinking," consistent with responsible alcohol consumption practices. 13 Agenda Item 5A Page 1 of 24 Staff is proposing amendments to the Land Use Code to respond to the emerging trends in the brewery, distillery and winery industries and to encourage food service where alcohol is consumed. Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP) policy 5.13, Responsive to Changes in the Marketplace, recognizes that development regulations can impact the ability of businesses to respond to changes in the marketplace and states that the city will work with local businesses to make sure regulations and review processes provide a level of flexibility and are responsive to evolving industry sectors. Staff identified the following goals for the project to guide the analysis and development of proposed changes to the land use code. 1. Support and accommodate the evolving nature of the microbrewery, distillery and winery industry and acknowledge their role in promoting tourism; 2. Support and encourage food service as a complementary use to the consumption of beer, wine and spirits; 3. Minimize impacts to adjacent residents and businesses; 4. Prevent non-industrial uses from dominating industrial zones; 5. Provide more clarity in the Land Use Code relative to uses; and 6. Align the Land Use Code with state liquor laws and licensing. The proposed changes to the code include new definitions for these types of manufacturing uses, restrictions on the size of tap and tasting rooms, and new standards for restaurants in connection with manufacturing facilities. The proposed changes would also allow brewpubs in the commercial districts to distribute or sell some of their products off-site since distribution is currently prohibited in commercial zone districts. City Council is scheduled to consider 1St reading of the proposed ordinance on October 4, 2011 and 2nd reading on October 18, 2011. PUBLIC FEEDBACK A meeting was held with local brewers, distillers and winemakers on August 18, 2011 to present the preliminary changes to the Land Use Code. Representatives of seven local businesses attended the meeting and provided comments. Although the proposal was well-received, several attendees expressed concern with an initial proposal to set limitations on the amount of on-site sales at wineries and distilleries in the industrial districts. The wineries and distilleries in the city are primarily small, upstart businesses with very limited initial production. These businesses enter the market initially by attracting people to their tasting rooms and selling their products directly from the manufacturing site. A limit on the amount of on-site sales would impact their ability to get their businesses off the ground. Staff has amended the proposal to exclude any limitation of on-site sales from distilleries and wineries. Written comments are included in Attachment F. 14 Agenda Item 5A Page 2 of 24 STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that Planning Board recommend to City Council approval of the following proposed amendments to Title 9, "Land Use Code", B.R.C. 1981, regarding definitions and use standards for breweries, brewpubs, distilleries and wineries. 1. Add the following new definitions to Section 9-16-1, "Definitions" "Brewery" means an establishment that is primarily a manufacturing facility where malt liquors are manufactured on the premises. A brewery may include a tap room as part of the principal use as long as the floor area utilized for the tap room is less than or equal to 30 percent of the total floor area of the facility or 1,000 square feet, whichever is greater. "Brewpub" means an establishment that is primarily a restaurant where malt liquor is manufactured on the premises as an accessory use. A brewpub may include some off- site distribution of its malt liquor consistent with state law. "Distillery" means an establishment where spirituous liquors are manufactured. A distillery may include a tasting room as part of the principal use as long as the floor area utilized for the tasting room is less than or equal to 30 percent of the total floor area of the facility or 1,000 square feet, whichever is greater. "Taproom" means a use associated with and on the same premises as a brewery, at which guests may sample the manufacturer's products and consume other nonalcoholic beverages. "Tasting room" means a use associated with and on the same premises as a winery or distillery, at which guests may sample the manufacturer's products and consume other nonalcoholic beverages. "Winery" means any establishment where vinous liquors are manufactured. A winery may include a tasting room as part of the principal use as long as the floor area utilized for the tasting room is less than or equal to 30 percent of the total floor area of the facility or 1,000 square feet, whichever is greater. 2. Add the following use modules and use requirements to the Use Table in 9-6-1, "Schedule of Permitted Land Uses" A = Allowed use C = Conditional use (subject to administrative review procedures - B.R.C. 9-2-2) U = Use review (subject to use review procedures - B.R.C. 9-2-15) * = Use prohibited 15 Agenda Item 5A Page 3 of 24 USES Il 12 13 14 (IS) (IG) (IM) (IMS) Breweries, distilleries or wineries < 15,000 square feet and A A A A without a restaurant Breweries, distilleries or wineries < 15,000 square feet and with a restaurant C C C C Breweries, distilleries or wineries with or without a U' C C restaurant > 15,000 square feet 'Must meet use review criteria 1, 3, 4, and 5 under Subsection 9-2-15e, "Criteria for Review" as well as the proposed use standards outlined under item #4 below. 3. Add the term "brewpubs" to the Use Table in Section 9-6-1, B.R.C. under all use modules that refer to restaurants and allow brewpubs to distribute a portion of their malt liquors off-site, consistent with state law. 4. Add the following new use standards for restaurants in breweries, distilleries and wineries to Section 9-6-5, "Temporary Lodging, Dining, Entertainment & Cultural Uses" 9-6-5(b)(3.5) Restaurants in Breweries, Distilleries and Wineries: The following criteria will apply to any restaurant use located in a brewery, distillery or winery in the industrial district: (A) The restaurant shall be limited to a maximum size of 30 percent of the total floor area of the facility, including any outdoor seating or accessory sales areas; (B) Parking for the restaurant shall meet the minimum number of off-street parking spaces per square foot of floor area for nonresidential uses (1:400); and (C) The use may operate daily between the hours of 5:00 a.m. and 11:00 p.m; unless the extended hours are approved through a use review process. BACKGROUND The Front Range of Colorado and the nation are experiencing substantial growth in the craft brewing, micro-distilling and urban winemaking industries. Until the past couple of decades, nearly all malt, spirituous and vinous liquors in the US were produced by very large companies or, in the case of wineries, concentrated in agricultural regions suitable for grape production. A small number of micro-distilleries began emerging in the 2000s with an emphasis on small, local production of unique, handcrafted spirits and liqueurs. Today, the brewery and distillery industries are no longer dominated by a small number of large producers. The industry is now largely characterized by small entrepreneurial businesses serving localized or regional markets and communities. Most of the local manufacturers begin with very low production volumes and sell their products primarily to local retailers, or directly to the consumer from their manufacturing sites. A micro-brewery or "craft" beer brewery is a small, independent and traditional brewery which focuses on producing distinctive beers from traditional ingredients like malted barley. Craft 16 Agenda Item 5A Page 4 of 24 brewers are distinguished from the large nation-wide breweries by their innovative and individualistic approaches to beer making. According to the Brewer's Association, a national trade group representing the craft brewing industry and located in Boulder, there has been exponential growth in demand for craft beer just over the past few years. The number of craft brewers in the U.S. has gone from eight in 1980 to over 1,790 today with an increase of approximately 165 breweries since June 2010 (see Figure 1 below). The Brewers Association also lists 725 breweries in planning throughout the country today compared to 389 a year ago (see Figure 2 below). Figrrre 1: Cr•a tBrewers in the U.S. Craft Brewers Continue to Climb II' Breweries Total U.S. 2010 Total U.S. Breweries Large Non-Craft Brewenes(201 Large Non-Craft Breweries (20)- Regional Non-Craft Breweries 1281- Regional Hon-Craft Breweries (23) Regional Craft Breweries 1711 Regional Craft Breweries (80) Y1 IK ~I 1587 of 1530 breweries operating in 2009 were craft breweries 1116 of 1159 breweries operating in 2010 were craft breweries rn 2000 e eu I e ~ 3 ]500 • _ Small and independent crab brewers have propelled the number • y of U.S. breweries from under 100 to over 1,700 in 30 years. DO 1000 I O W 500 - • E i B • • 1900 1910 1919 1930 1986 1940 1950 1960 1910 1960 1990 2000 2010 Year 17 Agenda Item 5A Page 5 of 24 Figure 2: Breiveries in Planning U.S. Breweries in Planning 6REWERS 800 700 725 600 As of 500 5130/11 400 389 . soo 207 260 200 L 100 0 Mid-Year Total Over the past few years, the industry has gained substantial popularity in Colorado. Based on 2010 statistics, the Brewer's Association lists Colorado as 4t in the nation for the number of residents per craft brewery with over 118 breweries (Attachment A). The Front Range, in fact, is becoming unofficially known as the "Napa Valley" of the craft brewing industry (Attachment C). The craft beer industry has been in Boulder since the 1970s when the Boulder Beer Company became Colorado's first modern-day craft brewery. Today, five craft breweries and four brewpubs are located in Boulder (Attachment B). While many craft brewers have traditionally operated restaurants or brewpubs in Boulder's commercial districts, where beer is manufactured and sold exclusively on-site to restaurant patrons, the rise in demand for craft beer products has lead the businesses into the industrial zones where manufacturing and distribution becomes the principal use of the site. Although not yet as abundant as craft breweries, micro-distilleries are also growing in popularity in Colorado. Similar to microbrewers, craft distillers distinguish themselves in the marketplace by creating niche products primarily distributed and sold to local and regional retailers. Prior to 2000, there were no licensed micro-distilleries in Colorado - today, there are over 14 in the state, two of which are located in Boulder. Four small wineries and one meadery (considered a winery) are also located in Boulder (Attachment B). Urban wineries are a somewhat recent phenomenon whereby a wine producer grows grapes in a rural location or buys grapes from a vineyard and then transports them to an urban facility for crushing, fermentation, aging and bottling. The Colorado Wine Association lists 22 urban wineries in the Front Range alone. 18 Agenda Item 5A Page 6 of 24 The general intent of the retail uses at the breweries, distilleries and wineries is to introduce and market their products to the general public and, in effect, serve a clientele much broader than the local industrial neighborhood. Many of the breweries, distilleries and wineries are included in regional beer, wine or distillery tours and have become part of a burgeoning tourism industry in the state. As the breweries, wineries and distilleries facilities become popular destinations for residents, local employees and tourists, all of these manufacturing facilities in the industrial districts are including tap or tasting rooms where samples of their products are sold and consumed on-site. Two of the older breweries in town (Boulder Beer and Twisted Pine) operate restaurants at the manufacturing facilities as a result of earlier site plan approvals. Some of the manufacturers periodically have live music in the tap or tasting rooms or host outdoor events with music in their parking lots. In addition, most of the manufacturers sell some of their products on-site for off-site consumption. Because of the city's zone restrictions, none of the manufacturers prepare and sell their own food for consumption on-site. Instead, the manufacturers occasionally provide food at the site through a local caterer or mobile food vendor. Brewpubs (e.g. Mountain Sun, Walnut Brewery, Southern Sun), which are primarily restaurants, are located in the commercial zones and prohibited from distributing their products off-site. ANALYSIS In response to the popularity of the breweries, distilleries and wineries in town, some of the manufacturers have approached the city about adding restaurants to their tap or tasting rooms. Currently, Boulder's Land Use Code restricts the location, size and function of restaurants in the industrial districts in order to preserve industrial land for manufacturing and research and to concentrate commercial uses in the city's activity centers. Consequently, most of the brewers, distillers and winemakers would not be able to meet the use standards for restaurants in the industrial districts. This issue places some of the business owners in a difficult economic position and in a position of remaining very small or moving to a city with a less restrictive zoning code. Current Use Limitations in the Industrial Districts The purpose of the industrial districts is to provide opportunities for the location of industries of various types and uses including service and repair, research and manufacturing. Boulder has four industrial zone districts which including the following: Industrial - Service: Service industrial areas primarily used to provide to the community a wide range of repair and service uses and small- scale manufacturing uses. Industrial - General: General industrial areas where a wide range of light industrial uses, including research and manufacturing operations and service industrial uses are located. 19 Agenda Item 5A Page 7 of 24 Industrial - Manufacturing: Industrial manufacturing areas primarily used for research, development, manufacturing, and service industrial uses in buildings on large lots. Industrial - Mixed Services: Industrial areas on the edge of a main street commercial area, which are intended to provide a transition between a main street commercial area and established industrial zones. While the manufacture of beer, wine and distilled spirits are allowed in all of the above districts, Boulder has traditionally limited commercial uses in these zones. Other than service industrial or vehicle-related uses, most retail sales in the industrial districts are considered accessory to the primary industrial use of the land and 1) must be subordinate to and customarily found with the principal use of the land, and 2) operated for the benefit or convenience of the employees and customers or visitors to the principal use of the property (Section 9-16-1, BR. C., General Definitions, "Accessory Use"). Restaurants or food service at a manufacturing site are further restricted in their location, size and market in order to limit the commercial use of the industrial properties, prevent loss of manufacturing space in the city and to retain the vitality of the city's commercial areas and retail base. Some of the current uses at the breweries, distilleries and wineries are allowed either by-right (e.g. tap and tasting rooms) or through review (see table below). All restaurants in the industrial districts are subject to specific use standards and must go through Administrative Review (Section 9-2-2, B.R.C.). The intent of the use standards for restaurants, as outlined in Section 9- 6-5(b)(3) of the code is to limit the amount of commercial use in the industrial districts and to prevent negative impacts on parking and neighboring residential zones. Current Uses at Breweries, Current Code Requirements (Industrial Zones) Distilleries and Wineries 1. Manufacturing uses < 15,000 Allowed in all industrial zones square feet 2. Manufacturing uses > 15,000 Allowed in IG, IM square feet Prohibited in IMS Requires Use Review in IS 3. Tap and tasting rooms where Considered an accessory by-right use - subordinate to and the products are served customarily found with the principal use. (beer, spirits, or wine) 4. Restaurants Considered a "Conditional Use" in the industrial zones and subject to use standards in B.R.C., 9-6-5(b)(3) (see below) 5. Live music Indoors: Considered an accessory use in the industrial zones as long as the music isn't the primary attraction (e.g. tickets sold). Outdoors: "Temporary outdoor entertainment" is a conditional use in the industrial zones and limited to 2 consecutive weeks in any 3- month period. Current Use Standards for Restaurants in the Industrial Districts - B.R.C., 9-6-5(b)(3) The following criteria will apply to any restaurant use located in an Industrial district: (A) The use is intended generally, to serve the industrial area in which it is located; (B) The use is not located along a maj . or street or higher classification street as shown in appendix A, " iVajor Streets, " of this title; 20 Agenda Item 5A Page 8 of 24 (C) In the IMS district only, the use shall be limited to a maximum size of 2,000 square feet of floor area; (D) Parking for restaurants in industrial districts shall meet the minimum number of off- street parking spaces per square foot of floor area for nonresidential uses. The indoor and outdoor seating requirements of Section 9-9-6(b), "Off-Street Parking Requirements, " shall not be applied to industrial service centers; (E) The use may operate daily between the hours of 5:00 a. m. and 11:00p. m.; and (F) No person shall operate the use betvt-~een the horns of 11: 00 p.m. and 5:00 a.m., unless the use is: (i) Approved through a use review process; and (ii) Located more than five hundred feet fi-om an adjacent residential use or zone. Policy Guidance Several policies in the BVCP support a change to the Land Use Code to accommodate changes to the beer, wine and liquor manufacturing industries. The BVCP policy most relevant to this issue concerns the city's responsiveness to changes in the marketplace: BVCP Policy 5.13: Responsive to Changes in the Marketplace The city recognizes that development regulations and processes have an impact on the ability of business to respond to changes in the marketplace. The city will work with the local business community to make sure regulations and development review processes provide a level of flexibility to allow for creative solutions while meeting broader community goals. This could involve modifying regulations to make them more responsive to emerging technologies, and evolving industry sectors. In 2004, City Council adopted Resolution 960 which recognizes the city's responsibility to provide leadership in reducing the adverse impacts of alcohol abuse on the community. A study session in 2009 identified a goal for the city to modify city policies and regulations in order to reduce over-consumption of alcohol in the community, allow for congenial places for people to socialize, keep people safe, and minimize impacts to adjacent uses. Although the primary issue that initiated these policy discussions stemmed from an incident that occurred in a private residence, the general goal of reducing alcohol abuse and its associated impacts provide general policy guidance in terms of promoting food consumption where liquor is served and minimizing external impacts through land use regulation. State Alcohol Law The manufacture, distribution, sale and consumption of alcohol are regulated by the State of Colorado through the Department of Revenue, Liquor and Tobacco Enforcement Division. State statutes authorize the issuance of several classes of liquor licenses. The licenses most relevant to this discussion include the following: 1. Manufacturer's License - for the manufacture and sale of malt, vinous or spirituous liquors; 2. Wholesaler's License - for the retail sale of beer or liquor; 3. Brew Pub License - for the manufacture of malt liquors that are primarily consumed on site; and 21 Agenda Item 5A Page 9 of 24 4. Limited Winery License - for the manufacture and sale of not more than 100,000 gallons annually of vinous liquors. In Colorado, the issuance of liquor licenses is governed by a dual processing system which involves the state and local authorities. All of the above licenses, except for brewpub licenses, are administered and issued by the state through the Liquor and Tobacco Enforcement Division. The local Beverage Licensing Authority (through the City of Boulder) is authorized by state law, to issue brewpub licenses and other retail licenses including retail liquor store, beer and wine licenses, hotel and restaurant licenses, tavern, and vintner's restaurant licenses. The Colorado Revised Statutes (C.R.S.) specifically define different types of alcohol manufacturing or sales establishments for the purposes of licensing. The following state definitions provide guidance for shaping changes to the city's code: "Brew pub" means a retail establishment that manufactures not more than one million eight hundred sixty thousand gallons (60,000 barrels) of malt liquor on its licensed premises or licensed alternating proprietor licensed premises, combined, each calendar year. "Brewery" means any establishment where malt liquors are manufactured, except brew pubs licensed under this article. "Distillery" means any establishment where spirituous liquors are manufactured. "Limited winery" means any establishment manufacturing not more than one hundred thousand gallons, or the metric equivalent thereof, of vinous liquors annually within Colorado. "Sell at wholesale" means selling to any other than the intended consumer of malt, vinous, or spirituous liquors. "Sell at wholesale" shall not be construed to prevent a brewer or wholesale beer dealer from selling malt liquors to the intended consumer thereof, or to prevent a licensed manufacturer or importer from selling malt, vinous, or spirituous liquors to a licensed wholesaler. "Vintner's restaurant" means a retail establishment that sells food for consumption on the premises and that manufactures not more than two hundred fifty thousand gallons of wine on its premises each year. "Winery" means any establishment where vinous liquors are manufactured; except that the term does not include a vintner's restaurant licensed pursuant to section 12-47-420 (C.R.S.). All of the local breweries, wineries and distilleries in the city (except for brew pubs) are authorized to manufacture their products under a manufacturer's license from the state. The manufacturer's license authorizes wineries and distilleries to conduct tastings and sell their products on the licensed premises. Breweries, however, must obtain a wholesaler's license in addition to their manufacturer's license to conduct tastings or sell food and other products from 22 Agenda Item 5A Page 10 of 24 their manufacturing site. Wineries and distilleries are also authorized to serve and sell food, general merchandise and nonalcoholic beverages for consumption on the licensed premises under a manufacturer's license. Wineries may also ship wine directly to personal consumers. Under state law, a brewpub license allows the sale of malt, vinous and spirituous liquors for consumption on the premises. Brewpubs are distinguished from breweries in that they are primarily retail establishments and production of beer is limited to no more than 60,000 barrels per year. Brewpubs are also required by law to sell food as a part of their on-premises business operation and must constitute at least 15 percent of the gross on-premises food and drink income of the brewpub. The state statutes define restaurants associated with urban wineries as "vintner's restaurants" with a separate class of license, which is similar to that for brewpubs. Other Jurisdictions Tap rooms and tasting rooms are a ubiquitous function of breweries, urban wineries and small distilleries throughout the country. Restaurants are also becoming a common use associated with these small manufacturing facilities. Staff looked at the zoning provisions for breweries, wineries and distilleries in other cities throughout the state (including Denver, Fort Collins, Aurora, and Pueblo) and the country (Seattle, Portland, Eugene) and found the following commonalities among the local laws (Attachment E): 1. Breweries and distilleries are generally defined as manufacturing uses and restricted to industrial zones. 2. Brewpubs are considered restaurants and generally restricted to commercial zones. 3. Tap rooms and tasting rooms are considered accessory uses to the manufacturing use and allowed by right. 4. Restaurants are allowed on the premises of the manufacturing facility but limited to a percentage of the total floor area of the facility (typically 20 - 30 percent). 5. Most communities which define "brewery" distinguish large breweries from microbreweries in terms of production sizes. Large breweries are generally those producing over 60,000 barrels of beer annually and microbreweries produce less. 6. Brewpubs are typically limited to a production limit of 4,000-9,000 barrels per year (which is much less than that allowed by the State of Colorado). NEXT STEPS City Council 1st reading October 4, 2011 City Council 2nd reading October 18, 2011 Approved B D id Driskell, Ex u i hector Department of Community Planning and Sustainability 23 Agenda Item 5A Page 11 of 24 ATTACHMENTS A Brewery Statistics B Breweries, Distilleries, Wineries and Brewpubs in Boulder C Colorado Breweries and Brewpubs D Brewer's Association Definitions E Other City Code Provisions for Breweries F Public Comment 24 Agenda Item 5A Page 12 of 24 Attachment A -FA-- 1S30r,1070F BREWERS apit Per Brewery 201 C0 C a itar Brews Rank Total Brewedes State Capital Ereweiy 1 21 Vermont 29,797 2 121 Oregon 31,652 3 27 Montana 36,645 4 11s Colorado 42,620 5 31 Maine 42,850 6 12 Wyoming 4-6369 7 15 Alaska 47,349 8 123 Washington 54,671 9 72 xAfiscomin 78 986 10 11 Delaware 81,630 11 16 New Hampshire 92,279 12 19 Idaho 82 SO4 13 21 New Mexico 98,056 14 85 Michigan 1111,278 is 15 Nebraska 121756 16 24 Iowa 126,931 17 19 Nevada 142,134 18 40 Missouri 149,723 19 4 istricit of Columbia 150,431 20 9 Hawaii 151,145 21 245 California 152,057 22 42 Massachusetts 155,896 23 77 Penn mania 164r966 24 16 Utah 172,743 25 35 Indiana 185r251 26 28 Minnesota 189,426 27 15 Kansas 190r20a 28 47 North Carolina 199,010 29 4 South Dakota 203,545 30 30 Arizona 213,067 31 37 V-irgin is 216,244 32 47 Ohio 245,458 33 14 €onnectkut 255,293 34 49 Illinois 261850 35 4 Rhode Island 263,142 36 23 Tennessee 275,918 37 19 Maryland W3,271 25 Agenda Item 5A Page 13 of 24 Attachment B Breweries, Distilleries, Wineries and Brewpubs in Boulder Name Location Zone Breweries Asher Brewing 4699 Nautilus Ct. Unit 104 IG Avery Brewing 5763 Arapahoe IG Boulder Beer 2880 Wilderness Place IG Twisted Pine 3201 Walnut IG Upslope 1501 Lee Hill Dr. IS-1 Distilleries Boulder Distillery and Clear Spirit 2500 47th St. #10 IS-1 Co. (303 Vodka Roundhouse Spirits Distillery 5311 Western, Ste 180 IG Wineries Augustina's Winery 4715 N.Broadway, B-3 IS-1 Bookcliff Vineyards 1501 Lee Hill, #17 IS-1 Boulder Creek Winery 6440 Odell Place IG Redstone Meadery 4700 Pearl, Unit 2A IS-1 Settembre Cellars 1780 Grape Brewpubs BJ's Restaurant and Brewhouse 1125 Pearl St. DT-4 Los Oasis 2027 13th St. DT-4 Mountain Sun 1535 Pearl St. DT-2 Southern Sun 627 S. Broadway BC-2 Walnut Brewery 1123 Walnut St. DT-5 26 Agenda Item 5A Page 14 of 24 Breweries, Distilleries and Wineries in the East Boulder Industrial Districts c1t -1 L . • n,P rf F .rte-~'~ I 5€ tC` . 1 s I i ~r fr 7~ nLl 'f Bnulrjar BFar irf'',i t f } ~_LIU'Afilderne:3sPlace BoulderD istiller, arld Clear Spirit Co. x { f r IJIJ 47thSt.,#10 o c7 I i} 1 17 [ ~1_ 1 Rr_undt'Inut,a 5liirit~ and Distillar}! Tu.dstr d Pine Re!d tone A9 easier5311 'a"Jestern, Ste 180 , =I21-11 Walnut 4700 Pearl, Unit 2.A ! 1r. 1 / r ~ - FFfl fl-tfl r~ a { f- 1 i FFP lJ:l~ \ r% :4'Q l L~l 71 F-i n - 1 iI~- a EH E 27 Agenda Item 5A Page 15 of 24 Breweries, Distilleries and Wineries in the North Boulder Industrial Districts I T-2 _ o i , - _ I ~ Bookcliff '%,/irieards ~ - 1501 Lee Hill, 17. Upslope Brewery, o 1501 Lee Hill 10 :,u0ustina ` 4715 N. Broads^aa, B-' I-1' ; w o . LM yq. k. . ''I T: .t 4 tel. D D ; ~ o r L~ r 28 Agenda Item 5A Page 16 of 24 Breweries, Distilleries and Wineries in the Gunbarrel Industrial Districts II r/ +f ~ 5~~ ~ o Boulder Creek Winer5r yY f 6440 O'Dell Place J f 4 4 - 71 r r _ a 0 w lr. 3 Top Q © 9 f r jn fi'r' F, 4 r ssk E3 3~- 50 / /'f~FA r1 ~ 3 F-~4 f ' ~~+r 7 ~ rli• ~,''~s\- ySgr„ ♦ {~.~I~ x~c_ X- L-0 L o ~u jug 7 r 1 ` ~T { kr~~I!~ DI~II ....I _ _ r_ ,~01 Yl ,1L k `J L` ..,..4~ l Y 'Llt - t {jf+ 5: L ilk J 9 16 n yl -71 © ppC~..D ar€~.4i' _ Mw• oo P :a P 1C ty 29 Agenda Item 5A Page 17 of 24 Attachment C COLORADO J rJi~dti tci- wet `~sr tC~t ti LZvt~Pi FRONT RANGE wA,,q, dtey, =U t& From the country's most famous breweries to the local brewpub, you can area's ties to the Arapahoe Native American Tribe, getting their name from find it all in the beautiful setting of the Rocky Mountains. Colorado is home Chief Niwot, which translates to 'left hand". Head up the Big Thompson -BREW ERI to the second most breweries per capita in the United States; from pale ales Canyon to the mouth of Rocky Mountain National Park - Estes Park.Tfiere to porters, there's something for everyone. And you can enjoy tasty brews with your burger at the many of the Front Range breweries have won Estes Park Brewery, surrounded by the majesty o awards for their quality brews! the mountains. Colorado has a long history of brewing-The Boulder is home to seven microbreweries, offerin first brewery. Rocky Mountain Brewery, was i a vast choice of award-winning brews, along with founded in 1859 by Solomon, Taecher & Co., excellent pub fare Enjoy your beer while enjoying and Colorado brewing has been growing every ha unique culture of one of America's premier since- The brewing world was revolutionized utdoer locations. From Boulder, take a drive up in 1959, when Coors introduced the first alu- ueautitut Boulder Canyon to the rustic old-West minum can. One of the nation's first micro- lawn of Nederland for a brew, barbecue, and breweries" and Colorado's first, Boulder Beer, breathtaking scenery, appeared in 1979. The Great American Beer Q.: 4• Golden is the home of two small breweries and Festival. started in 1981 in Boulder, has grown MOlabn Coors Brewing Company, the third largest into the oldest and largest beer compefill in brewer in the U.S. At 130 years old. Coors is p the United States. It is held in Denver every tall. - housed in its original location along the banks of Clear Creek. Producers of ` In the north of Colorado's Front Range, you can enjoy a variety of brewery some of the most popular beers in American history, the brewery recently ` experiences. While in Fort Collins tone of Outsfife magaaine's'"New American joined forces with Molson Canadian and now offers products from both ~r Dream Towns") and nearby Greeley, visit brewing giant Anheuser-Busch's breweries in their tasting room. Colorado outpost, where you can check out the Clydesdales at their training From Golden, travel west along Interstate 70 to the charming mountain ' facility and taste the latest creations. Visit New Belgium Brewing, a showcase town of Idaho Springs, where you will find Tommyknocker Brewery and Pub for green building techniques and sustainable business practices. From there, nestled among the peaks of the Rocky Mountains. stop by one of eight microbrewedes for a taste of some unique and award- winning brews. With over 5D breweries located across the Stale . - - -3c t of Colorado, and the Front Range containing the A visit to the communities of Loveland, Longmont, and Lyons will net you highest concentration, you're sure to find a beer several options for a tasty brew, including the first rnicrabrew in a can a[ _ for everyone. Enjoy the tour and please drink Oskar Blues. Left Hand Brewing Company out of Longmont celebrates the v r responsibly! Nis A 30 Agenda Item 5A Page 18 of 24 g{i,tlrl<•r Fr--t Black Hawk Central City Asher Brewing Company Anheuser-Busch Brewing Company Convention and lfisiters Bureau 303-530.1381 970-494-4 Mail requests: 2520 E. Alameda Cr. "091 w~ ,c _•r T POW- Oenver. Co 80209 www.asherbrewing.com :ve:va.budweiserlcurs.com '^o s'' `r r" lnforisitbhco.com • 677.282.880.1 Avery Brewing Company CB Potts Restaurant & Brewery 303-440-4324 970-221-1139 www.awerybrewing.com cbnotts.coin Boulder Convention and Visitors Bureau ' A~. 2444 Pearl Street BJ's Pizza Grill & Brewery Afs,9yzo,6;,? Boulder, CO 84302 303-402-9294 Coopersmith Pub & Brewing r tarrrr.I r?. YisrlunBrrr_•; www.beulderceioradousa.com • 890-444-0 wwva.blsbrewhouse cam 970-498-0483 k :ww. codpersm ithspub. com Boulder Beer Company Engaging Loveland, Inc. 303-444-8448 Fart Collins Brewery 231 W. 4th Street wwav.bouiderbeer.cum 970-472-1499 Loveland, CO 80537 ;VIV:v. foriccllinsh rewery.com Ear"iarrv Boulder Draft House www.engagmglovelantlinc.org • 970-920-47 303-440-5858 New Belgium Brewing Company wwwboulderdrafthouse,coin 970-221-0524 Estes Park Convention and Visitors Burea www.newbelgium.com 500 Big Thompson Ave Mountain Sun Pub & Brewery Estes Park, Cc 80517 303-546-0886 Odell Brewing Company wvrw.estesparkcvb.com • 900-44-ESTES www mountainsunpub.com 970.498-x070 wwsv.odellbrevaino.com 1 d Southern Sun Pub & Brewery !4 Fort Collins Convention & Visitors Bureau 303-543-0886 Longmont 19 Old Town Square wwwmountainsunpulaxom Left Hand Brewing Company - Fart Collins. Co 80524 OIL Twisted Pine Brewing Company 303-772-0258 www.visitftcollins.com • 800-274-3678 303-786-9270 www.lehhandbremng.cem v ww R:isted 6E '1 i L4 Greater Golden Chamber of Commerce p nebrewery com Oskar Blues Brewery & 4 4*a 1010 Washington Ave. Upslope Brewing Company Tasty Weasel Tap Room Golden, CO 80402 303-960-8494 303-776-1914 www.goldencochamber.org - 303-?79-3113 vrvrvr.o5karblues.com s{t.~,' j wvrw,upslopebrewing.corn Walnut Brewery Oskar Blues Home Made Greeley Convention and Visitors. Bureau 303-447-1345 Liquids and Solids Brew Pub +~f y •c t - 902 7th Avenue r:vnv.walnutbrewery.com 303-485-9400 ~Jr.'~4'\ Greeley, CO 80631 www.oskarblues.com/restaurant! _ w8,vv.greeleycvb-comlvisiting - 970352-35 iireele'f liquids-solids - Crabtree Brewing Company Pumphouse Rrewery & Restaurant Rim Longmont Area Visitor Association 970-356-0516 393-702-0881 634 Coffman St, Suite B wrwv.crabtreebrevuing.com vvvw.pumphousebreuvery.com = Langmant. CO 84501 r"` ° ova ws'dionamcni irg - 303-7ib-4142 Pitchers Brewery &Sports Shack c,ee a sexa4 Golden 974-353-3393 Coors Brewery Loveland 303-277-BEER • 1.866-812-2337 r - llnrr Reek Bottom Restaurant 8Brewery wvm.millercoors.ccm ~ • 970-622-2077 Golden City Brewery * r~ wvmrockbottomcom 303-279-8092 t A. Estes Park www.gcbreinerycom if Estes Park Brewery Hops Grillhouse & Brewery 9711-586-5421 303-216-2469 www,epbiewery.corn www.hopsrestaurants.Com ` ti. Central City This hromhure was printed with support from the Colorado Tourism 0M Oastal Alley Casino & Brew Pub 14- 1 303 582-5563 Colorad www.dosiaiaUevnel V Tourism Office ivr .colorado.com 1-800-Colorado it! 31 Agenda Item 5A Page 19 of 24 Attachment D Brewer's Association Definitions The craft beer industry is defined by four distinct markets: brewpubs, microbreweries, regional craft breweries, and contract brewing companies. Microbrewery: A brewery that produces less than 15,000 barrels (17,600 hectoliters) of beer per year with 75% or more of its beer sold off site. Microbreweries sell to the public by one or more of the following methods: the traditional three-tier system (brewer to wholesaler to retailer to consumer); the two-tier system (brewer acting as wholesaler to retailer to consumer); and, directly to the consumer through carryouts and/or on-site tap-room or restaurant sales. Brewpub: A restaurant-brewery that sells 25% or more of its beer on site. The beer is brewed primarily for sale in the restaurant and bar. The beer is often dispensed directly from the brewery's storage tanks. Where allowed by law, brewpubs often sell beer "to go" and /or distribute to off site accounts. Note: BA re-categorizes a company as a microbrewery if its off-site (distributed) beer sales exceed 75 percent. Contract Brewing Company: A business that hires another brewery to produce its beer. It can also be a brewery that hires another brewery to produce additional beer. The contract brewing company handles marketing, sales, and distribution of its beer, while generally leaving the brewing and packaging to its producer-brewery (which, confusingly, is also sometimes referred to as a contract brewery). Regional Brewery: A brewery with an annual beer production of between 15,000 and 6,000,000 barrels. Regional Craft Brewery: An independent regional brewery who has either an all malt flagship or has at least 50% of it's volume in either all malt beers or in beers which use adjuncts to enhance rather than lighten flavor. Large Brewery: A brewery with an annual beer production over 6,000,000 barrels. From: www.brewersassociation.org > craft brewing statistics > market segments 32 Agenda Item 5A Page 20 of 24 Attachment E Other City Code Provisions for Breweries City Definitions Limitations Denver Brewery: A facility at which malt, vinous, or spirituous liquors are manufactured Restaurants are allowed as an accessory use in the on the premises, bottled, and sold on the same premises. industrial districts as long as they are operated Brewpub A specific type of eating and drinking establishment. A facility at which partially or entirely within the structure containing malt, vinous or spirituous liquors are manufactured on the premises, bottled, and the use by right, the gross floor area within such sold on the same premises as where the eating and drinking services are provided. structure utilized by the accessory use is no greater No more than 30% of the manufactured product may be sold to off-premises than 20 percent of the gross floor area of the customers. The volume of liquor manufactured on the premises of the brewpub structure containing the primary use by right. shall not exceed 300 gallons/day each calendar year. Aurora Brewery - means any establishment where malt liquors are manufactured and production exceeds 60,000 barrels of malt liquor per year, but shall not mean a "brewepub" or "microbrewery". Brewpub - means a retail establishment that manufactures not more than 9,000 barrels of malt liquor on its licensed premises each calendar year. Microbrewerv - means any establishment where malt liquors are manufactured and packaged on or off-premises, manufacturing more than 9,000, but less than 60,000 barrels of malt liquor on its licensed premises each calendar year. Pueblo Brewpub means an establishment that is primarily an eating place which includes Restaurants and tap rooms at breweries considered the brewing of beer as an accessory use. The brewing operation processes water, an accessory use and shall not exceed 30% of the malt, hops, and yeast into beer or ale by mashing, cooking, and fermenting. The gross floor area of the principal structure. brewing operation does not include the production of any other alcoholic beverage. The area used for brewing, including bottling and kegging, shall not exceed 30% of the total floor area of the commercial space. The brewery shall not produce more than 4,000 barrels or 124,000 gallons of beer or ale per year. Microbrewerv means an establishment that is primarily used for producing beer and may include retail or food service as an accessory use. The brewing operation processes water, amlt, hops, and yeast into beer or ale by mashing, cooking, and fermenting. The brewing operation does not include the production of any other alcoholic beverage. The brewery shall not produce more than 8,000 barrels or 248,000 gallons of beer or ale per year. Fort Not defined Restaurants allowed in the industrial zones (with Collins size limitations) subject to Planning and Zoning Board review. 33 Agenda Item 5A Page 21 of 24 Portland, Not defined Retail sales in industrial zones are a conditional use OR and limited by a maximum square footage (generally 3,000 sq. ft.). Seattle, Not defined Size limit of 3,000 sq.ft. is applied to drinking WA establishments in some industrial zones: Eugene, Restaurants allowed as an accessory use in the OR industrial districts but limited to 15-20% of the gross floor area. 34 Agenda Item 5A Page 22 of 24 Attachment F Public Comment The following written comments are from Jackie Thompson, owner of the Boulder Creek Winery Summary of Land Use Issues Wineries 1. Zonin2Desi2nation: "Industrial Manufacturing" vs. "A'ari-tourism" The first issue thwarting the success of wineries in Boulder County is the "manufacturing" zoning designation assigned to it for lack of anything more fitting under current Land Use Code. (Keep in mind that Boulder's codes were written in the Post-Prohibition era during which the US wine industry had not yet recovered, and wineries had not yet re-established and in the state of Colorado). This land use designation is ill-fitting for several reasons: • Over the past twenty-five years the wine industry, nationwide, has evolved from a wine- as-beverage industry to a wine-as-activity industry... Agri-tourism. • Wine production, and more specifically, grape processing, is an agricultural activity that is largely seasonal in nature and does not involve the intensity of activities often associated with industrial manufacturing operations. • Tasting room activities, a common component of winery operations, are not at all "manufacturing" in nature, and often include educational components such as tours, historical and scientific displays, and hands-on activities such as traditional grape stomps, classes, and workshops. • Winery tourism is a thriving national industry that is best located where tourists are likely to find it. • Wineries are highly sought-after venues for high-end events such as weddings, charity fund-raisers, and private events of all sorts. Industrial parks are not proper settings for such events. 2. "Colorado Wine Trail" Si2na2e Compounding the issue of our forced location in Industrial Manufacturing parks (where out-of- town guests are least expecting to find us) is the repeated denial by Boulder County of our requests for a "Colorado Wine Trail" sign, part of the Colorado TODS Program (Tourist Oriented Directional Signs). The "Colorado Wine Trail" signage program is a collaborative effort of the Colorado Department of Agriculture and the Colorado Tourism Office designed to promote and facilitate tourist visits to winery tasting rooms. It is fashioned after similar, highly successful, Wine Trail programs in dozens of other states across the US. For over a decade, Colorado wineries in all other areas of the state have been granted approval for wine trail signs as part of the Colorado TODS Program. Boulder County, however, has twice denied our formal request for a Wine Trail sign on Highway 119. 35 Agenda Item 5A Page 23 of 24 Every week new customers come into our tasting room and tell us how hard it is to find us, and suggest that we put signage out on the 119 Diagonal Highway (as though we have never thought to do this!). Worse yet, we get numerous calls from people driving around trying to find us. Some of these people succeed in finding their way to us, but others simply never make it in. Others still, we are sure, give up trying to find us and never even call a total waste of their time and gasoline; a total loss to us of a new customer; and a total loss to Boulder of potential tax revenue. Sarnple "Colorado Wine Trails" Sign • part of Colorado TODS Program (Tourist Oriented Directional Signs) • a joint ef'f'ort of Colorado Dept. of Agriculture and Colorado Tourism pffrce i' 'AMBER I WINE- VINEYARDS -rRA I IL S 36 Agenda Item 5A Page 24 of 24 CITY OF BOULDER PLANNING BOARD AGENDA ITEM MEETING DATE: September 15, 2011 AGENDA TITLE: Public hearing and consideration of a request to subdivide the three acre Washington School property, pursuant to chapter 9-12, "Subdivision," B.R.C. 1981, into two lots and three outlots in accordance with the previously approved Site Review case #LUR2008-00083. Applicant/Owner: Wonderland Hill Development Company REQUESTING DEPARTMENT: Department of Community Planning & Sustainability David Driskell, Executive Director Charles Ferro, Land Use Review Manager Karl Guiler, Planner II OBJECTIVE: Define the steps for Planning Board consideration of this request: 1. Hear applicant and staff presentations 2. Hold public hearing 3. Planning Board discussion and action on the Final Plat SUMMARY: Proposal: Proposal to subdivide the Washington School property into two lots and three outlots. Project Name/Location: 1215 Cedar Avenue Size of Tract: 3 acres (130,710 square feet) Zoning: RH-2 (High Density Residential) & RL-1 (Low Density Residential) Comprehensive Plan: High Density Residential & Low Density Residential KEY ISSUE: Staff has identified the following key issue to help guide the board's discussion: 1. Is the Final Plat consistent with chapter 9-12, "Subdivision," B.R.C. 1981? 37 Agenda Item 58 Page 1 of 49 Existing Site & Background: OIL-- 4W T 41 .4 5, Elder AV - „ y Aubw AL A106. r- - •y ~M Deelwood AV- So m-i A t? MiI F4~~ ax a~~A'I +r Yr~ TV aa~ir Rj .4 • i 1 in I215 Cedar Ave 7~ J& " cedar Avg _Ar _J~C'.~=:.3 s ras~l n•+wm t cs - -'rm - Li,C>~=tea.. 41 a • k4` 1. s~ y L ;11 14 I . ~ z' , °aIE 'r~ s! tiT I IW`i)~ ~.i~ri! It Al, : utL~ ji ~I1 ut!• j ...."~Ilil Figure 1- Development context around 1215 Cedar (outlined) The property shown above is bounded by Broadway to the west, Cedar Avenue to the south, 13th Street to the east, and a mix of multi-family and single-family development to the north. It consists of three acres and is currently occupied by the vacant Washington Elementary School, which was closed in 2003 by the Boulder Valley School District (BVSD) due to school consolidation. Its closure prompted a comprehensive process to consider how the site should be developed. While there was initial interest from several groups to develop the site, the applicant, Wonderland Hill Development Company, was the only group that proceeded with a site design for city consideration. The Washington School property was the subject of two Concept Plans and two Site and Use Review applications during the years 2007 through 2009. Site and Use Review application LUR2008-00083 was ultimately approved with conditions by City Council on February 25, 2009 after a referendum on the property during the previous Site Review and two call up hearings by council. The approved Washington Village II plans can be viewed at the following link.- http://bouldercolorado.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=10010&ltemid=22 38 Agenda Item 58 Page 2 of 49 Project Description: The applicant has requested a subdivision of the three acre property pursuant to Chapter 9-12, "Subdivision," B.R.C. 1981. The subdivision, shown in Figure 2 below, is proposed for the dedication of 13,173 square foot Outlot B as a public park on the corner of Cedar Avenue and 13th Street - the preservation of which was a key issue of the 2008 Site Review application. I f r T L a., L I I L I L - r 'r L 2 I IL Urr. G T Lrr ~ - vl I I I u I I F:.. Thy I - i T I uMr T T e er I I c CI} I Mr. I T ..i. I - I I b Outlot B I I. r M1 I I ' L.L7 : I . c LOT I I .:Fr I 71;..s L.FT ~I Fr i I nu T I ~ I I :i• I •s.]i c y -J I tl ;r: rr- I I A.- irk.."r I I MIC T i I - I I F=♦ N rr'}aI I I I _ - _ RI I TUNE T I •Y,:1:r.::rE ;n a.•: ~e I I a 4-E I rE e c T '40 .iFT itl RH-2 zone LRL_1 zone [5:; P. ,;-W., ~ Figure 2- Final Plat The Site Review approval anticipated the likelihood of a subdivision to dedicate a public park-, however, it was not explicitly required by the approval given the uncertainly of whether it would be possible at the time. Present steps are now being taken to enable the acceptance of the space as a public park by the city and the subdivision is a necessary step to facilitate the dedication of the park- The applicant is also seeking subdivision to sever the low density residential (RL-1) portion of the site from the high density residential (RH-2) portion of the site. This option is being pursued, because it enables the applicant to receive bank financing, which is difficult under the present economy (see applicant's written statement in Attachment A). Outlot B will eventually be conveyed to the city for use as a city park and the applicant will retain ownership of all other properties despite the proposed subdivision. Either way, the properties are held together by the approved Site Review per section 9-2-14(b)(1)(C), B_R.C 1981. The Final Plat, shown in Figure 2 (and in Attachment B), depicts the creation of the outlots for the park and others for stormwater detention, as well as the new lot line between the RH-2, High Density Residential zoning, and the RL-1, Low Density Residential zoning districts. The RL-1 lot would be 40,810 square feet in size (minus the two outlots) and the RH-2 lot would be 71,152 39 Agenda Item 5B Page 3 of 49 square feet (minus one outlot). Outlots are typically created to contain infrastructure improvements like stormwater detention or common areas that would be maintained by an entity like a homeowners association etc. Because outlots are not typical, buildable lots with principal and accessory structures, they are not required to meet lot standards like minimum lot size. As the Site Review did not explicitly include the requirement to subdivide, staff has required a minor modification application (staff level) to the approved Site Review to memorialize the change as well as other minor adjustments to the zoning calculations that occur as a result of the subdivision. There has been no change to the approved site plan; only the relationship between lot lines and building locations within the site and very slight adjustments to the zoning calculations (e.g., reduction of the lot area for the RL-1 side for the park outlot, slight reduction in the RH-2 side based on more accurate surveying). Setback modifications would occur, but only within the development, which is permitted through the minor modification process (see section 9-2-14(k)(1), B.R.C. 1981). Further, the single-family homes would remain clustered on one lot consistent with the approved Site Review. For more information on the proposed changes, see Attachment C. Figure 3 below shows the relationship of new lot lines to building locations: R RH-2 side - RL-1 side - approved approved for for multi- family six single- y homes. family homes. E~-►a I Outlot B _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - for eventual dedication 1 to city - - - - - - - - - - - - - r I , ~~e ~ y I Dutlot C Dutlot A Figure 3- Proposed lot lines shown in red in relation to building locations. ANALYSIS 1. Is the Final Plat consistent with chapter 9-12, "Subdivision," B.R.C. 1981? Final Plats are processed according to 9-12-10, B.R.C. 1981 and are required to meet section 9-12- 12, "Standards for Lots and Public Improvements," B.R.C. 1981. While the proposed subdivision, 40 Agenda Item 58 Page 4 of 49 which adds a lot line between the RL-1 and RH-2 zones changes very little from the original approved site plan, there are some waivers that are required. This is partly because the proposed subdivision is not standard as there will not be multiple single-family lots fronting on rights-of-way etc. like a typical subdivision. Therefore, waivers are required and can be approved per section 9- 12-12(b), B.R.C. 1981 cited below. These waivers are supported based on the approved Site Review design, as indicated below: Approval of waivers is delegated to staff with the ability for Planning Board call up. (b) Waiver of Lot Standards: The planning board may waive the design requirements of paragraph (a) (1) of this section not otherwise required by any other provision of the code: (1) If permitted as part of an approval under section 9-7-12, "Two Detached Dwellings on a Single Lot," B.R.C. 1981, or site review under section 9-2-14, "Site Review, " B.R.C. 1981; or (2) Upon request of the subdivider if the subdivider provides an alternative means of meeting the purposes of this chapter, which the board finds: (A) Is necessary because of unusual physical circumstances of the subdivision; or (B) Provides an improved design of the subdivision. Staff has identified the following standards that would not be met fully and where a waiver would be necessary. Staff also gives explanations as to why the waivers provide for an improved design below. (C) No portion of a lot is narrower than thirty feet. One portion of Lot 2 is 24 feet wide. This enables the public access easement through the property, which creates alley loaded single-family homes and not individual driveway curb cuts along 131h Street. It also avoids having the circulation to cross the outlot, which is intended for drainage purposes. To meet the requirement the public access easement would have to cross Outlot A, which is not preferable, or reduce the size of Outlot A. The proposed location and the size of Outlot A was approved in the Site Review application to avoid having stormwater detention on the corner open space, which is proposed to become Outlot B for dedication to the city. For these reasons, the waiver is considered an improved design. (D) Lots and existing structures meet all applicable zoning requirements of this title and section 9-9-17, "Solar Access," B.R.C. 1981. The lots are the result of the approved Site Review, which permitted setback modifications; therefore the zoning requirements for the lots would be per the approved Site Review rather than exclusively the underlying zoning requirements. (E) Lots with double frontage are avoided, except where necessary to provide separation from major arterials or incompatible land uses or because of the slope of the lot. A double frontage condition exists for Lot 2. This enables the public access easement to enter and exit the site in the approved locations on 13th and Cedar per the Site Review and as discussed above. 41 Agenda Item 58 Page 5 of 49 (G) Corner lots are larger than other lots to accommodate setback requirements of section 9-7-1, "Schedule of Form and Bulk Standards," B.R.C. 1981. Outlot B, at the corner of 13th Street and Cedar Avenue, is smaller than Lot 2 west of it. This size of Outlot B is commensurate with the land area to be dedicated as a public park on the corner and therefore, results in an improved design. The requirement of subsection (G) is principally for conventional subdivisions where residential lots on corners are meant to be larger given the requirement for larger setbacks along streets. The outlot is not a conventional lot and no structures are proposed for Outlot B. Therefore, this section is largely inapplicable. (H) Residential lots are shaped so as to accommodate a dwelling unit within the setbacks prescribed by the zoning district. Subsection (H) is also applicable to more conventional subdivisions that have one single- family dwelling per lot. The Washington Village project includes six single-family dwellings on one lot with setbacks already approved per the Site Review. (O)(ii) Lot Layout and Building Siting: Lots are oriented and buildings sited in a way which maximizes the solar potential of each principal building. Lots are designed so that it would be easy to site a structure which is unshaded by other nearby structures and so as to allow for owner control of shading. Lots also are designed so that buildings can be sited so as to maximize the solar potential of adjacent properties by minimizing off-site shading. Because of the approved setbacks and clustering of the single-family dwellings through the Site Review, solar protection through the provision of solar fences between the single- family homes was not required. While there is potential for solar shading between the single-family homes within the project as a result, the clustering was considered a trade off to enable the creation of a common open space at the corner of 13th and Cedar. As the Final Plat would be consistent with chapter 9-12, "Subdivision," B.R.C. 1981 and consistent with the approved Site Review (see plans at the weblink provided above), staff recommends that Planning Board approve the Final Plat. PUBLIC COMMENT AND PROCESS: Final Plats are staff level reviews that are subject to public call up per 9-12-10(f), B.R.C. 1981. In this case, a neighbor has expressed their concern over the intent of the subdivision feeling that all changes to the Washington Village project should be reviewed by Planning Board. After staff approved the application subject to the signed Subdivision Agreement (Attachment D) on August 19, 2011, the application was called up on August 24, 2011. Required public notice was given in the form of written notification mailed to all property owners within 600 feet of the subject site and a sign posted on the property for at least 10 days. All notice requirements of subsection 9-4-3, "Public Notice Requirements," B.R.C. 1981 have been met. Staff has also contacted those neighbors that requested to be notified of any upcoming meetings or submittals and also sent mailed notice of the Planning Board hearing. 42 Agenda Item 58 Page 6 of 49 Public comments are found within Attachment E and relate to understanding the rationale for the proposed subdivision, the zone line, and concerns related to permitting any changes to the site plan at the staff level. Other comments relate to the nature of the subdivision and questions about the construction activities on the site. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Board approve application pursuant to chapter 9-12, "Subdivision," B.R.C. 1981 based on the findings provided within this memorandum. RECOMMENDED SITE REVIEW CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. The subdivision is approved subject to the terms of the Subdivision Agreement. AFT6~rls-k-e11-, 0 Ex u i irector Department of Community Planning and Sustainability ATTACHMENTS: A: Applicant's written statement dated September 1, 2011. B: Final Plat. C: Discussion of minor modification changes. D: Subdivision Agreement. E: Public comments. 43 Agenda Item 58 Page 7 of 49 Attachment A ~ r ';~-'Wonderland WONDERLAND HILL DEVELOPMENT CO September 1, 2011 Dear Planning Board Members, The plat for Washington Village has been called up for a public hearing and is on your agenda for September 15th. The purpose of this letter is to explain why we are filing a plat and subdividing the site into two lots and two outlots. The primary purpose of the plat is to enable the easements and outlots for the development to be established and recorded, including the outlot that establishes the future public park at the corner of Cedar and 13th Street. It is the only acceptable way to establish the park desired by the neighbors. A secondary purpose, which in the current economic environment is very important, is to enable the financing for the project to be divided into two components, the single family and the attached multifamily. The long drawn out political process, together with the housing driven recession, has generated significant hardship for the future residents/community members who have invested time and money in the project, many who have been forced to abandon their hopes of living in the community. Fortunately, the community has continued to attract a high level of new cohousing buyer interest in spite of the political and financial challenges. The financial issues are important because, unlike prerecession times, it is extremely difficult to find a single lending source for a community driven residential project like Washington Village, or to build it out in one financing phase. Today, financing for this kind of project requires nearly 100 percent presales with large at risk down payment investments on the portion being financed. There are few traditional financing sources available and their lending capacities and conditions are greatly limiting. In order to arrange construction financing to be able to start both the single family homes and the first of the multifamily buildings, we have had to break the loans up by building and use multiple lenders, both institutional/bank and private. By platting separate lots for the single family homes and the multifamily, we are able to separate the security for the loans such that it allows us to begin construction on the detached homes and the renovation of the school. The separation of the building sites was a requirement of the lenders for the school construction. 44 Agenda Item 56 Page 9 of 49 4676 Broadway • Boulder, Colorado 80304 P: 303.449.3232 F: 303.449.3275 www.whdc.com This in no way affects our intent and ability to complete the project as a single community and, in fact, enables us to do so sooner and with less risk for the future residents that are providing a significant amount of the capital required for the project. In summary, I would like to assure you that there is no intent to modify or change the design or requirements of the approved site development plan through the platting of the property. The only significant design modification we are proposing is to make the single family homes that surround the proposed park smaller in bulk and primarily one story in height, a change that does not relate to the platting, should not require modification of the development approval, and that should better meet the desires of the neighborhood. Thank you for your consideration. Jim Leach President 45 Agenda Item 5B Page 10 of 49 Attachment B Dedication KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS: THAT THE UNDERSIGNED, BEING THE OWNER OF THAT PARCEL OF LAND SITUATED IN THE CITY OF BOULDER, AND LYING WITHIN THE JOSEPH WOLFF'S SUBDIVISION RECORDED 1 IN PLAN BOOK 2 AT PAGE 53 OF THE BOULDER COUNTY CLERK AND RECORDER'S OFFICE, BEING LOCATED IN THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 30, TOWNSHIP 1 NORTH, RANGE 70 WEST OF THE 6TH P.M., COUNTY OF BOULDER, STATE OF COLORADO DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: ~ ~ ~ TOS. WOLFF'S SUBDIVISION, LOCATED A PORTION OF LOT 1 IN JOSEPH WOLFF'S SUBDIVISION OF THE NORTH HALF OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER ~ RANGE 70 BEST OF THE 6TH P. M , OF SECTION 30, TOWNSHIP 1 NORTH, RANGE 70 WEST OF THE 6TH P.M., COUNTY OF BOULDER, STATE OF ~ ~ COLORADO; BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID LOT 1, THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG THE WEST ~ LINE OF SAID LOT 1 A DISTANCE OF 95 FEET; THENCE EASTERLY AND PARALLEL TO THE NORTH LINE OF > > ,DEB, STATE OF COLORADO SAID LOT 1 TO THE EAST LINE OF SAID LOT 1; THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID LOT 1 A DISTANCE OF 95 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID LOT 1• THENCE WESTERLY ALONG THE - ~ , SOUTH LINE OF SAID LOT 1 TO THE PLACE OF BEGINNING, / 00 ACRES LOTS 2 AND 3, JOS. WOLFF'S SUBDIVISION, COUNTY OF BOULDER, STATE OF COLORADO, AND 2 Mapcheck Course: N 00-00-00 E Distance: 292.52 ALL THAT PORTION OF LOT 4 JOSEPH WOLFF'S SUBDIVISION OF THE NORTH HALF OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 30, TOWNSHIP 1 NORTH, RANGE 70 WEST OF THE 6TH P.M., COUNTY OF BOULDER, Y,;,,~'~~''ti' ~ ° ~r~ ~ ~ - Course: S 89-33-01 E Distance: 447.17 TAT F RADO RI F W T -WIT: INNI AT TH OUTHW T R R F AI S E 0 COLD DESC BED AS OLLO S, 0 BEG NG E S ES CO NE 0 S o Lender's Consent and Subordination f~ ~ _ ~~g ` Course: S 00-00-57 E Distance: 292.05 LOT 4, THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID LOT 4 A DISTANCE OF 95 FEET; THENCE .`r~--~"P~`~ Y i t ~ ~ r~~ R ~ Course: N 89-36-36 W Distonce: 447.25 ° ~ ~ ' ~ - ~ ~ ~ t Rg' r ~~.yr v5ut' I~ EASTERLY AND PARALLEL TO THE NORTH LINE OF SAID LOT 4 TO THE EAST LINE OF SAID LOT 4; THENCE THE UNDERSIGNED, A BENEFICIARY UNDER A CERTAIN DEED OF TRUST ENCUMBERING THE PROPERTY, _ .s . ~ ~,~,F ~ ~ Perimeter: 1478.99 SOUTHERLY ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID LOT 4 A DISTANCE OF 95 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER HEREBY EXPRESSLY CONSENTS TO AND JOINS IN THE EXECUTION AND RECORDING OF THIS SUBDIVISION OF SAID LOT 4; THENCE WESTERLY ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID LOT 4 TO THE PLACE OF BEGINNING. PLAT DEDICATION AND EASEMENTS SHOWN HEREON AND MAKES THE DEED OF TRUST SUBORDINATE ~ ' } ~ . sus ~ ~ ° Area: 130709.75 3.00 acres HERETO. THE UNDERSIGNED REPRESENTS THAT HE OR SHE HAS FULL POWER AND AUTHORITY TO ` ~ ~ ~ Error of Closure: 0.005 Course: S 31-15-21 E k'"" r+Y~"" s - ~ f THE UNDERSIGNED DOES GRANT TO THE CITY OF BOULDER THAT REAL PROPERTY DESIGNATED AS 'UTILITY ' ~ ' ` ' EXECUTE THIS LENDER'S CONSENT AND SUBORDINATION ON BEHALF OF THE LENDER STATED BELOW. ' I~= Precision 1: 283428.30 " CC{"" it ; ~7 ?'S'~ ~ EASEMENT' ON THE ACCOMPANYING PLAT AS AN EASEMENT FOR INGRESS AND EGRESS AND THE ~ CONSTRUCTION, INSTALLATION, OPERATION, MAINTENANCE, REPAIR AND REPLACEMENT FOR ALL SERVICES, ~ ° tr~~` i.,'~ r ~ ; r ~ r 'fie ~ ~ ~ ~f~~ « INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITING THE GENERALITY OF THE FOREGOING: TELEPHONE AND ELECTRIC LINES ~ ~ a~ ~ ~ ~ ~'~t , :fit ~ lxr i~~~ ~,IR WORKS, POLES, UNDERGROUND CABLES, GAS PIPELINES, WATER PIPELINES, SANITARY SEWER LINES, STREET . LIGHTS CULVERTS HYDRANTS DRAINAGE DITCHES AND DRAINS ANO ALL APPURTENANCES THERETO. IT IS BY: ~ J. KIRK HENDRICKS . ~ „ r~~' EXPRESSLY UNDERSTOOD AND AGREED BY THE UNDERSIGNED THAT ALL EXPENSES AND COSTS INVOLVED IN ~ I F WASHINGTON ~ - i~ R~~~~° i,:~ VILLAGE II f CONSTRUCTING AND INSTALLING WATER, PIPELINES AND APPURTENANCES, SANITARY SEWER WORKS AND - ' ~ ~ ~ . ~ ~ ~~,~)y~ SUBDIVISION LINES, GAS SERVICE LINES, ELECTRICAL SERVICE WORKS AND LINES, STORM SEWERS AND DRAINS, STREET "r ~ TTY:!. , T TMt1 ~ , ~ ' LIGHTING GRADING AND LANDSCAPING CURBS GUTTERS STREET PAVEMENT 51DEWALKS AND OTHER SUCH ~ Acknowledgment ~ RBI,;}4 UTILITIES AND SERVICES SHALL BE GUARANTEED AND PAID FOR BY THE SUBDIVIDER OR ARRANGEMENTS MADE BY THE SUBDIVIDER THEREFORE WHICH ARE APPROVED BY THE CITY OF BOULDER, AND SUCH SUMS STATE OF ~p 4i 1, x ~ ~ ~kPk~ df.: t , ~ f°~ SHALL NOT BE PAID BY THE CITY OF BOULDER, COLORADO, AND THAT ANY ITEM SO CONSTRUCTED OR ) SS , INSTALLED AND ACCEPTED BY THE CITY OF BOULDER, COLORADO, SHALL BECOME THE SOLE PROPERTY OF THE CITY OF BOULDER, EXCEPT ITEMS OWNED BY MUNICIPALLY FRANCHISED OR PERMITTED UTILITIES , COUNTY OF .,-t-~ WHICH ITEMS WHEN CONSTRUCTED OR INSTALLED SHALL REMAIN THE PROPERTY OF THE OWNER OR THE ~ ~ Y THE FOREGOING INSTRUMENT WAS ACKNOWLEDGED BEFORE ME THIS DAY OF 20___, r,J.~ ti-„~~~~,,,.7~'`~ , PUBLIC UTILITY, AND SHALL NOT BECOME THE PROPERTY OF THE CITY OF BOULDER. _,~IS,: ; BY J. KIRK HENDRICKS. ~I~ Rt I ~ ~ a THE UN R I N F RTH R RANT TO TH CITY F R THAT R AL PR PERTY I NAT A ~ DE S G ED DOES U E G E 0 BOULDE E 0 DES G ED S WITNESS MY HAND AND SEAL. 'PUBLIC ACCESS EASEMENT" ON THE ACCOMPANYING PLAT AS AN EASEMENT FOR PUBLIC INGRESS AND ~F"°~:'i:++ ; ~ ~ rr ~ ~ ,..``w p.. ' MY COMMISSION EXPIRES: ' EGRESS, AND FOR THE CONSTRUCTION, INSTALLATION, OPERATION, MAINTENANCE, REPAIR AND ~ ~ F ' REPLACEMENT OF TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS AND LANDSCAPING AND APPURTENANCES THERETO. IT r , ~ ~ - Surveyor's Statement IS EXPRESSLY UNDERSTOOD AND AGREED BY THE UNDERSIGNED THAT ALL EXPENSES AND COSTS INVOLVED m - ~'tei~iLl ~ r~+y~ut 7 ~ ~ « ~ ~ I, JOHN B, GUYTON, A DULY REGISTERED LAND SURVEYOR, LICENSED IN THE STATE OF COLORADO, ~ r ~a a 1 ~ HEREBY STATE FOR AND ON BEHALF OF FLATIRONS SURVEYING, INC., TO JVA, INC., WONDERLAND HILL IN CONSTRUCTING AND INSTALLING SAID IMPROVEMENTS SHALL BE GUARANTEED AND PAID FOR BY THE [SEAL] s~?~ ~ SUBDIVIDER OR ARRANGEMENTS MADE BY THE SUBDIVIDER THEREFORE WHICH ARE APPROVED BY THE CITY ~~~~F., , 3` ~ ~ ' - ~ n-'~~ DEVELOPMENT COMPANY AND UNITED TITLE COMPANY THAT THIS PLAT ACCURATELY REPRESENTS THE OF BOULDER AND SUCH SUMS SHALL NOT BE PAID BY THE CITY OF BOULDER COLORADO AND THAT ANY NOTARY PUBLIC " " z, . ~ r RESULTS OF A SURVEY MADE BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND MEETS THE ITEM SO CONSTRUCTED OR INSTALLED AND ACCEPTED BY THE CITY OF BOULDER, COLORADO, SHALL . ~ ~~.~~~L~! k" ° i`"' REQUIREMENTS OF APPLICABLE COLORADO STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS. BECOME THE SOLE PROPERTY OF THE CITY OF BOULDER. Vicinity Map THE UNDERSIGNED DOES FURTHER GRANT TO THE CITY OF BOULDER THAT REAL PROPERTY DESIGNATED AS NTS "DRAINAGE EASEMENT" ON THE ACCOMPANYING PLAT AS AN EASEMENT FOR STRUCTURES TO CONTAIN STORM RUN-OFF FROM THE SUBDIVISION, AND FOR THE CONSTRUCTION, INSTALLATION, OPERATION, IVOteS JOHN B, GUYTON DATE MAINTENANCE, REPAIR AND REPLACEMENT OF UTILITIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITING THE GENERALITY OF THE FOREGOING: CULVERTS, DRAINAGE DITCHES AND DRAINS, FLOOD CONTROL IMPROVEMENTS AND ALL 1) FIDELITY NATIONAL TITLE ATIONAL TITLE COMPANY COMMITMENT NUMBER 515-F0368242-170-JY2, AMEND. N0. 2, COLORADO P.L.S. #16406 FSI JOB N0. 11-58,088 APPURTENANCES THERETO. IT IS EXPRESSLY UNDERSTOOD AND AGREED BY THE UNDERSIGNED THAT ALL DATED FEBRUARY 17, 2011 ARY 17, 2011 AT 7:00 A.M., WAS ENTIRELY RELIED UPON FOR RECORDED INFORMATION CHAIRMAN & CEO, FLATIRONS, INC. EXPENSES AND COSTS INVOLVED IN CONSTRUCTING SAID DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS AND OTHER SUCH REGARDING RIGHTS-OF-WA1 GHTS-OF-WAY, EASEMENTS AND ENCUMBRANCES IN THE PREPARATION OF THIS SURVEY. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SHALL BE GUARANTEED AND PAID FOR BY THE SUBDIVIDER OR ARRANGEMENTS THE PROPERTY SHOWN AND MADE BY THE SUBDIVIDER THEREFORE WHICH ARE APPROVED BY THE CITY OF BOULDER, AND SUCH SUMS COMMITMENT. Y SHOWN AND DESCRIBED HEREON IS ALL OF THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN SAID TITLE SHALL NOT BE PAID BY THE CITY OF BOULDER, COLORADO, AND THAT ANY ITEM SO CONSTRUCTED OR INSTALLED AND ACCEPTED BY THE CITY OF BOULDER, COLORADO, SHALL BECOME THE SOLE PROPERTY OF Lender's Consent and Subordination 2) ACCORDING TO COLORAD TO COLORADO LAW YOU MUST COMMENCE ANY LEGAL ACTION BASED UPON ANY DEFECT THE CITY OF BOULDER, EXCEPT ITEMS OWNED 8Y MUNICIPALLY FRANCHISED OR PERMITTED UTILITIES, WHICH THE UNDERSIGNED, A BENEFICIARY UNDER A CERTAIN DEED OF TRUST ENCUMBERING THE PROPERTY, IN THIS SURVEY WITHIN THR ITEMS, WHEN CONSTRUCTED OR INSTALLED, SHALL REMAIN THE PROPERTY OF THE OWNER OR THE PUBLIC HEREBY EXPRESSLY CONSENTS TO AND JOINS IN THE EXECUTION AND RECORDING OF THIS SUBDIVISION ACTION BASED UPON ANY C .Y WITHIN THREE YEARS AFTER YOU FIRST DISCOVER SUCH DEFECT. IN NO EVENT MAY ANY UTILITY, AND SHALL NOT BECOME THE PROPERTY OF THE CITY OF BOULDER. PLAT, DEDICATION AND EASEMENTS SHOWN HEREON AND MAKES THE DEED OF TRUST SUBORDINATE DATE OF THE CERTIFICATION UPON ANY DEFECT IN THIS SURVEY BE COMMENCED MORE THAN TEN YEARS FROM THE CERTIFICATION SHOWN HEREON. THE UNDERSIGNED DOES FURTHER GRANT TO THE CITY OF BOULDER A "STORM DETENTION DRAINAGE AND HERETO. THE UNDERSIGNED REPRESENTS THAT HE OR SHE HAS FULL POWER AND AUTHORITY TO „ EXECUTE THIS LENDER'S CONSENT AND SUBORDINATION ON BEHALF OF THE LENDER STATED BELOW. 3) BASIS OF BEARINGS: THE BEARINGS: THE CENTERLINE OF BROADWAY IS ASSUMED TO BEAR N00'00'00"E BETWEEN UTILITY EASEMENT COVERING ALL OF THOSE PORTIONS OF REAL PROPERTY DESIGNATED AS OUTLOT A TWO FOUND MONUMENTS IN IONUMENTS IN BROADWAY AS SHOWN AND DESCRIBED HEREON. ApprOVaIS AND "OUTLOT C" ON THE ACCOMPANYING PLAT AS AN EASEMENT FOR STRUCTURES TO CONTAIN STORM RUN-OFF FROM THE SUBDIVISION AND VEHICULAR ACCESS BY CITY VEHICLES. 4) ANY PERSON WHO KNOW DN WHO KNOWINGLY REMOVES, ALTERS OR DEFACES ANY PUBLIC LAND SURVEY MONUMENT BY:________________________ AND/OR BOUNDARY MONUMI JDARY MONUMENT OR ACCESSORY, COMMITS A CLASS TWO (2) MISDEMEANOR PURSUANT TO FOR THE APPROVAL OF "WASHINGTON VILLAGE II SUBDIVISION' AND THE DEDICATIONS AND CONDITIONS SHARI S. LEACN STATE STATUTE C.R.S. SEC. fE C.R.S. SEC. 18-4-508. WHICH APPLY THERETO, THIS DAY OF 20___. DIRECTOR OF PLANNING 5) FLOOD INFORMATION: THI ORMATION: THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED IN ZONE X (UNSHADED), AREAS DETERMINED TO BE OUTSIDE Acknowledgment RATE MAP; COMMUNITY-PAP '0 BE OUTSIDE THE 500-YR FLOODPLAIN ACCORDING TO THE FEMA FLOOD INSURANCE DMMUNITY-PANEL N0. 08013C0395 F, DATED JUNE 2, 1995. FLOOD INFORMATION IS WASHINGTON SCHOOL DEVELOPMENTS LLC, SUBJECT TO CHANGE. ;HANGE. DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS AND UTILITIES A COLORADO LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY STATE OF ) ) SS. 6) THIS PLAT REPRESENTS COUNTY OF RECORDS IN BOOK 2 AT PA REPRESENTS A BOUNDARY SURVEY OF PARCEL DESCRIBED IN BOULDER COUNTY DEED 300K 2 AT PAGE 53. BY: JAMES W. LEACH MANAGER THE FOREGOING INSTRUMENT WAS ACKNOWLEDGED BEFORE ME THIS DAY OF 20___, 7 THIS SURVEY IS VALID 0 EY IS VALID ONLY IF IT HAS ORIGINAL SEAL AND SIGNATURE OF SURVEYOR. QWEST CORPORATION BY SHARI S. LEACH Acknowledgment WITNESS MY HAND AND SEAL. 8) THE PROPERTY SHOWN F =RTY SHOWN HEREON IS ZONED "RH-2, RESIDENTIAL HIGH - 2" ON THE WEST HALF OF MY COMMISSION EXPIRES: THE PROPERTY WITH ADDITI( STATE OF PROPERTY (PER CITY OF BC Y WITH ADDITIONAL ZONING OF "RL-1, RESIDENTIAL LOW - 1" ON THE EAST HALF OF THE .R CITY OF BOULDER REVISED CODE CHAPTER 9). SS. (SEE TITLE 9 OF CITY OF B~ OF CITY OF BOULDER REVISED CODE FOR MORE INFORMATION ON ZONING REQUIREMENTS) PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF COLORADO COUNTY OF ) [SEAL] 9 PROPOSED SUBDIVISION , THE FOREGOING INSTRUMENT WAS ACKNOWLEDGED BEFORE ME THIS DAY OF SUBDIVISION ANALYSIS: NOTARY PUBLIC NUMBER OF LOTS 20___, BY JAMES W. LEACH, MANAGER OF WASHINGTON SCHOOL LOT 1 OTS 5 71,152 S.F./1.63 ACRES f 40,810 S.F./0.94 ACRES f DEVELOPMENTS LLC, A COLORADO LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY. LOT 2 OUTLOT A 2,461 S,F,/0,06 ACRES t OUTLOT B 13,173 S.F./0.30 ACRES f City Manager's Certificate WITNESS MY HAND AND SEAL. OUTLOT C 3.114 S.F./0.07 ACRES f MY COMMISSION EXPIRES: TOTAL 130,710 S.F./3.00 ACRES f IN WITNESS WHEREOF, THE SAID CITY OF BOULDER HAS CAUSED ITS SEAL TO BE HEREUNTO 10) AREA AS SHOWN HEREC [SEAL] CHANGE 51GNIFICANTLY WITH SHOWN HEREON IS A RESULTANT FACTOR, NOT A DETERMINATIVE FACTOR, AND MAY AFFIXED BY ITS CITY MANAGER THIS DAY OF 20___. FICANTLY WITH MINOR VARIATIONS IN FIELD MEASUREMENTS. FOR THIS REASON, THE AREA ATTEST: Lender's Consent and Subordination IS SHOWN AS A "MORE OR A "MORE OR LESS" FIGURE, AND IS NOT TO BE RELIED UPON AS AN ACCURATE FACTOR NOTARY PUBLIC FOR REAL ESTATE SALES PI THE UNDERSIGNED, A BENEFICIARY UNDER A CERTAIN DEED OF TRUST ENCUMBERING THE PROPERTY, >-ATE SALES PURPOSES. HEREBY EXPRESSLY CONSENTS TO AND JOINS IN THE EXECUTION AND RECORDING OF THIS SUBDIVISION CITY CLERK ON BEHALF OF THE CITY MANAGER PLAT, DEDICATION AND EASEMENTS SHOWN HEREON AND MAKES THE DEED OF TRUST SUBORDINATE DIRECTOR OF FINANCE AND RECORD HERETO. THE UNDERSIGNED REPRESENTS THAT HE OR SHE HAS FULL POWER AND AUTHORITY TO • EXECUTE THIS LENDER'S CONSENT AND SUBORDINATION ON BEHALF OF THE LENDER STATED BELOW. Lender's Consent and Subordination THE UNDERSIGNED, A BENEFICIARY UNDER A CERTAIN DEED OF TRUST ENCUMBERING THE PROPERTY, HEREBY EXPRESSLY CONSENTS TO AND JOINS IN THE EXECUTION AND RECORDING OF THIS SUBDIVISION BY:________________________ PLAT, DEDICATION AND EASEMENTS SHOWN HEREON AND MAKES THE DEED OF TRUST SUBORDINATE JAMES S. LEACH HERETO. THE UNDERSIGNED REPRESENTS THAT HE OR SHE HAS FULL POWER AND AUTHORITY TO EXECUTE THIS LENDER'S CONSENT AND SUBORDINATION ON BEHALF OF THE LENDER STATED BELOW. Clerk and Recorder's Certificate MILE HIGH BANKS Acknowledgment STATE OF COLORADO ) BY:------------------------ ) SS. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE STATE OF ) COUNTY OF BOULDER) SS. I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS INSTRUMENT WAS FILED IN MY OFFICE AT _______0'CLOCK, __M. COUNTY OF THIS DAY OF 20___, AND IS DULY RECORDED AT RECEPTION Acknowledgment THE FOREGOING INSTRUMENT WAS ACKNOWLEDGED BEFORE ME THIS DAY OF 20___, STATE OF ) SS. BY JAMES S. LEACH. ) rni ir.iTV n~ 1 FEES PAID:  w. -1 THE FOREGOING INSTRUMENT WAS ACKNOWLEDGED BEFORE ME THIS DAY OF 20---, WITNESS MY HAND AND SEAL. BY AS OF MILE HIGH BANKS. MY COMMISSION EXPIRES: CLERK AND RECORDER DEPUTY WITNESS MY HAND AND SEAL. [SEAL] DRA WN BY.• Flatirons, Inc. KJC 7108111 MY COMMISSION EXPIRES: NOTARY PUBLIC J. NIELSEN Surveying, Engineering & Geomatics KJC 6/03/11 DATE: 3825 IRIS AVE, STE 395 655 FOURTH AVE BOULDER, CO 80301 LONGMONT, CO 80501 INT.- DATE: [SEAL] 2/25/11 PH: (303) 443-7001 PH: (303) 776-1733 REVISIONS: NOTARY PUBLIC FSI JOB NO. FAX: (303) 443-9830 FAX: (303) 776-4355 CHECKED BY.. 11-58,088 wim,.Fdntirons-Tnc, con) N V/WW/ZG 46 Agenda Item 513 Page 11 of 49 1 P~A~ > > > WOLFF'S SUBDIVISION, LOCATED IN NW 1/4 OF r r NGE 70 WEST OF THE 6TH P. M , 0 ULDER, STATE OF COLORADO S. F. / 3.00 ACRES NORTHWEST CORNER OF SEC, 30, T1N, R70W, OF 2 6TH P.M., FOUND 2 1/2" ALUMINUM CAP IN RANGE BOX, STAMPED BOULDER LAND CONSULTANTS INC., 2005, PLS 20134. S89'29'26"E 30.00' Legend 0 FOUND ALIQUOT MONUMENT AS DESCRIBED cV O ~ FOUND MONUMENT AS NOTED cV SET #5 REBAR W/ 1-1/2" o PART OF LOI 1 O ALUMINUM CAP, FLATIRONS w J~~iS. WOLFF'S SUB. ~ ~ SURVEYING, LS 16406 O° ZONING LINE TONING LINE JOS. WOLFI-'`; SOLD. 1 O (PER CITY OF 8C PER CITY OF BOULDER) ~ SET 3/4" BRASS TAG LS 16406 O O O Z PUBLIC ACCESS ESMT so.o' S89'33'01 "E 447.17' 17' so,a' 254.01' 25.00' L1 oo' -_L1 193.16' L9 o i ° ~ - a j / N89'33'o1"W 168.17' ~i / / / i I Oi ~ N89'33'01 "W ° o _ I L10 4.00' 07 161.12 S89'33'01'E 168.17' N N89'33'01"W 231.46' , UTILITY ESMT 11.50' ~ - - - L --L - _ ~ L11 N893301° L8 L7 L6 N89'33'01 "W 94.1 T` S89'33'01 "E 64.00' I i L7 ~ 5.00' 22.55' I I UTILITY ESMT \RT - L=11. R=7.~ ~ I L=11.05 I NORTH R=7.oo' FART OF LOT 4 I a=9C 1 0=90.26'59° pos. woLF~'s sup. oI GRAPHIC SCALE 25.00' I CH=`: 00' I CH=S45'13'30"W ~i 0 9.94' o ~ 9.94' ~ 30 0 15 30 60 120 m I~ I ~ I~ ~ PUBLIC I I UTILITY PUB PUBLIC ACCESS ESMT ACCESS ESMT ~ W 3 (IN FEET ) } ESMT AND Q3 AND UTILITY ESMT 3.00' 0 ~ O 1 inch = 30 ft. a I 30 `I I I ° I o ~ u r I UTILITY ESMT N90'00'00"E 70.74 w ~ o Q ao 5.00' I Q o ~ o0 0 ~ o my N N N o I~ ~ N N N I b 5.00' W I ` 5.00' ~ O I I ~ EASEMENT LINE TABLE O Q NI ~ I LOT 2 I ~NI a 40,810 SQ.FT. I Line # Length Direction 0 0", I a Nlm I o LOT 1 N o WI ' W 1 ~ OUTLOT B 1 L1 8.03 S00° 00' 00"E z 71,152 SQ.FT. o of N ~ ':ol 13,173 SQ.FT. 1 of UTI ,°oI UTILITY ESMT 1 L2 8,00 S00° 00' 00"E iA o 0 N ° o "v~°~ °o I_C; ~ S ~ L3 9.78 N00' 00' 00"E ` _ N ~ ui 1~ti~i,, I1-~S .~J13. ~ 5.00' N I 15.00' - ~ I ~ ~ L4 40.09 S83' 04' 06"E L=13.35' w I ~ I R=50.53' o L5 5.21 S00' 02' 07"E I ~W ~=15'08'32" ° I N N90 00'00"E S00'00'00"E ~ I " ° 0 1 L6 4.00 S00° 00' 00"E co o~, ~ ~ CH=N16'52'11"W ° I ~ ~ 0 10.00' 11.os' o I ~ ~ O r7 ~ 13.32' Noo'oo'oo"E r-- to I z~ ~ I o ~I L7 5,00 N89° 33' 01"W 12.38 f1 N 8.00 ° ri Q~ ~ " l sR I w N90 00 00 W ti A. 5.00' ' ' S.oo' I Z L8 2.06 S00° 00' 00"E I IS.oo' I m w 40.74 L=12.43' AAA `~~SR' o 0 ~ 1 L9 8.03 N00° 00' 57"W 0 ~ O - SQ• ~ • G~ ~2•, o 0 ui O o R-22.25 0~\ ~ F p a=32'00'32" ~ uTIUTY ~ uru I UTILITY ESMT 1 L10 3.00 500° 00' 57"E N O ~ CH=N8'26'11 "W ~s\\ UTILITY ESMT ESMT ,I I ~ L11 1.00 S00° 00' 57"E Q U w 12.27 I I. m ° s.oo' ~ Z 30.0' F- d ~ ~ ~ Q (n ~ I c0 N I~ I J ~ I w ~ w L=13.09 ~ I l o. I~ ~ - ~ w orn I ~ ~ N ~ R-32.75 I o ~ UTILITY ESMT I N90°00'00"E 98.45' 1 I Q ~ a=22'54'29" S ° ° soo'oa'oo"E P7 M ~ " o ~ DRAINAGE I low N O _ ~ o N00'23'24"E 6.00' o M CH-N3 5310 W o f I~ NO N00'00'00"E OUTLOT A r? EASEMENT 1 ° ~ °0 6.00' S89 36'36"E 79.96 13.01 25.00' 24 z ZI I ~ I ~o' ~ ~ 24.67' 2,461 SQ.FT. N ~ _ L4_ _ 1 sao 1 47.08 72.53' 206.92 24.00 00 98.45 J 39.80' ~ ' 1 60.0' S89'36'36"E 447.25' ?5' 0 0 r~ b _ _ Na9'3s'3s"w 507.26= _ CEDAR AVENUE 0 60 R.O.W. FOUND #4 REBAR IN RANGE BOX AT THE INTERSECTION OF BROADWAY AND CEDAR. FOUND #6 REBAR IN RANGE Chi hint [~wnarahin Infnrmatinn BOX AT THE INTERSECTION OF  I-LUAK AINU 1 ~ I H J I Ktt I OUTLOT OWNERSHIP & MAINTENANCE PURPOSE PURPOSE OUTLOT A WASHINGTON VILLAGE COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION DRAINAGE FACILITY/STORM DRAINAGE & UTILITY EASEI ,ILITY/STORMWATER DETENTION, JTILITY EASEMENT DRAWN BY. Flatirons, Inc. KJC 7108111 OUTLOT B WASHINGTON VILLAGE COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION TO BE TRANSFERRED TO T FERRED TO THE J. N1ELSEN Surveying, Engineering & Geomatics KJC 6/03/11 CITY OF BOULDER FOR PAI .DER FOR PARKS PURPOSES. DATE: 3825 IRIS AVE, STE 395 i1" 655 FOURTH AVE IN T- DATE: BOULDER, CO 80301 LONGMONT, CO 80501 OUTLOT C WASHINGTON VILLAGE COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION DRAINAGE FACILITY/STORM ILITY/STORMWATER DETENTION, 2/25/11 PH: (303) 443-7001 ' 51 PH: (303) 776-1733 REVISIONS: DRAINAGE & UTILITY EASEI JTILITY EASEMENT FS1 JOB N0. FAX: (303) 443-9830 FAX: (303) 776-4355 CHECKED BY.• 11-58,088 a7nr.Flatirons1w.cou NV/WW/ZG 47 Agenda Item 5B Page 12 of 49 Attachment C Minor Modification Minor modifications to Site Review applications are common and expected to allow minor adjustments in complex development plans as they move forward toward permitting construction. Staff has found the minor changes consistent with the previous approved Site Review and the criteria of section 9-2-14(k), "Minor modifications to approved site plans," B.R.C. 1981 and intends to approve the minor modification application at the time of final approval of the subdivision. The changes are enumerated below: Requirement 2009 approval 2011 change Reason for chan e Amount of private 23.4% 0% (23.4% to be Due to dedication of 13,173 common Open Space dedicated to city as square feet as public park. in the RL-1 zone publicly accessible open sace. Total Site Area for RH-2: 74,398 square RH-2: 74,266 square Due to dedication of 13,173 RH-2 and RL-1 zones, feet feet (includes Outlot square feet as public park and Outlot B C for stormwater) and survey indicating RL-1: 56,312 square slightly smaller land area feet RL-1: 43,271 square within RH-2. feet (includes Outlot A for stormwater) Outlot B for future dedication: 13,173 square feet Total Residential 20,100 square feet 20,100 square feet Due to dedication of 13,173 Square footage in RL-1 (0.35 FAR limit (0.46 FAR limit square feet as public park. zone based on RL-1 land based on RL-1 land area area Total Residential 37,199 square feet 37,133 square feet Survey indicates slightly Square footage in smaller land area within RH-2 zone RH-2. Interior setback for Unspecified from lot 0 feet from lot line. New lot line between RH-2 South Carriage House, line; Setbacks No change in and RL-1 zones. North Carriage House, established from building locations. South Duplex and private access drive North Duplex no change). Required open space 14,880 square feet 14,853.2 square feet Plat adjustments result in on RH-2 side (20%) slightly smaller land area within RH-2. RH-2 zone proposed 3,720 square feet 3,713 square feet Plat adjustments result in private open space smaller land area within within decks, porches, RH-2. etc. Parking on RL-1 12 spaces 15 spaces A condition of approval required the addition of threes aces. 48 Agenda Item 5B Page 13 of 49 Attachment D For Administrative Use Only Sub Name: Washington Village iI Subdivder: Washington School Developments LLC Application TEC20 1 1-000 14 SUBDIVISION AGREEMENT A. Parties. This Agreement is made between the City of Boulder, a Colorado municipal corporation, (the "City"), and Washington School Developments LLC, a Colorado limited liability company, (the "Subdivider"), for the purposes of insuring that all ordinances and regulations of the City are met for the protection of the public health, welfare, and safety and obtaining the approval of the Washington Village II Subdivision, (the "Subdivision"). B. Consideration. The parties agree that good and valuable consideration exists as a basis for this Agreement, including, but not limited to, the City's approval of the subdivision of that parcel of land as more fully described in the attached Exhibit A and the provision of City services to the Subdivision, which Subdivider agrees is of special benefit to the Subdivision. C. Binding A ment - Notice to Subsequent Purchasers. This Agreement is binding upon the Subdivider and the Subdivider's successors, and assigns, both jointly and individually, and it shall be recorded in the office of the County Clerk and Recorder in order to put the prospective purchasers or other interested parties on notice of any of its terms. Additionally, the Subdivider agrees to notify subsequent purchasers of the Subdivision or any portion thereof of the existence of this Agreement and the purchasers' potential obligations hereunder by providing a copy of this Agreement to the Purchaser. D. General Requirements. The Subdivider shall commence, construct, and complete the Subdivision in accordance with: (1) The provisions of approval of the Final Plat; (2) The approved engineering plans dated July 12, 2011 (the "Engineering Plans") on file with the City of Boulder Planning Department; (3) The approved site and landscape plans dated July 12, 2011 on file with the City of Boulder Planning Department; (4) The approved site review plans dated November 17,20'08 (the "Site Plan Review"); (5) All requirements of Chapter 9-12, B.R,C. 1981; (6) The requirements of the "City of Boulder Design and Construction Standards"; and (7) All terms and conditions of Site Review No. LUR2008-00083. E. Public Improvements. The Subdivider shall provide the following public improvements, at no cost to the City, and may receive reimbursement for all or part of the cost of such improvements: (1) The public improvements as shown on the approved Engineering Plans, including the following: P:\LANDLINKIATTACHED1201105\TEC20110.00114\DRAIT.DOC 1 49 Agenda Item 5B Page 14 of 49 (a) Emergency access lane internal to the Subdivision; (b) Detached sidewalk along Cedar Avenue and 13'h Street; (c) Vertical curb and gutter along 13t` Street; (d) Accessible ramps at the northwest corner of Cedar Avenue and 13'1' Street; (e) All water and sanitary and sewer mains; and (f) Fire hydrant(s) located at the west side of the Cedar Avenue access approach, north of the North Duplex and south of the 13'h Street access approach. (2) The public improvements shown on the approved Site Plan Review, including the following: (a) Detached sidewalk along Broadway; and (b) Transit boarding pad, shelter pad, shelter, and bike racks along Broadway. The Subdivider agrees to install the improvements listed in accordance with the time limits prescribed by Subsection 9-12-13(c), B.R.C. 1981. F. Landscaping. The Subdivider shall be responsible for the installation of all landscaping within public right-of-way, including street trees. Prior to the issuance of either a temporary or a final certificate of occupancy, the Subdivider shall provide a financial guarantee according to the terms as set forth in Paragraph H below to secure the full cost of installing all street trees for the Subdivision. The Subdivider shall install the street trees from the approved street tree list and within the approved planting time as set forth in Chapter 3 of the City of Boulder Design and Construction Standards. Required street tree location and species shall be documented at the time of final plat approval for each lot and specified on the approved Landscape Plan for the Subdivision. G. Private Improvements. The Subdivider shall provide the following improvements or utilities in accordance with the approved Engineering plans at no cost to the City which shall be privately owned and maintained as set forth in Paragraph K below: (1) The detention pond, detention pond outlot works and landscaping in Outlot A and Outlot C; and (2) Private storin sewer and inlets within the Subdivision, including but not limited to those improvements located in the Drainage Easement shown on the final plat for this Subdivision. H. Financial Security. The Subdivider shall provide to the City financial security to guarantee the construction or installation of the public improvements specified in Paragraph E and F and other obligations undertaken by the Subdivider in this Agreement. The guarantee will be in an amount to secure the full cost, as determined by the City of Boulder Director of Public Works, of constructing or installing the improvements. The guarantee will be either: (a) a deposit of escrow of funds with the City; (b) an escrow with a bank or savings and loan association upon which the City can draw; (c) an irrevocable clean sight draft or letter of P:ILANDL1NKWTTACHED12011051TEC20110.00N DRAFTMOC 2 50 Agenda Item 5B Page 15 of 49 1 . commitment upon which the City can draw; (d) a performance bond for the benefit of the City upon which the City can collect; or (e) any other form of guarantee approved by the Director of Public Works, any one of which is in a form satisfactory to the City Attorney. The term of the guarantee shall be for a period of time sufficient to cover the construction or installation of the public improvements. If the construction or installation is not completed and paid for by the Subdivider according to the requirements of this Agreement and Chapter 9-12, B.R.C. 1981, the City may, in its absolute discretion, complete the construction or installation of the public improvements or cause the same to be done and pay outstanding claims and bills incurred in such completion from the. escrow fund or guarantee furnished. The Subdivider shall pay any amount above the amount provided in the guarantee required to complete the construction or installation of the improvements. The Public Works Director shall annually review the guarantee to assure that it meets full current costs of constructing the improvements whose installation it secures and, upon notification, the Subdivider shall amend the guarantee to meet such current costs. The City shall release the guarantee when all the improvements have been constructed or installed and the City has accepted them. 1. Warran . Upon completion of the public improvements and acceptance by the City, the Subdivider shall warrant all public improvements and utilities for two (2) years and shall secure the two-year (2) warranty by insurance policy or bond from a surety acceptable to the Public Works Director, payable to the City as beneficiary, in an amount adequate to replace or repair twenty (20%) percent of the total value of the improvements if they are damaged or become inoperable during the warranty period. If the Public Works Director determines that any such public improvements require repair or replacement, the Director shall so notify the Subdivider. The City will not approve any other development applications from or improvements constructed or installed by the Subdivider until the Subdivider satisfactorily repairs or replaces a defective improvement. If the Subdivider fails to repair or replace any public improvements after notice, the City may cause the work to be done and charge the cost thereof against the insurance policy or bond. If the amount of the policy, bond, or letter of credit is less than the cost of the repair or replacement, the difference shall be due and payable to the City by the Subdivider. J. Creation of a Common Interest Community. The Subdivider agrees to record a Common Interest Community Declaration as described above with the Boulder County Clerk and Recorder and provide evidence of such to the City, prior to final inspections for any building permits within the Subdivision. The Subdivider shall provide copies of the Common Interest Community Declaration to all Unit Owners of the Subdivision. The Declaration shall include the following: 1) Outlot A, Outlot B and Outlot C as shown on the Final Plat associated with this subdivision ("Common Areas") shall be owned by a Unit Owners' Association organized under Section 38-33.3-101, et seq. CRS; 2) The private storm sewer and inlets within the Subdivision shall be owned by a Unit Owners' Association organized under Section 38-33.3-101, et seq. CRS; P:\LANDLINK\ATTACHED\201105\TEC20110.001\4DRAFEDOC 3 51 Agenda Item 5B Page 16 of 49 3) The landscaping within Outlot B shall be owned and maintained by the Subdivider unless maintenance responsibilities are transferred to the City through a subsequent agreement; 4) Except as provided in Paragraph J.3 above, the Unit Owners' Association, and not the City, shall be responsible for costs associated with the repair, restoration, and continued and perpetual maintenance of the Common Areas and private utilities described in Paragraph G above with the City of Boulder having the right to enforce such maintenance and repair obligation against the property owners and the Unit Owners' Association; 5) The Common Areas shall not be transferred or conveyed except with ownership of Units, membership in the Unit Owner's Association, or for utility purposes without the prior approval of the City, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld or delayed; and d) Each unit owner within the Subdivision shall be responsible for payment of his or her proportionate share of any and all taxes or assessments assessed against the Common Areas or expenses required for the maintenance of common facilities. K. Maintenance of Common Facilities by a Common Interest Community. The Subdivider and the property owners shall provide for the continued and perpetual maintenance of the Common Areas and private utilities described in Paragraph G above ("Common Facilities") until conveyed to Unit Owners' Association formed by a Common Interest Community Declaration conforming to the requirements of the Colorado Common Interest Ownership Act, pursuant to Article 33.3 of Title 38, C.R. S, and shall thereafter be privately maintained by the Unit Owners' Association. The Subdivider grants and the City reserves the right, but is not required, to inspect these areas from time to time to assure that these areas are being properly maintained. If the City determines that these areas are not being properly maintained; the City reserves the right to perform the appropriate maintenance and assess the Subdivider, property owners and/or the Unit Owners' Association, if applicable, for the cost of the maintenance. L. Conveyance of Drainage. The Subdivider shall convey the Subdivision' s drainage in an historic manner and in accordance with the approved Engineering Plans so as not to adversely affect adjacent property. M. Defend and Hold Harmless. The Subdivider shall defend and hold the City harmless from any and all claims or damages that may arise from the Subdivider's actions in connection with the execution of this Subdivision, including but not limited to the construction of any public or private improvements or the failure to construct the same. PALANDLINK\ATTACHED\201105\TEC20110.001\4\DRAFT.DOC 4 52 Agenda Item 5B Page 17 of 49 N. Subdivider Warrants Ownership. The undersigned warrants ownership of the property described in Exhibit A and agrees to provide an update of the preliminary title report or attorney memorandum of ownership current as of the date of recording the Subdivision Plat. 0. Breach by Subdivider. If the Subdivider breaches this Agreement in apy respect, the City may withhold approval of all building permits and other development applications requested for the area within the Subdivision until the breaches have been cured. This remedy is in addition to all other remedies available to the City at law or equity. P. Relationship of this Agreement to Other Agreements. The terms and covenants of this Agreement are in addition to, and do not extinguish unless expressly stated, any other Agreements between the parties. Q. Captions. The captions herein are inserted only as a matter of convenience and for reference, and in no way define, limit or describe the scope of this Declaration or the intent of any provision hereof. R. Future Interests. If this Agreement is deemed to create an interest in land, this Agreement shall be enforced, if not sooner completed, during the lives of the undersigned plus twenty years and three hundred sixty-four days. This Agreement is effective on the date below indicated upon the affixing of the parties' signatures. SUBDIVIDER: Washington School De lopme is LLC, an y a Colorado li ted V By: J es each, alter STATE OF COLORADO ) )ss. COUNTY OF BOULDER ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me a Notary Public this 22ri~ day of 2011, by James W. Leach, Manager of Washington School Developments LLC, a Colorado limited liability company. Witness my hand and official seal. My Commission expires: /Ui120 t5 Nat uJOANQNA DOMAGALSKA NOTARY PUBLIC, STATE OF COLORADO my Comm. Expires may 17, 2015 P:\LANDLINKIATTACFIED12011051TEC20110.00114WRAFT.DOC 5 53 Agenda Item 5B Page 18 of 49 CITY OF BOULDER, COLORADO By: `~y Manag /Planning Dir. Date: ATTEST: City Clerk on behalf of the Director of Finance and Records APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorne ' ice -2 L) Date Exhibits A: Legal Description P:\LANDLINK\ATTACHEDM1105\TEC20110.00114\DRAFr.D0C 6 54 Agenda Item 5B Page 19 of 49 EXHIBIT "A" A portion of Lot 1 in Joseph Wolff's Subdivision of the North Half of the Northwest Quarter of Section 30, Township 1 North, Range 70 West of the 6th P.M., County of Boulder, State of Colorado; beginning at the Southwest corner of said Lot 1, thence Northerly along the West line of said Lot 1 a distance of 95 feet; thence Easterly and parallel to the North line of said Lot 1 to the East line of said Lot 1; thence Southerly along the East line of said Lot 1 a distance of 95 feet to the Southeast corner of said Lot 1; thence Westerly along the South line of said Lot 1 to the place of beginning, Lots 2 and 3, Jos. Wolff's Subdivision, County of Boulder, State of Colorado, and All that portion of Lot 4 of Joseph Wolff's Subdivision of the North Half of the Northwest Quarter of Section 30, Township 1 North, Range 70 West of the 6th P.M., County of Boulder, State of Colorado, described as follows, to-wit: beginning at the Southwest corner of said Lot 4, thence Northerly along the West line of said Lot 4 a distance of 95 feet; thence Easterly and parallel to the North line of said Lot 4 to the East line of said Lot 4; thence Southerly along the East line of said Lot 4 a distance of 95 feet to the Southeast corner of said Lot 4; thence Westerly along the South line of said Lot 4 to the place of beginning I 55 Agenda Item 5B Page 20 of 49 Attachment E Fox, Debbie Subject: Washington Village From: maniotus@aol.com [mailto: man lotus@aol.com] Sent: Monday, March 21, 2011 10:50 PM To: Guiler, Karl Subject: Washington Village Hello, we own a unit in the Red Arrow town homes, immediately bordering the north property line. I realize the current application pertains to subdivision of the Washington property... But as things are moving forward, we have a concern that maybe you can help us with. During the initial review process solar shading and details for the solar fence projected by the Broadway building were hashed out. IIRC a solar fence of 12' was agreed to. While this will probably reduce or negate much of the sunlight shining onto the floor and walls of our home during winter months, we want to ensure that we get all that we can. This is hugely important to us for comfort and for the fact that on partly sunny to sunny days we don't have to use our furnace during the day. Not being technically knowledgeable with solar shading and or the building of large structures our concern is how will we know that the solar fence hasn't or won't be exceeded? And is the 12' figure correct. And of course if Wonderland would like to go lower, well we'd be fine with that... Thanks for your time. Sincerely, Darren Hall and Elizabeth Jacobs 1 56 Agenda Item 5B Page 21 of 49 Fox, Debbie From: Guiler, Karl Sent: Friday, September 09, 2011 11:50 AM To: Fox, Debbie Subject: FW: Washington Plat Notice Public comment 2 Karl Guiler, AICP Planner II City of Boulder Department of Community Planning & Sustainability Planning & Development Services Center 1739 Broadway, 3rd Floor Boulder, CO 80306-0791 Phone: 303.441.4236 Fax: 303.441.3241 Email: guilerk@bouldercolorado.gov From: John Gless [mailto:gless@cybersafe.net] Sent: Tuesday, March 29, 2011 10:40 AM To: Guiler, Karl Subject: Washington Plat Notice Karl, Following up on our phone conversation last week, I would appreciate any further light you could shed on these questions: 1) Will this platting action result in nothing more and nothing less than officially recording the subdivision of the school property into three parcels, with one line drawn along the existing boundary separating the RH and RL zones, and another line circumscribing the drainage outlot exactly as it was depicted in the final drawing approved at Site Review? Unless this action involves a request for modifications to the Site Review or specific easements accompanying the subdivided parcels then I don't believe I would feel any need to offer additional comments. 2) At what point will the large RL parcel be subdivided into individual lots and the park area dedicated to the public'? I realize you probably don't know exactly when that application will be made, but it would be great if you could tell me more about that process and specifically about actions/decisions that must be made on behalf of the city (e.g. Parks and Rec Dept.) as part of that process. Thanks, as always, for your time, John Gless 970-420-9114 57 Agenda Item 5B Page 22 of 49 Fox, Debbie From: Guiler, Karl Sent: Friday, September 09, 2011 11:51 AM To: Fox, Debbie Subject: FW: Washington Plat Notice Public comment 3 Karl Guiler, AICP Planner II City of Boulder Department of Community Planning & Sustainability Planning & Development Services Center 1739 Broadway, 3rd Floor Boulder, CO 80306-0791 Phone: 303.441.4236 Fax: 303.441.3241 Email: guilerkr@bouldercolorado.gov From: John Gless [mailto:gless@cybersafe.net] Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2011 12:34 PM To: Guiler, Karl Cc: Fred Rubin; Stan Kyed Subject: Re: Washington Plat Notice Thank you, Karl. It really helps to see a picture. I have two concerns: 1) What provision is there for public oversight of "minor" changes`? I've looked at the B.R.C. section you referenced and some of the criteria are pretty lenient (up to a 10% increase in floor area) and some are wide open to interpretation (does not alter the "basic intent" of site plan approval). How does one find out what changes are being requested and weigh in on whether the classification criteria have been interpreted fairly? 2) I've encouraged Stan Kyed to follow up with you separately on this, but I still wanted to mention that while the plat shows a 6' buffer between the north property line and the access drive off of 13th St., the Notice of Disposition from Site Review mentions that this buffer condition (5' wide) extends south from the existing fence line. It was well established and understood during the Site Review process that this fence is south of the property line, so it seems to me that there's no way to determine whether the "basic intent" of site plan approval has been met with this plat proposal unless the location of the fence relative to the property line is included in the information available to the public. Can this be done? Thanks once again for your time. John Gless Guiler, Karl wrote: 1 58 Agenda Item 5B Page 23 of 49 John, The plat, which I have attached for your review, would establish a lot line in the area of where the RH-2/RL-1 boundary exists. Another would be around the area to create the park (which is still in the discussion stages between the applicant and the Parks and Rec Dept.) on the corner of 13th and Cedar. Funding is a difficulty, but we are having meetings to discuss what needs to be done to make the space an official park. If agreements are made to make the space a city-owned park, the space would be dedicated to the city upon approval and recordation of the attached plat. Other than the actual subdivision, there is are no changes to the approved site plan. Effectively, the building locations remain the same, the open space percentage is maintained, the floor area is consistent with the approval etc. The city has a process for minor changes to Site Review approvals reviewed at the staff level, which are quite common following Site Review approvals. These applications can be approved if the criteria of the section 9-2-14(k), B.R.C. 1981 are met: http://www.colocode.com/boulder2/chapter9-2.htm#section9 2 14 If the criteria cannot be met, mainly if it is determined that any change is not consistent with the intent of the original approval, than a Site Review amendment (with public noticing and potential for public hearings) would be required. The applicant has not indicated any intent to subdivide the SFD lots, but if they did, this is something that I believe would likely would be considered at the amendment level, rather than minor modification. I hope that answers your questions. Please let me know if you have any additional. Karl Karl Guiler, AICP Planner II City of Boulder Department of Community Planning & Sustainability Planning & Development Services Center 1739 Broadway, 3rd Floor Boulder, CO 80306-0791 Phone: 303.441.4236 Fax: 303.441.3241 Email: guilerk@bouldercolorado.gov From: John Gless [maiIto: aless cybersafe.net] Sent: Tuesday, March 29, 2011 10:40 AM To: Guiler, Karl Subject: Washington Plat Notice Karl, Following up on our phone conversation last week, I would appreciate any further light you could shed on these questions: 1) Will this platting action result in nothing more and nothing less than officially recording the subdivision of the school property into three parcels, with one line drawn along the existing boundary separating the RH and RL zones, and another line circumscribing the drainage outlot exactly as it was depicted in the final drawing approved at Site Review? Unless this action involves a request for modifications to the Site Review or specific easements accompanying the subdivided parcels then I don't believe I would feel any need to offer additional comments. 2) At what point will the large RL parcel be subdivided into individual lots and the park area dedicated to the public? I realize you probably don't know exactly when that application will be 2 59 Agenda Item 5B Page 24 of 49 made, but it would be great if you could tell me more about that process and specifically about actions/decisions that must be made on behalf of the city (e.g. Parks and Rec Dept.) as part of that process. Thanks, as always, for your time, John Gless 970-420-9114 3 60 Agenda Item 5B Page 25 of 49 Fox, Debbie From: Guiler, Karl Sent: Friday, September 09, 2011 11:51 AM To: Fox, Debbie Subject: FW: Washington School Public comment 4 Karl Guiler, AICP Planner II City of Boulder Department of Community Planning & Sustainability Planning & Development Services Center 1739 Broadway, 3rd Floor Boulder, CO 80306-0791 Phone: 303.441.4236 Fax: 303.441.3241 Email: guilerk@bouldercolorado.gov From: Fred Rubin [mailto:sail4sun@msn.com] Sent: Monday, March 21, 20115:11 PM To: Guiler, Karl Subject: RE: Washington School Thanks for the info. But let me ask again--Is Wonderland asking for any kind of change to what was approved previously? Looking at the Notice it might appear that they are separating the single family lots from the co-housing? I thought during the last go-around they included the SFR in the co-housing community. I would call this a significant change if that is what this about. BTW, did the final approval allow for a phased project? What is the time limit for the completion of the whole project? Have there been any other changes? Thanks, again. Fred Rubin From: GuilerK@bouldercolorado.gov To: sail4sun@msn.com Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2011 17:01:33 -0600 Subject: RE: Washington School Fred, All plats require public noticing per 9-4-3, "Public Notice Requirements," B.R.C. 1981. See Table 4-2 at the following link: http://www_colocode.com/boulder2/chapter9-4.htm I am inquiring with the folks that do the public noticing to determine why you did not receive a notice. If it is determined that it was not properly noticed we will renotice. In any case, please see the attached notice for your review- Typically large profile projects, like Washington Village before its approval, are added to our website as opposed to smaller as of right requests like plats. If you think there is interest in the community following the plat review on line, I can certainly inquire about providing that information on our website. 61 Agenda Item 5B Page 26 of 49 Either way, I will keep you updated on the progress of this review. Please let me know if you have any additional questions. Karl Karl Guiler, AICP Planner II City of Boulder Department of Community Planning & Sustainability Planning & Development Services Center 1739 Broadway, 3rd Floor Boulder, CO 80306-0791 Phone: 303.441.4236 Fax: 303.441.3241 Email: guilerkz@bouldercolorado.gov From: Fred Rubin [mailto:sail4sun@msn.com] Sent: Monday, March 21, 20114:25 PM To: Guiler, Karl Subject: RE: Washington School Hi Karl, Are you saying that they are not asking for any modifications to what was approved--what was it, three years ago? If they aren't why would they need a public review? Also, only one neighbor that I have spoken to has received the Notice. I am about 300 feet away so I should have also. Who puts together the mailing list? Either way, I think it needs to be looked at and re-issued if the appropriate citizens were not noticed. And shouldn't there be something on the website related to what is being requested? Thanks, Fred Rubin From: GuilerK@bouldercolorado.gov To: sail4sun@msn,com Date: Mon, 21 Mar 201108:49:38 -0600 Subject: RE: Washington School Fred, I'm not entirely clear what modification you are referring to. The current applications under review are for a proposed subdivision of the lot and the development of the some of the site work. I am aware that the applicants have been in discussions with the neighbor to the north to potentially reduce the width of the landscape buffer on that side, but that request has not officially been submitted. If they opt to do this, it would require a Site Review amendment. Like the plat application, public notice is sent to properties within 600 feet of the property. In either case, I will keep you aprised of the status of the current projects. Please let me know if you have any additional questions. Karl Karl Guiler, AICP Planner II City of Boulder Department of Community Planning & Sustainability Planning & Development Services Center 1739 Broadway, 3rd Floor Boulder, CO 80306-0791 2 62 Agenda Item 5B Page 27 of 49 Phone: 303.441.4236 Fax: 303.441.3241 Email: guilerkz@bouldercolorado.gov From: Fred Rubin [mailto:sail4sun@msn.com] Sent: Friday, March 18, 2011 6:28 PM To: Guiler, Karl Subject: Washington School Karl--I understand that this project is going for yet another modification. I was not notified officially about this. What is the radius that is supposed to be included? I also went to the Planning Dept website and nothing is showing up about this. Please direct me to more information and copy me on all official correspondence related to this project. Thanks, Fred Rubin 3 63 Agenda Item 5B Page 28 of 49 Fox, Debbie From: Guiler, Karl Sent: Friday, September 09, 2011 11:52 AM To: Fox, Debbie Subject: FW: Washington Plat Notice Karl Guiler, AICP Planner II City of Boulder Department of Community Planning & Sustainability Planning & Development Services Center 1739 Broadway, 3rd Floor Boulder, CO 80306-0791 Phone: 303.441.4236 Fax: 303.441.3241 Email: guilerkr@bouldercolorado.gov From: Fred Rubin [mailto:sail4sun@msn.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 20113:47 PM To: John Gless; Guiler, Karl Cc: sta n kyed Subject: RE: Washington Plat Notice Karl, I have a different question about this process. It is my recollection that in order to even submit a land use plan, (what we used to call PUD's) like the Washington Village, the land area had to be over 2 acres. As the site currently sits, it is about 3 acres. That is all well and good. But now if the site is split as proposed, the minimum required area is no longer there. If my memory about these criteria is correct, it seems to me that Wonderland is "working" the system. They kept it at 3 acres to get what they want, and now that they have it, they want to reduce the lots in size to an area that would not have allowed what they proposed to begin with. Do I also recall that the set-back requirements of the houses were reduced because of the "PUY nature of the proposal. If the subdivision occurs, are those reductions "grandfathered" in? Can you comment on this? Thank you, Fred Rubin Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2011 12:33:32 -0600 From: Bless@cybersafe.net To: GuilerK@bouldercolorado.gov CC: Sail4Sun@msn.com; stankyed@gmail.com Subject: Re: Washington Plat Notice Thank you, Karl. It really helps to see a picture. I have two concerns: 64 Agenda Item 5B Page 29 of 49 1) What provision is there for public oversight of "minor" changes? I've looked at the B.R.C. section you referenced and some of the criteria are pretty lenient (up to a 10% increase in floor area) and some are wide open to interpretation (does not alter the "basic intent" of site plan approval). How does one find out what changes are being requested and weigh in on whether the classification criteria have been interpreted fairly? 2) I've encouraged Stan Kyed to follow up with you separately on this, but I still wanted to mention that while the plat shows a 6' buffer between the north property line and the access drive off of 13th St., the Notice of Disposition from Site Review mentions that this buffer condition (5' wide) extends south from the existing fence line. It was well established and understood during the Site Review process that this fence is south of the property line, so it seems to me that there's no way to determine whether the "basic intent" of site plan approval has been met with this plat proposal unless the location of the fence relative to the property line is included in the information available to the public. Can this be done? Thanks once again for your time. John Gless Guiler, Karl wrote: John, The plat, which I have attached for your review, would establish a lot line in the area of where the RH-2/RL-1 boundary exists. Another would be around the area to create the park (which is still in the discussion stages between the applicant and the Parks and Rec Dept.) on the corner of 13th and Cedar. Funding is a difficulty, but we are having meetings to discuss what needs to be done to make the space an official park. If agreements are made to make the space a city-owned park, the space would be dedicated to the city upon approval and recordation of the attached plat. Other than the actual subdivision, there is are no changes to the approved site plan. Effectively, the building locations remain the same, the open space percentage is maintained, the floor area is consistent with the approval etc. The city has a process for minor changes to Site Review approvals reviewed at the staff level, which are quite common following Site Review approvals. These applications can be approved if the criteria of the section 9-2-14(k), B.R.C. 1981 are met: http://www.colocode.com/boulder2/chapter9-2.htm#section9 2 14 If the criteria cannot be met, mainly if it is determined that any change is not consistent with the intent of the original approval, than a Site Review amendment (with public noticing and potential for public hearings) would be required. The applicant has not indicated any intent to subdivide the SFD lots, but if they did, this is something that I believe would likely would be considered at the amendment level, rather than minor modification. I hope that answers your questions. Please let me know if you have any additional. Karl Karl Guiler, AICP Planner II City of Boulder Department of Community Planning & Sustainability Planning & Development Services Center 1739 Broadway, 3rd Floor z 65 Agenda Item 5B Page 30 of 49 Boulder, CO 80306-0791 Phone: 303.441.4236 Fax: 303.441.3241 Email: guilerkr@bouldercolorado.gov From: John Gless [maiIto: aless@cybersafe.net] Sent: Tuesday, March 29, 2011 10:40 AM To: Guiler, Karl Subject: Washington Plat Notice Karl, Following up on our phone conversation last week, I would appreciate any further light you could shed on these questions: 1) Will this platting action result in nothing more and nothing less than officially recording the subdivision of the school property into three parcels, with one line drawn along the existing boundary separating the RH and RL zones, and another line circumscribing the drainage outlot exactly as it was depicted in the final drawing approved at Site Review? Unless this action involves a request for modifications to the Site Review or specific easements accompanying the subdivided parcels then I don't believe I would feel any need to offer additional comments. 2) At what point will the large RL parcel be subdivided into individual lots and the park area dedicated to the public? I realize you probably don't know exactly when that application will be made, but it would be great if you could tell me more about that process and specifically about actions/decisions that must be made on behalf of the city (e.g. Parks and Rec Dept.) as part of that process. Thanks, as always, for your time, John Gless 970-420-9114 3 66 Agenda Item 5B Page 31 of 49 Fox, Debbie From: Guiler, Karl Sent: Friday, September 09, 2011 11:52 AM To: Fox, Debbie Subject: FW: Washington Village Karl Guiler, AICP Planner II City of Boulder Department of Community Planning & Sustainability Planning & Development Services Center 1739 Broadway, 3rd Floor Boulder, CO 80306-0791 Phone: 303.441.4236 Fax: 303.441.3241 Email: guilerk@bouldercolorado.gov From: Stan Kyed [mailto:stankyed@gmail,com] Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 20116:16 PM To: Guiler, Karl Cc: John Gless; Fred Rubin; Holly Kyed; John Kyed Subject: Washington Village Karl: I again spoke with Steven Toot of Wonderland the other day and told him again that we do not agree to any change from Council mandate on the fenceline and setback for the north side of Wonderland's development. Jim Leach and Steven Toot informed me during my meeting with them previous to that phone call that they had submitted their proposal with a change on the setback. Please note for the city staff that Stan, Holly, and John Kyed do not agree to any change from council mandate. How can we get some clarity on what is going on? Wonderland requested some dialogue with us a while back and it was agreed to meet in the spirit of civil relations given the nature of what will happen next door and the sure to happen upcoming disputes over noise, intrusion, etc.. We have agreed to nothing and simply want to be civil. Plans submitted should be reflective of Council intent. If not they should not be approved. Thanks Karl Stan, Holly, and John Kyed 2945 13th St. i 67 Agenda Item 5B Page 32 of 49 Fox, Debbie From: Guiler, Karl Sent: Friday, September 09, 2011 11:53 AM To: Fox, Debbie Subject: FW: washington school development project Karl Guiler, AICP Planner II City of Boulder Department of Community Planning & Sustainability Planning & Development Services Center 1739 Broadway, 3rd Floor Boulder, CO 80306-0791 Phone: 303.441.4236 Fax: 303.441.3241 Email: guilerk@bouldercolorado.gov From: jane blair [mailto:divamomjane@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 06, 20113:04 PM To: Guiler, Karl Subject: washington school development project hello there, i live in the neighborhood near the proposed washington school redevelopment, and i have one major concern: will the new residences have their own private parking? it will directly impact the neighborhood in a negative way if they are counting on street parking. thank you for considering my family's opinion, Jane blair 2975 Jefferson st. boulder, co 80304 i 68 Agenda Item 5B Page 33 of 49 Fox, Debbie From: Guiler, Karl Sent: Friday, September 09, 2011 11:53 AM To: Fox, Debbie Subject: FW: Feb 25, 2009 Wash Conditions of use and approval...... Karl Guiler, AICP Planner II City of Boulder Department of Community Planning & Sustainability Planning & Development Services Center 1739 Broadway, 3rd Floor Boulder, CO 80306-0791 Phone: 303.441.4236 Fax: 303.441.3241 Email: guilerk@bouldercolorado.gov From: Robert Poeschl [mailto:bob_poeschl@yahoo.com] Sent: Monday, May 09, 2011 10:08 AM To: Guiler, Karl Subject: Fw: Feb 25, 2009 Wash Conditions of use and approval...... Hi, Karl, Now that a construction fence has been built around east portion of the Washington School site, and signs posted to keep neighbors out, one of the neighbors has brought to my attention an adopted Condition of Approval requiring the developer to keep the southeast corner of the site open to the public during construction. This condition appears on page 9 of the forwarded link, under the multiple asterisks It doesn't appear that the construction fence as built will allow access to the southeast corner, though the west portion of the site is open. Can you please clarify whether the current fence complies with the Conditions of Approval? Best regards, Bob Poeschl 303-442-0733 On Sun, 5/8/11, Fran Brown and Michael Hibner <hibco(a~comcast.net> wrote: From: Fran Brown and Michael Hibner <hibcok)comcast.net> Subject: Feb 25, 2009 Wash Conditions of use and approval...... To: bob poeschl(a).yahoo.com Date: Sunday, May 8, 2011, 7:14 PM Bob, Per our conversation....... 1 69 Agenda Item 5B Page 34 of 49 page 9 below the 's http://www.bouldercolorado.gov/files/Clerk/Agendas/2009/03-17-09/3c.pddf Michael 2 70 Agenda Item 5B Page 35 of 49 Fox, Debbie From: Guiler, Karl Sent: Friday, September 09, 2011 11:53 AM To: Fox, Debbie Subject: FW: washington school park access Karl Guiler, AICP Planner II City of Boulder Department of Community Planning & Sustainability Planning & Development Services Center 1739 Broadway, 3rd Floor Boulder, CO 80306-0791 Phone: 303.441.4236 Fax: 303.441.3241 Email: guilerk@bouldercolorado.gov From: Isaac Stokes [mailto:isaacstokes@hotmail,com] Sent: Monday, May 09, 2011 10:44 AM To: Guiler, Karl Subject: washington school park access Hi Karl, My understanding is that the soon to be public park portion at Washington School is to remain open during construction. If you could provide some color that would be appreciated. http: //www. bouldercolorado.gov/files/Clerk/Agendas/2009/03-17-09/3c. pdf Thank you, Isaac Stokes 1201 Balsam Ave http://www.bouldercolorado.gov/files/Clerk/Agendas/2009/03-17-09/3c.pdf Michael 1 71 Agenda Item 5B Page 36 of 49 Fox, Debbie From: Guiler, Karl Sent: Friday, September 09, 2011 11:54 AM To: Fox, Debbie Subject: FW: Feb 25, 2009 Wash Conditions of use and approval...... Karl Guiler, AICP Planner II City of Boulder Department of Community Planning & Sustainability Planning & Development Services Center 1739 Broadway, 3rd Floor Boulder, CO 80306-0791 Phone: 303.441.4236 Fax: 303.441.3241 Email: guilerk@bouldercolorado.gov From: Robert Poeschl [mailto:bob_poeschl@yahoo.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2011 10:27 AM To: isaacstokes@hotmail.com; Guiler, Karl Cc: McHeyser, Ruth Subject: RE: Feb 25, 2009 Wash Conditions of use and approval...... Hi, Karl, Thanks for the clarification. I hope the idea of the park is not allowed to slip away owing to the undefined (and apparently yet-to-be-arranged) finance mechanism. It probably would not be hard to persuade neighbors to maintain the projected space, as we have already been doing that in terms of cleaning up after dogs (and not just our own) as well as removing trash. I know at least a dozen members of the community that would be interested. Best regards, Bob On Wed, 5/11/11, Guiler, Karl <GuilerK(&,bouldereolorado.,aov> wrote: From: Guiler, Karl <GuilerK(a)bouldereolorado.gov> Subject: RE: Feb 25, 2009 Wash Conditions of use and approval...... To: "isaacstokes khotmail.com" <isaacstokes(a)hotmail.com>, "bob poeschl aahoo.com" <bob poeschl(a~yahoo. com> Date: Wednesday, May 11, 2011, 10:01 AM Bob and Isaac, I received emails from you both about the southwestern open space. We expected that this question would come up. The applicant inquired about the condition below several weeks ago and I discussed the issue with i 72 Agenda Item 5B Page 37 of 49 the city attorney. The attorney agreed that the condition was primarily intended to protect the open space from construction impacts and was meant to avoid the staging of equipment etc. on the space so as to make sure that it was properly set up for potential to be a future open space (ideally open to the public). Today, the space is still under private ownership so the city cannot legally require public access until such time that the space is either under city ownership or with a public access easement that permits public access. A subdivision plat is currently in for review that would separate the space from the Washington Village project for dedication to the city. The current tragectory of the space is to become a publicly owned pocket park; however, there are funding issues that make this difficult. That said, my most recent conversations with Parks and Recreation is that they are looking into mechanisms to make this work and ultimately get it as a park. Thanks for your inquiring on this and let me know if you have any additional questions. Karl The Applicant shall protect southeastern open space from damage associated with construction activities and keep the area visually open during the construction of the development. Karl Guiler, AICP Planner II City of Boulder Department of Community Planning & Sustainability Planning & Development Services Center 1739 Broadway, 3rd Floor Boulder, CO 80306-0791 Phone: 303.441.4236 Fax: 303.441.3241 Email: guilerk bouldercolorado.gov From: Robert Poeschl [mailto:bob_poeschl@yahoo.com] Sent: Monday, May 09, 2011 10:08 AM To: Guiler, Karl Subject: Fw: Feb 25, 2009 Wash Conditions of use and approval...... 2 73 Agenda Item 5B Page 38 of 49 Hi, Karl, Now that a construction fence has been built around east portion of the Washington School site, and signs posted to keep neighbors out, one of the neighbors has brought to my attention an adopted Condition of Approval requiring the developer to keep the southeast corner of the site open to the public during construction. This condition appears on page 9 of the forwarded link, under the multiple asterisks It doesn't appear that the construction fence as built will allow access to the southeast corner, though the west portion of the site is open. Can you please clarify whether the current fence complies with the Conditions of Approval? Best regards, Bob Poeschl 303-442-0733 On Sun, 5/8/11, Fran Brown and Michael Hibner <hibco(a~eomcasnet> wrote: From: Fran Brown and Michael Hibner <hibcoLa),,comcast.net> Subject: Feb 25, 2009 Wash Conditions of use and approval...... To: bob poeschlLa)yahoo. com Date: Sunday, May 8, 2011, 7:14 PM Bob, Per our conversation....... page 9 below the 's http://www.bouldercolorado.gov/files/Clerk/Agendas/2009/03-17-09/3c.pdf 3 74 Agenda Item 5B Page 39 of 49 Michael 4 75 Agenda Item 5B Page 40 of 49 Fox, Debbie From: Guiler, Karl Sent: Friday, September 09, 2011 11:54 AM To: Fox, Debbie Subject: FW: washington Karl Guiler, AICP Planner II City of Boulder Department of Community Planning & Sustainability Planning & Development Services Center 1739 Broadway, 3rd Floor Boulder, CO 80306-0791 Phone: 303.441.4236 Fax: 303.441.3241 Email: guilerk@bouldercolorado.gov From: Stan Kyed [mailto:stankyed@gmail,com] Sent: Monday, May 16, 20115:20 PM To: Guiler, Karl Subject: washington Karl, thanks for your email stating that I am welcome to come by and view Washington plans. I want to do so, but it is the end of the school year and I am retiring in a few days. I know it is not your problem that I can not avail myself of the opportunity for a few days. A few immediate concerns. They are demolishing in the building and putting on a new roof. This must mean they have a building permit issued. I know that when I renovated my house I was absolutely prohibited from demolishing or doing work until my permit was issued. That raises a few other concerns. 1. Are asbestos precautions being properly handled? I have been around a lot of school construction and it doesn't look that way to me. 2. 1 always remember a red roof on the school and any historic color photos I have seen are a red roof. Did Historic Preservation approve the color roof that they are putting on? Most historic projects try to maintain the traditional feel of the exterior. Makes me wonder what will happen to other features of the historic look. Thanks Karl, Stan Kyed 2945 13th i 76 Agenda Item 5B Page 41 of 49 Fox, Debbie From: Guiler, Karl Sent: Friday, September 09, 2011 11:54 AM To: Fox, Debbie Subject: FW: washington Karl Guiler, AICP Planner II City of Boulder Department of Community Planning & Sustainability Planning & Development Services Center 1739 Broadway, 3rd Floor Boulder, CO 80306-0791 Phone: 303.441.4236 Fax: 303.441.3241 Email: guilerk@bouldercolorado.gov From: Fred Rubin [mailto:sail4sun@msn.com] Sent: Monday, May 16, 2011 10:45 PM To: stankyed; Guiler, Karl Subject: RE: washington Karl, I also wonder how Wonderland got a building permit without all of the planning issues being resolved. I fully intend to exercise my citizen right to call up any staff decision to the P.B. for their review. Given the citizen input of the past, I believe that the PB should be approving any requests for changes or modifications. When do you expect to reach a decision on Wonderland's planning change request? Thanks, Fred Rubin Date: Mon, 16 May 2011 17:20:16 -0600 Subject: washington From: stankyed@clmail.com To: guilerk@bouldercolorado.gov Karl, thanks for your email stating that I am welcome to come by and view Washington plans. I want to do so, but it is the end of the school year and I am retiring in a few days. I know it is not your problem that I can not avail myself of the opportunity for a few days. A few immediate concerns. They are demolishing in the building and putting on a new roof. This must mean they have a building permit issued. I know that when I renovated my house I was absolutely prohibited from demolishing or doing work until my permit was issued. That raises a few other concerns. 1. Are asbestos precautions being properly handled? I have been around a lot of school construction and it doesn't look that way to me. 2. I always remember a red roof on the school and any historic color photos I have seen are a red roof. Did Historic Preservation approve the color roof that they are putting on? Most historic projects try to maintain the traditional feel of the exterior. Makes me wonder what will happen to other features of the historic look. 1 77 Agenda Item 5B Page 42 of 49 Thanks Karl, Stan Kyed 2945 13th 2 78 Agenda Item 5B Page 43 of 49 Fox, Debbie From: Guiler, Karl Sent: Friday, September 09, 2011 11:55 AM To: Fox, Debbie Subject: FW: washington Karl Guiler, AICP Planner II City of Boulder Department of Community Planning & Sustainability Planning & Development Services Center 1739 Broadway, 3rd Floor Boulder, CO 80306-0791 Phone: 303.441.4236 Fax: 303.441.3241 Email: guilerkr@bouldercolorado.gov From: Fred Rubin [mailto:sail4sun@msn.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2011 11:05 AM To: Guiler, Karl Cc: sta n kyed Subject: RE: washington Karl, Thanks for the thorough response to my questions. My request to be kept informed is with respect to the Review Notice that we received on March 24, 2011, LUR2011-00017 and Tec2011-00014. These are all complicated steps in the development process and as I no longer am intimately involved with the development process I do not know what each step deals with--nor do I want to spend a great deal more time on the process. That is why we have the staff and the Planning Board. That said, I will want the PB to examine each and every change that is made to this project and at least per the Notice, and as you indicated, that is my right. Your letter is confusing to me in that the first and third paragraphs both address "minor modification" with conflicting answers as to my call-up rights. I also echo Stan's question about whether a re-roofing permit was issued prior to the current work being done and if Landmarks had any input as to the color. We all appreciate your willingness to meet and respond to our questions. Thank, again. Fred Rubin From: GuilerK@bouldercolorado.gov To: sail4sun@msn.com Date: Wed, 18 May 201109:59:56 -0600 Subject: RE: washington Fred, The minor modification application is staff level and is not subject to neighbor or Planning Board call up. After review of the application, the zoning changes are quite minor and if anything reduce the amount of floor area that can be built on the site and enable the separation of the corner lot from the project site for eventual dedication as a public park. 1 79 Agenda Item 5B Page 44 of 49 I'd be happy to meet with you to discuss the changes or I could forward you a table that shows what would change. As with any complex development project, minor changes are expected and are quite common. That is why the code is flexible about such changes. Nevertheless, I do understand your point about the amount of neighborhood input on the project. My efforts are to be as open as possible about what is going on so that neighbors are informed. Unlike the minor modificaiton, the final plat that is currently under review is subject to neighborhood or Planning Board call up per the section below: 9-2-12, "Final Plat Procedure," B.R.C. 1981: "Any person aggrieved by a decision of the city manager to approve or deny an application for a subdividsion may appeal such decision to the planning board by filing an appeal with the city manager wtihin fourteen days of the decision." If you believe that the plat is approved inconsistent from city regulations or the approved Site Review you are correct that you have a right to call it up. At this point, the applicant is required to make corrections to the plats and final plans before any decision. I would expect a decision on the application either next week or the following week. It could actually be later and is really dependent on how quickly the applicant resubmits the plans. I will inform you and others that requested notice when a Notice of Disposition is generated on the plat. In regard to your comments on the building permits, I understand your question about the requirements for "Prior to building permit application" within the Notice of Disposition and because of this, I raised the issue with the city attorney's office prior to the applicant's submission of technical drawings. The city attorney's office confirmed that the building permits referenced within the Notice of Disposition would be for new buildings on the site- such that there are a number of requirements that have to be fulfilled before any permits for buildings in each phase (namely the RL-1 side and the RH-2 side) can be issued. Building permits for demolition and maintenance to the school building would not be held up because of the requirements in the dispo. Just as any one has the right to submit building permits for improvements to their properties that are not contrary to zoning or any approved plan. The applicant already has technical drawings submitted and under review which are required to be approved and finalized before any building permits for new single-family homes or the attached housing can be submitted. I hope that answers your questions and gives you a better understanding of the process. Should you have any additional questions or concerns or would like to meet to discuss this further, please don't hesitate to contact me. Karl From: Fred Rubin [sail4sun@msn.com] Sent: Monday, May 16, 2011 10:44 PM To: stankyed; Guiler, Karl Subject: RE: washington Karl, I also wonder how Wonderland got a building permit without all of the planning issues being resolved. I fully intend to exercise my citizen right to call up any staff decision to the P.B. for their review. Given the citizen input of the past, I believe that the PB should be approving any requests for changes or modifications. When do you expect to reach a decision on Wonderland's planning change request? Thanks, Fred Rubin Date: Mon, 16 May 2011 17:20:16 -0600 Subject: washington 2 80 Agenda Item 5B Page 45 of 49 From: stankyed@gmail.com To: guilerk@bouldercolorado.gov Karl, thanks for your email stating that I am welcome to come by and view Washington plans. I want to do so, but it is the end of the school year and I am retiring in a few days. I know it is not your problem that I can not avail myself of the opportunity for a few days. A few immediate concerns. They are demolishing in the building and putting on a new roof. This must mean they have a building permit issued. I know that when I renovated my house I was absolutely prohibited from demolishing or doing work until my permit was issued. That raises a few other concerns. 1. Are asbestos precautions being properly handled? I have been around a lot of school construction and it doesn't look that way to me. 2. I always remember a red roof on the school and any historic color photos I have seen are a red roof. Did Historic Preservation approve the color roof that they are putting on? Most historic projects try to maintain the traditional feel of the exterior. Makes me wonder what will happen to other features of the historic look. Thanks Karl, Stan Kyed 2945 13th 3 81 Agenda Item 5B Page 46 of 49 Fox, Debbie From: Guiler, Karl Sent: Friday, September 09, 2011 11:55 AM To: Fox, Debbie Subject: FW: Washington Village final plat Karl Guiler, AICP Planner II City of Boulder Department of Community Planning & Sustainability Planning & Development Services Center 1739 Broadway, 3rd Floor Boulder, CO 80306-0791 Phone: 303.441.4236 Fax: 303.441.3241 Email: guilerkr@bouldercolorado.gov From: Fred Rubin [mailto:sail4sun@msn,com] Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2011 11:24 AM To: Guiler, Karl Cc: John Gless; stankyed; e.halteman; christianna; Win Nolin; Cathy & Bryan Fluegel; Paul Heller; Fran Brown and Michael Hibner; mikki Subject: RE: Washington Village final plat Karl, I hereby request a call-up of the recent Washington Village decision. Several Washington School neighbors who have reviewed Wonderland's subdivision application would like to understand the rationale behind it, specifically why the single family portion is to become a separate lot and whether the lot line corresponds with the original zoning boundary. Of specific concern to me is that I believe that Wonderland was able to make use of the "unified" size of the property in order to achieve some of their original planning modifications and I wonder if now that they have those approvals, they are requesting the split, which had that split come first it would live precluded the original application. We also believe that any modifications, whether it be this or any other, should be reviewed by the Planning Board given the history of this project. Thank you, Fred Rubin From: GuilerK@bouldercolorado.gov To: sail4sun@msn,com Date: Tue, 23 Aug 201108:46:00 -0600 Subject: RE: Washington Village final plat 1 82 Agenda Item 5B Page 47 of 49 Fred, You are correct that the code does not require a specific reason stating how the proposal does not meet code, but it is helpful for the city to know if there is an area that is perceived to be inconsistent with code. If your basis is that the final plat should not be staff level as you state then you can call it up. If that is your desire, please respond with an email that states that you are calling up the application and we will move forward. Thank you. Karl Karl Guiler, AICP Planner II City of Boulder Department of Community Planning & Sustainability Planning & Development Services Center 1739 Broadway, 3rd Floor Boulder, CO 80306-0791 Phone: 303.441.4236 Fax: 303.441.3241 Email: guilerh@bouldercolorado.gov From: Fred Rubin [mailto:sail4sun@msn.com] Sent: Monday, August 22, 20114:36 PM To: Guiler, Karl Subject: RE: Washington Village final plat Hi Karl, Your email suggests that I would have to provide specific information as to whether the application meets the code requirements. Per the "call-up" section of the BRC, it says, (a) Appeal: If noted in table 4-1, section 9-4-2, "Development Review Procedures," B.R.C. 1981, in a specific section, an applicant or any interested person may appeal the city manager's decision to grant or deny an application to the planning board by delivering a written notice of appeal to the city manager within fourteen days of the decision. This does not say that I need a specific call-up basis. In fact, I do not intend to offer a specific basis. My "basis" is that I want Planning Board approval at every opportunity. This "basis" was discussed with City Council member who agreed with me on this. Is that enough? Fred Rubin From: GuilerK@bouldercolorado.gov To: sail4sun@msn.com; stankyed@gmail.com; bob_poeschl@yahoo.com; isaacstokes@hotmail.com; divamomjane@gmail.com; gless@cybersafe.net; manlotus@aol.com Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2011 14:07:14 -0600 Subject: Washington Village final plat Hello, You are receiving this email because of your interest in the subdivision of the Washington Village project site. This email is to inform you that the City of Boulder Department of Community Planning & Sustainability has approved the request (see attached Notice of Disposition and Final Plat) according to the Subdivision regulations of Chapter 9-12. Because the subdivision was not explicitly part of the previously approved Site Review, a minor modification pursuant to section 9-2-14(k), B.R.C. 1981 has also been required and staff intends to approve the modifications for the following reasons: 1. There would be no change to the approved site plan; only the relationship between lot lines and building locations and very slight adjustments to the zoning calculations; No building locations or designs would change. 2 83 Agenda Item 5B Page 48 of 49 2. No exterior setback modifications, which are prohibited through the minor modification process, would occur; 3. The single-family homes would remain clustered on one lot consistent with the approved Site Review, and 4. The subdivision enables the creation of a separate outlot for eventual dedication to the city as a public park. If you disagree with the approval of the final plat and wish to appeal the decision, a written response must be sent to me on or before September 1. 2011. The written response should indicate the desire to "call up" or "appeal" the decision and should include reasons for the appeal. The reasons should relate to whether or not the proposal meets the Subdivision regulations of Chapter 9-12 (see http://www.colocode.com/boulder2/chapter9-12.htm). Planning Board will also be forwarded the application and may discuss the item at its September 1, 2011 meeting. If called up or appealed, the staff decision on the application will become invalidated and the project will be scheduled for a public hearing before the Planning Board for decision. If you have any questions or you would like to meet to review and discuss the subdivision, please do not hesitate to contact me. Karl Karl Guiler, AICP Planner II City of Boulder Department of Community Planning & Sustainability Planning & Development Services Center 1739 Broadway, 3rd Floor Boulder, CO 80306-0791 Phone: 303.441.4236 Fax: 303.441.3241 Email: guilerk@bouldercolorado.gov 3 84 Agenda Item 5B Page 49 of 49