The URL can be used to link to this page

Meeting Packet - Planning - 10/6/2011(4) CITY OF BOULDER X PLANNING BOARD MEETING AGENDA 0 4.-. t ~ DATE: October 6, 2011 TIME: 6 p.m. PLACE: Council Chambers, 1777 Broadway 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The September 15 Planning Board minutes are scheduled for approval. 3. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION 4. DISCUSSION OF DISPOSITIONS, PLANNING BOARD CALL-UPS/CONTINUATIONS A. Minor Amendment to an Approved Site Plan, LUR2011-00048, 2700 Pearl Street B. Site Review for Height Modification, LUR2011-00050, 2215 20th Street C. Site Review for Poles Above the Permitted Height, LUR2011-00014, Mapleton Ball Fields (30th and Mapleton) D. Use Review for Manufacturing Use with Potential Off-Site Impacts, LUR2011-00055, 1898 S. Flatiron Ct. 5. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS A. Public hearing and consideration of a Use Review, #LUR2011-00032, for the Tavern on the Hill located at 1352 College Avenue, to allow a 3,748 sq. ft. restaurant and bar to be open until 2 a.m. A total of 70 indoor seats and 30 outdoor seats on a 920 sq. ft. patio are proposed. The proposed restaurant and bar is located within the Business Main Street (BMS) zone district and the University Hill General Improvement District. B. Public hearing to consider Site Review, LUR2011-00028, for the proposed residential redevelopment of 1.44 acres located at 955 Broadway and 1715 Aurora Ave. zoned Residential High Density Five (RH-5). The proposal includes two, three-story, 35-foot tall buildings with 39 attached residential units and an independent fraternity meeting space comprised of 2,305 sq. ft. The applicant has requested modifications to the land use code for setbacks and for a parking reduction of 27%. C. Public hearing to consider a Concept Plan entitled Near North Apartments, LUR20 1 1-00049, at 1000 Alpine Avenue to consider a new residential building (roughly 24,000 square feet of new floor area) on the site and conversion of the existing office building (roughly 31,000 square feet) to residential with a total of 38 dwelling units on the site. Applicant/Property Owner: Surround Architecture, Inc. D. Public hearing and recommendation to City Council on an ordinance that proposes amendments to Title 9, "Land Use Code" B.R.C. 1981 related to adding Community Gardens as a new use and applicable performance standards applicable to the gardens. 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.gou, 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 sandy session items do not require motions of approval or recommendation. 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 minutes 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 permitted 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 docurnents 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). An 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 cotu menced 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 Chan may request that the speaker conclude his or her comments. CITY OF BOULDER PLANNING BOARD ACTION MINUTES September 15, 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: htW:/hvww.bouldercolorado.gov/ PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Aaron Brockett Bill Holicky Tim Plass Andrew Shoemaker, Chair Mary Young PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Willa Johnson Danica Powell STAFF PRESENT: David Gehr, Assistant City Attorney Charles Ferro, Land Use Review Manager Karl Guiler, Senior Planner Debbie Fox, Administrative Specialist III 1. CALL TO ORDER Chair, A. Shoemaker, declared a quorum at 6:09 p.m. and the following business was conducted. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES On a motion by T. Plass, seconded by A. Brockett, the Planning Board approved 5-0, with 2 absent (W. Johnson and D. Powell), the August 4 Planning Board minutes, as amended. On a motion by A. Shoemaker, seconded by T. Plass, the Planning Board approved 4-0, with 2 absent (W. Johnson and D. Powell) and 1 abstain (B. Holickv), the August 18 Planning Board minutes, as amended. 3. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION 1. Paul Ward, 4670 7th Street - Spoke in opposition to the proposed homeless shelter in North Boulder, as he feels it will affect the local businesses and housing community. 2. Louie McKee, 836 Yellow Pine Ave. - Spoke in opposition to the proposed homeless shelter in North Boulder. He questioned whether this project fits the vision for North Boulder area and cited that 70% of all homeless beds will be in North Boulder if this project goes through. 3. Rick and Mary Blades, 233 Dakota Blvd. - Spoke in opposition of the proposed homeless shelter in North Boulder due to the dangers that the homeless already provide to 1 the community. They noted that the children of Dakota Ridge don't use the bus at Lee Hill and Broadway due to the potential dangers that the homeless pose. 4. Eric Shannon, 700 Yellow Pine Ave - Spoke in opposition to the proposed homeless shelter in North Boulder, as he has two girls under 12. He spoke to the dangers doubling the homeless population will have on the community. 5. Robert Corwin, 460 Terrace Ave - Spoke in opposition to the proposed homeless shelter in North Boulder due to the increase in homeless population in the area and the potential dangers, such as increased burglaries, presented by this population. 6. Ed Sbarbaro, 967 Terrace Circle - Spoke in support of the proposed homeless shelter in North Boulder. He is proud that the homeless shelter is in the neighborhood, that the shelter is beneficial for teaching compassion and feels it won't be negative on the community. 4. DISCUSSION OF DISPOSITIONS, PLANNING BOARD CALL-UPS No call-up items were on the agenda. 5. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS 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 Staff Presentation K. Guiler presented the item to the board. Applicant Presentation Jim Leach presented the item to the board. Public Hearing 1. Fred Rubin, 1329 Cedar Ave. - He wanted the PB to review this project at every possible juncture just to be sure nothing is being missed. 2. Stan Kyed, 2945 13th - He owns the property to the north and thinks it is important to keep this process public. He wants to be sure this project is meeting Council's intent. He has concern for who is responsible for Outlot B until it becomes a city park. Board Discussion A. Shoemaker thanked the staff and public for sticking with this project. He found that this request is consistent with the site plan and consistent with what banks are requiring in the current economic climate. It is in light this that it is important to keep it out of the bank's hand and keep this project moving forward; therefore he will support the project. Al. Young will also support the proposal and is grateful that this was brought to the Planning Board due to the history and magnitude of the project. On a motion by T. Plass, seconded by Al. Young, the Planning Board approved 5-0, with 2 absent (W. Johnson and D. Powell) application TEC2011-00014 pursuant to chapter 9- 12,"Subdivision," B.R.C. 1981 based on the findings provided within the memorandum. 2 7. MATTERS FROM THE PLANNING BOARD, PLANNING DIRECTOR, AND CITY ATTORNEY A. C. Ferro provided an update of the Landmarks Board decision on the Camera Building project being approved. B. D. Gehr asked the board to send questions to B. Johnson regarding the code changes for breweries in light of public concern that has been expressed thus far. C. B. Holicky gave an update on the Affordable Housing Task Force. He gave a summary of the report that will be presented to the City Council next week. 8. DEBRIEF/AGENDA CHECK 9. ADJOURNMENT The Planning Board adjourned the meeting at 7:36 p.m. APPROVED BY Board Chair DATE 3 MEMORANDUM Call-Up Item To: Planning Board FROM: Jessica Vaughn, Planner I DATE: September 22, 2011 SUBJECT: Call Up Item: 2700 Pearl Street Minor Amendment to an Approved Site Plan (#LUR2011-00048): Request to remodel and expand the former Circuit City tenant space at the corner or 26th and Pearl Streets currently occupied by Google. The remodel and expansion consists of the construction of a mezzanine level comprised of 2,898 square feet and minor exterior changes to the window and door fenestration. Also included in the development proposal are various on site amenities, including excess bike parking and an outdoor grilling patio. This approval is subject to call-up on or before October 6, 2011. Attached is the disposition of the approval for a Minor Amendment to an Approved Site Plan for the remodel and expansion of the former Circuit City tenant space (see Attachment A, September 22, 2011 Notice of Disposition). This request will create a 2,898 square foot mezzanine level, modify the exterior window and door fenestration and provide additional on site amenities, including secure bike 814-4 BT-1 eT parking and an outdoor patio. ~,aPSeton A Existing Conditions: P The project site, 2700 Pearl, is RMX - zoned BR-1, Business Regional-1, which is defined "Business centers of the Boulder Valley, containing a ~o~_ St BC-2 wide range of retail and RH-2 commercial operations, including t subject Area the largest regional-scale - peaC~' 2~00Peansr businesses, which serve outlying P J residential development; and W BRA where the goals of the Boulder' a Urban Renewal Plan are l o BT-2 N'' N implemented," (section 9-5- ` -watn .i 2(c)(2)(1), B.R.C. 1981). The site is also within the Boulder Valley Agenda Item 4 Pagel of 26 Regional Center (BVRC) and is subject to the Boulder Valley Regional Center Design Guidelines. Since the site is located within the 28th and Pearl Retail Center, it is adjacent to a variety of commercial, retail and restaurant uses, including Wahoo's, Flloyd's Baber Shop, Starbuck's, Pepper Pho, Spicy Pickle, Complete Nutrition, and office condominiums. All of the adjacent properties are zoned BR-1 with the excpetion of the properties to the north which are zoned BC-2 (Business Community-2). Background: Originally, the 28t1i and Pearl Retail Center was approved through the Site Review (SI- 95-18) and Use Review (UR-96-1) processes. There have been two Minor Modifications requests on the property in the past to add floor area to the existing building. A parking reduction was also approved in 2010. Currently, there is a 10% parking reduction on the property. Process: The current proposal is a revision to the original Site Review and Use Review approvals from 1996. Pursuant to section 9-2-14(1), "Minor Amendments to Approved Site Plans," B.R.C. 1981, building additions to existing buildings which exceed the limits of a Minor Modification to a Site Review approval, may be considered through the Minor Amendment process. Because the total floor area expansion to date (2,189 square feet), including the proposed expansion of 2,898 square feet, exceeds 10 percent (the limit of a minor modification), the review criteria for the Minor Amendment will be applied, specifically those related to landscaping, building design and open space, per section 9-2- 14(1), B.R.C.1981. Proposal: The applicant's proposal includes the construction of a 2,898 square foot interior mezzanine in an existing tenant space currently occupied by Google. The proposed mezzanine level does not alter the height, bulk or mass of the existing building as it involves the repurposing of existing interior space. In addition to the proposed mezzanine level, the applicant is proposing to modify the existing window and door fenestration along the ground floor to improve building access and permeability; provide additional secure on site bike parking; and provide outdoor recreation amenities, including a covered BBQ patio with grill for employee use. Please refer to Attachment B, Applicant's Written Statement and Attachment C, Proposed Plans for complete details on the proposed changes to the existing building. Conclusion: Overall, the proposed changes to the existing building were found to be consistent with the intent of the original Site Review approval in that the site and the overall building design were not being altered. The development proposal results in a more functional, pedestrian friendly and permeable building. Additionally, the proposed exterior fayade changes to the window and door fenestration, provision of additional bike parking and Agenda Item 4A Page 2 of 26 useable outdoor space are all consistent with the Boulder Valley Regional Center Design Guidelines for providing ample, functional and safe bicycle parking, minimizing parking demand, providing useable outdoor open space and by providing permeability and pedestrian interest. Please refer to Attachment D, Minor Amendment Reviel-v Criteria Analysis for a complete staff analysis of the review criteria as they pertain to the development proposal. Recommendation: Staff finds that the proposed Minor Amendment meets all of the criteria pursuant 9-2- 14(1), "Minor Amendments to Approved Site Plans," B.R.C. 1981. Additionally, staff finds that the proposed plans are consistent with the basic intent of the PUD and compatible with the surrounding development. This proposal was approved by Planning and Development Services staff on September 22, 2011, and the decision may be called up before Planning Board on or before October 6, 2011. There is one Planning Board meeting within the 14-day call up period on October 6, 2011. Questions about the project or decision should be directed to Jessica Vaughn at (303) 441-4161 or vaughniL&,,bouldercolorado.gov. Attachments: Attachment A: September 22, 2011 Notice of Disposition Attachment B: Applicant's Written Statement Attachment C: Proposed Plan Set Attachment D: Minor Amendment Review Criteria Analysis Agenda Item 4A Page 3 of 26 Attachment A CITY OF BOULDER Planning and Development Services f 4"t 1739 Broadway, Third Floor - P.O. Box 791, Boulder, CO 80306-0791 phone 303-441-1880 • fax 303-441-3241 • web boulderplandevelop. net CITY OF BOULDER PLANNING DEPARTMENT NOTICE OF DISPOSITION You are hereby advised that the following action was taken by the Planning Department based on the standards and criteria of the Land Use Regulations as set forth in Chapter 9-2, B.R.C. 1981, as applied to the proposed development. DECISION: APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS PROJECT NAME: Google Mezzanine Addition DESCRIPTION: MINOR SITE REVIEW AMENDMENT to remodel and expand the former Circuit City tenant space at the corner or 26`h and Pearl Streets. The remodel and expansion consists of the construction of a mezzanine level comprised of 2,898 square feet and minor exterior and changes to the window and door fenestration as well as providing various on site amenities, including bike parking and an outdoor grilling patio. LOCATION: 2700 Pearl Street COOR: N03W07 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: See Attached Exhibit A APPLICANT: VINCE PORRECA OWNER: Andre Family Partnership Ltd. APPLICATION: Minor Site Review Amendment, LUR2011-00048 ZONING: Business Regional-1 (BR-1) CASE MANAGER: Jessica Vaughn VESTED PROPERTY RIGHT: NO; the owner has waived the opportunity to create such right under Section 9-2-19, B.R.C. 1981. FOR CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, SEE THE FOLLOWING PAGES OF THIS DISPOSITION. Approved On: September 22, 2011 Date By: D xecutive Director of Community Planning and Sustainability This decision may be appealed to the Planning Board by filing an appeal letter with the Planning Department within two weeks of the decision date. If no such appeal is filed, the decision shall be deemed final fourteen days after the date above mentioned. Appeal to Planning Board expires: October 6. 2011 Pursuant to Section 9-2-12 of the Land Use Regulations (Boulder Revised Code, 1981), the applicant must begin and substantially complete the approved development within three years from the date of final approval. Failure to "substantially complete" (as defined in Section 9-2-12) the development within three years shall cause this development approval to expire. Address: 2700 Pearl Street Agenda Item 4A Page 4 of 26 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. The Applicant shall be responsible for ensuring that the development shall be in compliance with all approved plans dated September 22, 2011 on file in the City of Boulder Planning Department, except to the extent that the development may be modified by the conditions of this approval. 2. The Applicant shall comply. with all previous conditions, except as may be modified by this approval, contained in any previous approvals, including but not limited to the following: the Development Agreement recorded at Reception No. 1843987 for SI-85-18 and UR-96-1. Address: 2700 Pearl Street Agenda Item 4A Page 5 of 26 Exhibit A 04/07/2010 9:03:04 AM Commitment No.: 452-HO272698-370-BTO Attached Legal Description PARCEL I (Fee Simple): That part of the West 1/2 of the West 12 of Section 29, Township 1 North, Range 70 West of the 6`h P.M., County of Boulder, State of Colorado, described as follows: Beginning at the point of the intersection of the North line of Pearl Street, and the East line of the Southwest f4 of the Northwest 1/4 of said Section 29, (which point is monumented by an iron pin in concrete); thence South 0°22'40" East along the East line of the Southwest 1/4 of the Northwest '/4 of said Section 29, a distance of 82.69 feet, to the South line of said Pearl Street; thence South 74°57'30" West along the South line of said Pearl Street, a distance of 113.97 feet, to the True Point of Beginning; thence South 74°57'30" West along the South line of said Pearl Street, a distance of 150 feet; thence South 15°02'30" East, 135 feet; thence South 67°51'50" East, 172.89 feet to a point on the West line of 28'h Street as described in Book 1033 at Page 274; thence North 0°05' West along the West line of 28'h Street, a distance of 150 feet; thence North 30°41' West, 98.20 feet- to the True Point of Beginning, EXCEPT that part conveyed to the City of Boulder by Deed recorded December 15, 1988 as Reception No. 1882450. PARCEL H (Leasehold): A tract of land located in the Northwest 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of Section 29, Township 1 North, Range 70 West of the 6`h P.M., County of Boulder, State of Colorado, described as follows: Commencing at the point of intersection of the South right of way line of Pearl Street extended Easterly with the East Line of the Southwest '/4 of the Northwest '/4 of said Section 29; thence South 74°56'20" West, 263.97 feet along the South right of way line of Pearl Street extended Easterly; thence South 15°03'40" East, 135.00 feet to the True Point of Beginning; thence South 02°46' 10" East, 110.00 feet; thence North 45°46'20" East, 108.94 feet to the Southerly line of that tract of land conveyed to Tenneco Oil Company as described in Warranty Deed recorded on Film 613 as Reception No. 857016 of the records of Boulder County, Colorado; thence North 67°53' West, 90.00 feet along the Southerly line of that tract of land as described on said Film 613 as Reception No. 857016 to the True point of Beginning. PARCEL III (Leasehold): That portion of the Southwest 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4 and the Northwest 1/4 of the Southwest '/4 of Section 29, Township 1 North, Range 70 West of the 6'h P.M., County of Boulder, State of Colorado, described as follows: Beginning at the Southwest Corner of the Northwest 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of Section 29, Township 1 North, Range 70 West; running thence North 89°51'50" East along the South Line of the Northwest 1/4 of the Southwest '/4 of said Section 29, a distance of 731.16 feet; thence North 0°58' West to the South line of Pearl Street, City of Boulder, extended Easterly; thence North 74°56'20" East to the Point of Beginning, which point is on the South line of said Pearl Street extended Easterly from which point the intersection of the South line of said Pearl Street extended Easterly and the East Line of the Southwest 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4 of said Section 29 bears North 74°56'20" East, 263.97 feet; thence South 15°03'40" East, 135 feet; thence South 02°46'10" East, I10 feet; thence South 74°56'20" West, 371.50 feet; thence North 0°58' West, 250 feet to the South line of said Pearl Street extended Easterly; thence North 74°56'20" East, 334.04 feet to the True Point of Beginning; EXCEPT that part conveyed to the City of Boulder by Deed recorded December 15,1998 as Reception No. 1882449. PARCEL N-A (Leasehold): Copyright 2006.2009 American Land Title Association. All rights reserved. The use of this Form is restricted to ALTA licensees AME and ALTA members in good standing as of the date of use. All other uses are under license from the American Land Title Association. u-o-,Fd s:oroAgenda Item 4A Page 6 of 26 04107/2020 9:03:04 AM Commitment No.: 452-HO272698-370-BTO All that portion of 26'h Street as described in Right-of-Way Deed recorded in Book 1292 at Page 562 and as described in Quit Claim Deed recorded in Book 1287 at Page 154, all of the records of Boulder County, Colorado, located in the Northwest 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of Section29, Township 1 North, Range 70 West of the 6`h P.M., County of Boulder, State of Colorado, described as follows: Commencing at the intersection of the centerline of 26`h street in Pine Street Addition to Boulder as recorded in Plat Book 2 at Page 170 of the records of Boulder County, Colorado, with the centerline of Pearl Street in the City of Boulder, from which the intersection of the centerline of said Pearl Street with the East Line of the Southwest t/4 of the Northwest'/ of said Section 29 bears North 74°54'50" East, 732.41 feet; thence South 34°14'35" East, 118.24 feet to the West line of 26`h Street as described in said Book 1287 at Page 154 and the True Point of Beginning, from which a point on the West line of 26"' street as described in said Book 1287 at Page 154 hereinafter referred to as Point "A" bears North 00°58'00" West, 68.84 feet; thence Southeasterly, 40.01 feet along the arc of a curve whose radius point bears North 68°38' 19" East, 442.00 feet to a point of reverse curve, said arc having a radius of 442.00 feet, a central angle of 5°11'09" and being subtended by a chord that bears South 23°57' 15" East, 39.99 feet; thence Southeasterly, 131.97 feet along the arc of said reverse curve to the Southerly line extended Westerly of Parcel I conveyed to Andre Family Partnership as described in Warranty Deed recorded on Film 1212 as Reception No. 500492 of the records of Boulder County, Colorado, said arc having a radius of 514.00 feet, a central angle of 14°42'40" and being subtended by a chord that bears South 19° 11'30" East, 131.61 feet; thence North 74°54'50" East, 8.48 feet along the Southerly line extended Westerly of said Parcel I to the East line of 26ei Street as described in said Book 1292 at Page 562; thence North 00°58'00" West, 250.03 feet along the East line of 264' Street as described in said Book 1292 at Page 562 to the Southerly line of said Pearl Street; thence South 74°54'50" West, 63.80 feet along the Southerly line of said Pearl Street to a point from which said Point "A" bears South 27°04' 15" West; thence South 27°04' 15" West. 6.65 feet to said Point "A"; thence South 00°58'000" East, 68.84 feet along the West line of 26th Street as described in said Book 1287 at Page 154 to the True Point of Beginning; EXCEPT that part conveyed to the City of Boulder by Deed recorded December 15, 1998 as Reception No. 1882449. PARCEL IV-B (Leasehold): All that portion of the Northwest 1/4 of the Southwest'/ of Section 29, Township 1 North, Range 70 West of the 6th P.M., County of Boulder, State of Colorado, described as follows: Commencing at the intersection of the centerline of 26 h Street in Pine Street Addition to Boulder as recorded in Plat Book 2 at Page 170 of the records of Boulder County, Colorado with the centerline of Pearl Street in the City of Boulder, form which the interseetion of the centerline of said Pearl Street with the East Line of the Southwest '/4 of the Northwest 1/4 of said Section 29 bears North 74°54'50" East, 732.41 feet; thence South 34°14'35" East, 118.24 feet to the West Ene of 26'h Street as described in Quit Claim Deed recorded in Book 1287 at Page 154 of the records of Boulder County, Colorado and the True Point of Beginning, from which a point on the West line of 26`h Street as described in said Book 1287 at Page 154 hereinafter referred to as Point "A" bears North 00°58'00" West, 68.84 feet; thence Northwesterly, 45.39 feet along the are of a curve whose radius point bears North 68°38' 19" East, 442.00 feet, to a point from which said Point "A' bears North 27°04' 15" East, said arc having a radius of 442.00 feet, a central angle of 5°53'04" and being subtended by a chord that bears North 18°25'09" West, 45.37 feet; thence North 27°04' 15" East, 28.95 feet to said Point "A"; thence South 00°58'00" East, 68.84 feet along the West line of 26'b Street as described in said Book 1287 at Page 154 to the True Point of Beginning, EXCEPT that part conveyed to the City of Boulder by Deed recorded December 15, 1998 as Reception No. 1882449 Copyright 2006-2009 American Land Title Association. All rights reserved. The use of this Form is restricted to ALTA licensees AMERICAN and ALTA members in good standing as of the date of use. All other uses are under license from the American Land Title Association. UND T,TLE n550CInTiOM1 Agenda Item 4A Page 7 of 26 Attachment B F Land Use Review Application Form PROPOSAL: • Description of Proposal In the 36,366 s.f. building, add 2 mezzanines totaling 2,898 s.f. within the 18,785 s.f. space. East Side: Add 4 bays of windows and 1 door. West Side: Add 1 garage door to match existing. Add 1 clerestory window. Add outside grill. Add trellis above outside area. Replace trash compactor door with man door and add steps to below. South Side: Add security fence and door. Garage: Add 2 overhead coiling open mesh garage doors at ramp entry. Add open mesh security doors with panic hardware at 2 stairwells. Add curb with 2 bollards and 1 goose neck pipe with card reader. Roof: Add new roof hatch and relocate existing ladder. Add 18 solatubes. Remove 5 roof top units and 5 relief hoods. Add 2 dedicated outdoor air units, 3 twinned sets of condensing units, 3 make-up air units, and 2 exhaust fans. Landscape Improvements required as part of the Minor Modification for this site approved January 10, 2011 are currently in progress and are scheduled to be completed by mid-August, 2011. • Please reference enclosed drawings Ftia I 0 r' tf'`er n ` I L SlyirUtCP„S f PLANNIINC & DEV,E 011'ivlE1 1 ~G~ ;<IGLS DENVER f1JJ''PP- 1050 17TH STREET I Uiv ~ ~i t. p Fl AL LAUD USE DRAV lPd SUITE A-200 DENVER CO 80265 1 T 303 295 1717 C7 z / F 303 292 0845 N W a111N, 7 D i i S. AN J' tF LOS ANGELES Agenda Item 4A Page 8 of 20NOENIx AttacChment C Attachment C C C 75 Q 0 U U ~n ~ ~ Z Z W N C~ W O CD I` u7 - O n - ~ ~ ~ U) ~ ~ 00 W O )o w ~p ~p0 ~o U O J s N N ~ Z Q y Z ~ N N ~ W W ' O ~ O O -Z ~ C'7 M ~W 0 L - ~r~~ SITE C: Users kthomas D Goo le.tif P 9 r t=~ i r i li r r n ss~n o nva e e e ce . . ~ e. sers omas es o 0o e ma new. ee VICINITY MAP GOOGLE BOUL TENANTIMPROVEM INDEXOF DRAWINGS 2700 PEARL STREI Sheet Number Sheet Name BOULDER, CO 803 G000 COVER EX-201 EXISTING ELEVATIONS APPROVED THROUGH ADR2010-OD229 EX-201.1 EXISTING ELEVATIONS APPROVED THROUGH ADR2010-00229 A-201 PROPOSED ELEVATIONS EX-102 EXISTING ROOF PLAN APPROVED THROUGH ADR2010-00229 A-102 PROPOSED ROOF PLAN APPLICATION FOR MINOR A EX•101 EXISTING FLOOR PLAN APPROVED THROUGH ADR2010-00229 A-101 PROPOSED FLOOR PLANS JULY 28TH, 2011 EX-100 EXISTING GARAGE PLAN APPROVED THROUGH ADR2010-00229 ~ A-100 PROPOSED GARAGE PLAN RESPONSE TO REVIEW COMMENTS Di AUGUST 26, 201 f / r ~-.f ' KEYPLAN - = , ~ , -i ,,.n„~ ~ , ,,.-y ~ ,'f~~ - ~ ~ , - ~ t,' a 1 _ ~ s 4 ~tK~b ~+.1' 1 r•, 111 411 i 0-0 1 ARCHITECTURE MEP ENGINEERS LIGHTING DESIGN STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS ACOUSTICAL ENGINEERS CB RICHARD ELLIS RNL MKK RNL D.L. ADAMS ASSOCIATES CONTACT: KEVIN TERRIEN CONTACT: DAVID KEY CONTACT: SHERI ROCHA - MECH CONTACT: RACHEL PETRO CONTACT: JEFF BORGER CONTACT: DAVID ADAMS PHONE: 720-528-6424 PHONE: 303-295-1717 ERIC MENDLIN - ELEC PHONE: 303-295-1717 EMAIL: DAVID.KEY@RNLDESIGN.COM PHONE: 303-796-6000 EMAIL: RACHEL.PETRO@RNLDESIGN DESIGN PHONE: 303-318-6527 PHONE: 303-455-1900 EMAIL: KEVIN.TERRIEN@CBRE.COM -COM EMAIL: JBORGER@JIRSAHEDRICK.COM EMAIL: DADAMS@DLAA.COM CONTACT: CHRIS ALWAN EMAIL: SROCHA@MKKENG.COM PHONE: 650-253-1146 EMENDLIN@MKKENG.COM ALWAN@GOOGLE.COM COPYRIGHT 2011 - RNL DESIGN, F.C. This document, and the ideas and design concept=, incorporated herein, as an instrument of professionol service, can not be used, in whole or in part for this or any ether project, without the written authorization of RNL DESIGN. P.C. Agenda Item 4A Page 9 of 26 tem 4A Page 9 of 26 n N D V O 0 Z ~ Q W ~ C W O~~ ~ p ~ 'n ~OU~~ ti LO o r~ co ~N~~-O ti 00 o ti Q W ~ N C U LO N ~ W ~ N N N N O~ZMC'~ O~ WOO CV) CIO M M y~.d" 9 ~ r~~ < ~ r ~ ~ ~ ~o , ~ ~ ~ ~1 • ~Si 1n..~ fii 1ni.~i ~`5 M V ~d~.@ y ~ 1 1 1~ ~ 1 jY 1 h ~ ` + 1~ ~~.G? 1 } 1 1 1 , ' ~ ~ l ~o • S l' 1~, ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ l ~ 1 i l ~ i . w ~t ~ I , ` ~ ~ 1 ~ , Z,~~I ~F'r ~W` 1~} 4J 1 ~ ~ 5 s? ti . ~ ~ i 7 k ~ ti . ~ 1 l ' I +C ~ ~ i 1 ~ t , i ti ~ ~ k ~ ~ y ~ ~ ~ i 1 1 } i1 ~ ~ ~ 1~ ~ ~ w ~y ~ r~ ~ Y ~i ~ R I^ .V • 4 ~r 1 t `ti i ~ 1 1 i ~,~~J 6F. ~ r l ~ x w 1 ~ ~ 1 5 , N t+ ~ TRAAI~- , k i , w r s ~ ~ ~ , ~ o ~ 1 ~ ~ 1 ' ~ ~ ti ~ ~ y l ~ ~ ~ i i 1 ~ ~1 ~ • ~ ~D I 1 4 # ~ a 5r9 s~. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~•~N i ~ ~ i 3~ ~ t ipp3 ~F. i"~ 1 . ' ` a ~ y 1 ~ ~ ~ ~d 1 ' y W ~ {)t~'IER 1 ~ ' • p~ y+~Qj" i , u ~ ~ ` ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ 6 i' M ~ b r 1 ~9 ~ ~1~5.1 ` „ ~ 1 , • 'S X'~r ~ ' ~ rt 1 7~'`P. I ~ } ~ l.dF~3CAt~b ~ 1, , PARKWAY i ~ 9 ~ ~ / ti ~ ~ ' 61DglUALK ` ~ ~ a ~ ~ ~ ~ s i / x + R~4J~ED o~'-~ ~yd1 PLAFITE}R ~ A~ ~ 1 ~ I~,, C 6"~ '~3 P~4~KIh1G PAC s'` ~ is ` ti A . , ~ 5P 1 ti ~s~ • / Ir BEh1C+~ ~ t . k ~ ~ ~ Za am '~ti i ~ . ~ t ~ ZANDgCa!°ED AI~EA3 pp y~ r i V ~ N ~ ~ ~~~x N / / i„ 1 ~ t~t+ll~~d A8G71%~ r ' 9~ i i 4 1.- iv ~ I a 'y I~£'f1=NTI0N ~ 4 4 6 l 1 P~1 I i ~ y ~ r , / 11 ~ I 4 / ~ r y 9 d ~ ~ / ~ • ~ 1 1 1I ~ ~ ~ • 1'~ 1. IC Gl.g ~ • 1 ~ ' 1 ' ~ ~ ~ ~ I1 ~ - / • J 1 ~ ~~cl~ a ~e ~ ~ ~ ~ , Il y 1 N i ~ 1 ~ ~,~.t~ ~ 1=U~t lJRiQG~ ~ 0 a W * ~ e M ti 1 1/ / ti~ ~ u GdzAVT~L 144dLiCIl~4T W M I t~ N O M D 1 1 S ~ ~ e7r P ~M li DO 1~~ • N ~ ~ ~ 1~ ~ ~5~~ 4 1 i'G16~ ~SA~ ~ 0 lh ~ 4 ~ } ~a L) ~4;i'a"~ b~. t ~ ~ ~ J / ~ ,1 ~4R'EA WELD ~ Q~ ~ OC g ` ~ yti 4 ~ >33 ~ ~ ~ W W W ~ 1 ti 2' ~ ~ O a D J J i ~ p ~ i i i O n ~ ~ 1 o w ~jtit O 1' a ~ ~ ~ / ~ 4rW ~9 ~ ~ N m m T1~4ht 1 i y 1 1 61 a ~ ~ ' 1 1 V 'POP O~ X r'~ . r~ ax ~ ~l,41'f ~ BICYCLE RE UIREMENTS Q ,s , 1 1 ~ r I ~ Zonin District: BR-1 9 ~ '1 l ~ I 175 offstreet arkln re ulred rlor to arkln reduction P 9 q, P P, 9 u . ` • 10~ of 175 = 18 re ulred b~c cle arkln Q Y P 9 ■ 1'-~, ' ~~A" + t~v gT,4~l~B C?F'ENP • ~s ~ EXISTING BICYCLE PARKING SUMMARY TO BELOW . U-Rack Qt : 10 accommodate 20 bikes Y ' i , B-C cle: 9 ~ Y p i s i TIRUCK DOCK x 1 1lQ93 TYP. + f 71 XIStIhKs ` f RESPONSE TO REVIEW ~COMMENTS DATED 08,30.2011 RESPONSE TO REVIEW COMMENTS DATED 08.18,2011 08-26-201 ?011 08-26-2011 APPLICATION FOR MINOR AMEND. 07-28-201 =ND. 07-28-2011 No REVISION/SUBMISSION DATE DATE COPYRIGHT 2010- RNL. Ths tl-- ad I.,d fnd d.iipn COMWts-ro ,,Wd hWOM,, 86M,ftU eMld ~~ms~iw.wyam ww, a ~,nwn kma,andnwm~n. wa~mn®w~w awrowa~aw+PROJECT No: 3027-0 rtes h.,0%es.,.vwnadd wmewa~, awro.~wa wv3027-01 8 E E DATE: 07/28/201 07/28/2011 n AS SHOWN 0 SITE PLAN SCALE: AS SHOWI 1"=20' SITE PLAN kN NORTH 6 m f ° O - n n 8Oo Noa o m\ u ,s ¢mm ASM1 01 01 . . . . . . . . . . Agenda Item 4A Page 10 of 26 n 4A Page 10 of 26 n N D V O O ~ 4~6 4 3 X2.9 2 1.1 1 ~ L 0 W o ~ i i ii ~ Otis ~oUtim ~o ti co ~wWrnrn C T o Li 0) rn 04 T. 0. MASOfdRY ~ O ~ ~ N N EL + ~9 -8 Z N N O ~ W O O c T. 0. MAS61~'~RY ~ ~ ~ D ~ ~ EL + 25'-8 J coo M F ° ~ ~ ~ 1 r - - - B ~C '+°+'I?~~GO'dJ B 0. ININDOIh ~EL 14' a" EL. 14'-8'- - GAS M~TER i FIN. OCR _ ~ ~ ~ ~ - ~L + 0' - { LJ 1 1 3132" =1'-0" 3132" =1'-0" _ / - 1 9 8.~ 8 7~6 / 6.6 ~ ~ 5~ I y ~ 5~7 ~.6 ~ 4.6 4 3 ~ 1.1 1 I ~ i I ~--SEE ELFVliTIC;N ~ ~ ~ I ~ I I ~ I ~ , 4~EX-201 '~~=0~ AREA ■ I ~EYO~~u T. 0 SCREEN I I I EL + 31'-C" Y I T. 0. SCREEN,, ~ I 0. MASONRY L.+~~ 8 L 0. MASONRY EL. + 28'-0" r' I ~J 0 MASONRY , i- - { ~L. + 2~ 8" T, 0. MASONRY EL + 23'-8" - - - - - 0. MASONRY L+22~ I ~ I ~ _ I ~ I ~ I I I I i I I - I I I I I I _ R. 0. STL. BEAM I i I i I I I I I I I - ~ ~ r - - - - . I ~I - _ _ - ~ riM. FLOOR - - lli~i. ~COR ~ r' - _ i - - - - - ,:-'r' I J" I - _ I -t I 1 3132" =1'-0" J ~N N Wo a) WM o M 0 ~ 1, ~ 1 ~ ~ ~ ■ H B ~C~~ D ~ ~,D. E ~ 0C E C.9 ~ ~.1 ~ H J J.8 J.9 K o0 DO 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ 1 V J V SEE ELEVATION ~ ~ ~ i ~ ~ ~ ~ I' J 5~E -201 FOR AREA I ~ f3EY0NC I ~ ~ ~ i o. M~soNR_v_~, w T, 0. MASONPY w W EL + 29 -8 EL + 29'~ 0 a v I 0. MASONRY J J - - O -.0. MASONRY - O ~ tL + 23'-8" m ~ i ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ r i i i FN. FLOOR ~ I - - I - I 1 I r r 2 SOUTH ELEVATION 3132" =1'-0" ■ ~ J 4.6 9 9.6 6 6.6 7 7.E 8 8.9 9 I I I I I I I ■ T. 0. MASONRY C. MASONRY 00. MASONRY EL. -43-0- EL. + 29'-8" - - Y EL. + 29'-8" T. 0. MASONRY E{} L + 25'_8„ - - I 30 a Q&FESPONSE TO REVIEW `i II I e ■ F II I COMMENTS DATED 08.18.2011 08-26-201 : ?011 08-26-2011 II I - APPLICATION FOR MINOR AMEND. 0728201 u - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - END. 07-28-2011 No REVISION/SUBMISSION DATE DATE a , \ rgPVWGHT 2010-WNL ThatlO[mbI,aMlhe ileac and deagnpntapl6in4vvpNebE nate'iM1Eamnapmbnld prt~s®ns unim.mn ndhusd, sirrdadnpNbda wanydhepmpG,vAhvultlexnlNneutlixvepmd. qNL wultlewntlen aubiQCatim W. RNA F F II I E FIN. FLOOR / PROJECT No: 3027-0 3027-01 r - - - - FL. + o' -o" DATE: 07/28/201 07/28/2011 t a EX. ADJ. BLDG. F.F. F- F a SCALE: AS SHOW AS SHOWN T 1 EXISTING ELEVATIONc /ATIONS O EAST ELEVATION APPROVED THROUGH ADR2010-00 %DR2010-00229 3132" =1'-0" a - h E c 0 so4 EXm201 01 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Agenda Item 4A Page 11 of 26 n 4A Page 11 of 26 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ n 0 N D V ■ O O C] I- W O ~ ~ pti~n ~oUtim ~o ti co ~WWrnrn C T o Li 0) rn 04 o~~NN N N ~n-Zc~r~ o~WOo ~lAOc~ch c ■ J coo M ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ J ~N N Wo a) WM 0 M 0 ■ 0C ~o DO WINDOW WAS NOT INFILLED AS PROPOSED IN APPROVED vI ADR2010-00229 DUE TO UNFORSEEN FEILD CONDITIONS r 0 ENCOUNTERED DURING CONSTRUCTION. ELEVATION SHOWN V J V IS REPRESENTATIVE OF CURRENT CONDITION. J W W W 0 a v J J O ■ O N m m ~K J 9 G E E D C. 9~ C B ,Q~ ~ I ~ T. 0. MA~SO~NRY~_ EL + 36'-8" - 10. SCREEN i 0. NASON~PY T. 0. MASONRY EL + 31'-0" T. 0. MASONRY r EL. EL. + 27'-P' T. 0. MASONRY EL + 25'-P" - 1-1 F--l E O. STL BEAM EL -1 14' 8" I T-- -F-1-1 1-17 1 B. 0. STL BEAM E EN - - I-- EL. + 10'-0" - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Y717 u - LE LEEED E x L A-L WLI-M l FIN. FLOOR F - MID (L + '-B" 1 NORTH ELEVATION 3132" =1'-0" s RESPONSE TO REVIEW E COMMENTS DATED 08.18.2011 08-26-201 ?011 08-26-2011 F APPLICATION FOR MINOR AMEND. 07-28-201 END. 07-28-2011 No REVISION/SUBMISSION DATE DATE COPYRCHT 2010-WNL ThatlambAl, endlhe ileac and Aeagnpntepleincppa/ebEemeln,8amin8puAbnlel prt~s ®ns u nim. mn nd h usd, s irrda d n pN b da w riy dhe prged, vAhvul tle xn INn eutlixveAm d, qNL wultlewntlen aubiQCatim W. RNA E E PROJECT No: 3027-0 3027-01 DATE: 07/28/201 07/28/2011 SCALE: AS SHOW AS SHOWN u EXISTING ELEVATIONc /ATIONS O APPROVED THROUGH ADR2010-00 %DR2010-00229 _ h E o so4 EX~201 0 ■ . . . . . . . . . . Agenda Item 4A Page 12 of 26 n 4A Page 12 of 26 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ _0 n 0 N D V O O of _ _ - - - - s~o -~PS~ I-- W o~~- 5 SID W O J v- WEST FROM , ~ = ~ _ ~ f~ ltd ~O~~~t ~ ~ ~ ~ VIEW_FROM I 'i ~~Vd ~ UNIT IS COMPLETELY o ~ ~o ti co ' OBSCURED FROM ~WWrnrn C T o Li 0) rn 04 oR-~c~N N N ~n-Zc~r~ o~WOo ~lAOc~ch c ■ 26TH STREET STREET LEVEL J coo M SECTION - RTU SIGHT LINES 8 7 1116°=a'-o° 26TH STREET 13 ~ - - ; 10 ,a _ i ~ EL. + i 1 I ~ ~ 1 I T a~n~,,;'Y P~~ f . 0_ tyl ; I EL + ~5'-C I. e~i' iO~` ~ ;[7 - i td, ; - - `?~~I!----- PEARI- ~ 1 of - I ~o`s'J UNIT IS COMPLETELY ~ 'll ~ o VIEW FROM NORTH SIDE _ _ _ - - ~ co ~ ~ ~_i Fin - I~~ PEARS STREET OBSCURED FROM STREET BEVEL EXISTING ■ Cr""~` hv1_iLf k ~ ~ ~ - ~ - FIN. ~LOCR - SECTION - RTU SIGHT LINES I ~ ~ p EL.+C C ~ ,.,s..=,,-o.. PEARS sTREET 5 11 9 12 C ~C.9 D 118" =1'-0" ■ ,l ~ - - s . ~ r,~ ' . 6 5 4.6 4 ~ ~ 1.,i ~ ~ ~ ~ _ - ~ I~ i 13 ~ SEE ELEVATION 5 A-201 ~ ~ ~ FOR AREA BEYOND - r I I ■ ~ EL i. U. SCREEN - " 1, i. ~R N C ~ _ O,~CEE - CL r \ - - EL + 28'-~ ~ ~ ~ i ~ IL`r~ FY - I ~ I ~ ~A5 I ~ + 25. ~ I ~ t - - - I _ 1 ~ '~.s,1ASONRY , - - I- - 1 ~ = LJ ' ~ i~~e 1 1 'f - _ - I ■ _ _ _ r ~ Y 1 12 i - r i - - ~t T - r - s~ ~i-iii ~~i ~ ' ~ _ A ~r~~~~ µ ~ i l~ii II, iii , _ ! ~ r ~ ~ ~ I ~ t fi, LUuR = ~1 - , - - - - ~ - , _ ~ ~ ~ 0' i~" - - - - - - J ~ ~ ~ ~ N ♦ r W Q N a) WM 0 M 0 ■ 0C ~o DO O PARTIAL SOUTH ELEVATION 0 3132" =1'-0" J V J W A B' C C.9 D D.3 E ~C.9 ~ F ~ ~ F.1 ~ ~ G H ~ J ~ J, 8 J.9 ~ ~ K ' p v L J T J i ~ O ■ SEE .ELEVATION 4/A-201 ~ I ~ 7 FOR AREA BEYOND ~ / ~ \ 1 N m m I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - 0. MACONP.Y I I 1- I I _ - r EL + 25 -b _ _ 2 r tsa~~~F:Y, i 1-,3 fi- , G _ 13 i 8 8 9 ■ ~ c....uo oo .on. ~.o no~~. is f ~ o~~ 1 ~ ~ o~ rrn ~ r~,-R,-~,rrr,-rn ~ r FEE R FIN, FLOC e- I I 3 - I I' ■ ELEVATION DETAIL 1 All =1'-0" SOUTH ELEVATION 3132" =1'-0" n r ~ n~ i h 1 1.1 2 3 4 4, 6 KEYNOTES ■ NEW STOREFRONT TO MATCH EXISTING ALUM. CAP OVER INSULATION OVER STRUCTURE 0 EXISTING CMU MASONRY 0. MA5ONRY T, D. MASONRY L. 3 E~ = EL + 29'-8° ® EXIT DOOR BY STOREFRONT MANUFACTURER, TO T. 0. h.4RSONRY - - - - - 4 r = 8" F MATCH STOREFRONT -T- IF NEW GARAGE DOOR FRAME AND TRACKS, DOOR II PANELS WITH GLASS LITES i i I I v 6 NEW MAKE-UP AIR UNIT BEYOND 0 RESPONSE TO REVIEW - ■ EXISTING FABRIC AWNING ON METAL FRAME COMMENTS DATED 08.18.2011 08-26-201 i ?011 08-26-2011 APPLICATION FOR MINOR AMEND. 07-28-201 END. 07-28-2011 s H _ ~ nI 8 EXISTING METAL SUPPORT BEAM i 0 No REVISION/SUBMISSION DATE I. DATE 0 - COPYRIGHT 2010-WNL Th, d--I. 014th, ilea end dreg,-emipOpP-w Mimes nbeUUr wi ids®nssenim.mn ndhu simdadn Nbdonn dhe -0.vAMUltl~xnllmwdivvalmd . {1- P ~ P Y P10N - NEW SECURITY FENCE AND GATE, PAINTED WHITE TO RNL wultlewntlen eutlacatim W. RNA E ~ - MATCH EXISTING EXTERIOR SCREENS AND RAILINGS - ~ I E I 4 i 10 NEW CLERESTORY WINDOW TO MATCH EXISTING STOREFRONT WINDOW PROJECT No: 3027-0 3027-01 I ~ ,vim I DESIGN DATE: 07/28/201 i 07/28/2011 NEW OUTDOOR GRILL SCALE: AS SHOWI 11 AS SHOWN i 1 a 12 NEW DOOR AND STAIRS TO MATCH EXISTING PROPOSED ELEVATION EX. ADJ. BLDG. F.F. MATI ONS 13 WOOD TRELLIS OVER METAL BEAMS ~ A 1 1 4 1 x a A-201 ~ n EAST ELEVATION a 3132" =1'-0" no°amo u~ Y 6 tt ro AM201 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Agenda Item 4A Page 13 of 26 n 4A Page 13 of 26 tt) N CD N ■ O O co 0 ° W O DC 0 ~ p ~ 'n O F-- Lo ~°ovi odo ~o D U ti OD ~WWrnrn Of - -r-- C:) O ~ ~ N N N N Z co co ln-ZC3('') p ~ W O O ■ 1 1.1 2 2.9 3 4 4.6 5 5.6 5.7 6 6.6 7 7.6 7.8 8 8.9 9 n ❑ ° co Z,T-e~ S'-iV W-Y 5Y-0' TY-D' 3 -D' 32'-8° 17-V Ei'-IV 3f'-I' J1'-1' 33'-5" 34'-fl" 14'-D' i' V - I I I I I I ~1`'~ ~ r/ \ I 1 ~t~ I ~ ~ ~ I I I ~ 5 I I r^ ~I ~ II I ~ I ~ I I I ~ .8 - ~ 4 I - - - - - - B L_-~ - ■ r----- „a -~i ----1 ~ I - - - .2 . b i i ii i ii i , t ii - ii , i i - I ~ 3 , i'~~ i i ii ~ - - - - - ~ I I 1 EXISTING 21" SOLATUBE WITH SWITCH OPERATED DAYLIGHT 0 I~ ~ I ~ r ~ - - - - - I I ~ DIMMERS ~ ~ / ~ ~ I III I~ ~ I I I I I _ I - ~ _ I a I 0 EXISTING ROOF TOP DEDICATED OUTSIDE AIR MECHANICAL UNIT, ~ I r o " ~ r 88 HIGH I I - - ~ - - I - I - - - - - - - i- i- ~ C 3 EXISTING ROOF TOP CONDENSING UNIT 68"HIGH I D , ~ I I I I II II II I I ~ 4 EXISTING MINOR ROOF TOP CONDENSING UNIT I D I I I I I I I I ~I I I ~ J LJ L.J L- ----J -J 0 EXISTING RELIEF HOOD - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - J ~ 6 EXISTING MECHANICAL UNIT TO BE DEMOLISHED I 7 EXISTING ROOF HATCH N b ~ ~I I I I ~ ~ I I I I D 3 I I I I 1 I I~ ~ I I ~.9 L--- I I I I I - - I - - - - ~ I I ~ i ~ I I I I ii 3 m - i ~ i I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I~ I L_ _J I I~ O D I I I I - - - - - - - - - - I - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E I I I I I i ii I I 3 I I I I - b ~ I r ~ I I ~ ~I ~ J I I I~- ~I I ~ N II ~I II II I W O I 4 Jo II II I W M / Q ~ E'9 ii ' I l I I I O 00 co I II II ~ - - - - F ~I rt~___________________________ L _ IIL ~ I ~0 L-------- V J jC.) F.1 - - II w% 1 I I E w II I W W ~w II I Q I I I a 0 II I J 2 I o A-~ P I ~ I ~ 02 O II I O ti II I ~ N m ~ m L~ I I ! I II / I ii ii ii ~~ii ii ii II ~ I I I II r---~I' ~------------J I I II ~r~=~~---- --r-----------~ I I L_---- I I I ~ 1 I ~ ~ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I L__-J I I I ~ r I I I I I II Ir--- I II II i I II I I.I I I Il II 11 II II .L I -I- I -a- ~ I - - ® H I I I I I I I I I n I I III L______________ 72 ~I I L- - I 1 I I I I I I 0 I Il J I I 00 I ~ I I ~ I I I I r I a J. 8 i - - - I I fJ] I =ESN IEW v 08.18.2011 08-26- .18.2011 08-26-2011 APPLICATION FOR MINOR AMEND. 07-28 AMEND. 07-28-2011 No REVISION/SUBMISSION D, LION DATE COWRgHT 2010-RNt-T)IiS M,, Wditd lddS9iV--W5 ntIXW*Sdb"A SSWft-Smd pofemi-Si rnw._.w in Wf mpa t.tsmmnO0ler cmk4 xiNOWN~o willaoWalzrt of RN P-I P~eQ ~W 8l®xnllmeWmnzeNn of RNL. PROJECT No: 30, 3027-01 `s DATE: 07128 07/28/2011 AS SHOWN EXISTING ROOF PLAN SCALE: AS SH 3132" =1' 0" EXISTING ROOF PL/ )OF PLAN z NORTH APPROVED THROUGH ADR2010 iH ADR2010-00229 73 _x °s ee EXM 1 Oe 102 Agenda Item 4A Page 14 of 26 n 4A Page 14 of 26 tt) N CD N O O co 0 W O DC 0 ~ p ~ 'n O F-- Lo ~°ovi odo ~o D U ti OD ~WWrnrn Of - -r-- C:) O ~ ~ N N N N Z co co ln-ZC3('') p ~ W O O ~tApMC+") _ j n ❑ ° co / - C ( - 1.1 ~ ~ q 4.~ 4- z~z ~ 5.~ ~.7 ~ 6.6 ~J `v` 212'-8" ~',_~p,~ z° 32,_0. 32'-0° 32'-0° 32 -0' 13'-Q" 2i`-10° 7T-4" 34'-i" 39~-1' J3~-b" 1'-~ 0 i 1 i • - ~ i . _ ~ ~ a~ I I - - - - , ~ 0 21" SOLATUBE WITH SWITCH OPERATED DAYLIGHT DIMMERS - • - - - - 7 I • - - - - ~ ~ • - - - - - I r ~ 6' H MAKE-UP AIR UNIT - - - - _ I - - - I ~ I 3 48" H EXHAUST FAN - - - - - - - - - = - - - - I I I I I I I I - - - - Y'~~ - - - - - I I ~ ® 69" H DEDICATED OUTDOOR AIR UNIT FOR VENTILATION - - - - - I I I ~J ~ - - - - - - - - - - - ~ _ _ _ _ _ ~ POSSIBLE LOCATION FOR CONDENSING UNITS AFTER EXISTING - - - - UNIT DEMOLITION - - - - - - - - - - I-- - - ~o - - - - - - - - 6 NEW WOOD TRELLIS OVER METAL BEAMS - - - a - - - - NEW M TAL EAMS - 07 E B - - - - ® NEW ROOF HATCH ~~l A v / I / - I ~ ~ _ - _ - i i m 3 D.3 I - ~ ■ ~ ~ ~ 4 J I I ~J ~ ~ N I II I WO Jo ~i II I WM / Q ~i ■ I I I I o 00 co ~i li i ~ 5 i ~ to ~0 - I~ - ~f-;~=---------- - V ~I ~ J jC.) ~ ii 0 ~ J w% ~ /i I ~ E w W W ~w 0 0 I O 0 i a 0 ~ ~ ~ 0 I 0 ~ ■ 0 O 5 J ti N m ~ m 0 i 1 TYP i ~ I' i i ii ii - _ i- - - ~ _~~I_- i ii ii L-~ ~ ~i 8 ~~--F- - - - - I 0 0 0 0 I 0 ■ 0 ~ ~ I ~ I I~ ~ I II II I SOLATUBE r J I I I I I - - - - SOLATUBE CURB CAP \ - 0 0 0 0 WRAP MEMBRANE ■ 4 4 iA\ OVER T.O. CURB 0 0 MATERIAL TO MATCH 0 EXISTING ROOFING, PRESSURE TREATED OVERLAP AND SEAL TO WOOD BLOCKING EXISTING ROOFING z EXISTING ROOF PREMANUFACTURED HEAVY co CONSTRUCTION GAUGE, INSULATED STEEL 0 0 CURB, ATTACH TO ANGLE 0 AS PER MANUFACTURER'S STADARDS ■ STEEL ANGLE DECK { CL05URE ` J. 8 TIT Y P ~ EXISTING STRUCTURE ; x ~X A BEYOND X - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 8 i C4~ RESPONSE TO REVIEW v E ■ COMMENTS DATED 08.18.2011 08-26- : \ .18.2011 08-26-2011 E APPLICATION FOR MINOR AMEND. 07-28 AMEND. 07-28-2011 No REVISION/SUBMISSION D, LION DATE C(laVRNNT 2010-xNl, 7neroarem, MxIMAeBSenaae9lyo -n pa+8le0ncroln, as8:nxnaremd pof~ml irnw, wn iwl be ~wtl, i n Wlob a in paI la Lh§ z m~YNherpmp.jpq xtNOW too xidlaouCalzoNn f RN P-I P~eQ ~W 8l®xnllmeWmnzeNn of RNL. E PROJECT No: 30, 3027-01 DATE: 07128 07/28/2011 n AS SHOWN PROPOSED ROOF PLAN ROOF CURB AT SOLATUBE SCALE: AS SH L 3132" =1'-0" 3" =1'-0" PROPOSED ROOF PL ;OOF PLAN NORTH i ~ E a - oo f o o ~ a - N ry~WON y U\ /W OZ\ Y Q K m A~l 02 02 Agenda Item 4A Page 15 of 26 n 4A Page 15 of 26 1 LO co N co N O O O 00 0 0 q~ L~ W 0 ~ J 0 J p ti YI ~ O ~ r ~ ~OU~OD U 00 .C ~ O ~ ~ C) r LO CN ~ W ~ ~ u>m 3 3 ~ ~ N N l0-Z(riM EX-201 - -2~~ _ p ~ W O O ~ J, 50mco ~ I I.~J ~l.U U J. ~ ~ _ 3z~-m 3z -o° a2'-a~ I 3~'-m° w'-z' i3'-a" 21'-id° 2T-a^ ~a'-~" 34,_x. 34'-1" 3J'-S" 3c-ti' id'-0° i'-o" I I i i I i i i i I - - - ~ - - i % / ~ i ~ ~ t ~ ~ ~ - - -'h. - - - - - - ` I ' ~ ~ , i ~ /~i' - i B. ~ ~ ; i ~ - ~i ! d ~6~,,7 - i ~ L~~ / ~ i ~ ~J ~ i~ / ~ ~ 4 5 / ~ ~ i EX-201 EX-201 ~ ~ l H ~ P i ~ i~ / / I ~ I / i ~ % ~ i ~ i j / / ; C.9 0 0 / -J / / _ ~ I - - - - ~r~, I I 0 ~ ~ ~ X ~ ~ _ ~ I. 2 { / ' ~ i° / / EX-201 ,.1 f i i ~i _1 ~I ~ , _ 'n n /i - i I ' ~ ~ / ~ ~ n. ~-j~ i, i, ii ~ r. i ~i ~ ~ ~ i i i - ~ . i i ~ i i / i / I ~ - - - - I I a~ o . i ~ u~ L~ ❑ - L ~ i 4 III M MOIL ~ ~~~i ~ / ~ ,1 - ~ i i J ; - ;;iii - ~ ~ ~ N N Wo M J O W - O i O ~ L o0 co ~ ~ r-~ n_ ~ ~ H r~ ~i ~ - - - ~ ~ i . / ~i LJ L~J LJ N i ~ i ~0 V J J V J hl~ n C~ i~i~ C~ Z_ I W W uJ ~ I J' O a 0 J ' J C0 p ~ ~ O o z ~ I~ L~! , ~ i U ,c N m ~m Q X. _ - / y. i ~ y o ~J - - ~ - - Q ~ i - C? _Z X W I II Ion ~o~ ,o - - - ~.J L:J LJ ii i ■ i II ~ rEl LJ J J i/ i ii ! } ■ 1-5 t i A i i / r - r-- r - o i N I E ■ COMMENTS DATED 08.18.2011 08-26 1.18.2011 08-26-2011 E i APPLICATION FOR MINOR AMEND. 07-28 AMEND. 07-28-2011 No REVISION/SUBMISSION D LION DATE - 1 1 CO>PR" 1o10 RNL Tbo Me em, wd!ho nm-s Wr -I xnlee~.aw19-ot9 Po-Wll- unrw d a ,-1, a le Pet W-"ogy oJgr R'ow( oitM to wlno~- aW ptOlw: rhbW B.B vMlen BWtr.19Yn e' ftHL o EX-201 E .X-201 3027-01 E PROJECT No: 3C DATE: 0712E 07/28/2011 AS SHOWN 0 EXISTING FLOOR PLAN 14~z~ SCALE: AS SH i 3132" =1'-0" Q7~ EXISTING FLOOR PL OOR PLAN z NORTH APPROVED THROUGH ADR2010 ')H ADR2010-00229 ■ E T N N f~wON U \ /WOZ\ Y 6 R m 101 Agenda Item 4A Page 16 of 2E em 4A Page 16 of 26 ,l i 1i r - J ~-.b~ ~ J.b~'~. ~ ~ / /,b /.b ~ ' g, 3s'-io" ea'-a' 13'-0° 2'.'-19" ~21'-4" 34'-I" _ 32'-~" 32-~" 32'-8" ~ ~ -I" 34'-i" 33'-5 34-It° 14'-0° N D V I ~i 3 O O I A-201 I I ~ I p I I Q t W ~ PHASE MEZZANINE B ABO1l ! W o J 4 ~ ~ ti ~ 451 SE - No~~~ ti LO o ti co ~~o ti 00 C r O - - - - - ~ L1 V) N II O ~ ~ N N N N ~-ZMC'~ i o~Woo CY) CIO CD CD / / i i i ~ ~(n~MM - ~ - ~ / / / / / 1 M M ~ i / / i ~ / / ~ / / ~ % / / / / / / ~ / ~ / , /I// / f / ~ / / 1 ~ / / ~ / ~ ~ / / / / / / a~ / / / i i / - - i k f i - i / ~ i / ~ ~ ~ f / ~~,ti~.~r~.~~, ~ / / / / ~ / / / ~i f, j, i 11 / / / / ~ ~ / i / ~ / ~IG~// / / / ~ i ~ ~ 9 /is/ / f./ / ~ / - - ~ ~ ~~T!- ~ ~u'~i - 4 / / / ~ ~ ~ / ` ; / / / / / l ~ ' / / / / / / / / ; A=201 I/" , / / ~ ~ ~ / i ~ / ~ / / / / / 5 - - _ - ~ / ~ / - - - ,u / / 7 A-201 " / - / - ~ - - - _ / / / / - 9 8 _.I / / / ~ ~ / it - - • ~i ~ ~ , - i ~ /i r ~ J -1 ~ ' I ~I 1 < ~ / l / ' ~I ~ / 1 NEW STOREFRONT SYSTEM TO MATCH EXISTING, - ~ / / , / RE A1A201 I ~ ~ ° ~ ~a' 2 NEW STAIRS ~ ~ ~ 0 J 2 0 NEW GARAGE DOOR FRAME,TRACKS, AND DOOR A-201 ~ 3 ram u I_ / ~ ~ WITH GLASS PANELS LIGHTS - l ~ ~ / % / / ® NOT USED ~0 / , I~ ~ , / ~ ~ ~ / 0 NEW ELEVATORILIFT ram u ~ / ~ ~ ~ / / 6 REPLACE TRASH COMPACTOR DOOR WITH MAN ' ~ ; / / / ~ DOOR. ADD STEPS DOWN TO PAVEMENT ~ 0 / % / / / 70 NEW SECURITY FENCE AND GATE I / ram u / / o I~ ~ Q Q Q Q ~ / ® NEW CLERESTORY WINDOW / / r ~ Lo~ J / ; ' 0 NEW OUTDOOR GRILL ~ o~ / ~ 7r ~J ~ ~ / - ; ~ ; ~ ~ ~ i L~ 10 EXISTING RESTROOMS WITH NEW FIXTURES & i / FINISHES C~ / / / / / / / / ~ ~ 11 WOOD TRELLIS ABOVE - - - ~ / i / / / / 0 6 / / / ! ~ ~ ! / 12 NEW ROOF HATCH ABOVE AND RELOCATED ` ~ - r % / EXISTING METAL LADDER / / / ~ / / / - / / / i / / / / / ~ / / / / / / j I', ~ / / / / / / / / / / / ~ ~ i ~ / j / / / ~ ~ / / f / / / / / / / ~ / / / / / / 1-1, - ~j , ~ ,o ~ ~ 1 -f ~ , / , I ~ ~ ~ L~ / I / / / ~ ~ - / / / / / ~ f 1~ ram u ,1 12 ramp up C~ Z_ A A NO INCLUDED INPROJECT , / i/ CO / / , / J ~ / / / , / / / Z / / / / / / / , / / / / / ~ N / , / / / / ~.~I N W U / ~ 0 Q _ ~ ~ ~ i W M . ~ ~J C ~~~~r ~ ~ 0 co i / / z ~ / / i / / V♦ 0 1 / / / / / J V X I / J / ~ r ~ I cl~ ~ J i ~ ~ ~ / / / ~ / / / ; 1 ~ ~ ~ / / / / / / W W ~ afl ~~i i / ~ ~ / ~ / ~ / J J ~ ~ ~ / / ~ ~ ~ / i / M - - ~ ~ ~ ~ / / / 5 ~ - 0 I ~ , ti / Nm ~ ~ ~ / / ~ / / / , m • ~ ~ / • 4~Q n ` ~ ~ p - , , 2 ~ i i 2 / / ~ /;I//,,/;, 5 ~ / / / / ■ ' -I ~ uJ w ~ ~ .//.r'/ /,//,/i ~i 4 - ■ F _-1 I i F -1 r r LPHASE 2 ROUND FL MD D FLOOR PHASE 2 MEZZANINE A ABOVE H1 GROUND FX00R ~ 18,785 SF 5 392 SF 2 243 SF V1 1 1 PHASE 1 MEZZANINE A ABOVE PHASE 2 MEZZANINE A 1 738 SF A-201 2,243 SF ~ PROPOSED MEZZANINE PLAN `4. 5.) PROPOSED FLOOR PLAN a L 3/32" = 1'-0" 3132" =1'-0" NORTH NORTH A RESPONSE TO REVIE COMMENTS DATED 08.18.2011 08-26-20' 2011 :0:8 -26-2011 END. 07-28-2011 TOTAL SF NUMBERS APPLICATION FOR MINORAMEND. 07-28-20' No REVISION/SUBMISSION DATE DATE GROUND FLOOR MEZZANINE A MEZZANINE B TOTAL TOTAL AREA `°""R'°"' p" m° °I and "1"and °"""-0"~~°°"""' *d w-.8988 i.1.m M wN the wMlen aNaza!im w RNL SF SF SF MEZZANINE GROUND & MEZ PROJECT No: 3027-I PHASE 1 15,392 1,738 451 2,189 17,581 DATE: 07128120' 3027-01 07/28/2011 PHASE 2 18,785 2,243 2,243 21,028 SCALE: AS SHOW AS SHOWN TOTAL 34,177 3,981 451 4,432 38,609 PROPOSED FLOOR PLA )OR PLAN OFFIC BUILDING TOTAL 34,177 Al Will $og PROPOSED FLOOR AREA IS A RESULT OF A DITIO OF MEZZANINE SPACE TO THE a a OVERALL SQUARE FOOTAGE. EXISTING ROOFTOP WILL NOT BE POPPED. 101 Agenda Item 4A Page 17 of 26 n 4A Page 17 of 26 GENERAL NOTES tt) N cD N ■ 1. TOTAL PARKING :68 SPACES ~ o O co O 0 H w O 0 ~ O ~ 'n O F-- Lo ~°o Una~o D U ti OD w In N or r O L~~~o ~ w ~ N N N N Z co co p ~ W O O ■ 1 1.1 2 2.9 3 4 4.6 5 5.6 5.7 ~5.7 6 6.6 7 7.6 7.8 8 8.9 9 ~~MM n ❑ ° co ~~r-~ ~_r it-v sr-iv n•-t a-r ~•-r i i i i i ii ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o b - I - I - - I ~ - - ~ - - - ~ i i i i ~ n - z b J - ~ - - - ~ ,\\o - B J -L _L ~ i KEYNOTES ~ ~ . b - - - . z o - - - c ■ ~ ~ ~ - - - - - D .3 i i i i i § - - - - - - - - E >p xm xr w ~p ~p § ~ o i J ~ W o Jo E.9 O W ch / Q ■ ~ ~ co - - - - - F m t~0 ~0 jC.) F.1 - - - - - - - - - - J ~U w% E w ~ Ww ~w b ~ ao 0 ■ O`n O V N m ~ m i ■ 12 - - - - - - H b N 12 LT-i - - - Fil - - J !/e 1! l~~ N J.8 UP J.9 r~ L l I I 0 IEW RE SP=ENDATE v E OM08.18.2011 08-26- .18.2011 08-26-2011 E APPLICATION FOR MINOR AMEND. 07-28 AMEND. 07-28-2011 No REVISION/SUBMISSION D, LION DATE COWR042010-RNI, 7X8W M,, Wdbd-ld dSS*--WW bW*Sdb"A SSWft-Smd pofestlml.rnw._.w in Wf mpa t.tsmmnO0ler cmk4 xiNOWNo willaoWalzrt of RN P-I P~eQ ~W 8l®xnllmeWmnzeNn of RNL. PROJECT No: 30, 3027-01 DATE: 07128 07/28/2011 a AS SHOWN EXISTING GARAGE FLOOR PLAN 4~7~ SCALE: AS SH 3132" =1'-0" Q7~ EXISTING GARAGE PI SAGE PLAN NORTH APPROVED THROUGH ADR2010 iH ADR2010-00229 ~ E 4 f N D pp Y N ry~WON y U\ / W O Z \ Y Q K m Exm 1 oc 100 1 Agenda Item 4A Page 18 of 26 n 4A Page 18 of 26 0 IN 0 -1 GENERAL NOTES j ■ E 'rmu RARKwc:®evactw S ~o p Ij j I j I'I ~ I I j I II j I I~I E_II~ I ~a, j ■ - - - - ~j---------- --------I, KEYNOTES 000000 ooo, ~i II I ~ II ; s - o NEWDPEN EBNOERERB CDA NGBCtls mR M21 2 2 D n-CIEN SNDwRrv BIG.-G-E nervwaewreeowRDBANCionSENECKPPe nxurm D IF =A will ill ® S NO SKE S. wa. rvceuv ALCY.LEX Rahn E ID Dco~ ` I~'~ j I I I j ~I I I o J ~ wo I I I O WM - - - - - - - - F - Lu -J JOE WW o a° J 0 07 ■ I I I I I I o y i I V N m - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - I } I I I I I I ■ I I I I ~ I I - - - - - - - - - - @b BADE CF EXISTING BIKE RADNBRELO Ad®NT W ENCLOSED BODY (X70111) EgS1NG RA.s.A B, ■ GLOBAL NDUSTRwL, (1)1K BIKEUN W AND@9BIKE 9 ~ uuns j I §RP z 7 I I I lair ° ~ e L 4 I I I ~ ~ 5., - - - - - - - - - - ~RFSKDNBETDREVcw _ I v . ~ ~ r.. n R134ATEQWIITUI~ ■ Z ~ ~ OMNENT504TFD [BieN> oa2aam~ ARRL`c,-DN FCVnfdcanSUniy D7282011 No AEV Bi0N+5UALBSSpN b11E BBo*cl NO. so2vm DAM olrzBrzo ~ s GARAGE FLOOR PLAN scAME AssNOU,N 3 ~r=rv NORTH ROPOSED GARAGE PLAN 6 wf ~ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ -100 ■ IN ■ A enda Item 4A Page 19 of 26 NOTES: EXPOSED CONCRETE SURFACE TO BE BROOM FINISHED. PAD SIZE MAY VARY AS DIRECTED BY THE ENGINEER. PAD IS TO BE CONSTRUCTED WITH CLASS B CONCRETE. EXCAVATION AND/OR EMBANKMENT REQUIRED FOR PAD CONSTRUCTION WILL NOT BE PAID FOR SEPERATELY, BUT SHALL BE INCLUDED IN THE COST OF THE PAD. CONCRETE SHALL BE SLOPED AT 2% TO DRAIN. `3'-4" MINIMUM WHEN INVERTED-U RACK INSTALLED PERPENDICULAR TO A WALL OR CURB. - " 3' MINIMUM WHEN INSTALLED 6" CONCRETE PAD PARALLEL TO A WALL OR CURB. 5' MINIMUM SEPARATION FROM CURB FACE WHEN INSTALLED ADJACENT TO A CURB WITH "HEAD-IN" AUTOMOBILE PARKING. 10' MINIMUM IF MORE THAN 3 ` TWO "U" RACKS IN A SERIES. 6^ 7,'6 2.~ '2.~•j 6•0 INVERTED-U RACK SIDE-BY-SIDE 2 ~4 .A1 6 \ 1 'a 6" CONCRETE PAD 4 END-TO-END DRAWN BY: - JSH Issueo: JULY 2, 1998 CHECKED BY: RJH CITY OF BOULDER, COLORADO REVISED: OCT 6, 2009 I V V L R I E D ' y V" DRAWING NO. APPROVED BY: //j~~1 DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS C Y C I I- RACKS 2. 5 2, 8 Agenda Item 4A Page 20 of 26 q1W.jfKxS ~~I~ - CLO;t~b -FMM Mikac Parking System Item 116-1039 Mounting Instructions Mounting Bike Trac Bike Trac can be mounted to any wall, corner, pillar, or post strong Mount Hole enough to hold the bikes. Each unit comes with two pan head screws which work for mounting the Bike "Trac to wooden studs. I f mounting to any other surface consult your local hardware store for applicable hardware. Use mounting holes as shown in illustration. Note: To protect wheel, slide rubber sleeve onto wheel hook of Bike Trac. Bike Trac Placement Option 1: Stagger tops of the Bike Tracs ( High, Low, High). Approx. space between each 12-15". Option 2: Level tops of Bike Tracs, hanging every other bike by rear tire. Approx. space between each 15-18". Mount Hale Option 3: Level tops of Bike Tracs, hanging all bikes by front tire. Approx. space between each 18-21". Note: Be sure to leave enough room between each Bike Trac so that the bike's handlebars do not interfere with each other. Optimum distance between Tracs will depend on make and model of bike. Locking Bike To Bike Trac (Item 116-1035) In most cases the locking cable is long enough to thread through your seat, frame, front and rear wheel. Thread cable through desired parts of the bicycle and then pass the metal end of the cable through the hole punched into the B ike Trac. Note: Locking cable is only a intended to be a theft deterrent. Loss of bicycle is not covered under warranty. n .r_ Parts List (t Description 1 Bike Trac Assembly 2 5MT Washer 2 1" Slotted Pan Head Screw 1 Wheel Hook Rubber Sleeve L Locking Model Only (116-1035) (fit Description 1 Locking Cable A6, 4&1 IGHLAN PRODUCTS GROUP LLC 3350 NW Boca Raton Blvd., Suite B2 Boca Raton, FL, 33431 Phone: 561.620.7878 Fax: 561.620.864ada Item 4A Page 21 of 26 Attachment D Minor Amendments to Approved Site Plans Section 9-2-14 (1), B.R.C. 1981 (1) Standards: Changes to approved building location, or additions to existing buildings which exceed the limits of a minor modification, may be considered through the minor amendment process, if the following standards are met: N/A (A) In a residential zone as set forth in section 9-5-2, "Zoning Districts," B.R.C. 1981, all approved dwelling units within the development phase have been completed; Not applicable; 2700 Pearl Street is zoned BC-1. N/A (B) In residential zones, dwelling unit type is not changed; Not applicable; 2700 Pearl Street is zoned BR-1. N/A (C) The required open space per dwelling unit requirement of the zone is met on the lot of the detached dwelling unit to be expanded, and Not applicable; the development proposal is not residential in nature. N/A (D) The total open space per dwelling unit in the development is not reduced by more than ten percent of that required for the zone; or Not applicable; the development proposal is not residential in nature. N/A (E) If the residential open space provided within the development or an approved phase of a development cannot be determined, the detached dwelling unit is not expanded by more than ten percent and there is no variation to the required setbacks for that lot; Not applicable; the development proposal is not residential in nature. Y (F) For a building in a nonresidential use module, the building coverage is not increased by more than twenty percent, the addition does not cause a reduction in required open space, and any additional required parking that is provided, is substantially accommodated within the existing parking arrangement; The enclosure of the existing atrium space does not result in the expansion of building coverage. Y (G) The portion of any building over the permitted height under section 9-7-1, "Schedule of Form and Bulk Standards," B.R.C. 1981, is not increased; The anchor building was approved at 30 feet from grade. The height of the existing building is not increased as a result of the development proposal. The additional floor area is a result of the enclosure of existing atrium space (existing internal space) to create a mezzanine level for offices and conference room space. N/A (H) The proposed minor amendment does not require public infrastructure improvements or other off-site improvements. All public infrastructure is existing. (2) Amendments to the Site Review Approval Process: Applications for minor amendment shall be approved according to the procedures prescribed by this section for site review approval, except: Agenda Item 4A Page 22 of 26 Y (A) If an applicant requests approval of a minor amendment to an approved site review, the city manager will determine which properties within the development would be affected by the proposed change. The manager will provide notice pursuant to subsection 9-4-3(b), B.R.C. 1981, of the proposed change to all property owners so determined to be affected, and to all property owners within a radius of six hundred feet of the subject property. Public notice pursuant to section 9-4-3, B.R.C. 1981 was provided. Y (B) Only the owners of the subject property shall be required to sign the application. A representative from Pearl Street Plaza, the development signed the application. Y (C) The minor amendment shall be found to comply with the review criteria of subparagraphs (h)(2)(A), (h)(2)(C), and (h)(2)(F) of this section, and Y 9-2-14(h)(2)(A), Open Space: Open space, including, without limitation, parks, recreation areas, and playgrounds: The development proposal includes the enclosure of existing atrium space to create a partial second floor mezzanine level for conference room and offices, the creation of 2,898 square feet of additional floor area. The additional floor area does not alter the existing on site open space or increase the required open space as the building footprint is not being expanded. An existing open space area along the west elevation is being enhanced to include a trellis for shade and a grill. (i) Useable open space is arranged to be accessible and functional; The open space provided on site is not being altered with this development proposal. Open space is currently provided in the form of various arcades, seating areas and landscape areas. (ii) Private open space is provided for each detached residential unit; Not applicable; this is a commercial project. (iii) The project provides for the preservation of or mitigation of adverse impacts to natural features, including, without limitation, healthy long-lived trees, significant plant communities, ground and surface water, wetlands, riparian areas, drainage areas, and species on the federal Endangered Species List, "Species of Special Concern in Boulder County" designated by Boulder County, or prairie dogs (Cynomys ludiovicianus) which is a species of local concern, and their habitat; Not applicable; the proposed development will not impact the existing on site open space or existing vegetation, no additional building coverage is being created. (iv) The open space provides a relief to the density, both within the project and from surrounding development; The open space provided on site is not being altered with this development proposal. (v) Open space designed for active recreational purposes is of a size that it will be functionally useable and located in a safe and convenient proximity to the uses to which it is meant to serve; The open space provided on site is not being altered with this development proposal. Agenda Item 4A Page 23 of 26 (vi) The open space provides a buffer to protect sensitive environmental features and natural areas; and The open space provided on site is not being altered with this development proposal. (vii) If possible, open space is linked to an area- or city-wide system. The open space provided on site is not being altered with this development proposal. The existing multi-use path connections will remain along 26th and Pearl. Y 9-2-14(h)(2)(C), Landscaping: The existing on-site landscaping is not being altered as part of this proposal. Minor Modification ADR2010-00229 reflects the approved landscaping plan and addresses deficiencies in the site's existing landscaping. No additional landscaping improvements are identified at this time. The project should, however maintain the approved landscaping plan in good condition and should expect an additional final inspection during the building permit review and inspection process. The existing landscaping is not being altered as part of the development proposal. The existing landscape meets landscape requirements as stipulated in Title 9, B.R.C. 1981. Y 9-2-14(h)(2)(F), Building Design, Livability, and Relationship to the Existing or Proposed Surrounding Area: Generally, the existing building is not being altered in terms of height, mass or bulk. The additional floor area (2,898 square feet) is a result of existing atrium space that is being enclosed to create a mezzanine level for offices and conference room space. The majority of the site is not being altered as part of this development proposal. The exterior changes that are reflected in the plan set are primarily associated with cosmetic features, including window fenestration and, door location. The project site, 2700 Pearl Street, is within the Boulder Valley Regional Center (BVRC) and is subject to the Boulder Valley Regional Center Design Guidelines. (i) The building height, mass, scale, orientation, architecture and configuration are compatible with the existing character of the area or the character established by adopted design guidelines or plans for the area; The proposed mezzanine does not create any additional mass or bulk as it is a result of the conversion of existing atrium space. The roof is not being raised as a result of the addition. The proposed exterior fagade changes to the windows and doors will add windows and doors along the ground level, which is consistent with the BVRC Design Guidelines to design for the pedestrian. In addition, the provision of additional on site amenities, including excess secure bike parking and a covered outdoor grilling patio is also consistent with the BVRC Design Guidelines to provide safe and functional bike parking to foster alternate modes of transportation and to create useable outdoor open space. (ii) The height of buildings is in general proportion to the height of existing buildings and the proposed or projected heights of approved buildings or approved plans or design guidelines for the immediate area; Agenda Item 4A Page 24 of 26 The existing development proposal includes the conversion of existing interior atrium space to create a mezzanine level for offices and conference room space. The height of the building is not being altered. (iii) The orientation of buildings minimizes shadows on and blocking of views from adjacent properties; Not applicable; the existing building is not being altered in terms of bulk, mass or orientation. The development proposal includes the conversion of existing interior space to create a mezzanine level and does not create additional bulk or mass. (iv) If the character of the area is identifiable, the project is made compatible by the appropriate use of color, materials, landscaping, signs, and lighting; The project site, 2700 Pearl Street, is within the BVRC and is subject to the BVRC Design Guidelines. The existing development has already been reviewed for consistency with the BVRC Design Guidelines through its original approval. The proposed changes to the exterior of the building do however, include enhancements to outdoor recreation areas, including along the west elevation, providing a BBQ area with trellis shade structure. (v) Buildings present an attractive streetscape, incorporate architectural and site design elements appropriate to a pedestrian scale, and provide for the safety and convenience of pedestrians; The development proposal incorporates providing additional windows on the first floor which will not only bring natural light into the building but, also increase the permeability of the building at the street level. (vi) To the extent practical, the project provides public amenities and planned public facilities; Public amenities associated with the project site are existing including, multi-use path, bus stops and bicycle parking and open space areas with furniture. (vii) For residential projects, the project assists the community in producing a variety of housing types, such as multi-family, townhouses, and detached single-family units as well as mixed lot sizes, number of bedrooms, and sizes of units; Not applicable; 2700 Pearl Street development proposal is for a commercial project. (viii) For residential projects, noise is minimized between units, between buildings, and from either on-site or off-site external sources through spacing, landscaping, and building materials; Not applicable; 2700 Pearl Street development proposal is for a commercial project. (ix) A lighting plan is provided which augments security, energy conservation, safety, and aesthetics; No changes to the exterior lighting have been proposed as part of this application. All new light fixtures will be required to be compliant with section 9-9-16, "Lighting, Outdoor," B. R. C. 1981. A lighting plan consistent with section 9-9-16, "Lighting, Outdoor," B. R. C. 1981 may be required at the time of building permit. Agenda Item 4A Page 25 of 26 (x) The project incorporates the natural environment into the design and avoids, minimizes, or mitigates impacts to natural systems; The development proposal includes the conversion of existing internal atrium space to enclosed mezzanine space that creates floor area. No impacts to the site are anticipated. (xi) Cut and fill are minimized on the site, the design of buildings conforms to the natural contours of the land, and the site design minimizes erosion, slope instability, landslide, mudflow or subsidence, and minimizes the potential threat to property caused by geological hazards. The development proposal does not included any construction that will disturb ground. Y (D) The minor amendment is found to be substantially consistent with the intent of the original approval, including conditions of approval, the intended design character and site arrangement of the development, and specific limitations on additions or total size of the building which were required to keep the building in general proportion to others in the surrounding area or minimize visual impacts. The alternations are minor and will not change the overall appearance of the building. The creation of a mezzanine level from existing atrium space for use as offices is adaptive reuse of a building originally designed for retail. The basic intent of the site plan approval would not be violated by this reuse. Y (E) The city manager may amend, waive, or create a development agreement. The development agreement has been waived since there are no associated public improvements. Agenda Item 4A Page 26 of 26 MEMORANDUM To: Planning Board FROM: Jessica Vaughn, Planner I DATE: September 22, 2011 SUBJECT: Call Up Item: 2215 20th Street Site Review for Height Modification (#LUR2011-00050) request for an existing family residence to exceed the maximum permitted height for a nonstandard lot in the RMX-1 zone district (25 feet) at 27 feet as a result of an 83 square foot addition. This approval is subject to call-up on or before October 6, 2011. Attached is the disposition of the approval for a Site Review for Height Modification request for a existing single family residence to exceed the maximum permited height for nonstandard lots in the RMX-1 zone district (25 feet) at 27 feet as a result of an 83 square foot addition (see Attachment A, September 22, 2011 Notice of Disposition). Existing Conditions: The project site, 2215 20" Street, st is zoned RN/IX- 1, Residential Mixed-1, which is defined as "Mixed density residential areas Subject Area RL_1 2215201hsf with a variety of single family, detached, dzrplexes and multi- family units that will be ~f maintained; and where existing structures may be renovated or rehabilitated," section 9-5- N 2(c)(1)(1)), B.R.C. 1981. The majority of the surrounding a P~n5` - properties are zoned RMX-1 with RMX- RH-2 the exception of the properties adjacent to the north, which are ft'~ zoned RL-1, Residential Low-1. e st s s~ei~i sPru~ The project is within the potential Whittier historic district, which is home to a variety of architectural MU-3 styles and ornamentation. J Agenda Item 413 Page 1 of 14 Backuround: The project site is part of an existing two lot subdivision and Planned Unit Development (PUD) (P-85-54), known as the Ingenious Subdivision, approved in 1986. The subdivision consisted of one 7,015 square foot lot split into two lots, 1935 Pine Street (4,009 square feet), the adjacent lot to the south and 2215 20th Street (3,006 square feet), the subject property. The intent of the PUD was to retain the existing bungalow style residence located at 1935 Pine Street and construct a new building on the northern part of the lot. The architecture of the new building was to be compatible with the existing structure as well as the surrounding neighborhood by echoing some of the neighborhood's predominant architectural features. Process: The minimum lot size in the RMX-1 zone district is 6,000 sq. ft pursuant section 9-8, "Intensity Standards," BR. C. 1981. Since the site is only 3,006 square feet, it is considered nonstandard by the code. The maximum permitted height for nonstandard lots in the RMX-1 zone district as determined pursuant to section 9-10-3(b)(2), B.R.C. 1981, is 25 feet, where 35 feet is permitted for standard lots. The proposed addition will create a new low point that will render the principle structure in excess of the maximum permitted height (25 feet) at 27 feet. A request for a height modification can only be approved through the Site Review process for a structure that exceeds the permitted height requirements. No standard other than height may be modified under the site review unless the project is also eligible for Site Review. Proposal: The applicant's proposal includes the construction of an 83 square foot addition to the south side of the existing structure. The existing house is 25 feet in height as measured from the low point. While the proposed addition is only 20 feet in height as measured from the low point, it results in a new low point (5320) that is approximately two feet lover than the existing low point (5322). The new low point renders the existing house 27 feet tall, which is in excess of what is permitted for nonstandard lots in the RMX-1 zone district, 25 feet. Please refer to Attachment B, Applicant's Written Statement and Attachment C, Proposed Plan Set for a complete set of drawings. Conclusion: Overall, the proposed addition is minimal in size, maintains the ample separation between the surrounding buildings to the west and south, and is under the maximum permitted height for nonstandard lots in the RMX-1 zone district (25 feet) at 20 feet. The development proposal was found to be consistent with the Site Review criteria for review (see Attachment D, Site Rewew Criteria). Agenda Item 4B Page 2 of 14 Recommendation: Staff finds that this application meets the Site Review criteria set forth in Section 9-2-14, B.R.C. 1981 in terms of consistency and compatibility with the existing zone district and surrounding neighborhood. This proposal was approved by Planning and Development Services staff on September 22, 2011 and the decision may be called up before Planning Board on or before October 6, 2011. There is one Planning Board meetings within the 14-day call up period on October 6, 2011. Questions about the project or decision should be directed to Jessica Vaughn at (303) 441-4161 or vaughnjLa),bouldercolorado. ov. Attachments: Attachment A: September 22, 2011 Notice of Disposition Attachment B: Applicant's Written Statement Attachment C: Proposed Plan Set Attachment D: Site Review Criteria 3 Agenda Item 413 Page 3 of 14 Attachment A CITY OF BOULDER Planning and Development Services ,,~i "i 4v 1 1739 Broadway, Third Floor • P.O. Box 791, Boulder, CO 80306-0791 phone 303-441-1880 • fax 303-441-3241 - web boulderplandevelop.net CITY OF BOULDER PLANNING DEPARTMENT NOTICE OF DISPOSITION You are hereby advised that the following action was taken by the Planning Department based on the standards and criteria of the Land Use Regulations as set forth in Chapter 9-2, B.R.C. 1981, as applied to the proposed development. DECISION: APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS PROJECT NAME: 221520 th Street Nonstandard Single-Family Lot (Rosen Addition) DESCRIPTION: SITE REVIEW for HEIGHT MODIFICATION request for an existing family residence to exceed the maximum permitted height for a nonstandard lot in the RMX-1 zone district ,25 feet) at 27 feet. LOCATION: 2215 20' Street COOR: N04W05 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 1, Ingenious Subdivision, City of Boulder, County of Boulder, State of Colorado APPLICANT: KEN STORM ' OWNER: Donna Rosen APPLICATION: Site Review for Height Modification, LUR2011-00050 ZONING: Residential Mixed-1 (RMX-1) CASE MANAGER: Jessica Vaughn VESTED PROPERTY RIGHT: NO; the owner has waived the opportunity to create such right under Section 9-2-19, B.R.C. 1981. FOR CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, SEE THE FOLLOWING PAGES OF THIS DISPOSITION. Approved On: September 22, 2011 Date By: Dav` Driskell, Ex cu i or of Community Planning and Sustainability This decision may be appealed to the Planning Board by filing an appeal letter with the Planning Department within two weeks of the decision date. If no such appeal is filed, the decision shall be deemed final fourteen days after the date above mentioned. Appeal to Planning Board expires: October 6, 2011 IN ORDER FOR A BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION TO BE PROCESSED FOR THIS PROJECT, A SIGNED DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AND SIGNED MYLAR PLANS MUST BE SUBMITTED TO THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT WITH DISPOSITION CONDITIONS AS APPROVED SHOWN ON THE MYLAR PLANS, IF THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT IS NOT SIGNED WITHIN NINETY (90) DAYS OF THE FINAL DECISION DATE, THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL AUTOMATICALLY EXPIRES. Address: 2215 20Th Street Agenda Item 413 Page 4 of 14 Pursuant to Section 9-2-12 of the Land Use Regulations (Boulder Revised Code, 1981), the applicant must begin and substantially complete the approved development within three years from the date of final approval. Failure to "substantially complete" (as defined in Section 9-2-12) the development within three years shall cause this development approval to expire. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. The Applicant shall be responsible for ensuring that the development shall be in compliance with all approved plans dated September 22, 2011 on file in the City of Boulder Planning Department, except as may be modified by the conditions of this approval 2, The Applicant shall comply with all previous conditions contained in any previous approvals, except to the extent that any previous conditions may be modified by this approval, including, but not limited to the following: PUD #P-85-54. 3. The Applicant shall ensure that the existing residence shall not exceed the height of 27 feet as measured pursuant to the methodology set forth in the definition for "Height" within section 9-16-1, "General Definitions," B.R.C. 1981. Address: 2215 20th Street Agenda Item 4B Page 5 of 14 Attachment B STORM [form] tic 920 Corey Street Longmont, Colorado 80501 303 638 9248 voice 303 484 4332 fax To Whom It May Concern, We are proposing a minor addition for the home located at 2215 20th St., Boulder. This addition would add 83 s.f of conditioned space to the existing home of 1815 s.f, making for a total of 1398 s.f.. 1400 s.f. is the limit placed on this property by the P.U.D. chartered. The added square footage of conditioned space requires that the height of the existing building be measured from a distance 25 feet from the new addition. Due to the fact that the existing home stands at 25'-8" (under the 26'-0" height limit set by the P.U.D. in 1987), the new calculation puts the existing home at a calculated height of 26'-8" from the new low point 25' to the South. Our request is for a Minor Modification for the height requirement of 26'-0" as stated in the P.U.D. for the Ingenious Subdivision. We request that the height requirement be raised to 27'-0" to allow for the new calculation of requirement from a low point 25' from the house. We feel it a waste of energy, resources and time to tear down the exiting roof ridge 8 inches to accommodate a requirement not required at the time the original house was built. We feel that the allowance of 12 inches in height will not pose any deleterious visual or solar effect because the existing building height will not change and the proposed addition to the home, if approved, will be only 22'-8" high. We feel that this request fully satisfies all of the applicable review criteria because the proposed addition meets the PUD square footage requirements because we are only adding 83 s.f of space and solar and height requirements all fall within zoning and planning guidelines. It is only be default that the existing structure, with any permitted work done to the structure, now stands above the PUD limited 26'-0" height threshold because now we must measpre 25'-0" to the lowest point of the structure. n~n~ an of Phan ~ We thank you for your time and consi SerUces U e ii 4 L - r600 604 0 1 i Sincerely, % ° OPMENT PMENT K nneth G. Storm ~Donnrltwehff ROVED General Contractor Home USE DRAWIN R;. M M NAGER ATE STORM [from] . 920 Corey St., Longmont CO, 80501 ph. 303 638 9248 fax/*,AdW8eQ66 Page 6 of 14 Attachment C P ~ N M L K J I H G F E D C B A 12 ~ 12 11 11 ,r„ Arc[MS Viewer httpalgisweb.ci.boulder.co.uslwe6sitelpdslpds_eMapLirrk/MapFrame.htm ~ - SOLAR SHADOW 10 'b ~r l Y 1 4i 10 FOR HYPOTHETIC ~ ~ ~ H T 35 EIGH fiF ual 5d y ~_PS } :a' ~'?1 ~~,°~'"^'S J.J.U. 1 5325 SOLAR SHADOW 9 FRA T 7 0 DJUS ED 2 HEIGHT OF EXISTING 4( p..~ y~@ X.~ 1F a t' ~ _ 7 1 m fllfr ~ ~ ~ ~ k~`~ ~ t.~ HOUSE a t v ~ r~s~ ! ~.,1 r~ L.t h ti,i y: 4 C, 8 i ~ :a _ t i ~ ~N ~ i i ~ ~ ~ 5 Ate"` r PDS In a 3o~1de~ .r'"`~ r ~ ice` ~ ~LJt?~L a / ~ i V ' Y ~ 6 ~ ,9 SOLAR SHADO ~ - ~ ~ WER ,r0 ~~3? Z SITE SCALE= 1 "=50' OF PROPOSED p ~p~ - 3~... e pVERN~ L1' 1E Z' ,0 . 3 0 . EXISTING i SER~ ADD N . ~ ELEC. ~ 7 , E N _ / ~ ~ n ~ O 7 O ~ ,2 /__2`i~ / ~ 1 5~/ QD ~ / ,0 ~ / J J OFF-STREET~EARKING ~O ~ 1 / `i 5 ,,~AjFSR~ n EAS NT FOR LOT 5~ ~ 1S ~ ~ W ~ p v Rte' / cn 1 E / O ~ ~ ~ ~ - 0 STRE PARKIN ~ ~r , rO' FO LOT 1~ \ ~ ~ ~ W ~ \ / W OFF-STREET >9ARKING ~ ~ O ~ ~ Q ~ ~ ~ ~ IN ATTACHED GA / ~ ~ ~ SER~r FOR LOT 1 / p ~ W 5324 ~ ~ d~ 6 z ~ 0 / SSOR : ~N ~ / 0 \ D U' Q n~ ~ N / ~S1N0 ~ ~ ~ o E~~ ENCE a~ - ~ ~ \ Z ~1 ~ / ESID ,i / , ~ O V~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ C~ tP ~ O m ~ / / e 5~ ~ -n ~ = ~ o P 1~1 n ~ / = ~ ~ ~ oo ti o p ~ r 1 of 1 612017-011 11:57 AM p y ~ v~ ~~e-ems. ~ ~ ~ ~3 ~ti / ~ I ~ ~ i ~ ' _ IS ~p ~ Q - ~ EX .E>'~ Y m 5 u ASH j OE~'O p~G14 ~ - ~ ~ , i S ~ 18" ROOF SOFFIT NEW ~ _ s~ ~ ~ ~ w H ~ ~ I ~ ~ ~ I ~ ~ N' I N ~ N, ~ ~d,~dl' W GA I IO HOT \ ~ W N PAS ~ TUB E U ~ SANE DBH 1.5 , Z + TREE LOCATIONS, SPECIES AND DIAMETERS r ~ F GS TRUNK AND ~ ~ - R ~ ~ GROUND 2S'~ WERE SURVEYED BY REINHOLT TREE CARE N p ~ MITIGATION ~ ~ INC., RM-2541A, LICENSED ARBORIST. N ~ r SPRUCE ~ ~ ~ r " ~ o ALL TREES EXISTING ARE HEALTHY. JOB NO: 211-12 ,3 ~2 ~ ~Z ~ i pp,T10 ~ /o ~ ~ I S3pNti io cn 4 FIAO . `~-1- ~ ~ II = g NO TREES WILL BE ALTERED OR REMOVED. PER ARBORISTS 4 ISSUE DATE / ~ ~ O \ ~ to z RECOMMENDATION TRUNKS AND GROUND REV 1 5/7/11 _ ~ 53 W ~ TREE \ SH '7b' ,K INTI N SURROUNDING ALL TREES IN WORK AREA \ HH 4' ~ ~ I+ WILL BE PROTECTED WITH WRAP AND 3" REV 2 8/22/11 - i ~ / h~ . „ \ ~ ~ CARPET OF MULCH OR SIMILAR MATERIAL. ,2 \ , N / ~0, ,0 \ i o i Y N 'ti T E ~ ~ ~ M / DRAWN BY: KGS 3/1e ,v ~ R~ , . APPROVED: STORMFORM ~^o. , - R~ ~ ~ 3 ~ ~ y ~ ~ ~ , \ 3 r N ~ ° ,,~oYtis 2 0 20 N „ ~3/s Z NIN INF RM~ N FORMATION Y o_ O G O 5 ,1OY4 CATEG CATEGORY: REQUIRED PROVIDED PROJECT INFORMATION ZOf ZONING: RMX-1 N/A 3,006 S.F. TOTAL LOT SIZE: SOLAR ACCESS A~ ACCESS AREA I 12' FT. N/A SOLAR FENCE 1344 SF TOTAL EXISTING HEATED/COOLED ABOVE GRADE AREA LOT ~ LOT AREA 3,006 SF 83 S.F. PROPOSED HEATED/COOLDED AREA ABOVE GRADE z OFF-STREET PARKING SF PARKING SPACES 2 BED-1 1 (28.5 S.F.) AREA ABOVE STAIR EXEMPT FROM TOTAL FLOOR AREA 2 DATE PER DWELLING R DWELLING UNIT: SPACES 1398.5 S.F. TOTAL EXISTING AND PROPOSED HEATED/COOLED FLOOR AREA nn~ ~ n r I-\/I!'~TIA I l\ A TT A /~1 If"fl l1 A I'l ~ /~f"' JUNE, ~ 2[711 LLJ.J J. r. Lnl~ I IINU A I I AUHLU UAKAVL SETB SETBACKS: 32 S. F. EXISTING COVERED FRONT PORCH FRONT PRINK =RONT PRINCIPAL: 3' AS SHOWN 446.5 S. F. EXISTING FIRST FLOOR SHEET TITLE REAR PRINK SIDE SET REAR PRINCIPAL: 25' AS SHOWN 672 S. F. EXISTING SECOND FLOOR SIDE SETBACK: 5' MIN. AS SHOWN 15 TOTAL 18 S. F. PROPOSED 1ST FLOOR ADDITION PORCH ENCROACH 65 S. F. PROPOSED 2ND FLOOR ADDITION ENCROACHMENT: 8' BEYOND AS SHOWN 40 S. F. PROPOSED COVERED FRONT PORCH 1 PRINCIPAL 1 AO SETBACK DRAWING NUMBER 83 S.F. TOTAL NEW HEATED/COOLED SQUARE FOOTAGE: OF MAX. HEIGHT PRINCI TIGHT PRINCIPAL 26' AS SHOWN 161 S.F. TOTAL REMODELED HEATED/COOLED SQUARE FOOTAGE: ©2011 STORM form L.L.C. P 0 N M L K J I H G F E D C B A Agenda em 413 age o P ~ N M L K J I H G E E D C B A 1z 12 24'-2" 11 ROUGH OPENING WIDTH 3'-t~~s" 2'-8" 2'-8" 2'-8" 7'-~" 2'-8" 3'-0~" 11 22'-6" ROUGH OPENING HEIGHT WINDOW/DOOR TYPE 3'OX4'OR®42 HEIGHT ABOVE TOP OF _ ~ STRUCTURAL FLOOR (INCHES) •t ~I i t` AREA OF ~ , 'scm ~~P ~ WINDOW EXAMPLE i .o N DR,A R~lCU881E5 ~ r HATCH ~ ~ N ~ ~ K DENOTES ~ ~ M AREA OF a N ~ DOOR WIDTH * $ WINDOW DOOR TYPE KEY ADDED N X o HATCH ~ W DOOR HEIGHT GARAGE FLOOR, AREA; , o DENOTES / cEl>_INC Hr.7~e~~ a SWING L =LEFT HINGE 10 R =RIGHT HINGE 65 S.F. ~ BED 2 3 N - ~ CEILING HT,9'-1" 3'-~6" 10 ADDED ~n S =SLIDER N rl c ~ ~ FLOOR AREA' = n I ~ A =AWNING , o ,r~~ ~ _ ~ 3-1 101 ~ J ' = i ~ 0"X6'8R H HOPPER N I S S.F. ~ M „ T =FIXED TRANSOM I 1 -9 N ~ 8 = BYPASS m BF = BIFOLD = ~ 13'-2J~" O DRAT 'lCUBBIES ~ ~ I L Q ~ = FR =FRENCH DOOR ° : N I ~ r \ M ~ ~ ~ Q ~ MOK CEILING H '~1" ( 4 1 U ~ ~ / ~ 0 WALLS AND C ~ i DC =DOUBLE CASEMENT ~ (V c CI ~ \ - ~ ~ 7 N 5!8"TYPPE-~ iv DOOR EXAMPLE OV =OVERHEAD ~ RYWALL SMOK CO DET. ~ M ~ 1~ ~ CUBBIES O ~ ~ ~ I ~ ~ ~ *OTHER SPECIAL WINDOWS OR DOORS 20 M]N. [RE RATE d ~ .N t>7 0 N DOOR NOTED BY MODEL NUMBER LO T EI ~ FLOOR TO CEILING ~ ~ a ~ ~ ~'~J ~ 9 ~ i I Cl C IN S ~ CABINETS ~ ~ O o N ~ ('7 W s~+o~~co o~rm 9 ~ ~ a t Q ~ a = N ~ WH ~ r` ~ a i p cV O ~v DO _ ~ N KITCHEN 0 0 t ] I CEILING HT, 9'-1" O ~ O ~ OI o N ~ ~ cEIBEDHI $,_t„ ~ M o ~ 0 i _ i o ' ~ ~ ~ o~ ~ m ip -J I, ~ t I 3'-0" 3'-6" 2'-1" 13'-4" - ~ I ~ 14'-10" M SMOK CO DET. f-^J e = 8 8 _ _ 4 N - F SMOK COD . w°o LNING/D[NNING ~ t i" CEILING HT, 9'd" ~ ~w O r _ - Wa N ~ ~ J , - - ~ W 28.5 S.F. 0 t0 N l ` \ W I j ~ AREA ABOVE \ ' J ~ I O/ N \ ~ ~ N'-6" I - STAIRWELL I EXEMPT FROM ~1 ' ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 TOTAL SQUARE ~ ~ M ~ FOOTAGE ~ ~ Q _ ~ CA - " 3 -0" i -0 - ~ - ~ N a ~ ~ ~ N 7 BAT CEILING H I N ~ L.L - ~ 0 `rm „ YI` _ ~ W OJ M N ~ Q „ Li ~ ri u O ~ U.. O 1'-6" 9'-0" 3'-0" 9'-0" ~ 7'-0" 3'-2" 21'-0" Q ~ Q 6 6 z v1 ~ SECOND FLOOR PLAN 2 FIRST FLOOR PLAN 1 FOR PLAN Q ~ ~ ~ 21'-0" ALE:14~~-11~0~1 LE,1 - Z ~ 0 ~ r1 00 ~ I-I 125'-8" p ~ T.O. EXISTING RIDGE =5348.A O ~ T4 Q = 5 ~J~ ASPH+LT RODRNG TYP. 5 ~ 1 FELT 1 ~ ~ osY wuT1Y+c E„ql NmBA(N TW.: EKRND ~ ' j,.;,:_~(61(NO ROOF 38' YBi. N FtMli; lYl1GE 1~1" PER Ff. EMiNEFREO iR1155 I/1 IElO ~ 1%B~Tn~~IE 2' FusxNO~.. ~ ROOF FRAMMG, E% TRUSSES 4%8 X.f. PURUN N N 1T8'-11" TO PROPOSED ROOF ADD'N. ~ ~ pit, 4X8 CEDAR ROOF JOIST 14' TIMBERLOK 7° 2~ POLY-ISO FOAM Rrt0 PUTS JOB NO: 211-12 R-42 2X4 TOP PUTES TYP. - 15/ FELT OR TYVEK/51%1. \ r- _ 4 VAPOR BARRIER ~ 4 ISSUE DATE 1/T6" O.S.B. SHEATHING ~~F~ISnuc 2%e wnu I TYp, T1'PrTO REMNN REV 1 6/7/11 2%4 SND WAll TYP., - R-19 FOAM INSUUTION 1= ~ 1~= HAR01-PANEL SIDING OR t~Y n Ic REV 2 8/22/11 SIM. ttP. - D I-;- 1= STEEL RNllNG SYSTEM ttP. MAX. 4° SPACING 0 INFlLL ~ _ i~ , - o s;. 1D9'-1° - DRAWN BY: KGS ,i o T.O. 2ND FLR, SUB-FLR. - - w 2%6 TRE% OR SIM DECKING ~ FlDOR FRAIJING E%IS11NG T1 T/8 TJN~ APPROVED: STORM FORM 3 'CONT. NANO PNL 038". . 4%8 CEDAR JOIST FRW tRUO; wNO. ~ - . . 3 LL 4%1D CEDAR BEAM HUCXB HR~CER ttP. 3 CUSTOM STEEL BRACKET .tt ~3 - I; i is TRFAOS wnX A Exlsnuc axs wAU TYP. ' aF A ' AW y ro REMAIU oEPtX o-t/x 2xa sroo wA>l I 'I,- R-19 FOAM INSUUTION _ ~ 1~ LV. STEEL TREA05 = HARDI-PANEL SIDING OR _ T~ 3;1 5X10' CEDAR G.L. . SM' 51RINGERS - i CU - I iDO'-o° 2 T.O. EXISTING SLAB 5323'-0' ' 99'-i 2" 2 DATE LOW POINT 25' FROM HOUSE 5322'-1~2" PEIRS PER STRUCTUWILS JUNE, 7 2011 1' XPS FOAM CONT. J EXISTING MONOLRNIC SLAB J TO REMAIN COMPACTED GRAVEL; RE: S2 FOOTING PER STRUCTURALS SHEET TITLE 1 1 DRAWING NUMBER SECTION AA 3 ~l SCALE: 1/411=11-011 OF ©2011 STORM form L.L.C. P 11 N M L K J I H G F E D C B A Agenda em age of 'l 4 P ~ N M L K J I H G F E D C B A 125'-8" T.O. EXISTING RIDGE I ~ i „ =5348.8 ~Illll_ i la~_ it k 1 Z L.i )li~_ 11~._ I ll_., 1L . ~L 118'-11" III III ~ I~ ~I i ~ ~I 11 TO PROPOSED ROOF ADO'N. ii iii it li a it ii ii II ii ~ II II it li it II I n II u t 0 11 n I it II II II it II iii II ii II ii it li II i it II n II it II n II n II i~ e 11 e II I II I II III ~ II I II II ~~.i h ~ FlREPUCE fAA11NG SpiFfN d J D rc m LL I ° ip = N 1 4 I.- X .O W O I NEW ROOF ON EXISTING L O PORCH ROOF W I J ~ U ~ 109'-1 °o T.O. 2ND FLR. SUB-FLR. C E a `in L U ~ y°j NNk OL ~ ~ ~ Ka M C - CQ O_ 7 N ~~~11 LLO 1 O yj N O ~ ~ V C a ~~g' W ~ ~ 'N O ~ I -~o c~ ~ o `o M N 9 II 9 = v s a a - O 1 oa'-o" T.O. EXISTING SLAB 5323'-0" 99'-1 2" LOW POINT 25' FROM HOUSE 5322'-1/2" NORTH ELEV. 1 2 SOUTH ELEV. N A 122'-8" T.O. EXISTING RIDGE 8 8 ~`i s Ll ~ 118'-11" ~?ii~ I u i i i it I n Ili 'I I I ~'I ~I TO PROPOSED ROOF ADD'N. - ,LLJ_ - '^~r' 7 7 I.i O J W 0 D 0 ~ U - ~ ~ ~ 0 W U ~ ~ ~ ~ p w 109'-i" 6 z ~ ~ 1 i ~ ~ '~i 'I N °a/~ ~ ~I I Q ~ ~ z ~ 3 o / I J ~ / i \ I~~I I ~ ~ 0 _ ~ Q m II I f p ~ I- ~ p c~ Q 2 j f I - - 100'-0" 5 0 T.D. EXISTING SLAB N 9T-6" LOW POINT 25' FROM HOUSE N EAST ELEV. WEST ELEV. 3 4 r I \ / ~ N ALE:14 - -0 A _ / \ N 125'-8" T.O. EXISTING RIDGE =5348.8 / \ JOB NO: 211-12 _~_~ll / l~ 4 ISSUE DATE / }L ~ REV 1 6/7/11 / - ~I . REV 2 8/22/11 / ~ / 116'-11" TO PROPOSED ROOF ADD'N. / / I~ DRAWN BY: KGS / ~ \ APPROVED: STORMFORM ~ ~uwc \ 3 \ 3 a J ~ / ~ ~ m= ~ ~ \ N>? ~ -I a I _ ~ W Z ~ z 1 9'-1.. - 07 T . 2N FLR, SUB-FLR, 0 .i E m oLL ~n a N a ~ i ~ ao r i &a a ~ DATE a; » ~ ~0 1 O 4i N \ ~ ~ Q ~~g` 0 ~ m I I I N I N N ~ I JUNE, 7 2011 N i LL~j II L-1 L~l SHEET TITLE I 0'-o" T EXI TING SLAB 5323'-0` 1 5322'- 1 52Z _ 1 - 5322 - 1 . . . . . . A2 L 25' FROM HOUSE LOWEST EAST SIDE POINT FOR BULK PLANE LOWEST WEST SIDE PC 5322-, 2" ST SIDE POINT FOR BULK PLANE LOWEST EAST SIDE POINT FOR BULK PLANE DRAWING NUMBER 5 PROPOSED ADD N. BULK PLANE ~~2 SCALE: 1/4 - 1-011 » 6 EXISTING HOUSE BULK PLANE OF l o" SCALE: 1/4"=V-011 7 e_ STORM form L.L.C. I 11 10 11 10 P N M L K J I H G E E D C B A Agenda Item 48 Page 9 of 14 Case LUR20 1 1-0005 0 Attachment D Project Name: Nonstandard Single-family Lot Site Review for Height Mod. Date: August 17, 2011 CRITERIA FOR REVIEW No site review application shall be approved unless the approving agency finds that: (1) Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan: Y (A) The proposed site plan is consistent with the purposes and policies of the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan. The Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan designates 2215 20th Street as mixed density residential. Since the existing use of the lot as a single-family residence is not changing; it remains consistent with the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan. Y_(B) The proposed development shall not exceed the maximum density associated with the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan residential land use designation. Additionally, if the density of existing residential development within a three hundred-foot area surrounding the site is at or exceeds the density permitted in the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan, then the maximum density permitted on the site shall not exceed the lesser of: The Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan delineates the mixed density residential land use classification as areas where a variety of housing types and densities are found. This is an existing non-standard single family residential 3,006 square foot lot that has a density of 1 dwelling unit per .06 acre. Since the land use designation does not assign a particular density to the designation the existing development is consistent with designation. Y (i) The density permitted in the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan, or, Y_(ii) The maximum number of units that could be placed on the site without waiving or varying any of the requirements of Chapter 9-8, "Intensity Standards," B.R.C. 1981. Y_(C) The proposed development's success in meeting the broad range of BVCP policies considers the economic feasibility of implementation techniques require to meet other site review criteria. The development consists of a single-family residence expansion. The economic feasibility is not an issue. (2) Site Design: Projects should preserve and enhance the community's unique sense of place through creative design that respects historic character, relationship to the natural environment, and its physical setting. Projects should utilize site design techniques which enhance the quality of the project. In determining whether this Subsection is met, the approving agency will consider the following factors: The development consists of a single-family residence expansion within the RMX-1, Residential Mixed-1 zone district. The open space requirement for this zone district is 600 square feet per dwelling unit. The proposed development provides an excess open space in that three-quarters of the lot is undeveloped. Agenda Item 413 Page 10 of 14 The existing total lot coverage is 704 square feet. After the proposed addition (83 square feet, 18 square feet first floor addition, 65 square feet second floor addition) 58 square feet in coverage result (18 from first floor addition and 40 from covered front porch), the total lot coverage is 730 square feet. N/A (A) Open Space: Open space, including, without limitation, parks, recreation areas, and playgrounds: The RMX-1 zone district requires 600 square feet of open space per dwelling unit. The proposed lot coverage is 730 square feet, which leave over 75 percent of the lot undeveloped. N/A (C) Landscaping This is a single-family residential development consisting of one 3,006 square foot lot. There are no landscaping requirements for single-family residences. N/A (D) Circulation: Circulation, including, without limitation, the transportation system that serves the property, whether public or private and whether constructed by the developer or not.. This is a single-family residential development consisting of one 3006 square foot lot. Access, currently taken from the alley, is not being altered with this proposal and is consistent with the development standards in section 9-9-5, B.R.C., 1981. N/A (E) Parking This is a single-family residential development consisting of one 3,006 square foot lot. Access from the alley is not changing. The site supports two standard parking spaces. Y_(F) Building Design, Livability, and Relationship to the Existing or Proposed Surrounding Area Y (i) The building height, mass, scale, orientation, and configuration are compatible with the existing character of the area or the character established by an adopted plan for the area; The site is zoned Residential Mixed-1 (RMX-1). Pursuant to section 9-8, "intensity Standards, " B.R. C. 1981, the minimum lot area required in the RMX-1 zone district is 6,000 square feet. The site, 2215 20th Street is comprised of 3,006 square feet, making the lot nonstandard. Pursuant section 9-10-3(b)(3), "Maximum Height," B. R. C. 1981, the maximum permitted height for a principal structure on a nonstandard lot in the RMX-1 zone district is limited to 25 feet for a structure on a lot that is at or below half of the minimum lot size. Given the nonstandard lot size the maximum permitted height for 2215 20th Street is 25.07 feet. The maximum permitted height for structures on standard lots in the RMX-1 zone district is 35 feet. Height modifications are reviewed through the Site Review pursuant section 9-10-3(b)(2), B.R.C. 1981. Since the Site Review for Height Modification does not exceed the maximum permitted height in the RMX-1 zone district, a decision on this application (an approval, denial, or approval with conditions) will be made by the Planning Department. Agenda Item 4B Page 11 of 14 Any decision by the Planning Department is subject to call-up by the Planning Board within 14 days after a decision. Although the existing highest roof ridge is 25'-8" in height (maximum permitted height per the PUD) as measured from the lowest point within 25 feet, the height of the proposed addition will not exceed 22 feet in height as measured from the lowest point 25 feet away. The height of the proposed addition is not in excess of the maximum permitted height for the nonstandard lot (25 feet), nor the maximum permitted height in the RMX-1 zone district (35 feet). As a result of the addition, the lowest point within 25 feet of the tallest side of the existing structure moves approximately 2 feet lower than its existing point from 5,324 feet to 5,322.5 feet. The change in the low point renders the existing structure taller than the maximum permitted height for nonstandard lots in the RMX-1 zone district (25 feet) at 27 feet, however not in excess of the maximum permitted height for the zone (35 feet). Since the proposed addition is small in proportion to the existing structures (83 square feet), maintains ample separation between the adjacent property to the south, and is below the maximum permitted height for nonstandard lots (25 feet) and that of the PUD (26 feet) the addition is consistent with the above criteria. Y (ii) The height of buildings is in general proportion to the height of existing buildings and the proposed or projected heights of approved buildings or approved plans for the immediate area; The project site is within the Ingenious PUD (P-85-4), a two lot PUD that includes the project site and the property adjacent to the south (1935 Pine Street). Through the PUD approval a maximum permitted height for the `new' structure at 2215 20th Street was set at 26 feet. The surrounding properties range in height from 19 feet to 31.5 feet, including the adjacent property to the south as documented in City of Boulder Building permit records. The proposed addition is consistent with the surrounding properties at 22 feet and the subsequent height of the existing structure is also well within this range at 27 feet. Y_(iii) The orientation of buildings minimizes shadows on and blocking of views from adjacent properties; The orientation of the proposed is to the south, which lends to exceptional natural light internally. The proposed addition is not in excess of the height of the existing principal structure (27 feet) at 22 feet and no shadows will be cast as a result. Y_(iv) If the character of the area is identifiable, the project is made compatible by the appropriate use of color, materials, landscaping, signs, and lighting; The character of the area is an eclectic mix of single and multi-family residences presenting a variety of architectural styles, including bungalow, Victorian and vernacular structures. Agenda Item 4B Page 12 of 14 Additionally, the project site is located within the Ingenious PUD, which established an architectural intent for 2215 20t`' Street, including exterior colors and materials that are compatible with the existing development. Y (v) Buildings present an attractive streetscape, incorporate architectural and site design elements appropriate to a pedestrian scale, and provide for the safety and convenience of pedestrians; The proposed addition is setback over 17 feet from the property line and does not impact the existing pedestrian streetscape. The development proposal does include a new front porch cover which will enhance and update the street facing fagade and contribute to creating pedestrian interest. NIA (vi) To the extent practical, the project provides public amenities and planned public facilities; There are no public amenities associated with this addition. NIA (vii) For residential projects, the project assists the community in producing a variety of housing types, such as multi-family, townhouses, and detached single-family units as well as mixed lot sizes, number of bedrooms, and sizes of units; This is an addition to an existing single-family residence. NIA (viii) For residential projects, noise is minimized between units, between buildings, and from either on-site or off-site external sources through spacing, landscaping, and building materials; This is an addition to an existing single-family residence. NIA (ix) A lighting plan is provided which augments security, energy conservation, safety, and aesthetics; This is an addition to an existing single-family residence; a lighting plan is not required. NIA (x) The project incorporates the natural environment into the design and avoids, minimizes, or mitigates impacts to natural systems; This is an addition to an existing single-family residence. NIA (xi) Cut and fill are minimized on the site, the design of buildings conforms to the natural contours of the land, and the site design minimizes erosion, slope instability, landslide, mudflow or subsidence, and minimizes the potential threat to property caused by geological hazards- This is an addition to an existing single-family residence; there is no cut and fill associated with this project. NIA (G) Solar Siting and Construction: For the purpose of ensuring the maximum potential for utilization of solar energy in the city, all applicants for residential site reviews shall place streets, lots, open spaces, and buildings so as to maximize the potential for the use of solar energy in accordance with the following solar siting criteria: Agenda Item 413 Page 13 of 14 This development consists of an existing single-family residence. The proposal consists of adding an approximately 83 square foot addition to the south side of the house. The addition will be an extension to the existing residence southwards on the site. The proposed addition does not exceed the height of the existing residence at 27 feet at 19 feet. No shadows will be cast on to neighboring properties in violation of the solar regulations. The addition is in compliance with solar regulations and there are no landscaping requirements for single-family residences. Agenda Item 4B Page 14 of 14 MEMORANDUM To: Planning Board FROM: Jessica Vaughn, Planner I DATE: September 7, 2011 Subject: Call Up Item: Mapleton Ball Fields (30th and Mapleton) SITE REVIEW for Poles Above the Permitted Height (LUR2011-00014) request for the replacement of the existing sports lighting poles and fixtures at the East Mapleton Ball Fields that are in excess of 65 feet in height with new poles and fixtures not to exceed 55 feet (where the maximum permitted is height is 35 feet). This approval is subject to call-up on or before October 6, 2011. Attached is the disposition of the approval for a Site Review for poles above the permitted height (LUR2011-00014). This request will increase the maximum permitted pole height for sports lighting from 35 feet to 55 feet, where the existing poles are in excess of 65 feet (see Attachment A, September 22, 2011 Notice of Disposition). Existing Conditions: r„~ J cn r L.J Mapleton Ball Fields is zoned Public m r (P), which is defined by the code as o "Public areas in which public and M semi public facilities and uses are i located, including, without ST_ 1 limitation, governmental and „ Subject Area educational uses" (section 9-5- Mapleton AV Recreation Facility 2(c)(5)(A), B.R.C. 1981). The Etastsorn Mapleton leton Mapleton E Ball Fields Mapleton Ball Fields are home to three playing fields that g 4 accommodate active recreational activities, including kickball, p,nesti baseball and softball. ,r sub{ect The Illuminating Engineering - - Society of North America (IESNA) S'pTuceSt classifies the Mapleton Ball Fields as a Class III sports field, which is ar~gt' R- 1 defined as competition play with some spectator facilities. The Mapleton Ball Fields are further classified as sports fields that host a variety of ground level sports where the sports are played a short distance above the ground and where in the normal course of play, players and spectators do not Agenda Item 4C Page 1 of 29 look upward, but are focused on the horizontal movement of players. These types of sports require a well-distributed horizontal illuminance (lighting that covers the ground vs. projected upward). The IESNA recommended light levels for Class III playing fields is 50 footcandles in the infield and 30 footcandles in the outfield. The project site, located one block east of the intersection of 28th Street and Mapleton Avenue, behind the YMCA, is adjacent to commercial properties (Whole Foods and Crossroads Commons Shopping Center) on the south zoned Business Community-1 (BC- 1). A multi-use path runs between the two properties for the length of their adjacency. The YMCA is adjacent to the west also zoned Public, and Mapleton Avenue right-of-way and an associated surface parking lot to the north and east respectively. The current field lighting is provided in the form of 20 metal poles that are in excess of 60 feet in height. The existing lighting system is outdated and does not meet current city standards in that the fixtures exceed the maximum light levels at the property lines at 5.8 footcandles. Further, the existing lighting system does not meet Class III standards in that the light levels are far below the IESNA recommended uniformity ratio for sports fields at 11 footcandles infield/15 footcandles outfield (see Attachment B, Existing Light Levels). Project Background: In June 2009, the City of Boulder partnered with the Governor's Energy Office on an Energy Performance Contract (EPC) for energy savings upgrades to 66 city facilities. The City chose McKinstry as their energy services company to design and implement energy efficient facility upgrades. Through the EPC program the city is implementing a combination of both energy conservation measures and renewable energy technologies to significantly reduce carbon emissions and costs, including: • Large solar thermal installations; • Solar photovoltaic installations; • Installation of energy efficient lighting and controls; • Weatherization of building envelopes; and • Mechanical replacements (chillers, boilers, air handlers, etc.). Financing for the project was attained through grants and rebates from Xcel Energy, the Colorado Carbon Fund and Qualified Energy Conservation Bonds. Overall, the project will save the city an average of 25% in total energy consumption and in utility and maintenance services. For additional information on this project please visit: http://www.bouldercolorado.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1373 4&Itemid=2092 Agenda Item 4C Page 2 of 29 Process: Section 9-9-16, "Lighting, Outdoor," B.R.C. 1981, Table 9-11, stipulates that the maximum permitted height for light poles for public recreation uses is 35 feet or as approved by the city manager per section 9-2-14, "Site Review," B.R.C. 1981. Section 9-2-14(2), "Poles Above the Permitted Height," states that the city manager will determine whether or not to approve an application for light poles at government-owned recreation facilities between 35 and 55 feet in height. Poles above 55 feet in height are subject not only to city manager approval, but also city council call-up. Also included in the applicant's proposal are two administrative variance requests to the outdoor lighting standards as permitted by section 9-9-16, B.R.C. 1981, for aiming angle and maximum light levels at the property line. Although they are documented as part of the Site Review application, their review and approval is administrative, pursuant to section 9-9-160), B.R.C. 1981, "Variances and Exceptions," B.R.C. 1981. Proposal: As part of the city's EPC, the applicant's proposal includes the removal of the 20 existing, 60-foot, metal light poles and fixtures and replacing them with 16, 55 feet tall, metal poles and 72 light fixtures. Each light pole will have multiple light fixtures attached ranging from four fixtures to eight fixtures and each light fixture will be unique in its aiming angle in order to provide the most light on the field. The applicant's proposed improvements include: • Lowering pole height from more than 60 feet to 55 feet; • Decreasing the number of poles and fixtures from 20 poles to 16 and fixtures from 60 to 72; • Meeting the maximum uniformity ratio for sports fields (3:1) (maximum light level to minimum light level); • Installing light fixtures that are not only consistent with the maximum lumen rating (107,000 lumens) at 102,858 lumens, but also include internal sports shielding for maximum spill light control; • Providing light levels that are consistent with the IESNA (Illuminating Engineering Society of North America) recommended standards for the sports venue, 50 footcandles infield and 30 footcandles outfield; and • Improving the energy performance of the lighting and light control system in current use. Please refer to Attachment C, Applicant's Written Statement and Attachment D, Proposed Plan Set. Analysis: Overall, the proposed lighting improvements were found to be consistent with the intent of the city's outdoor lighting requirements pursuant to section 9-9-16, "Lighting, Outdoor," BR. C. 1981, but also provide an improvement over the current lighting Agenda Item 4C Page 3 of 29 scheme provided at Mapleton Ball Fields in terms of energy efficiency, safety and pole height. Please refer to Attachment E, Site Revieiv Criteria for a complete analysis of the applicant's proposal. Administrative Variance Requests: Two administrative variance requests were approved as part of the applicant's overall program to update the Mapleton Ball Fields lighting. The first variance request is for the light fixture aiming angle to be varied from the maximum permitted 60 degrees to a range from 61 degrees to no more than 68 degrees depending on the placement of the light pole on the field. The second variance request is for the maximum permitted footcandle rating at the property line from the maximum permitted.2 footcandles to 7 footcandles. The two variance requests directly relate to the decrease in pole height. As the pole decreases in height, the light becomes more intense over a shorter Height Mounting 55.0 x'0'0 area. The fixture aiming angle and pole height both impact the amount of 30.0* horizontal light spill of a light fixture. Increasing the 95,3 angle at which the fixture is Aiming Distance aimed and decreasing the from Pole pole height will increase the horizontal light spill at the property line (see illustration at the right). Mounting 65.0 ° Generally speaking, a taller Height 55.0 light pole will increase the area being illuminated, but will have less intense light levels over that area overall, which is the case 117.9 with the current lighting Aiming Distance conditions at the Mapleton from Pole Ball Fields. A shorter pole will have a more intense light level over a smaller area. Under this scenario, the light is more focused in direction and the light levels will drop significantly beyond the area being illuminated. Although the proposed poles are shorter, they will Agenda Item 4C Page 4 of 29 produce light spill at the property, however the intensity of the spill light will drop significantly as the distance from the pole is increased. Additional light trespass does occur along the north and west property lines where the Mapleton Ball Fields are adjacent to Mapleton Avenue right-of-way and the YMCA parking lot respectively, however the light levels do not exceed 3 footcandles. Light trespass of this caliber is consistent with the maximum permitted light levels for the applicable areas; 5 footcandles in parking areas and 3 footcandles along pedestrian walkways. Overall, the two variance requests were found to be consistent with the review criteria, specifically criterion (j)(2)(C) regarding safety. Given the complexities of outdoor light levels, the variance requests were found to be generally consistent with the intent of section 9-9-16, B.R.C. 1981 and to be the minimum variance to provide relief (see Attachment F, Administrative Tariance Criteria). Additionally, pursuant to section 9-9- 16(d)(1)(B), B.R.C. 1981, a statement from each adjacent property owner, the YMCA and Crossroads Commons was submitted, acknowledging the light trespass and stating that there were no objections. Public Comment and Process: Upon receipt of the Site Review for Poles Above the Permitted Height, staff mailed notices to all property owners within 600 feet of the subject property, as well as posting signs on the property. Several telephone calls were received from the residents of the surrounding neighborhood expressing favor for the proposed lighting improvements at Mapleton Ball Fields. Conclusion: Staff finds that this application meets the Site Review criteria set forth in Section 9-2-14, (h)(2)(H), "Additional Criteria for Poles Above the Permitted Height," B.R.C. 1981 (see Attachment D, Site Review Criteria) in terms of consistency and compatibility with the intent of the outdoor lighting requirements pursuant to section 9-9-16, "Lighting, Outdoor," B.R.C. 1981. Overall, the proposed modifications will result in a more energy efficient light system, safe light levels and shorter light poles. This proposal was approved by staff on September 22, 2011 and the decision may be called up before Planning Board on or before October 6, 2011. There is one Planning Board meetings within the 14-day call up period on October 6, 2011. Questions about the project or decision should be directed to Jessica Vaughn at (303) 441-4161 or vault j&bouldercolorado. gov. Agenda Item 4C Page 5 of 29 Attachments: Attachment A: September 22, 2011 Notice of Disposition Attachment B: Existing Light Levels Attachment C: Applicant's Written Statement Attachment D: Proposed Plan Set Attachment E: Site Review Criteria Attachment F: Administrative Variance Criteria Agenda Item 4C Page 6 of 29 Attachment A CITY OF BOULDER Planning and Development Services --//~Flo' V P "1739 Broadway, Third Floor • P.O. Box 791, Boulder, CO 80306-0791 _ p hone 303-441-1880 • fax 303-441-3241 • web boulderplandevelop.net CITY OF BOULDER PLANNING DEPARTMENT NOTICE OF .DISPOSITION You are hereby advised that the following action was taken by the Planning Department based on the standards and criteria of the Land Use Regulations as set forth in Chapter 9-2, B.R.C. 1981, as applied to the proposed development. DECISION: APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS PROJECT NAME: East Mapleton Ball Fields Lighting Project DESCRIPTION: SITE REVIEW for Poles Above the Permitted Height request for the replacement of 20 existing sports lighting for East Mapleton Ball Fields that are in excess of 60 feet in height with new poles not to exceed 55 feet and where the maximum permitted is 35 feet. LOCATION: The Mapleton Ball Fields located one block east of the intersection of 28`h Street and Mapleton Avenue on the south side of Mapleton Avenue COOR: N04W04 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: See Attached Exhibit A APPLICANT: City of Boulder Parks and Recreation Department (Keith Walzak) OWNER: City of Boulder APPLICATION: Site Review for Poles Above the Permitted Height, LUR2011-00014 ZONING: P (Public) CASE MANAGER: Jessica Vaughn VESTED PROPERTY RIGHT: NO; the owner has waived the opportunity to create such right under Section 9-2-19, B.R.C. 1981. FOR CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, SEE THE FOLLOWING PAGES OF THIS DISPOSITION. Approved On: September 22, 2011 Date By: Dav d Drisk I, Exe for of Community Planning and Sustainability This decision may be appealed to the Planning Board by filing an appeal letter with the Planning Department within two weeks of the decision date. If no such appeal is filed, the decision shall be deemed final fourteen days after the date above mentioned. Appeal to Planning Board expires: October 6, 2011 IN ORDER FOR A BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION TO BE PROCESSED FOR THIS PROJECT, A SIGNED DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AND SIGNED MYLAR PLANS MUST BE SUBMITTED TO THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT WITH DISPOSITION CONDITIONS AS APPROVED SHOWN ON THE MYLAR PLANS, IF THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT IS NOT SIGNED WITHIN NINETY (90) DAYS OF THE FINAL DECISION DATE, THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL AUTOMATICALLY EXPIRES. Address: 0 Mapleton Avenue Agenda Item 4C Page 7 of 29 Pursuant to Section 9-2-12 of the Land Use Regulations (Boulder Revised Code, 1981), the applicant must begin and substantially complete the approved development within three years from the date of final approval. Failure to "substantially complete" (as defined in Section 9-2-12) the development within three years shall cause this development approval to expire. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. The Applicant shall be responsible for ensuring that the development shalt be in compliance with all approved plans dated September 22, 2011 and written statement dated September 22, 2011 and on file in the City of Boulder Planning Department, except to the extent that the development may be modified by the conditions of this approval. 2. The Applicant shall ensure that the light poles shall not exceed the height of 55 feet as measured pursuant to the methodology set forth in the definition for "Height" within section 9-16-1, "General Definitions," B.R.C. 1981. Address: 0 Mapleton Avenue Agenda Item 4C Page 8 of 29 Exhibit A LEGAL DESCRIPTION (UNITED TITLE CO. TITLE COMMITMENT #10048760, AMENDMENT NO. 1) THAT PORTION OF THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED PROPERTY CONVEYED TO THE CITY OF BOULDER BY THE DEED RECORDED IN BOOK 1077 AT PAGE 522 UNDER RECEPTION NO. 613294 THAT LIES EAST OF THE EAST LINE OF THE LAND CONVEYED TO THE YOUNG MEN'S CHRISTIAN ASSOCIATION OF BOULDER, COLORADO BY THE QUIT CLAIM. DEEDS RECORDED DECEMBER 7, 1966 AS RECEPTION NO. 834103 AND JANUARY 20, 1951, AS RECEPTION NO. 431276: BEGINNING.. AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 29, TOWNSHIP 1 NORTH, RANGE 70 WEST OF THE 6TH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, BOULDER COUNTY, COLORADO; THENCE NORTH 89'26'10° EAST A DISTANCE OF 1304.40 FEET;. THENCE SOUTH 00'07'00° EAST A DISTANCE OF 257.96 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 7439'50" WEST A DISTANCE OF 1349.03 FEET; THENCE NORTH 00'22'40" WEST A DISTANCE OF 601.94 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING, EXCEPTING THEREFROM THAT PORTION CONVEYED TO THE COUNTY OF BOULDER BY THE QUIT CLAIM DEED RECORDED IN BOOK 323 AT PAGE 302, AND ALSO EXCEPTING THAT PORTION DESCRIBED IN QUIT CLAIM DEED RECORDED APRIL 18, 1974 AS RECEPTON NO. 100023, COUNTY OF BOULDER, STATE OF COLORADO. Agenda Item 4C Page 9 of 29 Attachment B c $r o c ~ IL .0 ~s! iu [z;yy W V m 0i. YA4f: 703 } 1Y . ~ LL~ o LLLL v Ca 0. C i sue. it ~ 4' 3 ~ m w ~~LL O o 1 r LL r 3 ,6 ~ c ni M LL LL O ~ O N U m O N 4 LL O O C 9 1 .I.rO fiS ti 8~8 ~LL ti.~. JJ ri N O N ` r zi Z'r a s q VCS CS CS LL LL _ LL CS ~L U,>` Cn Agenda Item 4C Page 10 of 29 Attachment C MEMORANDUM DRAFT DATE: September 12, 2011 TO: Jessica Vaughn - Planning and Development Services FROM: Keith Walzak - Parks Planning Manager Glenn Magee - Facilities and Asset Management SUBJ: East Mapleton Ball Fields Lighting Project Project Description Statement EXECUTIVE SUMMARY For a number of years, Parks and Recreation has planned to replace the existing outdated field lighting at the East Mapleton Ballfields. The primary goal of the project is to improve play- ability of the fields as well as to eliminate existing poles and lights which do not meet current lighting codes due to fixture type and pole height. In addition, the existing lighting control system is beyond its service life and is planned to be replaced. The existing lights are mounted on a combination of steel truss-type, and tube steel poles which exceed 55 feet in height, with a number of poles approximately 70 feet in height. The city's recent Energy Performance Contract with McKinstry has provided the opportunity to accomplish this project. The design and review for this project has taken several months, and we now feel that we have reached a solution which can meet the industry standards for recreational ball field lighting while reducing the overall light fixture height and minimize light trespass on adjacent properties. During the design process it has became obvious that it is not possible to provide industry- standard lighting coverage while meeting all of the current City of Boulder Lighting Ordinance requirements. To that end we are requesting, variances to the amount of light spillage at adjacent property lines, and variance to the angle of tilt for several of the individual light fixtures planned to be clustered on the poles. Variances and exceptions to the lighting ordinance are administrative applications with a staff level approval, however in this case, they will be documented as part of the Site Review for Poles Above the Permitted Height. BACKGROUND Following several design approaches, the attached information has been generated by Universal Sports Lighting (USL), to illustrate the most appropriate design option for adequate lighting of the fields requiring the minimal variance to City of Boulder Lighting Ordinance and guidelines. The overall goals of the project are to: • Improve the energy performance of the lighting system • Meet industry standards for field lighting by IESNA (30/50 infield/outfield ratio). • Reduce the overall height of the existing light poles from as tall as 70 feet, to a maximum height of 55 feet. • Better control the light spillage on adjacent right-of-way, YMCA and multi-use path properties to the north, south and west respectively. Agenda Item 4C Page 11 of 29 The current proposal is to replace all poles and fixtures with new steel pole assemblies at a maximum 55 feet in height, and to provide new fixtures, which are cut-off in design and which meet uniformity and maximum lumen output industry standards as determined by the IESNA Class III sports field lighting. In order to provide adequate lighting levels as specified by the IESNA, several of the individual fixtures will exceed the required light fixture aiming angle from nadir, but will not exceed 65 degrees, and will exceed the permitted maximum .2 footcandle light level at the north, south and west property lines, not exceeding 7 footcandles at any given point. Overall, the existing lighting system on all three fields consists of a total of 20 poles supporting a total of 40 fixtures. On fields 1 and 2, there are 14 poles approximately 60 feet in height supporting 40 fixtures, which appear to be aimed at an approximate angle of 45 degrees. On field 3, there are 6 poles at approximately 70 feet in height, supporting 20 fixtures similarly aimed at approximately 45 degrees. The existing lighting provides an average of only 11 footcandles in the infield and 15 footcandles in the outfield, both significantly below the recommended standards. The proposed system will have 10 poles on fields 1 and 2, supporting a total of 46 fixtures, and 6 poles on field 3 supporting 26 fixtures. Overall, the number of poles will be reduced by 4 and the number of fixtures will be increased by 12. The proposed system is designed to provide an average of 30 footcandles in the outfield and 50 footcandles in the infield, meeting industry standards. Several packages have been previously submitted for review as the project has undergone revisions and coordination with Planning and Development Services Department. After constructive discussions among city staff involved with the project, the team has developed a design direction that has been agreed upon and which is in the best interest of the project, the end-users of the ball fields, adjacent property owners and the City. VARIANCE SUBMITTAL Attached you will find the following submittal documents: • Improvement survey plat - This document illustrated the improvements on the site and the existing site topography. • Footcandle lighting delivery site maps indicating light pole locations and levels of lighting delivered to the playing surface. The proposal is for the installation of 16 light poles with a total of 72 individual light fixtures. Pole assemblies will not exceed 55 feet as measured from the lowest point of grade within 25 feet. The design achieves a 50/30 infield/outfield average footcandle lighting level as recommended by the IESNA industry standards for Class III facilities. • Horizontal and vertical spillage results indicating lighting levels at adjacent property lines. As understood, the critical concern is horizontal light spillage, which by Ordinance is limited to .2 footcandles. This document indicates that light spillage along the north, south, and west property lines exceeds .2 footcandles, however the adjacent land areas are either rights-of ways or open field areas. The light spillage on the south property line is more intense at an isolated location, where a commercial building and multi-use path is located. Please note that the light spillage dissipates rapidly while moving further away from the site. Agenda Item 4C Page 12 of 29 • Key map and height calculation matrix charts indicating proposed pole locations relative to adjacent existing grades within 25 feet of the pole location. In all instances the total pole and fixture assemblies do not exceed 55 feet in height. • Supportive document which identifies light fixture angles of 60 and 65 degrees and the associated aiming distances used in the design. • Key chart indicating the proposed number of individual lighting fixtures to be placed on each pole, and the associated aiming angle required for adequate footcandle delivery to the playing field. The variation in aiming angles is necessary to achieve adequate lighting levels and uniformity ratios over the entire playing area as recommended by the IESNA industry standards for a Class III facility. The following chart indicates the proposed aiming angles: Aiming Angle Total 60 degrees or less 49 61 degrees 1 62 degrees 6 63 degrees 2 64 degrees 5 65 degrees 2 66 degrees 2 67 degrees 4 68 degrees 1 Total 72 • Elevations of light fixture clustering for the various numbers of fixtures per individual pole. • Details of the pole construction. • Lighting fixture cut-sheets for each fixture type including fixture performance and lumen output - indicating a maximum lumen output of 102,858, below the maximum allowable 107,000 lumens per code. • Documentation on the proposed lighting control system. • Recommendations from IESNA regarding lamination guidelines. Agenda Item 4C Page 13 of 29 SUMMARY In order to proceed with the review of this project, the following information is provided to address specific criteria of the review process: • IESNA recommended lighting levels - The IESNA recommended light levels for sports venues is attached. The type of use of the Mapleton facility would be classified as Class III - recommended lighting levels at the infield is 50 footcandles, and at the outfield, 30 footcandles. The proposed design meets the IESNA recommended illumination. In order to meet the IESNA recommended light levels with 55 foot tall poles, light spillage at the adjacent property lines is greater than .2 footcandles. The attached diagrams from USL indicate that horizontal light spillage at the property lines varies from 1 footcandle to 7 footcandles. The maximum light spillage occurs on adjacent commercial properties. The vertical light spillage varies from 1 footcandle to 9 foot-candles, again with the maximum spillage on adjacent commercial properties. In general the light spillage is minor given the intensity of lighting required so the facility and the proximity of the playing fields to the property lines. A variance to the light spillage requirements is being requested. • Light fixture tilt / aiming angle - As noted above, approximately 32% of the proposed fixtures will exceed the 60 degree aiming angle from nadir, but not in excess of 68 degrees. A variance to the tilt / aiming angle of these fixtures is being requested. • Uniformity ratio - The minimum foot-candle delivery on the site is 19 footcandles. The maximum footcandle delivery on the site is 62 footcandles. These extremes occur in only a few locations on the filed. In general, the proposed light levels meet the maximum 3:1 uniformity ratio. It should be noted that, by design, it is not the intent to provide total uniformity on the site. The uniformity ratio meets the intent of the Ordinance. • Maximum Lumen rating - Per the attached lighting fixture cut sheets, the light sources vary in lumen output from 97,672 to 102,585, below the maximum 107,000 allowed. This meets the Ordinance requirements. • Sports shielding - The proposed light fixtures are designed such that light is delivered to the playing surface and are not omni-directional as they are located at the perimeter of the playing field. The configurations of the fixtures allow minimum light to be delivered off of the playing surface. The shielded fixtures meet the requirements of the Ordinance • Lighting Controls - Per the attached information, the lighting control system has been defined. The system will be a remote control system which will allow for remote access for operation of the lights through telephone or web access. In addition, a site located operator keypad will be installed. The keypad will be password protected and secured at the site. In general, during summer months the lights are activated around 7:30 pm and are switched off around 10:00 pm. To an extent, the hours of operation are dictated by the play schedule. We trust that this information is complete for this final re-submittal. Please feel free to let us know if you require any additional information. Agenda Item 4C Page 14 of 29 Attachment D EY PLAT OF THE NORTH 1/4 CORNER SECTION 29, T1 N, R70W; FOUND 2.5" CITY OF BOULDER ALLOY CAP IN MONUMENT BOX EAST LINE NW1/4 NEST 1 /4 0 F SECTION 2 9, T1 N , R 7 0 W SECTION 29, Ti N, R70W: BASIS OF BEARINGS OF BOULDER STATE OF COLORADO ~ ~ ,o CORNER SECTION 29, e rea s urve e • S . Ft. 8.1167 Acres CENTER NORTH 1/16 N T1N, R70W; v o0 NO MONUMENT 10' Psco ELECTRIC FOUND OR SET m NORTHWEST 1/16TH POWER UNE EASEMENT CORNER SECTION 29, T1 N, R76W; FOUND (BOOK 1180, PAGE 202) 2.5" BRASS CAP 9'19'28" E 1304.53' ETOP Na PL MA (INSCRIPTION ILLEGIBLE) ~PLETON AVENUE NORTH LINE SE1/4 NWi/4 SECTION 29 IN MONUMENT BOX (N 89'26'10„ E 1304.40' RECORD) ~ ~ ~ I 20.50' 20.00' N 89'19'28" E 959.03' N 89'19'28" E 325.00' ~ WATER °o ~ S 00'29'22" E ~ STRIP OF LAND I o QUIT CLAIMED TO I N 8919 28 E METER o I ~ 4. ' 35.40' M 00 THE CITY DF BOUlOER ~ WATER c Q B METER © O r u WATERo io TMHO PER F8 0, R#100023 LANDSCAPING 5 O . METER j - ' }7! 3.'-- A , ' „ STORM INLET 1~~.89'1'9 E ~ ~~06.00 CH=117.35' 4 T. . • , . ` .,METAL •LP LANDSCAPING ICV K;v IV S85•~7'Q9' L=13 I 2 ICYs , . ; , AcGESS Icvs~ 7 0' 7 CA=11<:~0~' 46'~----"' . I ,WATER 5 ICYs LANDSCAPING I ~ I RISER PLAYGROUND ICV ICV ICV ICV 21CVe E- -E-E-E-E E- CONCESSIONS •t~y~• COVE a, 'YX'. ~ X -t-EX E-E-E-~- - q, 0 $9,.1 :a, ~ ~ ~ ~ ,R =130.52' S85'®7'09"E~~~ QA 71.88' CONCESSIONS 1 ~E-E-E-E~ o . I '+CAGE ® ® ~ ~ rn Lp F,. BUILDING BUILDING •'r ~P~ I LANDSCAPING 5Q w { -E I ~-E-E-E E-E-E-E-E-EX -E-E X X X x ~ F qSA r.. r. ! ; ~ STORM A = -E t ~~'P'Y~..:. ~ \F ~E wx s2 INLET W>~ t Icv x ` ~ w ~ WATER LINE ~ w w ~ o BOULDER LAND CONSULTANTS INC. X I ~ . \ M LP LP mX MANHOLE ~ ~S •~vA ~ O i ° fi I~ ~ ° m ~ ~ ~ .e NN .(n N I f" ~LP w ~ Iz / '0 EBX ' ~ O ' RpS N _ u 1yCL..i ~ N O ~ HORSESHOE PITS w ` + .'a ~ ~ m DIRT n ~ jn4 ~ I ~ ~ NIA U w INFIELD Q~ Y W I LP 1 ti, Y W ~ O Q Cn , DIRT O ~ Cu ~ I ELECTRIC PANEL r^ r- M ~ x W INFIELD ~ I NON-EXCLUSIVE O ~ ' <j N INGRESS-EGRESS AND (p o ~ m E E- _ X x m PARKING EASEMENT a a J l s~, (FlLM 1069, R#344635) ~ ~ O, ~ Z E -t-E E Lp~J ~ ' 1 I 'x O I~ ~ E E-E_E ~ m' ~ 40 20 0 ZO 40 60 ' I ooD ~ ~ muW. ~ ~ F ~ ° ~ w ~ ,'Q 0 f~ f rn EO ° ONC \ ~ GRASS C1p ~ co W W SCALE. 1 -40 F x. z I I W BALLFIELD 2 x . ~ GuTFlELO ASPHALT i:~ m ~ ~ ~ ~ I m ~ PARKING ~ . ( LOT (n . ~ \ LP m x . W u » m ~ rn w w x ~ o .SET 5/8 REBAR WITH 2 \ I x 'a°: F .a°: ~ BALLFIELD 3 ME AL 20.5 20' w ~AC ESS I I ALLOY CAP, PLS 20134, m HA H (P c} GRASS F ' I N m Op \ OUTFIELD ~F x ..P 2 • OI w ~ V1J B re ~ N \ O o .SET 2 ALLOY CAP IN ~ ~n ~ M \ I CONCRETE m F L m I 1 ~ V' \ T .4 '1 w h~ N ~ tP m :164.15' w R: 237.00' ~ N IJ x ~ ` CH: N20'41'53"E 203' I CP F m ' Icv 160.89' 0 1 ZA, ~ ~1I ~ . I 2 N \ I ~ ~ F YMCA PROPERTY m + In i ~ x F s 48' BUILDING I / w • S~ RESTRICTION AREA . ° ~ I ~ ~ W e ~°~P I Fllm 589, Rc to 834103 ~ 9 F O ~ c0 • m Ro m EBx {FILM 1069, R~344634) ~ / ~ + W~ rn W I ~ F _ ~ Q CO ~ LP ' xm 7'... 0 - ~ N u, ~ o v ` N + ' 1/ I . m ~ ~ m w N N ~ 1 a~~ OO 3o I LEGEND Z o ~ I ~ I ~ hti y. LP , . wx METAL Z l2 . ; ,%^~t• O~GER ~ ~ ACC S ELEC MH • ~ C O ~ n i' ~I 3 ~ I H H ~pC~ ~p1N w 't ICV ' p,9 gUl I m / ~ • I - ; .SIGN ~ 00 (V O w WAT R X r~ ~ tl' ~ I LINE MH N BALLFIELD 1 x ~ o N W I ICV ~J :IRRIGATION CONTROL VALVE + W wood LP h^ ~ x x n ~v m ICY E LOT Z ~ W 5"E0 F~e~e I ,i z ~ EBX ~ :ELECTRIC CONTROL BOX CRASS '~E \ ~E~ W ~ F e` ICV 'i~ ' E-E -E E- . 1 ~ 1s' NGN-EXauslvE / ..'~r.. M-M SUBDIVISION N0, 1 i OUTFIELD , r f f` I ~ x , \ UTILITY E / • U71UTY EASEMENT ~ (PLANFILE P-11, F-4, #37) / PER FILM 1073, R;~349301 ~ ; I TMH Q .TELECOM MANHOLE W x ;~a; e~~ F POLES / / ~ • ' C`P~ B~1~OSN0 LIGHT POLE ~t ~ ~ M,rR ~ / ~ ~ ~03AC~NS COM CENTER 1 /4 CORNER w ~ n+. 2 LP ° ° m I ~ N: ° z, SECTION 29, TtN, I w ' • ~ METAL BOX WITH ~ .ELECTRIC RISER r.o.. / R70W; f0UN0 2.5" Lp o - x ELECTRICAL SERVICE ICV / • ~ MOUNTED ON ~~~~t • - CITY OF 80ULDER `a?~ f r'. .r ~ ' ` ALLOY CAP IN N i(dR DIRT N; ` CONCRETE PEDESTAL 13i~ ❑ .IRRIGATION BOX INFIELD x N' PURPOSE UNKNOWN. "2~~~ I N '~QZ ~ ~ MONUMENT BOX ° 5 e, I , I . t IRR / ~ . Y... 33 p6 LOT 2A ~ ® .TRANSFORMER ~ ' / / I / CORD) ~ :STEEL FOUL BALL MARKERS LP / 1349•. ~ CROSSROADS COMMONS ' I I / X ,5o W ADJACENT 10~ I ; ~ 4 39 UTILITY EASEMENT IJACENT 10' SUBDIVISION LOT LINE - ' EASEMENT . ~ ° ° - ~ S ~ / AS SHOWN ON PLAT OF t .ELECTRIC LINE / x . CROSSROADS COMMONS 1N PLAT of ELIMINATION " i COMMONS - - ~ / ~"r k ANNOUNCER'S f 800TH Ip X FV ti. ; ' PLANFILE P-69, F-4, #9) ~ ° ~ 9 ~ ( F / I . X ENCE x , ~ ~E-~ , / ~ f I /P ~!E Icv I - T - : TELECOM. LINE ~ x: v~ ~ G . Q011- '~1 `~s ' ~ " STORM ~1PL I SAN- : SANITARY SEWER LINE INLEr . MM~R NS 00 NOTES (CONTINUED) 3. BASIS OF BEARINGS IS THE EAST LINE OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF ~t ~ ~ P SET WITNESS CORNER 'R9 ADJACENT 10' SECTION 29, T1 N, R70W, MONUMENTED AS SHOWN HEREON, AND ► ~ : / SANITARY SEWER EASEMENT I (2" ALLOY CAP ON AS SHOWN ON PLAT OF 4'' DETERMINED TO HAVE A GRID BEARING OF S 00' 14'18" E BY GPS I I 5/6" REBAR) ON CROSSROADS CoMMONs WEST PROPERTY LINE, OBSERVATION. I 1.0' NORTH OF SW 4. MOST OF THE SURFACE FEATURES SHOWN HEREON (WITH THE PROPERTY CORNER i EXCEPTION OF BALLFIELD HOMEPLATES, FENCES AND LIGHTS) AND SOME I ~ UNDERGROUND UTILITY INFORMATION SHOWN HEREON WERE TAKEN FROM TOPOGRAPHIC MAPPING DATA PROVIDED TO BOULDER LAND SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATION CONSULTANTS, INC. BY THE CITY OF BOULDER, IN OCTOBER 2010, ~~~p1N~ NOTES C1P~ B THIS MAP WAS REVISED TO REFLECT ADDITIONAL UTILITY LOCATES PAINTED IN I, JASON EMERY, HEREBY CERTIFY TO THE CITY OF BOULDER PARKS AND I I 3193- / ~ OMµER I , 6„ Wj CENT 0 1. THE PROPERTY SURVEYED AND SHOWN HEREON IS THE SAME PROPERTY DESCRIBED THE FIELD BY OTHERS. BOULDER LAND CONSULTANTS, INC. DOES NOT RECREATION DEPARTMENT THAT, SUBJECT TO THE NOTES SHOWN HEREON, RTY DESCRIBED IN WARRANT THE ACCURACY OR COMPLETENESS OF SAID UTILITY INFORMATION. A SURVEY OF THE PERIMETER OF PROPERTY DESCRIBED HEREON WAS MADE I 1330' ~ p,O~P UNITED TITLE CO. TITLE COMMITMENT N0. 00048760, AMENDMENT N0. 1, DATED 0. 1, DATED BOULDER LAND CONSULTANTS, INC. RECOMMENDS THAT PRECISE LOCATION OF UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND CONFORMS TO ALL APPLICABLE STATE 5 / APRIL 2, 2009. SAID TITLE COMMITMENT WAS ENTIRELY RELIED UPON FOR THE LE IN FOR THE LEGAL SAID UTILITIES SHOULD BE DETERMINED BY EXPLORATORY EXCAVATION PRIOR LAWS AS DEFINED IN TITLE 38, ARTICLES 50, 51 AND 53, COLORADO / ~ DESCRIPTION AND RECORDED INFORMATION REGARDING RIGHTS-OF-WAY EASEMENT I / ~ ~ OTHER ENCUMBRANCES AFFECTING THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. THIS MAP DOES NOT NAY, EASEMENTS AND TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF ANY DESIGN AND/OR CONSTRUCTION, AND THAT REVISED STATUTES AND THAT THIS IMPROVEMENT SURVEY PLAT v1AP DOES NOT ALL UNDERGROUND UTILITIES BE MARKED BY THE APPROPRIATE UTILITY ACCURATELY DEPICTS THE RESULTS OF SAID SURVEY. I ~ REPRESENT A TITLE SEARCH PERFORMED BY BOULDER LAND CONSULTANTS, INC. LTANTS, INC. ENTITY. FOUND 2. ACCORDING TO SCHEDULE B -SECTION 2 OF THE ABOVEMENTIONED TITLE COMMITN 3.z5" CDOT THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED HEREON IS SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING: TITLE COMMITMENT, 5. IN OCTOBER 2010, THIS MAP WAS REVISED WITH ELEVATIION CONTOURS BASED JASON EMERY ON SUPPLEMENTAL FIELD WORK. BENCHMARK FOR ELEVATIONS SHOWN I .85 I R P 6~ I ALLOY CAP, LEGAL DESC I T10N -EXCEPTION N0. 8: BOOK 1077 AT PAGE 522 (COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND IONS AND HEREON IS NGS BENCHMARK "V 453", A BRASS DISK SET IN UTILITY TOWER NOVEMBER 22, 2010 PLS 29761 (UNITED TITLE CO. 11TLE COMMITMENT #U0048760, AMENDMENT NO. 1) RESTRICTIONS, WHICH DO INCLUDE A FORFEITURE OR REVERTER CLAUSE); LAUSE); BASE ON THE NORTH SIDE OF MAPLETON AVE., NAVD88 ELEVATION = JASON EMERY tj ~ THAT PORTION OF THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED PROPERTY CONVEYED TO THE CITY -EXCEPTION NO. 9: BOOK 1180 AT PAGES 202 & 204 (AN EASEMENT FOR AN ELI :NT FOR AN ELECTRIC 5275.98. CONTOUR INTERVAL IS 1 FOOT. COLORADO LICENSED PROFESSIONAL S GRANTED TO LAND SURVEYOR N0. 20134 D n I OF BOULDER BY THE DEED RECORDED IN BOOK 1077 AT PAGE 522 UNDER POWER LINE, POLES AND ACCESSORIES AND INCIDENTAL PURPOSES GRANTED TO 6. CERTIFICATION DEFINED: THE USE OF THE WORDS "CERTIFY" OR ~ I RECEPTION NO. 613294 THAT LIES EAST OF THE EAST LINE OF THE LAND PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF COLORADO), SHOWN HEREON; CONVEYED TO THE YOUNG MEN'S CHRISTIAN ASSOCIATION OF BOULDER, COLORADO -EXCEPTION N0. 10: RECEPTION N0. 834102 AS AMENDED BY RECEPTION N0. 834 :PYLON N0. 834103 "CERTIFICATIO N" BY A REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL LAND THIS MAP WAS PREPARED BY ~ n BY THE QUIT CLAIM DEEDS RECORDED DECEMBER 7, 1966 AS RECEPTION NO. (TERMS, CONDITIONS, PROVISIONS, AGREEMENTS AND OBLIGATIONS CONTAINED IN CONTAINED IN CITY SURVEYOR CONSTITUTES AN EXPRESSION OF PROFESSIONAL - ' OPINION REGARDING THE FACTS AND FINDINGS WHICH ARE THE $Qj,JI,D~ Lp~ CONSULTANTS, INC. ~ ~ I 834103 AND JANUARY 20, 1981 AS RECEPTION NO. 431276: OF BOULDER ORDINANCE NOS. 3043 AND 3114); ~ -EXCEPTION NO. 11: FILM 1069 AT RECEPTION NO. 344634 (TERMS, CONDITIONS, CONDITIONS, SUBJECT OF THE CERTIFICATION, AND DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A ~ ~ BEGINNING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE PROVISIONS, AGREEMENTS AND OBLIGATIONS CONTAINED IN AGREEMENT), SHOWN :MENT), SHOWN WAKKAN I Y UK GUAKAN I Y, LI I HLK LXHKL55LU UK IMHLILU,kHLK GULUKAUU a NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 29, TOWNSHIP 1 NORTH, RANGE 70 WEST OF HEREON; STATE BOARD RULE 6.2.2. THE CERTIFICATION SHOWN HEREON EXTENDS THE 6TH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, BOULDER COUNTY, COLORADO; - EXCEPTION NO. 12: FILM 1069 AT RECEPTION NO. 344635 (TERMS, CONDITIONS, CONDITIONS, ONLY TO THOSE PARTIES SPECIFICALLY MENTIONED THEREIN. -I VED IN EASEMENT Z THENCE NORTH 89'26'10" EAST A DISTANCE OF 1304.40 FEET; PROVISIONS, AGREEMENTS, OBLIGATIONS, AND EASEMENTS CONTAINED IN EASEME THENCE SOUTH 00'07'00" EAST A DISTANCE OF 257.96 FEET; AGREEMENT), SHOWN HEREON; 7. IN ACCORDANCE WITH C.R.S.13-80-105: Q O THENCE SOUTH 74'39'50" WEST A DISTANCE OF 1349.03 FEET; - EXCEPTION NO. 13: FILM 1073 AT RECEPTION NO. 349301 (TERMS, CONDITIONS, CONDITIONS, NOTICE: ACCORDING TO COLORADO LAW YOU MUST COMMENCE ANY IF THENCE NORTH 00'22'40" WEST A DISTANCE OF 601.94 FEET TO THE POINT OF PROVISIONS, AGREEMENTS, OBLIGATIONS AND EASEMENTS CONTAINED IN INED IN LEGAL ACTION BASED UPON ANY DEFECT IN THIS SURVEY WITHIN m c THREE YEARS AFTER YOU FIRST DISCOVER SUCH DEFECT. IN NO BEGINNING, EXCEPTING THEREFROM THAT PORTION CONVEYED TO THE COUNTY OF EASEMENT AGREEMENT), SHOWN HEREON; BOULDER BY THE QUIT CLAIM DEED RECORDED IN BOOK 323 AT PAGE 302, AND - EXCEPTION NO. 14: RECEPTION NO. 443251 RECORDED APRIL 23, 1981 (TERMS, EVENT MAY ANY ACTION BASED UPON ANY DEFECT IN THIS SURVEY 5690 VALMONT RD. BOULDER, CO 80301 1981 (TERMS, BE COMMENCED MORE THAN TEN YEARS FROM THE DATE OF THE (303) 443-3616 0 ALSO EXCEPTING THAT PORTION DESCRIBED IN QUIT CLAIM DEED RECORDED APRIL CONDITIONS, PROVISIONS, AGREEMENTS, OBLIGATIONS, AND EASEMENTS CONTAINE ENTS CONTAINED IN CERTIFICATION SHOWN HEREON. CD 18, 1974 AS RECEPTION NO. 100023, COUNTY OF BOULDER, STATE OF COLORADO. THE GRANT OF EASEMENT AND RIGHT-OF-WAY); C 2010 BOULDER LAND CONSULTANTS, INC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. ISP_R1: MAPLETON BALLFIELDS Agenda Item 4C Page 15 of 29 i N i ~ o z r m ~ y N m W ~ O y ~ -I z D~ 'ao F--~ < C ~ S O -u M - r El C1() F- MM Fr1 Z D 0 ~~M D fTl E:l r F- 1> C1 ~ S C M - 1 J I> n D D 1 70 r Z t7 M 7> z c~ V) Agenda Item 4C Page 16 of 29 i cT ITI ~ o z C r m y °z L/1 C~ b~ G7 d r n < C7 °z y :K - Iz D - a o C Fl ` c S O -u F9 - r El C1() F- F9 F Fr1 Z D 0 E:l ]>M r D fTl F- 1> C1 ~ S C ~ - IJ J> n D D D 1 70 r Z t7 ;U n F9 7> z c~ V) Agenda Item 4C Page 17 of 29 i ITI ~ z r C17 y °z y n m r CJ~ > b~ °z y ~ -I z C Cl) F7 Zl S O -u Frl - r El C1() F- F9 F Fr1 Z D 0 E:l ]>M r D fTl F- 1> C1 ~ S C ~ - IJ J> n D D D iTJr Z t7 ;U n F9 7> z L) V) Agenda Item 4C Page 18 of 29 i 00 0 0.0 r (DO O Cl- z 00 C~ m n ~ C7 a N 0 z y ~ -I z C Cl) F7 ` c S O -u Frl - r El C1() F- F9 F Fr1 Z D 0 E:l ]>M r D fTl F- 1> C1 ~ S C ~ - IJ J> n D D D iTJr Z t7 ;U n F9 7> z L) V) Agenda Item 4C Page 19 of 29 ci~ I cF Cf~3D33D S ' '1 (J o pp 30A<3P< O~rp Cllp71 R) : ;10 x (D_ • X_ ro ;u CA r CA O W 3 ci- 33 3 Cl) C11 o C(73D3_3D 2 TI Q G3 3 3 3(O p0 - O R) f ~N X(O 3-X N .;U u QP z3 Cil L1~333 3 c 3 D~ I 3 3 3 3 C(O p0 O -N A r _ I I CA W fU rU 4 R) i:) n-) QP 3 (D z ac"n p -9 N -"I CG ~--Ul O O Ul -A W O D In n t p (n r rv V N- o .p o A 3 CT, 0~ ~ u a, W R) W W W m m rv ' p N rn o ~D o o ro n r> co ~D m r _N Ul ~ _N r J J O p D~ t_°N!' 1+0 QZ^ w ~ O~~o-4 7 Q o Cn 0', C11 M W W W l'-) rU M CD V o 00 0 0 0 n-h - I '"7 ~0 o rU U1 W ~D W m co co U1 Q 3 Q V) cil W O (A) u V T` u -r- -0, w W W W W r~ ° ° 3 V R) r o ao V W N N o (o- Cn m Cn co -p w O w m ~D J _ v, O /r1 n~\ 3 C ON n I~ a', U _N W CJ w w I V W W i ~'1V (n~-,I~NN0- 0 R) CJl 00 00 I J CD W 00 W O 0', _N ru ~ w oo w IF Q 1~ w 9- rU W W W `o •.J ro ro co W W ro ~D ~ 0 I W J W 00 00 O U1 W R`~ jv N fU r o I V W W W R) r o R] co W W 'IF w O CA ,D ,D CO Cl -P -I O W ~U1 bd i II O O O O 1 U1 , W aJ iv W W W W R) R) m m R) c) ca N FU W -I,-. M W W 00 U W ON ~D W W W W In o O o ~ ~ R) W ~D ~ w w rj W W rrO rrU rU rU * w w co W Cil W co W J .D m N w w w w w W ru s m W Ul J R) M IF RJ W W RJ R) W W W No J Cn W P CO O - ° ro IU rMU rU rU W W W Iv 11 W J co ~0 00 W J C!1 J + ru w W W R) w w N DD W 10 O Ul ro w R) R) R) R) R) W W w Iv w w W W w ,D O J ~ Cn 4~1 J C)l O M M O O W W w m ru m R) rU rU R) rU r~ n2 _N - Ul rl) m J ,D ro no fU RJ J o O Cn ON ru o /~j w ` ul RJ W W W ro rv ru ru w W W R) _P~ w Cn Ul J 00 W J ro _N ~D 0` \D iu co W R) W W R) RJ R) W P A CJl co O Co w J co u m J W ~D C-) Cn I v, .br R) W W W ru m Ul _N cn Cil I d < C O O M 000 , ,0 M ,D Ul C0 M r- D 00 ~0 W rD33r I O r1("")bc7tc1tc1bc1bc7G1DDDDDDo - sQ Z `+(7,cnN.- ON04, W w-(IN0-4 W N - ~ X_ m ro Z 0 P ro ~ RJ W W W w rU W ~ F 3 0 3 rU W O CO 00 0", R) 0", J o O 5 3 O m o w A m N W ~6 I a 4, W W W I x R) W W W W R) W U1 0~ 01 Cn ~ W CA o_ U~i3~F m UIWO~WNoVNNWIDomoW 0 CD O rDA_3F - - - bD W W oUIo~ODOUI o co x E ro 3 G1 ru R) r u W R) ru W 3_ Ul (0 P r N 8 N _ _ '•C O Q> J O Q> R) I Q\ J J W I W W n) I W W W W I I i J 3~ ry ? W 000~•omm CD NIDmo W Wo ALn p~W~ D V V 00 WoUl CD cm) 00 CSCD O ro 3 3 r~1 N Z3 - - s Q £ 11 11 ti + Ln Ln UI C!I C11 Ul N Ul Ul UI C!I N Ul N Ul Ul p J Ul CAD 77 ro ro £ N N o 3 cn cn cn cn cn cn cn cn cn cn cn cn cn cn cn cn - Cn 0 bd 0 (0 FQQ N to 4- 1- + 4 4- F Cn` W CD CJI Z cf (o V eF r} e-F rF eF 4 e-F r} rF e- F eF -F eF e h rL) O ; I S3 h~ C (x 5.d L.) rD (D n 4 nq , I 3 w - W N O A N F- m Z Cil W w Cil = ' D 3 In ro ro N CJl m CJl CJ 3C C7 <~A(C/1m lDn n) PUI nO (D33r I m JCS Z N p 3 S Q 3 .-.-N N rt) N W W I c4- 77 (D (D X 0 Ins 1 3 I I I I (n FcF 3F(D r3 D 4 ro W R) W R) R) W I ) A Cn 1_1 00 (JI W 1. cn v S 3~ 3 n O 1,D 0"- O'~ R) C fl M J ~0 O WAN NQ~F ~~~0oco W W W W W W NNNNNNm f rU W W W W W R) 4_11 I UI Ul CJl i0 :rl 5 A m I O 0~ Ul 0~ 00 O J F~ O J J ~0 ErD3P 30ro 3 :3 C CO I rU W W W W ru rU w Ul Ul Ul Ul -r,. P i n(~ N cn 0 m m m m u 0 m m w N N N N N o W W R) M M ~0 J ,0 W ,D C!1 J ~j0 rri Ion 3-F ` R) W w w W W R) w P P Ul U1 II (4-3 D 0,~ w ~,D 00 P ,D •J ~,D ,D M CTI, O __04 m mpo 0o 0D m m 0000 N N N N NN r<0 ~o bo :D ~D N N m M W W V V ~I R) W W W W W R) ru W 4~, Ul Ul W m `D 00 ~D C1 4s. 00 00 ~D fL) O 00 Ul C- m CJ W CJ W w r J ru ru w w w m o J W o rn C!1 00 J ,0 C11 5 cil W t~ Cil R) R) R) R) R) 10 R) R) R) R) R) R) 0~ J J Ul T M +W klo J J R) \ R) R) R) R) R) C? C,) W R) W R) C()3D33D S 21 a', W ~ ~ C!1 C r O ,D O Ul 3 0 P < A < poro j; ro X (D --x ro m Q ru M FU M M W W W W W W ci 3 3 3 o nl~ O U1 rU J W W W m co m p G3 3 3 3(O p 0-W Q P Z:3 rU RJ R) R) W W W W W R) 3 r o Ul CA) J J T~ CO 0~ ~ ,D o -q m ru N I _ p as. 0 ON o ~,D ~,D U1 cDu CJ Ul Op.- (A A(W=l -t,) ,DD . z m o0 o a M W W W W W m J Mo ZQ. M W W M o w Y dQ ' cli n~ [mho Ln r~Up y 0000?4, ~m0 oo C - t, tmn,~~w ~ Q CD '0 r r ro a o O Cn , n N~ OCR Ct7yrC rr" ~ Cn " CJl rL) CJl ' 03 ~a 7 C n~ C" A , Ul > to 0. ~m C) 0 CC l~ QZ ap°~ w 3 Z Z a C p O p o CaC7CC) 7y w mc Y o6ea A L. FFr &Z ru t'. V] ' i%i 'mi'l l17 (17 z d l` . d v ? o 1 D {~i~ r p n b da~ n ,L O A _ 65P Cm~d O O 5 ;K a 113 S T ~ r, t a s s s l ~ 9_ C p J y y c r.y _ ea.aN P J ~m -.3m C °w 3 o n ' Agenda Item 4C Page 20 of 29 --O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O _ O C'; O O O O O O Cl O C O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0- O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O ° O O O O O O O O O O O O O O Co, CD, O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O C> -3 O O O O O O O O O ° O O O O O O O C7 O O O O O O O ° O CD O 0 0 0 0 o U c ~7 c ca o 0 o O O ° O O O O CD O O O O O O O O O O O O Q ° O O O O O U O O O O O O O O Co O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O Q O O O O O G O O O O O O Q O O ° O O O O O O O O O O O O O O C) O O ° O O O O O O O O O U Co Q O O O O C~ O O O O O O O O O O O O O C) O O ° O O O O O O ° - O - - - _ i O O O ° CD C) O cl I I I O O ° O p ° p c.i-oD tnoto rr, - rb O O O ° O ° (,n it rr O ° O id, N Rw\ni O O O O O O C) .:I. O O C) ° O O O O I ~ ~ ~ ° O Q ° O CD F O O O ° O O O ° O O O W O ° O O CD 1 {lwN O O O O C) O O O O Co O ° O S L, O O O ° O O Q O O ° ..'.'roCn 1 ' O O O O O ° O O O N O O O O O O ° CD O O C) O O O O O R` `cn a+ 1 O O O O Q .-lin~ t di I I O CD O O O O ro O O CD CD r O 1 I o o ° ° p p p O CD O w ° O O ° O O O O O ° O (U C) O O O O O O O O O O .5 r O O Q O O O O ° O N to°cn - O O O ° O O ,6 A WN ° \ 0+ ° O Co O O O O O ° co O Q ° R~ Q 1 c7 T (n O ° O ° p O F„ N:-.fn I O O O Q CD O Q OD O O ° O ° 0 o N I Ip o 0 CD ° o O O O O O C) _ A of ' O O ° O ° F D, O o O CD I co O O O O O O o O -.J O O O O O ° CD O O O O O C. O O O ° O O O O O O V'' Ncny O O O CD i Noby ~WW O ° ° o ° o cn W w ° Fg, o 0 0 o O o 0 s.. d ° O ° O O O O Q O O O O cnt_m u(.)0l O O O O O O O O ° `D r Nl, O O C) 'o a f'J O Q O O C) Q CD ° 10 CO Cn O O O O O O O O WLA O O O O 100 O ° I( ° ° ° 1 ° O O O O ~ t IJ CJ ° O ° O ° O O ° ° O O O O Q O ° O O O O O O p ~ (J O O p ° O O O O O ° Q O O O O O ° O ° ° ~ fJ O C) O ° CD CD CD CD C> C3 O O ° O O CD ° \ O O O ° O O ° O O O O O \ Q O ° O O O b ~ ~ O ° O O O CD O O O F O O O O 0 O O C) O O O Q to ws ~J Q ° O O Co p ° O ° O ° ° O O O O O O Y \ N `O V w0'JI O p ° fJ " O O O O O O \ O O O O Q O ° ° O O CD ~V _ 7 O O O O O O O CD o Q c Cn p O O CA:Nm O O O O O O O I Vi O O O O Q O ° O O p Q Q C) O Q V Q O O Q O O O O ° O O O 1 -D ° O O O O Q O O C% ° O LA O O O O CD O O O O O O o O O O O O O C: O O O C) O O O O O s' C7 ° O ° O O C"> O Q O O O O ° O O 43 C:) O Q O O O Q O rn ° O N g Q Q O O J CD O O O C) O Q ? O Q O w D O O CD r~ O ~ o O ° O C O ° O X m N Co O O O O v n p 0 O O O Q O O O O O n O CD C' O ° O ° O O C) m ~a o C) CD 7C-Y p~ o ° 0 0 0 0 0 CD C) ° o ° ~O~ 'tn u0 Fp CD C) 0 ° 0 0 o K ° 0 ° ° 4 ~Prm r" o 0 o O o CD CD 0 0 0 ° o 0 0 0 3 D D m Q C" N Cr1 D :9 r O o n '-1 > C~ r C C7 O ° C. O a OCR C10~~ n O ?x On [<rl ° 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ° ° o CD o ° ° p Co 0 z~Y zC72~ O r"ch .a T3 i o CD 0 0 CD n r CO c V) o O o 0 0 0 o O O O CD 0 0 C~ M>cm - --i ° o o .v 77 w az D CD 0 12: C) ra ~~T rzz/1 r Tn a°; ~~s;~ O O O O O O O O O O O ° ° ° O O ° O p ~g z Z C) CD C Cn~z 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ° ° o 0 C) 11 X CD C) C) x C) o JID~ d y` N r" 63~, o 0 0 o ° o ° 0 CD 0 0 0 CD CD 0 0 0 CD y ° CD O o c c O 0 H m $ 4.1; 0 0 o O O CD CD 0 CD CD 0 CD 0 C) 0 ° ° g ° 3 o AgendwItem 4C P ge 21 of 29 O Q 34.00 5283 y c. ZgZS' n. i i (-7 x$25 ~1 i g o k ry, r, :J ,`V3U 51:r ~ Iv i s 'I s2 Cb r11 ~9 z::'. rte. W l w. b ~ b Bbd ~Uar, r -C I n -E-E-E-E- r r..i Z n U3 S ri Ul ~O CD \ S2 Z N 1 N .30 0 D K r ~ ZO C~s c S2'8 - 0 ! o- ~ lTJ LLZ5 ~ a C'- M 1> . s H o jz z ~l1 S'l~ a 4 0 a ~ p Z a~~~ ~ _ ~7s 76 o w to ❑ 5'a 3„ Y Da rnz Fam; D ~ o l P-1 U) r d m r3s3 p N f h7 C/] 4oc ~yg Z o $ ti ~ eA 24 / Agenda Item $ Page 22 of 29 02 ~ ° / Recommended Crossarm Resulting Height Pole Height Projection Above Plus Above Pole Base Elevation Low Point Elevation Difference To Top Plate Pole Elevation Difference Low Point Al 5283 5282.5 -0.5 50 2.25 0.5 52.75 A2 5282.5 5282 -0.5 50 2.25 0.5 52.75 A3 5280 5280 0 50 2.25 0 52.25 A4 5280 5280 0 50 2.25 0 52.25 A5 5278 5277 -1 50 2.25 1 53.25 A6 5279 5279 0 50 2.25 0 52.25 B1 5282.5 5282 -0.5 50 2.25 0.5 52.75 B2 5281.25 5280.75 -0.5 50 2.25 0.5 52.75 B3 5279 5278.5 -0.5 50 2.25 0.5 52.75 B4 5281.5 5281.5 0 50 2.25 0 52.25 B5 5278 5276 -2 50 2.25 2 54.25 B6 5279 5278.5 -0.5 50 2.25 0.5 52.75 C1 5280 5280 0 48 6 0 54 C2 5280 5280 0 48 6 0 54 C5 5277 5276 -1 50 2.25 1 53.25 C6 5277.5 5277 -0.5 50 2.25 0.5 52.75 Agenda Item 4C Page 23 of 29 Mounting 5 5 0 6 0 0° Height 30 0° i 95,3 Aiming Distance from Pole 0° Mounting 5 5 0 65, r Height 25.0° 117,9 Aiming Distance from Pole Agenda Item 4C Page 24 of 29 ~ o n o~ o m ~ ~ ~ N ~ >tr`" ~ xr a.~ N x - r' ry y xr ~ N h xr ~ N ~ xra, A A u C, W = u a u 0 C, ° w 0 N O w w o w W o w~ o p~° N fD Ra ~ tD ~ p~ Ci ~ O N ~ p N ~ p !D N O O C' O A O W ~j N O D O ryry^`ppY n ~ e J ryp~ +i A .°n J 7 n .n x r~T n A~ `D m n e A w. O f'r ~ n +i A- d S +n x O CS y X 0 1 Sv, X A O S vyi O S y x C. 'S y X d Oa I~ J C o ~ N= u II N c~ ° II , C J w ~n ti C a oc U v y X~ c y k r w N k r_ y ~ r_ N k - w X~ n m m m m m n n n m k r~ k r° ~ k r$ S r ~ k r E X r- ~ g j g ti$ o C v C C v C ~ v C a v[ d d a d y pSi ° " o n ti o po o ~ _ ~ _ ~ n m_ r~ ti `C m " A °°?i ~ m m .7.. K m A u ~ N n .n r '7. N n 2. 2. ~ ~ p ~ J N ~ ~ lJ 70 W N OC O N rJ~p In lD O O O A O m 0 O W O~ n .n r W J~ .n A N J N Oo N ~O ~ n .n A_ O~ n A m ryp m O O O'S ti ~ n d°asy ~ bPN O bT o5 cT p°,S is bP d7 y b$ dq II C a N II C v f> [0.D m ~ C ~ II C bo in 7c v. Oa 00 cn v, U lA U In ~ U n ,D A u m A u ~ .n A v n ,n A ~ n .n A - n ,n °T u y x _ y k w A w b a h x y x ~ c c c ~C °C m F m m u m F t?I m p u m F m A- y X _ N k t,,, ~ k N it U y Jf y X T m ~ X r ~ X r _ T m_ n 'f n m n 'f _ n g r k , v $ ~ yr $ gj ~ % r k r .g H x v C C C G u C ~ w w w w i9 ~ rD ~ o x o x o x o m mPn ~Ng om~N ~ ry M maa 7 ~ m m~ ~ ~ m m~= T m~~ ? ~ O yrm x m" = m in `x w J x m N x x w x x _ 3'~q < S K N X T 0 y W y u R w v$i $ .C-.~ Q ~ w Ty W C a p A b w C J ~ D, b c cy. J - N~ p x .d - c• n a ' r a 8 ~ a z°~~ o" = i o m o m ~ `N Oo A 7C- W 7a ,gyp ba ~O n ~ J n ~ ~ CI ~ N n m...~ 3yw~3 ^OT O~ NON y M 'o -o - N_Or - m .n m m a N S m m n _ Ay n~~.. N .T J S 4~ S X ~ X~ N n X~ [1 y g N u g O y ~ rv E n 9- d~ d~ d ~ C' W~ d S C m " C a s='c 3 ~ a ° ~ 'f 'ro II ~ II ti4 'T $ y $ u 00 T rn m m v m h1 'm m I I ~ N ~ ~ R Agenda Item 4C Page 25 of 29 Case LUR2011-00014 Attachment E Project Name: City Recreation Facility Sports Lighting Date: September 22, 2011 CRITERIA FOR REVIEW No site review application shall be approved unless the approving agency finds that: _Y_(A) The proposed site plan is consistent with the purposes and policies of the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan. The proposed light poles are consistent with the following BVCP Policies. 3.12 Parks and Recreation: Mapleton Ball Fields provides opportunities for a variety of recreation opportunities. Updating the lighting to meet IESNA recommended light levels will ensure the continued operation of the sports fields in a safe manner. 4.46 Outdoor Lighting/Light Pollution: The goal of the Parks and Recreation Department is to provide an improvement to the existing site lighting conditions by utilizing light fixtures that are energy efficient, decreasing the pole height and providing light levels that meet the IESNA recommended light levels. (2) Site Design: Projects should preserve and enhance the community's unique sense of place through creative design that respects historic character, relationship to the natural environment, and its physical setting. Projects should utilize site design techniques which enhance the quality of the project. In determining whether this Subsection is met, the approving agency will consider the following factors: The proposed light poles will reduce the energy required to light the East Mapleton Ball fields as well as decrease the existing light levels and potentially the height of the existing light poles. In order to fully determine the impact of the proposed light poles, the height will need to be verified. _Y_(H) Additional Criteria for Poles Above the Permitted Height: No site review application for a pole above the permitted height will be approved unless the approving agency finds all of the following: _Y_(i) The light pole is required for nighttime recreation activities, which are compatible with the surrounding neighborhood, or the light or traffic signal pole is required for safety, or the electrical utility pole is required to serve the needs of the city; and The proposed light poles improve the existing site conditions on many levels, including decreasing the existing pole height and increasing the light levels to a level that is recommended by the IESNA for sports lighting. There will be minimal adverse impacts to the surrounding property owners. The site is adjacent to commercial property, Crossroads Commons, and a multi-use path on the south and the YMCA on the west. The parking lot associated with the ball fields is adjacent to the east and Mapleton Avenue right-of-way to the north- _Y_(ii) The pole is at the minimum height appropriate to accomplish the purposes for which the pole was erected and is designed and constructed so as to minimize light and electromagnetic pollution. The current site lighting conditions are nonconforming in that the 20 light poles are in excess of 70 feet in height; the light levels on the field do not meet the minimum recommended by the IESNA (50 infield130 outfield); and the light levels at the property line are in excess of 5.8 footcandles. Agenda Item 4C Page 26 of 29 In an effort to improve the existing conditions, the applicant is proposing 16 light poles not to exceed 55 feet in height and light fixtures that provide the recommended light levels of the IESNA for outdoor sports fields. Although the light levels improve and the pole height decreases, two variance requests were also made including increasing the maximum aiming angle from nadir from 60 degrees to 68 degrees; and increasing the maximum footcandle rating at the property line from .2 footcandles to 7. The increase in the aiming angle is because fewer poles with greater separation between them are proposed. Due to the separation of the poles the fixtures need to have greater aiming angles to illuminate the entire field. Of the total number of fixtures proposed, 72, only 23 will be aimed at an excess of 60 degrees. Of the 23 fixtures that are aimed at an angle that is greater than 60 degrees the majority of them, 14 fixtures, are aimed at angles ranging from 61 to 64 degrees. The request to vary the maximum footcandle rating at the property line from .2 footcandles to 7 footcandles is a result of providing light fixtures that meet the IESNA recommended light levels, aimed at a greater angle and on a shorter pole than what is existing. To meet the light levels at the property line would require a significantly taller pole. Although the light levels are significantly higher than what is permitted at the property line, they are generally providing a safer environment for the sports fields and adjacent uses (Crossroads Commons rear entrances and a multi-use path). Light levels at building entries, pursuant to section 9-9-16, B.R.C. 1981, are permitted at 5 footcandles and 3 footcandles along pedestrian pathways. Agenda Item 4C Page 27 of 29 Case LUR2011-00014 Attachment F Project Name: City Recreation Facility Sports Lighting Date: September 22, 2011 CRITERIA FOR REVIEW Section 9-9-160), Variances and Exemptions, B.R.C 1981: Outdoor Lighting Variance: The city manager may grant a variance from the provisions of this section if the city manager finds that one of the criteria of subparagraph 0)(2)(A), 0)(2)(B) or 0)(2)(C), and subparagraphs 0)(2)(D) and 0)(2)(E) of this section have been met: _N/A_ (A) There are special circumstances or conditions applying to the land, buildings, or outdoor light fixtures for which the variance is sought, which circumstances or conditions are peculiar to such land, buildings or outdoor light fixtures and do not apply generally to the land, buildings or outdoor light fixtures in the neighborhood; _Y_ (B) For nonresidential uses, there are occupational safety lighting requirements for activities or processes that occur outdoors that are required by another governmental agency; or The applicant's proposal to improve the lighting system at the Mapleton Ball Fields will result in the decrease the overall number of light poles (from 20 poles to 16 poles) and their height (from over 60 feet to under 55 feet) and a light level that is consistent with the recommended light levels of the IESNA. The light levels that are recommended by the IESNA for Class 111 sports fields 50130 (infield/outfield) footcandles. As a result in the decrease of light poles and the increase in the separation between them, to illuminate the same amount of field area the aiming angle of 23 light fixtures will exceed the maximum aiming angle from nadir that is permitted (60 degrees) at a maximum of 68 degrees. The majority of the light fixtures, 14, will range in aiming angle from 61 degrees to 64 degrees. In order to provide the light levels recommended by the IESNA and as a result of decreasing the pole height and number of poles, the resulting aiming angle, for some fixtures, will need to be varied. _N/A_ (C) Upon a finding by the city manager that outdoor lighting in specific areas of the community, that otherwise meets the requirements of this section is not adequate and additional lighting is necessary to improve safety or security for the property or its occupants; and _Y_ (D) The granting of the variance will generally be consistent with the purpose of this section and will not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare; and Agenda Item 4C Page 28 of 29 The requested variance is consistent with the Boulder Revised Code as IESNA recommended light levels will be provided. Additionally, pursuant to section 9-9-16(d)(1), B.R.C. 1981, a statement from each adjacent property owner, the YMCA and Crossroads Commons, was submitted, acknowledging the light trespass created at the property line and stating that there were no objections. _Y_ (E) The variance is the minimum variance that provides the relief required. Given the decrease in the pole height and in the number of poles, the variance request to increase the aiming angle of a total of 23 fixtures, ranging from 61 degrees to 68 degrees, the playing fields will be illuminated at light levels that are recommended by the IESNA. Agenda Item 4C Page 29 of 29 MEMORANDUM To: Planning Board FROM: Chandler Van Schaack, Associate Planner DATE: October 6, 2011 SUBJECT: Call Up Item: 1898 S. Flatiron Ct. USE REVIEW for Manufacturing Use with Potential Off-Site Impacts (LUR2011- 00055): for 3,066 square foot coffee roasting facility and associated uses (packaging, shipping & delivery). Proposed hours of operation are from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday - Friday. This decision may be called up before Planning Board on or before October 7, 2011. Attached is the disposition of approval for a Use Review to allow for the relocation of the Ozo coffee roasting facility to 1898 S. Flatiron Ct., Suite 101. The new four-employee facility would be 3,066 square feet in size, with hours of operation from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday- Friday. Existing Conditions: 1898 S. Flatiron Ct. is located in East Boulder in the Flatiron •iz,~ _ Industrial Park, within the Industrial- General (IG) zone _ ' i _ I _ -~n.x .rte, ~,r..~., nr.~;,~, district. The IG zone district is r;• -~,r~ ~y defined in section 9-5-2, ~ B.R.C. 1981 as "General industrial areas where a wide range of light industrial uses, Y '1. ' including research and manufacturing operations and - ~ z Loa Fc?rsn": * y ' f~ yes ±a w ~ service industrial uses al,e i 1 ~m • ` located. Residential uses and qIr other complementary uses may be allowed in appropriate locations. " The proposed T • ( a ,a coffee roasting facility is considered a manufacturing use with potential off-site impacts (due to odors from the process of roasting coffee) , which, pursuant to section 9-6-1, are allowed in the IG zone only if approved through a use review. The Flatiron Industrial Park, where the proposed facility would be located, is currently a mix of office, manufacturing and other industrial uses. The areas adjacent to the park on north, south and west are zoned IG, and to the east of the park is an open space area through which runs a segment of the South Boulder Creek multi-use path. The predominant character of the Agenda Item 4D Page 1 of 12 surrounding area is that of an industrial campus, with large, simple buildings with surface parking setback into enclaves along a loop road with several cul-de-sacs. There are currently several manufacturing uses located in the park as well as several shipping/ distribution facilities (i.e. FedEx, Nite Ize). Proposal: The proposal is to relocate the Ozo Coffee Roasting facility and the associated packaging and distribution uses to the existing 3,066 square foot tenant space located at 1898 S. Flatiron Ct., Suite 101. The proposed facility would be relatively small for a coffee roasting facility, utilizing one small roaster with a capacity of approximately 20 pounds of coffee per batch (48 pounds per hour). The hours of operation would be from 7:00 am to 6:00 pm Monday thru Friday, with the majority of the roasting taking place Monday thru Wednesday, between the hours of 7:00 am and 6:00 pm and an additional 3-4 hours of roasting done on Thursday mornings. In addition to roasting, the facility would also package and deliver coffee to retail stores throughout the city. Deliveries would be made using a single delivery truck that makes 2 trips to and from the facility each Thursday. As the company grows the number of deliveries could increase, although the applicant is confident that all deliveries could still be accomplished in one day. Unprocessed, green coffee is delivered to the facility once per week on Monday or Tuesday. There are currently 3 full-time and 1 part-time employees, although there would only 1 to 2 employees at the facility at a time. The subject building was formerly the primary manufacturing and distribution facility for Chocolove, which has since relocated within the park, and the building located at 1930 Central Av. immediately to the south was formerly the primary roasting facility for Allegro coffee until 1995. The goal of the Applicant, who founded Ozo Coffee in Boulder over 4 1/2 years ago and has since expanded the company into two retail stores and a roasting facility, is to be able to expand roasting and distribution while still remaining a local business (See Attachment C, Applicant's Proposal Letter and Attachment D, Impact Mitigation Statement for more information). Public Comment and Process: Upon receipt of the application, staff mailed notice to all property owners within 600 feet of the subject location notifying residents of the application. Only one public comment was received, which expressed support for the proposal. Conclusion: Staff finds that the proposed Use Review meets the relevant criteria pursuant to 9-2-15(e), "Criteria for Review," B.R.C. 1981 (see Attachment E, Use Reviely Criteria for Reviei4) as well as the conditional use standards for Manufacturing Uses with Off-Site Impacts as set forth in section 9-6-9(e), B.R.C. 1981. This proposal was approved by Planning and Development Services staff on September 23, 2011, and the decision may be called up before Planning Board on or before October 7, 2011. There is one Planning Board meeting within the 14-day call up period, on October 6, 2011. Questions about the project or decision should be directed to Chandler Van Schaack at (303) 441-3137 or vanschaackckbouldercolorado.aov. Agenda Item 4D Page 2 of 12 Attachments: Attachment A: Staff Disposition of Approval with Conditions Attachment B: Vicinity Map Attachment C: Applicant's Proposal Letter Attachment D: Impact Mitigation Statement Attachment E: Use Review Criteria for Review Agenda Item 4D Page 3 of 12 Attachment A: Staff Disposition of Approval with Conditions CITY OF BOULDER r Planning and Development Services 1 30 Brc~adt ay. Third Fjar • P.0 Brix 791. Boulder, CO BONJG-07. phone 303-441 -1 R80 - fr_x i Cj-4 9-3; 49 • v:gh lp~:itderplandeserr.,, ne! CITY OF BOULDER PLANNING DEPARTMENT NOTICE OF DISPOSITION ynt, ?•r.' h r Ny is rr C lh-j` the. f.";11o-.v1ngtcIi-on was; taken by the Planting LiCp lizrr _ilt t:z r` lli_ r-ndard : anti rri:eria cf line Lard -j ;P RequIatirns as set forth ii Ghapler 9-,1 N F: I-; 14,x.1. ^5 n7 it „d ttj Lho prupo6ed devefuurreiR. DECISION. APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS I?RO,lFCT NAK4F- Oro Coffee Roasting Facility DESCRIPTION: USE REVIEW: for coffee roasting facility and associated uses (packaging, shiprying & dot Iwory) prcposed hours 7 am to (3 pm, Mon. thru Fri. I r 1CATIQN- 1.698 S. Flat Iron Gt. COOK: N03E01 LEGAL DESCPIPI ION LOT 1, FLATIRON INDUSTRIAL PARK FILING, No- 2, 0±unly of Boulder, State of Color,rto APPLICANT: Justin Hartman t1',°iNER: Industrial Housing Co. LLC APPLICATION Use Review, LLIR2011 44055 ?f,'NiNG_ 16 (Industrial General) CASE MANAGER: Chandler Van Schaack VFSTED PROPERTY RIGHT NO; the owner has waived the -opportunity to create such right under Section 9-2-19, R,R-C. 190. C)It FCONL?ITIONS OF APPROVAL, `EL 1 HL- FOLLOWIl F'H,r;L,S OF I HIS DISPoS'IT[oN Approved On: Date. vy- - L?av Ex xQive rof Con lrrlurii LyFLinlii iiga,ui u~,[eirjuildf This (1gt.i5ion rmF.y he wippp.aleo to t!-~ Plan nrnrl I cord 4y fit ing an apQeal letter witli the Plar-n-11g Depdrlmeni within two weeks at the decision date. If nn 5eirh ap ,ran is filed. the. dPr:lsinn :-.hall `F doemed final fourteen days 0flo IhL, date below rnuntior-'-~d Appeal to Planning Board expiraa: f?c:tnb .r 7 2C1.1 IN ORDER FORA. BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATON TO 3F r'FOCE°;SED 17+.79-; T HI;. PPO,--,Ef:I A SIGN ED DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AND SIGNED PLANS MUST BE SUBMITTED Ti}THF PLANNING DEPARTMENT ArI7 H DISPOSITION CONDITIONS AS APPRO'-/ED S.l4D V N ON THE PLANS, IF THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT IS NOT SIGNED WITHIN NIN-TY (90) DAYS CY' -1 IF FINAL DECISION DATE, THE PLANNIN[ DE?ARTr.1ENT APPROVAL AUTUMA,TIC;ALLY EXPIR[zt~. Pursuant in Section 9-2-12 of the Land Use Regulalion5 (Flwlder Re.,, 5ed Care. 1981), the applicant must begin and substantially comphate the approved development within three years, frflm the date of fin;-:91 approval. Failure ta'substantlally wrrptete` Os deflncd in .ectiun L;-2-12'1 the developmenl within 'hree years shall duce this development approval 10 expire Adc.ress 1898 S FLa,TIRiC1N CT Pa f Agenda Item 4D Page 4 of 12 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL The AppFcam sl-aij tie respvnsitrle for ansur irlg prat the development shall be in compliance with all approved plans dvtcd SuptembF.21, 2,011 and the Impact hfilirtalxrn Statrmanl &itrwi Sepiem kr 1 J, 2911 on f de oil the Cily of Boulder Planning Deparimf-M. r.xcep'to iihe extr rd 11rat the development may be amrdifred by the conditons of tins appruval. 7 The Applicani shall not expand or modify the approved use, czx:ua' pursuant Ifl a r.. ~IiUn 9- 2-19(h), B R C 1981, Addmss 18W S F-LA I iPLON '.-r Agenda Item 4D Page 5 of 12 Attachment B: Vicinity Map City of Boulder Vicinity Map i. fi i t I d IIJI «<i - - - Subject Area 1898 S Flatiron Ct IM L *-r - --Central Av -r - I ~r Li ~ -WAR - - E IS-2 BC-1 - Arapahoe A~w ~ufJect IAA - III, Legend" RM-T f RM-1 City Lniit i Location: 1898 S Flatiron Ct Project Name: dzo Coffee Roasters Ci7 0{ Review Type: Use Review NORTH -.his :ire Y'.~Tn atl~n 7ePl:-ec -.his maF I: Frcv cfc Review Number: LUR2011-00055 _ p"cal nu. :crcrl.7heC4,uril cr pr], de IIL w3r'V j, e--, ,1,.t ed di t] Applicant: ozo Coffee Roasters - t inch - 6CO feet I-e =JraQr.51J 7- c3mFle eness e' !-e . t m3tkr c,nt,l-:eyrec, Agenda Item 4D Page 6 of 12 Attachment C: Applicant's Proposal Letter Ozo Coffee Roasters proposal letter 07o Col fee would like to occupy the 189$ 5_ Flatiron Court- building suite 110 for the use of coffee roasting. Ozo would like to nest coffee, package and distribute coffee to our stores and customers- We have checked with the zoning dupes tment and also have been in contact with Charles Ferro regarding the propc,•r zoning for coffee roasting. This property is in the allowed zone for coffee roasting, We are a locally ovnod turd opcratcd Boulder based company, cclel}rating 4/2 years in orie retail location and have grown to 2 retail stores and a roaster- We - ranl to continue to roast our coffee locally in Boulder. One of our selling points that set us apart is our fresh locally roasted coffee. We also support Organic and fair trade fanning, practices by our purchasing strategies- We are a loot impact operation with 4 empl,oyces who like. to hike or hus to work- We recycle and compost mid throw away very little trash. We use very• little %sater and electricity and are a energy conscious company. We also donate to many local chariots and local school fundraising events including CU and Narepa to help build a stronger commutlity. This area in discussion. has had a coffee roaster in the past that ha%v since moved to Thorton. Ave would like to fill the gap in the industrial area that is need of more business.. The vacancy rate in this area is at a high right now and tenants are desperately needed to encourage more businesses to the area- We war11 to toast coffiee in east boulder as our businesses continue to grow. Thanks for your consideratiorL Ourner; Justin Harmian Ow CoMv Rciasters Agenda Item 4D Page 7 of 12 Attachment D: Impact Nlitij!ation Statement Ozo Coffee Roasters Impact Mitigation Statement Justin IlartilMll - OGU Col'Ir Rlvlgers r':rpli ;rtir;n pl,Uk-11.11 l f!Wl's5 1848 S Flatiron C?. Roasting machine: Die dr:ch I R- 1:i ( 12 Silo, 26A S pound, Jn-Store Ruast"r) - technical sheets attached. The ekluaust air' ducting is a 6-inch diameter positive pressure staclr. -'ti 1 ,net S'Latra-pressure, the ducting allows 240 cuhir' feet per Ininutr of airtl;;v, I'he roasting machine consumes 63,000 91 I. This is the smallest roaster available that is YUII conai(IVIr2d ,r arud-It iinn 0&;(C I, ti intended for in stare use. The maximum batch size is 20 pounds. This roaster produces the ieast amount of emissions compared to othr.r Production roasters, drie to its size. The emissions that are released are minim.il and nut delrimr-w.31 to the health of the public or the environment, Attached is a report by the EPA outlining the rmrssions and hy-ln-tnluct. generally tumid with coffee roasting operations. The report outlines several Iype~ of operations and roasting machines; we use a batch roaster. Furthermore, we do not decaffeinate or produce instant coffee on site. Source: (hrtp7//www.epa_gov/tm/chief/ap42/c-h(19/final/cgs7 3-2.pdf) F.mrssions produced by this roaster are controlled and fit well within applicable city. State and federal regulations, Thu amount of smoke anti fumes at the property line .vill be very minimal and immeasurable. Also, srnoRt is only produced for the last 3 to i rninutes of the 20 minute hatch cycle There is not enough noise produced from the i uunmy, of the coffee rattsler to hP beet [I Oti[-sic'e of thtr kL iltirnfr. Current Weekly Schedule. We roast ] i-20 pounds per hats h, producing about 42 pounds of ruasted coffee per hour and are roasting up to 1,600 per week. One enployee comes to work M lam, turns the roaster on and roasts coffee rrom tS am until around I pm, A sccond employee sltowN up around ir,;tsr; gild masts fr urn 1 pin until i pin and lets the master cool dohs'n unit] 6 pni. Agenda Item 4D Page 8 of 12 :"Je= rur;? on tha r.rlhetlulc tiir3 d i4:, f h9n?ir :n ','dedi?es?i rye; ~itd have thc> rEmamiii_' oitee ruaswd un tht' 4th day (Thursday), where one e:nhhiyee is roasting, mci the utlrerdoes paper work and bookkeeping for the week. This 4rh roasting flay shorter than the other days with only about 3 or 4 hours of roasting. %Vith continued growth svv vrnnld u,c.~i,- 'Af TdX, :iirnu ;h'a','d?tesd-i'; srh du:c h?r roasting on addirion-il d:rv-.. Delivery Schedule We have a deltt'er-y driver do our deli'. eriu r lir a4~otmtS uu Ti: u; 5cat•. :4+ith Wily r_rn,,nl number ofac:counts and the size of th(- Irurk he makes 2 trips from OUT roasting facility to out accounts, He is only mound the farility for up to an hour A :i time. With continued growth we think the deliveries could still be done in one &iv, Just with another trip from the roasting Facility to our accounts. We get deliveries ol'green rnftee once per week on Monday or Tuesday one t,_ L'A'C pallets at a time. With continued gr u-,% it i vvv still reucivc ;km une dch,.-ery a eck but with rnure pallets at a tirrrt . Agenda Item 4D Page 9 of 12 Attachment E: Use Review Criteria for Review USE REVIEW CRITERIA Criteria for Review: No use review application will be approved unless the approving agency finds all of the following: X (1) Consistency with Zoning and Non-Conformity: The use is consistent with the purpose of the zoning district as set forth in Section 9-5-21(c), "Zoning Districts Purposes," B.R.C. 1981, except in the case of a non-conforming use; The subject property is located within an 1G zone district which is defined in section 9-5- 2(c)(4)(8) as 'Industrial - General: General industrial areas where a wide range of light industrial uses, including research and manufacturing operations and service industrial uses are located. Residential uses and other complementary uses may be allowed in appropriate locations. " The proposed coffee roasting facility is considered a manufacturing use with potential off-site impacts. The subject property is surrounded by properties zoned 1G, so the opportunity for the impacts to affect a zone district that does not allow such uses are minimal. (2) Rationale: The use either: X (A) Provides direct service or convenience to or reduces adverse impacts to the surrounding uses or neighborhood; The proposed use would reduce the adverse impacts to surrounding uses by having limited roasting hours (7:00 am to 6:00 pm, M-W), utilizing a small roasting machine that emits minimal exhaust and noise as defined in the applicant's impact mitigation statement and consolidating delivery services to one day per week. N/A(B) Provides a compatible transition between higher intensity and lower intensity uses; N/A (C) Is necessary to foster a specific city policy, as expressed in the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan, including, without limitation, historic preservation, moderate income housing, residential and non-residential mixed uses in appropriate locations, and group living arrangements for special populations; or N/A(D) Is an existing legal non-conforming use or a change thereto that is permitted under subsection (e) of this section; X 3) Compatibility: The location, size, design, and operating characteristics of the proposed development or change to an existing development are such that the use will be reasonably compatible with and have minimal negative impact on the use of nearby properties or for residential uses in industrial zoning districts, the proposed development reasonably mitigates the potential negative impacts from nearby properties; The proposed facility would be relatively small for a coffee roasting facility. The unit in which the facility would be located is just over 3,000 square feet. The proposed roaster is the smallest roaster available that is still considered a production roaster, with a capacity of approximately 20 pounds of coffee per batch (48 pounds per hour). The only measurable impacts associated with the proposed use would be minimal exhaust and noise. Per the applicant's Impact Mitigation Agenda Item 4D Page 10 of 12 Statement, the emissions released from this model are minimal and not detrimental to the public health. By limiting the roasting hours, the amount of exhaust produced would be minimized. Per the applicant's Impact Mitigation Statement, the smoke will be immeasurable at the property line, and the noise from the roaster is low enough that it would not be audible outside the building. The hours of operation would be from 7:00 am to 6:00 pm Monday thru Friday. There are currently 3 full-time and 1 part-time employees, although usually there is only 1 to 2 employees at the facility at a time. The majority of the roasting would take place Monday thru Wednesday, between the hours of 7:00 am and 6:00 pm. There is usually 3-4 hours of roasting done on Thursday morning. Currently the facility delivers coffee to retail stores using a single delivery truck that makes 2 trips to and from the facility each Thursday. As the company grows the number of deliveries could increase, although the applicant is confident that all deliveries could still be accomplished in one day. Green coffee is delivered to the facility once per week on Monday or Tuesday. The Flatirons Business Park, where the proposed facility would be located, is currently a mix of office, manufacturing and other light industrial uses. There are currently an office and a woodworking studio in the other units in the subject building. The subject building was formerly the primary office and manufacturing facility for Chocolove, which has since relocated within the park, and the building located at 1930 Central Av. immediately to the south was formerly the primary roasting facility for Allegro coffee until 1995. Coffee roasting facilities have historically been allowed in IG zones, including Conscious Coffees, which is located at 5403 Western Av. X (4) Infrastructure: As compared to development permitted under Section 9-6-1, "Schedule of Permitted Uses of Land," B.R.C. 1981, in the zone, or as compared to the existing level of impact of a non-conforming use, the proposed development will not significantly adversely affect the infrastructure of the surrounding area, including, without limitation, water, wastewater, and storm drainage utilities and streets; The proposed facility would have a minimal impact on the infrastructure of the surrounding area. Only minor interior changes are required in order to prepare the vacant space for the proposed use. Also, as mentioned above, this proposed use is relatively small compared to previous food manufacturing uses of a similar nature that have previously occupied the same building. X (5) Character of Area: The use will not change the predominant character of the surrounding area; and The Flatirons Business Park, where the proposed facility would be located, is currently a mix of office, manufacturing and other light industrial uses. The predominant character is that of an industrial office campus, with large, simple buildings with surface parking setback into lightly wooded enclaves along a loop road with several cul-de-sacs. There are currently several manufacturing uses located in the park as well as several shipping/ distribution facilities (i.e. FedEx, Nite Ize). The proposed facility would not change the character of the surrounding area in any way. N/A (6) Conversion of Dwelling Units to Non-Residential Uses: There shall be a presumption against approving the conversion of dwelling units in the residential zoning districts set forth in Subsection 9-5-2(c)(1)(a), B.R.C. 1981, to non-residential uses that are allowed pursuant to a use review, or through the change of one non-conforming use to another non- conforming use. The presumption against such a conversion may be overcome by a finding that the use to be approved serves another compelling social, human services, governmental, or recreational need in the community including, without limitation, a use for a day care center, park, Agenda Item 4D Page 11 of 12 religious assembly, social service use, benevolent organization use, art or craft studio space, museum, or an educational use. This proposal does not involve the conversion of residential dwelling units into a non-residential use. As discussed above, the location of the proposed use is already almost entirely industrial, so this use is an appropriate one for the area and will not have an adverse affect on any nearby residential areas. Agenda Item 4D Page 12 of 12 CITY OF BOULDER PLANNING BOARD AGENDA ITEM MEETING DATE: October 6, 2011 AGENDA TITLE: Public hearing and consideration of a Use Review, #LUR2011-00032, for the Tavern on the Hill located at 1352 College Ave. to allow a 3,748 sq. ft. restaurant to be open until 2 a.m. A total of 70 indoor seats and 50 outdoor seats on a 1,480 sq. ft. patio are proposed. The proposed restaurant/tavern is located within the Business Main Street (BMS) zone district and the University Hill General Improvement District. Applicant: Tavern Hospitality Group Owrier: Michael Boyers REQUESTING DEPARTMENT: Community Planning & Sustainability David Driskell, Executive Director Charles Ferro, Land Use Review Manager Jessica Vaughn, Planner I OBJECTIVE: Define the steps for Planning Board consideration of this request: 1. Hear Staff and Applicant presentations 2. Hold Public Hearing 3. Planning Board discussion 4. Planning Board action to recommend approval, approval with conditions or denial SUMMARY Proposal: Use Review request to locate the Tavern on the Hill at 1352 College Ave. The proposed restaurant/tavern is 3,748 sq. ft. (including 650 sq. ft. kitchen) with hours of operation from 10 a.m. to 2 a.m., 70 indoor seats and 50 outdoor seats on a 1,480 sq. ft. outdoor patio. Project Name: Tavern Group Tavern on the Hill Location: 1352 College Avenue Size of Tract: 11,391 sq. ft. (.26 acre) Zoning: Business Main Street (BMS) Comprehensive Plan: Community Business Agenda Item 5A Page 1 of 65 i # } s c~ 4Ts# sylva -T A111 vl a is College Avenue k~ 1 r L• ft 1352 College Avenue X+ lip 'IA S ~ 1^ 41 Vicinity Map KEY ISSUES Staff has identified the following key issues regarding the proposed application request and has provided responses below under the "Analysis" section of this memo. 1. Is the proposed use consistent with the Use Review criteria set forth in subsection 9-2-15(e), "Criteria for Review," B.R.C. 1981? Agenda Item 5A Page 2 of 65 PROCESS Pursuant to section 9-6, "Use Standards," B.R.C. 1981, "Restaurants or taverns that are over 1,500 square feet in floor area outside of the University Hill General Improvement District, over 4, 000 square feet in floor area in the University Hill General Improvement District, or which close after 11:00 p.m." require a Use Review to evaluate the appropriateness and compatibility of the proposed use in the proposed location. Pursuant to section 9-4-2, "Development Review Procedures, " B.R.C. 1981, applications for Use Review are a staff level decision with a 14-day planning board call-up. In this case, given the public interest in the application, staff decided it would be appropriate for the development proposal to be referred to the board for public hearing. Pursuant to section 9-2-7(b)(1), "Planning Board Review and Recommendation," B.R.C. 1981, the city manager shall refer to the planning board any application for a development review which requires a board decision as required by section 9-2-15, Use Review, B.R.C. 1981 and any other application that the city manager deems appropriate. BACKGROUND Site History 1352 College Ave. is the former location of the Jones Drug building which operated as a pharmacy/general store since 1902. Two other commercial spaces within the building were also leased along 14th Street (most recently Thunderbird Burgers and Snarl's Sandwich Shop). In 2006, a Use Review for a restaurant/tavern use for Thunderbird Burgers was approved in the building. The proposal included a closing time of 2 a.m., which was found to be consistent with the Use Review criteria as well as compatible with the surrounding area, including businesses and residences. The two late-night restaurants operated successfully on the property until 2010. In August, 2010 a building permit was submitted for redevelopment of the site for the construction of a mixed use building that included a below grade parking structure, retail and restaurants on the first level and 13 dwelling units on the second and third floors. Site Context The site is located within the Business Main Street (BMS) zone district, and is located within the University Hill General Improvement District (UHGID) which provides shared parking and maintenance for the district. This site is located in the University Hill Business District which is identified by the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP) as one of the city's main activity centers. Activity centers are defined by the BVCP as "areas where people congregate for a variety of activities such as working, shopping, going to school or day care, recreating and residing." Activity centers are distributed throughout the city as hubs of activity on several levels, including regional (e.g., Boulder Valley Regional Center), subcommunity (e.g.,North Boulder) and neighborhood (e.g., University Hill). Typically, activity centers are located in close proximity to neighborhoods and business areas. Neighborhood activity centers, including the University Hill Business District, provide a variety of businesses and services where essential day-to-day needs of the neighborhood can be satisfied. Neighborhood activity centers generally draw people from a relatively small neighborhood area and create a sense of community through interaction. In close proximity to the site there are a variety of services, including retail, restaurant/taverns, offices, the University of Colorado as well as single and multifamily residential uses, including student rentals and owner occupied single-family residences. In addition, the University Hill Boulder Police Annex is located less than one block away at 1310 College. Agenda Item 5A Page 3 of 65 The surrounding restaurants have a variety of operating hours as well as outdoor seating and alcohol service as indicated in Attachment A, University Hill Restaurant Hours. Currently there are 27 restaurants in operation on University Hill with more than half (15) of them open until midnight or later and 12 of which serve alcohol after 11 P.M. PROPOSAL The applicant is proposing to locate a restaurant, known as the Tavern on the Hill, at 1352 College Avenue. The proposed restaurant and bar is 3,748 sq. ft. (including 650 sq. ft. kitchen) with hours of operation from 10 a.m. to 2 a.m., 70 indoor seats and 50 outdoor seats on a 1,480 sq. ft. patio. Please refer to Attachment B for the applicant's proposed floor plan. Parking is not provided as part of the restaurant development proposal and is not required as the site is located within the University Hill General Improvement District. A surface parking lot is located adjacent to the site on the south side. Additional on street parking options and surface parking lots are available in close proximity to the site along College Avenue and 13th Street. As indicated by the applicant's management plan, the Tavern on the Hill is committed to minimizing the adverse impacts of the proposed restaurant/tavern on the surrounding properties by; limiting outdoor music to 11 p.m.; agreeing to provide additional security if the need arises, including an off-duty security officer for on site crowd control at closing time, agreeing to membership in the Responsible Hospitality Group; providing contact information directly to UHNA to facilitate direct conflict resolution; furnishing the UHNA with a quarterly newsletter; and placing signage at the front entry requesting patrons to be quiet when leaving. Please refer to Attachment C for the applicant's management plan. ANALYSIS Applications for Use Review are reviewed for consistency with the criteria set forth in subsection 9-2-15(e), "Criteria for Review," B.R.C. 1981. Staff's analysis of the Use Review criteria can be found below. Y (1) Consistency with Zoning and Non-Conformity: The use is consistent with the purpose of the zoning district as set forth in Section 9-5-21(c), "Zoning Districts Purposes," B.R.C. 1981, except in the case of a non-conforming use; 1352 College Avenue is within the Business Main Street zone district, which is defined as: Business areas generally anchored around a main street that is intended to serve the surrounding residential neighborhoods. It is anticipated that development will occur in a pedestrian-oriented pattern, with buildings built up to the street; retail uses on the first floor; residential and office uses above the first floor; and where complementary uses may be allowed (section 9-5-2(c)(2)(F), B.R.C. 1981). The proposal to provide a restaurant/tavern at 1352 College Ave. in a new mixed use building is consistent with the intent of the zone district. The restaurant will not only provide a direct service to the neighborhood residents, but also contributes to the redevelopment of the University Hill Area by providing a late night dining option in a more traditional "sit down" restaurant type atmosphere. Agenda Item 5A Page 4 of 65 Y (2) Rationale: The use either: (A) Provides direct service or convenience to or reduces adverse impacts to the surrounding uses or neighborhood; College Avenue is considered a main street that provides services to the surrounding residences, including the University of Colorado, students and families that live on University Hill. The proposed use will provide the neighborhood with a late night dining option in a more traditional "sit down" restaurant type atmosphere. N/A (B) Provides a compatible transition between higher intensity and lower intensity uses; N/A (C) Is necessary to foster a specific city policy, as expressed in the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan, including, without limitation, historic preservation, moderate income housing, residential and nonresidential mixed uses in appropriate locations, and group living arrangements for special populations; or N/A (D) Is an existing legal nonconforming use or a change thereto that is permitted under subsection (f) of this section; Y 3) Compatibility: The location, size, design, and operating characteristics of the proposed development or change to an existing development are such that the use will be reasonably compatible with and have minimal negative impact on the use of nearby properties or for residential uses in industrial zoning districts, the proposed development reasonably mitigates the potential negative impacts from nearby properties; 1352 College is a mixed use development that includes retail and restaurant uses on the ground floor and residential above. Although not directly across the street from the university, being one block off of Broadway, 1352 College Avenue located on the most intense edge of the University Hill Business District, surrounded by a mix of uses, including multi-family attached residential units, and retail and restaurant uses. The location of the site, on the corner of College Avenue and 14th Streets, is in close proximity to Broadway, a major transportation corridor and is several blocks removed from the primarily single-family residential uses. The surrounding restaurants' closing hours, outdoor patio seating and alcohol service on the Hill, as shown in the University Hill restaurant hours in Attachment A. The proposed restaurant is consistent with the existing hours of operation on the Hill, closing at 2:00 a.m. As noted above, of the 27 restaurant documented through a site visit more than half (15) of them are open until midnight or later. Thunderbird Burgers, the previous late night operator located on the subject property had no record of code compliance cases initiated due to noise or as a result of a violation of their approval. At the time of the review of Thunderbird Burgers' Use Review application in 2006, an analysis of the business operation with late night hours was conducted as a part of the Use Review submittal. Below is an excerpt from staff's Development Review Comments dated October 24, 2005: Agenda Item 5A Page 5 of 65 "City staff reviewed police records for the site for the past several years and found only one incident in 2004 (type: Hill Area Noise) that would have potential impacts to the surrounding neighborhood. Also, this incident occurred at 10.41 p.m., within the "by-right" closing time of 11:00 p.m. for restaurants and taverns on the Hill. Staff finds that the proposed hours of operation (until 2:00 a.m. daily) meet the applicable use review criteria. The Thunderbird Burgers location has not received neighborhood complaints or police reports of incidences due to its previous operation between 11:00 a.m. and 2:00 a.m. This restaurant serves its entire food menu until 2:00 a.m., maintaining the restaurant use, in addition to alcohol service. The location is immediately adjacent to other businesses and a city parking lot, with a fraternity/sorority house across the street. City staff has not received any comments or complaints from residents or property owners in the immediate vicinity of the application site." In conducting a review of the Tavern on the Hill, staff contacted the City of Boulder Police Department University Hill Annex regarding the type of calls, if any, to the previous users on the site. Reportedly, most of the calls were an issue of public intoxication and the associated secondary effects of alcohol, not associated with the establishment itself, but with the location. There were no incidences of violence reported that were directly associated with the establishment. The Police Department did cite the general area as a gathering place and an area where loitering and brawling have occurred in the past due to the underpass and the fraternity on the corner. In order to mitigate the potential adverse impacts of the proposed restaurant/tavern on the surrounding neighborhood, the applicant has proposed limiting hours of music on the patio to 11 p.m., providing signage at the front entry requesting patrons to be quiet when leaving and providing additional security for crowd dispersal at closing time. NIA (4) Infrastructure: As compared to development permitted under Section 9-6-1, "Schedule of Permitted Uses of Land," B.R.C. 1981, in the zone, or as compared to the existing level of impact of a non- conforming use, the proposed development will not significantly adversely affect the infrastructure of the surrounding area, including, without limitation, water, wastewater, and storm drainage utilities and streets; The infrastructure that services 1352 College Ave. is existing. Y (5) Character of Area: The use will not change the predominant character of the surrounding area; and The predominant character of the Hill is that of an eclectic neighborhood activity center that provides a mix of uses, including various retail, commercial and entertainment services along with residential units. The proposed use is consistent with the predominant character of the neighborhood. PUBLIC COMMENT AND PROCESS Required public notice was given in the form of written notification mailed to all property owners within 600 feet of the subject property and a sign posted on the property for at least 10 days. All notice requirements of section 9-4-3, "Public Notice Requirements," B.R.C. 1981 have been met. Several written and email responses were received in response to the public notifications, both expressing support for and opposition to the proposed use. Please refer Agenda Item 5A Page 6 of 65 to Attachment D for all of the responses to the public notices, including the review of the management plan. Of the responses expressing support towards the proposed restaurant/tavern, general sentiments included excitement for a family-friendly, sit-down eatery within walking distance of the surrounding neighborhood, establishing more of a sophisticated late night dining option that contributes to the revitalization of the Hill, and the level of interest and responsibility on behalf of the business owners in their commitment to being good neighbors. Comments that expressed opposition to the proposed restaurant use included a decline in the quality of life in the neighborhood from the secondary impacts of alcohol consumption, including crowd dispersal, littering, noise, violence, brawling, and vandalism. The majority of these comments were in regard to the proposed hours of operation, specifically the closing time being 2:00 a.m. and the size of the venue being too large (3,748 sq. ft.) A neighborhood meeting was held on June 16, 2011at the Grace Lutheran Presbyterian Church with approximately 40 people in attendance. Some attendees of the meeting conveyed their concerns, which included the hours of operation (2:00 a.m.) and the adverse secondary impacts of alcohol over-consumption on the Hill, including but not limited to crowd dispersal, noise, littering and in some cases violence. Other attendees expressed support for the proposed use if the operator can successfully minimize the impacts to the neighborhood through a detailed management plan. In response to the feedback from the neighborhood meeting, the applicant prepared a management plan (Attachment C) that addresses the concerns expressed, including limiting the outdoor patio amplified music to 11 p.m.; agreeing to provide additional security if the need arises, including an off-duty security officer for on site crowd control at closing time; agreeing to membership in the Responsible Hospitality Group; providing contact information directly to UHNA to facilitate direct conflict resolution; furnishing the UHNA with a quarterly newsletter; and placing signage at the front entry requesting patrons to be quiet when leaving. STAFF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION Staff finds that the application satisfies the Use Review criteria pursuant to subsection 9-2-15(e), "Criteria for Review," B.R.C. 1981, if the conditions listed below are incorporated into the approval of this application. Therefore, staff recommends that Planning Board approve Use Review #LUR2011-00032 incorporating this staff memorandum and the attached Use Review Criteria Checklist as findings of fact, subject to the recommended Conditions of Approval below: RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. The Applicant shall ensure that the development shall be in compliance with all approved plans dated August 23, 2011 and the Applicant's management plan dated August 23, 2011 on file in the City of Boulder Planning Department, except to the extent that the development may be modified by the conditions of this approval. Further, the Applicant shall ensure that the approved use is operated in compliance with the following restrictions: a. The Applicant shall operate the business in accordance with the management plan dated August 23, 2011, which is attached to this Notice of Disposition. b. Size of the restaurant shall be limited to 3,748 square feet. The total number of indoor Agenda Item 5A Page 7 of 65 seats for the restaurant shall not exceed 70 seats. The total number of exterior seats shall not exceed 50. Outdoor patio area will not exceed 1,480 square feet. C. The restaurant shall be closed from 2:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. seven days per week. d. Outdoor seating area shall have no outdoor speakers, e. Trash and bottles shall not be removed to outside storage (trash) containers between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. 2. The Applicant shall not expand or modify the approved use, except pursuant to subsection 9-2- 15(e), B.R.C. 1981. 3. This approval is limited to The Tavern Group, the owner of the restaurant. Any changes in ownership shall be subject to the review and approval of the Planning Director. The purpose of such review shall be to inform such subsequent user of this space that it will be required to operate the restaurant in compliance with the terms of this approval. 4. Prior to building permit approval, the proposed outdoor seating area, as shown on the approved plans, that projects into the public right-of-way must be approved as a right-of-way lease pursuant to section 8-6-6, B.R.C. 1981. Approved B D ~d Driskell, Ex i hector Department of Community Planning and Sustainability ATTACHMENTS: A: University Hill Restaurant Hours B: Applicant's Proposed Plans C. Management Plan D: Neighborhood Comments Agenda Item 5A Page 8 of 65 University Hill Restaurants Attachment Floor Area (sq. Closing Hour Patio Amplified Alcohol Compliance ft. Seats Music Service Cases for Noise Deli Zone on the Hill 1091 13"' Street 5 p.m. No No No No 303-449-6952 Del Taco 1100 13'11 Street 303-440-3695 1,539 3 a.m. 28 No No No LUR2009-00071 Espresso Roma Cafe 1101 1-) Street 629 9 P.M. 12 Yes No No 303-442-5011 Salvaggio's Deli 1107 13 1h Street 8 P.M. 10 No No No 303-448-1200 Papa Romano's/Mr. Pita Yes, but 1110 13th Street 1,920 2:30 a.m. 12 not after No No 303-443-3199 11 P.M. LUR2008-00071 The Sushi Spot 1116 13t1i 11 P.M. 6 No Yes No 303-447-8744 Qdoba Yes, beer 1119 13t" Street only, but not 303-449-3439 2.763 12 a.m. 10 No on patio: No ADR2004-00069 only until 10 LUR2004-00082 p.m. Abos Pizza 1124 13ti Street 3,010 2 a.m. 8-12 No Yes No 303-443-3199 Jimmy John's 1125 13t" Street 303-447-3200 1.458 3 a.m. 9 No No No LUR2002-00003 1. niversity Hill Market & Deli 1134 13th Street 2,000 4 a.m. N/A No No No 303-449-2923 The Lollicup 1142 13th Street 936 11 P.M. N/A No No No 303-443-0120 Five Guys Burgers & Fries 2.305 11 P.M. N/A No No No 1143 13ti' Street ADR2010-00193 Mamacita's 149 13ti' Street Yes, but 1 1149 1-2300 1,222 2 a.m. 12 not after Yes No 3 LUR2005-00062 11 P.M. Pickled Lemon Middle Eastern Eats 1.855 11 P.M. 18 Yes Yes No 1155 13ti' Street ADR2010-00141 The Sink 1165 13t' 1,900 2 a.m. 25 No Yes Yes, 2 total both in 2008 303-444-7465 Half Fast Subs 1215 13th Street 12 a.m. 28 Yes Yes No 303-449-0404 Fatty J's 1301 Broadway 3 a.m. N/A No No Yes 303-442-6666 The Goose Yes, 12 1301 Broadway 1,768 2 a.m. 250+/- Yes Yes complaints from 720-565-0540 1999-2010 Cosmo's Pizza 1325 Broadway 2.695 2:30 a.m. N/A No Yes No 303-447-1133 LUR2007-00085 K's China 12 a.m. 80 Yes Yes Yes, 3 from 1325 Broadway 2002-2010 Agenda Item 5A Page 9 of 65 303-413-0000 La'ua's 9 P.M. 1335 Broadway 1.448 (Current application 12 No Yes No 720-287-5913 pending for later hours Cheba Hut 1313 College Avenue 10 P.M. 12 No Yes No 303-413-3494 Illegal Pete's 1320 College Yes. only 1.700 2:30 a.m. 12 No until 10:30 No 303-444-305.5 LUR2004-00067 p.m. Brooklyn's Heroes 1322 College <1.000 5 p.m. 8 No No No 303-449-6952 Crepes To Go 1326 College <L000 11 P.M. 8 No No No 303-442-3707 Tavern on the Yes, but 1352 College not past - L1R2011-000 , I I P.M. Hapa Sushi 1220 Pennsylvania 17741 12 a.m. 8 No Yes No 303-447-9883 Aion 1235 Pennsylvania 1.500 11 P.M. 20 No Yes No 303-993-8131 Agenda Item 5A Page 10 of 65 Attachment B COLLEGE AVENUE 1 Y..11 ! HARTROMFT ~'i r x C ti ` l IK Mme nASSOCIATES :.iC .•Y , t / X", X pi-mg nrchi~cture Y iwx: Jw .677.9319 .r''S ~ e~>turosro C , i Ir sr ° a' and eP' so r- cu E 1 W< o~ man& PLAN pFfAi ~ s I ~ y i ' T p-D 'n CD F r- ~xeim~ ~ I 1 ~M7S3 I fF F sernmar ; / 1 I 11. ' - PAi SW Y.T-S - ~ I l k'~jl I ~ Ilw+V14! - I ~Aa cF4 l ~ ' t( wT fj/~1J \ Tr _ ~MlM1 Iltft a. 1 [iL l~'fIM'3 1 i ~J'. Y,~ C I i ~1 MT! _ {}v'i fvf43 - -rmmra! I, R I i,;`r..ti mr- - { t.v x=i:` w f~ ^"T YKKOtCTt Yli6A0 DAM GoWW A1YU BY., tRB:6 :x 1 F I I { ~ I m' t7C VA= W.im TYP 4.a__ - Future Patio Area amaa ~n in City R.O.W. Flom P,,w 9wet N; A2.1 Total Floor Area Occupied = 3,738 (under roof) t~ ~J >:/s• . r..o- m~aem R noa wit- S d 9ieets am PAm EOS Y f17A- W 1917 SF. Floor Area used for restaurant seating = 3,098 (under roof) Square Footage of Outdoor Patio Area = 1,480 Maximum Number of Patio Seats = 50 Agenda Item 5A Page 11 of 65 Tavern on The Hill Attachment C Management Plan July 8, 2011 Background: The Tavern Hospitality Group (THG) is a family-owned and operated Colorado company that has been in business for many years. Owners, Frank Schultz, and Terry and Al Papay, are responsible business owners with extremely high values and standards that are upheld company-wide. THG is known for attention to detail in their upscale decor, high expectations of employees and freshly prepared menu items. The Tavern on the Hill concept strives to provide a welcoming, comfortable atmosphere for friends and families to enjoy their dining experiences. Schultz and the Papays take great pride in their company. The success of THIS is a result of the hands-on approach that ownership takes and is reflected in their high standards and consistency with which they operate all of their Tavern locations. They make a point to visit each location frequently to ensure that standards are being met. THG has six taverns located in various neighborhoods of Denver, including LoDo, Uptown, Lowry, Washington Park, downtown Littleton and in Lakewood at Belmar, each uniquely taking on the flavor and personality of the neighborhood in which it resides. Amenities weaving a common thread through all locations include lounges, fireplaces, outdoor patios, and HD TVs. Much thought is given to the design of each location. THG proposes to build the Tavern on the Hill with a friendly comfortable ambiance that appeals to everyone in the Boulder community. Although college students will be welcome, the primary goal will be to cater to families, business people and professors. In keeping with the upscale environment, the Tavern on the Hill will not offer pitchers of beer, shot specials, beer pong or other typical "college bar" features, Dress codes will be enforced during Friday and Saturday nights. Music levels will adhere to city requirements. Responsible alcohol service is evident by the no tolerance policy when it comes to serving alcohol to underage patrons. THIS enforces state and local liquor laws. All employees are TIPS certified and adhere to strict guidelines about not over-serving guests. In order to uphold high levels of service, long-term staff employment is promoted; therefore, students will not be recruited for employment due to their transient schedules. The cuisine will be both unique and traditional tavern fare, serving only fresh food. No frozen products are used. THG takes pride in running all Tavern locations professionally. The Taverns have earned a reputation for high standards of fresh food, service and ambiance. The ownership goal is to be in business for many years. Schultz and the Papays enjoy being part of neighborhood communities and thrive on building relationships with local residents. They look forward to being an integral and symbiotic part of the University Hill neighborhood. Context & Uses on Adjacent I Surrounding Properties: Other uses in the immediate area include apartment residential units above the restaurant. Additional retail and commercial businesses, including book stores, Illegal Pete`s, Cheba Hut and Del Taco are located in close proximity to the site along College Avenue. Additional multi-family residential uses include various Agenda Item 5A Page 12 of 65 rental units along 13b and 141h Streets. Also located in close proximity to the site, only a block away, is the Boulder Police Department University Hill Annex (1310 College Avenue). Additional multi-family residential uses include various rental units along 13th and 14th Streets Proposed Use of Space: The ground floor of 1352 College Avenue will be used for a restaurant, to be known as The Tavern on the Hill, with food and alcohol service. Restaurant Size: Floor Area : 3,748 SF (Inc. 650 Kitchen SF) Indoor Seats: 75 Outdoor Seats: 50 (Inc. 28 seats to be located in the City ROW) Hours of operation: Monday - Friday 11:00 AM - 2:00 AM Saturday - Sunday 10:00 AM - 2:00 AM Food service ends at 1:00 AM Alcohol service ends at 1:30 AM Number of employees: 60 full-time employees Our business philosophy requires most staff to work full-time hours. Parking: Most employees will be hired from the nearby communities to Boulder. Eco-Passes will be provided to employees that commute to work and that live near the Denver to Boulder Bus line, While employees will not be required to use the bus, they will be strongly encouraged to do so. Parking permits have also been discussed with Molly Winter. Director, Downtown and University Hill Management Division and Parking Services, for the three current parking lots on the Hill and hope to come to terms for permanent parking passes with the City of Boulder for many of the employees, Trash and Recycling: Trash will be stored in smaller containers that will be kept in the project's garage area, with daily, or every other day pick-up. The "last drop off"of garbage will be after closing time (2 AM), but will be made inside the project garage, causing no impacts to the surrounding neighborhoods. Deliveries: Deliveries will be made daily, after 9 AM, and before 4 PM. Most deliveries will be made from the parking garage directly into the back of the restaurant area. A limited number of deliveries will utilize the loading zone currently located along 14th Street, making deliveries to the 14th St. side of the restaurant. Noise: Background music only (not amplified) will be played in the outdoor seating areas until 11 PM, afterwhich the music will be turned off. The outdoor seating areas will stay open until closing time, as this type seating is an important factor in making this restaurant a success for the owners. Agenda Item 5A Page 13 of 65 Security: In a couple of the Tavern's current locations, off duty police officers are used for on site crowd control and dispersal duties. This location will offer such staffing if deemed necessary by the Tavern owners and the Hill Police Dept. Responsibilities as Good Neighbors: The Tavern on the Hill is committed to serving the neighborhood and the community and in protecting the interests of the University Hill neighborhood. The Taven on the Hill will maintain a membership with the Responsbile Hospitality Group. The Tavern will furnish the UHNA with telephone and email contacts of the restaurant owners and managers for the purposes of expressing any complaints or suggestions. A newsletter will be sent out quarterly to UNHA describing how the restaurant is functioning, any issues that management thinks needs to be addressed and asking for feedback from the neighbors on issues they want to see addressed. Additionally, signage will be placed at the hostess stand inside the front door stating: "Please respect our neighbors and be quiet when leaving. Please be good to our neighborhood." Agenda Item 5A Page 14 of 65 Attachment D Vaughn, Jessica From: Donna Sichko [dsichko@gmafl.com] Sent: Monday, August 15, 2011 2:30 PM To: Vaughn, Jessica Subject: The Tavern Hi Jessica, I just wish to reiterate my comments of June 14, in light of all the "petitioning" happening in the Uni-Hill neighborhood. I am not in support of the current Tavern proposal, and am disappointed that Boulder is being held hostage to their demands of a tam closing. It is irresponsible for Boulder to add yet another late night bar that will release even more students who have been drinking for hours into the neighborhood at tam. If the Tavern wants to run a family and student friendly dining and gathering place, great. All are welcome. With the increase in deaths driven by alcohol and the more and more assualts we are having at late hours, our responsibility to our young people is to not have them out and about at 2am. As a community is profit our driving force or safety to all? Thank you. Donna Sichko Donna'Sichko dsichko@gmail.corn 303-875-1588 Agenda Item 5A Page 15 of 65 Vaughn, Jessica From: Fox, Debbie Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2011 4:16 PM To: Vaughn, Jessica Subject: FW: Hill Tavern Hours -----Original Message----- From: Sarabeth Mitton [mailto:sar-amitt@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2011 4:01 PM To: boulderplanningboard Subject: Hill Tavern Hours To all Board members: I have been a Hill resident since 1975. 1 have been active over the decades in various neighborhood issues. We have faced a great crisis in recent years with activities in the Hill single family residential areas that are direct spin offs from the commercial district activities. The current application for the Tavern Hospitality Group to operate past 11 pm serving alcohol until 1:30 am, with a 2 am close, will be detrimental to us all. I feel the profit viability claim is over stated as other similarly profiled establishments seem to do just fine closing at 11 (such as Ted's Montana Grill - which even has similar menu options, price points, prominent interior bar operation and parking restrictions as the Hill location, though with a more mature decor while still attracting a broad demographic.) We have seen that the more alcohol, especially past midnight, options are on the Hill, the more disruptive and dangerous it has become. This includes changeover of family resident homes to student rentals, more for proximity to entertainment than campus from my observation and the generation of even more house parties as destinations for students from other parts of town for before and after bar visits. The claim that the bars prevent house parties is not credible to those of us who witness the behavior of these nearby groups, starting with Thursday arrival to the neighborhood, and hungover until Sunday departures. Please try to find a compromise with the operators of THG that will make them a better fit for all the residents of the Hill community, which perhaps might look like a midnight close, which might help their bottom line while impacting us less. By tam when the patrons fan out over the Hill already so drunk, excited, sometimes violent and noisy, they are too out of control to be safe. SARA MITTON, 885 Lincoln Place 1 Agenda Item 5A Page 16 of 65 Vaughn, Jessica From: Stephen Sparn [ssparn@sparn.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2011 1:57 PM To: Amy Mountin; hilineighbors@yahoogroups.com Cc: Vaughn, Jessica Subject: RE: [hillneighbors] The Tavern Hospitality Group's Proposed Restraurant Dear Neighbors, We too would like to support the Tavern proposal. Stephen and Linda Sparn 841 Euclid'Ave From: hillneighbors@yahoogroups.com [mailto:hillneighbors@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Amy Mountin Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2011 12:47 PM To: hillneighbors@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [hillneighbors] The Tavern Hospitality Group's Proposed Restraurant We are in full agreement with Steve & Mark. Please add us to list for those in favor of the Tavern. Dan & Amy Poulos 844,14th Street Sent from my iPad Repro sender I Reply to group Reply via web post I Stuart a New 't'opic Messages in this topic (17) .RECENT ACTIVITY: • -New Members 3 Visit Your Group Thank you for participating in the University Hill Neighborhood Association list-serve. Be sure to visit our web site at www.hillneighbors.com or snail-mail us at UHNA, P.O. Box 7168, Boulder, CO 80306. To unsubscribe from this group, email hillneighbors-unsubscribe@egrougs.com S;v,ti.ch to: Text-Only, Daily Digest < Unsubscribe • Terms of Use Agenda Item 5A Page 17 of 65 Vaughn, Jessica From: Thomas Fraser [tomfraser@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2011 1:04. PM To: Vaughn, Jessica Cc: Mark.Gelband@cusys.edu Subject: Tavern on the hill I am writing to voice my support for the proposed new restaurant Tavern on The Hill. My family and I have lived on The Hill for 9 I/2 years. We love the vibrancy that living amongst college students provides. We recognize that this can also have some drawbacks (i.e. noise, garbage and tenant turnover) However, I fell that the propsed restaurant The Tavern would add to the quality of life on The Hill and not be a drawback as some of the naysayers from the area have proposed. In order for the business district to improve it needs some anchor tenants that can attract visitors and families, not simply more fast food and marijuana shops. In order to attract and retain long term family borne owners such as mine an unproved Hill District is imperative. Please register the wishes of my family as in favor of building The Tavern. Sincerely, Tom Fraser, M.D. and Family (Maureen Fraser, Katie Fraser, Libby Fraser) 907 11th Street Boulder CO 80302 - If you would like to talk further my cell # is (720) 352-2946 This interesting email was sent by; Thomas B. Fraser III 1 Agenda Item 5A Page 18 of 65 Vaughn, Jessica From: ronaldamitchell@mai€.com Sent: Monday, August 08, 2011 9:49 PM To: Vaughn, Jessica Hello, I'm Ron Mitchell owner and manager of the International Hostel at 12th and College. I've been living off and on the Hill for 55 years. I do not drink alcohol except on rare occassions. I do not allow alcohol in the Hostel and each guest has to sign a registration card indicating her/she will not bring it into the building. I support the New Restaurant at 14th and College. It is one of the better plans to be submitted in the last ten years. More drunks collapse on my front porch than on any other business on the Hill. They know that if they drive they will lose their licenses and plead to sleep here. If I let them in they urinate and deficate in the beds involuntarily. I routinely, almost weekly, take them to the Alcohol Recovery Center on my time and at my expense, which is less than the cost to clean up the mess they invariably create when they manage to get in once in a while. They usually come from unsupervised house parties in the neighborhood, not the restaurants and well managed bars. I have long years of first hand, in the trenches, experience with the problems of mixing alcohol, hormones, bad judgement, and impractical, unenforcable laws of prohibition. I have served on over 100 Restoritive ]ustice panels and the story is almost alwyas the same--out of control house parties. By bringing more adults over the age of about 22 or 23 to the Hill, more problems will be avoided than created. I strongly support this new business. Ron 1 Agenda Item 5A Page 19 of 65 Vaughn, Jessica From: Maureen McKenzie [maureenboulder a@yahoo.com] Sent: Monday, August 08, 2011 9:18 PM To: Vaughn, Jessica Subject: RE: LUR2011-00032n Hi Jessica, We are University Hill owners living at 1044 Lincoln Place and we support the addition of the Tavern business on the hill including staying open until legally permitted (2:00 a.m.). Maureen & Tim McKenzie 1 Agenda Item 5A Page 20 of 65 Vaughn, Jessica From: Kimberly Dorazewski-Smouse [dorazewski@hotmail, com] Sent: Monday, August 08, 2011 6:35 PM To: Vaughn, Jessica Cc: Mark.Gelband @cusys_edu Subject: The Tavern (on the hill)LUR201100032n I am writing to express full support of The Tavern on the Hill. Even though I am a parent of two very small children and don't frequent restaurants and bars very often at this time in my life, I agree completely with Mark Gelband's view and support of this establishment and of the Hill. Thanks, Kim Smouse 10th street Sent from my iPhone 1 Agenda Item 5A Page 21 of 65 Vaughn, Jessica From: Lisa Nelson [Ignelson@hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, August 07, 2011 10:09 PM To: Vaughn, Jessica Cc: Lisa Shoemaker; Callie Weiant Subject: The Tavern Restaurant on the Hill To Whom it May Concern: I am a resident of the Hill and I am writing to convey my input regarding the proposed Tavern Restaurant on the Hill. I have lived at the intersection of 10th Street and College Avenue for 20 years, and I fully support the application of the Tavern to operate at the renovated site of the old Jones' Drugstore. I believe that one good way to rejuvenate the Hill business district is to locate businesses there that will appeal to families, CU parents, out of town visitors and others who would not otherwise visit the Hill. Also, I think there is a largely unmet need for a place for a good meal in a nice atmosphere within a short walking distance from home for those of us who dive here. That would be a much needed change from the predominance of t-shirt, sandwich and tattoo shops there now. If the city wants to attract more business and more dollars to the Hill, it needs to allow businesses to operate there that people over 18 actually want to patronize. I have visited other locations of the Tavern restaurant in Denver and have found the food good and the environment casual but nice, not too upscale but pleasant and family friendly. In addition, I support the restaurant's request to stay open until 1:30am. Though I am well past my student days, I think it would be great to have a nice place nearby to go for a late drink or bite to eat after a concert or movie. I do not believe that closing earlier will make any appreciable difference in the normal post-bar closing time disruption in the neighborhood. I know that many of the current restaurant owners on the Hill (The Sink, Abo's, Mamacita's, Cosmo's) have worked hard to be responsible neighbors while operating successful businesses and as long as the Tavern operated under the same responsible neighbor protocols, I would have no objection whatsoever to their staying open until 1:30. Thank you for your time, and please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any further questions about my input. Sincerely, Lisa Nelson 1086 10th Street Boulder, CO 80302 (303) 440-5112 1 Agenda Item 5A Page 22 of 65 Vaughn, Jessica From: Kurt Fuhrman [kfuhrman27@gm2i].com] Sent: Saturday, August 06, 2011 9:09 PM To: Scott Bergquist Cc: jenniferbergquist@comcast.net; mail@hillaryr.net; monique@moniquecole.com; james.priby1@1evel1com; ken.wilson@transgridcorisulting.com; william.marine@comcast.net; saramitt@gmail.com; ninadonohue@comcast.net; mutsi@mac.com; dsich@comcast.net; draduziner@gmail.com; elissa.gurainick@colorado.edu; scottgibbons@earthlink.net; lisashoemakerl@msn.com; charles.depuy@colorado.edu; tukes@me.com; jwthayer@gmail.com; swdkm321@comcast.net, Vaughn, Jessica; callieweiant@msn.com; altheal939@hotmail.com; jane5574@msn.com; rick.thayer@level3.com; mitton@colorado.edu; jbstoy@comcast.net; priscilla.corielle@bouldertel.com; cwa.boulder@gmail.com; Prentiss. Donohue@sun.com; ehpearlman@hotmail.corn; kimvoorhees@comcast.net; voorhees@pattonboggs.com; slg55@me.com Subject: Re: [hillneighbors] Tavern Hospitality Group Application I agree with Bill and Scott. Over fifty neighbors have taken a stand against this bar. How many more do you need before you take a stand? We need to be united with a strong single voice against thg and any other bar/restaurant that wants to stay open past I 1 pm. Kurt Fuhnnan On Aug 6, 2011 6:08 PM, "Scott Bergquist" <sbergguist9svb.com> wrote: Agenda Item 5A Page 23 of 65 Vaughn, Jessica From: Surrie Hobart [hobartfrank@comcast.net] Sent: Thursday, August 04, 2011 9.59 AM To: Vaughn, Jessica Subject: Hill Restaurant Hello Jessica- My name is Surrie Hobart. My husband and I have lived on the hill for 11 years. We have three children and love to walk down to the Hill and would love to have another good restaurant choice. The more nice eating choices there are, the more we can support the Hill and balance out the population of people there. i.e. not just students but all ages, families, seniors. Good restaurants improve the`Hill and make it a more desirable place. They do not increase the late night partying. Thank you, Surrie Hobart Agenda Item 5A Page 24 of 65 Vaughn, Jessica From: bonnie madtson [bmadtson@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, August 01, 2011 11:36 AM To: Vaughn, Jessica Cc: LISA SHOEMAKER Subject: The tavern Dear Jessica, Please be advised that my family and I are in favor of the proposed new restaurant The Tavern. We live on 1 Ith Street and Aurora Ave and are neighbors of many college students. We see and hear them as that come and go from their evening activities. However, we would like more family fY-iendly restaurants with in walking distance to our home. We feel strongly that the over supply of "sandwich shops" on the Hill has contributed to the decline of the area as a "family friendly" place. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Sincerely, Bonnie Madtson 303-447-0380 i Agenda Item 5A Page 25 of 65 Vaughn, Jessica From: Kurt Fuhrman [kfuhrman27@gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, July 17, 2011 10:28 PM To: Vaughn, Jessica Cc: - Driskell, David; Brautigam, Jane; Council Subject: Tavern Hospitality Group Management Plan Ms. Vaughn, l just returned from a few days out of town and found that the Tavern Hospitality Group's revised management plan for their- proposed bar in the old Jones Drug location was finally been sent out on July 1 I th. We were told at the June 16th neighborhood meeting that we would receive the revised plan on June 20th. We waited nearly four weeks for the plan, and you are giving us just four days to get our comments to you. At least half of the participants at the meeting were opposed to the size of the proposed bar and to the 2:00 a.tn. closing. We waited patiently to see if the applicants revised their plan in a way that would allow us to support the application, but they have not. We respectfully request at least two weeks to coordinate our opposition and present it to you. The proposal to put a large bar open until 2:00 a.m. on University Hill, a district plagued by riots and and the egregious abuse of alcohol, is a very serious matter. Sincerely, Kurt Fubrxnan 11 11 Cascade Avenue 303-442-7838 1 Agenda Item 5A Page 26 of 65 Vaughn, Jessica From: Kurt Fuhrman [kfuhrman27@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, July 25, 2011 9:49 AM To: Vaughn, Jessica Subject: Re: Opposistion to Tavern on the Hill Attachments: image002.png; image001.png; image004.png-, image003-png; Signatures Opposed to Tav.on the Hill Revised 7.25.2011.doc Good morning Jessica, We heard from several more individuals over the weekend wishing to be included in the opposition letter we sent to you on Friday. Please find attached the full list of names of those opposed to this bar.. Thank you for your assistance. Kurt Fullnnan On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 4:36 PM, Vaughn, Jessica <Vaughn]obouldereolorado.„gou> wrote: Kuri: Thank you for your letter; your comments are greatly appreciated! I will keep you informed as to the status of the applicant's application request. Prior to moving i:orward with the application, I am waiting for the applicant to s14U1 i3it a floor plan that i~3cludes total seating count (inside and out). floor area and patio sire. Please do not hesitate to contact me with any questions regarding this matter or otherwise. Have a great weekend, Jessica Vau-hn, AICP Planner 1/1-listoric Preservation Planner City of Boulder 1739 BroadXa-aV, 3rd Floor PO Box 791 Boulder, CO 80306-0791 t Agenda Item 5A Page 27 of 65 T. 303-441-4161 F_ 303 441-3241 From: Kurt Fuhrman [mailto:kfulirfnan27(d~ niail.coni] Sent: Friday, July 22, 2011 3:42 PM To: Vaughn, Jessica Subject: Opposistion to Tavern on the Hill Jessica, In response to our phone conversation on Monday 7/18, please find attached a letter of opposition along with names of Hill neighbors who are opposed to the plans for The Tavern on the Hill. As discussed we will send you additional names on Monday, 7/25. If you have any questions regarding this email please fill free to give the a call. Thank you for you assistance. Kurt Fuhnnan 303.442.1235 2 Agenda Item 5A Page 28 of 65 To: Jessica Vaughn, Case Manager Re: LUR20 1 1-00032 We the undersigned residents of University Hill support the responsible redevelopment of our business district and look forward to the greater mix of dining and shopping opportunities which redevelopment will bring about. We would welcome the addition of a new restaurant like the Hungry Toad or Carelli's, both of which are successful, have the support of their neighborhoods, and close at 10:00 p.m. We are delighted by the success of Cafe Aion, which closes at 11:00 p.m., and the Irtnisfree Poetry Bookstore and Cafe, new Hill business that should set the tone for redevelopment. We want the University Hill business district to be a safe environment that is compatible with the surrounding residential neighborhood so it can be enjoyed and patronized by all residents of the Hill, as well as the University of Colorado faculty, administrators, and students. We reviewed the Tavern Hospitality Group's Use Review application for a 3,950 square foot restaurant at 1352 College Avenue that will remain open until 1:30 a.m. seven days a week and concluded that this establishment would not further the goal of responsible redevelopment and should not be approved because it does not meet the Use Review criteria as stated in Section 9-2-15(e), B.R.C. 1981. The following are continents on the specific criteria: 9-2-15(e) Criteria for Review: No use review application will be approved unless the approving agency finds all of the following: (2) Rationale: The use either: _ (A) Provides direct service or convenience to or reduces adverse in:pacts to the surrounding uses or neighborhood; The addition of a very large bar that will disperse its patrons at 2:00 a.m. into a neighborhood already plagued by college binge drinking provides neither a direct service nor a convenience. It will increase rather than reduce the amount of noise we now have at bar close as patrons return to their cars and drive through the neighborhood with stereos blaring or walk home yelling and screaming because they are drunk. (B) Provides a compatible transition between higher intensity and lower intensity uses; A bar of this size, dispersing patrons at 2:00 a.m. will exacerbate the late night problems with auto traffic traveling from the high intensity use of the business district to the surrounding residential blocks that separate the business district from the main traffic arteries of Broadway, Baseline, University, and 9th Street. It will also increase the foot traffic that moves through low- density residential blocks to the medium density areas populated heavily by students. (C) Is necessary to foster a specific city policv, as expressed in the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plait, including, without limitation, historic preservation, moderate income housing, residential and nonresidential mixed uses in appropriate locations; and group living arrangetttetrts f or.special populations; or (D) Is an existing legal nonconforming use or a change thereto that is permitted under subsection (f) of this section; The proposed business does neither of these things. It also defies both the letter and the spirit of City Council Resolution 960 by attempting to open a very large, late night bar directly across the street from the university. Agenda Item 5A Page 29 of 65 (3) Compatibility: The location, size, design, and operating characteristics of the proposed development or change to an existing development are such that the use will be reasonably compatible with and have minimal negative impact on the use of nearby properties or for residential uses in industrial zoning districts, the proposed development reasonably mitigates the.potential negative impacts from nearby properties; The location, size, and operating characteristics of the proposed business are not compatible with surrounding businesses, which are much smaller in scale. The only establishment in the immediate vicinity with a liquor license, Illegal Pete's, stops the sate of alcohol at 10:30 p.m. (4)Infrastructure: As compared to development permitted under section 9-6-1, "Schedule of Permitted Land Uses, " B.R.C. 1981; in the zone, or as compared to the existing level of impact of a nonconforming use, the proposed development will not significantly adversely affect the infrastructure of the surrounding area, including, without limitation, water, wastewater, and storm drainage utilities and streets; The greatest infrastructure problem presented by the proposed businesses parking and late night foot and auto traffic. In the revised management plan dated July 8, 2011, the Tavern Hospitality Group states that it will employ 60 full-time staff members, most of whom "will be hired from the nearby con-iniunities of Boulder." Although they plan to offer bus passes to commuters, there are no busses running to nearby communities at 2:00 a.m. or after. The company further states that it is in discussion with Molly Winter for permanent parking passes for employees in the three parking lots on.the Hill that are owned by the city. No patrons or employees will want to risk walking to the lot on Pleasant Street after 2.00 a:m., and neither the lot at 13th and Pennsylvania nor the lot on 14th are large enough to accommodate late-night patrons from the Sink and the Fox Theatre, let alone patrons for the new establishment and it's employees. The management's suggestion that posting a message asking patrons to respect the neighborhood and, return home quietly will salve the problem of drunken patrons noisily returning home is absurd. Every bar on the Hill has a similar sign and they have done nothing to alleviate the problem. In closing, we encourage you and your colleagues in the Planning Department to read two articles that we have attached so you may better understand the problems we as neighbors are facing on the Hill and the danger posed to students by an increase in the number of alcohol outlets in our neighborhood. Both of these articles are from the Harvard College Alcohol Study, which included CU and the City of Boulder. Boulder is Site G in the tables included in the outlet density study. http://www.hspli.harvard.edu/cas/Documents/secondhand/secondliandarticle.pdf http://www.lispli.harvard.edu/cas/DoeLimeiits/GIS/GlSstudy2.pdf 1) Jane Allen-Fenster 852 11th Street 2) Jennifer Berquist 851 14th Street 3) Scott Berquist 851 14th Street 4) David Budz 818 11th Street Agenda Item 5A Page 30 of 65 5) Marsha Budz 818 1 1 th Street 6) Marie Campbell 750 12th Street 7) Martha Campbell 750 12th Street 8) David Contey 840 11 th Street 9) Rose Crowley 1037 9th Street 10) Charles DePuy 1509 Cascade Avenue 1 1) Eleanor DePuy 1509 Cascade Avenue 12) Nina Donohue 615 10th Street 13) Prentiss Donohue 615 10th Street 14) Elizabeth Foreman 945 Lincoln Place 15) Steve Foreman 945 Lincoln Place 16) Kurt Fulu-man 1 ] I I Cascade Avenue 17) Elissa Guralnick 921 15th Street 18) Stanley Guralnick 921 15th Street t9) Jennifer Haney 812 12th Street 20) Patricia Heinz-Pribyl 805 16th Street 21) Philip Higgs 750 l 7th Street 22) Madge Kistner 860 12th Street 23) Louise Knapp 750 13th Street 24) Elaine Kohler 815 13th Street 25) Sally Kornblith 750 13th Street 26) Susan Marine 1005 Lincoln Place 27) William Marine 1005 Lincoln Place 28) Helen Marshall 855 Lincoln Place 29) Helen McKeown 820 12th Street 30) Mark Meyer 1 177 Cascade Avenue Agenda Item 5A Page 31 of 65 31) Jeffry Mitton 885 Lincoln Place 32) Sarabeth Mitton 885 Lincoln Place 33) Jim Pribyl 805 16th Street 34) John Price 765 10th Street 35) Mary Price 765 1 Dili Street 36) David Raduziner 765 14th Street 37) John Roberts 815 13th Street 38) Hillary Rosner 750 17th Street 39) Catherine Roth 840 11 th Street 40) David Shikles 730 Lincoln Place 41) Janet Shikles 730 Lincoln Place 42) Laura Spalding I I I I Cascade Avenue 43) Charles Squier 800 12th Street 44) Jan Squier 800 12th. Street 45) Jaclyn Thayer 725 14th Street 46) Rick Thayer 725 14th Street 47) Clins Thomson 1300 Cascade Avenue 48) Debra Thomson 1300 Cascade Avenue 49) Sharon Tuke 915 15th Street 50) Rosalie Vermiere 1 106 Cascade Avenue 51) Diana Verrilli 765 14th Street 52) John Voorhees 655 121h Street 53) Kim Voorhees 655 12th Street 54) Steven Walsh 915 15th Street 55) Tomozo Yano 1260 Cascade Avenue Agenda Item 5A Page 32 of 65 Vaughn, Jessica From: Susan Marine [swdkm321@comcast.net] Sent: Tuesday, July 12,.2011 8:46 AM To: Vaughn, Jessica Subject: RE: [hillneighbors) FW: 1352 College Avenue/Tavern Hospitality Group Management Plan Attachments: image001.jpg; image002.jpg; irnage003.jpg; image004.jpg Jessica, Thank you for sending out the Tavern's Management Plan. My sole objection to this plan concerns the hours of operation. € am concerned about any new business that wants to serve alcohol until 1:30 in the morning and stay open until 2 a.m. The Hungry Toad, another bar that serves food that has been in operation many years, does not stay open that late. It may be that their profit margin is less because of the earlier closing, but they clearly are a successful business. Susan Marine 1005 Lincoln Place (resident since 1981) From: hillneighbors@yahoogroups.com [mailto:hillneighbors@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Lisa Shoemaker Sent: Monday, July 11, 2011 10:12 PM To: Hill Neighbors Subject: [hillneighbors] FW: 1352 College Avenue/Tavern Hospitality Group Management Plan From: VaugllnJ@bouidercolorado.gov To: VaughnJ@bouldereoloi-ado.gov; mike@mboyers.cotn; FerroC@bouldereolorado-gov Date: Mon, 1 1 Jul 2011 14:10:30 -0600 Subject: 1352 College Avenue/Tavern Hospitality Group Management Plan All: First, I would like to thank you all for participating in the neighborhood meeting! Your comments are extremely helpful and greatly appreciated. Attached please find a copy of the management plan for the Tavern Hospitality Group's proposed restaurant and bar at 1352 College Avenue. 1 have also included the text below. Please review the plan and forward any comments, suggestions or questions on to me at by the end of the business day, Friday July 15. 1 Agenda Item 5A Page 33 of 65 Vaughn, Jessica From: chantal kovach [chantalkovach@yahoo.com] Sent: Monday, July 11, 2011 2:58 PM To: Vaughn, Jessica Subject: Re: 1352 College Avenue/Tavern Hospitality Group Management Plan Attachments: image001.png; image002.png; image003.png; image004.png Hi Jessica, I could not be happier with the level of responsibility this group is taking as they prepare to do business in our neighborhood. Their willingness to give their phone numbers to the UHNA speaks volumes for their hands-on approach in running their taverns. I look forward to being a patron and support this project wholeheartedly. Thanks for sending it along. Chantal Kovach 920 10th Street From: "Vaughn, Jessica" <VaughnJ@bouldercolorado.gov> To: "Vaughn, Jessica" <VaughnJ@bouidercolorado.gov>; "'mike@mboyers.com<mike@mboyers.com>; "Ferro, Charles" <FerroC@bouldercolorado.gov> Sent: Monday, July 11, 2011 2:10 PM Subject: 1352 College Avenue/Tavern Hospitality Group Management Plan Ail: First, I would like to thank you all for participating in the neighborhood meeting! Your comments are extremely helpful and greatly appreciated. Attached please find a copy of the management plan for the Tavern Hospitality Group's proposed restaurant and bar at 1352 College Avenue. I have also included the text below. Please review the plan and forward any comments, suggestions or questions on to me at by the end of the business day, Friday July 15. Again, thank you for your participation, Jessica Vaughn, AICP Planner I/Historic Preservation Planner City of Boulder 1739 Broadway, 3rd Floor PO Box 791 Boulder, CO 84306-0791 T. 303-441-4161 F. 303-441-3241 You NF, u Tavern on The Hill Management Plan July 8, 2011 1 Agenda Item 5A Page 34 of 65 Vaughn, Jessica From: Bbarrettx@aol.com Sent: Monday, July 11, 2011 8:56 PM To: Vaughn, Jessica Subject: Re: 1352 College Avenue/Tavern Hospitality Group Management Plan Attachments: image001.png; image002.png-, image003.png-, image004.png Hi Jessica, Sounds like a great addition to the neighborhood and a different direction from the recent deterioration of the biz district. Thumbs up all around!! Brian Barrett Brian Barrett, RIBA Strategic Real Estate Services Office: 303.441.5605 Mobile: 720.224.4195 Fax: 720.306.3773 Brionb®Boulderco.com Re/Max of Boulder - Boulder, CO www.brion-barrett.com In a message dated 7/11/2011 2:10:35 P.M. Mountain Daylight Time, VoughnJ®bouldercolorado.gov writes: All: First, I would like to thank you all for participating in the neighborhood meeting! Your comments are extremely helpful and greatly appreciated. Attached please. find a copy of the management plan for the Tavern Hospitality Group's proposed restaurant and bar at 1352 College Avenue. I have also included the text below. Please review the plan and forward any comments, suggestions'or questions on to me at by the end of the business day, Friday July 15. Again, thank you for your participation, Jessica Vaughn, AICP Planner I/Historic Preservation Planner City of Boulder 1739 Broadway, 3rd Floor 1 Agenda Item 5A Page 35 of 65 Vaughn, Jessica From: Mark Gelband [Mark.Gelband@cusys.edu] Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2011 2:28 PM To: Bbarrettx@aol.com; william.marine@comcast.net; hillneighbors@yahoogroups.com Cc: chantalkovach@yahoo.com; Vaughn, Jessica Subject: RE: [hillneighbors] Neighborhood meeting Thursday Attachments: image001.jpg; image002.jpg Brian - Thank you for advocating on our behalf. I have emailed Ms. Vaughn at the city to strongly express my support for this restaurant, and I will rally many of our like minded neighbors to attend the meeting this Thursday. I encourage all of our Hill neighbors to consider the relative ghetto the Hill business district has become over the past decade plus because of the very prohibitionist tactics of Mr. Marine and his comrades. More businesses have closed, nuisance and noise tickets have increased, litter has gotten worse and higher vacancy rates continue to pervade the Hill business district. As opportunities for entertainment have decreased, the number of house parties and drunk drivers around our homes has increased. 1P Street is one of three areas in the city zoned Business Main Street, zoning that supports restaurants and entertainment. As someone who frequently walks and rides a bike through the neighborhood with my children, and who regularly patronizes Hill businesses, I am truly disappointed that our Business Main Street has become a dirty hodgepodge of vagrants, MMJ shops, and burrito, sub, and pizza places. And I have sadly watched this happen in concert with the NO, NO, NOs. I would like a more vibrant Main Street that attracts a greater diversity of businesses. Saying "NO" to every good idea that comes around simply because it serves alcohol is flat out ridiculous, and the many other shopping opportunities that have left our neighborhood have left in concert with the prohibition. Quite frankly, I would rather have college aged kids dancing and drinking safely in a bar or restaurant regulated by a community police approach than strewn throughout the neighborhood, driving drunk, having loud house parties. I am not sure what "normal closing hours" mean to Mr. Marine, but according to state law restaurants serving alcohol are allowed to be open until 2 a.m. Of important note as well, I am teetotaler and not interested in having this type of establishment be open late so I can get a drink myself. Keep up the great work, Brian and thanks for keeping us informed. Thanks again, Mark From: Bbarrettx@aol.com [mailto:Bbarrettx@aol.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2011 1:55 PM To: william.marine@comcast.net; hillneighbors@yahoogroups.com Cc: chantalkovach@yahoo.com; Mark Gelband Subject: Re: [hillneighbors] Neighborhood meeting Thursday Dear Mr Marine, You have made a decision to live in a neighborhood bordering a large state university. You have been successfully prohibiting new businesses from opening up in our neighborhood by lobbying for draconian regulations that are not in line with a neighborhood bordering a university. The results have been far from positive. My neighbor friends and I don't feel that it's rational to move into a neighborhood that's not consistent with one's values and then attempt to change the values of the neighborhood. That's a losing game that comes with many unintended consequences. I Agenda Item 5A Page 36 of 65 I'm hopeful that reason will prevail this time around and your latest efforts will be snuffed out. Brian In a message dated 6/1412011 1:38:04 P.M. Mountain Daylight Time, william.marine@comcast.net writes: Dear Brian: I must reply that neither I nor my wife are prohibitionists in contrast to what you may have heard. Just because we seek to keep the restaurant in question to the normal closing hours does not mean we are prohibitionists. We will simply have to let the neighbors decide which one of us is being RATIONAL. Bill From: Bbarrettx@aol.com [mailto:Bbarrettx@aol.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2011 1:25 PM To: william.marine@comcast.net; hilineighbors@yahoogroups.com Cc: chantalkovach@yahoo.com; mark.gelband@cusys.edu Subject: Re: [hilineighbors] Neighborhood. meeting Thursday Dear Neighbors, I and several others are in complete disagreement with Mr Marine on this issue. It is exactly because of Mr Marine and others' short sighted protests that we find ourselves with few quality dining establishments in our neighborhood. Rents are high and businesses are attempting to survive in this economy. To ask a new business to restrict their hours of operation risks us having that restaurant choose another more hospitable location. We lost the restaurant that was planned above Tulagi's and the theatre/food/beverage concept that was to occupy the Flatirons Theatre for the exact same reason. Thanks to the efforts of Mr. Marine and others we have a sub shop and a pot shop in their places and a largely deteriorating business district. I say it's time we take our neighborhood back from the prohibitionists and welcome responsible eating and drinking establishments where liquor consumption can be regulated (as opposed to house parties). 2 Agenda Item 5A Page 37 of 65 Most of us are raising families and are unable to attend meetings like the vocal minority do. This puts rational folks at a big disadvantage in our fight to save the neighborhood. If you can not make the meeting I encourage you to send an email to Jessica Vaughn in the city offices and share your opinion with her.VaughnJ(abouldercolorado.gov Thanks for stepping up to move the Hill in a new and better direction. Brian Barrett 783 13th St In a message dated 6/14/2011 1:03:32 P.M. Mountain Daylight Time, william.marine@comcast.net writes: Dear Neighbors: X hope as many of you as possible will attend the "neighborhood" meeting Thursday (June 16) at 6 PM at Grace Lutheran Church. The purpose of this meeting is to get feedback from the neighborhood on the large restaurant being built where Jones Drug once stood. While we are in favor of the restaurant in general, we are against the Planning Board recommending the hours be extended from 11 PM to 1:30 AM. Our experience is that after 11 PM restaurants essentially turn into bars. When these establishments close their doors, they discharge their noisy patrons onto our streets thus interfering with the quiet enjoyment of our homes on the Hill. Susan and Bill Marine 1005 Lincoln Place 30-year residents of the Hill 303-444-6970 Reply to sender € Reply to group Reply via web post ] Start a New Topic Messages in this topic (1) 3 Agenda Item 5A Page 38 of 65 RECENT. ACTIVITY: Visit Your Group Thank you for participating in the University Hill Neighborhood Association list-serve. Be sure to visit our web site at www.hilineighbors.com or snail-mail us at UHNA, P.O. Box 7168, Boulder, CO 80306. To unsubscribe from this group, email hillneighbors-unsubscribe@egroups.com MARKETPLACE Find useful articles and helpful tips on living with Fibromyalgia. Visit the Fibromyalqia Zone today! 0 Sta on to of our group activity without leaving the page you're on - Get the Yahoo! Toolbar now. n Switch to. Text-Only, Daily Digest . unsubscribe - Terms of use 0 q Agenda Item 5A Page 39 of 65 Vaughn, Jessica From: Danna Taylor [danna.taylor@live.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2011 2:18 PM To: Vaughn, Jessica Subject: the Tavern Hello, I'm writing to you in support of allowing the Tavern to go into the old Jones drug Store space. I would love to see more upscale restaurants on the Hill, especially ones that are welcoming to kids. Please put me down as a YES! vote for allowing them to move in! (I do not care about the late hours of drinking as they would be carding the drinkers who are there) I cannot attend the meeting, but would like my opinion counted. Thank you! Danna Taylor 15th Street Agenda Item 5A Page 40 of 65 Vaughn, Jessica From: Sarabeth Mitton [saramitt@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2011 1:58 PM To: Vaughn, Jessica Subject: Restaurant on the Hill As a long time resident of the Hill, I object to the proposed restaurant/tavern on the hones Drug site being allowed to stay open past 11pm. Not only will this be a bar, in reality, it will draw large groups into the residential neighborhoods either drunk, on foot, from rental houses or drunk in cars parked near our homes. This will increase the pressure to turn family homes into student rentals in order to allow even more irresponsible students to congregate on our streets. Not all students are irresponsible and not all bar patrons are students, but a dining establishment serving alcohol, with no other agenda, would be happy to close at 11. Extended hours will ramp up the destruction of this residential district. Thanks, SARA MITTON, 885 Lincoln Place. 1 Agenda Item 5A Page 41 of 65 Vaughn, Jessica From: Donna Sichko [dsichko@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2011 1:56 PM To: bbarrettx@aol.com Cc: Vaughn, Jessica; Bill Marine Subject: Re: [hillneighbors] Neighborhood meeting Thursday Dear Brian, I can tell from your address that you are more removed from the bar closing parades of drunk, yelling and verbally abusive students, than I am. And although my children are grown, I can assure you that I have never taken them to a fine 'dining establishment between the hours of• llpm and lam. Nor have my husband and I visited such for a meal during those hours, as we too were busy home, raising our family. Having participated in CU Restorative Justice program for several years, I can assure you that drinking establishments do not reliably monitor how much young people drink. Young adults have stated: 18+ drinks to I do not know how much I drank, when queried about whether alcohol contributed to bad behavior. We as a community are direlict in keeping our young people safe. Further as the crime in our neighborhood escalates, the best place for students.in the wee hours of the morning is home. Let's have The Hill support daytime and early evening venues all of us might enjoy and participate in. I support limiting the hours for serving alcohol to all new venues on The Hill. Regards, -Donna' Donna Sichko dsichkoPgmail.com 303-875--1588 On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 1:24 PM, <bbarrettx tc,aol.com> wrote: Dear Neighbors, and several others are in complete disagreement with Mr Marine on this issue. It is exactly because of Mr Marine and others' short sighted protests that we find ourselves with few.quality dining establishments in our neighborhood. Rents are 1 Agenda Item 5A Page 42 of 65 high and businesses are attempting to survive in this economy- To ask a new business to restrict their hours of operation risks us having that restaurant choose another more hospitable location- We lost the restaurant that was planned above Tulagi's and the theatre/food/beverage concept that was to occupy the Flatirons Theatre for the exact same reason. Thanks to the efforts of Mr. Marine and others we have a sub shop and a pot shop in their places and a largely deteriorating business district. 1 say it's time we take our neighborhood back from the prohibitionists and welcome responsible eating and drinking establishments where liquor consumption can be regulated (as opposed to house parties). Most of us are raising families and are unable to attend meetings like the vocal minority do_ This puts rational folks at a big disadvantage in our fight to save the neighborhood. If you can not make the meeting I encourage you to send an email to Jessica Vaughn in the city offices and share your opinion with her.VaughnJo_bouidercolorado.gov Thanks for stepping up to move the Hill in a new and better direction. Brian Barrett 783 13th St In a message dated 6114/2011 3 :03:32 P_M. Mountain Daylight Time, william.marine@comcast.net writes: Dear Neighbors: I hope as many of you as possible will attend the "neighborhood" meeting Thursday (June 16) at 6 PM at Grace Lutheran Church. The purpose of this meeting is to get feedback from the neighborhood on the large restaurant being built where Jones Drug once stood. While we are in favor of the restaurant in general, we are against the Planning Board recommending the hours be extended from 11 PM to 1:30 AM. Our experience is that after 11 PM restaurants essentially turn into bars. When these establishments close their doors, they discharge their noisy patrons onto our streets thus interfering with the quiet enjoyment of our homes on the Hill. Susan and Bill Marine 1005 Lincoln Place 30-year residents of the Hill 303-444-6970 Reply to sender Reply to group Reply via web post j Start a New Topic Messages in this topic (2) RECENT ACTIVITY: Visit Your Group Thank you for participating in the University Hill Neighborhood Association list-serve. Be sure to visit our web site at www.hillneighbors.com or snail-mail us at UHNA, P.O. Box 7168, Boulder, CO 80306. 2 Agenda Item 5A Page 43 of 65 To unsubscribe from this group, email hillneighbors-unsubscribe@eqroups.com Switch to: Text-Only; Daily Digest < Unsubscribe • Terms of Use 3 Agenda Item 5A Page 44 of 65 Vaughn, Jessica From: Mark Gelband [Mark.Gelband@cusys.edu] Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2011 9:25 AM To: Vaughn, Jessica Cc: Bbarrettx@aol.com Subject: New Restaurant on Hill - 1352 College Dear Ms. Vaughn, As a long time Hill resident, I enthusiastically support the proposed restaurant at 1352 College. We have missed several opportunities to broaden the offerings for young families and the community- Many of us who live in the neighborhood and frequently patronize businesses on the Hill would welcome more dining choices that include opportunities for entertainment. Thank you for your consideration. Kind regards, i Mark Gelband 505 College Ave, 80302 303-522-1192 1 Agenda Item 5A Page 45 of 65 Vaughn, Jessica From: Bbarrettx@aol.com Sent: Monday, June 13, 2011 7:16 PM To: Vaughn, Jessica Subject: New Restaurant on the Hill Hi Jessica, received your contact info from a neighbor of mine on the Hill. Please count me and my family as big supporters of the proposed new restaurant up here. We need more of this. We're also in full favor of no liquor restrictions as restricted liquor sales/hours make it difficult for a business of this sort to thrive. I'm hopeful that we can make this happen though most of us are busy working and raising families so we may not be able to compete with the vocal minority that's sure to show up at the meeting. Thanks, Brian Barrett 783 13th St Brian Barrett, MBA Strategic Real Estate Services Office: 303.441.5605 Mobile: 720.224.4195 Fax: 720.306.3773 Brionb@Boulderco.com Re/Max of Boulder - Boulder, CO www.brion-barrett.com 1 Agenda Item 5A Page 46 of 65 Vaughn, Jessica From: chris wirth [chris@libertypuzzles.com] Sent: Monday, June 13, 2011 5:38 PM To: Vaughn, Jessica Subject: support for new restaurant at 1352 College Hi Jessica, As a resident of Uni Hill (953 11th Street) and local small business owner, I am writing in support of this new restaurant. The Hill could well use a proven owner in this new location, and we will definitely be eating there! I don't think another restaurant serving alcohol "late" (1:30) will have any effect whatsoever on the existing noise and crime on Uni Hill. What BPD should really be doing is more bike patrols at night. Just my opinion. But YES on the restaurant! Thank you for your public service! Chris Wirth v 953 11th Street Christopher Wirth Liberty Puzzles 2526 49th Street Boulder, CO 80301 (303) 444-1442 www.libertypuzzles.com 1 Agenda Item 5A Page 47 of 65 Vaughn, Jessica From: sage wirth [sage@threegracesdesign.com] Sent: Monday, June 13, 2011 5:20 PM To: Vaughn, Jessica Subject: new resturant Hi Jessica, I live on the hill with my three children and we would love a new restaurant on the hill, so we support the new restaurant at 1352 college. Thanks Sage Wirth Agenda Item 5A Page 48 of 65 Vaughn, Jessica From: rnaureen fraser [fraser.maureen@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, June 13, 2011 5:02 PM To: Vaughn, Jessica Subject: Support for restaurant at 1352 College Please add my name to the list of supporters of the restaurant at 1352 College. Myself and my family would like to be able to "eat local" and more choices would be appreciated-thank you! Fraser Family 907 11 th Street Boulder, CO 80302 1 Agenda Item 5A Page 49 of 65 Vaughn, Jessica From: chantal kovach [chantalkovach@yahoo.com] Sent: Monday, June 13, 2011 2:02 PM To: -Vaughn, Jessica Subject: Support for restaurant at 1352 College Hi Jessica, As a hill resident and landlord of 3 hill properties, I just wanted to add my wholehearted SUPPORT for the new restaurant on the hill. We need more great businesses that legitimately cater to the needs of all of the hill residents, and this business fits the bill. Please add me to your list of supporters for this project. Thanks! chantal kovach 920 10th Street i Agenda Item 5A Page 50 of 65 Vaughn, Jessica From: Bob Duncan [BobDuncan@greencourtepartners.comI Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2011 9:06 AM To: Vaughn, Jessica Subject: Tavern Hospitality Group Use Review .Jessica, I am part of the ownership group of 1310 College Ave., and received a notice of a Use Review meeting for the above applicant. Would it be possible for you to e-mail a copy of the application? Thank you, Bob Duncan Bob Duncan Managing Director Green Courte Partners, LLC 840 South Waukegan Road, Suite 222 Lake Forest, IL 60045 847-582-9405 1 Agenda Item 5A Page 51 of 65 Vaughn, Jessica From: Jane Stoyva 5bstoy@comeast.net] Sent: Sunday, May 29, 2011 10:03 PM To: Vaughn, Jessica Cc: mike@mboyets.com Subject: tavern hospitality group neighborhood restaurant Jessica and Members of the Planning Department: am contacting you regarding Frank Schultz's proposed project the Tavern Neighborhood Restaurant which would be located at 1352 College Avenue. Some weeks ago, I attended a presentation about the restaurant organized by Michael Boyers, a developer you have worked with on Hill properties. Mr Schultz and his associates presented an excellent discussion about the project, including photographs of the Denver restaurant upon which it would be based, drawings, and architectural models. The presentation was impressive, as was the business group itself. A neighbor who is on the faculty at the Leeds School of Business also attended the meeting. She later commented that the group seemed knowledgeable and sophisticated. My impression has been that the group's professionalism is far superior to that of many enterprises which have in the past applied for use permits, but have not really been prepared to be good members of the Hill community. Michael Boyers, who has organized the review process, has done so with great transparency and concern for the neighborhood. He is a trusted developer with an excellent track record. Sincerely, Jane Stoyva 1004 Lincoln Place Boulder, CO 80302 303-443-5592 1 Agenda Item 5A Page 52 of 65 Vaughn, Jessica From: Katie Zug Volkmar [katiezugvolkmar@yahoo.com] Sent: Friday, May 20, 2011 4:13 PM To: Vaughn, Jessica Subject: Proposted Tavern Hospitality Group Neighborhood Restaurant To Whom It May Concern: Re: Tavern Hospitality Group Neighborhood Restaurant at 1352 COLLEGE AVENUE I am a member .ofthe University Hill Neighborhood Association (UHNA) Executive Committee (EC), but I am writing this as an individual, private citizen. Through my association with the UHNA-EC, I was able to meet with Michael Boyers' development group and members of the Tavern team. My husband has also eaten at the Tavern's Washington Park location in Denver and had a very positive experience. I feel that this proposed restaurant would make a great addition to The Hill and help revitalize the area. Sincerely, Katie Volkmar 1590 Cascade Ave Boulder CO 80302 1 Agenda Item 5A Page 53 of 65 Vaughn, Jessica From: William Marine [wilIiam.marine@comcast. net] Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2011 3:31 PM To: Vaughn, Jessica Subject: Tavern Hospitality Group request Dear Jessica: I have just become aware that we need to get comments in to you by the 20'h so consider this a neighbor of 30 years standing at 1005 Lincoln Place objection to the closing time requested. After 11 PM, these facilities turn into a defacto BAR so it is a joke to say food is available. The size of the restaurant is also a problem for me and consider this a request to have a hearing if the Planning Board approves this request. William Marine 1005 Lincoln Place Boulder, CO 80302 PS: I note that you apparently sent this out to the UNHA executive committee which did NOT forward this to the Hill Neighbors list serve. Apparently there will be a "tour" offered on May 281h by the Tavern Hospitality Group but, of course, this is over a week too late for any comments to be received. 1 Agenda Item 5A Page 54 of 65 Re: LUR2011 2 We the undersigned( residents ofUniversity"support the responsible redevelopment of our business district and look forward to the greater mix of db&g and shopping opportunities which redevelopment will bring about. We, trio, are delighftdty ft success of Cafe Aion and the Innisfree Poetry Bookstore and Cafe, new Hill businesthat are a welcome mix to the revolving door of fast food places -pizza, subs, tacos and burritos. We want the University Hill business district to be a safe environment that is compatible with the surrounding residential neighborhood, so it can be enjoyed and patronized by all residents of the Hill, as well as the University of Colorado faculty, administrators, and students. We reviewed the Tavern Hospitality Group's Use Review application for a 3,950 square foot restaurant at 1352 College Avenue that will remain open until 1:30 a.m. seven days a week and concluded that this establishment would not only be another welcome addition to our long ailing neighborhood, but also clearly meets the city's zoning criteria for Business Main Street. The applicable language from usage code 9-6-5 reads as follows: (2) Restaurants and Taverns in the University Hill General Improvement District within the BMS Zoning District: The following criteria apply to restaurants and tavern uses permitted as a conditional use or pursuant to a use review in the BMS zoning district that is also located within the University Hill General Improvement District: (A) Meeting With Surrounding Property Owners Required: Restaurant and tavern owners and operators shall be required to organize and participate in a good neighbor meeting with the surrounding property owners pursuant to section 9-2-4, "Good Neighbor Meetings and Management Plans," B.R.C. 1981. (B) Preparation and Distribution of a Proposed Management Plan: The owner or operator shall prepare a proposed management plan, pursuant to section 9-2-4, "Good Neighbor Meetings and Management Plans," B.R.C. 1981, and present it to the surrounding property owners at the neighbor meeting. When making further reference to 9-2-4, it is very clear that the Tavern has met the criteria spelled out with regards to both the Good Neighbor Requirement and Management Plan. Further, in review of the management plan, we see that the Tavern ownership group has a sincere desire to be a concerned, responsible and valued neighbor. Code does require these special requirements, which have clearly been met in this case and the Tavern ownership's commitment. We the undersigned would like to see an approach to approving businesses on the Hill, one that follows the intent of city code, seeks to diversify the businesses on the Hill, creates some great anchor businesses that are economically viable, and trusts that responsible business owners will work with the city, patrons, the police, neighbors, other business owners and the university to help create a more respectful, responsible, diverse and economically sustainable Hill. We support the Tavern and their honest intent to bring a vibrant business to our neighborhood. - Agenda Item 5A Page 55 of 65 Supporters List Mark Gelband Courtney Loveman And family 505 College Ave Monique Cole Phil Mislinski And family 808 10th St Bill Shrum 1055 8t' Street University of Colorado Student Government Mark Kovach Chantal Kovach And Family 920 10th Street Frank Langan Tracy Mayo 1315 cascade Steven Morgan Roxanne Morgan 830 14`x' Brian Barrett Camilla Barrett And family 783 13' Kim Smouse 10th Street, between Euclid and Aurora Gail Austin John Austin 848 10th St Katie Volkmar John Volkmar 1590 Cascade Ave Agenda Item 5A Page 56 of 65 Cynthia Schilling And family Nan Bunce 1333 Cascade Dan Poulos Amy Poulos 844 14th Street Steve Colby And family 738 14' Tom Fraser, M.D. and Family (Maureen Fraser, Katie Fraser, Libby Fraser) 907 11 th Street Boulder CO 80302 Stephen Sparn Linda Spam 841 Euclid Ave Jerry Herrmann Eva Herrmann 928 10th Street Danna Taylor 821 15th Street Madelyn Clair Husband And family 1516 Columbine Ave Allan Wolfe Marta Wolfe 72013 th Street Ronald Mitchell Hill Hostel Chad Stamm Allison Stamm 826 North Street, Unit B Chris Wirth Sage Wirth Agenda Item 5A Page 57 of 65 And Family 453 11th St Heather Girard 1440 Findlay Way Boulder, CO 80305 Agenda Item 5A Page 58 of 65 Name Address email (optional) i t-116 lftftnt- x d gue, 3 I- L i,-1 112.2 leers J s tiro C 1 ~ -er a► 16) ANO r,,upeie Aw qos6 t o, 1 -3 s (n Q V,- d50 60 U T t r V~ r u vt .5 h l d d C,05 P'30J e,(, U 1 n C C~ edcJ (31 -37- NA 'StAA '14!4 14 LcD, t qe\A CCA JA Agenda Item 5A Page 59 of 65 Name Address email (optional) 1~ euc stih Io o Lh" N I ~ e~ v3 CoZ~`'` I \-j C~ r u 1(Z5 G ~~~blh jalAcc, Mj'k If/L, s f 3 -54/, zv ~vlA~ 2 2-- nv fa-&- cl I l'-1 ll( d k 1 ful i 1 Ca V-?YTL ~e Ilve 0 r! A-f DRV64-E r f 22 ern o- llga 05 ~ 501A Agenda Item 5A Page 60 of 65 nic, pau N 1-M or y { ; <41 5~ . ~3c~uttT~ tv t~3~ i ' 4s5~ Cf'j ~ U I c s -Prf /L g ; i t t o g n/ICI~p f ' E. E go 40ii~z, i~ 177 i j j i S7_ oP dr-ems. # ' ~u ~t •032 ' -7,D tln i AAM~ ~ C'.~ ~S.e ~1 D ~.,L' v U ~ ~ ~ ©n-~-~v lr. S ~7'Y , ~f~v©Pc a~ owe (20 k Agenda Item 5A Page 61 of 65 Name Address email (optional) a~~ ( 477 C r'Y ~c~r Svc `~"f't~- ~ L?5~► ~ ~v~ ~ v RvuoL. G~ o so d A AO: r rn l l t c t l~ 715 e" 441 A-N -te bra r-- 70 6`h -24- ~0 5t 0 Ls 0-1 1 e, 5 t ~ ~ 1 cc ,c I td -P a 0 713 Z' 20 1 Agenda Item 5A Page 62 of 65 Name Address email (optional) I Olt M/M .Cow :,dot t! ti r 14 7eyr wore} IOWA;) li t V o soU ~n ;r CU ~n 1 . e yy1 ~o ~nn SfGWa~ SS auAOZ4. ave --tEG7y.? e ~Q~+ Asa ,ua i F 0~~1 CL,10) 3q t /Y1LGE~ fi ~~GL ~r~l.n ~di~G keo .:aw SGT \U~C3 L;~c ~1h 0.e_ ScA`C c~~• c~ Lxw ~ Qonovaxx IV/) Pc*i In S ! VOA iOL /4ve t~U l ►ncva-n GO. con, ~to,~ti~ItLt.. l.t~ to l t•~ 1C . d )L coo Up. v vcm Y o~~ 1 V-7i 'env,k.r.vGIn ~w~ -r'X-ka) f i ~51 Lm [ K ~l -f S IDE U~ 01 ® VlA 1 J. E ~£Erv End l ( c D mace 3 cal u .iiupy-A t 5 65ulhl z~ 1114 12tk 5+-. Agenda Item 5A Page 63 of 65 J AS -4~i uDUCA]w _ -joUSTo~c .-bU) a HoL4S-L-6-) go so 3EY,4i~od G~h u~ E, c, 4 L~`rr~ er , c.Q~ L l S 1. S ~v,~J In 3 n 1 e cc r, ~Uw~fi , c~ r 'WA5 '&102' i L m cNLf ? g 1 L G~r'_ L ?kD 3 I> Z r < i :rSr; 192 S i s Be i ss Lf Z 1'~ St 8"0 3c~ 2 C t6L r7t-- &A ~?3b~- ~ia~'u~~ar►rncxa~_~`,n { jelonie Rya '~$O 100 1 f f t'1 ~~,~t l w'LA11rvt L- AvRA FA ilkkf, t 1 L4 03 C-sELXtyzl 6ouLoti.e ea' L-AL/Cl+F/K, 99L.cr y ~~e~~.Y ,PS,€~,,c ~ L'~s~-r,~e. rclee ~ ~8~►oc~.~t ~c.rc~~~n~•r~ , j ~ t t + 1 t 'M-" St 0,0 r s b 701 - c 1471, c ro 6e,+-- Mc~ d La-ti..~. vd a- C6 Q ~Ci'~etYl (PS l.~' s 1o y /del co Ica, v n bv(dir L6 f i 2Q Agerkla Item SA Page 64 of 65 V Name Address email (optional) Mac &QO. bdr6ttGrO:SSMcvf 1W C-4-~r-,Je- ive:, ~o 507- 661 qa -3 90-IS [6 +ti s14- 645 ` zz 7, u t../ 1 E' RAb -inA A Nf rM ~4 St ~A, ~b 4~) j"AA 4k-." Attx4,,dCr JNAA4 NO L& 0 Vol S, 1A . oo i"t %Z C~ SCE c e UN Agenda Item 5A Page 65 of 65 CITY OF BOULDER PLANNING BOARD AGENDA ITEM MEETING DATE: October 6, 2011 AGENDA TITLE: Public hearing to consider Site Review, LUR2011-00028, for the proposed residential redevelopment of 1.44 acres located at 955 Broadway and 1715 Aurora Ave. zoned Residential-High 5 (RH-5). The proposal includes two, three-story, 35-foot tall buildings with 39 attached residential units and an independent fraternity meeting space comprised of 2,305 sq. ft. The applicant has requested the following modifications to the Land Use Code: Setback Modifications pursuant section 9-7, "Form and Bulk Standards," B.R.C. 1981: Front Yard Setback from 25 feet to 8.5 feet Side Adjacent to Street Setback from 12.5 feet to 7.5 feet Side Yard Interior Setback from 10 feet to 3.5 feet Rear Yard Setback from 25 feet to 5.5 feet Parking Reduction pursuant section 9-2-14, "Site Review," B.R.C. 1981: 28%; 112 parking spaces are required, 81 are provided Applicant: Mike Boyers Property Owner: Colorado Acacia Fraternity House (955 Broadway) Beta Kappa Association (1715 Aurora) REQUESTING DEPARTMENT: Community Planning & Sustainability David Driskell, Executive Director Charles Ferro, Land Use Review Manager Jessica Vaughn, Planner I OBJECTIVE: Define the steps for Planning Board consideration of this request: 1. Hear Staff and Applicant presentations 2. Hold Public Hearing 3. Planning Board discussion 4. Planning Board action to recommend approval, approval with conditions or denial Agenda Item 5B Page 1 of 108 SUMMARY: Proposal: Site Review proposal to redevelop an existing 1.44 acre site with two, three-story buildings with 39 residential attached dwelling units, an independent fraternity meeting space and a 28% parking reduction. Project Name: Acacia House Redevelopment Location: 955 Broadway and 1715 Aurora Size of Tract: 1.44 acres (62,537 sq. ft.) Zoning: RH-5 (Residential High-5) Comprehensive Plan: HDR (High Density Residential) kh, t; 955 Broadway r i F r j k v I! Y k ~ F W 71, Aurora Avenue L 1715 Aurora Avenue S _ _ i ` F mil Jr Vicinity Map KEY ISSUES Staff has identified the following key issues regarding the proposed application request and has provided responses below under the "Analysis" section of this memo. 1. Is the proposed development consistent with the Site Review criteria set forth in section 9- 2-14(h), "Site Review," B.R.C. 1981? Agenda Item 513 Page 2 of 108 2. Is the proposed parking reduction consistent with the criteria for parking reductions set forth in section 9-2-14(h), "Site Review," B.R.C. 1981? 3. Are the proposed modifications to the setbacks consistent with the surrounding neighborhood? PROCESS Pursuant to section 9-2-14, "Site Review," B.R.C. 1981, Site Review and Concept Plan are required for developments exceeding 20 dwelling units in the RH-5 zone district. Additionally, pursuant to section 9-9-6(f)(2), B.R.C. 1981, parking reductions for residential projects must be considered through the Site Review process per section 9-2-14, B.R.C. 1981. Pursuant to section 9-4-2, "Development Review Procedures, " B.R.C. 1981, applications for Site Review are a staff level decision with a 14-day Planning Board call-up. In this case, given the public interest and the unique integrated fraternity use, staff decided it would be appropriate for the development proposal to be referred to the board for public hearing. Pursuant to section 9-7- 2(b)(1), "Planning Board Review and Recommendation," B.R.C. 1981, the city manager shall refer to the Planning Board any application for a development review which requires a board decision as required by section 9-2-14, Site Review, B.R.C. 1981 and any other application that the city manager deems appropriate. BACKGROUND Project History In January 2011, a Pre-application review request was submitted for staff review. The development proposal at that time reflected the current Concept Plan proposal and included two, three-story buildings with podium parking and 38 units. Staff issued comments that identified the following key issues: (1) clarification of the proposed fraternity use; (2) the podium parking along the 17th Street frontage in terms of creating an active and attractive street level fagade; and (3) the requested parking reduction. On February 22, 2011 the applicant submitted an application for Concept Plan review as required by the code. As part of the review, staff identified the following key issues: • Fraternity Use - The code considers traditional fraternity and sorority uses as independent residential dwelling unit types and are allowed by-right in several residential zone districts, including the RH-5 zone district. Since the proposed fraternity model deviates from the traditional fraternity use, the staff analysis focused on the integration of a fraternity use into a multi-family apartment development. Special consideration was given to parking and the need for specific conditions of approval as well as a management plan to minimize the impacts on the surrounding neighborhood. • Building Design - Podium parking and the quality of the landscape treatments in the courtyards and paseo; - Streetscape along 17th, including the treatment of blank wall expanses; - The use of high quality building materials in conjunction with a simplified design; - The recessed building corner at 171h and Broadway; and Agenda Item 513 Page 3 of 108 The Broadway building fagade and entry. On April 7, 2011, Planning Board considered the Concept Plan proposal for the redevelopment of 955 Broadway. As part of their review, the board identified the following key issues- • Fraternity Use - Generally, the board was supportive of the proposed fraternity use and its operating characteristics stating that uses change over time with social trends and that new ideas of old concepts are welcome; and - In order to activate the Broadway entrance and to create more of a `storefront' feel the board recommended considering moving the fraternity meeting space to Broadway instead of its proposed location along Aurora Ave. • Building Design - Podium parking and the negative impacts on the quality of on site open space and the resulting blank wall expanses; and ` t SOUTH BUILDING A NORTH BUILDING - - - a 35 Illustration 1: Concept Plan Elevation along 17th Street - The recessed building corner at the prominent intersection of Broadway and 17th Street does not hold the corner, but rather creates blank spaces at the pedestrian level. Agenda Item 513 Page 4 of 108 I 1 NORTH BUILDING - - i WF I A7, 1 f^' r r s ryI X J C . 17S T - _t - - I 81{p~Ar Illustration 2- Concept Plan Elevation from 17th Street and Broadway • Materials (see Illustration 3 below) - Limited amount of high quality, timeless materials should be utilized to create a unified, elegant building-, and - Four sided architecture should be utilized, materials should wrap the building on all sides, including the alley and courtyards. Agenda Item 5B Page 5 of 108 Hardi Plank Metal Accent Glass stucco Wood I \ "Concrete Block Illustration 3: Concept Plan Proposed Materials • 17th Street Streetscape (see Illustration 4 below) - The lack of unit entries at grade or other visual interest combined with blank walls and void space below decks that result from the podium parking, prohibits the creation of an active, attractive streetscape. Agenda Item 513 Page 6 of 108 1 ti' P~2 i SIXIT~i BUILDING C r,. _ q r f r ♦E A - - t I I ' I ~ ~ j.d 1~~'•1 nN"t~t t7 i 17TH STREET Illustration 4: Concept Plan Elevation from Aurora Avenue and 17'1 Street On April 18, 2011 the applicant submitted a development proposal request for Site Review. Agenda Item 5B Page 7 of 108 Site Context Located in the University Hill neighborhood, near the P = University of Colorado campus, 955 Broadway and 1715 Aurora Avenue (the Site) are both zoned RH-5 (Residential High-5). The RH-5 zone district is defined .f 955 6roaavvay RH-5 as "High density residential areas primarily used for a variety of types of attached residential units, including, 1 without limitation, apartment buildings, and where . complementary uses may be allowed" (section 9-5- 1715 Aurora Avenue r~~ Y •-t 2(c)(1)(F), B.R.C. 1981. As shown by Figure 1 Aurora Avenue located to the left, the zoning of the surrounding RL-1 V~4 - properties transitions from the RH-5 zone to the L r r~ RM-2 r E-1 Residential Medium-2 and Residential Low-1 zone - rte, districts, both of which allow lower densities than the RH-5 zone district. Within a 500-foot radius of the site are zone district densities ranging from 6.2 du/acre to 27.2 du/acre- Surrounding uses are predominantly residential in nature, including fraternities, apartments and single-family residences-, however, a handful of nonresidential uses also exist, including religious ~r assemblies and University Hill Elementary. The site is also subject to varying topography with 4EI. 5422 4 approximately 20 feet of grade change between Aurora Avenue and Broadway as shown by the topographical' , ma located (Figure 2 to the right. ~ 01 Both 955 Broadway and 1715 Aurora have a Boulder * *r Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP) Land Use Designation of High Density Residential (HR). The !l k _ n BVCP defines the HR land use as residential areas El. 5441 where the density is more then 14 dwelling units per acre. The BVCP makes the assumption that whiles,. densities may vary within a particular land use r designation within small areas, the average density _ should be maintained for that classification. As shown ' in Figure 3 located to the left, a variety of Boulder a Valley Land Use Designations are located in near 955 Broadway proximity to the site, including directly adjacent high Pdensity residential, medium density and public land use designations. Given the site's close proximity to the Pxros HR university and the aforementioned surrounding mix of uses, the adjacent streets ' are subject to a high demand for on-street I Aurora Avenue o P -~i MLJI,_ parking. The project site is not located within L 1715 Aurora Avenue I o Q the University Hill General Improvement cn NIR - District or within a Neighborhood Parking - iZ ❑ 1-y LR ❑ i i I I I 1 ~.J Agenda Item 5B Page 8 of 108 Permit Program, and there are no other restrictions on on-street parking along 17th Street and Aurora Avenue. The availability of on-street parking is limited during normal business and school hours, 8 a.m. to 3 p.m.; however, after 5 p.m. on-street parking is available. In 2006, CU surveyed students regarding their transportation habits (refer to Attachment E). The survey indicates that of the students that commute to school, 82% report not having a parking permit for the CU campus and that of those commuting, 22% park on residential streets that are not metered. However, the survey also suggests that after normal school and work hours, more on-street parking is available due to the decrease in demand adjacent to campus. A more detailed analysis related to parking can be found below in the "Analysis" portion of this memorandum. PROPOSAL The applicant's proposal is for the redevelopment of an existing 1.44 acre site, comprised of two properties, 955 Broadway and 1715 Aurora. The development proposal includes the construction of two, three-story residential buildings, a 49,257 square foot building on the east side of the site fronting Broadway (the north building) and a 52,723 square foot building on the west side of the site fronting Aurora Ave (the south building). Together the two buildings will provide 39 one, two, three and four bedroom attached residential apartment units, 22 units in the north building and 17 units in the south building. On-site parking is proposed in two, partially subgrade, podium parking garages; however, since the required parking (112 spaces) would not be provided on site, a 28% parking reduction has been requested as a part of the development proposal. Open space is provided throughout the project in the form of both public, shared and private open spaces. Private balconies are proposed for each of the individual units. Shared open space is proposed in two at grade landscaped and hard scaped courtyards with restricted resident access as well as an open paseo that provides connectivity of the site with the surrounding neighborhood. As shown in the table below, on- site open space will be provided in a quantity that is in excess of what is required by code. The proposed spaces are intended to provide relief to the density proposed on the site and to proivde inviting outdoor spaces for residents. There are a limited number of modifications to the form and bulk standards associated with the development proposal, including a parking reduction and setback modifications. The following table illustrates a summary of the intensity standards as they are applied to this project as well as the requested modifications to the form and bulk standards pursuant section 9-7, "Form and Bulk Standards," B.R.C. 1981. Agenda Item 5B Page 9 of 108 RH-5 Zone District Development Standards Summary for 955 Broadway Site Review Proposal Required Proposed Intensity Standards Maximum Density 27.2 du/acre 27.0 du/acre 1.44 acre lot with 39 units Maximum Stories 3 3 Open Space 600 s . ft. per dwelling unit 22,800 sq. ft. 24,525 sq. ft. Form and Bulk Standards Minimum Parking 1.5 spaces per 2 bedroom x 1 112 81 2 spaces per 3 bedroom unit x 3 (28% reduction) 3 spaces per 4 bedroom unit x 35 Minimum Setback Front (Broadway) 25' 85 Side Interior (Alley) 10' 35 Side Adjacent (17th Street) 125 75 Rear Aurora Avenue 25' 55 The development proposal also includes two principal uses, attached multi-family residential and a fraternity use. Both uses are allowed by-right in the RH-5 zone district. As indicated by the applicant's plans (Attachment A) the proposal includes a 2,305 square foot fraterntiy use in the south building. While the proposed fraternity model is unique, it will provide the same group amenities traditionally associated with fraternity uses including meeting space, kitchen and group dining facilities, study areas and social activity spaces. Per the applicant's written statement found in Attachment B, the traditional fraternity model of a single-family home with shared facilities and communal living is outdated and is shifting to accommodate changing economic social needs and to recruit new members. While fraternity uses are not specifically defined by the Boulder Revised Code, they are classified as a residential use with group living quarters and therefore the proposed fraternity use is consistent with the code and the site's zoning. Per the conditions of approval on page 16 of this memo, the fraternity use will have six units in the south building reserved exclusively for members of the fraternity as well as one unit for a full time resident advisor. The remiander of the units will function independently of the fraternity use and may or may not be rented by fraternity members. Recognizing that the term "fraternity" is not defined by the code; no specific operational characteristics or performance standards are required; however, the applicant has prepared a detailed manangement plan (Attachment C) and agrees to the conditions set forth in this memo. The management plan will be recorded with the Boulder County Clerk and Recorder's Office along with the development agreement and the dispostion of approval (with conditions). The management plan will run with the property and be applicable to any future operators. If the current or future operator wishes to amend the management plan or the conditions of approval, a Site Review Amendment (subject to neighborhood review and comments and Planning Board call up) would be required. Pursuant to section 9-24(c)(4), B.R.C. 1981, no person shall operate a facility in violation of an approved management plan and pursuant to section 9-1-3(b), B.R.C. 1981, no building may be occupied except in Agenda Item 513 Page 10 of 108 conformance with all the regulations within Title 9. Operating a business in a manner that is not consistent with the approved management plan is in violation of not only the development approval, but also Title 9. Enforcement action occurs on various levels, beginning with a written warning from a code enforcement officer. If the violation persists a ticket is issued along with a summons to court; and finally, if the violation continues, the Board may revoke its approval. ANALYSIS Applications for Site Review are reviewed for consistency with the criteria set forth in subsection 9-2-14(h), "Criteria for Review," B.R.C. 1981. Refer to Attachment D for staff's full analysis of Site Review criteria. Additionally, Staff has identified and analyzed some key issues below to help guide the board's discussion. 1. Is the proposed development consistent with the Site Review criteria set forth in section 9-2- 14(h), "Site Review," B.R.C. 1981? The applicant's proposal has evolved over the course of the Site Review process to address the key issues that were identified by staff and Planning Board through the Concept Plan review, including building design with specific concern for the recessed building corner at the prominent intersection of Broadway and 17'" Street, the proposed podium parking and the quality of open space treatments in the courtyards and along the paseo; the variety and number of building materials proposed; and 171h Street streetscape lacking of unit entries located at grade. Through the Site Review process, the applicant has adequately addressed the key issues identified through Concept Plan by: Holding the corner of 171h and Broadway by bringing the building to the ground; • Reducing the podium parking and minimizing and treating the blank wall expanses and void spaces under decks; • Locating building and unit entries at grade along 171h Street; • Providing connectivity through the paseo to promote connectivity through the site and to the surrounding neighborhood; • Treating the courtyards with landscape and hardscape materials that are durable and have longevity; • Wrapping materials around all sides of the building, including the alley, and binging the materials to the ground; and • Limiting the number of fagade treatments and building recesses utilized creating a more unified and elegant building. Given the positive architectural changes to the building through Site Review, the proposal is now consistent with BVCP policies, specifically policy 2.42, Enhanced Design for the Built Environment as well as the Site Review criteria for review, specifically, Building Design Livability and Relationship to the Existing and Proposed Surrounding Areas, in that: • The development now relates positively to the street with four sided architecture and materials that are brought down to the ground, minimized blank walls and unit and building entries being located at the street all of which contribute to creating an active streetscape; Agenda Item 513 Page 11 of 108 • The Broadway frontage is a prominent fagade that addresses Broadway, a major transportation corridor, as well as the University; by providing a pronounced and recognizable entryway on the Broadway fagade pedestrian interest is created as well as an active streetscape. • A more unified, elegant, rhythmic building has been created by minimizing the number of materials and utilizing human scale materials, including brick, and simplifying architectural features and recesses; • Opening of the paseo not only creates a view corridor through the site, but also provides connectivity from the site to the surrounding neighborhood, making it permeable not only in terms of fluid internal site movement, but also external movement., and • Providing ample open space, in excess of what is required, in a variety of forms, including shared courtyards, private decks for individual units and a paseo that opens the site to the surrounding development will provide relief to the density of the project. The open space provided is functional in its plantings and furnishings, and encourages a variety of passive and active recreation activities. 2. Is the proposed parking reduction consistent with the criteria for parking reductions set forth in section 9-2-14(h), "Site Review," B.R.C. 1981? The Applicant is proposing a 28% parking reduction, 112 parking spaces are required and 81 are provided. Staff finds that, given the student oriented nature of the development proposal and its proximity to CU and major transit lines, the proposed parking reduction meets the criteria for parking reductions by providing on-site parking and viable parking demand off-sets, including a car share program and off-site parking permits. (The parking requirement for fraternity uses is based on occupancy and requires two spaces for every three occupants, a requirement that is less than typical multi-family residential uses. The fraternity use will accommodate six units with four bedrooms each totaling 24 occupants. If separate parking requirements were applied in determining the total parking required, 16 spaces would be required to serve the fraternity and 94 spaces would be required to serve the residential use, totaling 110 spaces and resulting in a parking reduction of 27% parking reduction.) (a) For residential uses, the probable number of motor vehicles to be owned by occupants of and visitors to dwellings in the project will be adequately accommodated; Given the target population, students, overall vehicle trips will be reduced due to the proximity of the site to public transit options and the University of Colorado campus. However, the demand for vehicle storage, which is often found to be the case with student housing remains the primary concern with regard to student housing. Acknowledging that student housing tends to generate a need for auto storage, the CU campus lifestyle supports walking and biking to classes, particularly when in close proximity to campus. The 2006 CU Student Transportation Survey (found in Attachment E) supports this assumption. The survey indicates that the primary mode of transportation used for a student's commute to campus was determined by where the student lived. For example, students living in Boulder had a much higher rate of walking and biking (50%) to campus than those living outside Agenda Item 513 Page 12 of 108 of Boulder (6%). Of the 2,140 students surveyed, roughly two-thirds reported having a motor vehicle available to them for commuting to campus, combined with the high rate of alternative modes of transportation used by students, including biking, transit and walking which accounts for 68% of the modal split, suggests that there is demand for automobile storage. Another survey, the Modal Shift in the Boulder Valley (updated nine times since 1990) has shown that generally, within the Boulder Valley since 1990, there has been a significant shift in vehicle trips observed in three categories; single-occupancy vehicle trips (-7.1 bicycle (+6.8%) and transit (+3.8%). Specific to the students, the survey contacted 800 University of Colorado students living in dormitories and Greek residences to participate in this study. Overall, the survey indicated a decrease in single-occupancy vehicle trips between 1990 and 2009, (4.9%), and an increase in transit (45%) and bicycle (+5.3%) of trips made by CU students. The survey surmised that the increase in transit usage was due to the introduction of the SKIP in 1998. The survey also indicated that the majority of campus commute trips are split between bicycle (35.3%) and foot (33.5%) modes of transportation. In order to address the vehicle storage issue and to offset the requested parking reduction, the applicant has located excess bicycle parking on site in the form of surface spaces and secure garage spaces and will establish a car share program where a shared vehicle will be located on site in one of the surface parking stalls. Participation in the program will be available to all residents. Additionally, the applicant will be facilitating the obtainment of off-site parking permits at CU for residents who have a car, but could not accommodate it on site. There are a number of student permit parking facilities that operate 24 hours per day, seven days per week. The largest of the parking lots is at Williams Village approximately one mile to the east on Baseline with over 1,000 parking spaces available to students. As shown in Figure 4 below, there are approximately eight surface parking lots located within three-quarters of a mile of the project site with parking available through the University of Colorado student parking permit program. Agenda Item 513 Page 13 of 108 Arapahoe University of Colorado LL. 6 p e 8 Boulder )IOe d 6 ~ Ste. ~ ~ o o..~~~d% C Main Campus o~ a Colorado The Site e ~ Parking Arw> Ile g~r~ ....ce.e. Nbto.e YCIP FarF,ing Arws i.~ M _ ,e...<cP.. r z=x.. Mn--sc unc 4rt Frew r.,.<a I _ ~ _ r,~ Figure 4: CU Student Permit Parking within Three-quarters of a Mile of the Site Please refer to Attachment C, Applicants Management Plan, for additional details on the off- site parking and car share program operating characteristics. Ultimately, the goal of the parking demand management plan is to offset the requested parking reduction and provide parking options and alternatives to bringing private vehicles to the site and the neighborhood. As required by Site Review, the applicant provided a Transportation Demand Management Plan (TDM) that addresses additional actions taken to off set parking requirements, including providing Go Boulder welcome kits for each resident upon move-in to furnish residents with transit route and schedule information, providing a variety of bike parking options in excess of what is required, and administering an annual survey to understand the effectiveness of the programs implemented on site, including car share program and off-site parking permits to off set parking as described in their management plan (Attachment C). As noted in the applicant's written statement in Attachment B, the majority of fraternity members (24 of 32) will be living on site, which will limit trips to the site for social activities. Additionally, as stated in the written statement almost all of the fraternity's members live near the Hill and ride their bikes or walk to fraternity functions, a practice that will be continued in the future. For those members that choose to drive to fraternity functions, they will be encouraged to carpool and park in the near-by surface lots and parking garages. Two guest parking spaces Agenda Item 5B Page 14 of 108 will be provided as on site surface parking spaces. Overall, the goal of the proposed fraternity model is to revitalize a diminishing traditional group living arrangement by providing private living quarters with separate group facilities located on the same site, which in itself is limits trips to the site. As a reference, a similar multi-family attached residential student housing project, 985 16th Street, approved through a Site Review in 2009, also requested a significant parking reduction (50%). The proposal included the conversion of an existing boarding house with a licensed occupancy of 42 persons to an occupancy of 37 persons in 11 apartments which included a remodel of the building with a mix of 3 and 4 bedrooms along with an approximately 2,286 square foot addition. As part of the development proposal, based on the proposed parking reduction, the applicant proposed several alternatives to address the vehicle storage need. The parking reduction offsets that were proposed as part of the development proposal included tandem parking spaces and off-site parking permits in conjunction with CU. Since its approval, this project has been completed and staff has been in contact with the project owner to inquire about the status of the function of the parking reduction. The project owner stated that the tandem spaces worked well for vehicle storage needs and that the units have not been difficult to market given the limited amount of on-site parking available. The CU parking permit program has not been necessary to date as all vehicles have been able to be accommodated on-site. The property owner added that he is finding that given the proximity of 985 16th Street to the CU Campus, the University Hill Business District and public transit, he is noticing that fewer of his renters are bringing their personal vehicles to school. Overall, the project owner feels that the development proposal for 98516th Street has been successful in accommodating and managing the on-site parking needs of the tenants. Lastly, on-street parking is located along 17th Street and Aurora Avenue. While the parking is well utilized during the school year, the existing on-street parking along 17th Street is not restricted and is not part of a neighborhood parking district. 3. Are the proposed modifications to the setbacks consistent with surrounding neighborhood? The proposed setback modifications are consistent with the existing adjacent development. Properties along Broadway primarily have front yard setback less than the required 25 feet ranging from five feet to 17 feet. The requested front yard setback is 8.5 feet where 25 feet is required. Maintaining a front yard setback consistent with the adjacent properties along Broadway will create a unified building wall and frame the streetscape. Along the alley, the side interior setback is measured to a retaining wall that encloses a garden level patio because it is in excess of 30 inches in height above grade. The requested setback is 3.5 feet where 10 feet is required; the building itself however is located 9.5 feet from the property line, which is the perceived building setback. Like the side interior setback along the alley, the side yard adjacent to street setback along 171h Street is measured to a retaining wall that encloses a garden level patio. The wall is also in excess of 30" above grade. The proposed side yard adjacent to street setback along 171h street is 7.5 feet where 12.5 feet is required; the building itself is located 14.3 feet from the property line which is the perceived building setback. Agenda Item 513 Page 15 of 108 Although a setback modification is being requested, there will be limited impacts on the required streetscape development standards. The setback modification will provide ample space to accommodate an adequate tree planting strip (6 feet, which is the minimum required by the DCS), required sidewalk width (5 feet which is also the minimum required by the DCS) and additional planting strip at the back of the sidewalk on the building side (1 foot), creating an attractive streetscape with a variety of plating opportunities. The rear yard setback along Aurora, where 25 feet is required and 5.5 feet is proposed, is also of a similar vintage. In this case, the setback is measured to an above grade retaining wall that encloses a patio; the wall exceeds 30 inches above grade. The actual building, however, is located 15 feet from the property line, which is the perceived building setback. PUBLIC COMMENT AND PROCESS Required public notice was given in the form of written notification mailed to all property owners within 600 feet of the proposed development, and a sign posted on the property for at least 10 days. All notice requirements of section 9-4-2, B.R.C. 1981 have been met. Although a neighborhood meeting was not required, a neighborhood meeting was held on May 25, 2011. With only one person in attendance, the discussion was centered on the requested parking reduction. Generally, the concern was that the existing demand for on-street parking on the Hill is already high and granting a parking reduction would only exacerbate the already existing problem. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION Planning staff finds that: 1. The application satisfies the Site Review criteria pursuant section 9-2-14(h), B.R.C. 1981 if the conditions listed below are incorporated into the approval of this application. Therefore, staff recommends that Planning Board approve Site Review #LUR2011-00028 incorporating this staff memorandum and the attached Site Review Criteria Checklist as findings of fact, subject to the recommended Conditions of Approval below: RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. The Applicant shall be responsible for ensuring that the development shall be in compliance with all approved plans dated August 23, 2011 and the Applicant's written statement dated August 23, 2011 on file in the City of Boulder Planning Department, except to the extent that the development may be modified by the conditions of this approval. 2. Prior to a building permit application, the Applicant shall submit a Technical Document Review application for the following items, subject to the approval of the City Manager: a. Final architectural plans, including material samples and colors, to insure compliance with the intent of this approval and compatibility with the surrounding area. The architectural intent shown on the approved plans dated August 23, 2011 is acceptable. Planning staff will review plans to assure that the architectural intent is performed. Agenda Item 513 Page 16 of 108 b. A final site plan which includes detailed floor plans and section drawings. C. A final utility plan meeting the City of Boulder Design and Construction Standards. d. A final storm water report and plan meeting the City of Boulder Design and Construction Standards. e. Final transportation plans meeting the City of Boulder Design and Construction Standards, for all transportation improvements. These plans must include, but are not limited to: street and alley plan drawings, street and alley cross-sectional drawings, signage and striping plans in conformance with Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) standards, transportation detail drawings, geotechnical soils report, and pavement analysis. f. A detailed landscape plan, including size, quantity, and type of plants existing and proposed; type and quality of non-living landscaping materials; any site grading proposed; and any irrigation system proposed, to insure compliance with this approval and the City's landscaping requirements. Removal of trees must receive prior approval of the Planning Department. Removal of any tree in City right of way must also receive prior approval of the City Forester. g. A detailed outdoor lighting plan showing location, size, and intensity of illumination units, indicating compliance with section 9-9-16, B.R.C.1981. h. A detailed shadow analysis to insure compliance with the City's solar access requirements of section 9-9-17, B.R.C. 3. Prior to a building permit application, the Applicant shall dedicate to the City, at no cost, the following easements as shown on the approved plans, in accordance with the City of Boulder Design and Construction Standards, as part of Technical Document Review applications, the form and final location of which shall be subject to the approval of the City Manager: a. A public access easement along Broadway, 17 feet off the back of existing curb. b. A public access easement along 17th Street and Aurora Avenue to include 1 foot beyond the proposed sidewalk. 4. Prior to a building permit application, the Applicant shall submit to the City, at no cost, the following in accordance with the City of Boulder Design and Construction Standards, as part of Technical Document Review application, subject to the approval of the City Manager: a. A lot line elimination or its equivalent to eliminate the lot lines between Lots 1 through 5, Block 2, University Park Addition, City of Boulder, County of Boulder, State of Colorado. 5. Prior to a building permit application, the Applicant shall submit a financial guarantee, in a form acceptable to the Director of Public Works, in an amount equal to the cost of providing eco-passes to the residents of the development for three years after the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for each dwelling unit as proposed in the Applicant's Transportation Demand Management (TDM) plan. Agenda Item 513 Page 17 of 108 6. The Applicant shall require any occupant that has a motor vehicle(s) that is not accommodated in the on site parking areas to acquire an off-site parking space for vehicle storage. The applicant shall reimburse any occupant who obtains off-site parking spaces from the University of Colorado to comply with this requirement for all of the costs of such parking permits. 7. The Applicant shall maintain a Car Share Program consistent with their Management Plan dated August 23, 2011. 8. The Applicant shall ensure that the approved fraternity use is operated in compliance with the following: a. The Applicant shall operate the use in accordance with the Management Plan dated August 23, 2011 which is attached to this Notice of Disposition. b. One full-time resident advisor shall live in an apartment immediately adjacent to the fraternity meeting space as shown on the approved plans ("Fraternity Meeting Space"). C. At least six dwelling units, not including the resident advisor's unit, shall be associated with the fraternity use at all times. d. The size of the approved Fraternity Meeting Space shall be limited to 2,305 square feet. e. Events associated with the fraternity use shall only occur in the area designated as the Fraternity Meeting Space on the approved plans dated August 23, 2011. f. Social events in the Fraternity Meeting Space with groups of greater than 32 people shall end by 1:00 a.m. There shall be no more than 8 such social events per year. h. The Fraternity Meeting Space shall only be used by fraternity members and their guests or in a manner which is accessory to the residential use. I . The applicant shall post and continue to provide up to date contact information for the manager of the fraternity use in locations approved by the Director of Planning designed to provide for communication between the fraternity and the surrounding neighborhood. j. No amplified live indoor or amplified, live or otherwise, outdoor music shall be allowed in the Fraternity Meeting Space area. k. Should the fraternity use cease operation, the area designated Fraternity Meeting Space shall be converted to a shared common area for use by the principal residential use, including but not limited to a common clubhouse, workout facility, or other accessory use, etc. Agenda Item 5B Page 18 of 108 9. All parking shall be generally available to the residents, users, and visitors to the property. The Applicant shall not assign any parking spaces to any specific dwelling unit or use unless otherwise permitted by the Boulder Revised Code. Approved B D 'd Driskell, Ex 'rector Department of Community Planning and Sustainability ATTACHMENTS: A: Proposed Plan Set dated August 23, 2011. B: Applicant's Written Statement, Acacia Addendum C: Applicant's Management Plan D: Staff Analysis of Site Review Criteria E: 2006 CU Student Transportation Survey Agenda Item 5B Page 19 of 108 Attachment A - - s ~i ~ ' ~,fi , k ~ - ~~~~j. ti. ~ _ 1 _ ~-_t~~-~ T L' _ - r r N ~ ~ gyp. ` . ~ ~ - ~ r ~ _ ~ .L I t ~ it . - ~ - ~ ~ qtr _ , ~ I i ~~y. * fit, ~ ~T YES - i _ ~ r _ J_ , c I~u _ -L~_ ~~T 'L1 ~ rti, - ~ Y.P _ _ ~~I ~ f _ ~ ~ _,t" - a , - b ~ r F '+~`w _ _ sir., I:.,~ t f -~,r ~~~"'-emu., .~-T `d.. _ ~ \ ~ ~P. ~'dr ! ~ ) gyp' T,__y~i fl", ~ TL-,= ? i ~ I e~~l va.. f-- i I k_ t. - w ~4 ~ s k- i - c _ ~ , a. d .Yi. K- ~"In f _~17_ K 5~! II4iiL ~1'~'~'~ y~. -r '+~u ' _ ~ - ~a' ~ I ' , F"" III ~ T vu ~ ~ , ~ I ~ ~ ~ " ° 1 r is ti`'.? - i i L ~ r w~{; ~ ~ I, f I I ii i . I I(II Ili i~l i I ~ _ I~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ fi,yA~~ pa` ~ - J . ~ 1 u, ;r ~ ,:J ~I - , i u iii a ~ i- ~ ~ -".-1 ~ ~ r ;;i j ~ I _j _ - i1~ . ~ ; a l +1 ~L ra ~ w ~ ~ ~ r-~ X~ 1 T~"u , ~ ~ Y f !P ~ a e i u W, _ ~ ~ ! ~ r ~ _ pp a~ ~ - ~x ~ r .r..., ,.~.-f{ ,~T" ~ _ _ ~5,z,',. ate; x _ ~ - ~ ~ "`~i~ A ~ ~ 5 ~ ~ Y ~ ..n 'T EL r ) l~ . f - - 3. wr ~*~t _ _ r r ~ T _a - ' ~ w'~ _ w _ ~P~„ - r r F ~'`-ti . ~ ~ ~T~~-~- i ~i 11 ilCi 'y~ y" pd e S i T~~~ DTs - 4 } r, _ - v t~+ 1, yr ~ ter. ` ~ ~ '~1iy, _ _ J~ _ 5t' . ~R rte;,.( _ p - ~ ~ r y I' y`.u I ~ ~ "i, R::~ - -D~Y: fin. 4 - _ - fly; ~ , ~ 1~-~ - - - - , f- . , - _ - ~ - 1. ~ ~ 3 „fir _ _ - - -~`"~~y - ~_~~_~-y DRAWING INDEX T1.1 TITLE SHEET A1.1 FLOOR PLAN LEVEL N1 FLOOR PLAN LEVEL N2 I S1 A1.2 FLOOR PLAN LEVEL N31 S2 FLOOR PLAN LEVEL S3 A2.1 ELEVATIONS A2.2 ELEVATIONS A3.1 3D VIEWS A3.2 3D VIEWS A3.3 3D VIEW A4.1 SITE SECTIONS TITLE SHEET ACACIA STUDENT HOUSING ©OZARCHITECTURE SITE REVIEW 17th & Broadway T1.1 6-27-2011 SCO Boulder, Colorado MCHIIHIM Agenda Item 513 Page 20 of 108 2 6 5 A4.1 A4.1 A4.1 - - - MAIN EN RY ~ ENTRY TO BIK - - - ENTRY TO BIKE STAIR TO DECK / STORAGE STORAGE I EL~1lAT R h - LOBBY I ~ pN I , ~ - J , ~ - x _ fV O i _ - - nN - - - o VAN f 0 ~ - ~ ~ -~-D"~ 13-10" ~0~a. 9 FULL SIZE ~ ELEV ~ 2 FULL,SIZE _ UNIT 4A UNIT 4A ~ UNIT 4E ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ BIKE PARKIN 11-1 9 -D 9 -0 9 -0 9 -0 9 -D 9 -0 9 -0 9 -D 8 -0 s -o s -0 4 -6 9 -8 9 -0 G- ~ ~ ~ } -~h- --J~-ski --J,a J~- Y,- - .26 BIKES n n n n- . - ROOF OVER ENTRY I ~ ~ - l - M I ~i CORRIDOR ~ ~ INVERTED U-RACKS -SEE J o DETAIL ON SHEET SD2 ~ o ENl -v ENTRY ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N ~ ~ ~ ~ O 1 _ ~ ~ n ❑ i ~ n ~ _ 8-5 8-1 8-1 8-1" 8-1 8-1' 8'-1" 8'-1" ~ 8'-1" 8'-1" 8'-1 ~ I _ M' o w G ' ~ 11 SMALL CARS ~ N 1 -1 I I cn iCAR r_1 J A4.1 o ~ PAS - - - UNIT 4A UNIT 4A ~ I UNIT 4A UNIT 4A PASEO FRATERNITY ~ - ~ _ ~ COURTYARD ' L_ ~ I MEETING SPACE uP: ~ o 975 SF _ . ~ 1 D SMALL CARS ~ 24'-0" ~ 19'-0" ❑ U in ~0 DN iii i - ~ i~i,i ~ 0 PARKING GARAGE r~;~ I.' i .1 ~ I I t~ .~I. N ~ ~,,.~-1' ~ STAIF II DN i STAIR ~ ~ I I e - ~ ~ - EGRES I. EGRESS TER M ~ Gi GAS METERS ❑ U ❑ ❑ 9'-D" 9'-0" 9'-0" 5''-0" T-9" 20'-0" UNIT 4C UNIT 2A UNIT 4A WALI o WALK - - ~ I 3 SMALL CARS 7'FULL SIDE ~ I 'STOR 0 , i T - 9" 4' T - 9" 4' 0" - TYP 1 TYP - I TRASH! , RECYCLE - ELECT METERS ALLEY PARKA ALLEY PARKING - o ~ GARAGE 3 GUEST & CA 3 GUEST & CAR SHARE ~ ' ~ ENTRY GAS METERS - _ - - - - ROOF OVER 4 L EV E L N 2 GARAGE ENTRY A4.1 5 UP A4.1 DN - I 5 FULL SIZE 1 SMALL VAN ~ - ~ CAR 2'-5" 9'-3,. 9' 0,. 9' 0.. 9,_0,. 9._0.. 8,_0., a._0,. 8._0„ 8, 0„ =1r- - -k~ ~ - - 'WATER M UNIT 4E ~ I~ ~ ~ ~ - - I o _ N ~ COMMON ~ - . - -MAIN E EV EQU P ~ ENTRY i i 0 r ~ i i , d ~ I o ~ ~ RECREATION l i 5 FULL SIZE 1 SMALL Q cAR ~ STUDY i ~ ~ ~ _ _ ~ ~ UNIT 3A I 1 ~ rn i I A4.1 ' o FUTURE STORAGE 19 -0 24 -0 15 -0 i I o W N o ~ 5°i° ~ STORAGE PARKING SUMMARY TABLE ~I REQUIRED PROPOSED ~P 1- I I I STANDARD SPACES 9'x19' 113 37 o _ _ I ( ) INVERTED U-RACKS -SEE COMPACT SPACES (T-9"x15') N.A. (50% MAX) 40 (49.3% OF TOTAL) DETAIL ONSHEET SD2- I ACCESSABLE SPACES 9'x19' 4 4 ( ) TOTAL 113 81 71.6% OF REQ'D ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 15° 12°i° UNIT 3B ~ r ° BIKE PARKING - ° 34 BIKES ~ ~ r '~i ~o ~ ~ ~ 3,~6„ ~ ~ 3,~0„ ° o ° ' 5 0 4 ~ . o, ~ TRASH I RECYLE tLtc i Kw Mt I tKb ~N ~ ~ 3 GARAGE ENTRY LEVEL N1 A4.1 FLOOR PLANS ACACIA STUDENT HOUSING © OZ ARCHITECTURE r~ A1 Of 8' 16' 32' 64' ~ .1 64' DESIGN DEVELOPMENT 17th & Broadway Boulder, Colorado Rev 6-23-2011 AMIIEUM Agenda Item 5B Page 21 of 108 2 A4.1 ~r- --r ~ CT I UNIT 46 UNIT 4A UNIT 4A j; I ROOF ROOF . CORRIDOR 0 ~ ~ ROOF - I UNIT 4A UNIT 4A ~ ~ c 1 I A4.1 UNIT 4A UNIT 4A I I J ROOF I - - i ~ I ~ ~ : ~ .i - ~ ~ - L UNIT D UNIT 4D _n ~ ~ - ; , NORTH BUILDING ROOF 6 A4.1 A4.1 STAIR TO DECK ~ ROOF - ~ _ _ .i I - _ DhJ - - - I i E-. ~ - IIG: UNIT 4A UNIT 4A UNIT 4E UNIT 4B UNIT 4A UNIT 4A OII yo~ CORRIDOR ORRIDOR 1 nII FRATERNITY . - ~ ~ FRATERNITY ENTRY ~ ~ q ~~~II MEETING SPACE I ~ III' 1330 SF . UNIT 4A aa~ oN II PORCH 1 nII UNIT 4A UNIT 4A UNIT 4A I A4.1 UNIT 4A UNIT 4A ~ UNIT 4A COURTYARD J - w, I ~ ~ - MAIN ENTRY _ • ~ i~ _ i ~~,!i ~ I ' L~ ~ lam. 1 ~ ` - , ~ UNIT 4D ROOF . UNIT 4C ~ UNIT 4A I . z~ Lm LEVEL S2 LEVEL N3 FLOOR PLANS ACACIA STUDENT HOUSING © OZ ARCHITECTURE r~ A1 Of 8' 16' 32' 64' ~ .2 64' DESIGN DEVELOPMENT 17th & Broadway Boulder, Colorado Rev 6-23-2011 AMIIEUM Agenda Item 5B Page 22 of 108 SUMMARY OF REVISIONS 6-13-2011 1. The predominant material on the 17th Street and Broadway elevations has been changed from mahogany stain finish non- groove panels to brick. 2. Stucco colors have been changed from three colors on each building to two colors on each building. METALACCENT~ ACCENTS STUCCO COLOR 3 STUCCO COLOR 1 ENTRY CANOPY 3. Wood screens have been removed from HORIZ LAP FIBER BRICK STUCCO COLOR 1 HEIGHT LIMIT - BRICK 1 ~1 CEMENT SIDING balconies and unit entries. Also, the horizontal portion of the wood screens at the ROOFTOP MECH HORIZ LAP FIBER NORTH BLDG FRATERNITY PORCH ROOF UNITS - TYP (NOT VISIBLE FROM GROUN) CEMENT SIDING ~ - - - ' ~ ~ - ~ ~ I r--. NORTH BLDG Broadway and 17th Street entries have been - ~ i - ~ - ~ - ~ ~ ~ - ~ removed. 5,456 - 7 3116 HORIZ LAP FIBER - _ - - - ! 131'-0.. _ CEMENT SIDING BRICK STUCCO COLOR 2 STUCCO COLOR 3 STUCCO COLOR 3 STUCCO COLOR 2 HEIGHT LIMIT 4. Brick enclosures have been added below SOUTHBLDG _ _ _ souTH BLDG ICS'-1~~_ balconies lower than a roximatel 3' from 5,465' - 8 318" ~ ' I _ _ ' ~ ° ``J~ ~ C~!- LEVEL N3 grade. Balconies from 3' 6' above grade will Ci[_ I = ~ - ~ ~ I 1 have "uninvltmg"planting below I _ - - I 140-4 - E~ _ ~ b I~ i I 120'-8" - ; i - ~ ~ a - ~ ' I ' 5. The Broadway facade has been improved - ~ -II ~ ICUU by increasing the size of windows, adding - ~ ~ - LEVEL S3 ~ _ _ ~ - z. i 1[ ~I' hI~I. ] LEVEL N2 ~ 1 1 ~ windows, brin in the vertical lazin at the nn 110'`-' stair tower lower,gadding brick, and by - - - - - ' 1 I - - ~ 130'-0" - _ - , DO ~ li 1- _ i o II-,G t I ~ ~ "d - ~ 1-~0 bringing materials down to grade. N ~ ~ ~ - - - - ~ ' _ . ~ -I-1 - LOW POINT - _ . . ! : o I ~ I-~,' - LEVEL S2 i " ~ - - -ll' I_: n~-~ ~ - 6. The alle facades have been im roved b _ _ LEVEL N1 Y p Y , „ NORTH BLDG - 119-8 ~ ~ f~~ ~ _ - - - _ ~ - ~ - ~ _ _ b i t e rth atldin r ck a th no Broadwa end on a~ f l g ( Y) I i -I I ~ II ' - I I- - 1 -I I I I I 5,421 - 7 3116 I I 11 I I I ~ I _ F ~ X00-0 both buildings at the Paseo, and on the south I - ' - - ~ ~ trash enclosure and by bringing same - - - -.1 = ~ I~I ° - e - - ~ i ~ i I I e - I ~ Imo. i I= s _ _ _ _ ~ _ s = ~I ~rl materials down to grade. LOW POINT - - - - - - _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - LEVEL S1 _ - - - - - e - - I l 1 . ~I I ~ ~ 1 ~ I~ l I l-~ I - I _I VI 7. The 17th Street entry canopy has been SOUTHBLDG - - - _ - - - ~ - - _ _I _ - __I - - ~ 108-10 5430'-8318" ~ - sloped to make it more prominent and to FRATERNITY ENTRY BUILDING ENTRY BUILDING ENTRY relate better visually to the Broadway entry canopy. 2 NORTH ELEVATION BRC 1 SOUTH ELEVATION AURORA AVE. )N (BROADWAY) 8. The fraternity entry roof has been revised slightly to make it mare prominent. Also, stucco was changed to brick. 9. The glass element at the corner of 17th & Broadway now encloses finished space rather than balconies. ROOFTOP MECH STUCCO COLOR 2 STUCCO COLOR 3 UNITS -TYP STUCCO COLOR 2 ELEVATOR OVEF LEVATOR OVERRUN BRICK METAL PANEL HORIZ LAP FIBER CEMENT SIDING BALCONY GUARDRAIL ; -METAL ACCENT METAL PANEL STUCCO COLOR 1 STUCCO COLOR 3 ~ I _ ~ _ ~ MEPARPORALSD / HEIGHT LIMIT - _ SOUTH BLDG SOUTH BLDG - - - - - - - ROOFTOP MECH HORIZ LAP FIBER GLASS STUCCO COLOR 1 BRICK UNITS - TYP BRICK CEMENT SIDING BRICK STUCCO COLOR 2 - ~ 5,465' - 8 318" - - ~ 140'-4.. HEIGHT LIMIT - - - r - ~ ~ ~ ~ i lil - - ~Y.~, i NORTH BLDG RH NOT BLDG - - - - _ _ ~ LEVEL S3 5,456 - 7 3116 - I 131-0 . - ~ , - - _ _ ~ ~ I ~ i = tl' I i _ , 1~ r r C I -i 130-0 ~ ~ _ - I I nI i ~ ~ "I; - - _ L LEVEL N3 7 I - I , _ - _ _ - - LEVEL S2 - . .m. _ - - i~ ~ ~ - 119 8~~ 120-8 I!- ~ - - - - - I 0 I l _ z. li = - ~ - _ ~ - - - - - ~ ~ _6~ I r-1 I - I ~ ~ II~II!~ ~ ~ I I I ~ - I. I - i -1i~ I ~ - ~I I~~'~ ~~fl ~ - ~ - - ~ ~ - M ~ - - -l J i I -I~- - - f ~ I ~~I I I~ e ~ ~ - - 110'-4" I--1-~ I ~ , ~-~---t -I r - - k - I .w I i 1; _ - - _ =i - _ _ _ - - LEV~ LOW POINT - B ~ II ~ c I I : I III I ' ~ I = ~ SOUTH BLDG I ~ ~ ~ I I~JI - - ~ - - L , t _ ~8~ _ I _ ~ ~ -i. ~ I~:~.I -1 =.1 ~ ~ _ ~ 5,430' - 8 318~~ _ _ _ _ _ ~1~--~ LOW POINT - - _II ~ - - # ~ ~ - ~ - - - I - I = - - LEVELNI - - ~ ~ i I I III- i~ ~ NORTH BLDG , ~ - i ~ ~ - n~ 1-DD -D - = i ~ i 1-- - - I I : ~ I I i Q .e ~ ~ ~ - i jj~~ ~ - I ~ I - I - - ° U Y - I- J - _ - _ - - - _ - _ ~ and a-~ ~ I~ ®I~ ~ ' ImI ~ ~ ~ ~ 5,421 -7 3116 I ,=--1 I a ~ I- _ I ~ ~I ; ~ ~ - m I- -I - - ~ I- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ I- ~ - - - _ _ - 1 L1,-111 ~ _1. L(I I i_i__i _ i ~ ~ - ~ i -_~_i~ ~_z_ t i ~ i ~ i _i, i~_~_i__i-~~ - ~ ~ ~i ~~t ~ 1 -_u1 _ u_i ii-i _ii_~ i, ~ t_ ~_1.ii t i -iii i ~ ~i-i_1_ ~ i i -i_~:i_ ~_i- -iiii i_ t-: J .J 1 ~ ~ I o ~ ~ -J-~-1 r 1-~ ~ 1-~ 1-1-_ , ~ J - - - - 1 J l 1-d 1 1111 LI- 7- 1 1 III LI 1 J I I COLORED BRICK ENCLOSURE ~ I METAL PANEL UNIT ENTRY UNIT ENTRY-J BRICK ENCLOSURE pASEO ENTRY BIKE STORAGE ENTRY ORAGE ENTRY BUILDING CONCR ETE W/ / UNIT ENTRY BELOW BALCONY ENTRY MASONRY-STYLE BELOW BALCONY FORMLINER 3 WEST ELEVATION 17TH STREET -METAL ACCENT STUCCO COLOR 2 HORIZ LAP FIBER METAL PANEL BRICK BALCONY GUARDRAIL WI HORIZ LAP FIBER CEMENT SIDING PERFORATED MTL PANELS ~ CEMENT SIDING STUCCO COLOR 3 HEIGHT LIMIT - SOUTH BLDG SOUTH BLDG , - I- _ C _ BRICK BALCONY GUARDRAIL STUCCO COLOR 1 HORIZ LAP FIBER 5465'-8318"~ I 14D-4 ~ ~ i W! PERFORATED CEMENT SIDING METAL ACCENT STUCCO COLOR 3 METAL PANELS HEIGHT LIMIT - I ~ ~ oF, - _ ~ E- ~ I , I ~I i ~ ~ - , _ - ~ - _ . ~ _ ~ NORTHBLDG - - - - - LEVEL S3 ~ ~ - L ' I 5,456' - 7 3116" 13D-0 - - - o i ~ - - - - ~ - - - I n in I in ;I I I II - - T:_~ M ~ PASEO LEVEL S2 I ~ I I ~~;.~.~=..i~ ,l ~ , ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ _ ---r - - ~ ~ - ~ 119-8 ~ ~ I ~ ~ o - _ ' - r - - ' L _ ~ II ~ i ~ ~I 'I I~ , ~ R' - - - I - LOW PO NT ~ ' 1 1 - - - LEVEL S i _y_._ SOUTH BLDG _ ~ - _ I I I I ~ _ ` 108-10 _ I - _ . - - _ I - 5,430 - 8 318 ~ .-11 ~ a ~ ~~I ~ ~ 1~ - I ~ I e l , ~ _ - -I I-I ~ - - - - - - - - - - - - i ~ ~ I - ~ I~ I C! - I III I I - - - - - _ ~ - - - - -1= I 1 I i I , , ~I . III ~ LOW POINT o ~ i _ -i ~ " ~ - -I- _ _ ~ ~ _ _ NORTH BLDG - - - - e - - - - - - - - - - - - = = - - - 1- - - - - I-~- - - - - - - - - - - -I I 1-~ ~_>®I I~ ~ =-1 1 I~~-~_~ ~ ~ ~ IT~~I I I~~ =-~I ~ ~ I 5,421'-73116~~ I - I ~ - - J I I l I J III III I. l 111 it I J I I I II III P I B I II 10 I ~ I III I I ,1161 18 IIII I l-III , II II 11J I IIIIIIIIIIIII-III-III-I -III-III III'~~ I'~~~I I I III I I I-Ill i~ ~ I n ~ I-I ~ II ~ ~ P~ I II ~ II I I~ I ~III-III III-- ~ i ~ ~ WOOD SCREEN W( J ~ l I EI STUCCO COLOR 2 BRICK TRASH ENCLOSURE ' GAS METERS ~r '`ELECT METERS ~'~GARAGE ENTRY M ELECT ~ / GARAGE ENTRY j TRASH VINYL WINDOWS -TYP NATURAL FINISH METERS ~ W! PAINTED MTL ENCLOSURE WJ PAINTED MTL COILING DOOR-' W/MTL GATES-' COILING DOOR COLORED CONCRETE TO j COLOREI COLORED CONCRETE MATCH STUCCO 3 ' 4 EAST ELEVATION f ALLEY 1 - - - - - - - - - - I - - / F77771 F Of 8' 16' 32' 64' ELEVATIONS ACACIA STUDENT HOUSING © OZ ARCHITECTURE F q 17th & Broadway A2.1 SITE REVIEW Boulder, Colorado Rev 6-27-2011 AMIJUM Agenda Item 5B Page 23 of 108 ? STUCCO COLOR 3 HORIZ LAP FIBER CEMENT SIDING HEIGHTLIMIT- SUMMARY OF REVISIONS I~ SOUTH BLDG ~ ~ ~ ® SOUTH BLDG 6-13-2011 - - - - - - 5,465 - 8 318 - HORIZ LAP FIBER STUCCO COLOR 1 STUCCO COLOR 3 STUCCO COLOR 3 BRICK - - - 140 -4 HEIGHT LIMIT - CEMENT SIDING ~ 1. The predominant material on the 17th - 1-1 NORTH BLDG _ / Street and Broadway elevations has been - ~ NORTH BLDG changed from mahogany stain finish non- - - LEVEL S3 ~ _ - . ~ 5,456 7 3116 - - - - - _ _ _ ~gpp~ groove panels to brick. ' - ~ - - - 130 -0 131' b -i ' ❑ ~ - - - ~ 2. Stucco colors have been changed from _ _ three colors on each buildin to two colors on ~ - I ' LEVEL S2 LEV~ each building. - - - - - - 119'-8" o 120'-8" - - - - 3. Wood screens have been removed from I - R - in c ~ ~ I~ ❑ ~ ❑ balconies and unit entries. Also, the - LEVY EL N2 horizontal portion of the wood screens at the LOW POINT - LEVEL S1 r ~ Broadway and 17th Street entries have been SOUTH BLDG - - - ~T- - - _ - _ - 110'-4" removed. - ' ~ ~ ~ I'~ III ~ ~ -i 4. Brick enclosures have been added below 5430 -8318 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - I ~ ~ - ~ I I I I ~ I - - ~ - - ~ - ® - - - - _ - - - - - - - - - LOW POINT - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Y ~ ~ _ ~ ~ ~ _ ~ ~ _ ~ ~ ~ _ LEVEL N1 balconies lower than approximately 3' from NORTHBLDG, - ~i i_ ~ L- ~ ~ - I ~ I = 1 I ~ ~ I _ I i~ = I ! 1 I I _ Y I V~~Op~~ grade. Balconies from 3'-6' above grade will LANDSCAPE GRIDS & VINES.J COLORED ~ GARAGE INTAKE LOUVER 5,421 - 7 3116 -I~- BRICK ~ -~ii~iii~iii~i~e CONCRETE ' ~='-1~ i ~ ~ i~ ~ i ' ' ~ ~ ~ ~i ~ ' 't ~ i ~ I ~ ~ I I ~_i ~ i ~ ' ' ~ ~ i i have "uninviting~~ planting below. I I I~J i Eai 1. I-I BUILDING ENTRY 5. The Broadway facade has been improved '-BUILDING ENTRY `--GAS METERS by increasing the size of windows, adding windows, bringing the vertical glazing at the ~ SOUTH BUILDING -NORTH ELEVATION 2 NORTH BUILDING -SOUTH ELEVATION brangingmaterarlsdowntorgade.dby 6. The alley facades have been improved by adding brick at the north (Broadway) end, on both buildings at the Paseo, and on the south trash enclosure and by bringing some materials down to grade. 7. The 17th Street entry canopy has been sloped to make it more prominent and to relate better visually to the Broadway entry canopy. 8. The fraternity entry roof has been revised slightly to make it more prominent. Also, stucco was changed to brick. 9. The glass element at the corner of 17th & Broadway now encloses finished space rather than balconies. HEIGHT LIMIT - HEIGHT LIMIT - HEIGHT LIMIT - HEIGHT LIMIT - NORTHBLDG _ _ _ NORTH BLDG NORTH BLDG ~ ~ ~ c _ _ NOR_T_H BLDG NORTH BLDG „ ~ - ~ - - - - - - - 5,456' - 7 3116" _ T 5,456' - 7 3116" I 5,456' - 7 3116" o ~ NORTH BLDG O NORTH BLDG _ _ _ _ _ NORTH BLDG a_ _ ~ - 5,456' - 7 3116" _ ~RQQF - - 131-0 131-0 - - ~ 131'-0" - 131'-0" i i i, ; ~ L_ I I - LEVEL N3 - LEVEL N3 ' I ~ I _ y' LEVEL N3 - LEVEL N3 _ ~ ~ - - 120 -8 120 -8 - E- ' - 120'-8" ~ O' 120'-8" - i i i ~i ~ i I ~ ~r~ I I - - LEVEL N2 LEVEL N2 - - ~ ~ ~ ~ i, I' ~ ~ - LEVEL~N2 LEVEL N2 - 1 -4 11D 4 10 110'" 4" 110'-4" COURTYARD ENTRY UNIT ENTRY 3 NORTH ELEVATION 4 EAST ELEVATION 5 5 SOUTH ELEVATION 61NEST ELEVATION EVATIONS HEIGHT LIMIT - HEIGHT LIMIT - HEIGHT LIMIT - SOUTH BLDG ~ ~ ~ ~ SOUTH BLDG SOUTH BLDG SOUTH BLDG )UTH BLDG SOUTH BLDG u-® SOUTH BLDG ~R°°~ ~a~ 5,465' - 8 318" - 5,465' - 8 318" 140-4 140-4 ~oF ~ 5,465' - 8 318" - - _ _ 0'-4" - 140'" 4" _ - - - I _ - - I~ _ ~l - i I '~I I _ - - LEVEL S3 LEVEL S3 :VEL S3 ~ ~ ~ I ` I ~ LEVEL S3 I _ - ~ 130 -0 130 -0 - - - - ~ I , ~ o'-o° _ 130' - I ~ ~i. i LEVEL S2 _ _ ; ' ~_L-EVEL S2 - _VEL S2 LEVEL S2 119-8 119-8 9'-8" 119'" 8" ' COURTYARD ENTRY 7 NORTH ELEVATION 8 EAST ELEVATION 9 SOUTH ELEVATION ELEVATIONS F77771 F Of 8' 16' 32' 64' ELEVATIONS ACACIA STUDENT HOUSING © OZ ARCHITECTURE F SITE REVIEW 17th & Broadway A2.2 Boulder, Colorado 6-14-2011 ANCNIIIC1VBf Agenda Item 5B Page 24 of 108 ~ C~ . - - ~ . NORTH BUILDING ~ SOUTH BUILDING L r~- r i. 4 , ~r _r r ~ , ~J r~ 1. L'S~~'i.` .ra - tiiw~ _ ~ _ i~L1 ~~~SYrc ~X y ~i -~~L - , ~ ~i ~ i~ - s f ~ ffe.~~_ t II _ _ ~ _ ' F- f , 7,LT~ i. _ ~r 1 1 ~ ti J-~ - i 1 f, . " - _ - ( ~ - - _ * ~ 'i ~ _ ~ z. . _ ~ _ ; - ` r ~ . r4,, _ A ~ I_.~ ~ . , r ~ G - - ."1 ~ pig, Vw~1a ~ { .:I _ . , ~ m w. _ - - _ ~ ~ - -J r' , ~ ~ ~ i . i ~ w ~ f - _ z z: - .I _ _ _~~-r _ 4. 4 f.,~ ~ I' ~ - c ~~x`rr ~w. '---,:ll ' ~ ~I , I i :LY ~I ~ ~ I I ~ i ~ a },y ".f i i I I~ T - - - N ~ y _ 1 ~.-T1.. _ _ - y v~(~y ~ . - `i i-ii'i` ~ .a ~ ~ ~ ' ' y ±S ~ d • a J' t 1 ~ _ 1Q ~ ~ ~ T~4 ~ 'ta - f~ _ ~ I 11 ~ ~ ~F~ _ ~ - ~ ~ _ - r ~r- I iw t " ~ V ~ - - i J ~ ~~I ~ i _ . . , _ ~ _ _ I - - ~ ~ Y1-~-' _ ~~r l - G M e' 1 t4,. ~ r ~ , t'x~Y~. T r`~ r .~t"~..T.2~r~ - _ 1 ~ i. i k, ~ ,I ,~.,.~.il1T~' I i n ~ ~ ~ - ~ - ~i ~ ` f-t `T ~'-r5z~1- i ~ i ~4 sc-~~~ r~ l '~5i ~ 7 +mr r.~' • ~ _ • j : ~,i I I - III' - L.. I ~Tt ~11y ~ 'a~JA~A - f I ..,b .-y 'Y ~ 5 I~ ~ - ~ I I ~I~ ~ , r' ~-L f 7~fyd,~,A 7. 0 4 ~ , r ~.r~ ~ - ~ ~ rw , , - „ . _ - - - - , w ?ram' - - - ' ~r`~- - _ - - ~ ~ , - - - ~ - ~ ~ - ~ ~ - I7TH STREET _ B R pq - _ DWRY D VIEW ALONG 17TH STREET • NORTH END r~- , L SOUTH BUILDING i I , _ -rT.~ - ~ - / ~ ~ , ~ yr- - - _ II ~ - - NORTH BUILDING - . i ^ - _ - ~ I _ _ -~.:I _.~~L. ~ _I I L.-~~ _l --~T ~ - r ----,y _ , - - - 1 I l.T_ ..I.: I I I I. LEI I f.l r 1 I . f r iI-. ,r r ilili~~i171-I T i_.-f c~-~.___, - 1- ' ~ r ~ TAI - _ i I - - - - - ~ _ - - T _ I r ~ r- '-rr -r 7 ~ L - - _ ~ - - _ I I ~ ' t.. 'g 1 - i i - - - _ _1- 1 I ..1-_ ~ - I L. 1 l' I - - tF I - I 1 - j ~f. ~ ~ 1- r y _ ~ - 'q(~ ry~ i _--r~-'- _.A_ ~ I F k ~ rt I~~. '~d p ~d y,~ 'Few,'- i I~,- - - ~ p 4 r~ - A i F ~y . _ i I r ~ r I~ , I ~ - - - +t _ . ~ ~ - - - _r it+f11.; ~:~r, _R'~` r _L I I I ! ~ „T.:1 t .r{. ~ I _I ] f _ - _ _ ' ~ f~ ~ , _ - , . ~ I I ~a r r M - r ~-Lr-~ - - i - i i t t r .p ~ - - - _ - - a. fit i~ , , I ~ _ 1 I - - A".-- ~ L \ w11r~ I ' I I {Jr " i ~ ~ Fri . a ~ ~ i 't L . ~'-`q~ i ~ i r ' rI '.f ' ~ 1 I I + : _w - , ~ I ~'y+G y.. ~y~ r,L-' 1 °*L' ' ' i.(-y "b .y _ - . i. _ _ .tip - ~r"!s, i, v' ~ -,J.' I i I •.r. l~ ~S1A~"+•„~. t~ ~~ti ~jri'S <v:F,~ts tYrisa . - ; , , ti... 7 j ~f~ s".r-~' r' ~ r _ r . a L-. _ :+5+ .:d. ~ r,~ t~ ~ ~ y ,r,~ k zr=. ` _ ~ - : ,Y ~ - _ ' ~ h".. ~ iii ~ ~ : ! v =+T ~ fk.":-.. 17TH STREET ` - _ _ - `f - ~y~ - - C _ VIEW ALONG 17TH STREET • CENTER 3D VIEWS ACACIA STUDENT HOUSING ® OZ ARCHITECTURE 17th & Broadway A3.1 si:1 SITE REVIEW Boulder, Colorado 6-27-2011 AflCN11fClM Agenda Item 513 Page 25 of 108 - _ _ _ ~I~.=• n~"E~~, '1f -fir ~ 6 F' ~ t `A" ~ ~ SOUTH BUILDING LDING C. _ _ ~ - - - ,i_- _ - _ _ - - - : ~ - L_~_~- - - - - Nt _ f - I i_ ~1 r--- I I I NORTH BUILDING ~ ~ " - ~ - I ~ it a„ ~ ~ rte, ~►~rr.; ~ ~ - _ - y - ~ ~ r _ I ~ JV s y ~ nY'id ~ ~ Y- ~ ~ ' ~ ~ -b~y M.I ~ ~ 7~, ~ ~ I r, ' ~ ~ 8 r i ~f?` ~ ~~p!iprJl.l ~ ,1'S~Yy'~,, * .9 ~r.; i N . ' - Y _ b. - ~ J I ~ ~ 4~~ 1 _--h".-~+.~.I G .°a~~ tip`'-•~i~ ~h _ ti ti~s wi ~l,snc ~~`6~7 ~r-..ye, l~,r~K• ~:~JF~~ :LU ~~r~ ~ L r^. 'W f _ - ~ ~f~.~ - 1 f;12. ~I ~4 I ~ti►I~YY ~i~ `s._. f ti. ~ n. I ,-ham #s_ Misr ~~Fa~ - 1 r~ l.. ~ - ' n ~ M, 'i~~ I ~I ~ ~ ~I ~ .L.~-+1 5 Y - ~ , ` ~ i ~ 1'. r - 1 ~I V - a, ~.~ww I P , ~ 1 I a . - ~ - ~lal' i L. _ - - ~L III. - ~i 11; _ I _E o"x IVY' - i ~k _ _ ~ I, i I _ _ _ _ _ L _ _ _ F- - ~ .''t - ^ > _ - ~ T 4` ~ f - - 1 _ _ : • :f. ~.{_a.,~4. : p ~ ..ajt is _ ' F/' P`t.. ~k7. .a. r" ~ A y -r'~ r ~;.h'~s' b~ ~ . Y. t f •SfF~' l,'1: ' b ~ ' _ - _ ~ , LI f.: ~T F J;. ♦l J .irk +R~ ~P,: ~ j ~j :1 ~ t e's '7i;~J ~j: J _ :FV'Y f•1J>. SAY ~ Y.i}, ~ i h''~_#(~ ~.AV - A,C~ C. .rr a -Sid -r _ 14..r:'.' _ _ _ - - - VIEW ALONG 17TH STREET • SOUTH END i._ r 1. L[ r .-r~ - / SOUTH BUILDING ING _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - - I - - - - 4 - -~i - ? t `M, - _ y ~ _ 0 I ~ f _ _ _ , _ ~ . ri l'~ ~A qRr M 1 . . . i ~ ~~''g >4~ ~ .,~i 10"+y5,~ - _ ~ ~ ii r,- ~ _ ~'7 I i~ .'4,.,t .r~' ~w ''~y'-. _ . _ . I~ - _l ~ ~ ~ . ~ ~-ice _ ~ ~ - _ t 6 ~ r ~ _ ~ - f"e~. . y , _ , r'.~ ~5~ rr'~Yh.~-i. ~ .iii,- i -'f I I .I .I i ♦'.C- x J~-. .e~r; ..7~1 ; 7'a - ~y+7lrF„~"'.,I'a r-. _ _....T' 11.' - 1 .p~ _ ~ 1. . ~ r ~ ~ I ~ • : 1x' y ~,y` ~ a sY ?:'ty-~.' q,. _ _ ~ _ I ~ I r-- _ _ I . r .r._ 1 ! - - ~ I s~ T. •I _ : ~p . ~ ~ ~ • ~ it ' ~ ~ I ~ I ~ ~~t 9: j ~ • 9 A` [ ~ ri >yk Mi ~ V I i ^.rf i 1 ~S I { . . ~ ~a - I I_- _ i a ~ i _ I it ~ h ::1 ~ 'r if , Y j' R f s ~ V r. Y - ~ ,yy~ ~I ! \ A 1.::. _ - r..,, ' w~ 'I~ . • J , i _ g : : . G { 'fir 'lA r+^ ~ 7,~'rv f.. ~L IAA - : I, - c.. . _ r 1 -4 t .x~~ `'-LLTA 1 - - i '~1 _ ' i~i. - _ VIEW ALONG AURORA 3D VIEWS ACACIA STUDENT HOUSING © OZ ARCHITECTURE r7 SITE REVIEW 17th & Broadway A3.2 Boulder, Colorado 06-10-2011 AflCHIifC1VflE Agenda Item 5B Page 26 of 108 - - - ~r r ~ ,1 [ ~ ~ . ~ r i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~.i. ' ~ . - --z.- ~L7:y At b r I -'-j 3 3..J..~ ~,L~ C ~x t G t ,.-Z T ~~J I L,. „ 1 i yi 5- 3 L I'! i_ tI TT S 7 7 ~ I f }t i S 5 - ♦ -*7 r r..} l Jig. TI - L ~ ~ TF }1.-. t I 'Fl J t .Jl I _ ~ y I ~ - _~~'Y- 3 T a h l.: - I J ! : ~ 3J ~ - ~ r J 1 -r _ ;~`1 _ _ ~ - , ~ ~ ~ ~ `71 t ~:=t 7 ~ tL 7~°; k I.,:~ I ~ ~ ~ 7 ` - ~ 1 :.tit j: I L rJ;J ~ [ rY,r ' ~ - - - i - • a' [ ',[,-t- 7. 1 . - _ .I. ~ J1 ' 1 - ~ I I i Y; i Fj ...,'C3 t 3 } ~•r ~;~y - ! ~ ~ ~ - ki I ,.wi ~ ~ i 'F - I Ci - ,t,-`- r ~7T t ~ < f '.I '.li t r .1"i-.? ` } 7. _ _ - - ♦i ,-=fit I _ x. - 'l - ~ i _ e ~ 1 - - - III . - ~ ~ _ I 6r ` t~ I ♦ - i I. I I. 'i . ~ , ~iJ L - I ~ ~ ~ } ~ ~ ' ~ } I ~l ~ -t t~ - ~ - t_ I . ~ _ • _ - a , _ - _ I ~ ~ a ~ - ~ i i i~! r ~ - r ~ p _ _ - ~ _ , I a..~1~ a.a + _ 9• k i _ ~ °l ~ - --.i 7_~ ~7 1t1. -'t a -~L i, ~ III I s L. L Jt j L l ;I .f t _ 1 _ ~i. 1~. 1. 1 E41' I - _ _ w'. r_ '4$ ~ t L _ _ - I r x - _ . 7 - ~ ~ ,.i_. . ' ~ 8, ~ I~~ ~ _ , ~ _ - r. I ° ~ -f ~ 1~. f . I - JI-'r.~~.`~~',b ~r - - F.a.. .w ~l . iLl.~- t =~L ` _ ,I I " ~ f 4_~ . - w ' of ~ • i i ~ _ .;fir ~ y " ~ .,+~1 I ~~'i - 1 ~ t I -I _ . 4 ~ ~,:~a I - - r-a . _ - Il o.,- _ ~ k', r _ VVyyw~S5 - .4 . ~ ~ ~ ~ Y I r-- ~y v - - - ~ .ry f• -~_r f 'L ~~~A ~,;.f S.l^~~ ~ ba ~6' ~ I I LL ~..J_ l I e. p 1 3. 1 se _ - r ~ ti ~-~s.:. r-,.' r t~ ~,:~,r :p 1 kD `~4:... - 1J 'JI~ 'iLk ° - , i ~ ~V Y ~ f it I ~ ~ r "1P '#~5y ~p _ ~'1 p i i - ~A ' ~ •-~y _ y,;~, sJ~' - w e ~ r • ~'3 , ~5 ,i~.+~, Y''~~, ~ : ~*'¢+Y ~ - s~ 1~ - - i I _ i ' ~ 1 - _ i ~6 :h~ # , ~ a;T ski r i._ - 4 ° ~ ,t -,y . Ili - 1 1 _ ' I ~I ~ ~ , w ~ a ~ _ ~ 1~ E .h M~ _ - ~ -1Y ~ ~ ":'ti " ` f' it .P w ~ _ M. ~I' i , i i _ - - ' 1 _ R'-~f'~ ~ 1 r , v'. ,d' il'~ I~. ^•>r 5 'f} ~n ~`h ! ~ ?6~ , ~.i, T~ ~ .vi I } ~ ~ } 4"' _ t' _ - ' r ~ R ~ _ , . C _ , t~ ~ . _ A , i ~ZA x ~ ; I ~ ~ ~ `i, J iii i.., - ~ : ° _ ' I r 1 ~ li ~ j ~ ~ ~ +il~ _ - - ~ 91~ .I,~ _ ~ V ~ - _ _ _ - 'i j ~ - { ` ~ ii f. f ~ ~5-. I ' - -I Jr~.-,1--i_. 'E`f..J.~-_r`C: I - i ~--~_[.i.~ L t! ..{r - r , ; ° ~ e - ~ ~ r JJ.,,. ..J~ ~ ~ _L(~ P'~_.~1"rTf T _ I i' i i _ii.rl I Lfi =1"i ~ ; x • l . -j ~j? ° pq,~q,~~ya~~ 1iy' - -e k ~ } w ~4' r . y.. 1 _ { y; ~ r_ may' i~ - , i ` r I i °t4~ , I x. • r~. ~ ~ _ .k~ - ~'~`~l } v~l 1c~,.`,~ J ,!.a♦rt Fv,„ 'r'~ „;s~,~.l~... - 1 ( F~~` y~ - 14 k 1, - ' _ ~ ~ -~r I ye y . _ ~ y y mod.' 6 '>yt ~ J4': -?ss a : ~c`~) a I i,~r + ~ 1~A e 9;? ~]~4+m icyl YW IC = ~f It a- * ~i ~ S S r~ k ~ I r - .~}v - - ~."i - __yF~ - - • - - _ rte'"~ - - i ~+r.-:, - - _ ~ ` jJ~ ` ~ ~ - I - R ~~'."L ~'~w .t .nom s - .rr- ~ r r~~ , ~ may"' a ` ~ y .w . ~ _ - ~ - _ .f . : _ r ~ _ ~ _ - - ~ - . a - - - - ~ w ♦1. it r. • i _ ~ i - ~ / q~- r ~ ~ ♦ ♦ i ' ~ ~ - ~ - - s - " r ~ ~ ~ ~ f _ VIEW FROM BROADWAY HEADING WEST 3D VIEWS ACACIA STUDENT HOUSING ©OZARCHITECTURE 17th & Broadway SITE REVIEW Boulder, Colorado 06-10-2011 ABCHIiHIM Agenda Item 513 Page 27 of 108 HEIGHT LIMIT-~ \~i SOUTH BLDG r ~ I~ n ~ y HEIGHT LIMIT A 140'-4" Q ~ _ ~ _ _ _ _ USGS 5465.7 o - CO R HEIGHT LIMIT LEVEL S3 USG~y. - _ NORTH BLDG - - 131'-0.. 130'-0" p - - . I ~ ® ® ~ LEV~ LEVEL S2 ~ ~ - - of O - 119'_8" _ 120'-8" - PASEO ~ ~ PARKING ~ - ~ ~ ~ - ` ~ LEVY IEVEL S7 -:i I }}III ~ - LOW POINT FF { Fr { t rF tt FF +t t 1 FF +tt h 110'-4„ 1~~ III III ~usc~ ,oa_,o _ F } ~1~~ ~~~IC~~1~1~~III~I111~IIflll~~ ~II III I~-III III III III III i , PARKING ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ' ~ ~ ~ - ~ -III-~~ -~~I-~~I ~~I-~~ III-III-~ _ III ii ~ ~ LEVEL NI ' - - - r r _ _ ~ 0~~ LOW POINT ~ - - - ~ !i III-~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~-III III-III-III-III-III III- ~ 1~~f I v ~ 1 USGS 5421.6 - - - I I I I III III II II III III I I I I I' I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I III III II II I I I I I I I I- I I I~ SOUTH BUILDING NORTH BUILDING 1 BUILDING SECTION USIGST~ SOUTH BLDG _ 140 -4' ~ ~ LEVEL S3 130' I~ ~ ~ n I~ ~ LEVEL S2 119'rJ 8° ~ i I PARKING I-11_I-III-III _ LO, IOINT --fitt- 111- I I-1- t i 111-1I I- -11 ~ C rfifi i ---1t11i i ~ r11'I--fifi X11- - fir11 - - i III-1 I I-III-1 I I-III-1 I I-I i - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -III-III-III-III-III-III- 2 BUILDING SECTION 0' 8' 16' 32' 64' SOUTH BLDG /~f lNIG NORTH BLDG SOUTH BLDG ~Q~~ -0ii 131'-0" 140'-4" lUl LEVEL S3 i ~ _ X130. LEV_ LEVY EL S3 120'120'_8" 130'-0-0" ALLEY C.L. - © I UNIT BALCONY ALLEY PROP C.L. UNIT BALCO ENTRY ROOF BEYOND LINE .J _ 3'-0" i LEVEL N2 vLEVEL S2 LEVEL N2 _ LEVY 110 -PROP 119'-8" 110'-4" I 119'-8" 0 i ~ LINE PLANTED SL PE 5:1 - j PLANTED SLOPE AT 5:1 16. 5~,. 17'-0" 70.0" 10'-0" I ~~_p~~ ~q~{p~ 3._6.. 5._0.. ~ _ 0.. ~ ~ ~ I ~ ~ 4'-6" 5'-0" 6' - 0" _ i- PL NTING - i ~ ~ WALK ~S IP I 17TH ST WALK PL TING - - ' i ' _ - ST P - 17TH ST ~ I III-III-III-III-III- LEVEL NI ~ 0 6.0% LEVEL SI ~ ~ - LEVEL N1 ~ i LEVEL S1 - III III III III III III III III III III-~rnanr.F 2.0% _ ~ 99~ g~~ ~ X108.10•, - ~ ! ~I 100' olr 108'-10.. - ~ ~ i ~ i SLOPES REPRESENTED ARE AT THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE DRIVE (WORST CASE) ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ III III III I I III III III III I SLOPES IN PARENTHESIS ARE AT NORTH SIDE OF THE DRIVE I 3 RAMP SECTION @ NORTH BUILDING 4 RAMP SECTION @ SOUTH BUILDING 5 STREETSCAPE SECTION 6 STREETSCAPE SECTION (a~ NORTH BUILDING ~ SOUTH BUILDING v v F77771 F Of 4' 8' 16' 32' SECTIONS ACACIA STUDENT HOUSING © OZ ARCHITECTURE r7 q DESIGN DEVELOPMENT 17th & Broadway A4.1 Boulder, Colorado 6-14-2011 ANCNIIICiVBf Agenda Item 5B Page 28 of 108 LANDSCAPE ENTRY TO BIKE LOCKERS R RESIDENTIAL ENTRY RETAINING WALL 2 BIKE RACKS (tYp) BUILDING ENTRY RESIDE (4 bikes) RESIDENTIAL ENTR 5' WAL RESIDENTIAL ENTRY PUBLIC PASEO 13' 4" 0 W fr1 ~ ('/7 m t, ~ ~ 8' PLANTING STRIP FRATERNIT s:6„ 1 a'-o° MOVABLE FURNITURE DECKING PORCH 5• Q~~ 8' WALK o ° BUILDING CANOPY FRATERNTY ENTR BOVE 35'-0° B-B-O 2'-r,° 6'-0" BUILDING ENTRY MOVABLE FURNITURE 8,_6~~ (tYp) SETBAC BEES IN 36" HT. PLANTERS b:-0~ o SERUMS IN LOW RETAINING WALL PLANTERS (18" behind back of walk} 0 15'-b' ~ ROCK MULCH OR CRUSHER FINES BUILDING ENTRY y ~ 9~~ o 4 BIKE RACKS ,e 1~ a (8 bikes) o N - m _ o RANSFORMER 16 BIKE RACKS ~p RASH GARAGE ENTR OFF-STREET LOADING / (32 bikes) a COMPACT PEDESTRIAN ENTRY RASH BELO L 0 GARAGE PARKING SPACES (3 guest spaces + 1 GARAGE ENTRY OFF-STREET LOADING car-share) PEDESTRIAN ENTRY 0 GARAGE 0 20 40 Ff SCALE: ~ 20' 0" i` KEY: D PASEO COURTYARDS D ON-SITE LANDSCAPE D OFF-SITE LANDSCAPE LEGEND: EXISTING TREES UNIT WALK 6' TREE LAWN BIKE UPS TH STREET TREES ~vrn~ 3-OSR/5-RSR s-NFS SHADE TREES ERRACE WALLS BIKE 3-BBB ~-PG t 9-FRG 3-WS RACKS 8-WSR Yp~ i a-FRG 4-NFS 2-WH 2T 2-WH 1-SH 0 -SH 2-WH 2-T 2T 2-WH 6-EMH R 3-OSR/2RSR 2-T ruR uRL a ~ 2-BAG ORNAMENTAL TREES 0 W m SHRUB BEDS 3-OSR/3 3-OSR/2-RSR 1-PG 3-BCJ BIKE 6-SM 3.OSR/2-RSR 1-PG 5-NFS 2-BBB 1_pg -RSR 12-FRG 7-MK 3-BBB 1-PG RACKS DROUGHT TOLERANT BLUEGRASS TUR 8-NFS a-KB 5-RTD 1-SS 3-RTD 6-MK 1-PG 5-FRG a-NFS 2-BCJ 3-BCJ 5-BCJ 1-PG 5-BAG 1-SSC a-KB 8-KB a-NFS BLUE GRAMMA SEED W/WILDFLOWERS 8-RC 5-RTD 5-RTD 3~OSR 2-RTD 1-ABP 5-NFS 3-BBB 3-OSR/a-RSR 2NFS 1-BBB 11-BAG a-RC 2-HJ 2-HJ ~-SHL 6-gJ EDGER 16-MG 9-FRG 4-BBB 16-BAG 2-ABS MAIN BUILDING 12-B SCORED ~ 3-FRG 9-RS 7-KB ENTR CONCRETE 22-BAG ~ 2-MG PLANTERS ruR 8-MKL 6-BAG ~ o-CWSC 1-ABP PROTECT EXISTING TREES BIKE RACKS 8-BAG DURING RE-CONSTRUCTION 12-MKL 8-ABS 2-EMH OF SIDEWALK. TU~f V . MO ABLE B-B- 2-BCJ IF NOT FEASIBLE TO PRESERVE, 5-AH a-AH FURNITURE S -o' S'-o` 1-ABP 8-WLA IIRF ALK 36" RAISED ~o-MG NOTIFY CITY FORESTER FOR 3-SJ a-AWB a-AWB PLANTERS i-SJ REMOVAL FROM ROW AND s.oGH 1,-s„$,-o„ $,-o~~ INSTALL 4 NEW SHADE TREES, a-BAG 36-RC DECKIN 2-B EQUALLY SPACED 22-VFRG 22-RC rurzr BIKE 16-VFRG s-Ww rLe. RACKS SEDUM a~BJ 5-AH GROUNDCOVERS IN s-BJ 3-B LOW PLANTERS 12-MG 2a-BI a-SJ REES uR BIKE PLANTERS RACKS (4'sq. x 36" ht) io-CWSC 1 s-RS 12MG TURF TUk 3-B~, a-RTD METER 8-RS uR 1-ABP 9-OGH 7-OGH 6-BJ 2-SSC 8-RT 5-KD 2-B 6-SMS 3-B 1 o-KB 5-SMS 5-KD a-BJ RETAINING WALL -SEAT 16-B 9-BJ 11-BJ rRSH TRSH 'y b-KD BELO BELO ALL AT ALLEY RASS DETENTION & L RASH ATER QUALITY AREA METER 2-ABP S 3-ABP R~ RASH / RASH / GARAGE ENTRY GARACLO, ARACLOADING 5-ABP LOADING BELOW BELOW BELOW 0 20 ao FT PLANT LIST SCALE: ~"=20' o" o.c. KEY QTY COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME SIZE SPACING SHADE TREES: ABP 14 Chanticleer Pear Pyrus cal~yeryana'Autumn Blaze' 2° dp. as shown SHL 3 Shademaster Honeylocuts Gleditesia triacanthos'Shademaster' 2" dp. as shown SM 6 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum Llegacy' 2° dp. as shown TF 6 Turkish Filbert Corylus colurna 2° dp. as shown WH 8 Western Hackberry Celtic occidentalis 2° dp. as shown ORNAMENTAL TREES: ABS 10 Autumn Brilliance Seviceberry Amelanchier x grandiflora'Autumn Bri~~iance' 6' ht. as shown AWB 8 Asian White Birch Betula platyphyl~a'Whitespire' 8' ht. as shown SSC 4 Spring Snow Crabapple Malus 'Spring Snow 1.5" dp. as shown DECIDUOUS SHRUBS: AH 16 Annabelle Smooth Hydrangea Hydrangea arborencens'Annabelle' S qal. 4' o.c. BBB 16 Bicolor Butterfly Bush Buddleja'Bicolor' S gal. 4' o.c. BV 13 Birkwood Viburnum Viburnum x burkwoodii 5 gal. 5' o.c. CWSC 20 Creeping Western Sand Cherry Prunus besseyi Pawnee Buttes 5 gal. 4' o.c. EMH 8 Emerald Mound Honeysuckle Lonicera ex~osteum 'Emerald Mound' S gal. 3' o.c. KB 33 Korean Japanese Barberry Berberis korean 5 gal. 4' o.c. KD 16 Dwarf Kelsey Dogwood Cornus sericea'Kelseyi' S gal. 3' o.c. MKL 23 Miss Kim Dwarf Lilac Syringa patula'Miss Kim' 5 gal. 4' o.c. NFS 36 Neon Flash Spires Spiraea japonica 'Neon Flash' S gal. 3' o.c. OGH 24 Oregon Grape Holly Mahonia aquifolium 5 gal. 5' o.c. OSR 21 Orange Shrub Rose Rasa x'Morden Sunrise' S gal. 3' o.c. RC 74 Rock Cotoneaster Cotoneaster horizontalis 5 gal. 3' o.c. RS 35 Russian Sage Perovskia atriplicifolia 5 gal. 3' o.c. RSR 18 Rainbow Shrub Rose Rasa x Knowkout Rainbow 5 gal. 3' o.c. RTD 25 ~santi Dogwood Cornus stoonifera'santi' S gal. 5' o.c. SMS 11 $nowmound Spires Spiraea napponica'$nowmound~ 5 gal. 4' o.c. WLA 16 White Lights Azalea Rhondendron x'White Lights' S gal. 4' o.<. WSR 11 White Shrub Rose Rosa x Meidiland White 5 qal. 3' o.c. EVERGREEN SHRUBS: BCJ 17 Blue Chip Juniper Juniperus horizontalis'Blue Chip 5 gal. 5' o.c. BJ 44 Buffalo Juniper Juniperus Sabina 'Buffalo' S gal. 4' o.c. BW 18 Vardar Valle Boxwood Buxus sem ervirens'Vardar Valle ' Sal. 30° o.c. HJ 2 Sk rocket Juni er Juni erus sco ulorum'Sk rocket" 5 al. es shown SJ 8 Scandia Juniper Juniperus Sabina 'Seendie' 5 qal. 4' o.c. ORNAMENTAL GRASSES: BAG 78 Blue Avena Grass Helictotrichon sempervirens 1 gal. 18110.c. FRG 61 Feather Reed Grass Calamagrostis acutiflora'Karl Foerster' 1 gal. 18110.c. MG 74 Morning Light Maiden Grass Miscanthus sinensis'Morning Light' 1 gal. 2' o. c. PG 52 Plume Grass Saccharum ravennae 5 gal. 3' o.c. VFRG 38 Varigated Feather Reed Grass Calamagrostis acutiflora'Overdam' 1 gal. 18"o.c. PERENNIALS GROLINDCOVERS: BG Biokovo Geranium Geranium x cantabrigiense 'Biokovo' 1 gal. 18" O.C. BG BI Boston Ivy Parthenocissus tricuspidata'Veitchii' 1 gal. as shown L Deep Blue Lavender Lavendula angustifolia 'Hidcote' 1 gal. 12" o.c. DAY Yellow Daylily Hemerocallis'Stella de Oro' 1 gal. 18" O.C. YS Yellow Sunrose Helianthemum Yellow 1 gal. 18" O.C. 1713 sf Sedum Mixed varieties Sedum in trays RIM ELEV. = 543I.ZO RIM ELEV. = 5421.28' I 30 ~ 0 INVERT IN = 5431.04' ° INVERT IN = 5414.80' ~O ~ INVERT OUT = 5431.07' INVERT OUT = 5414.71' ~ AHCHITECIURE - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - J I - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1805 29th Street 8 INCH PLASTIC PIPE _ ~ ; A ~ Suite 2054 ~ ~ C I w w- r~ PROTECT EXIST I o~ ~ o A~ A Boulder, Colorado 80301 o ~ TOW 35.00 I I I~ I BRICK FLATWORK z°~ z°° S Z ~ m EXIST POWER BOW VARIES Q _ _ _ _ o A X50' RUN POLE TO REMAIN MAX WALL HT 2'-0" _ )5'47 W I i ~ ~ oZ phone 303.449.8900 I ~ ~ - m - ~ ss - - I I MATCH EXIST ~ ~ A N ~ z z ~ ~ PER G1Y RETAINING WALL s Ss TOW 31.00 13 I o z= m CURB AND GUTTER TR WN TOW 33.70 o EE lA (RE: ESCAPE) ~ p,~'AG ~ PER CITY STANDARDS ao ~ rn RE: ESCAPE BOW VARIES ~ BOW VARIES ~ I GRADES _ CURB RAMP ~ ~ ~ S MAX WALL HT 1'-6" ~ ~ 4 0 oA, ( ) a I I ~ ~ ~ ~ (nP) ~ ~ ~ 20 0- _~(JNALL_HI1~--- .HIl'~----------------------I ~ I ~ ~ \ ~II11~~11 ~ ti ~ i S~ ~ > ~6 S4 I 1 3~ A~ ° ~J' ~ j a ° ~ a a ° a 32 0 ° CONCRETE ~ 9 ~ ~ ~ a' ~ \ ~i ~ ~ _ SIDEWALK 38 ° PER SURVEY ~o p i / S ~ ` ~ ~ PER COB STDS ~ 3j I (VERIFY) ~ z ~ S ~ ~ ~ s / 39 36 2.0% 31 ~ cP 0 (TYP} ~ °I Z ~ ~ 1VA, Inwrporated 1319 Spruce Street i \ ~ ~ G ~ ~ ~ ~ S ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 i TOW 40.10 \ ~ ~ •0 1.30 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ BOW VARIES TOW 37.10 CONNECT TO / A ~ Boulder, CO 80302 Phone: 303.444.1951 8'00 EXIST TYPE R INLET Z Z m l Fax: 303.444.1957 E-mail: info~juajva.com 9 ~ -~o i \ ~ ~ ~ BOW VARIES ~ o ~ S w / MAX WALL HT 1 -6 „ TOW 31.00 RIM 5421.10 < ~i 6' / MAX WALL HT 2 -2 CONNECT TO \ ~ 9 TO BOW VARIES INV IN 17.00 N C ~ / DECK PATIO RO F RAIN ~ ~ / + STAIRS ~ 0 D \ ~ ~ ~ / 43.20 41N NORTH BUILDING MAX WALL HT 1'-6" o INV OUT 16.80 (VERIFY) ~ ~ II s ~ ~ ~ / W RAILINGS (TYP, RE. ARCH) LEVEL S1 FFE 5432.66 (nP) ~ ~ m / D LEVEL M FFE 5423.83 0 ~ •g~ IN N 'A, 0 \ s ~ ! a ~ a Q ~ ,p 2~0% ON 80TH SIDES LEVEL S2 FFE 5443.50 Q ~ ~ ~ LEVEL N2 FFE 5434.16 ~ (nP) ~ ~ o \ ~ RE: ARCH ~ ~ c ! ( ) 5~ s~ p s ~ s ti~ ~ ! 32.95 ° I I W N N O • p ~ A9 \ s p ° ~4~ W ,T ~~ti ~ ~ 5 ~ l ~i ~ij, ~ 0 \ ~ ~ 130 LF I I~ s ~ ti • ~ \ s ~ ~ 12" RCP ®1.0% ' ti y0 ` s \ 5 ~ I PASEO ~r ~ s.F s ~ \ s a CURB RAMP I (RE: ARCH, ESCAPE) o I Q _ s ~ ~ s ~s~ I ~ •s o ti` ~ (nP) I 2 0% RAISED PLAZA ~ ~ s s ~ ~ ~ a (RE. MECH, ESCAPE, ARCH) 'U I ~ ~ ~ ~ 1~ , R° ~T1 ~ v' / ti~ ; ~ s Q 1 A Q ~ rTl ON ° Z ~ L.1. / ~ RAISED PLAZA 1.5' COLORED 0 I ~ G ~ ss ~ (RE: ME( / 1 a (RE: MECH, ESCAPE, ARCH) CONC STRIP p B/W WALK I ~ ~ O / ~ r AND WALL 8 0' o . ` ~ ~ +31. / ~ wo°/ F M D ~ ~ / s ~ + - - ] 150' 800' C ° . tit Y~o ~ L.. ~ _ _ i / ~ \ d 1 1 1 1 _ - I ~ as ~ ~ O Z ~ _ ss \ Q - ~ ° ~ _ _ ACCESS TO NORI 'k / ~ \ ~ ~ ACCESS TO SOUTH ACCESS TO NORTH BUILDING GARAGE ti~ ° CONCRETE O ~ s,, ~ ~ 5440 BUILDING GARAGE - - (RE: ARCH FOR RE: ARCH FOR CROSS-SECTION AND DETENTION & RETAINING WALL '~ERGROUND ' I I O a 2 ° ` ADDITIONAL GR ~~~y A, ~ ~ (RE: ARCH FOR WATER QUALITY N ( TOW 5423.50 ~AT~~ _ W V ADDITIONAL GRADING INFORMATION) WSE 5423.30 ° I BOW 5421.50 `R uiv~ W ~ / ti ~ ~ CROSS-SECTION AND ~ STAIRS W/ ~ " OVERHANG O ~ ~ ADDITIONAL GRADING 12" PVC ,k RAILINGS ON ~ ♦ I W 12 PVC TYP, RE: ARCH 542 " I - ~ ~w ~ 0TH S ~ INFORMAT ON) ° STORM GRAIN ~ ^ B IDES )RM DRAIN ( ) a 'u, 12 INV OUT 21.00 ~ tia j I ~ ~ ~ (TYP) / (RE: ARCH} ~ s I M o \ ~ ° QS / ~ ° a da ~ 4 d ~ ' ~ W ~ T a o I ~ N O / ~ h a a 5 5 a ~ 21.5 ~ p° ° h~ MM / f $ $ ° ~ ~ W f d`~ i ' / ~ ~ ~ ......~.CONCREIE..~...~ frI / ff Z; \ / ~ AARKINGAREA..,.. f pf y ~ ~ r 1 f`y ~ Y ~ / , R~E: ~LSCAPE . 1f ~f ~ ` I ~ \ V MATCH EXIST Of I ~ u z z . IMIT RE SE AN Z' \ GRADES ~~~~~,~L~ i ~ JAH~!aRv ~!_S1' ( L ED LEA D I I ~ ~ ~ WATER QUALITY a , \ ~ U1 ~ REPAVE ALLEY v ~ ~ ~ ~ OUTLET STRUCTURE ~ ~ MATCH EXIST \ ss ~ ~ ° PER CITY STDS ~ ~ Z o z ~ RIM 5423.50 ~ z ~ GRADES ~ ~ - - - AREA DRAIN - m y \ z< ~ ~ 9 ~ ~ II \ ~ ~ F ~ II ~ II INV OUT 18.30 ~ II ii II I u it ~ OVERFLOW SPILLWAY G ~y ~ ~~a o ~I ~ -I ~ / ~ ~ m ~ I I ~ I cn ~ ~ ~ I ~ ~ N m AT RETAINING WALL \ ~ ~ ~ -PAN m O 0 z \ F p N co al ~ O ~ I 9 \ NJ ~ww ~ ~WOwo ~ ~ O 9 ~ \ , ~ A ~ ~ ~ II I I \ \o o~ ~ II ~ i I o / -I O G I \ I I I ~ ~ PROJ.NO. ti ~ I \ o ~ \ Q~~ ~ ! N DRAWN: JCD s ~S / ! CHECKED: SJD \ ~ / ~ ~ s ~ ~ \ a F ~ ~ I ~ ti ss ,0 ~ ~ I APPROVED: CRH ~ ~ \ ~ `F ! DATE: 04-18-2011 ss 'L ! REVISIONS \ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I 05-16-2011 ~ s ~ ~ ~ I 08-22-2011 ~ ~ ~ ~ F r S > > ` I ss p m ~ ~ x ~ ° I o ~ N s I o s ~ ~ ! • _ ~M~~~M~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~ ~ a ~ r v s ~ ACACIA o ` ss a ~ ~ ~ ISSUED FOR: ° ~ 8 INCH CLAY PIPE N SS--~---SAS SS -SS--► SITE REVIEW O N SHEET TITLE: 3 a PRELIMINARY u ~ GRADING AND v ~ m DRAINAGE PLAN S SCALE: v ~O,Q r v N NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 20 0 20 40 SHEET NUMBER C 3 SCALE IN FEET c 1 0 V n Agenda Item 513 Page 31 of 108 ARCNIIECIURE NOTE: DEMO EXIST DEMO EXIST 1"WATER CONNECT TO EXIST FIELD LOCATE EXIST SANITARY SEWER SERVICE LINES FROM EXIST SERVIC SERVICE AT MAIN 8" WATER MAIN 1805 29th Street BUILDINGS. CAP ALL SANITARY SEWER SERVICES AT SANITARY w/ 3" TAPPING TEE Suite 2054 SEWER MAIN AND PATCH STREET PER CITY STDS. AND 3" Gv Boulder, Colorado 80301 RIM ELEV. = 5437.20' M ELEV. = 5421.28' I 30' I phone 303.449.8900 NVERT IN = 5431.04' INVERT IN = 5414.80' i 30 INVERT OUT = 5431.07' INVERT OUT = 37 LF 6" PV( EXIST FIRE 37 LF 6" PVC „ PROPOSED TREE FIRE SERVICE 8 INCH PLASTIC PIPE a, . 36 LF 3 HYDRANT z FIRE SERVICE ~ ~ o ~ N o ~ ~ (TYP, RE: ESCAPE) W 2x90 BEND( / iN/ 2x9D' BENDS I - I COPPER PIPE " o ~ o 0 0 ~ III_ AN 6" 4 c, D G AND 6" GV ~ - ,71.■~, ,11~ 0 CDC I I 3 WATER METER s z°~ z c ~r ~ ~ v ~ 150' RUN I j W/ 8'X10' VAULT SO O ~ ° y ~ ~ o I O Z r ~IJ`J`III - - - - - - c°n PEAR CITY SS ~ - - I I LOCATE VAULT LID - - ~ D ~ ~ m ~ \ ~ CONNECT TO EXIST IN LANDSCAPING , 8 Z o o rn z y/i~ ~ ~ G ~G o V o 0 0 o IRE SERVICE o i i p p ~~y I o~ 1VA,Inwrporated 13195pruceStreet ~ F ~ Boulder, CO 80302 Phone: 303.444.1951 \ Fc~ - - - - - - - \ ~ o, „ ~ ~ Q ~ ~ O~ ~ ~ Fax: 303.444.1957 E-mail: info~juajva.com 'y'l,'~j, ? + ~ I + + ~ + r I \ - ~9 \ \ DZ ~ o 0 0 nsi \ \ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 0 0 0 lY u Q ~O ~ ~ o I ~ q o ~S' \ \ ~ ~~m / i s \ ~ ~ zA I ~G z o,~ ~ o r~~ o ~ i ~m~=" \ cP G z \ \ S ~ ~ 0 i F \ \ A F i 9 \ ` ~ ~ i ~ ~i ` wN i ° S \ ~ rn V oZZm so c,~..< ~ ~ \ ~ \ 'L i C y ~ / CONNECT TO BUILDI JNECT TO BUILDING b Is ~ m ~ II Z ~ ~ \ \ b ~ / FIRE SERVICE SYST NORTH BUILDING CONNECT TO BUILDING D s II .E SERVICE SYSTEM DOMESTIC SERVICE o ~ jl jl cn ~ s \ \ ~ m LEVEL S1 FFE 5432.66 (RE: ME( o \ s \ a 0 (RE: MECH) (RE. MECH) n cn ~ J ~ LEVEL 52 FFE 5443.50 Q ~ ~ \ LEVEL N1 FFE 5423.83 Q o N ~ o N ~ ~ ~ ~y \ I ~S s \ A ~ LEVEL N2 FFE 5434.16 ~ I ~ N 3 ~ I A ~ N N , . J J Q9 ~ s ° ~ 1 ~2 ~ ~ 5 \ l ~ W r I A ~ II ~0F ~i ~ y0 ~ F ~ X o ti • ~ s o ~ ~ J' \ 3~ ~ a N v, o s \ 5 F R ~ o z Q = ~ ~ \ s ~a \ I ~ ~ s \ Z ~ z ~ L. 'S s °F I o 0 t~ / ~ ~ ~ ~ v I ~ cn ~ _ a ~ Dm ~ o ~o Z~ ~ Z ~o 7. ~ \ S. / ~ ~ \ \ CONNECT TO EXIST 6" FIRE SERVICE (VERIFY \ ~ m ~ W °U e"'o EXIST FIRE v 1 0 ~ HYDRANT ~ ~ „ ' ~ a 33 LF 6 PVC - - ~ FIRE SERVICE - - c, G ~ ~ W/ 45' BEND - o I ~ ~ ~ W ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ AND 6" GV - 45' & 22.5' BENDS BENDS o I I ~ ~aa ss \ ~ `1c ~ CONNECT TO BUILDING - - Pvc ~ I` O ~ ~ s \ \ FIRE SERVI YST M 35 LF 6" PVC _ _ 10 LF 6 PVC ~ CES E (~8.3% PROTECT EXIST TREE r W ~Q ~ RE: MECH ®8.3% 5D F~ ~ o \ ( ) 11 ~ CONNECT TO 6 ~NNECT TO 6" o I (TYP, RE: ESCAPE) Q 1~ \ SANITARY CO ~ REUSE EXIST 1 1 2" \ ~ INV 5420.83 SANITARY CO ~ INV 5420.83 ` / , / ~ ~ DOMESTIC METER \ (RE: PLUMB) (RE: PLUMB) , i ' ~ U, v ~ FOR SITE IRR ~ ~ ~ \ ~ ~ t I ~ I ~ N ~ ~ 33 LF 3 PVC \ ( ~ ~ ~ SD ---J SD SD I ~ ~ . ~ ~ ~ ` SD SD D ~ ~ ~ / SD SD SD--~---SD S D Ir. -P s ~ , , , . ~ ~ Q IT'f iO ~i \ ~ ~ f p, ti ~ C ~ %in1 % ~ , ~ 33 ~L1' 3 • TYPE.. K . /,n , ~ ~....COP.PER. PIPE ,•..•.•.•..•..•.•..CONNEC..T•.TO. B..UILDiN . . @ 7.5~ ~ . r-, . ~ \ DOMESTIC SERVICE RE: MECH tv"'""~` _ ~1 I GL ~ ( ) ANUARY 1 Z = " , v CONNECT TO 6 ~ 20 1 ~ 4 cn j mm~ y CONNECT TO EXIST 9 3 WATER METER ~ SHOWN PER m < G SANITARY CO I m CONNECT TO EXIST ;T TO EXIST CONNECT TO EXIST ~ m z ~ ~ r~ z 8" WATER MAIN W 8'X10' VAULT INV 5423.92 CITY MAPS ~ ~ ~ < 8" SANITARY MAIN / I r TARY MAIN 8" SANITARY MAIN ~ ~ o - m D " T P I ~ ~ LOCATE VAULT LID - - - - RE: PLUMB o - rn " " W/ 3 A P NG TEE ( ) Z ~ - W/ 6 z8 WYE AND 3" GU IN LANDSCAPING -Ci INV 5420.18 3" WYE W/ 6"z8" WYE z < ~ c z ~ ~ 9 0.18 INV 5419.63 i II I~ N ~ I r-- ~ II p ~ PROJ. N0. II ~ I G s~~ ~ I ~ DRAWN: JCD ~~iv m ~~N rr ~ <i " / I ~ N N fTl \ ti ~0 0 F p N [0 ~ ~ O ~ I G °~J W w ~ ~ ~ ; ~ ~ ~ CHECKED: SJD ~ ~ ~ ;moo ~ APPROUED: CRH -I O , ~ II I I ~ \ F ~ ~ o -I ~ I I ~ I i DATE: 04-18-2011 ~ I ~ ~ REVISIONS ss ti \ I \ 0 -I N 05-16-2011 s o \ A~~ ~ \ ~ s \S ~ I I 08-22-2011 ~ ~ \ s G ~I o p F ~ \ I ti X Q \ / LN o ~ 2 ti N \ \F ~ ~j o s 'L ~ s /y \ •M~~M~~~M~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~ ~ ~ \ I a v ~ x s \ ~ ~ I s \ S Q ~ ~ F i ACACIA ° , j \ ! s ~ s \ 0 ~ ISSUED FOR: N ~ I \ " s~^ I ~ V` \ 1 1 V SITE REVIEW v \ ~ ~ \ \ SHEET TITLE: PRELIMINARY N \ ss UTILITY PLAN 8 INCH CLAY PIPE 18TH STREET 3 SSSS -SS-► SCALE: v S _ 20 0 20 40 N - ~ _ - lL L NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION - SHEET NUMBER SCALE IN FEET C2 0 V n Agenda Item 513 Page 32 of 108 Attachment B ACACIA FRATERNITY IDEALS AND HISTORY The motto of Acacia Fraternity is "Human Service" and the stated purpose of the brotherhood is "...to prepare ourselves as educated men to have a more active part in the affairs of the community in which we may reside; and above all, to seek the truth, and knowing it, to shed light to those with whom we may be associated as we travel along life's pathway." In short, T!i Acacia is an organization to prepare men both as leaders and - participants to be constructively involved and to better the = circumstances of their community throughout their lives. The Colorado Chapter of Acacia was chartered on January 17, 1911, as the twenty-fifth chapter of Acacia. The founders were not just students, but some were also professors and others were community members. Their legacy remained in operation at the same 955 Broadway location with three gaps caused by temporary chapter closure. Acacia still owns the 955 Broadway location to this day, and the Colorado Acacia Chapter House Corporation (a Colorado non-profit) is working to fulfill its mandate to provide housing to meet the needs of the undergraduate fraternity at the University of Colorado. From its inception in 1911 through 2000, the Colorado Chapter has initiated over 1,000 men. RATIONALE FOR A NEW MODEL: A Partnership Between the Fraternity House Corporation and the Private Residential Developer The "Classic Greek Living Model" has several drawbacks that are making it increasing less functional and sustainable in our current society. The proposal to redevelop the 955 Broadway property is the result of long reflection on these drawbacks, and how we can better provide a nurturing, vibrant academic and social living arrangement for the modern undergraduate university student. By partnering with a private developer, we can take the best elements of the classic model and make them functional and sustainable in the 21st century. The Outmoded, Unsustainable Greek Living Model The classic `Greek' common-house living model saw its heyday in the post WWII education boom. Greek fraternities offered the returning students the camaraderie of a small social community as an option to the anonymity of the large university. The normal living arrangement was shared bedrooms, communal bathrooms, and common kitchen 1 dining. Most students came from larger families and were accustomed to sharing bedrooms and bathrooms. {00040757.DOC:3} Agenda Item 513 Page 33 of 108 Today's students are still looking for that small, supportive, academic 1 social / living arrangement, but the old fraternity house physical model no longer meets their standards or expectations. Most students today come from smaller families and expect to have a private bedroom and bathroom for their own use. Today, the university now requires most freshmen to live in the dorms. New apartment complexes appeal to students by providing single occupancy bedrooms with non- communal bathrooms, but leave them without a strong academic / social support group. Also, more upper-class students want the experience of independent living, or are in committed personal relationships in their later university years. These trends have resulted in both a freshmen absence from fraternities and junior and senior members electing to live out of the chapter houses. Combined, these trends have changed the fiscal viability of traditional fraternity houses, along with their social conduct. Below are listed some of the classic Greek Model's weakest points: 1. Highly Volatile Economic Model: Traditional fraternity houses are vulnerable because they are of fixed size and have fixed costs associated with their operation. The fraternity membership is of variable size and quality. A fraternity with a membership that cannot fill the house will find itself on a downward spiral, and a House Board with few corrective options. A more flexible membership and housing model is needed. 2. Loss of Upperclassmen: In earlier years, fraternities worked fairly well, with juniors and seniors living in, and leading the organization from the best rooms in the chapter house. These older members demanded that underclassmen have pride in their ownership of the house. Today, the senior class is largely absent from the house, electing to try apartment living somewhere else in city, or to cohabit with the person of a committed relationship. This leaves a drastically different fraternity house that is desperately searching for membership to make ends meet and therefore unable to be as selective. Thus, a vicious downward cycle can begin. 3. No live-in advisors (Loss of Housemothers): Since the 1970s, fraternities seldom can afford to employ "housemothers" to be a stabilizing adult force within the chapter house. Of all the social safety nets to remove from fraternity chapter house dynamics, "no adult supervision" is the most detrimental. This, combined with the housing pressures noted above, have resulted in a cyclically non-tenable situation where even highly respected fraternities have had major social and behavioral problems as mainly sophomores and juniors live in fiscally stressed, unsupervised chapter houses. No one sees a return of housemothers, but a stable, long-term, non-student authority must be re-established. f 00040757.DQC:3} Agenda Item 513 Page 34 of 108 4. Limited Ability to Respond to Misconduct: In the event that damage or misconduct occurs in a classic fraternity house, the responsible party is the Alumni House Corporation Board of Directors, which is elected by the alumni members of the Fraternity. The Board of Directors has few options other than fines or revocation of the local chapter's lease to respond to any misconduct. Fines are often too light a response, and revocation of the lease is often too heavy a response. Having the Board's major function and interaction with the active chapter be in the area of discipline can contribute to negative group dynamics within the organization and undermine the ability of the alumni advisors to work cooperatively with the active members to mature and develop. 5. Accelerated Decline of Property: Classic Fraternity houses also suffer rapid physical decline of the property because the House Board is not present on-site to properly manage, nor do they have the necessary income flow to hire proper management. By default, physical maintenance is often left to student members themselves, thus assuring physical decline. Further, the fraternity's active membership has a real incentive to hide damage and/or critical maintenance issues from the House Board due to concerns over its impact on the status or standing of the house. The New, Functional and Sustainable Model Single Bedroom Apartment Living, integrated with a fraternity with community space focused on supporting a vibrant academic/ social/ career development program: Below is a list of the ways the fraternity model is improved: 1 . Improved Economic Model: By housing the fraternity within the professionally managed apartment complex and having the members sign apartment leases, the fraternity sees its fixed house size and cost structure change to a fully flexible housing number. The fraternity is under no economic pressure to accept members to make ends meet. It can expand or contract as needed without economic pressures to maintain size or grow despite the quality of candidates. Additionally, the House Corporation receives income from the apartment leases above and beyond the income available in the best years of operating the classic fraternity house. This benefits the membership in that a good amount of this additional income is then available for the nurturing the community program, and for scholarships and grants. This will result in a much more academic-oriented membership which improves both general conduct and community involvement. The "Chapter House" component of the project is attached and integrated with the apartments and will include a living room, dining room, serving kitchen, library/ study/ seminar room, and meeting space, all geared to support a program of strong {00040757.DOC:3} Agenda Item 5B Page 35 of 108 academics, healthy social activity, community responsibility, and career development. 2. Retention of Upperclassmen: As mentioned above, several housing trends have resulted in much lower upperclassmen live-in numbers then would be healthy for the culture of the fraternity. By having available on site the "best-in-class" apartments, the members can live close by, but as they choose to live and largely with whom they chose to live, while continuing to remain active in the fraternity program, and at the same time providing much needed leadership and mentoring to the underclassmen. Happy and engaged upperclassmen keep the fraternity on track and cut down on juvenile behavior. 3. Improved Ability to Respond to Misconduct: The new model puts the member's personal living choices into their living apartment where they are subject to the terms and conditions of the apartment complex and their lease. If a member becomes delinquent in rent or causes damage to the living space, then he would be subject collection and or retention of damage deposit just as any other complex renter would. if a group is involved in some form of misconduct, outside their apartments (including the interior of the Fraternity Space), the Board will have the ability to sanction the chapter through suspension or curtailment of the Fraternity Space. These options are not possible in the classic model. 4. Live-in Residential Advisor: The plan calls for an RA unit to be adjacent and connected to the fraternity space. This would be occupied by a full-time, adult (non- undergraduate) advisor with several duties, including guidance and mentoring of the active chapter members, the oversight of general conduct at the Fraternity Chapter Space, and facilitating relations between the Fraternity, project management, and the other project residents. 6. Better upkeep and professional landscape maintenance: Because the complex is professionally maintained with on-site, professional personal and there is a commercial objective in maintaining the highest standards of appearance and upkeep, then both the community and the fraternity should not experience a decline in the care of the property. 6. Integration with non-fraternity students: Because the project will house both fraternity members and non-member students (including women), the fraternity members will not be isolated from the general student population and instead will be better able to forge friendships and bonds with a wider variety of people. Some of the excessive and immature behaviors that are often associated with the classic fraternity model will simply be socially unacceptable in a fraternity integrated with a first-class, mixed-gender apartment complex. 100040757. DOC:3} Agenda Item 5B Page 36 of 108 USE CHARACTERISTICS IN THE PROJECT Although based on the new, sustainable model rather than the old, outmoded and unsustainable one, Acacia will be a true residential fraternity in every sense of the word in this project. The members will live together, study together, dine together, engage in community service together and socialize together. The fraternity space will be active and vibrant, being used on a daily basis by chapter members. Members will study together in the study room, have member, officer and committee meetings, engage in planning activities and enjoy common meals on an occasional basis. Every Monday evening, Acacia holds a formal (coat and tie required) dinner meeting for the members where speakers are brought in to further the students' education and exposure to the world. Social activities will occur approximately 7 times per school year and will be focused on members and their invited guests. At all times, the on-site adult (non-undergraduate) resident manager will be present to facilitate appropriate behavior and to advise and guide the members. Alumni members and House Corporation Board members will have frequent involvement with the students to foster relationships and give guidance. CONTROLS AND PARAMETERS The following is a listing controls offered to support the new fraternity model in this project: A. A majority of the fraternity active membership (excluding freshmen who are required to live on campus) will be required to live on site B. All Fraternity Officers will be required to live on site C. An Adult (Non-Undergraduate) Residential Advisor will live in RA Unit and supervise the chapter. D. The Acacia House Corporation Board will exercise direct control over fraternity chapter space rather than turning control over to the local chapter. E. All students (including fraternity members) will be legally responsible under the terms and regulations of industry-standard apartment leases, and the project ownership will be responsible for legal enforcement and exercise of remedies. Acacia is prepared to incorporate these controls as conditions of the development approval for the project. TRAFFIC IMPACTS The proposed project should actually decrease traffic impacts over the traditional fraternity model and the use of the existing house at 955 Broadway. Substantially more {00040757MOC:3} Agenda Item 5B Page 37 of 108 on-site parking will be included in the new development. As noted above, a majority of Acacia's members will be required to live on-site. Events sponsored by the fraternity that might attract additional vehicle trips are infrequent, and usually involve only students who live on-site, on campus or on the Hill within walking distance. The ready availability of the Skip and other bus systems around Boulder, together with the Eco passes held by all students, will allow Acacia's members to forego auto trips. The house is well located to campus, and classes and other on-campus activities will be in easy walking distance for students. e {00040757.DOC:3) Agenda Item 5B Page 38 of 108 ADDENDUM TO ACACIA FRATERNITY IDEALS AND HISTORY The following interview was conducted on June 12, 2011 with several Board of Directors member of the Colorado Acacia Fraternity Chapter. The members present for the interview were: Ron Mitchell, Board President Dave Carson, Board Vice-President Tim Campbell, Board member Vern Hughes, Board Member Byron Osterhuis, Board Member The questions asked of the Members, and their responses are as follows: 1. Approximately how many members regularly attend the Monday evening formal dinners? And how do those attending travel to the Fraternity House to attend these functions? a. Normally between '/2 and 3/a of the Chapter Members attend these dinners. Currently the Chapter totals 32 members, so between 16 and 24 members normally attend these functions. b. As expected, more than half of the members will actually live in the apartments next to the new Chapter House, those being the more active members, who can walk a short distance to the dinner. Currently, almost all chapter members live near the Hill and ride their bikes or walk to fraternity functions now, and are expected to continue this practice in the new facilities. 2. Describe the activities surrounding the listed 7 Social Functions per year. How many people will attend, during what hours will these events take place, how will discipline be handled? a. These social functions will be held on weekend evenings normally, and take place normally between the hours of 9PM and 1:30 AM. Only Acacia Members and their dates as well as a few prospective new members normally attend such functions, numbering in the 32 to 50 total folks in attendance. Agenda Item 5B Page 39 of 108 b. Under Inter-Fraternity Council rules at CU, ALL fraternity social functions MUST be registered with the Council in advance, with the functions being reported to the City and CU police as well as City Fire Department. All registrations include: a) hours of operation: b) number of guests expected; c) purpose of the function, and have the fraternity's agreement to the following items: i. ALL such functions must be policed by an adult (their resident advisor will be present at all such functions); ii. No underage alcohol consumption shall be permitted; iii. City or CU police have permission to stop at such functions, at any time, with no reason, or notice, and make arrests for underage drinking or any other unruly behavior. c. In addition, the property owners have full rights of oversight of ANY unruly behavior by anyone attending such functions, and will have given their permission and demand to the Resident Advisor to call both the police and one of the property owners regarding ANY unruly behavior. d. NO music will be played outside, and no large groups will be permitted outside during any of these functions. 3. Have there been any arrests made, at the current Chapter House during the last 4 years, since reactivation of the Chapter? a. No 4. Have there been any police visits to the current Chapter House during the last 4 years? a. To the best of everyone's knowledge present for this interview, police have been called to the current Chapter House 3 times in 4 years: i. Twice for noise complaints, no tickets were given; ii. Once for a member who had too much to drink, he was taken to the hospital, released shortly thereafter, and no tickets were issued. Agenda Item 5B Page 40 of 108 S. Describe the overall fraternity operations in recent history. a. Acacia in Colorado is not known now, or ever, for being the typical social type fraternity. The members are typically better students, well behaved young men (not always, but for the most part). b. The local Board of Directors numbers 12 in all, and is VERY active in Chapter Management, and overseeing all fraternity functions. We, as a Board, have committed a very large of money to building a new Chapter House for these young men, and intend to help insure safe operations there, as well as demand, and expect minimal wear and tear in what is surely going to be the nicest fraternity Chapter House on CU's campus. In addition to the interview questions and answers, the following is additional information related to Parking Management: 1. The project owners have made tentative arrangements (to be finalized in summer of 2012) with EGO Car Share, to have one of their vehicles parked in one of the project's alley spaces, available to project residents via a registration process, allowing people to use the car on an hourly basis and reserve times ahead, on line. EGO Car Share manages the program entirely; the project only supplies the permanent parking space. 2. The project owners have had discussions with CU about renting off site (from the project) car parking for any CU student who has a car and does not receive an assigned parking space in, or on, the project. The student has to apply for the license which is a semester at a time permit, and the project owners have agreed to reimburse any such students for 100% of the costs of any such permits. CU will not commit to a particular lot until the actual student application is made and processed, but they have told the project owners that the lots available for such permits are located within approximately'/4 mile to 3/8 of a mile from the project site. 3. As outlined in the interview question #I above, the members attending the Monday evening dinners will for the most part, live in the project itself. For the few other attendees who do not live onsite, their typical mode of transportation is to bicycle or walk to these functions. Agenda Item 513 Page 41 of 108 4. As outlined in the interview question #2 above, for the 7 planned Social Functions, it is anticipated that most of the members who will attend these functions will live on site, likely choosing to pick up their dates using their car or another onsite member's car, and that a small number of members who do not live on site will likely attend these functions as well. Some of those members will drive to the fraternity chapter house, parking on the nearby streets, but typically, due to occasional difficulty in finding nearby parking spaces at certain times (although weekend evenings show a large number of open parking spaces near the project site), this small number of members will typically be picked up by a resident member with a car, "double dating" to these functions. Agenda Item 5B Page 42 of 108 Attachment C Acacia Fraternity Chapter Meeting Room Management Plan July 14, 2011 Background: The motto of Acacia Fraternity is "Human Service" and the stated purpose of the brotherhood is "...to prepare ourselves as educated men to have a more active part in the affairs of the community in which we may reside; and above all, to seek the truth, and knowing it, to shed light to those with whom we may be associated as we travel along life's pathway." In short, Acacia is an organization to prepare men both as leaders and participants to be constructively involved and to better the circumstances of their community throughout their lives. The Colorado Chapter of Acacia was chartered on January 17, 1911, as the twenty-fifth chapter of Acacia. The founders were not just students, but some were also professors and others were community members. Their legacy remained in operation at the same 955 Broadway location with three gaps caused by temporary chapter closure. Acacia still owns the 955 Broadway location to this day, and the Colorado Acacia Chapter House Corporation (a Colorado non-profit) is working to fulfill its mandate to provide housing to meet the needs of the undergraduate fraternity at the University of Colorado. From its inception in 1911 through 2000, the Colorado Chapter has initiated over 1,000 men. Context & Uses on Adjacent I Surrounding Properties: Surrounding uses are predominantly residential in nature, including fraternities, apartments and single-family residences, with a handful of nonresidential uses, including religious assemblies and University Hill Elementary. Proposed Fraternity Chapter Room Use: Acacia will be a true residential fraternity in every sense of the word, although not in the traditional sense. The `new' Acacia fraternity will introduce a new living arrangement for fraternities. The new, more functional and sustainable fraternity model of living consists of apartment living, integrated with the common amenities traditionally found in a fraternity use. The common facilities will be focused on providing a vibrant academic, social, and career development program. The new model of fraternity living will encompass the same common areas and activities associated with traditional fraternity uses including, group study areas, dining areas, and engaging in community service and socialize activities together. Fraternity members will also live together as they would traditionally, however will do so in individual apartments with private bedrooms and bathrooms,. The number of residential units dedicated to fraternity use will start out at 6 units, since current membership is quite small, and is anticipated to grow to occupy approximately 35% to 40% of all of the project units. The shift in the residential model of fraternity-style living is a response to several factors, including financial costs of maintaining a large structure with common areas, changing social norms and lack of supervision., Agenda Item 513 Page 43 of 108 Improved Economic Model: By housing the fraternity within the professionally managed apartment complex and having the members sign apartment leases, the fraternity sees its fixed house size and cost structure change to a fully flexible housing number. The fraternity is under no economic pressure to accept members to make ends meet. It can expand or contract as needed without economic pressures to maintain size or grow despite the quality of candidates. The fraternity space will be active and vibrant, being used on a daily basis by chapter members. Members will study together in the study room, have member, officer and committee meetings, engage in planning activities and enjoy common meals on an occasional basis. Every Monday evening, Acacia holds a formal (coat and tie required) dinner meeting for the members where speakers are brought in to further the students' education and exposure to the world. Social activities will occur approximately 7 times per school year and will be focused on members and their invited guests. At all times, the on-site adult (non-undergraduate) resident manager will be present to facilitate appropriate behavior and to advise and guide the members. Alumni members and House Corporation Board members will have frequent involvement with the students to foster relationships and give guidance. Retention of Upperclassmen: As mentioned above, several housing trends have resulted in much lower upperclassmen live-in numbers then would be healthy for the culture of the fraternity. By having available on site the "best-in-class" apartments, the members can live close by, but as they choose to live and largely with whom they chose to live, while continuing to remain active in the fraternity program, and at the same time providing much needed leadership and mentoring to the underclassmen. Happy and engaged upperclassmen keep the fraternity on track and cut down on juvenile behavior. Improved Ability to Respond to Misconduct: The new model puts the members' personal living choices into their living apartment where they are subject to the terms and conditions of the apartment complex and their lease. If a member becomes delinquent in rent or causes damage to the living space, then he would be subject collection and or retention of damage deposit just as any other complex renter would. If a group is involved in some form of misconduct, outside of their apartment (including the interior of the fraternity common area), the Board will have the ability to sanction the chapter through suspension or curtailment of the fraternity space. These options are not possible in the classic model. Live-in Residential Advisor: The plan calls for an RA unit to be adjacent and connected to the fraternity space. This would be occupied by a full-time, adult (non-undergraduate) advisor with several duties, including guidance and mentoring of the active chapter members, the oversight of general conduct at the fraternity chapter space, and facilitating relations between the fraternity, project management, and the other project residents. Agenda Item 513 Page 44 of 108 Social Gatherings: Monday Evening Formal Dinners 16-24 attendees Over by 1 AM Social Events • 7 social events will be hosted per year, typically held on weekend evenings. • A total of 32 to 50 (max.) guests would be anticipated since only Acacia members, their dates and prospective new members are allowed to attend these functions. • Over by 1 AM Management of Social Events Under Inter-Fraternity Council rules at CU, all fraternity social functions must be registered with the Council in advance, with the functions being reported to the City and CU police, as well as City Fire Department. All registrations include: a) hours of operation: b) number of guests expected; c) purpose of the function, and have the fraternity's agreement to the following items: 1. All such functions must be policed by an adult (the resident advisor will be present at all such functions); 2. No underage alcohol consumption shall be permitted; 3. City or CU police have permission to stop at such functions, at any time, with no reason, or notice, and make arrests for underage drinking or any other unruly behavior. In addition, the property owners, Michael Boyers and Paul Brinkman have full rights to the oversight of any unruly behavior by anyone attending such functions. It is the fraternity's policy and protocol to have the Resident Advisor call both the police and one of the property owners to report any unruly behavior. By the building code, maximum occupant loads for the current spaces are as follows: Upstairs Meeting Rm: 82 Library: 8 Kitchen: 2 Downstairs Meeting Rm: 66 Total: 158 However, since the upstairs and downstairs spaces will never be fully utilized at the same times, we would agree to a maximum number of occupants in the entire space of 92. It is the responsibility of the live in Resident Advisor, or his selected adult designee, to shut down all fraternity events at the times agreed to herein. • There will be no outdoor music permitted and no large groups will be permitted outside during any of these functions Agenda Item 513 Page 45 of 108 • There will be alcohol available to anyone who is of legal age to consume alcohol (21). • ID's will be checked at the door by the live in Resident Advisor for all social functions, with hand markings given to those who are of legal drinking age. The Resident Advisor will monitor activities at all social functions. Parking Management: There is a 29% parking reduction associated with the development proposal for 955 Broadway. In order to offset the requested parking reduction a car share program and offsite parking spaces will be provided. Car Share Program The project owners have contracted with EGO Car Share to have one of their vehicles parked in one of the project's on site surface parking spaces located in the alley. The car will be provided for the 2010 fall semester. The car share program will be available to project residents thorough an online registration and reservation process. Reservations for the car are required in advance and are typically done on an hourly basis. EGO Car Share manages the program entirely; the project only supplies the permanent parking space. Mite Parking Spaces The project owners have had discussions with CU about renting off site parking spaces for any CU student who has a car and does not receive an assigned parking space in the garage, or in the on site surface parking. There are four CU lots available to students for permitted parking all year, close to the proposed project (see the attached map). In order to obtain an off site parking space from CU, the student resident will have to apply for the lease, which are based on semesters. Once the lease is obtained the project owners have agreed to reimburse any such students 100% of the costs their parking permits. While CU will not commit to a particular lot until the actual student application is made and processed, they have told the project owners that the lots available for such permits are located within approximately 300 yards to 1/8 of a mile from the project site. Events 1 Social Gatherings: Social function attendees who do not live on site, but are intending to drive to functions, will be reimbursed for utilizing public parking garages instead of the on street parking adjacent to the site. Attendees who do not live on site can sign into the function, stating which public parking facility they used to park there car, and they will receive a $15.00 credit off their fraternity bill for each such occurrence. Guests that do not live onsite will be encouraged to walk, bike or take public transportation. While we will attempt to minimize the amount of people driving to the site, there will be guests who will need to park in nearby CU public parking lots (see map attached) and/or in any available spaces on-site. There is a large public parking garage located just two blocks from the project site (see the attached map) that normally has many spaces available on weekend evenings for public Agenda Item 513 Page 46 of 108 use. Members who do not either have an assigned parking space in the project, or who do not have a permit for one of the nearby CU lots for student permits, will be encouraged to park in the large public garage nearby versus parking on the streets next to the project, and incentivized as stated above to do so. Security: The fraternity will have a full-time adult resident advisor who will live on site in an apartment immediately adjacent to the fraternity chapter meeting room space. The security protocol for all social functions is as follows: A. The resident advisor will be present at all such functions; B. No underage alcohol consumption shall be permitted. The resident advisor will be responsible for checking ID's if alcohol is being served, C. The resident advisor will notify the property owners and the police immediately if any unruly behavior or underage drinking is taking place. D. No music will be played outside, and no large groups will be permitted outside during any of these functions. E. The City and CU police have permission to stop at any social functions, at any time, with no reason, or notice, and make arrests for underage drinking or any other unruly behavior. Responsibilities as Good Neighbors: The Acacia fraternity is committed to contributing to the neighborhood and the community and In protecting the interests of the University Hill neighborhood. Contacts will be provided to the UHNA, including the fraternity live-in advisor, the Acacia Board contact person, and one of the project owners. The UHNA is encouraged to contact any or all of these contacts in the event of any unruly behavior related to the fraternity or the project. Agenda Item 513 Page 47 of 108 Case LUR2011-00028 Attachment D Project Name: Acacia House Redevelopment Date: May 4. 2011 CRITERIA FOR REVIEW No site review application shall be approved unless the approving agency finds that: (1) Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan: Y (A) The proposed site plan is consistent with the purposes and policies of the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan. Currently, 955 Broadway and 1715 Aurora Avenue are two separate lots that are home to two fraternities housing 76 occupants. The development proposal includes demolishing the existing buildings on site and the construction of two, three-story, 35' tall residential buildings that will provide 39 residential units (158 bedrooms). The following BVCP policies would apply. BVCP Policies: 2.04 Compact Land Use Pattern 2.12 Neighborhoods as Building Blocks 2.18 Mixture of Complementary Land Uses 2.19 Compatibility of Adjacent Land Uses 2.40 Physical Design for People 2.42 Enhanced Design for the Building Environment 7.07 Preserve the Existing Housing Stock The development proposal specifically addresses BVCP policy 2.42, Enhanced Design for the Built Environment The policy speaks to encouraging quality architecture and design that encourages alternative modes of transportation, provides a livable environment and that addresses the following elements. • Context: Projects should become a coherent part of the neighborhood in which they are placed. The development proposal is consistent with the surrounding development not only in its residential nature, but also in its density. • The Public Realm: Projects should relate positively to public streets, plazas, sidewalks and paths. Buildings and landscaped areas should present a well-designed face to the public realm and should be sensitive to public view corridors. The development proposal provides connectivity through the site and to the surrounding neighborhood with an open paseo. In addition, the streetscape along 17th Street has been enhanced to include access to building entries at grade as well as a tree lawn and amenities, including bike parking. • Human Scale: Projects should provide pedestrian interest along streets, paths and public spaces. The development proposal utilizes human scale materials, including brick and present four-sided architecture. • Permeability., Projects should provide multiple opportunities to walk from the street into the project, thus presenting a street face that is permeable. The development proposal includes a main building entrance along each street as well as access to unit entries at grade along all public right-of-ways, including the alley. • On-site Open Space. Projects should incorporate well-designed functional open spaces with quality landscaping, access to sunlight and places to site comfortably. Agenda Item 513 Page 48 of 108 The development proposal includes open space in excess of what is required by B.R.C. The open space provided is in many forms, including individual patios and decks, at grade, secure courtyards for resident use, and an open paseo to provide connectivity through the site and with the surrounding neighborhoods. • Buildings: Buildings should be designed with cohesive design that is comfortable to the pedestrian with inviting entries that are visible form public rights of way. The proposed development includes main building entries, as well as unit entries, along each street frontage including the alley. The building design is unified and rhythmic through the proposed four-sided architecture and limited, elegant materials. Y (B) The proposed development shall not exceed the maximum density associated with the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan residential land use designation. Additionally, if the density of existing residential development within a three hundred-foot area surrounding the site is at or exceeds the density permitted in the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan, then the maximum density permitted on the site shall not exceed the lesser of: Y (i) The density permitted in the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan, or, The density permitted in the BVCP is greater than 14 units per acre. The development proposal includes roughly 27 dwelling units per acre, which is consistent with both the maximum permitted density of the RH-5 zone district (27.2 units per acre) and the high density residential land use designation (more than 14 units per acre). Y (ii) The maximum number of units that could be placed on the site without waiving or varying any of the requirements of Chapter 9-8, "Intensity Standards," B.R.C. 1981. Y (C) The proposed development's success in meeting the broad range of BVCP policies considers the economic feasibility of implementation techniques require to meet other site review criteria. (2) Site Design: Projects should preserve and enhance the community's unique sense of place through creative design that respects historic character, relationship to the natural environment, and its physical setting. Projects should utilize site design techniques which enhance the quality of the project. In determining whether this Subsection is met, the approving agency will consider the following factors: Y (A) Open Space: Open space, including, without limitation, parks, recreation areas, and playgrounds: Generally, the site design provides connectivity both internally and externally through the provision of a variety of on- site open spaces, open space programs, accessibility and connectivity, both inside the site and outside in terms of prominent building entryways and detached sidewalks with tree lawns around the site. The open space being located between the buildings will not only provide separation between the buildings spatially, but will also provide a connection externally as a gathering space for residents. Y (i) Useable open space is arranged to be accessible and functional; The site plan shows ample open space (39%), in excess of what is required (10-20%) and in individual amounts in the form of courtyards that will encourage social interaction. The opening of the paseo creates a view corridor through the site, but also provides connectivity from the site to the surrounding neighborhood, making the site permeable not only in terms of fluid internal movement, but also external movement. Agenda Item 513 Page 49 of 108 Individual decks and patios are provided for each unit providing private open space and secure at grade courtyards are provided for resident use. Overall, the open space on site provides opportunities for passive and active recreation. Y (ii) Private open space is provided for each detached residential unit; Private open space is provided in the form of balconies. Each residential unit will have access to a 112 sq. ft. balcony. N/A (iii) The project provides for the preservation of or mitigation of adverse impacts to natural features, including, without limitation, healthy long-lived trees, significant plant communities, ground and surface water, wetlands, riparian areas, drainage areas, and species on the federal Endangered Species List, "Species of Special Concern in Boulder County" designated by Boulder County, or prairie dogs (Cynomys ludiovicianus) which is a species of local concern, and their habitat; Although it is fairly unlikely that the existing street trees and shrubs along Broadway will survive the required grading, the applicant has indicated that they intend to protect and preserve the existing landscape. Additional information has been requested regarding the planting beds along Broadway along with replacement trees. Y (iv) The open space provides a relief to the density, both within the project and from surrounding development; The open space being located between the buildings will not only provide separation between the buildings spatially, but will also provide a connection externally as a gathering space for residents and neighbors. The separation between the buildings will also provide relief from the building mass as perceived from the street and the density. Y (v) Open space designed for active recreational purposes is of a size that it will be functionally useable and located in a safe and convenient proximity to the uses to which it is meant to serve; The on-site open space is provided in a variety of forms, including private balconies and patios, large shared internal courtyards and a paseo that provides separation between buildings and connectivity to and from the surrounding neighborhood. The open space program is creative and will serve the residents as well as the neighborhood. NIA (vi) The open space provides a buffer to protect sensitive environmental features and natural areas; and NIA (vii) If possible, open space is linked to an area- or city-wide system. Y (C) Landscaping Y (i) The project provides for aesthetic enhancement and a variety of plant and hard surface materials, and the selection of materials provides for a variety of colors and contrasts and the preservation or use of local native vegetation where appropriate; The plant list provided is a great mix of generally low water and interesting plants. Prior to the final Site Review plan set, provide final quantities and callouts for all plants to verify the landscape requirements. Minor changes can be made at the Technical Document review to reflect additional information. NIA (ii) Landscape design attempts to avoid, minimize, or mitigate impacts to important native species, plant communities of special concern, threatened and endangered species and habitat by integrating the existing natural environment into the project; Agenda Item 513 Page 50 of 108 _YJ11) The project provides significant amounts of plant material sized in excess of the landscaping requirements of Section 9-9-10, "Landscaping and Screening Standards" and Section 9-9-11, "Streetscape Design Standards," B.R.C. 1981; and The plant list provided is a great mix of generally low water and interesting plants. Prior to the final Site Review plan set, provide final quantities and callouts for all plants to verify the landscape requirements. Minor changes can be made at the Technical Document review to reflect additional information. Y (iv) The setbacks, yards, and useable open space along public rights-of-way are landscaped to provide attractive streetscapes, to enhance architectural features, and to contribute to the development of an attractive site plan. 17th Street Streetscape: A six foot planting strip and five foot side walk are located along 17th Street. This will undoubtedly be an enhancement to the pedestrian experience as well as create and attractive streetscape. Access to unit entries and building main entries have been located at grade, which will create and active streetscape and provide pedestrian interest. The proposed side yard adjacent to street setback modification of 7.5 feet from the required 12.5 feet is measured to a retaining wall that is in excess of 30" in height above grade. The actual building and perceived setback is 14.3 feet. Broadway Streetscape: The development proposal includes a front yard setback modification from the required 25 feet to 8.5 feet, which is consistent with the surrounding development along Broadway, where setbacks range from 5 feet to 17 feet, much less than the required 25 feet. The Broadway streetscape includes an eight foot planting strip as well as an eight foot sidewalk which is consistent with the DCS requirements. Alley Streetscape: Since alley provides access to and through the site, it has been treated as a streetscape that is planted to create an attractive, safe pedestrian path and activity center. There is a setback modification along the alley as well for the interior side yard from the required 10 feet to 3.5 feet. Setbacks are measured from structures in excess of 30" in height above grade, which in this case, is a retaining wall enclosing a garden level patio. The actual building and perceived setback will be 9.5 feet. Aurora Streetscape: A rear yard setback modification from the required 25 feet to 5.5 feet is requested. Similar to the alley and 17th Street, the setback is measured to an above grade retaining wall. The building is located 15 feet from the property line, which will be the perceived setback. Moving the building closer to the street so that the building actually addresses the street, will create a more active streetscape in a more urban setting. Y (D) Circulation: Circulation, including, without limitation, the transportation system that serves the property, whether public or private and whether constructed by the developer or not: Since the transportation and utility infrastructure is existing, the redevelopment of 955 Broadway and 1715 Aurora Avenue is considered an infill project. No new roads, access points or curb cuts to the site are being proposed as part of this application request. Y (ii) Potential conflicts with vehicles are minimized; Vehicular access to the site will be maintained in the alley. Y (iii) Safe and convenient connections accessible to the public within the project and between the project and existing and proposed transportation systems are provided, including, without limitation, streets, bikeways, pedestrianways and trails; The development provides connectivity through the site and around the site by providing a streetscape in the form of an open paseo between the buildings and sidewalks around the perimeter of the site which all connect to the multi-use path and transportation options along the Broadway corridor. Agenda Item 513 Page 51 of 108 Y (iv) Alternatives to the automobile are promoted by incorporating site design techniques, land use patterns, and supporting infrastructure that supports and encourages walking, biking, and other alternatives to the single-occupant vehicle; The development program is to provide student housing in near proximity to campus. The site is located directly across Broadway from the main CU campus and is situated along the multi-modal transportation corridor of Broadway. Additionally, bicycle parking will be provided in excess of the requirement. Y (v) Where practical and beneficial, a significant shift away from single-occupant vehicle use to alternate modes is promoted through the use of travel demand management techniques; Eco Passes as well as bicycle parking in excess of what is required will be provided. Additionally, the applicant is proposing a car share program. Y (viii) The project is designed for the types of traffic expected, including, without limitation, automobiles, bicycles, and pedestrians, and provides safety, separation from living areas, and control of noise and exhaust. The development proposal maintains the existing circulation pattern that funnels automobile traffic to the alley and underground parking, and that provides separation between the pedestrian and bicycle traffic by providing connectivity through the site as well as building entrances along 17th Street side walk. Y (E) Parking 111 parking spaces are required, 81(27% parking reduction) are provided, four of which will be provided as surface parking off the alley; the reaming will be provided as subterranean parking. Access to the parking garages is provided off the alley to minimize pedestrian, vehicular and bicycle conflicts. A total of 11 bicycle parking spaces are required. An excess of 50 will be provided in a variety of locations on site and in secure areas. Y (i) The project incorporates into the design of parking areas measures to provide safety, convenience, and separation of pedestrian movements from vehicular movements; Parking is located subgrade off the alley, while pedestrian activity is focused along 17th Street, Broadway and Aurora at main building entrances. Y (ii) The design of parking areas makes efficient use of the land and uses the minimum amount of land necessary to meet the parking needs of the project; The majority of the parking provided on site is subgrade, 77 spaces, which limits the amount of surface land dedicated to parking. Four spaces will be provided on the surface in the alley. NIA (iii) Parking areas and lighting are designed to reduce the visual impact on the project, adjacent properties, and adjacent streets; and There is not a surface parking lot included as part of the development proposal. NIA (iv) Parking areas utilize landscaping materials to provide shade in excess of the requirements in Subsection 9-9-6(d), "Parking Area Design Standards," and Section 9-9-12, "Parking Lot Landscaping Standards," B.R.C. 1981. There is not a surface parking lot included as part of the development proposal. Agenda Item 513 Page 52 of 108 _Y _(F) Building Design, Livability, and Relationship to the Existing or Proposed Surrounding Area The applicant's development proposal has evolved over the course of the Site Review process to address the key issues that were identified by staff and Planning Board through the Concept Plan review: - Holding the corner of 17th and Broadway by bringing the building to the ground; - Reducing the podium parking and minimizing and treating the blank wall expanses and void spaces under decks; - Locating building and unit entries at grade along 17th Street; - Providing connectivity through the paseo to promote connectivity through the site and open the development to the surrounding neighborhood; - Treating the courtyards with landscape a hardscape materials that are durable and have longevity, - Creating four-sided architecture and bringing materials to the ground; - Limiting the number of facade treatments to create a more unified building. Given the positive architectural changes to the building through the Site Review process, the proposal is now consistent with the below Site Review criteria. Y (i) The building height, mass, scale, orientation, and configuration are compatible with the existing character of the area or the character established by an adopted plan for the area; 955 Broadway and 1715 Aurora are zoned Residential Hight-5 (RH-5) and have a land use designation of High Density Residential (HR). The development proposal is consistent with the maximum permitted density of both the zone district (27.2 du/acre) and the land use designation (more than 14 du/acre) at 27 du/acre. The development proposal includes the construction of two, three-story buildings comprised of 39 residential units (158 bedrooms) and 77 subgrade parking spaces and four surface spaces. Overall, the proposed development mass, bulk and height is consistent with the surrounding neighborhood, which is comprised of additional residential and nonresidential buildings and uses, including a religious assembly, University Hill Elementary School, BVSD properties, fraternities, apartments and single-family homes. Of the surrounding buildings several are three stories or more, including the adjacent apartment complex, fraternity house and University Hill Elementary. The buildings are broken up into two separate buildings and will appear as such given the varying setbacks between the two along with the separation from the paseo between. Broadway, Aurora and 17th Street are the main focal points given the level of activity along those rights of way and are treated as such. The orientation of the buildings is such that they address all sides of the lot with main building entries, including the alley where the garage entrances are located. Y (ii) The height of buildings is in general proportion to the height of existing buildings and the proposed or projected heights of approved buildings or approved plans for the immediate area; Overall, the intended height of the proposed buildings is 35' which is consistent with the maximum permitted height in the RH-5 zone district. Much of the height is attributed to the amount of grade change on the site, 20' from west (Aurora Avenue) east (Broadway). Given the amount of grade change the east building will appear as a three-story structure along the Broadway frontage, however only a two-story structure from the Aurora vantage point and along the alley; likewise and vice versa for the west building. Y (iii) The orientation of buildings minimizes shadows on and blocking of views from adjacent properties; The orientation of the buildings is such that they are staggered on the lot, helping to give them the appearance of two separate buildings although they are fairly large in size. To foster their separation more and to preserve view sheds, an open paseo was created between the buildings as well. The impacts of the building shadows are minimal as the buildings are surrounded by public right-of-way. Agenda Item 513 Page 53 of 108 Y (iv) If the character of the area is identifiable, the project is made compatible by the appropriate use of color, materials, landscaping, signs, and lighting; There is no real discernable character of the area as there is an eclectic mix of residential and nonresidential buildings and uses, including the university, various rental and student housing opportunities and University Hill Elementary. Given the eclectic mix of architecture and material pallet present in the surrounding neighborhood, generally, simple materials and design have been utilized. Of the surrounding properties, stone, brick and stucco are the most prevalent materials with an earthy color palette. The proposed development takes into consideration material cues from its surroundings by utilizing a limited number of human-scale materials, including brick and further by simplifying the architectural features. Overall, the proposed buildings each present a unified, elegant and rhythmic facade. Y (v) Buildings present an attractive streetscape, incorporate architectural and site design elements appropriate to a pedestrian scale, and provide for the safety and convenience of pedestrians; The development proposal relates positively to the street with four sided architecture and human-scale materials that are brought down to the ground, blank walls and void spaces below decks as a result of the partially subgrade parking garages are minimized through landscape treatments, and unit and building entries located at the street which will aid in establishing a safe and friendly pedestrian experience. The Broadway elevation is a prominent fagade that addresses not only a major transportation corridor, but also the CU. A pronounced and recognizable entryway has been provided on that fagade. Y (vi) To the extent practical, the project provides public amenities and planned public facilities; The development proposal includes an open paseo that not only provides an on site open space amentity, but also provides public accessibility and connectivity through the site not only for residents and pedestrians, but also for the surrounding neighborhood. In addition to the paseo the development proposal includes bicycle parking in excess of what is required as well as movable furniture, both to be located in highly visible areas and for public shared use. Y (vii) For residential projects, the project assists the community in producing a variety of housing types, such as multi-family, townhouses, and detached single-family units as well as mixed lot sizes, number of bedrooms, and sizes of units; As indicated by the applicant's plans the proposal includes a 2,305 square foot fraterntiy use in the south building. While the proposed model is unique, it will provide the same group amenities traditionally associated with fraternity uses including meeting space, kitchen and goup dining facilities, study areas and social activity spaces. Per the applicant's written statement, the traditional fraternity model where a single- family home with shared facilities and communal living is outdated must shift to accommodate and recruit new members. Staff recognizes the need for and commends the applicant for providing an innovative housing solution that will provide an alternative to the traditional fraternity living. Y (viii) For residential projects, noise is minimized between units, between buildings, and from either on- site or off-site external sources through spacing, landscaping, and building materials; To soften the site and the impact of noise, open space is provided between buildings and units in the form of a paseo and secure courtyards. Recognizing that it is those spaces that have the potential to generate the most noise given the mix of semi-public, semi-private and static space ample landscaping and building materials should be provided to not only soften those areas, but also to provide sound proofing. Agenda Item 513 Page 54 of 108 As shown on the plans, these areas are treated with ample landscaping varying is size and treatment, including ground cover, trees and green walls. Amenities are also provided in the open spaces, including bicycle parking and movable furniture. Additionally, given the nature of the occupancy, the landscape provided was intended to be hearty and sustainable. -Y -(ix) A lighting plan is provided which augments security, energy conservation, safety, and aesthetics; Conceptually, the lighting indicated on the vignettes will provide creative and ample outdoor lighting, the lighting provided in the courtyards and along the paseo will play a key role in providing a safe, inviting and active environment. A lighting plan pursuant section 9-9-16, "Lighting, Outdoor, " B.R. C. 1981 will be required at the time of Technical Document submittal. N/A (x) The project incorporates the natural environment into the design and avoids, minimizes, or mitigates impacts to natural systems; Given the level of urban development in that area there are limited natural resources. -)L(xi) Cut and fill are minimized on the site, the design of buildings conforms to the natural contours of the land, and the site design minimizes erosion, slope instability, landslide, mudflow or subsidence, and minimizes the potential threat to property caused by geological hazards. The development proposal provides partially subgrade parking in order to maximize the useable space above grade. As a result the amount of cut and fill cannot be balanced. The development proposal does however, seek the advantage of the natural grade by burying the buildings into grade. Y (G) Solar Siting and Construction: For the purpose of ensuring the maximum potential for utilization of solar energy in the city, all applicants for residential site reviews shall place streets, lots, open spaces, and buildings so as to maximize the potential for the use of solar energy in accordance with the following solar siting criteria: NIA (i) Placement of Open Space and Streets: Open space areas are located wherever practical to protect buildings from shading by other buildings within the development or from buildings on adjacent properties. Topography and other natural features and constraints may justify deviations from this criterion. The site is surrounded by public rights of way on all sides, which will provide ample buffering from the shading impacts of other buildings. Y (!!)Lot Layout and Building Siting: Lots are oriented and buildings are sited in a way which maximizes the solar potential of each principal building. Lots are designed to facilitate siting a structure which is unshaded by other nearby structures. Wherever practical, buildings are sited close to the north lot line to increase yard space to the south for better owner control of shading. Although the two proposed buildings are maximized in size, separation is incurred by the provision of the open paseo located between the two buildings, which is roughly 35 feet wide. Y (iii) Building Form: The shapes of buildings are designed to maximize utilization of solar energy. Buildings shall meet the solar access protection and solar siting requirements of Section 9-9-17, "Solar Access," B.R.C. 1981. The proposed building forms permit virtually all residential units, through the placement of open space (courtyards and paseo) to incur sun light at some point throughout the day. Given that the site is within Solar Access Area 11 and that it is surrounded by right-of-way on all sides, the buildings meet the requirements of section 9-9-17, B.R.C. 1981. Agenda Item 513 Page 55 of 108 Y (iv) Landscaping: The shading effects of proposed landscaping on adjacent buildings are minimized. The site is surrounded by right-of-way on all sides, so the shading impacts of landscaping on adjacent buildings will be minimal if at all. Y (K) Additional Criteria for Parking Reductions: The off-street parking requirements of Section 9-7-1, "Schedule of Form and Bulk Standards," B.R.C. 1981, may be modified as follows. Y (i) Process: The city manager may grant a parking reduction not to exceed fifty percent of the required parking. The planning board or city council may grant a reduction exceeding fifty percent. A total of 111 parking spaces are required on site, 81 parking spaces are being provided which results in a 27% parking reduction. Y (ii) Criteria: Upon submission of documentation by the applicant of how the project meets the following criteria, the approving agency may approve proposed modifications to the parking requirements of Section 9- 7-1, "Schedule of Form and Bulk Standards," B.R.C. 1981, if it finds that: (a) For residential uses, the probable number of motor vehicles to be owned by occupants of and visitors to dwellings in the project will be adequately accommodated; Given the nature of the occupancy being student renters, there is a need for vehicle storage rather than a need for daily use parking. The applicant is proposing several programs that encourage off- site vehicle storage as well as alternatives to brining a personal vehicle to school, including student parking permit reimbursement programs and a car share program. (b) The parking needs of any non-residential uses will be adequately accommodated through on- street parking or off-street parking; Not applicable; the development proposal is solely residential. (c) A mix of residential with either office or retail uses is proposed, and the parking needs of all uses will be accommodated through shared parking; Not applicable; the development proposal is solely residential. (d) If joint use of common parking areas is proposed, varying time periods of use will accommodate proposed parking needs; and Not applicable, each of the buildings will accommodate the parking associated with the building's units. (e) If the number of off-street parking spaces is reduced because of the nature of the occupancy, the applicant provides assurances that the nature of the occupancy will not change. The applicant has not, at this time, provided assurance that the nature of the occupancy of the building will not change. Currently, the proposed occupancy is targeted at students. Agenda Item 513 Page 56 of 108 Attachment E , 17 I ~h ~ ap~~ yIi J o ' Ir J ~ . I NT w University of Colorado Boulder Campus Student Transportation Survey Report of Results March 2006 Prepared by: 4w eNATIONAL ESEARCH CENTER Inc. 3005 30u Street • Boulder, Colorado 80301 • t: 303-444-7863 • f.• 303-441-1145 • www.n-r-c.com Agenda Item 513 Page 57 of 108 CU Student Transportation Survey March 2006 I Table of Contents Executive Summary ............................................................................................1 Report of Results 6 Survey Background .................................................................................................................6 School Commute .....................................................................................................................7 Characteristics of the School Commute 10 Parking ..................................................................................................................................16 Bus Use .................................................................................................................................19 Available Transportation Options 24 Appendix A: Respondent Demographics 26 Appendix S: Complete Survey Responses .......................................................27 Appendix C: Responses to Selected Survey Questions by Respondent Characteristics .................................................................................................44 Appendix D: Survey Methodology ....................................................................45 Survey Background 45 Survey Administration 45 Data Analysis 46 Appendix E: Survey Instrument 47 U C N C N U r U l6 N y N d' l6 C O Z O O O N Report of Results Agenda Item 513 Page 58 of 108 CU Student Transportation Survey March 2006 I Executive Summary Survey Background The t?iriversity of Colorado conducted this siuvey in order to gauge the transportation habits of its students. The survey asked students questions regarding modes of transportation used for the school commute, parking and bus use not related to the school commute. This is the first time the University of Colorado has participated in the Boulder Valley Employee Transportation survey. This is the 7' iteration of the Boulder Valley Employee Transportation Survey since the baseline study conducted in 1991. School Commute One of the main purposes of the CU Student Transportation Suivey is to determine the "modal split" of trips trade to and from the Cti Boulder Campus by students; that is, the proportion of school commute trips made via each method of transportation. One question asked how many days various modes of transportation were used for the commute to school during a typical week. Following are the percent of days respondents reported using each mode of transportation: • Walk, 27% • Ride a bus(es), 26% • Bike, 21 % • Drive alone, 11% • Ntulti-mode, 7% • Drive with at least one other person, 3% • Work at home, 2% • Other, 1% In addition to being asked about their travel behavior during a "typical week," students were asked how they had arrived at campus on the day they completed the survey. They were allowed to indicate all modes that were used. As with the typical week, the most common modes reported were riding a bus (36%) and walking (34%): • Rode s bus or buses, 36% • Walked, 34% • Biked, 26% • Drove alone, 13% • Other, 3% • Drove with at least one other person, 3% U • Worked at home, 2% C In order to examine modal split where the percents add to 100%, a category was created for multi- (D mode for those respondents who indicated more than one category. Results were sinular to those observed for the typical week: N • Rode a bus(es), 26% • Walked, 24% . z 0 0 N Report of Results 0 Page 1 Agenda Item 513 Page 59 of 108 CU Student Transportation Survey March 2006 • Biked, 18% • Nfulti-mode, 15% • Drove alone, 10% • Carpool, 2% • Worked at home, 2% • Other, 2% The primary mode of transportation used for the commute to school was exanuned by where students lived. As might be expected, those living outside of Boulder were more likely to drive alone (34%) than those living in Boulder (5%). Walking and biking were more often used as the primary= mode of transportation by those living in Boulder (50%) than those that living outside of Boulder (6%). Characteristics of the School Commute Students completing the questionnaire were asked several questions about their school commute: what time they left home for school, what time they arrived at school and what time they left school. Close to three-quarters (71%) reported leaving home for school between 7-9:59am on the day they took the survey. Students reported leaving home for school during the lam hour (27%) more than any other hour of the day. Then students were asked what time they usually arrive at school. A sharp peak in reported arrival times occurs between 7:00 am and 9:59 am; 72% of students reported they usually reach school during these three hours. The most common arrival time is the 9:00 am hour, when 28% of students reported they typically arrive at school. The peak for leaving school is a bit flatter, stretching from 2:00 pm to 6:59 pm, with 72% of students reporting they leave school during these four hours. The two most common hours of the day for departing the campus are 3:00 pin (18%) and 5:00 pin (18%). Surveyed students were asked, "Did you come straight to school from home today?" The majority of respondents reported going straight to school (92%). Likewise, on the way home from campus, most students (60%) did not make any stops: • No stops, 60% • 1 to 2 stops, 28% • 3 or more stops, 11% Students that did not make any stops on their way to school were asked how many minutes it took them to get to school: • 5 minutes or less, 16% • 6 to 10 nunutes, 28% • 11 to 15 minutes, 24% L • 16 to 20 minutes, 12% 2 N • 21 to 30 minutes, 9% W • 31 to 45 minutes, 7% • 46 to 60 minutes, 2% • Afore than an hour, 2% o 0 N Report of Results 0 Page 2 Agenda Item 513 Page 60 of 108 CU Student Transportation Survey March 2006 The average time spent making the school commute was 17 minutes; the average distance was 5.8 miles. The majority of respondents reported living less than 5 mules from campus: • 1 mile or less, 44% • 2 miles, 12% • 3 to 4 miles, 13% • 5 to 6 miles, 4% • 7 to 8 miles, 2% • 9 to 10 mules, 3% • 11 to 15 miles, 14% • 16 to 20 miles, 5% • more than 20 miles, 5% Parking Students were asked questions surrounding parking where they come to school. Most survey participants (82%) reported not having a parking permit for the Boulder campus. 1112001, 31% of those surveyed reporting having a parking permit compared to oirly 18% in 2005. While few students reported to driving on the day they took the survey, (13%), if they had driven to school the day of the survey students were asked where they parked their car: • CU lot or stricture with a permit, 42% • Residential street, no meter, 22% • CU lot or stricture with cash payment, 13% • Other, 10% • Private lot or parking space, no charge, 6% • Street with meter, 4% • Other lot, stricture or space, with permit, 2% • Other lot, stricture or space, with cash payment, 1% A large majority of the students surveyed (71%) reported never parking a motor vehicle on campus. A little more than one-tenth (11%) of those surveyed reported parking a motor vehicle on campus 5 days or more a week: • 0 Days, 71% • 1Day, 10% • 2 Days, 4% • 3 Days, 3% • 4 Days, 2% • 5 Days, 6% a U • 6 Days, 1% • 7 Days, 4% 0 z 0 0 N Report of Results 0 Page 3 Agenda Item 5B Page 61 of 108 CU Student Transportation Survey March 2006 Students were then asked -,,-here they usually park jrhe r they drive to school. When students drive to school they are most likely to park iii a CtT lot or stricture with a permit: • CU lot or stricture with a pernnit, 30% • Residential street, no meter, 22% • CL: lot or stricture with cash payment, 19% • Street with meter, 14% • Other, 7% • Private lot or parking space, uo charge, 6% • Other lot, stricture or space, with perinit, 1% • Other lot, stricture or space, with cash payment, 1% Bus Use Students on the CU Boulder Campus are eligible for a Buff OneCard. Through student fees, this card is a bus pass for tree bus rides throughout Boulder and the Denver metropolitan area. Most students (94%) surveyed reported liavuig a current RTD sticker on their CU Butt OneCard, 6% reported not having it. Thus is a shglit uicrease from 2001 and 2000 tvliere 86% and 91%, respectively reported they had a RTD sticker on their Buff O11eCard. When asked about their bus use, nearly 80% of those surveyed said "yes" they do sometimes ride the bus to and from campus. Those who said they never rode the bus to campus were asked why they do not: • Other, 54% • The bus takes too much time, 40% • I need my vehicle for errands during the workday, 13% • I have not picked up my RTD sticker for my Buff OneCard, 10% • There is no bus service to my home, 10% • 1 need my vehicle before and/or after the workday to transport children or do errands, 9% • There is no bus service to campus, 4% Approsimatel- two-thirds (62%) of students surveyed reported ridiung the bus at least once during a typical week for reasons other than commuting to school. Survey participants were asked hov, tar their home was from the nearest bus stop that they would use to ride to campus. Nearly 6 out of 10 reported living less than 2 blocks from a bus stop they would use to ride to campus: • Less than 2 blocks, 59% • 2-5 blocks, 27% g • 6-10 blocks, 5% • 11-15 blocks, 2% • More than 15 blocks, 6% m a~ N Those surveyed were asked if they had been to the Denver International Airport (DIA) in the last year, 88% reported they had been to DIA one or more times. Of those that had been to DIA, 44% o reported using the RTD skyRide for a trip to and from the airport. Z 0 0 N Report of Results Page 4 Agenda Item 513 Page 62 of 108 CU Student Transportation Survey March 2006 Less than half (44%) of the students that participated in the survey reported using a regional bus route during the current school year, while more than half (77%) reported using a local bus route during the current school year. Available Transportation Options Survey participants were asked to indicate if they had a car (or other motor vehicle) or bicycle available to them for commuting to school. Roughly two-thirds reported having a car or other motor vehicle (68%) or a bicycle (63%) available to them for the commute to school. Those reporting havuig a car or other motor vehicle available to there did not show a change from 2001 or 2000. Those reporting having a bicycle increased 1112005 (63%) compared to 2001 (52%). U C N C N U L 2 N N O N W l6 C O Z 0 O N Report of Results 0 Page 5 Agenda Item 5B Page 63 of 108 CU Student Transportation Survey March 2006 I Report of Results Survey Background The university of Colorado conducted this survey in order to gauge the transportation habits of its students. This survey was part of a larger study undertaken to understand the school anud work commute of Boulder's "daytime" population; that is, those `vho study at the University, or are employed withinu Boulder. Those who study or work in Boulder may or may not actually live in Boulder, and thus their travel behavior is not captured with the resident Travel Diary study, a study that has been undertaken by the City of Boulder and implemented every few years since the baseline survey was conducted in 1990. This is the first time the University of Colorado has participated in the Boulder Valley Employee Transportation survey. This is the 7th iteration of the Boulder Valley Employee Transportation Survey since the baseline study conducted in 1991. All Boulder Campus CU Students are given an e-mail address through the University system. The Administration has the capability of sending "e-memos" to all students. It was determined that this would be a cost effective way to reach the student population, most of whom are quite versed in computer and Internet use. The CU Student Transportation Questionnaire was programmed as a web survey form, and hosted on the website of National Research Center, Inc., the company conducting the survey anud analyzing the results. An e-memo explaining the survey purpose and containing a link to the survey site was sent by Administration, signed by Peter Roper, the student Transportation Program Manager at the University. The first invitation was sent the first week of October 2005. About two weeks later, a reminder e-menno was sent, asking those who had not yet completed the questionnaire to do so. Of the approximately 31,457 students contacted, 2,140 completed the survey, a response rate of 6.8%. It is customary to describe the precision of estimates made from surveys by a "level of confidence" (or margin of error). The 95 percent confidence level for the survey is generally no greater than plus or minus two percentage points around any given percent reported for the entire sample. CC N C N U L 2 N N O N W l6 C O z O O O N Report of Results 0 Page 6 Agenda Item 513 Page 64 of 108 CU Student Transportation Survey March 2006 School Commute One of the main purposes of the CU Student Transportation Survey is to determine the "modal split" of trips trade to and from the Cti Boulder Campus by students; that is, the proportion of school commute trips made via each method of transportation. Several questions on the survey completed by students were asked to allow estimation of the school commute modal split. One question asked how many days various modes of transportation were used for the commute to school during a typical week. Walking (27%) was used for the most trips, followed by riding a bus or buses (26%) and biking (21%). Carpooling was used the least often, 3% of trips were reported as driving with at least one other person. During a typical week, how many days do you commute to school in each of the ways listed below? Walk 27% Ride a bus(es) 26% Bike 21% Drive alone 11% Multi-mode (e.g., car then bus, bike then bus, etc.) 7% Drive with at least one other person 3% Work at home 2% Other 1 % 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% Percent of Days CC N C N U L 2 N N N N D" l6 C O Z O O O N Report of Results 0 Page 7 Agenda Item 5B Page 65 of 108 CU Student Transportation Survey March 2006 In addition to being asked about their travel behavior during a "typical week," students were asked how they had arrived at campus on the day they completed the survey. They were allowed to indicate all anodes that were used. As with the typical week, the most common modes reported were riding a bus (36%) and walking (34%). How did you get to school today? Rode a bus or buses 36% Walked 34% Biked 26% Drove Alone 13% Other 3% Drove with at least one other person 3% Worked at home 2% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Percent of Respondents* Percents add to more than 100% as respondents could give more than one answer. In order to examine modal split where the percents add to 100%, a category was created for multi- mode for those respondents who indicated more than one category. Results were sinular to those observed for the typical week. The most common primary mode was riding a bus (26%), followed by walking (24%), biking (18%), and using multiple modes (15%). About one in 10 of those completing the survey reported driving alone to get to school, and even fewer (3%) carpooled. Primary Mode of Transportation Multi-mode Biked 15% 18% Drove alone 10% Carpool 2% Walked 24% Worked at home 2% c Other N Rode a 2% L bus(es) 2 M 26% 0 c 0 Z 0 0 N Report of Results 0 Page 8 Agenda Item 5B Page 66 of 108 CU Student Transportation Survey March 2006 The primary mode of transportation used for the commute to school was exarruned by where students lived. As might be expected, those living outside of Boulder were more likely to drive alone (34%) than those living in Boulder (5%). Walking and biking were more often used as the primary mode of transportation by those living in Boulder (50%) than those that living outside of Boulder (6%). Respondent's Primary Mode of Transportation by Location of Residence Percent of Respondents Boulder Outside of Boulder Drove alone 5% 34% Drove with at least one other person I 1% 6% Walked 29% 4% Biked 21% 2% Rode a bus or buses 24% 36% Multi-mode 15% 16% Worked at home 2% 1 % Other 3% 2% Total 100% 100% Freshmen were the most likely of the student classes to walk, probably because they are more likely to live on campus. Graduate students and Seniors were more likely to say they had arrived on campus by driving alone compared to youiiger classes, although the proportion was still low (15%). Respondent's Primary Mode of Transportation by Class Percent of Respondents Graduate Freshman Sophomore Junior Senior student Walked 36% 27% 22% 20% 12% Rode a bus or buses 23% 26% 31% 27% 24% Multi-mode 17% 18% 16% 13% 10% Biked 12% 17% 13% 18% 32% Worked at home 5% 2% 1% 0% 1 % Drove alone 4% 8% 11% 15% 15% Drove with at least one other person 0% 1 % 2% 3% 4% Other 1 % 1 % 4% 4% 2% Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% CC N C N U L 2 N N N N D" l6 C O Z 0 O N Report of Results 0 Page 9 Agenda Item 513 Page 67 of 108 CU Student Transportation Survey March 2006 Characteristics of the School Commute Students completing the questionnaire were asked several questions about their school comnnrte: what time they left home for school, what time they arrived at school and what time they left school. Close to three-quarters (71%) reported leaving home for school between 7-9:59am on the day they took the survey. Students reported leaving home for school during the Tarn hour (27%) more than any other hour of the day. About what time did you leave home for school today? 30% 25% C 20% 0 CL 15% 0 C 2 10% a) a 5% 0% E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E CU m m as ca M M ca cc as co ca CL Q a n n d a n. n n Q a N r N M U') CO 1~ O O O N r N Cl) V u" to N co m O U C a) C N U L 2 N a) O a) D" l6 C O Z O O N Report of Results O Page 10 Agenda Item 5B Page 68 of 108 CU Student Transportation Survey March 2006 About what time did you leave home for school today? Hour Percent of respondents 12:00am (Midnight) 0% 1:OOam 0% 2:OOam 0% 3:OOam 0% 4:OOam 0% 5:OOam 0% 6:OOam 2% 7:OOam 27% 8:OOam 24% 9:OOam 20% 10:OOam 12% 11:OOam 5% 12:00pm (Noon) 5% 1:OOpm 2% 2:OOpm 1 % 3:OOpm 1 % 4:OOprn 0% 5:OOpm 0% 6:OOpm 0% 7:OOpm 0% 8:OOpm 0% 9:OOpm 0% 10:OOpm 0% 11:OOpm 0% Total 100% CC N C N U L 2 N N N N D" l6 C O Z O O O N Report of Results 0 Page 11 Agenda Item 5B Page 69 of 108 CU Student Transportation Survey March 2006 Student completing the questionnaire were asked what time they usually arrive at school. A sharp peak in reported arrival times occurs between 7:00 am and 9:59 am; 72% of students reported they usually reach school during these three hours. The most common arrival time is the 9:00 am hour, when 28% of students reported they typically arrive at school. About what time do you usually arrive at school? 30% 25% ID 20% c a 15% 0 c 10% W d 5% 0% E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E m cv m <v m m m m m m la m tz a a n n n n C1 C2 CL C1 n N N M lf) CO I~ W O) O N N CO v Ln CO I CO rn O The peak for leaving school is a bit flatter, stretching from 2:00 pm to 6:59 pm, with 72% of students reporting they leave school during these four hours. The two most common hours of the dap for departing the campus are 3:00 pm (18%) and 5:00 pm (18%). About what time do you usually leave school? 30% 25% a ID 20% 0 a a' 15% 0 c 02 10% Q) U ~ C 5% N U L 0% 2 E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E 0 M m m M M M M M m m m M a - a a n a a a n Q ( - to N r N CO V Lr) (o I-- CO M O N N M V CCJ (0 fl- CO rn O N l6 C O Z O O O N Report of Results 0 Page 12 Agenda Item 5B Page 70 of 108 CU Student Transportation Survey March 2006 Percent of Respondents About what time do you About what time do you Hour of the Day usually arrive at school? usually leave school? 12:00am (Midnight) 0.0% 0.2% 1:00am 0.1% 0.0% 2:00am 0.0% 0.0% 3:00am 0.0% 0.1% 4:00am 0.0% 0.1% 5:00am 0.0% 0.0% 6:00am 0.3% 0.3% 7:00am 17.4% 0.3% 8:00am 26.2% 0.1% 9:00am 28.4% 0.3% 10:00am 13.6% 0.5% 11:00am 6.4% 1.9% 12:00pm (Noon) 4.9% 5.6% 1:OOpm 1.5% 6.5% 2:00pm 0.3% 10.9% 3:OOpm 0.4% 18.1% 4:00pm 0.1% 16.1% 5:00pm 0.1% 17.8% 6:00pm 0.0% 9.4% 7:00pm 0.0% 4.0% 8:00pm 0.1% 2.5% 9:00pm 0.1% 2.8% 10:0Opm 0.0% 1.4% 11:0Opm 0.0% 1.1% Total 100% 100% CC N C N U L 2 N N N N D" l6 C O Z O O O N Report of Results 0 Page 13 Agenda Item 5B Page 71 of 108 CU Student Transportation Survey March 2006 Surveyed students were asked, "Did you come straight to school from home today?" The majority of respondents reported going straight to school (92%). Likewise, on the way home from campus, most students (60%) did not make any stops, 28% made 1 or 2 stops and 11% made 3 or more stops. Did you come straight to school from home today? No 8% Yes 92% Yesterday, or on the last day you went to campus, how many stops did you make on your way home? 1 to 2 stops 28% 3 or more stops 11% U C No Stops 60% W U L U N m N m D" l6 C O Z 0 O N Report of Results 0 Page 14 Agenda Item 5B Page 72 of 108 CU Student Transportation Survey March 2006 The average time spent making the school commute was 17 minutes; the average distance was 5.8 miles. Just over 15% of the school commutes took 5 minutes or less, with slightly over half (520/0) taking between 6 to 15 miruutes. Verb- few school commutes lasted more than 45 minutes (4%). 1\1ore than 4 in 10 of the school commutes were 1 mile or less in length; 12% were two miles, 13% were 3 to 4 miles. Nearly 20% of school commutes are more than 10 miles in length. Duration of the School Commute About how many Percent of Respondents Who Made minutes did it take to get to school? No Stops on the Way to School 5 minutes or less 16% 6 to 10 minutes 28% 11 to 15 minutes 24% 16 to 20 minutes 12% 21 to 30 minutes 9% 31 to 45 minutes 7% 46 to 60 minutes 2% more than an hour 2% Total 100% Distance of the School Commute About how far is your home from the campus? Percent of Respondents 1 mile or less 44% 2 miles 12% 3 to 4 miles 13% 5 to 6 miles 4% 7 to 8 miles 2% 9 to 10 miles 3% 11 to 15 miles 14% 16 to 20 miles 5% more than 20 miles 5% Total 100% CC N C N U L 2 N N N N D" l6 C O Z O O O N Report of Results 0 Page 15 Agenda Item 5B Page 73 of 108 CU Student Transportation Survey March 2006 Parking Students were asked questions surrounding parking when they come to school. Most survey- participants (82%) reported not having a parking pernut for the Boulder campus. In 2001, 31 % of those surveyed reporting having a parking permit compared to oi-I1y 18% 1112005. Do you currently have a Boulder Campus parking permit? Yes 18% No 82% Parking Permit Status by Year 2005 18% 2001 11% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Percent of Respondents Who Have a Parking Permit N U L 2 N N N N D" l6 C O Z O O O N Report of Results 0 Page 16 Agenda Item 513 Page 74 of 108 CU Student Transportation Survey March 2006 Students were asked where they parked their car if they had driven to school on the day they took the survey. Of those that drove, 42% reported parking on a CU lot or structure with a permit and 13% with cash payment. Twenty-two percent of students who drove to school the day they took the survey reported using a residential street with no meter. If you drove a car to school today, where did you park? CU lot or structure with a permit 42% Residential street, no meter 22% CU lot or structure with cash payment 1 3% Other 10% Private lot or parking space, no charge 6% Street with meter 4% Other lot, structure or space, with permit 2% Other lot, structure or space, with cash payment 1% 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% Percent of Respondents A large majority of the students suiveyed (71 reported never parking a motor vehicle on campus. • little more than one-tenth (11%) of those siuveyed reported parking a motor vehicle on campus 5 days or more a week. During a typical week, how many days per week do you currently park a motor vehicle on campus? 0 Days 71% 1 Day 10% 2 Days 4% 3 Days 3% 4 Days 2% 5 Days 6% c 6 Days 1 C N 7 Days 4% 0 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% Percent of Respondents 0 z 0 0 N Report of Results 0 Page 17 Agenda Item 5B Page 75 of 108 CU Student Transportation Survey March 2006 Students were then asked where they usually park when they drive to school. Thirty percent of saidents reported parking in a CU lot or strict-Lue with a pernut, 22% reported parking on a residential street with no meter and 19% reported parking in a CU lot or stricture with cash payment. Other lots, strictures or space with a permit or cash pay meat were used the least (20/6). When you drive to school, what type of parking space do you usually park in? CU lot or structure with a permit 30% Residential street, no meter 22% CU lot or structure with cash payment 19% Street with meter 14% Other 7% Private lot or parking space, no charge 6% Other lot, structure or space, with permit 1% Other lot, structure or space, with cash payment 1% 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% Percent of Respondents CC N C N U L 2 N N O N D" l6 C O Z 0 O N Report of Results O Page 18 Agenda Item 5B Page 76 of 108 CU Student Transportation Survey March 2006 Bus Use All CU Boulder Campus CU students are eligible for a Buff OneCard. Through student fees, this card is a bus pass for flee bus rides throughout Boulder and the Denver metropolitan area. Most students (94%) sure, ey=ed reported having a current RTD sticker on their Ct? Buff OneCard, 6% reported not having it. This is a slight increase from 2001 and 2000 where 86% and 91%, respectively reported they had a RTD sticker on their Buff OneCard. Do you have a current RTD sticker on your CU Buff OneCard that allows you to ride the bus for free? No 6% Yes 94% Current RTD Sticker Status by Year 2005 94% 2001 86% 2000 91% N 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% L 2 Percent of Respondents With a Current RTD Sticker M N N C 0 Z 0 0 N Report of Results 0 Page 19 Agenda Item 513 Page 77 of 108 CU Student Transportation Survey March 2006 Survey participants were asked how far their horde was from the nearest bus stop that they, would use to ride to campus. Nearly 6 out of 10 reported living less than 2 blocks from a bus stop they would use to ride to campus, and 27% reported living 2-5 blocks away. How far from home is the nearest bus stop that you would use to ride to campus? Less than 2 blocks 59% 2-5 blocks 27% 6-10 blocks 5% 11-15 blocks 12% More than 15 blocks 60%1. 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% Percent of Respondents CC N C N U L 2 N N N N D" l6 C O Z 0 O N Report of Results 0 Page 20 Agenda Item 5B Page 78 of 108 CU Student Transportation Survey March 2006 Approximately two-thirds (62%) of students surveyed reported riding the bus at least once during a typical week for reasons other than commuting to school, while just over a third (38%) said they typically do not ride the bus for non-commute trips. When asked about their bus use, nearly 80% of those surveyed said "yes" they do sometimes ride the bus to and from campus. Those who said they never rode the bus to campus were asked why they do not. "The bus takes too much time" (40%) was the most cited reason for not taking the bus. Percent Who Ride the Bus for Non- Percent Who Ever Ride a Bus to or from commute Trips During a Typical Week Campus EVER ride NEVER the bus ride the 62% bus 22% NEVER ride the EVER ride bus the bus 38% 78% Why don't you ride the bus to and from campus? Other* 54% The bus takes too much time 40% 1 need my vehicle for errands during the workday 13% 1 have not picked up my RTD sticker for my Buff OneCard 10% There is no bus service to my home 10% I need my vehicle before and/or after the workday to transport 9% children or do errands ai C N There is no bus service to campus 4% L 2 N N 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% Percent of Respondents Who Don't Ride the Bus o z 0 0 N Report of Results 0 Page 21 Agenda Item 513 Page 79 of 108 CU Student Transportation Survey March 2006 Those surveyed were asked if they, had been to the Denver International Al rport (DIA) in the last year, 88% reported they had been to DIA one or more times. Of those that had been to DIA, 44% reported using the RTD skyRide for a trip to and from the airport. During the last year, about how many times have you been in Denver International Airport? None 12% One or more times 88% Did you ever take the RTD skyRide bus for your trip(s) to and from the airport? No Yes 56% 44% U C N Percent of Respondents Going to DIA at Least Once in Past Year 88% Average Number of Trips to DIA for ALL Respondents 4.84 M Average Number of Trips to DIA for Respondents Who Went at Least Once 5.58 Average Number of Trips to DIA made via skyRide for Respondents Who Went at W Least Once 428 0 Average Number of Trips to DIA made via skyRide for ALL Respondents 1.62 z 0 0 N Report of Results 0 Page 22 Agenda Item 5B Page 80 of 108 CU Student Transportation Survey March 2006 Less than half (44%) of the students that participated in the suivey reported using a regional bus route during the current school year, while more than half (77%) reported using a local bus route during the current school year. During the current school year, have you used your RTD bus pass on a regional bus route, such as the route B or the route M? No Yes 56% 44% During the current school year, have you used your RTD bus pass on a local bus route, such as the SKIP route or the route 208? No 23% Yes 77% C N U L 2 N N N N D" l6 C O Z 0 O N Report of Results 0 Page 23 Agenda Item 5B Page 81 of 108 CU Student Transportation Survey March 2006 Available Transportation Options Survey participants were asked to iiidicate if they had a car (or other motor vehicle) or bicycle available to them for commuting to school. Roughly two-thirds reported having a car or other motor vehicle (68%) or a bicycle (63%, see next page) available to them for the commute to school. Those reporting having a car or other motor vehicle available to them did not show a change from 2001 or 2000. Those reporting having a bicycle increased Al 2005 (63%) compared to 2001 (52%, see the next page). Is a car or other motor vehicle usually available to you for commuting to school? No 32% Yes 68% Availability of Car for the School Commute 2005 68% 2001 67% 2000 67% 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% v L Percent of Respondents Reporting Car Available M N N N 0 Z 0 0 N Report of Results 0 Page 24 Agenda Item 5B Page 82 of 108 CU Student Transportation Survey March 2006 Is a bicycle usually available to you for commuting to school? No 37% Yes 63% Is a bicycle usually available to you for commuting to school? 2005 63% 2001 52% 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% Percent of Respondents Reporting a Bike Available U C N C N U L 2 N N O N D" l6 C O Z 0 O N Report of Results 0 Page 25 Agenda Item 513 Page 83 of 108 CU Student Transportation Survey March 2006 I Appendix A: Respondent Demographics Characteristics of the suiyey respondents are displayed in the tables and charts on the following pages of this appendix. Respondent's Class What class level are you? Percent of Respondents Freshman 24% Sophomore 18% Junior 20% Senior 22% Graduate student 16% Total 100% Respondent's Area of Residence Where do you live during the school year? Percent of Respondents Boulder (within the city limits) 82% Unincorporated Boulder County 2% Ward/Nederland/Jamestown 0% Lyons 0% Lafayette 1% Louisville 2% Longmont 2% Erie 0% Broomfield 2% Westminster 2% Arvada 1 % Denver or other metro-area suburb 2% Berthoud/Loveland/Fort Collins 0% Weld County 0% Other 3% Total 100% Respondent's Tenure Do you rent or own your housing unit? Percent of Respondents Rent 63% Own 12% Live in a dormitory or fraternity or sorority 25% U Total 100% C N Respondent's Gender L What is your gender? Percent of Respondents 2 Female 47% N W Male 53% Total 100% z 0 0 N Report of Results 0 Page 26 Agenda Item 513 Page 84 of 108 CU Student Transportation Survey March 2006 I Appendix B: Complete Survey Responses The following pages contain a complete set of responses to each question on the sui7ey. Question 1 How did you get to work today? Percent of Respondents* Drove alone 13% Drove with at least one other person 3% Walked 34% Biked 26% Rode a bus or buses 36% Worked at home 2% Other 3% Aespolyderits pray total ;,ljore than 100% as i-espondelrts )),ere allolred wore thnrr one response Question 1 How did you get to school today? Percent of Respondents Drove alone 10% Drove with at least one other person 2% Walked 24% Biked 18% Rode a bus or buses 26% Multi-mode 15% Worked at home 2% Other 2% Total 100% Question l ell Percent of Respondents Routes used for today's school commute Reporting a Bus Route BUFF BUS 18% SKIP 15% DASH 10% HOP 10% B 8% STAMPEDE 8% c5 209 6% 204 4% (D U 203 2% 205 2% N 225 2% AB 2% o BOUND 2% z 0 0 N Report of Results 0 Page 27 Agenda Item 513 Page 85 of 108 CU Student Transportation Survey March 2006 Question lei Percent of Respondents Routes used for today's school commute Reporting a Bus Route BX 2% 208 1% BOLT 1% DD 1% G 1% J 1% JUMP 1% 10 0% 100X 0% 11 0% 120 0% 128 0% 15 0% 228 0% 32 0% 48 0% 6 0% 72X 0% 76 0% 83L 0% B LOCAL 0% BEAR CREEK 0% BOULDER EXPRESS 0% BOULDER LOCAL 0% C 0% DENVER LOCAL 0% LIGHT RAIL 0% LONG JUMP 0% MALLRIDE 0% N 0% NEDERLAND 0% O 0% WILL VILL 0% U Total 100% C N U L U N N N N D" l6 C O Z 0 O N Report of Results 0 Page 28 Agenda Item 513 Page 86 of 108 CU Student Transportation Survey March 2006 Question 3 About what time did you leave home for school today?" Percent of respondents 0 0% 1 0% 3 0% 4 0% 5 0% 6 2% 7 27% 8 24% 9 20% 10 12% 11 5% 12 5% 13 2% 14 1% 15 1% 16 0% 17 0% 18 0% 20 0% Total 100% "Times are reported in military time at hour increments U C N C N U L 2 N N N N W l6 C O Z 0 O N Report of Results 0 Page 29 Agenda Item 5B Page 87 of 108 CU Student Transportation Survey March 2006 Question 4 Did you come straight to school from home today? Percent of respondents Yes 92% No 8% Total 100% Question 4a Average Number of Minutes* About how many minutes did it take? 17 "Respondents only from those who reported yes to Question 4 Question 4b Average Number of Stops* How many stops did you make on your way to school? 1 "Respondents only from those who reported no to Question 4 Question 5 Yesterday, or on the last day you went to campus, how many stops did Percent of you make on your way home? Respondents 0 60% 1 19% 2 I 9% 3 5% 4 2% 5 2% 6 1% 7 0% 8 0% 9 0% 10 0% 11 0% 12 0% c5 15 0% Total 100% N U L 2 N N N N D" l6 C O Z 0 O N Report of Results 0 Page 30 Agenda Item 5B Page 88 of 108 CU Student Transportation Survey March 2006 Question 6 About what time do you usually arrive at school? Percent of Respondents* 1 0% 5 0% 6 0% 7 17% 8 26% 9 28% 10 14% 11 6% 12 5% 13 1% 14 0% 15 0% 16 0% 17 0% 18 0% 20 0% 21 0% Total 100% `Times are reported in military time at hour increments CC N C N U L 2 N N N N W l6 C O Z 0 O N Report of Results 0 Page 31 Agenda Item 5B Page 89 of 108 CU Student Transportation Survey March 2006 Question 7 About what time do you usually leave school? Percent of Respondents" 0 0% 1 0% 3 0% 4 0% 6 0% 7 0% 8 0% 9 0% 10 1% 11 2% 12 6% 13 7% 14 11% 15 18% 16 16% 17 18% 18 9% 19 4% 20 2% 21 3% 22 1% 23 1% Total 100% "Times are reported in military time at hour increments Question 8 During a typical week, how many days do you commute to school in each of Percent of the ways listed below? Trips Walk 27% Ride a bus(es) 26% Bike 21% Drive alone 11% Multi-mode (e.g., car then bus, bike then bus, etc.) 7% Drive with at least one other person 3% Work at home 2% N U Other 1 % M N N N C 0 Z 0 0 N Report of Results Page 32 Agenda Item 513 Page 90 of 108 CU Student Transportation Survey March 2006 Question 9 If you ride a bus to get to and form school in a typical week, Percent of Respondents which routes do you use? Reporting a Bus Route SKIP 17% HOP 13% BUFF BUS 12% DASH 10% 209 7% STAMPEDE 7% 204 6% B 6% 203 3% AB 3% BOUND 3% 205 2% 225 2% BX 2% BOLT 1% DD 1% G 1% J 1% JUMP 1% 1 0% 10 0% 100X 0% 11 0% 120 0% 128 0% 15 0% 2 0% 20-BX 0% 20 0% 206 0% 208 0% 210 0% 228 0% `m U 32 0% 2 M 51 0% 0 N 6 0% 72X 0% o 75 0% z 0 0 N Report of Results 0 Page 33 Agenda Item 513 Page 91 of 108 CU Student Transportation Survey March 2006 Question 9 If you ride a bus to get to and form school in a typical week, Percent of Respondents which routes do you use? Reporting a Bus Route 76 0% 83L 0% A 0% B EXPRESS 0% B LOCAL 0% BOULDER EXPRESS 0% BOULDER LOCAL 0% BOUND, HOP, STAMPEDE 0% BX-20 0% C 0% CALL-AND-RIDE 0% D 0% DAG 0% DAH 0% DENVER LOCAL 0% JOLT 0% LIGHT RAIL 0% LIGHT RAIL C LINE 0% LONG JUMP 0% N 0% NEDERLAND BUS 0% RIDE 0% STAMPEDE, BOUND, SKIP 0% WILL VILL 0% Total 100% Question 10 Do you currently have a Boulder Campus parking permit? Percent of Respondents No 82% Yes 18% Total 100% U C N C Question 10b (D How much do you pay per month for your permit? M Average Amount of Money Spent per Month by Those Who Pay for a Permit $43 0 N 0 z 0 0 N Report of Results 0 Page 34 Agenda Item 513 Page 92 of 108 CU Student Transportation Survey March 2006 Question 11 If you drove a car to school today, where did you park? Percent of Respondents CU lot or structure with a permit 10% CU lot or structure with cash payment 3% Other lot, structure or space, with permit 1 % Other lot, structure or space, with cash payment 0% Private lot or parking space, no charge 1 % Street with meter 1 % Residential street, no meter 5% Other 2% 1 did not drive to school today 76% Total 100% Question 12 During a typical week, how many days per week do you currently park a Percent of motor vehicle on campus? Respondents 0 days 71% 1 day I 10% 2 days 4% 3 days 3% 4 days 2% 5 days 6% 6 days 1 % 7 days 4% Total 100% Question 13 When you drive to school, what type of parking space do you usually Percent of park in? Respondents CU lot or structure with a permit 13% CU lot or structure with cash payment 9% Other lot, structure or space, with permit 1 % Other lot, structure or space, with cash payment 0% Private lot or parking space, no charge 2% C Street with meter 6% Residential street, no meter 10% U Other 3% I do not usually drive to school 55% N N Total 100% 0 z 0 0 N Report of Results 0 Page 35 Agenda Item 5B Page 93 of 108 CU Student Transportation Survey March 2006 Question 14 How far from your home is the nearest bus stop that you would use to Percent of ride to campus? Respondents Less than 2 blocks 55% 2 - 5 blocks 25% 6 - 10 blocks 5% 11 - 15 blocks 2% More than 15 blocks 6% Don't know 6% Total 100% Question 15 Do you have a current RTD sticker on your CU Buff OneCard that allows Percent of you to ride the bus for free? Respondents Yes 94% No 6% Total 100% Question 16 Do you ever ride a bus to or from campus? Percent of Respondents Yes 78% No 22% Total 100% Question 16a Percent of Why don't you ride the bus to and from campus? respondents* I have not picked up my RTD sticker for my Buff OneCard 10% There is no bus service to campus 4% There is no bus service to my home 10% The bus takes too much time 40% 1 need my vehicle for errands during the workday 13% 1 need my vehicle before and/or after the workday to transport children or do errands 9% U Other 54% *Respondents may total 11lore than 100% as respojirleuts ra~e~e allowed jnore than one ~esporlse. C W U L U N m N m D" l6 C O Z 0 O N Report of Results 0 Page 36 Agenda Item 513 Page 94 of 108 CU Student Transportation Survey March 2006 Question 17 During a typical week, how many one-way trips do you make on an RTD bus or Light Rail that are not for commuting to school but are for pleasure Average Number or personal business? of One-Way Stops 1 Question 18 During the last year, about how many times have you been to Denver International Airport? Percent of Respondents None 12% One or more times 88% Total 100% Question 18a Average Number of Trips by Those Who Had Been to the Airport in the About how many times did you go to and from the airport Last Year (one-way trips)? 6 Question 19 Did you ever take the RTD skyRide bus for your trip(s) to Percent of Respondents Who Had and from the airport? Been to the Airport in the Last Year Yes 44% No 56% Total 100% Question 19a Average Number of Trips to the Airport Using skyRide of Respondents Who Had Been to the For about how many one-way trips did you use this Airport in the Last Year service? 4 U C N C N U L 2 N N N N D" l6 C O Z 0 O N Report of Results 0 Page 37 Agenda Item 513 Page 95 of 108 CU Student Transportation Survey March 2006 Question 20 During the current school year, have you used your RTD bus pass on a Percent of regional bus route, such as the route B or the route M? Respondents Yes 44% No 56% Total 100% Question 21 During the current school year, have you used your RTD bus pass on a Percent of local bus route, such as the SKIP route or the route 208? Respondents Yes 77% No 23% Total 100% Question 22 What one or two local RTD bus routes do you use most often? Percent of Respondents 10 0% 11 0% 12 0% 120 0% 128 0% 15 0% 16 0% 1A 0% 2 0% 20,32 0% 203 1% 203,225 0% 203/215 0% 203/225 0% 204 4% 204, HOP 0% 205 1% 205/225 0% 206 0% C 206,207 OR LEAP< SKIP< BOUND 0% 208 1% N N 208 TO SKIP 0% 209 4% 0 209, SKIP 0% z 0 0 N Report of Results 0 Page 38 Agenda Item 513 Page 96 of 108 CU Student Transportation Survey March 2006 Question 22 What one or two local RTD bus routes do you use most often? Percent of Respondents 21 0% 210 0% 211 0% 2225 0% 225 1% 225/203 0% 228 0% 28TH STREET 0% 32 0% 40 0% 40X 0% 51 0% 52 0% 6 0% 72X 0% 75 0% 76 0% 77 0% 79/83L 0% 83L 0% A 0% AB 2% AB BUS TO DIA 0% AB DIA 0% AB I USE OFTEN 0% AB/AB SKYRIDE STAPLETON 0% ABX 0% AIRPORT 0% B-DENVER 0% B 6% B BOULDER/DENVER LOCAL 0% B BUS 0% B DENVER EXPRESS 0% B DENVER LOCAL 0% B EXPRESS 0% B LINE 0% C B LINE TO DENVER 0% B LOCAL 0% iv B LOCAL EXPRESS 0% BORN 0% o B TO DENVER 0% z 0 0 N Report of Results 0 Page 39 Agenda Item 513 Page 97 of 108 CU Student Transportation Survey March 2006 Question 22 What one or two local RTD bus routes do you use most often? Percent of Respondents B TO ROCKIES GAME 0% B, DD 0% B, SKIP 0% B/B BOULDER/ DENVER 0% B/BX 0% B/BX/H 0% BF 0% BOLT 1% BOLT WITH THE HOP 0% BOULDER-DENVER 0% BOULDER EXPRESS 0% BOULDER LOCAL 0% BOULDER STATION 0% BOUNCE 0% BOUND 5% BROADWAY 0% BROADWAY AND EUCLID TO PEARL ST. 0% BUFF BUS 0% BX 1% BX TO/FROM BOULDER TO DENVER 0% BX, B 0% C, LIGHT RAIL 0% C, SKIP, HOP 0% CANYON BUS 0% CU 0% D 0% DART (LONGMONT-BOULDER) 0% DASH 8% DASH OR 206 0% DASH SKIP 0% DASH/204 0% DD 0% DENVER-BOULDER 0% DENVER 0% DENVER LOCAL 0% DENVER/BOULDER LOCAL 0% W DIA AB BUS 0% DON'T KNOW NAMES 0% iv DX 0% ELDORA 0% o G 0% z 0 0 N Report of Results 0 Page 40 Agenda Item 513 Page 98 of 108 CU Student Transportation Survey March 2006 Question 22 What one or two local RTD bus routes do you use most often? Percent of Respondents G IF AVAILABLE SBOUND 1030AM (NEED TO ADD ROUTE) 0% HOP 22% HOP OR SKIP 0% HOP PEARL TO THE HILL 0% HOP, SKIP & AB 0% HOPE 0% J 0% J REGIONAL BUS FROM LONGMONT TO BOULDER 0% JUMP 2% JUMP/LONG JUMP 0% JUST MOVED: NEDERLAND PARK-N-RIDE 0% K 0% LATE NIGHT HOP 0% LIGHT RAIL 0% LIGHT RAIL DOWN TOWN 0% LIGHT RAIL DOWNTOWN 0% LOCAL 0% LONG JUMP 0% M 0% MALLRIDE IN DENVER ON 16TH STREET 0% N 0% N? ELDORA BUS 0% N' 0% NEDERLAND 0% NIGHT HOP 0% REGIONAL 0% RIDE 0% RTD 0% SHIP 0% SKIP-BROADWAY 0% SKIP 28% SKIP,DASH 0% SKYRIDE 0% SKYRIDE AB 0% SPECIAL (FOR RACE FOR THE CURE) 0% STAMP 0% C STAMPEDE 4% STAMPEDE, SKIP 0% N STAMPEDE/209 0% STAMPEDE/HOP 0% 0 THE BOUND 0% z 0 0 N Report of Results 0 Page 41 Agenda Item 513 Page 99 of 108 CU Student Transportation Survey March 2006 Question 22 What one or two local RTD bus routes do you use most often? Percent of Respondents THE HOP 0% THE JUMP 0% THE ONE THAT IS GETS ME WHERE I NEED TO GO 0% THE ONE THAT RUNS UP INTERLOCKEN LOOP 0% THE SKIP 0% THE STAMPEDE 0% WHATEVER RUNS FROM FOLSOM TO CAMPUS 0% XB 0% Y BUS 0% YES 0% Total 100% Question 23 Is a car or other motor vehicle usually available to you for commuting Percent of to school? Respondents Yes 68% No 32% Total 100% Question 24 Is a bicycle usually available to you for commuting to school? Percent of Respondents Yes 63% No 37% Total 100% Question 25 What class level are you? Percent of Respondents Freshman 24% Sophomore 18% Junior 20% Senior 22% Graduate student 16% Total 100% N U L 2 N N N N D!' l6 C O Z O O O N Report of Results 0 Page 42 Agenda Item 5B Page 100 of 108 CU Student Transportation Survey March 2006 Question 26 Where do you live during the school year? Percent of Respondents Boulder (within the city limits) 82% Unincorporated Boulder County 2% Ward/Nederland/Jamestown 0% Lyons 0% Lafayette 1 % Louisville 2% Longmont 2% Erie 0% Broomfield 2% Westminster 2% Arvada 1% Denver or other metro-area suburb 2% Berthoud/Loveland/Fort Collins I 0% Weld County 0% Other 3% Total 100% Question 29 Do you rent or own your housing unit? Percent of Respondents Rent 63% Own 12% Live in a dormitory or fraternity or sorority 25% Total 100% Question 30 What is your gender? Percent of Respondents Female 47% Male 53% Total 100% CC N C N U L 2 N N N N D!' l6 C O Z O O O N Report of Results 0 Page 43 Agenda Item 5B Page 101 of 108 CU Student Transportation Survey March 2006 Appendix C: Responses to Selected Survey Questions by Respondent Characteristics Respondent's Primary Mode of Transportation by Gender What is your gender? Female Male Drove alone 10% 10% Drove with at least one other person 2% 2% Walked 30% 19% Biked 10% 25% Rode a bus or buses 30% _ 23% Multi-mode 16% 14% Worked at home 2% 2% Other 1 % 4% Total 100% 100% Bus Use by Distance from Bus Stop Do you ever ride a bus to Less than 2-5 6-10 11 -15 More than or from campus? 2 blocks blocks blocks blocks 15 blocks Yes 82% 78% 75% 79% 76% No 18% 22% 25% 21% 24% Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% CC N C N U L 2 N N N N D!' l6 C O Z O O O N Report of Results 0 Page 44 Agenda Item 5B Page 102 of 108 CU Student Transportation Survey March 2006 I Appendix D: Survey Methodology Survey Background The University of Colorado conducted this survey in order to gauge the transportation habits of its students. This survey was part of a larger study undertaken to understand the school and work commute of Boulder's "daytime" population; that is, those who study at the University, or are employed within Boulder. Those who study or work in Boulder may or may not actually live in Boulder, and thus their travel behavior is not captured with the resident Travel Diary study. This is the first time the University- of Colorado has participated in the Boulder Valley- Employee Transportation survey. This is the 7th iteration of the Boulder Valle`- Employee Transportation Survey since the baseline study conducted in 1991. Survey Administration All Boulder Campus CU Students are gi~-en an e-mail address through the University system. The Administration has the capability of sending "e-memos" to all students. It was determined that this would be a cost effective way to reach the student population, most of whom are quite versed uu computer and Internet use. The CU Student Transportation Questionnaire was programmed as a web survey form, and hosted on the website of National Research Center, Lic., the company conducting the survey and analyzing the results. An e-memo explaining the survey purpose and containing a link to the survey site was sent by Administration, signed by Peter Roper, the student Transportation Program Manager at the University. The first invitation was sent the first week of October 2005. About two weeks later, a reminder e-memo was sent, askuig those who had not yet completed the questionnaire to do so. Of the approximately 31,457 students contacted, 2,140 completed the survey, for a response rate of 6.8%. It is customary to describe the precision of estimates made from surveys by a "level of confidence" (or margin of error). The 95 percent confidence level for the survey- is generally no greater than plus or minus two percentage points around any given percent reported for the entire sample. CC N C N U L 2 N N N N W l6 C O z 0 NN Report of Results 0 Page 45 Agenda Item 5B Page 103 of 108 CU Student Transportation Survey March 2006 Data Analysis The data were imported from the webseiver to an SPSS (Statistical Package for the Social Sciences) dataset, the application -used to analyze the data. Respondent characteristics of the survey sample were compared to those for all CU Boulder students and were statistically adjusted to retlect the larger population when necessary. The results of the weighting scheme are presented in the following table. For the most part, frequency distributions and mean ratings are presented in the body of the report. A complete set of frequencies for each survey question is presented in Appendix B: Complete Survey Responses. Weighting Table Percent in Population/Sample Characteristic Population Norm Unweighted Data Weighted Data Gender Female 47.0% 57.0% 47.0% Male 53.0% 43.0% 53.0% TOTAL 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Class Freshman 23.6% 11.9% 23.5% Sophomore 18.5% 14.6% 18.5% Junior 20.1% _ 19.2% _ 19.9% Senior 22.3% 27.5% 22.4% Graduate student 15.5% 26.9% 15.7% TOTAL 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% * From the Office of Planning, Budget and Analysis (http://www.colorado.edu/pba/records/) CC N C N U L 2 N N N N D!' l6 C O z O O O N Report of Results 0 Page 46 Agenda Item 5B Page 104 of 108 CU Student Transportation Survey March 2006 I Appendix E: Survey Instrument The following pages contain the questions used for the survey irnstnunent. The actual format of the survey as taken by students was different, as the survey was programmed to be completed on the Internet. U C N C N U L 2 N N N N W l6 C O Z 0 NN Report of Results 0 Page 47 Agenda Item 5B Page 105 of 108 CU Student Travel Survey 2005 Please take a few minutes to complete the following questionnaire for the CU Transportation Office and the City of Boulder's Transportation Division- All of your responses are completely confidential, and will be reported in group form only. Today's Date: / 12005 School Commute 8. During atypical week, how many days do you commute to school in each of the ways listed 1. How did you get to school today? (Please check all below? that apply) ❑ Drove alone ❑ Drove with at least one Drive alone...... other person 4 Drive with at least how many others total? one other person...... how many under Multi-mode (e.g., car then 16 years old? bus, bike then bus, etc.)...... ❑ Walked ❑ Biked Walk...... ❑ Rode a bus or buses 4 Which route(s) did you use? Bike...... (e.g., AB, SKIP, 208, etc). ❑ Worked at home Ride a bus(es)...... ❑ Other Work at home...... 2. About how far is your home from the campus? miles Other...... 3. About what time did you leave 9. If you ride a bus to get to and from school in a home for school today? AM/PM typical week, which routes do you use? (e.g., AB, SKIP, 208, etc.)? 4. Did you come straight to school from home today? Route(s) ❑ Yes 4 About how many minutes did ittake?. min parking ❑ No 4 How many stops did you make on your 10. Do you currently have a Boulder Campus parking way to school?.......... stops permit? ❑ no 5. Yesterday, or on the last day you went ❑ yes 4 how much do you pay per to campus, how many stops did month for your permit?.. $ you make on your way home? stops 11. If you drove a car to school today, where did you 6. About what time do you park? usually arrive at school? AM/PM ❑ CU lot or structure with a permit ❑ CU lot or structure with cash payment 7. About what time do you ❑ Other lot, structure or space, with permit usually leave school? AM/PM ❑ Other lot, structure or space, with cash payment ❑ Private lot or parking space, no charge ❑ Street with meter ❑ Residential street, no meter ❑ Other ❑ I did not drive to school today Agenda Item 5B Page 106 of 108 Page 1 12_ During a typical week, how many days per week do 17_ During a typical week, how many one-way trips do you currently park a motor vehicle on campus? you make on an RTD bus or Light Rail that are not for commuting to school but are for pleasure or days personal business? (A round trip counts as two one-way trips, although a 13. When you drive to school, what type of parking transfer to another bus for the same trip does not count space do you usually park in? as another trip. Each time you went to a different location is one trip-) ❑ CU lot or structure with a permit Record zero if no bus trips are taken during a ❑ CU lot or structure with cash payment typical week. ❑ Other lot, structure or space, with permit ❑ Other lot, structure or space, with cash one-way bus trips payment ❑ Private lot or parking space, no charge ❑ Street with meter 18. During the last year, about how many times have ❑ Residential street, no meter you been to Denver International Airport? ❑ Other ❑ None 4 go to question #20 ❑ I don't usually drive to school ❑ One or more times4 About how many times did you go to and from the airport (one-way trips)? Transit 14_ How far from your home is the nearest bus stop 19_ Did you ever take the RTD skyRide bus for your that you would use to ride to campus? trip(s) to and from the airport? ❑ Less than 2 blocks ❑ Yeses For about how many one-way ❑ 2 - 5 blocks trips did you use this service?.._ ❑ 6 - 10 blocks ❑ No ❑ 11 - 15 blocks ❑ More than 15 blocks 20. During the current school year, have you used your ❑ Don't know RTD bus pass on a regional bus route, such as the route B or the route M? 15. Do you have a current RTD sticker on your CU Buff ❑ Yes ❑ No OneCard that allows you to ride the bus for free? ❑ Yes ❑ No 21. During the current school year, have you used your RTD bus pass on a local bus route, such as the SKIP route or the route 208? 16. Do you ever ride a bus to or from campus? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ yes ❑ no 4 22_ What one or two local RTD bus routes do you use Why don't you ride the bus to and from most often? campus? ❑ I have not picked up my RTD sticker for my Buff OneCard ❑ There is no bus service to campus ❑ There is no bus service to my home ❑ The bus takes too much time ❑ I need my vehicle for errands during the workday ❑ I need my vehicle before and/or after the workday to transport children or do errands ❑ Other Agenda Item 5B Page 107 of 108 Page 2 About You 23_ Is a car or other motor vehicle usually available to 27. What is your home zip code during the school year? you for commuting to school? ❑ Yes ❑ No 24_ Is a bicycle usually available to you for commuting 28. What is the intersection nearest to your home to school? during the school year? ❑ Yes ❑ No 29. Do you rent or own your housing unit? ❑ Rent 25_ What class level are you? ❑ Own ❑ Freshman ❑ Live in a dormitory or ❑ Sophomore fraternity or sorority ❑ Junior ❑ Senior 30_ What is your gender? ❑ Graduate student ❑ Female ❑ Male 26. Where do you live during the school year? ❑ Boulder (within the city limits) ❑ Unincorporated Boulder County ❑ Ward/Nederland/Jamestown ❑ Lyons ❑ Lafayette ❑ Louisville ❑ Longmont ❑ Erie ❑ Broomfield ❑ Westminster ❑ Arvada ❑ Denver or other metro-area suburb ❑ Berthoud/Loveland/Fort Collins ❑ Weld County ❑ Other Agenda Item 5B Page 108 of 108 Page 3 CITY OF BOULDER PLANNING BOARD AGENDA ITEM MEETING DATE: October 6, 2011 AGENDA TITLE: Public hearing to consider a Concept Plan entitled Near North Apartments, LUR2011- 00049, at 1000 Alpine Avenue for a new residential building (roughly 24,000 square feet of new floor area) and residential conversion of the existing office building (roughly 31,000 square feet) to create a total of 38 dwelling units on the site. Applicant/Property Owner: Surround Architecture, Inc. REQUESTING DEPARTMENT: Community Planning & Sustainability David Driskell, Executive Director Charles Ferro, Land Use Review Manager Karl Guiler, Planner II OBJECTIVE: 1. Hear applicant and staff presentations 2. Hold public hearing 3. Planning Board discussion of Concept Plan. No action is required by Planning Board. SUMMARY: Proposal: Concept Plan review and comment for the proposed development of 38 attached rental units on approximately 1.58 acres (24 du/ac). Project Name: Near North Apartments Location: 1000 Alpine Avenue Size of Tract: Approximately 14.87 acres Zoning: BT-1, Business Transitional - 1 Comprehensive Plan: Transitional Business Agenda Item 5C Page 1 of 65 Project Description: • Redevelopment of 1000 Alpine Avenue with 38 new dwelling units within two buildings built and converted in two phases. • Phase I would involve the construction of a new three-story building on the south side of the site within what is now a parking lot. The building would contain 24 attached dwelling units. • The existing medical office building on the northern portion of the site would remain and continue to contain office uses. Parking reductions are proposed for each use (33% each) during the time between phases. • Phase II would involve the conversion of the medical office building to a two- story residential building containing 14 attached dwelling units. • A total of 38 attached dwelling units are proposed for the site and would be accessed from Alpine Avenue, I Oth Street to the southeast and from an existing alley on the west side. • Off-street parking would be confined to the first level of the south building and a total parking reduction of 33% is proposed for the site at build out. • Surface level and integrated roof top open space is proposed for residents and is also required to permit the proposed density where the BT-1 zoning district requires no less than 1,200 square feet of useable open space per unit. A total of 45,600 square feet, including the roof top open space, would be required to permit 38 units. • The south building is proposed to be roughly 38 feet in height (perhaps taller when shade structures and railings are included) and would require Planning Board approval at time of Site Review. • See Attachment B for the concept plan and applicant's written statement. ANALYSIS: The detailed Development Review Committee comments are found within Attachment C. A comprehensive analysis of the proposal follows: Guidelines for Review and Comment The following guidelines will be used to guide the Planning Board's discussion regarding the site. It is anticipated that issues other than those listed in this section will be identified as part of the concept plan review and comment process. The Planning Board may consider the following guidelines when providing comments on a concept plan. 1) Characteristics of the site and surrounding areas, including, without limitation, its location, surrounding neighborhoods, development and architecture, any known natural features of the site including, without limitation, mature trees, watercourses, hills, depressions, steep slopes and prominent views to and from the site; Agenda Item 5C Page 2 of 65 The site is just over 1.5 acres, rectangular and with mild slope descending to the southeast. An existing two-story medical office building, constructed in 1967, exists on the north part of the site adjacent to Alpine Avenue. The southern part of the site is almost entirely paved with surface parking. Greenspace exists along the building's northern frontage on Alpine Avenue. In addition to having two access points from Alpine, the site abuts a 20- foot east-west alley on its west side and a north-south portion of 10th Street, which terminates at the southeastern corner of the side. These access points are currently blocked. Uncharacteristically, the public right-of-way of lots' Street continues in an east- west narrow strip (approximately 7 feet in width) along the south side of the property. 0 Holth Eatiklei-Park NeWands „ 1 r ? e t,F t It ~ Boulder Comnnlnit Hos~ltal `ns IpJ t f ~ 4 - kL tlPiA rr tf r-i lfr rrg1. .P rrt rf y err tR- et l a.• rr ltg:JtH IFi r I X" u ~'v P ~ ! rFrPhf fr~i[ r ~ ~.r F f 1 r -rtrL Idea Market t~M r f tFl it ..PU+K , C .r liNr.Rf a ~y r v- ~'J I ,I _ W F/.rH - {Lf Apr pins"_ v Cmnmunity Plaza I 'r ~ r~ ~ 141?0 Alplne ~-r F` ! ~i :I rip if Vf* + r_ irrrr rei J 10tht1eet 5tub t a C rt~ "II f t~llr• I , dt r b Mapleton riIrp"TW= Oct t - - _ ~ .r I F r ~t l ~ PQ r(- Ff` r mt a - ~1 1 ? ~ - e T e" r, "r r s' r w. - al.lF F if. Figure 1- 1000 Alpine surrounding context. Figure 1 shows that the subject site is surrounded by a variety of apartment and medical office buildings; many of which were constructed in the 1960s. Boulder Community Hospital, which will soon locate many of its core services and medical office functions to the Foothills Hospital campus, is located immediately north across the street. Considering the likely relocation of many hospital-related services from this area to the Foothills Hospital campus vicinity over the coming five years, the subject area is an "area of change" that should be evaluated in the next several years. Conversion of this particular site to residential is sooner than anticipated but likely heralds the first of many potential changes in this area. Agenda Item 5C Page 3 of 65 The site is well served by multiple transportation modes, with Broadway serving as a high use multi-modal corridor through the mixed-use area composed of Community Plaza and Ideal Market among other office, medical and retail uses. Across 9th Street to the northwest is the 12-acre North Boulder Park and further west, north and south are the predominantly single-family neighborhoods of Newlands and Mapleton. Low Density Residential Park. Urban and Other PlIb110 I~ w ~ 1 T ~ I I f ~ n ' q J 00 0 Mixed Density Residential Community &isiness Q I---- - Transitional Business El sa High Density Residential Mixed Use Residential r Y Figure 2- BVCP land use on and around the site. Figure 2 shows the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP) land use designations on and around the site. The subject property, outlined in red, is designated Transitional Business and is within a highly diverse area in terms of land use, with High Density and Mixed Density Residential to the south and west, and Mixed Use Residential and Community Business to the southwest and east, respectively. To the north are areas designated Park (i.e., North Boulder Park), Public (i.e., Boulder Community Hospital) and Low Density Residential (i.e., the Newlands neighborhood). Agenda Item 5C Page 4 of 65 U_ © o O=--] RL-1 iJ ' P x F L n i i q~ AVF a a BT-1 RMX-1 BC 1. 61 Lop Q r'- 4 RH-5 0 - Figure 3- Zoning on and around the site. Consistent with the BVCP land use, the site's zoning is Transitional Business (BT-1). It is adjacent to the RH-5, High Density Residential zoning district, and a Public zone to the north, which includes the hospital. The areas north and west are zoned RL-1 (Low Density Residential) and RMX-1 (Mixed Density Residential). The zoning to the east along Broadway is BC-2, Business Commercial, encompassing the commercial center of Community Plaza, Ideal Market and the office and retail uses along Broadway. 2) Community policy considerations including, without limitation, the review process and likely conformity of the proposed development with the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan and other ordinances, goals, policies, and plans, including, without limitation, subcommunity and subarea plans; As a potential Site Review project, development of the site is subject to compliance with the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP), which has a wide variety of policies that apply (see Attachment A for those policies that would directly apply). Approval of a Site Review application requires consistency with the BVCP. A preliminary assessment of the project's consistency with the BVCP is provided below: Agenda Item 5C Page 5 of 65 Compliance with BVCP in terms ofgeneral land use: The concept includes a proposal to convert the site from commercial to residential with a focus on providing new workforce housing. The site is within a mixed-use activity center just north of downtown. Commercial and office uses predominate along Broadway with surrounding residential uses at high, mixed, and low densities. While the site is designated Transitional Business, the zoning permits attached and detached residential uses. Although additional comprehensive planning analysis is necessary for the area, intensification and use of the site as residential is considered appropriate and consistent with several BVCP policies that aim to concentrate new residential uses along multi- modal corridors and take advantage of existing urban services with infill. Additional residential uses in the area would add to the mixed-use character and economic vitality of the area. The following BVCP policies apply: ✓ Policy 1.21, Jobs:Housing Balance; ✓ Policy 2.02, Compact Land Use Pattern; ✓ Policy 2.26, Mixed Use and Higher Density Housing; ✓ Policy 2.27, Variety of Activity Centers; ✓ Policy 6. 10, Multi-modal Development, and ✓ Policy 7. 10, Keeping Low- and Moderate-Income Workers in Boulder. The applicant expresses an environmentally sensitive approach to developing the site by means of clustering units and through adaptive reuse of the existing building. These aspects of the project are consistent with the following BVCP policies: ✓ Policy 4.40, Energy-Efficient Land Use, and ✓ Policy 4.41, Energy-Efficient Building Design and Construction Waste Minimization. Compliance with BVCP in terms of building and site design: BVCP Policies specifically applicable to community design and transportation are as follows and are discussed thereafter: ✓ Policy 2.31, Commitment to a Walkable City; ✓ Policy 2.40, Physical Design for People, and ✓ Policy 2.42, Enhanced Design for the Built Environment ✓ Policy 6.13, Neighborhood Streets Connectivity The site design of the conceptual proposal is unique in that it takes advantage of the multiple access points from Alpine, I01h Street, and the alley, and positions a new building behind (south of) an existing building proposed for conversion. The site is within a block that is over 950 feet long east-west (which is roughly three times longer than a normal block). With no specific transportation network plan for the area at present, there are no mandatory transportation connections or right-of-way dedications. However, as the site is within an area of change as discussed above, it is likely that such connections may be required in the future. Agenda Item 5C Page 6 of 65 Nevertheless, there are clear opportunities to extend the north-south 10th Street through the site to break up the "super" block and potentially extend the alley east-west to help form more traditional blocks and development patterns. If these connections were made, the proposed site design would be impacted and the density permitted on the property would be significantly reduced. Staff has communicated that, at a minimum, a public access easement should be required for 10th Street. The requirement to dedicate 10th Street as a public right-of-way, extend the alley and have buildings fronting on these rights-of-way are key issues that would need to be considered should the applicant move forward with Site Review. Policy 6.13, Neighborhood Street Connectivity, is the most applicable policy to this analysis and states, "New neighborhood streets will be designed in a well connected and fine-grained pattern ofstreets and alleys to effectively disperse and distribute vehicle traffic and to promote bike and pedestrian travel." With Broadway, Community Plaza and North Boulder Park only 450 feet to the east and west of the site, excellent opportunities exist for walking to shopping, work, transit, and recreational amenities. The site's location alone makes the project consistent with BVCP Policy 2.31 Commitment to a Walkable City. To be fully consistent with BVCP Policy 2.40 Physical Design for People, more on-site enhancements should be considered. For instance, the applicant should look into enhancing pedestrian infrastructure along Alpine, as rractical, and the additional provisions of sidewalks/walkways that would connect to 10 Street and the alley. Detached sidewalks should also be considered along l Ottl Street (where not impacted by the existing building location), which is strongly recommended for a public access easement. BVCP Policy 2.42 Enhanced Design for the Built Environment states, "Projects should incorporate well designed finctional open spaces with duality landscaping, access to sunlight and places to sit comfortably." Certainly, the quality and functionality of the open space on the site will be a key issue at time of Site Review. With at-grade and roof- level open space there are opportunities to provide an interesting variety of places for residents to enjoy. Specific attention must be paid to the roof open space as integrated green roofs are somewhat rare in Boulder and a combination of elements would have to work well to make the space functional. Attention should be focused on plantings that would survive long term on the roof, high quality surface treatments, buffering between gathering spaces and mechanical equipment, if applicable, and appropriate elements to provide shade and comfort on the roof. If successful, the project could serve as an example for how to build a quality green roof in Boulder. In regard to the at-grade open spaces, similar attention would need to be paid to the overall quality of plantings, surface treatments and provision of areas for sun and shade. Staff appreciates the provision of garden and plaza spaces, but design details to ensure that these are inviting spaces would need to be clarified at time of Site Review. Also, how open spaces on the ground are framed by buildings will be important. Policy 2.42 also states, "Projects should relate positively to public streets, sidewalks and paths. Building and landscape areas - notparking lots - should present a well designed face to the public Agenda Item 5C Page 7 of 65 realm, should not block access to sunlight, and should be sensitive to important public view corridors." While the project keeps surface parking to an absolute minimum and conceals parking consistent with this policy, there is little information at this point about how buildings will appear from interior open spaces. Staff is concerned about the podium-styled building on the south, which could negatively impact internal open spaces, The building will also shade these spaces, depending on design treatments, which may or may not be an asset. Staff is also unclear how the north building will ultimately appear from the streetscape, or the external fayade alterations that might ultimately be proposed. Specific to building design, Policy 2.42 states, "Buildings should be designed with a cohesive design that is comfortable to the pedestrian, with inviting entries that are visible f •om the public right- of-ivay." The existing building on Alpine has a strong inward orientation and little pedestrian interest in the way of material variety and windows. The Site Review application will need to consider how the proposed alterations could create a building that is more consistent with the intent of this policy. The application also requests consideration of a building height above 35 feet (e.g., 38 feet). At this stage, staff does not find this to be a critical issue: it is not significantly above the height limit, and there are other buildings in the area well above that height. However, final determination can only be made when there is more detailed information on the design of the building, the quality of the open spaces, and the potential impact on neighbors (e.g., shadows and views). Parking reduction The BVCP also has a policy related to parking: Policy 6. 11, Managing Parking Supply. While there are efforts to improve site design by reducing the visual impacts of parking and avoidance of providing too much parking, the city also must ensure that the specific parking need of a project will be accommodated to avoid spillover impacts onto adjacent properties. Specifically, BVCP Policy 6.11 states, "Parking needs will be accommodated in the most efficient way possible with the least number of new parking spaces." While a parking reduction appears feasible on the site based on its location and the information provided, staff is more concerned about the interim condition between Phase I and II that is proposed to have a 33% parking reduction for the both the residential and office uses that would remain on the site. This potentially could result in adverse parking impacts to the surrounding neighborhood. Without a certain time for completion of Phase II, the condition could last longer than expected. This will likely be a key issue at time of Site Review. The applicant should review the parking reduction criteria within section 9- 2-14(h)(2)(K), B.R.C. 1981 prior to preparing the Site Review application. Parking is also a principal concern of nearby residents (see Attachment Q. 3) Applicable criteria, review procedures, and submission requirements for a site review; Site Review: The project would require Planning Board approval of a Site Review application due to the requested height modification to build higher than 35 feet. Submission requirements would be the same as any other Site Review and would Agenda Item 5C Page 8 of 65 have to satisfy the requirements of sections 9-2-16 and 9-2-14(d), BR. C. 1981. Prior to the public hearing, staff reviews would follow a standard three-week review track where comments or a recommendation would be rendered at the end of that time. If revisions were required, additional review tracks could be scheduled. Once the application is refined such that a staff recommendation can be made, it is scheduled for Planning Board review. The application could only be approved if Planning Board finds that all the criteria in Section 9-2-14(h) of the Land Use Regulations are met. The Site Review application is subject to City Council call-up within 30 days of the Planning Board decision. 4) Permits that may need to be obtained and processes that may need to be completed prior to, concurrent with, or subsequent to site review approval; Technical Documents: After Site Review, Technical Documents would be required to allow staff to review more detailed plans to affirm compliance with regulations related to engineering, architecture, landscaping, drainage, lighting etc. Once all the site conditions were found to be compliant with all applicable codes, a building permit for the new structures could be reviewed. Building Permits: Each building would require a separate building permit and would have to be consistent with the approved Site Review and Technical Documents. 5) Opportunities and constraints in relation to the transportation system, including, without limitation, access, linkage, signalization, signage, and circulation, existing transportation system capacity problems serving the requirements of the transportation master plan, possible trail links, and the possible need for a traffic or transportation study; The general site location is prime access to Broadway and 9th Street, which are considered a highway and arterial respectively. The site itself benefits from several access points from Alpine Avenue, 10th Street and an alley. The site is within a block that is over 950 feet long east-west (which is roughly three times long as a normal city block). With no specific transportation network plan for the area at present, no mandatory transportation connections or right-of-way dedications through the site are planned as a part of this proposal. However, as the site is within an area of change as discussed above, it is likely that such connections may be required in the fature and the subject Concept Plan. 6) Environmental opportunities and constraints including, without limitation, the identification of wetlands, important view corridors, floodplains and other natural hazards, wildlife corridors, endangered and protected species and habitats, the need for further biological inventories of the site and at what point in the process the information will be necessary; The site is already developed with a two-story building and parking. Minimal impact to natural systems would occur. The proposed project would add more pervious surface, Agenda Item 5C Page 9 of 65 plantings and open space and would be considered an enhancement over the existing condition. 7) Appropriate ranges of land uses; and Discussed in No. 2 above. 8) The appropriateness of or necessity for housing. Discussed in No. 2 above. PUBLIC COMMENT AND PROCESS: Required public notice was given in the form of written notification mailed to all property owners within 600 feet of the subject site and a sign was posted on the property for at least 10 days. All notice requirements of Section 9-4-10(g), B.R.C. 1981 have been met. An additional courtesy notice of the Planning Board public hearing was also sent to neighbors. A neighborhood meeting was held on September 14, 2011. At that meeting, the primary focus of discussion was the use of the east-west alley for access, which many neighbors voiced opposition to in terms of the impact that increased traffic, noise, and exhaust will have on their residences that abut the alley, but also the safety concerns from pulling out onto busy 9th Street. There were also concerns related to the potential impacts of the proposed parking reduction. Many expressed support for a proposed residential project at the location if the transportation issues were successfully addressed. Written public comments on the proposal received during the review process are found within Attachment C. STAFF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION: No action is required on behalf of the Planning Board. Public comment, staff, and Planning Board comments will be documented for the applicant's use. Concept Plan Review and comment is intended to give the applicant feedback on the proposed development plan and provide the applicant direction on submittal of the site review plans. Approved B D d Driskell, Ex ' u i irector Department of Community Planning and Sustainability Agenda Item 5C Page 10 of 65 ATTACHMENTS: A: Applicable BVCP policies to the proposal B: Near North Apartments Concept Plan and written statement dated August 1, 2011 C: Public comments D: Development Review Committee comments dated August 19, 2011 Agenda Item 5C Page 11 of 65 ATTACHMENT A Applicable BVCP policies The following BVCP policies have been found applicable to the project: 1.21 Johs.Housing Balance. Boulder is a major employment center, with more jobs than housing for people who work here. This has resulted in both positive and negative impacts including economic prosperity, significant in-commuting, and high demand on existing housing. The city will continue to be a major employment center and will seek opportunities to improve the balance of jobs and housing while maintaining a healthy economy. This will be accomplished by encouraging new mixed use neighborhoods in areas close to where people work, encouraging transit-oriented development in appropriate locations, preserving service commercial uses, converting industrial uses to residential uses in appropriate locations, and mitigating the impacts of traffic congestion. 2.04 Compact Land Use Pattern. The city and county will, by implementing the comprehensive plan, ensure that development will take place in an orderly fashion, take advantage of existing urban services, and avoid, insofar as possible, patterns of leapfrog, noncontiguous, scattered development within the Boulder Valley. The city prefers redevelopment and infill as compared to development in an expanded service area in order to prevent urban sprawl and create a compact community. 2.19 Compatibility of Adjacent Land Uses. In order to avoid or minimize noise and visual conflicts between adjacent land uses that vary widely in use, intensity or other characteristics, the city will use tools such as interface zones, transitional areas, site and building design and cascading gradients of density in the design of subareas and zoning districts. With redevelopment, the transitional area should be within the zone of more intense use. 2.26 Mixed Use and Higher Density Housing. The city will consider mixed use and higher density housing along certain multi-modal corridors through an area planning process that engages the public and addresses issues such as the urban design, street network, and compatibility with the surrounding area. 2.27 Variety of Activity Centers. The city and county support a variety of regional, subcommunity and neighborhood activity centers where people congregate for a variety of activities such as working, shopping, going to school or day care, recreating and residing. Activity centers distributed throughout the community in focused nodes of concentrated activities at three scalesregional, subcommunity and neighborhood-are key elements of the overall city structure (see description at the beginning of this chapter). Activity centers should be located within walking distance of neighborhoods and business areas and designed to be compatible with surrounding land uses and intensity and the context and character of neighborhoods and business areas. Good multimodal connections to and from activity centers will be encouraged. (See Policy 6.10 Multimodal Development.) 2.31 Commitment to a Walkable City. Agenda Item 5C Page 12 of 65 The city and county will promote the development of a walkable city by designing neighborhoods and business areas to provide easy and safe access by foot to places such as neighborhood centers, community facilities, transit stops or centers, and shared public spaces and amenities. 2.40 Physical Design for People. The city and county will take all reasonable steps to ensure that new development and redevelopment, public as well as private, be designed in a manner that is sensitive to social, physical and emotional needs. Broadly defined, this will include factors such as accessibility to those with limited mobility; provision of coordinated facilities for pedestrians, bicyclists and bus-riders; provision of functional landscaping and open space; and the appropriate scale and massing of buildings related to neighborhood context. 2.42 Enhanced Design for the Built Environment. Through its policies and programs, the city will encourage or require quality architecture and urban design in private sector development that encourages alternative modes of transportation, provides a livable environment and addresses the elements listed below. a) The context. Projects should become a coherent part of the neighborhood in which they are placed. They should be preserved and enhanced where the surroundings have a distinctive character. Where there is a desire to improve the character of the surroundings, a new character and positive identity as established through area planning or a community involvement process should be created for the area. Special attention will be given to protecting and enhancing the quality of established residential areas that are adjacent to business areas. b) The public realm. Projects should relate positively to public streets, plazas, sidewalks and paths. Buildings and landscaped areas-not parking lotsshould present a well-designed face to the public realm, should not block access to sunlight, and should be sensitive to important public view corridors. c) Human scale. Projects should provide pedestrian interest along streets, paths and public spaces. d) Permeability. Projects should provide multiple opportunities to walk from the street into projects, thus presenting a street face that is permeable. Where appropriate, they should provide opportunities for visual permeability into a site to create pedestrian interest. e) On-site open spaces. Projects should incorporate well designed functional open spaces with quality landscaping, access to sunlight and places to sit comfortably. Where public parks or open spaces are not within close proximity, shared open saces for a variety of activities should also be provided Agenda Item 5C Page 13 of 65 within developments. f) Buildings. Buildings should be designed with a cohesive design that is comfortable to the pedestrian, with inviting entries that are visible from public rights of way. 4.40 Energy-Efficient Land Use. The city and county will encourage the conservation of energy through land use policies and regulations governing placement, orientation and clustering of development and through housing policies and regulations. The conservation of energy is served by the development of more intense land use patterns; the provision of recreation, employment and essential services in proximity to housing; the development of mass transit corridors; and efficient transportation. 4.41 Energy-Efficient Building Design and Construction Waste Minimization. The city and county will continue their efforts to improve the energy and resource efficiency of new and existing buildings. The city and county will continue to improve codes, standards and regulations assuring energy and resource efficiency in new construction, remodels and renovation projects. Energy conservation programs will be sensitive to the unique situations that involve historic preservation and low-income home owners and renters and will assure that programs assisting these groups are continued. The city and county will encourage renovation of existing buildings over demolition and will develop policies and programs that promote the reuse of materials salvaged after deconstruction in development and construction practices. 6.10 Multimodal Development. The transportation system will accommodate the planned land use pattern, which includes higher densities and mixed use in the core area and activity centers, a variety of densities in the fringe areas, compact community size, and the possibility of one or more city auto-free zones in the future. Three intermodal centers will be developed or maintained in the downtown, the Boulder Valley Regional Center, and on the university's main campus to anchor these three activity centers to regional transit connections and to serve as hubs for connecting pedestrian, bicycle and local transit to regional services. The land along multimodal corridors will be designated as multimodal transportation zones when transit service is provided on that corridor. In these multimodal transportation zones, the city will develop parking maximums and encourage parking reductions. To minimize the negative impacts from automobiles, the city will develop strategies to facilitate and encourage the use of small, fuel efficient automobiles, particularly for urban commuting. 6.11 Managing Parking Supply. The city will actively manage parking supply in the community consistent with the desire to reduce single-occupant vehicle travel and limit congestion. Parking needs will be accommodated in the most efficient way possible with the least number of new parking spaces. The city will promote parking reductions through parking maximums, shared parking, parking districts and parking management programs where appropriate and taking into account impacts to surrounding areas. 7.10 Keeping Low- and Moderate-Income Workers in Boulder. The city will explore policies and programs to increase housing for low and moderate income Agenda Item 5C Page 14 of 65 Boulder workers, particularly essential workers, by fostering housing opportunities through mixed use and multi-family development, developing permanently affordable housing on vacant and redevelopable sites, by considering the conversion of commercial and industrial zoned or designated land to residential use, and providing preferences within city-subsidized projects for housing Boulder's workforce. (See Policy 2.21 Mixed Use.) Agenda Item 5C Page 15 of 65 ATTACHMENT B Concept Review Submittal Near North Apartments 1000 Alpine r 81112011 j Agenda Item 5C Page 16 of 65 Near North Apartments: 1000 Alpine Concept Plan Review August 1, 2011 Project Background Existing Conditions and Current Use - Exhibit E The existing building at 1000 Alpine was designed as an office building and was constructed in 1967. It remains in use as an office building today. The building is currently for sale and under contract. The existing building covers about 15,696 sf of the 68,789 sf site. With the exception of 6000 sf of landscape area on the north side (front) of the building, the remainder of the site, 47,000 sf, is a paved parking area with all site drainage running to the southeast corner of the lot. Mature trees exist in the landscape area north of the building. Two curb cuts from Alpine provide access to and from the site. The access points from 10`h street to the south and the alley to the west have been fenced off to disallow passage of vehicles, bikes, and pedestrians. The Accessible entry to the building is on the south side because the slope of the current entry walk on the north is too steep to meet accessibility standards. The existing building is currently occupied and 100% leased for the next several years. The purchasing group intends to honor all leases and to phase a redevelopment project at the site. Adjacent Uses - Exhibit B & D The current BT-1 zoning for the site aligns with the Transitional Business zoning in the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan. Medical offices predominate the surrounding uses due to the location of Boulder Community Hospital directly across Alpine to the north. Towards the west and southwest are apartment buildings that generally are 40-50 years old. Beyond the immediate neighboring parcels the types of uses and spaces expands to single family homes, more professional offices and additional service/retail. The project site enjoys a Walk Score of 95 (www.walkscore.com). North Boulder Park is a short 3 minute walk to the northwest. Broadway runs north-south just a few steps to the east and immediately across Broadway are Community Plaza and the Ideal Market Shops. Restaurants, coffee shops, retail, including groceries, are all within a 3-4 minute walk. 1000 Alpine has easy access to the 208 and the 'Skip', which runs straight to north Boulder and directly south to downtown, Pearl Street, CU and the University Hill, as well as virtual direct access to bike lanes on 9`h Street and Balsam Avenue, and a B-Cycle station located one-block east at Broadway and Alpine. A half mile walk west on Alpine provides easy access to Mt. Sanitas trail and open space opportunities. Project Phasing and Schedule Concept Planning Concept planning for the site has been completed and the purchasing group is seeking concept review and comment. The existing building's current use and lease status pushes the project in to a Phased solution. Concept Review submittal is predicated on the completion of Phase II, yet attempts to strike a balance between the two uses during transition from Phase I to Phase II. The adjacent land uses, incredibly accessible alternate modes of transport, and the current utilization of the onsite parking indicate that a parking reduction from that required in the BT-1 zone is appropriate. Site Planning Following Concept Review and successful transfer of the property, the design team will begin the Site Planning process by building from the comments provided by staff and planning board during Concept Review. A Site Plan determination before the end of 2011 would allow for technical and construction documentation to be completed by early spring 2012. Construction Groundbreaking for Phase I is anticipated for early spring 2012 with an estimated construction timeframe of 7 to 9 months from start to finish. Page 1 of 4 Agenda Item 5C Page 17 of 65 Concept Planning Proposed Land Use - Exhibit G, I, & J Several key elements are in play in making a successful project at this location. The adjacent uses, amenities, and multiple modes of transport make the project ideal for a residential use. While all different types of residents would be welcomed, the project location will likely attract workforce residents seeking quality rental housing in close proximity to either Boulder Community Hospital's North Broadway Campus, other doctors' and specialists' offices located at BCH or the Boulder Medical Center, or offices on Pearl Street and in downtown Boulder, with walking and biking access to public transit, shopping, services, trails, and recreation. The phased nature of the project, due to leased occupancy in the existing building, as well as the desire to minimize mass and bulk points to a solution that creates two buildings with green space around and between them. The lower topography on the south side of the site reduces the apparent difference in the number of stories of the new structure (3) to the existing structure (2) thereby mitigating the difference in height between the two. In order to provide as much useable open space as possible for residents and to deemphasize the automobile, a plan that reduces the amount of surface area given to parking and drive aisles was conceived. Currently all transportation must ingress and egress the site from Alpine. However, two other access points exist but are not utilized. The proposed plan seeks to remove these impediments and allow site access via 10`'Street from North Street and the alley leading east off of 9`h Street for a few reasons. Bicycles and pedestrians are currently forced to walk around the block in order to move from south to north or north to south. More choices for ingress and egress encourage walking and biking instead of vehicle usage. The shorter dimension of the site from north to south means a single pass through drive creates less paved surface and provides fire department and emergency vehicle access to both buildings on the site. The "dead end" nature of 10th street ending at both Alpine Avenue and at Portland Place alleviates the concern that vehicles would use the route as a shortcut. Useable open space is provided throughout the site at grade and above. Open space at grade will include landscaped areas that utilize water efficient plantings, decorative walkways, a community patio with benches, tables, and chairs, community garden space for residents, and some incorporation of passive community related activities. The space between the buildings is designed to encourage residents to sit, relax, socialize, and to engage residents from both buildings. In addition to the community space at grade, the majority of the new structure will have an active rooftop. It will be a place designed for resident to utilize throughout much of the year; it includes gathering spaces, a substantial community garden, recreation activities, as well as unassigned or free space that can be used as residents choose. The ability to seek sun or shade, privacy or the company of others facilitates the utilization of open spaces, making them successful and builds a sense of community. The provision of these rooftop amenities is the driving force behind the request for a 38' height allowance. At the completion of Phase II the project will contain only residential uses. The new building, constructed in Phase I, will be approximately 24,000 sf, have parking at the grade level with virtually all parking contained within the building and with two floors of residential units above. All twenty-four of the units will be two bedrooms with sizes ranging from 800 sf to 950 sf with the remainder of the space utilized for circulation and common facilities. These will be "for rent" residences with rental rates based on market conditions. Phase II will adaptively reuse the existing commercial office building. It will include fourteen units, with a variety of unit mixes, varying in size from approximately 900sf to 1,600 sf with the remaining space utilized for circulation, and potential alternative energy options for the whole project housed on the rooftop area. All Inclusionary Housing obligations will be met by providing offsite units as part of a larger affordable housing development. This optimized approach works to provide significantly more efficient management and maintenance care for Page 2 of 4 Agenda Item 5C Page 18 of 65 residents than would be possible for dispersed small clusters of affordable units in market-rate rental buildings located throughout the city. Each of the units in the new structure will be designed as "Type B Accessible Units", and at least one unit in the existing building will be designed as a "Type A fully Accessible Unit." In summary, this Concept Plan works to meet the demand for housing and minimize impact on the surrounding area while remaining considerate of stated goals that are common to the City and community by: • Replacing parking lots and paved areas with useable open space that encourage social engagement and build community (Social Equity); • Providing much needed rental housing in close proximity to jobs and amenities (Economic Vitality); • Utilizing sustainable building technology, employing on-site alternative energy options, and providing quality housing with multiple non-automobile transportation options reduces the community's energy usage for residential buildings and transportation-related carbon emission, and total miles driven (Environmental Ouality). Circulation and Travel Demand Management Techniques According to DRCOG, Travel Demand Management (TDM) is a key tool to reduce single occupancy vehicle (SOV) travel as well as facilitate mobility options for area residents. It increases the efficiency of the transportation system through the promotion and facilitation of alternative modes of travel such as ridesharing, vanpooling, transit, bicycling, and walking. Travel Demand Management tools available at the micro (project site) level: • Subsidizing transit costs for employees or residents. • Bicycle-friendly facilities and environments, including secure, covered bike storage areas • Providing flexible alternative choices or education about choices • Parking restrictions or limitations Access - Exhibit C As demonstrated in Exhibit C, the project location is well connected with a variety of transport modes providing alternatives to the single occupant vehicle. The high frequency RTD Skip route, which runs up and down Broadway, provides access to north Boulder, downtown, Pearl Street, CU, University Hill, and south Boulder. Access to the Skip is within a 2 minute walk. The Skip access links to incredible regional connectivity via the RTD system. Bicycles Secure long term bicycle parking will be provided in the vehicle parking area and temporary bicycle parking will be provided just east of the new building. A Boulder B-Cycle station is located at Community Plaza. Access to multiple bike routes provides options for residents to use pedal power to get to destinations beyond the reasonable walking perimeter. Pedestrians - Exhibit B The project site has a Walk Score of 95. Within a 3-5 minute walk, residents can access a multitude of retail, restaurant, office, banking, and recreational opportunities. Page 3 of 4 Agenda Item 5C Page 19 of 65 Scooters The purchasing group is exploring the feasibility of providing a scooter share program to residents. Scooters can fill a gap in the transport ladder that is often overlooked. They provide the ability to cover a bit of distance more rapidly than via bicycles, but do not contribute significantly to road congestion or fill parking lots as full as single occupant vehicles. Parking Onsite parking for residents is located at the ground level of the new structure. With an approved parking reduction, one space per dwelling unit will be provided. Encouraging reduced vehicle use via limited parking can be successful in an urban setting with convenient alternative choices especially when daily needs for goods and services are in such close proximity. Trip Generation and Distribution Analysis A detailed trip generation and trip distribution analysis study has been completed and included with the Concept Review submittal. Because the site is so well connected to bus routes, bike trails, and is located so close to Community Plaza and the Ideal Market shops, the project benefits from a 20% reduction in vehicle traffic. With the completion of Phase II the site will see a net reduction of 692 vehicle trips on a daily basis. It is estimated that about 40% of the vehicle trips will travel south on Broadway, 20% will travel north on Broadway, 20% will travel east via Balsam, 10% will travel on 9`h to and from the south, and the remaining few percent will travel other streets. Architectural Character Sketches - Exhibit H, I, & J Architectural character, including fenestration, materials, and colors will be explored during the Site Planning process. The submitted sketches are intended to provide information with respect to materials, bulk, articulation, and general massing as appropriate at the conceptual level. Environmental Impact Minimization/Avoidance Techniques - Exhibit K The purchasing group, along with the Architect, is committed to sustainable design and building practices, and is exploring the feasibility and appropriateness of the following measures with regards to the construction of an attached dwelling building and the adaptive reuse of an existing commercial office building. • Ground Source Heat Loop heating and cooling system • Transpired Air Collector heating system • SIPS construction technology • On site Solar PV array • Solar Hot Water heaters • Tankless Hot Water heaters • Interior Daylighting • Xeric Landscaping • Reduction of impervious surfaces (reduced heat island effect) • Pervious paving • Storm Water Quality and Filtration • Recycling facilities programming and stewardship Page 4 of 4 Agenda Item 5C Page 20 of 65 ElementProperties Property and Asset Management 1000 Alpine Parking lot survey Element Properties conducted a survey of current parking use at the medical office building located at 1000 Alpine in = Boulder, Colorado over the course of a week on three - different weekdays. Business workdays of Monday, Wednesday, and Friday during the times of 10:00 and 2:00 - - showed that on average the lot was 63% occupied based G on 143 total parking spaces. w - s Occupancy Summary 10:00 AM 2:00 PM Average 20-Jul 107 101 104`'` 22-Jul 70 76 73 25-Jul 96 92 94 Average 91 90 90 Use of space Areas of heavy use were primarily the west spaces closest to parking lot entryway, and the southern row farthest from the building where trees provide limited shade. The doctors parking on the easternmost row, which spans from north to south is usually fairly full and on several occasions appeared to be in use by doctors returning from or leaving to the hospital. Eastern sections of the lot that are not dedicated to doctors parking usually have numerous empty spaces. Bike parking The bike rack on the south side of the building is very close to the main entry doors, however the use of the rack is limited. At most there were two 1 G" , bikes utilizing an 8-bike bike rack. - Deliveries and Lawn service Frequent deliveries of paper, packages, and office supplies occur by trucks that frequently park immediately in front of the main parking lot entrance. During these deliveries parking is usually not limited, and flow of traffic through the lot does not appear to be impaired. Lawn service trucks were observed on two occasions parking in loading zones or in the lot outside of designated spaces. Other Issues ->There is a storage unit on the southwest corner of the lot that is blocking one space and impairing another. In addition to the lawn crews, other vehicles have been observed parking outside of designated spaces, specifically in a location that has great shade cover throughout the day. 4The site is located less than a block from the closest public bus stop, the Skip, which runs frequently along Broadway, one of Boulder's main transportation corridors. s . 1- ,secs # Agenda Item 5C Page 21 of 65 ' . - ~ 4~: 11 ~ ~ = ~ l • . +wYMI~ T ~ ~ j A ~ ~ S u R R O U ~J d # i - i 1727 15th Street, Suite 200 M ~ . ~ , ~ B©u~der, Colorado 80302 T" [p] 303.440.8089 _ ~ [f] 303.440.8981 Medical C►ffice t ~ s - - ~ www.surroundarchitecture.com _ J i ~r • 1 , J i it r [i ,r ~ u~" f - l~ ~ Boulder Community Hospital Medical ©f~ice - - - . S. a. I. ~ ~ - ' - ~ ~ ~ -~~i Remove existing . pine ~~~b cat ~ - - r ~ s;: _ _ ~r `!`91'x_ • • ~ ~ ~~a1 ~ , ~ ~ QQ • ti_ ~l • a ` i f ~ 4 ~ • ~ j :s • ~ ~ • r r - ' - ~ Tn ~ ~ t i 1 1 . 'I tti a w ~ Existing wilding 14 DLI~ ~ x=` ~e~ica~ office 'a - Medical 'office Medical C~Ffice ~ r nts r m m n ~ - - - ~ p P - f~ a tme ~ a t ents art a ts~ ~a u:T . ~ ~ r, ~ ~ Q~ ~ - a py~ - 1 . _ ~ . Bike and ~ _ ~ ~ 4 ~ ~ .11 - 1, ..F a l , ;rx~t ~ ---J . s~ ~ ~ ~ r - ~ ti, Scooter Parkin ~ ~ s p i ~ ~ r ' ~s, ~ ~ . - , - ~ - - i ..~h = I L .f' ~e~ ~~d~~g _ Eu. e ~ Y~, Y ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .l I I I l .i I l 14.'iiY11 I I i.. ~I~Y~ " 3 A ~ r - - ~ ~ '~~i,'u1' ' - i~h ~ i ~ _.....1:. ~ s r - < h ~ ~ ,.:Stith r i', - ~ - ~1 artments P ~ ~ - - ~ ~ - - ~ cn ;t Q- ~ _ - ~ ~ s ~ ~T.- - - - Medical (jffice Q Medical Office r ~ ' - ~ ~ - - - i - a` _ - s ,r ~ ~ - - - - ,:r No. Date Descript'an `,1 _ _ SURROUND ARCHITECTURE UTILIZES OUR RQOfTOP PV ARRAY FOR THE ENERGY NEEE)ED TO DESIGN AN6 PRODUCE OUR CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS COPYRIGHT: ~ 4011 SURROUND ARCHITECTURE * ~ ALL RIGHTS RESERVED - pop i PIP ' r r a. Site Development Plan h Project number 11.4830 F Date 08/01/2011 4 7E r f ' Drawn by TA CL I Olin, Checked by TA c~ Concept Plan 1 N (A SD 2 0 N r Agenda Item 5C Page 22 of 65 R f •-e~xk,~jd ~ 9 i rfi'~~~~" '-",h'1t ;r"'~~' t~+'~ ~ ,:'~~~"`ert `F"`'`R'~' .rte y f ; i~ r j ~e. r'A, J R' {'T tai { Ada ,-$~v~.•} , r~- , ' T.r.r.'., 5rJ, r_ ~y.''s~','-!R5".u ~'r~J7•fA R~...xr'° } 5 f N4 T ;,TI by-~ -a I. I q6, qn'• ~~^r ul, C: s~--.~' r b,I V, `,f,,,l rb ,rt ~yi S l 'a Jt- 7 . + 's';'_' r - r ~P ~ , •~r, Project Site .5','~1 l•-F.f t '9~a'' 1 bti ~Irls L ,,~Fa?d R.• 7.'T i-- 4 L"~•~ + Tfc<~<.^MF ~1 6 fy N( ;~;j'.',v h ,f --cr 4I',yy BVCP Zone Transitional Business 2. -i ~~b✓~t taw k+`.~yy~yyy r na. _G~M°T City Zoning BT-1 y ; FS. Pd ea s: S~ 'aA', t~^ft+~' - ? ~a t ' +r,,5 a C" ! tb 7 ~;c- 'tr~"p 3" ~"+'Fr ° W s iy .•r b y Ley.... : - ~y~t -MC w Site WalkScore 95 l.ti ~s~~-1 J r 3 ~ ~J~ _ S>d-~ ~ 'f SR,~,r i't•` q,C'C°1 p_~_ i i s,~.r LO •-`,..G ~ ''1`~~~~..CyC'"+ ~ y~`k ti,~'~ 7.? R..Yk'~: •i'~~1r' ~.ryt " r'R i kw~ T~'~y~~! Gv ~€.i^.f_' V F5, liiq PROXIMETRY METRICS 111116 ?rte-! irdrTe~{>,t9t~'~ ~G~ ri !a :r ?••"i Mw~ ~;1i~~ sa~".~~:~it'~..-a,•F°' ~••I *R E ~ r r.,:_~ J ."i Foothills Elementary ~ ' -rte ~,°t ric ~•k` Ct~~.•T ~ r " + sir r]it ~ r ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ t 4~ `•s ~J^ z,~;,~i,.`~~,t1i' x.>~ .y~,,~: a..,~y ~ `'.:s-.fi .y `j x > r .~t•' ~j`' ~,~yj North Boulder Rec Center pi alrnont" % tn~itt In~i, t I'--5_ Open Space c -V, " "a'~F•r O ` ,1 ~ say t. *t'. _ - y-F t' North Boulder Park „c+ n _ W..~ .:..s~ w: tn~'_a. u 1:~ r'' flti..K`''9 L"1'-~ tI" , ry+„r•v- y r r r,~.~.~' d rs .t r-a I, ~Belsam tk~ ' pvw~ ff Boulder Community Hospital AI ne G „~,y Casey Middle School Pi as ^ 4 k4'`' s ? ti -'r . fix; y .tw••-1 r g~ r I Ir -J~+". ~ ~'~ja s- •~n'] ti+yyi i "f,n 1 Yt'•Y~~"gr., y, iSjl _o- ,a •-1 \F ♦7'.'t 'rA" c^, _ y.~wky-Ys ~pM t~n~ld-~i J~P' "'..A1•r'a..:.w:.~#s`_ «~`dpr w ,~is'.'rR4? -y.~ 'y1•?`L9 Mapleton Elementary n f /k '-i~',••. k°~E .'7b ~r-I ~,'fi 7` c - -1 ari i i ` '4c.4y i r: ,s ..rv'~ ,n K.,:.. , sex ~7-..5.1 }4r.•„,T,k 1 ~~Y 4r~~ ^b -'.-~,n + V `,.5s rn'+$x`di3 Downtown and Pearl Street k 4 F,'Ktrt ` ~f 1 n < t+ ~C~ r - r Boulder Public Library Q,r ,a '-i h~`•~r '"°'Y:'~f^4``,' ° h~~'z`]i}."ca .:+a'k'• '+t,'11~ ~W`'~ - C F a v 3r 9, r , ~P t t ' " t1 yr i+ i N Boulder Creek Path At :^'~v' !~;>"+`14~f'`~' ,icr• ~i;~..;.,.o ~ } ti,~,;~.i4~{~n~•°~1~1"{~fi#► ~,~a ~R ~.n.._^~ - "•'r Boulder High School v .~3 9r~A 1 47uR r exy .1 p, r 'yam,,,,• y _ t,+..e w ~ f~jT ~i '~•~V°S ~ rn v~ r ; i+ i~i¢' Via. ~'"nr ~ fir.-. _,,...1~ ~ . ,'Cl ~ ~r"o•N ~R~ r r - e. k\ ~y,T,~~ •1 !•.J_'t b'S .,~r=j rs~ 't ,~9r. I .v~ µ'•y'!~ -,r ~~„~syi~-, rr ~•y •'.~1, y~!~apt►y.~.,,tym~.~y~•y{ z~'' oTsl ~,•Ld1r~~.;, T~dji~,A:,~,' i~, „~q ~ 't, ~ ~~'4O•t '.L7.TJ~~~ E~ey s :1 t • i-,:.. t r c Y _ 1r" t'7-~..t t~, r ,~.,`1-1'1 ~I "1• : ~'~i.~"..•a. `c-s ~ , Cawyon R ~ 'R f~}- rtTi* 3' 7~,yY" i~w,±f~••~/+',..~s1S~' ~ ~r~ ~ 4 ~ ° ~ yy rb ~ T~~y~~ ~i~~_ ~ ~ Ile 1 i t _ _ --f y~yy~~i5~ k/: ya~sct 4 yy ,~~,,.y~{,'~t 3,0 r+y i r L 3 JJ yir .+^~.fii ~r~ ..~R3'7'.lit!tt {.t13~U.i-KiAr;~aF' I~11~.,. ~~a•,'"~. -,ti scs~ it,, n 1. ,''F•.~•~'~f{.Cis ""c 5 ~ 1~: i ~ I~ ~....+r ~ ,d ~ .:i' ~ -']I'r--.•,' _ ~ I l •~1`u L~ ~L~RUi~ ct ~'t~ `J:.w__~a'~% v EXHIBIT A: PROJECT LOCATION Near North Apartments; 1000 Alpine August 1, 2011 v S U R R O U N D u R E Agenda Item 5C Page 23 of 65 Ta r -r• k R igi ib% k ~ t (n k ►~f''s1, 1 tag ■ t`~~. e, , • Mil ,3~ i w i 1. ftI i L. . Cm~ s . 69 Y -Iwv -.66 b h ~1 V WVj A; ~r• w10,4 ~"a~_r}r3r'~' o R `Nm r LL: " Alpine- - - r` • N RY r I~• ~ 't ~ • f • 10~ r " w ~ ~ I yf . 1 , P oj,Ct Jite >'I d' • ~I te Me ~1TF A! 11 i - e n I _ Wit, i9_ North St. f:' 4 ! A F -IF 40 6 lI_ C /'k Rr Ir+~ EXHIBIT B: AMENITIES Near North Apartments; 1000 Alpine August 1, 2011 iii S U R R O U N D u R E Agenda Item 5C Page 24 of 65 c I& VC a ere. I 4d III i kill ear .,a" LEGEND a • + S~:' s I 'h"'~1'~'~►; sad,,. Arterial Street rr4` r ,rte ~~r 1~~ + h y Collector Street 4 ° !Z t Er = i Local Street r •i ai m • kr , Bus Route 1~ y f Bike Lane w 1.r. . I *M w+y•r • . r y r• ~ 4 Sidewalks V& a •!-~q,~lc"~••.. - / 1 +jf a - Bus Stop 7 701 s f ' / M* L B -ccue Station r` ~ ~ NIA L s ~ ♦ 269h.t,. II,~',li r ..ids:. • tt .u • • • ,.►r • r~ra' ine- r~ VA ' ,Project Site " r • r yy L lr • :P,~ i /yam l A0 10 . ~-GR. ra fl4 : r .4. r IV -IF 40 a I r t rEY_ EXHIBIT C: TRANSPORTATION & CIRCULATION Near North Apartments; 1000 Alpine August 1, 2011 v S U R R O U N D u R E Agenda Item 5C Page 25 of 65 84 2 - ~ 'r~~t Ira :1~[t`rF~E~ A RB 6-5r` F i r6 A $ Md `isAil T~ R4-~ LEGEND 1 Boulder Community Hospital Plnry~ P0. dr a=rte Alk North Boulder Park = r r ( ` P. A,=.` f! raw. :r P - _ ❑ ~ 3 Ideal Market Center .tA~ r et a~e ~a = t~ _ 1 • • wr`= - -+'~I 4 Restaurant 5 Medical Office r _~!r )r ±d _ ) " r-=• 3 6 Multi-family Residential er . an _ 5 .Z k T s or r~# J7 7, 7 Parking Structure T r m 8 Community Plaza 9 Retail/Service P 10 Professional Office Alpine -a s 11 Single Family Residential '-=sr. t 12 Bank RMX. q ! rZ7 f, 2._c.f ~ cc 5 11 5 Project Site 5 5 Ia p . 5` _ MCI 10 1 "10 6 6 6 RH-5 6 10 10-31 v 1 6 :~1 I r I' 80 O 40 80 160 320 G a 1 0. . s-ie 1" 160' Y EXHIBIT D: CONTEXT & ADJACENT LAND USES Near North Apartments; 1000 Alpine August 1, 2011 v S U R R O U N D u R E Agenda Item 5C Page 26 of 65 }~A Ilk Ilk Or mow 15 1 6i6i 1 6 ALPINE AVENUE 1 , cx, 1 6 U I 1\f 1 P j'" 1 .fMy u ~J- _ EXHIBIT E: EXISTING CONDITIONS Near North Apartments; 1000 Alpine August 1, 2011 v S U R R O U N D , R L Agenda Item 5C Page 27 of 65 Remove existing curb cut t~+$ Alpine , t Y VIN Existing Building 4 WAM Bike and Scooter Parking cAb Alley ~IN New Building , d i Q EXHIBIT F: SITE ACCESS Near North Apartments: 1000 Alpine August 1, 2011 v S U R R O U N D Agenda Item 5C Page 28 of 65 Alpine LEGEND I ~ 1 . Existing Building 1 4 I 2. New Building r17 3. Short term Bike Parking 4. Scooter Parking r rs r 5. Guest Parking 6. Recycling/Refuse 8~ r~ . 1 6 7. Community Patio r r 8. Community Gardens i 9. Active Rooftop rrr 4 ] 10. Solar Array 1 1 . Shade Spaces 12. Recreation Activities 1 4 14J k _J 13. Landscape Area t - - - 13 14. Private Balconies 15. Rooftop Trellis 7 16 16. Trellis I - - - 17. Elevator " 13 ` 18. $tdirs t ± 1 4 - 14. Rooftop Patio r r - 20. ACCESS Drive 18 1 9- \}I 21. Daylight Well 5 17j 9 3 12 ~1~ 21 2 21 21 1 20 2o11a ~~ll®~Illllfl~~~f~ t 19 '14 8 5 g. , 6 J ~ 14 M _ EXHIBIT G: SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN Near North Apartments: 1000 Alpine August 1, 2011 H S U R R O U N D Agenda Item 5C Page 29 of 65 let T7Tn 1 A wail rip s N, ke~ h EXHIBIT H: DESIGN IMAGERY Near North Apartments; 1000 Alpine August 1, 2011 v S U R R O U N D u R E Agenda Item 5C Page 30 of 65 '3;r 1P .7i J _ Aftp? yp J f ri! ~ij L r ,b' y dwi EXHIBIT I: MASSING Near North Apartments; 1000 Alpine Ausust 1, 2011 ii S U R R O U N D u R E Agenda Item 5C Page 31 of 65 Z7 -Mir -4 wm& MIN } - d e ilk 40-0 0*1- 1100- e o T EXHIBIT J: MASSING Near North Apartments; 1000 Alpine August 1, 2011 v S U R R O U N D u R E Agenda Item 5C Page 32 of 65 f source heat loop - Solar Electric - The larse flat rooR. '37,.anJ coolins From the Earth's mass the existins 6uilding is an excellent loc~` {'P .v~ :w .dam ~t Mm- 7777 r7-'. E~r rF14: t ;j ~0 Transpired A:ir Collector solar Tankless hot water heaters conditioned air and preheat system c« t 1 Ent! - - rr- ~J f Solar Hot Water Scooter Share AM EXHIBIT K: SUSTAINABLE OPPORTUNITIES Near North Apartments; 1000 Alpine August 1, 2011 v S U R R O U N D u R E Agenda Item 5C Page 33 of 65 Phase I Existing Building 31,000 sf - Commercial - Existing Building Predominantly Medical Office 16 W- New Building 24,000 sf Attached Dwellings Units 24 6 3 8 5 Parking Residential 24 provided 36 required (33% reduction) - ' - - Commercial 69 provided - 103 required (33% reduction) 4 •c' New Building 24 Res. Useable open space I1111l111 12 Corn. 24 DU x 1200 sf = 28,800 sf (27,600 sf) 11111!!1!!11 2, 75% at grade = 21,600 sf (12,800 sf) 25% above grade = 7,200 sf (14,800 sf) Alp; n. Phase II ` Existing Building 31,000 sf Converted to - flflCl Attached Dwellings Units 14 r91111-1 Existioi# Building ~9f New Building 24,000 sf Attached Dwellings Units 24 Z..1 Zl -L-J Parking 'Irr f, Residential 38 provided - 57 required (33% reduction) Commercial N/A New Building Useable Open Space 38 DU x 1200 sf = 45,600 sf (50,460 sf provided) l19aNl~l11l~1 X1111 1 9 P f `q 75% at grade = 34,200 sf (34,800 sf provided) 25% above grade = 11,400 sf (115,660 sf provided) r EXHIBIT L: PHASING Near Nortk Apartm¢nt5; 1000 Alpine August 1, 2011 40 S U R R O U N D, u R E Agenda Item 5C Page 34 of 65 ATTACHMENT C Guiler, Karl From: Micah McKee [micah@aipcre.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2011 12:49 PM To: Guiler, Karl Subject: Concept Plan Review and Comment for 1000 Alpine Hello Karl, Just received the notice of this project and wanted to make one comment on it: while this project lies off of 9th Street it will most certainly have a substantive impact on the already overstressed intersection of 9th and Alpine. I would encourage the implementation of traffic mitigation and speed limitation (4 way stop) options at this intersection as well as along Alpine (speed humps). Without these the current infrastructure will be over taxed and issues will arise. Best regards, Micah Micah McKee micahCa3aipcre.com 303.819.0298 linkedin.com/in/micahmckee t Agenda Item 5C Page 35 of 65 Guiler, Karl From: Marian Coletti [mariancoletti@yahoo.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2011 10:34 AM To: Guiler, Karl Subject: 1000 Alpine Hello Karl, I'm writing to comment on the project at 1000 Alpine. I have been a resident of 2600 9th. St. Apts. which abuts the property for 25 years and am writing on behalf of our tenant community. We are greatly dismayed to hear that the City is considering opening the alley behind us into the property at 1000 Alpine. The access to 9th St. is tricky and dangerous in the best of conditions. Visibility because of the hill on 9th. St. and cars traveling over 20 miles an hour makes it difficult to pull out into traffic. I ask the City to also consider the dangerous conditions in the winter with the accidents on the hill in both directions. Adding more traffic with a large residential property would increase the risk. As a long time resident I remember when 10th. St. continued into the parking area of 1000 Alpine. Additional access to the property would be better served for the community by reopening that access: 1. It's situated between two commercial properties rather than a residential area that would affect the quality life in 4 residential apartment buildings; 2. The access from North St.is controlled by a signal light on Broadway; 3. The 10th St. access is south facing which would create safer conditions then our alley which is icebound all winter because of the lack of sun. Asa commercial building, traffic to and from 1000 Alpine was limited to a 9 to 5 flow. Asa residential area the traffic will change to a 2417 activity. In my building alone, 18 residences have bedroom windows (with no air conditioning) that face onto the alley. Three units are garden level, with recessed window wells that could be dangerous if that area is opened to traffic. Our quality of life in these units will be destroyed by the increased 2417 traffic in and out of a large residential project. We hope that our objections are reviewed and that we may continue to enjoy a certain quality of life in our residences. Sincerely, Marian Coletti 1 Agenda Item 5C Page 36 of 65 Guiler, Karl From: JAMES LGGAN fjamelogan@gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, September 10, 2011 11:37 AM To: Guiler, Karl Cc: JAMES LOGAN Subject: Proposed Development at 1000 Alpine To: City of Boulder Planning Department From: James Logan, Resident at 2600 9th St Apartments I am writing you about the planned development at 1000 Alpine. I am a resident at an apartment that is adjacent to the alley that is being considered as one of the primary access points to that property. I have four concerns with this plan. 1. Increasing traffic on a dangerous entrance onto 9th street. Due to poor visibility to the south as cars come down the hill, turning onto 9th street from the parking alley, I have been involved in many close calls where I could not see the oncoming traffic while waiting to pull out. 2. Increased noise on the North side of our apartments. Adding traffic for 76 additional cars on a 7x24 basis will increase the noise for my apartment, which only has windows that face the alley. 3. Changing the nature of the t-raffic from business hours to 7x24. The existing business generates noise that is tolerable, because it occurs during business hours. The proposed complex will change that to noise that is 7x24. 4. Why isn't the property using its existing access on Alpine as its main entrance and exit? Shifting the traffic patterns doesn't make sense for the redevelopment. The cross streets of Alpine and North are much safer as ways to move onto the boulder traffic patterns. Please consider my issues and don't allow the development to use the alley onto 9th street as a primary access. Thank you, James Logan Resident 2600 9th Street 1 Agenda Item 5C Page 37 of 65 Guiler, Kart From: Susan Jo Darling [susanjo3883@gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, September 10, 2011 2:42 PM To: Guiler, Karl Subject: Dear Mr. Guiler I am a resident of the 2600 9th Street apartments and would like to present some thoughts on the subject of 1000 Alpine Avenue, Boulder, CO, and the opening of an exit, for the future residents, onto 9th Street. I have worked many years in libraries and part of the training, although the public may not be aware of it, was to always be conscientious of the safety of the public. Having that training, and an eye for "traffic flow" where the public would be coming and going, I took a good look at the situation for the people who might become residents of a 1000 Alpine Avenue apartment complex. Just as an individual walking or driving, I have found it a challenge to exit from the North parking area of 2600 onto 9th Street, whether turning right or left. The visibility is poor with the hill to the left and the slight hill to the right. There have been some close calls that I have been witness to. With increased traffic exiting onto 9th street at that point, there certainly would be the potential of traffic accidents. Walking the lot of 1000 Alpine Avenue, I noticed that there already is an established entrance and exit pattern to the lot. Although Alpine Avenue at that point can be busy, the visibility situation is a far less dangerous one. Drivers are going much slower on that stretch of Alpine Avenue than they go on the 9th Street section near the hill. Envisioning the future, if I were a resident of the new apartments at 1000 Alpine Avenue, and knowing the challenges on 9th Street, I would want to be able to have a choice to exit onto Alpine Ave. The visibility for entering and exiting there could be increased, for safety reasons, by not allowing parking at the immediate point of the entrance and exit. I applaud the town of Boulder for making use of 1000 Alpine Avenue, and I think is is a great idea to create some newer rentals for the population of Boulder in this area. I do, however, certainly hope that the people making decisions on the project take a good look at the.safety factor of an exit onto 9th Street at the point of the hill where there is a poor visibility situation. It will save a lot of headaches for the future, not to mention saving lives! Thank you, Sincerely, Susan J. Darling z Agenda Item 5C Page 38 of 65 Guiler, Karl From: gogarden@sonic.net Sent: Sunday, September 11, 2011 9:23 AM To: Guiler, Karl Subject: issues concerning 1000 Alpine Dear Mr.Guiler I am writing you because of my concern about a proposed vehicle access change for a property that is being developed next to where I live. I understand a new residential building with multiple units will be going in at 1000 Alpine and they are requesting permission to abandon the two safe existing access driveways on Alpine for one that would go out between the apartment buildings on the west side of them and have cars trying to enter 9th Street at a very dangerous point. I find it odd that you are even considering allowing them to do this, because of the obvious safety issues. I primarily use 9th Street as a pedestrian and have found the section between North St and Alpine to be difficult and even dangerous to cross during the morning and evening commute hours and have seen several "near-misses" as downhill traffic swerves to avoid cars entering from the parking lot through which they wish to put their entry. I assume the steep slope to the south and the rise to the north by Alpine contributes to the problem. The existing unusually low 20mph limit on 9th Street should serve to indicate it is not a good place to funnel any more cars onto that street, especially since there are other much safer options. Heidi Freestone 2600 9th Street Apt.9b 707-228-5559 1 Agenda Item 5C Page 39 of 65 Guiler, Karl From: michael dickinson [mikedickinson@hotmaii.coml Sent: Tuesday, September 13, 2011 12:32 AM To: Guiler, Karl Subject: 1000 alpine I'm writing to you in regard to the proposed residential development at 1000 Alpine Ave. I currently live at 2600 9th St. on the north side, next to the alley that developers are proposing to use as an entrance/exit for the new residences. I believe this would be a poor choice. Ninth St. has too much traffic to be a viable entrance for an additional 50+ cars. I have seen cars turning onto 9th from our alley get backed up as they await an opportunity to turn left due to high traffic flows on 9th. In one instance, I've seen a car turning into the alley from 9th run over the curb and some landscaping at the alley entrance because a SUV had taken up most of the alley waiting for the chance to turn onto 9th. To make the alley safe and usable would require widening it. This is not an option due to the limited space between the existing buildings that is currently used for resident parking at 2600 9th. St., 2650 9th St., and 906 and 908 Alpine Ave. Also, most of my and other residents access to the garbage and recycling facilities for 2600 9th St. is through the alley parking lot outside my apartment. Increased thoroughfare of motor vehicles would make this pathway more dangerous and inconvenient. In my opinion the use of 10th St., both from Alpine and North, would be a better solution. There is much less traffic on North St. Also, 10th St. between North and the proposed new building is much wider than the alley, a shorter length, and used for parking by no more than six cars (and-that's only during weekdays), whereas the alley parking areas are used by three times that number of vehicles. Also, to access the 1100 Alpine parking lot from North St. would require only the removal of a chain link fence and the re-siting of a dumpster. That as opposed to excavating an entire paved alley access from 9th St. A 10th St. entrance would therefore also be much cheaper to create. It appears that the owners of the 1100 Alpine property are trying to increase traffic though our alley so as not to inconvenience their tenants of the existing 1100 Alpine building with the added congestion that would come with an additional 38 residences on their existing property. They, want the additional revenue from these residences but desire to foist the negative impacts onto the neighbors. The use of the alley would be a poor alternative to using already developed infrastructure as an entrance to 1100 Alpine and would be a detriment to the neighborhood. I hope you encourage the developers to seek less invasive alternatives that are more accommodating and far-sighted. A long term, neighbor inclusive vision hopefully can be realized during the neighborhood meeting. Thank-you for your consideration, Mike Dickinson 1 Agenda Item 5C Page 40 of 65 Guiler, Karl From: forest Roy [forest _roy@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 13, 2011 9:24 AM To: Guiler, Karl Subject: 2600 9th Street Construction Traffic Good morning Karl, My name is Forest M. Roy. I live in apartment 2A at 2600 9th street. As I understand a large construction project is underfoot at the 1000 Alpine location. I am strongly opposed to the heavy construction traffic that is slated to open in the alleyway. My apartment window faces that alley and I am a very light sleeper. If I don't sleep my mental well being is greatly compromised and my quality of life is greatly decreased. I am also very concerned about the loud vehicles and engine fumes. I understand that you need to get started on your project, but not at the sacrifice of those who live in the area. Thank you, FM R Agenda Item 5C Page 41 of 65 Guiler, Karl From: Taylor Roy [tbroy@hotrnail.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 13, 2011 4:49 PM To: Guiler, Karl Subject: Opposed to Driveway in Alley Behind 2600 9th Street Hi Karl, I am extremely opposed to the opening of the alley behind 2600 9th Street as a street into the purposed 1000 Alpine development . It will completely change our residential experience. Thirty eight condos translates into seventy six vehicles that will use the alley between these properties as a driveway 24/7. I suggest extending 10th street to access 1000 Alpine. The 10th Street extension would be situated between two commercial properties rather than two residential properties. North Street traffic light controlled and much slower than 9th, and has better visibility(no hill like on 9th), making it easier to safely pull into and out of. It's South facing so it won't be icebound all winter like the alley off 9th. Plus it wont disturb the 18 residences(3 at garden level with recessed windows and all with no air conditioning) with windows that face into the alley. I hope you review our objections and help us continue to enjoy a safe, quiet quality of life at 2600 9th Street Apartments. Thanks, Taylor Roy 1 Agenda Item 5C Page 42 of 65 Dan Sturges 2600 9`h St. Apt.7B Boulder, CO 80304 13 September 2011 Attention: City of Boulder Planning. Department Topic: Proposed 1000 Alpine Ave New Residential Bldg. I am writing in hopes the City of Boulder would expect the developer of the new residential building on 1000 Alpine Ave. to seek an alternative access to the proposed new structure. The proposal to develop the alley to the north of our apartment ton 2600 9°h Street) building for access to the new building is short-sighted, dangerous, and will diminish the quality of life for us to the south of this new building. It appears the proposed secondary access from "10`h Street" would be a far better solution. We all know here that 9`h street is not an apt access for these additional 38 dwellings. The hill to the south, especially in the snowy winter, makes driving a challenge and a risk to any additional cars coming from this alley onto the street. Thank you for considering my thoughts on the matter. Dan Sturges 720/641-3011 Agenda Item 5C Page 43 of 65 Guiler, Karl From: Charles Bolster [seizeabullx@yahoo.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2011 6:23 AM To: Guiler, Karl Subject: Oppose Proposal at 1000 Alpine To Whom It May Concern, I reside in the 2600 9th Street Apartments, and I oppose the developers' proposal. Permitting passage of the developers' proposal would negatively impact our quality of life. Traffic flow and volume would increase dramatically. This significant increase in traffic would expose residents to more air and noise pollution. In addition, the proposal would severely impact those residents whose apartments face the alley. For all of us here at these apartments, the proposal would worsen our quality of life - MORE TRAFFIC, MORE NOISE, MORE POLLUTION, MORE SAFETY CONCERNS, MORE HEAT, MORE CROWDED. The developers have sufficient access to serve their future residents. Why should the residents of the 2600 9th St. Apartments be required to accommodate the developers' wishes for a'perfect plan' that diminishes us and our quality of life? Please do not allow passage of this proposal. Sincerely, Charles Bolster Agenda Item 5C Page 44 of 65 Guiler, Karl From: Chris Nelsen [cnelsen84@gmail.comj Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2011 5:21 PM To: Guiler, Karl Subject: 1000 Alpine To Whom It May Concern: We have been informed of the project at 1000 Alpine and wish to express our desire that this plan not proceed as currently planned. As loner time (5 year) residents of the apartment complex at 2600 9th St, we are concerned that this new plan would create much more noise and pollution in our neighborhood. One of the reasons we enjoy living here is because of the quiet atmosphere. As a graduate student, the quiet environment is.important to me. We are also in a ground-level apartment and are worried about the heath risks of being exposed to car exhaust 2417 in our living space. We are also concerned that the changes would cause our rent to go up, as a result of having to build new barriers, etc, in order to maintain our quality of living. This would obviously have great effect on our financial solvency, and is something we would not be able to afford at this point. We are also concerned about the winter risks of having a large alley with access to 9th street. As it is, given the hills, it can be difficult to safely turn into our parking way, and turn safely and efficiently onto 9th. street. Please take these considerations into account when moving forward. Thank you, Chris Nelsen Ian Kahn i Agenda Item 5C Page 45 of 65 Guiler, Karl From: Kevin Selker {kselker a@grnail.com] Sent: Friday, September 16, 2011 11:02 AM To: Guiler, Karl Subject: Comment on Project LUR2011-0049, "Near North Apartments" Dear Mr. Guiler, I was recently made aware of the concept for the project named "Near North Apartments." I am writing to voice my opposition to any proposal that would open the alley parallel to Alpine Ave, from 9th Street to the parking at 1000 Alpine. The opening of this alley to that building would be detrimental to the quality of life of surrounding residents and would negatively impact the traffic flow of the entire neighborhood. If the access to 1000 Alpine were via an alley on 9th Street, traffic to this building would.be diverted from Broadway to 9th Street on a potentially large scale. This would exacerbate the current traffic problems on 9th Street: too much traffic, often speeding above the 20 mph speed limit, in an area of poor visibility and adjacent to a park with heavy pedestrian usage. To avoid further problems with 9th Street traffic, the access to 1000 Alpine should rightly be from Alpine Ave, or from a connected 10th Street, both of which would encourage cars to use the light-controlled, two-lane Broadway as the thoroughfare, and only turn into the neighborhood when near their destination. 1. was surprised when I read in the Concept Review Submittal that the proposal to open the alley was intended to encourage bicycle and pedestrian transportation. As a resident of Boulder for eight years, I have never owned a car, so I am acutely aware of the issues concerning cyclists and pedestrians with regard to transportation and convenience. Opening the alley would not encourage bicycling nor walking, but would in fact make it a less attractive option, since cars would be given access to areas that are currently car-free. Additionally the alley would provide cars with "short cuts" that even nonresidents could use, impacting negatively the experience of pedestrians, cyclists, and residents alike. Finally, as a current resident of the .property immediately west of the site, I can confidently state that the current situation does not discourage nor hinder my use of walking or bicycle as modes of transportation, and furthermore that-the proposed alley opening would not improve but rather be a detriment to such usage. In addition to traffic flow issues, the residents of buildings adjacent to the proposed alley access would be negatively and unfairly impacted by the proposed connection. In addition to increased traffic flow and a loss of space currently used for recreation, the tenants with units immediately adjacent would suffer from increased noise and fumes from use of the alley. This would dramatically decrease the quality of life in those units. The opening of the alley N ill negatively affect abroad population in our neighborhood, will increase traffic problems, and will decrease safety around the park. These negative effects are completely avoidable by 1 Agenda Item 5C Page 46 of 65 Guiler, Karl From: guili9c@terra.com.br Sent: Friday, September 16, 2011 3:18 PM To: Guiler, Karl Subject: Project at 1000 Alpine ojbection Dear City of Boulder Planning Dept., I am writing this letter asking your consideration in regard of the project at 1000 Alpine St, Boulder Co. I am a resident at 2600 apts. I am aware of the great impact in terms of accessibility, safety, levels of noise that this construction will cause to the neighborhood. I would like to express my opposition to the opening of the alley behind 2600 apts. into this new development. Sincerely, Guilherme Zavaschi 2600 9th St. apt 4a Boulder CO, 80304 1 Agenda Item 5C Page 47 of 65 Guiler, Karl From, Kurt Nordback [knordback@yahoo.coml Sent: Monday, September 19, 2011 1:25 PM To: Guller, Karl Subject: 1000 Alpine Karl, thanks for the call back. You can add knordback a?.yahoo.com to your list. Again, my desire is to see a public bike/ped connection from Alpine through to the stub of 10th St. off of North, on the east edge of this site. This will help with north/south permeability of this long block. Currently there's permeability at a couple of spots through parking lots and around fences, but it doesn't feel very official, and 1'd hate to see existing connections closed off. Thanks. Kurt i Agenda Item 5C Page 48 of 65 ATTACHMENT D CITY OF BOULDER vi Planning and Development Services , 4"Or i 1739 Broadway, Third Floor P.O. Box 791, Boulder, CO 80306-0791 phone 303-441-1880 • fax 303-441-3241 • web boulderplandevelop.net CITY OF BOULDER LAND USE REVIEW RESULTS AND COMMENTS DATE OF COMMENTS: August 19, 2011 CASE MANAGER: Karl Guiler PROJECT NAME: Near North Apartments LOCATION: 1000 ALPINE AVENUE COORDINATES: N04W07 REVIEW TYPE: Concept Plan Review & Comment REVIEW NUMBER: LUR2011-00049 APPLICANT: Surround Architecture, Inc. DESCRIPTION: CONCEPT PLAN REVIEW AND COMMENT: Request for citizen, Planning Board, and city staff comment on a proposal to add a new residential building (roughly 24,000 square feet of new floor area) to the site and convert the existing office building (roughly 31,000 square feet) to residential with a total of 38 dwelling units on the site. This plan will neither be approved or denied, but rather is an opportunity for the city and residents to comment on the general aspects of the proposal. IDENTIFIED MODIFICATIONS FROM THE LAND USE REGULATIONS: ✓ Section 9-7, "Form and Bulk Standards," B.R.C. 1981- Reduction of rear setback below the required 20-feet (may be considered a front setback of 20-feet as well given the right-of-way along the south lot line.) 1. REVIEW FINDINGS The comments below reflect a review of the conceptual plans submitted for the development of the roughly 1.5 acre site. This plan will neither be approved or denied, but rather is an opportunity for the City and residents to comment on the general aspects of the proposal. These comments and neighborhood correspondence will be forwarded to the Planning Board to review. The Planning Board hearing on this item is tentatively scheduled for October 6. 2011. The applicant is welcome to submit a written response to these comments prior to that hearing. Overall, staff is supportive of the proposed concept to add additional residential units at 1000 Alpine. Despite being in a commercial zone, the site is surrounded residential units and more residents in the area would contribute to the mixed-use nature of the neighborhood. The site has great walkable access to transit, downtown, a variety of neighborhoods while also being well buffered from busy Broadway. Staff also finds the general site design concept interesting with potential for diverse types of open spaces and unique building designs. More detail would be required at Site Review; however, to address some of the following key issues that have been identified for the project: 1. Connections to the surrounding street network (e.g., 10th Street, alley access). 2. Quality and functionality of the site open space, including the proposed roof deck, insofar as meeting city policies/criteria and qualifying the amount to permit the proposed density. 3. Building design as they relate to the streetscapes and internal open spaces. 4. Proposed parking reduction specifically in regard to the interim condition between Phase I and II where there would be a 66% reduction. The applicant is also encouraged to hold a neighborhood meeting prior to Planning Board to communicate the intent of the protect to neighbors and to also get public feedback. Also, if the applicant would like to meet to discuss the comments Address: 1000 ALPINE AV Page 1 Agenda Item 5C Page 49 of 65 herein, staff would be happy to set up a meeting. Please contact the Case Manager, Karl Guiler, at 303-441-4236 for scheduling of either of these meetings. II. CITY REQUIREMENTS Transportation (Heidi Schum, 303-441-4276) Vehicular Connectivity/Circulation 1. The proposed Concept Plan shows a vehicular connection along the eastern property line following in the existing 10th Street alignment. It is recommended that a public access easement be dedicated to encompass the east access drive as an extension of 10th Street. The existing 10th Street right-of-way south of the site is approximately 40 feet wide. The preferred 40 foot access easement/right-of-way extension section would be as follows: • Two 9' travel lanes - face of curb to face of curb • Two 6" wide curb heads • An 8 foot planting strip along the east side of the access drive as shown in the submitted plans • A 7 foot planting strip along the west side of the access drive • A 5 foot detached sidewalk along the west side of the access drive • A 1 foot maintenance area beyond the back of sidewalk along the west side It is understood that the above proposed 40 foot access drive easement cross section would not be possible adjacent to the existing building on site. Adjacent to the existing building the public access easement could be narrowed down to eliminate the west landscape strip and the sidewalk could be constructed as an attached walk. The Site Plans must clearly label and dimension the location of the existing building in reference to the eastern property line. The applicant may wish to work with City staff to design for the most beneficial access drive cross-section adjacent to the existing building. The public access easement described above would cover emergency access. For reference, emergency access easements are required to be 20' wide with a vertical clearance from the surface of the emergency access lane of at least 15'. 2. An access easement is required to be dedicated concurrently with the final engineering submittal and prior to the time of building permit. All easements required to be dedicated to the city must be reviewed and approved through a separate Technical Document Review process. Application materials and requirements are located on the 3rd Floor of the Park Central Building, and can also be found on the city's web-site at: www_bouldercolorado.gov 3. There is an existing sliver of right-of-way approximately 7 feet wide along the southern property line of this development site. At the time of Site Review the applicant must clearly label and dimension this right-of-way sliver in reference to the proposed development. Staff is willing to work with the applicant and adjacent property owner to vacate this sliver of right-of-way. 4. At the time of Site Review submittal, clearly label and dimension the proposed garage access ramp slope. Per Section 2.04 of the City of Boulder Design and Construction Standards, the initial access grade (to a point 10 feet beyond the ROW) must be at a positive 1%-6% slope and the final grade must be between 1% and 8%, with a maximum grade break of 6%. 5. All alleys and driveways must have an unobstructed sight triangle measured as 15 feet along the right of way line of the alley or edge of driveway and 15 feet along the right of way line of the street, with a line connecting these two lines. Exceptions are made for trunks of trees whose branches are higher than 8 feet above the roadway, objects less than 30" tall, or objects that are no less than 75% visually permeable. If 100 percent visibility is not provided, a diagram clearly showing how the 75 percent visibility requirement is being met must be shown. All public street intersections must meet the sight triangle criteria outlined in section 9-9-7 of the Boulder Revised Code (BRC). The Landscaping Plans must clearly illustrate and dimension the required sight triangles as outlined in Table 9-8 of the BRC. 6. Final engineering plans will be required for street, alley, and sidewalk construction at the time of Technical Document submittal. The engineering plans must include, but are not limited to street plan and profile drawings, cross-sectional drawings, detail drawings, a geotechnical soils report, and a pavement design report in accordance with section 1.03 of the City of Boulder Design and Construction Standards. Address: 1000 ALPINE AV Page 2 Agenda Item 5C Page 50 of 65 7. The proposal eliminates one curb cut on Alpine and takes access from 10th street and the alley. This circulation solution greatly increases efficiency and significantly reduces the amount of impervious surface required. Does staff have any concerns regarding this solution? Staff supports the proposed access point and internal circulation configuration. See above comment regarding an access easement for the 10th Street extension through the site. 8. An impromptu garden has been planted in the public alley just west of the site. What comments does staff have regarding this use of the public alley in this manner? Does this limit the use of the alley for access to the accessory building? Per Section 8-6-3 of the Boulder Revised Code, no person shall erect or maintain any building, structure, fence, barrier, post, landscaping, obstruction, or other encroachment within, under, above, or upon any public right of way, path, alley, or public easement without first obtaining permission from the City. The "impromptu" garden located within the alley right-of-way has not been approved according to City records. The garden encroachment must therefore be removed. Site circulation to and from the alley will be able to properly function in the absence of the garden encroachment. 9. Is the 20' wide drive that connects to 10th street on the south and Alpine Ave. on the north sufficient for Emergency access through the site and to both buildings? See the comment above regarding an access easement for the 10th Street extension through the site. The public access easement described above would cover emergency access. For reference, emergency access easements are required to be 20' wide with a vertical clearance from the surface of the emergency access lane of at least 15'. 10. Is there a process to eliminate loading zone requirements - Administrative modification / variance? It may not be possible to eliminate the loading zone requirement based on Section 9-9-9 of the Boulder Revised Code which states that space must be provided to accommodate vehicles which will serve the site (including trash trucks) in a manner that does not block or obstruct any public street, parking area, parking area circulation, sidewalk or pedestrian circulation area. At the time of Site Review the applicant must clearly label and dimension the proposed trash facilities. Dumpsters must be located outside of the right-of-way or access easement. Trash dumpsters larger than 3 cubic yards must be accessible by a trash truck and the plans must demonstrate adequate turning radii which allow service vehicles to make all necessary movements into and out of the site and all backing movements on site. 11. What street right-of-way issues would affect this project? There are no known street right-of-way issues that would affect this project at this time. 12. Are there any required dedications along Alpine Ave.? There are no required dedications along Alpine Avenue at this time. 13. What public improvements can be anticipated as part of this project? See other comments. Parking 14. At Site Review submittal the applicant is required to clearly dimension and label any proposed parking spaces located at grade or in the proposed garage. Section 9-9-6 of the Boulder Revised Code gives required parking space dimensions and backing space requirements. 15. At the time of Site Review, accessible spaces per section 9-9-6(b) of the Boulder Revised Code will be required to be shown on the plans. Per section 4.6.2 of the ADA Accessibility Guidelines, accessible spaces must be dispersed and located closest to the accessible entrances. Per section 9-9-6 (d)(2)(C) of the Boulder Revised Code, accessible parking spaces are to be 8 feet wide with an additional five foot wide diagonally striped aisle. Section 4.1.2(5)(b) of the Federal ADA Accessibility Guidelines requires that one, and no less than one, in every 8 accessible spaces be 8 feet wide with an additional 8 foot wide diagonally striped aisle for van accessible spaces. 16. Per section 9-9-6(d) (3) (B) of the Boulder Revised Code, turnaround spaces must be provided for dead-end parking bays of eight stalls or more. Turnarounds must be identified with a sign or graphic and marked "no parking". At the time of site review, all required turn-around spaces must be clearly labeled and dimensioned. A signage and striping plan in conformance with MUTCD standards will be a requirement at the time of final engineering submittal or building permit submittal. 17. Bicycle parking is required to be provided in accordance with sections 9-9-6(b) and 9-9-6(g) of the Boulder Revised Code and section 2.11(E) of the City of Boulder Design and Construction Standards. The proposed bicycle parking locations and number of parking spaces must be shown on the plans at the time of Site Review. The necessary Address: 1000 ALPINE AV Page 3 Agenda Item 5C Page 51 of 65 spacing between all proposed bike racks and any adjacent walls, accessible routes, required clear sidewalk/multi-use path widths, etc, must be clearly dimensioned in accordance with City of Boulder Standard Detail number 2.528. Per section 9-9-6(g) of the Boulder Revised Code, bicycle parking is required to be located in convenient, highly visible, active, well-lighted areas but shall not interfere with pedestrian movements. Per section 2.11(E) (2) of the DCS, bicycle parking should generally be provided within 50 feet of the main building entrance. Traffic Impact Study 18. A Traffic Impact Study is not required at the time of Site Review based on the submitted Trip Generation Letter. Traffic Demand Management (TDM) Plan 19. At the time of Site Review, a Travel Demand Management (TDM) plan is required to be submitted which outlines strategies to mitigate traffic impacts created by the proposed development and implementable measures for promoting alternate modes of travel. The TDM plan must be submitted as a separate document with Site Review submittal. To meet TDM Site Review criteria, the following comments should be addressed: • Staff recommends the provision of eco-passes for employees and residents. If eco-passes are proposed as part of the final TDM plan, a financial guarantee will be required prior to building permit application. • The applicant should contact Chris Hagelin (303-441-1832), Senior Transportation Planner with GO Boulder, to discuss additional TDM options. • The TDM plan must be submitted as a separate document with Site Review submittal. Affordable Housing Michelle Allen 303.441.4076 Each new residential unit developed on the property is subject to 9-13 B.R.C., 1981, "Inclusionary Housing." The general Inclusionary Housing requirement is that all residential developments must dedicate 20% of the total dwelling units as permanently affordable housing. For rental projects this requirement may be met through the provision of on-site or comparable existing or newly built off-site permanently affordable units owned all or in part by a housing authority or similar agency, through the dedication of land appropriate for affordable housing or by payment of a cash-in-lieu contribution. For developments of 5 or more attached units, cash-in-lieu amounts are calculated as $126,142 per required affordable unit or the lesser of $25,288 per market rate attached unit or $105 multiplied by 20% of the total floor area of the market rate attached units (to encourage smaller units, the required cash-in-lieu contribution declines when the average floor area of market rate units is under 1,200 square feet). Cash-in-lieu amounts are adjusted annually on the first of July and the amount in place when the payment is made will apply. The applicant has indicated a desire to provide the affordable units off-site. Acceptance of off-site affordable units is dependent on the following factors: • Acceptance by the city of existing units or the site and design of newly built units. • Agreement on the number and details of the off-site units. • Timing; concurrency with the development that created the requirement. • Provision of security to ensure performance. • Acceptance of the off-site units and site is at the sole discretion of the City based on individual property characteristics. The Housing Division evaluates off-site units and sites for functional proportionality of location and livability to the location of the sending site and the extent to which the receiving site achieves integration and dispersion of affordable units throughout the City. Per 9-13 B.R.C., 1981, and associated regulations, permanently affordable on or off-site dwelling units must be proportionate in type (such as detached, attached or stacked units) and number of bedrooms to the market rate units. Attached permanently affordable units must have a floor area equal to at least 80% of the market-rate units. Permanently affordable dwelling units must be functionally equivalent to market rate units and must meet the "Livability Guidelines and Standards for Permanently Affordable Housing." Covenants to secure the permanent affordability of the units must be signed and recorded prior to application for any residential building permit and any applicable cash-in-lieu contribution must be made prior to receipt of a residential building permit. Permanently affordable units must be marketed and constructed concurrent with market-rate units. Additional requirements may be found on-line at www.bouIderaffordablehomes.com click on "Are You a Developer". Address: 1000 ALPINE AV Page 4 Agenda Item 5C Page 52 of 65 Fees Please note that 2011 development review fees include a $131 hourly rate for reviewer services following the initial city response (these written comments). Please see the P&DS Questions and Answers brochure for more information about the hourly billing system. Fire Protection David Lowrey, 303.441.4356 No issues with this concept. Fire Protection details will need to be worked out as the project progress. Land Uses Karl Guiler, Case Manager, 303-441-4236 The Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP) land use designation for the site is Transitional Business. Landscaping Elizabeth Lokocz 303.441.3138 The following areas should be addressed at Site Review submittal in additional to the general requirements of sections 9- 9-12 Landscaping and Screening Standards, 9-9-13 Streetscape Design Standards and 9-9-14 Parking Lot Landscaping Standards. Please contact staff to discuss any questions or concerns prior to submittal. 1. Per section 9-2-14(d)(13) BRC 1981, provide a tree inventory at the time of Site Review submittal indicating trees proposed for preservation and removal. 2. The project proposes a podium style building with parking on the first level. Staff assumes the parking level will be relatively open for required ventilation. The quality of this exposed parking in relation to the adjacent open space will be evaluated at Site Review. Podium style buildings are often challenging when reviewed against Site Review and open space criteria. A relatively high level of detail should be included to demonstrate the quality of the proposed architecture. 3. The surrounding context is a mix of different building types and heights. Landscaping may be useful to help buffer and transition between properties and uses. 4. Transportation does not require the reconstruction of the existing attached five foot sidewalk on Alpine Avenue. However, the pedestrian environment is still a key component of the overall quality of the project. The adjacent landscaping will need to be of a high quality to address the Site Review criteria, specifically 9-2-14(h)(2)(C)(iv) BRC 1981 which states "The setbacks, yards and useable open space along public rights of way are landscaped to provide attractive streetscapes, to enhance architectural features and to contribute to the development of an attractive site plan." 5. A green roof is illustrated on the proposed building and appears to be a necessary component of the overall project to meet minimum open space requirements. An activated green roof could present a great amenity for the residents and be the first of its kind in Boulder. Safety and structural building requirements must be evaluated early in the design process and fully incorporated into the Site Review from the perspective of identifying requested modifications. Modifications are very likely to include the need for various elements over the by-right height of 35 ft. Railings, shade structures, umbrellas, etc. all contribute to perceived mass and bulk of the building and therefore the total building height. Staff is very supportive of seeing an active roof incorporated into the overall design, but also cautions the need for an ongoing maintenance commitment such a space is likely to need. Staff is generally supportive of the requested height modification to accommodate amenities on the roof that add to the height of the structure. 6. Staff is interested to see how water quality is incorporated into the overall site design. It appears that many opportunities exist to integrate it into the useable open space avoiding the need for a concentrated pond. 7. Regarding required public improvements, the 10th Street connection including the sidewalk and eight foot landscape strip as well as planting improvements along Alpine can be anticipated. Large maturing street trees should be accommodated wherever possible on both connections. Review Process Karl Guiler, Case Manager, 303-441-4236 Based on the total amount of floor area over 30,000 square feet, a Concept Plan is required per Table 2-2 within Section 9-2-14(b), B.R.C. 1981. "Concept Plan Review and Comment" requires staff review and a public hearing before the Planning Board. Planning Board, staff and neighborhood comments made at the public hearings are intended to be advisory comments for the applicant to consider prior to submitting any detailed "Site Review" plan documents. Utilities (Heidi Schum, 303-441-4276) 1. For connections to city water and waste water, does staff have a preferred connection orientation and/or direction into and out of the site? Water and sanitary sewer services to the proposed south residential building must draw from the existing principle structure as mentioned above. Address: 1000 ALPINE AV Page 5 Agenda Item 5C Page 53 of 65 2. Does staff predict any capacity issues with the sizes of the wet utilities in the adjacent streets that would require the developer to upgrade utilities that are off site? There are no anticipated capacity issues for the existing adjacent utility infrastructure. The applicant is advised that an accurate proposed plumbing fixture count will be required at the time of Building Permit to determine if the domestic meter and service is adequate for the proposed use. Information must also be submitted on the plans by the Landscape Architect stating the gpm demand of the largest irrigated zone In order to determine adequate irrigation service, meter and tap size. 3. Are there any known utility issues that will affect development on this site? See above comments. Zoning Karl Guiler, Case Manager, 303-441-4236 The project site is zoned BT-1, Business Transitional -1. BT-1 zones are transitional business areas which generally buffer a residential area from a major street and are primarily used for commercial and complementary residential uses, including, without limitation, temporary lodging and office uses. III. INFORMATIONAL COMMENTS Area Characteristics and Zoning History Karl Guiler, Case Manager, 303-441-4236 Prior to construction of the existing office building on the site in 1967, the site was composed of five separate residential properties. The existing 31,000 square foot building on the site contains medical offices. Building and Site Design Karl Guiler, Case Manager, 303-441-4236 Compliance with BVCP in terms of building and site design: The following comments discuss building and site design together as they are intrinsically related. BVCP Policies specifically applicable to community design are as follows and are discussed thereafter: ✓ Policy 2.31, Commitment to a Walkable City; ✓ Policy 2.40, Physical Design for People, and ✓ Policy 2.42, Enhanced Design for the Built Environment. The layout of the site is unique in that it takes advantage of the variety of access points from Alpine, 10th Street, and the alley and positions a new building behind (south of) an existing building proposed for conversion. The alternations would remove a significant amount of pavement and result in an increase in open space on the property. With Broadway and North Boulder Park only 450 feet (approx.) to the east and west of the site, excellent opportunities for walking to shopping, work, and recreational amenities would exist. The site is also a convenient walking distance or a quick bus ride to downtown Boulder. The site's location alone makes the project consistent with BVCP Policy 2.31. To be fully consistent with BVCP Policy 2.40, more on-site enhancements should be considered. For instance, the applicant should look into enhancing pedestrian infrastructure along Alpine, as practical, and the additional provisions of sidewalks/walkways that would connect to 10th Street and the alley. Detached sidewalks would also be required along 10th Street (where not impacted by the existing building location), which is strongly recommended for a public access easement. BVCP Policy 2.42 states, "Projects should incorporate well designed functional open spaces with quality landscaping, access to sunlight and places to sit comfortably." Staff finds that the quality and functionality of the open space on the site will be a key issue at time of Site Review. With at-grade and roof level open space there are opportunities to provide an interesting variety of places for residents to enjoy. Specific attention must be paid to the roof open space as roof top gardens are somewhat rare in Boulder and combination of elements would have to work well to make the space functional. Attention should be focused on plantings that would survive long term on the roof, high quality surface treatments, buffering from gathering spaces from mechanical equipment, if applicable, and appropriate elements to provide shade and comfort on the roof. If successful, the project could serve as an example for how to build a quality green roof in Boulder. In regard to the at-grade open spaces, similar attention would have to be paid to the overall quality of plantings, surface treatments and provision of areas for sun and shade. Staff appreciates the provision of garden and plaza spaces, but ultimately design details at time of Site Review would clarify how inviting the spaces will be. Also, how open spaces on Address: 1000 ALPINE AV Page 6 Agenda Item 5C Page 54 of 65 the ground are framed by buildings will also be of particular importance. Policy 2.42 also states, "Projects should relate positively to public streets, sidewalks and paths. Building and landscape areas - not parking lots - should present a well designed face to the public realm, should not block access to sunlight, and should be sensitive to important public view corridors." While the project keeps surface parking to an absolute minimum and conceals parking consistent with this policy, little information indicates how buildings will appear from interior open spaces. Staff is concerned about the podium styled building on the south, which could present an unattractive building face to internal open spaces making them uninviting. The building will also shade these spaces, which dependent on design treatments, may or may not be an asset. Staff is also unclear how the north building will ultimately appear from the streetscape. Specific to building design, Policy 2.42 states, "Buildings should be designed with a cohesive design that is comfortable to the pedestrian, with inviting entries that are visible from the public right-of-way." The existing building on Alpine has a strong inward orientation and little pedestrian interest in the way of material variety and windows making it contrary to this policy. Staff expects a significant alteration to the building would be required to make it consistent with the BVCP and the Site Review criteria. The application also includes preliminary consideration of a building height above 35 feet (e.g., 38 feet). At this stage, staff does not necessarily find that this to be a prominent issue considering that it is not significantly above the height limit and also because there are other buildings in the area well above that height. It would depend on the ultimate design of the building, the quality of the site open spaces, and the potential impact on the neighbors (e.g., shadows, viewslines) before a final conclusion can be derived, but overall, staff is not adverse to the idea. Parking reduction The BVCP also has a policy related to parking: Policy 6.11, Managing Parking Supply. While there are efforts to improve site design by reducing the visual impacts of parking and avoidance of providing too much parking, the city also must ensure that the specific parking need of a project will be accommodated to avoid spillover impacts onto adjacent properties. Specifically, BVCP Policy 6.11 states, "Parking needs will be accommodated in the most efficient way possible with the least number of new parking spaces." While a parking reduction appears feasible on the site based on its location and the information provided, staff is more concerned about the interim condition between Phase I and II that is proposed to have a 66% combined reduction between the residential and office uses that would remain on the site. This potentially could result in adverse parking impacts to the surrounding neighborhood. Without a certain time for completion of Phase II, the condition could last longer than expected. This will likely be a key issue at time of Site Review. The applicant should review the parking reduction criteria within section 9-2-14(h)(2)(K), B.R.C. 1981 prior to preparing the Site Review application. Drainage (Heidi Schum, 303-441-4276) 1. At time of Site Review, the applicant shall submit information (geotechnical report, soil borings, etc.) regarding the groundwater conditions on the property, and all discharge points for perimeter drainage systems must be shown on the plan. The applicant is notified that any proposed groundwater discharge to the city's storm sewer system will require both a state permit and a city agreement. 2. Storm water quality enhancement and detention ponding are issues that must be addressed during the Site Review Process. A Preliminary Storm Water Report and Plan in accordance with the City of Boulder Design and Construction Standards must be provided by the applicant at time of Site Review application. Additional items that must be considered when developing a drainage plan include but are not limited to: • Adequate space to accommodate drainage and water quality facilities • Offsite drainage infrastructure improvements • Evaluation of negative impacts to downstream properties from existing offsite flow • Water quality for surface runoff using "Best Management Practices" • Groundwater discharge • Erosion control during construction activities 3. A construction storm water discharge permit is required from the State of Colorado for projects disturbing greater than 1 acre. The applicant is advised to contact the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment. (http://www.cdphe.state.co.us/wq/PermitsUnit/stormwater/index.html) The applicant is advised to contact the City of Boulder Storm Water Quality Office at 303-413-7350 regarding permit requirements. All applicable permits must be in place prior to building permit application. Address: 1000 ALPINE AV Page 7 Agenda Item 5C Page 55 of 65 4. Projects that disturb 1 acre of land or more are required to provide Water Quality Capture Volume and a Water Quality Outlet in accordance with the UDFCD Drainage Criteria Manual unless other storm water quality facilities are approved by the Director. 5. The applicant is notified that detention and water quality ponds intended to detain and treat stormwater runoff for the entire property (not each individual lot) shall be located in "Outlots", with maintenance responsibilities detailed in the subdivision agreement. 6. The applicant will be required to utilize best management practices to help mitigate stormwater quality impacts associated with the development of the site. The city requires that the applicant minimize directly connected impervious areas on the site and construct and maintain structural best management practices. Directly connected impervious areas can be minimized by routing roof and parking lot runoff through landscaped areas rather than directly to a storm sewer facility. Structural best management practices typically include features like water quality ponds, constructed wetlands, treatment channels, and sand filters. Detailed water quality requirements can be found in Section 7.13 of the city's Design and Construction Standards and in the Denver Urban Drainage and Flood Control District's Drainage Criteria Manual Volume 3. Water quality requirements must be addressed at a conceptual level in the Preliminary Stormwater Report and Plan submitted at the time of Site Review. Land Uses Karl Guiler, Case Manager, 303-441-4236 Compliance with BVCP in terms of general land use: The proposal includes a proposal to convert the site from commercial to residential with a focus on providing new workforce housing. The site is within a mixed-use activity center just north of downtown. Predominantly commercial and office uses exist along Broadway with peripheral residential uses at high, mixed, and low densities. Although the site is designated Transitional Business, the zoning permits attached and detached residential uses. Intensification and use of the site as residential would be appropriate and consistent with several BVCP polices that aim to concentrate new residential uses along multi-modal corridors and take advantage of existing urban services with infill. Additional residential uses in the area would add to the mixed-use character and economic vitality of the area. The following BVCP policies apply: ✓ Policy 1.21, Jobs:Housing Balance; ✓ Policy 2.02, Compact Land Use Pattern; ✓ Policy 2.26, Mixed Use and Higher Density Housing; ✓ Policy 2.27, Variety of Activity Centers; ✓ Policy 6.10, Multi-modal Development, and ✓ Policy 7.10, Keeping Low- and Moderate-Income Workers in Boulder. The applicant expresses an environmentally sensitive approach to developing the site by means of clustering units and adaptive reuse of the existing building. These aspects of the project are consistent with the following BVCP policies: ✓ Policy 4.40, Energy-Efficient Land Use, and ✓ Policy 4.41, Energy-Efficient Building Design and Construction Waste Minimization. Consistency with the BVCP related to building and site design are found in the 'Building and Site Design' comments above. Miscellaneous Karl Guiler, Case Manager, 303-441-4236 Specific questions from the applicant were submitted to the city on August 11, 2011. Most are addressed specifically in the 'Transportation' and 'Utility/Drainage' section. Most of the applicant's zoning questions are answered within the 'Land Uses" and 'Zoning' questions in this document, but please contact the Case Manager should there be any issues that remain unanswered. Neighborhood Comments Karl Guiler, Case Manager, 303-441-4236 Staff has received several inquiries from neighbors on the project and requests to be informed of a future public hearing. Staff has also received one phone inquiry and two email inquiries expressing concerns about increased traffic as a result of the project; especially in regard to the existing alley that is used by adjacent residential properties. Staff will forward any written comments to the applicant to review. Utilities (Heidi Schum, 303-441-4276) 1. All proposed public utilities for this project shall be designed in accordance with the City of Boulder Design and Construction Standards (DCS). A preliminary Utility Report per Sections 5.02 and 6.02 of the DCS will be required at time of Site Review application to establish the impacts of this project on the City of Boulder utility systems. Address: 1000 ALPINE AV Page 8 Agenda Item 5C Page 56 of 65 2. There is an existing 1" irrigation water service and meter and an existing 2" domestic water service and meter located off Alpine Avenue for this site. The applicant is advised that an accurate proposed plumbing fixture count will be required at the time of Building Permit to determine if the domestic meter and service is adequate for the proposed use. Information must also be submitted on the plans by the Landscape Architect stating the gpm demand of the largest irrigated zone In order to determine adequate irrigation service, meter and tap size. 3. Water and sanitary sewer services to the proposed south residential building must draw from the existing principle structure. 4. All water meters are to be placed in city R.O.W. or a public utility easement, but meters are not to be placed in driveways, sidewalks or behind fences. 5. Currently the existing building is not served by a fire line and sprinkler system. The applicant must contact Dave Lowrey (Fire Protection) at 303-441-4356 for fire system approval. 6. In streets where there are water mains, sewer mains, storm mains and/or piped ditches it can be a problem maintaining necessary utility-utility and utility-tree separations. Take this into account when designing the underground utilities, easements, streets and street tree landscaping for the Site Review application. Separation requirements are addressed in Section 4.06 of the City of Boulder Design and Construction Standards. At Site Review, the applicant will need to demonstrate that their plans can meet both landscaping and utility requirements. 7. Floor drains internal to covered parking structures, that collect drainage from rain and ice drippings from parked cars or water used to wash-down internal floors, shall be connected to the wastewater service using appropriate grease and sediment traps. Zoning Karl Guiler, Case Manager, 303-441-4236 Lot size The submitted materials indicate a lot size of 68,789 square feet. City mapping information, which is not 100% accurate, indicates a lot size of 64,819 square feet. At time of Site Review, a survey of the lot would be required to confirm the lot size. Further, there is a narrow strip of city right-of-way along the south lot line. If the city determines that this strip of land does not have a future public use, it may be an opportunity to add the piece of land to the subject site. Density Density in the BT-1, Transitional Business, zoning district is determined from the provision of 1,200 square feet of useable open space per dwelling unit. For 38 dwelling units, the site would have to contain 45,600 square feet of useable open space meeting the criteria of section 9-9-11, "Useable Open Space," B.R.C. 1981. At time of Site Review, it would be critical to provide detailed information about the quality and functionality of all the open spaces on the site, particularly between the buildings and upon the roof of the south building, to permit the proposed density. See more comments regarding this issue in `Site Design' above. Building Setbacks A cursory review of the plan indicates that most building setbacks would be met; however, it appears that the south building may require a setback modification to the rear setback of 20 feet. Also, with the strip of public right-of-way along the south lot line, the lot technically would qualify as a through-lot with two front yard setbacks. This is largely inconsequential as the front and rear setbacks are the same. Building Heights The maximum building height in the BT-1 zoning district is 35 feet- It appears from the plans that a height of 38 feet would be proposed at time of Site Review. This would require approval of a height modification from the Planning Board. Measurements of height must be made from the lowest point within 25 feet of each building. Also be advised that roof elements (e.g., railings, shade structures) that do not quality as appurtenances (see definition of appurtenance below and consult section 9-7-7, "Building Height, Appurtenances," B.R.C. 1981) would be added to the height calculation and would represent the tallest points of the building. "Appurtenances" means. (1) Architectural features not used for human occupancy, consisting of spires, belfries, cupolas or dormers, silos; parapet walls and cornices without windows; and Address: 1000 ALPINE AV Page 9 Agenda Item 5C Page 57 of 65 (2) Necessary mechanical equipment usually carried above the roof level, including, without limitation, chimneys, ventilators, skylights, antennas, microwave dishes and solar systems, and excluding wind energy conversion systems. Building Floor Area There is no maximum floor area limitation in the BT-1 zoning district. Nevertheless, the massing impact of the buildings would be assessed for compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood at time of Site Review. This is determined by whether or not the project meets the Site Review criteria of section 9-2-14(h), B.R.C. 1981. Although there is no floor area maximum, detailed floor plans will be required at time of Site Review to determine the total floor area in accordance with the following definitions: "Floor area" means the total square footage of all levels measured to the outside surface of the exterior framing, or to the outside surface of the exterior walls if there is no exterior framing, of a building or portion thereof, which includes stairways, elevators, the portions of all exterior elevated above grade corridors, balconies, and walkways that are required for primary or secondary egress by chapter 10-5, "Building Code, " B.R. C. 1981, storage and mechanical rooms, whether internal or external to the structure, but excluding an atrium on the interior of a building where no floor exists, a courtyard, the stairway opening at the uppermost floor of a building, and floor area that meets the definition of uninhabitable space. "Uninhabitable space" means a room or portion thereof that is six feet or less in floor to ceiling height, or a room solely used to house mechanical or electrical equipment that serves the building, including, without limitation, heating, cooling, electrical, ventilation and filtration systems, or any parking facility located completely below grade on all sides of the structure regardless of the topography of the site (see definition of "floor area'). Development Standards Please be advised that the project would be subject to all of the development standards of Section 9-9, Development Standards. Please review before submitting the Site Review application. Parkin Off-street parking for the site is determined by the number of bedrooms as specified in table 9-1 of section 9-9-6, "Parking Standards," B.R.C. 1981. Also refer to the design and dimensional requirements of that section. With the total number of bedrooms unknown, the total amount of required parking is not yet quantified, but the applicant indicates a final parking reduction of 33% on the site. Parking reductions can only be approved if the criteria of section 9-2-14(h)(2)(K), B.R.C. 1981 are met. Staff will await detailed responses to these criteria, but does acknowledge the site's prime access to transit and convenient walkability to a variety of uses and employment in the area. A discussion about the proposed parking reduction is within the `Land Uses' section above. Open Space Open space on the site must meet section 9-9-11, "Useable Open Space," B.R.C. 1981 and as stated above, is critical in determining the permissible density on the site. With a building over 35 feet, open space requirements on the site would increase from 10% to 15%, but nonetheless that amount would be less than that required to permit the proposed density. As with the parking issue discussed above, staff has concerns about the interim condition where open space may not technically be provided in the amount to permit the proposed number of units. It would be helpful to learn more about the proposed phasing (more than three years to develop entire project?) and how these issues will be addressed. Outdoor Lighting Please note that development of the lot will require compliance with Section 9-9-16, Outdoor Lighting. Solar Access Per section 9-9-17, B.R.C. 1981, the subject property is within Solar Access Area 111 and therefore, no solar fence requirements apply. However, shadowing impacts within the development require assessment during the Site Review stage and must meet section 9-2-14(h)(2)(G), B. R.C. 1981 of the Site Review criteria. Subdivision If the strip of land along the south lot line is to be incorporated into the site, a replat of the lot would be required and must meet the standards of chapter 9-12, "Subdivision," B.R.C. 1981. This would follow consideration of a vacation of the public right-of-way pursuant to section 8-6-9, "Vacation of Public Rights of Way and Public Access Easements," B.R.C. 1981, which requires City Council approval. Occupancy of Dwelling Units Address: 1000 ALPINE AV Page 10 Agenda Item 5C Page 58 of 65 Please note the occupancy limits set forth in Section 9-8-5. IV. NEXT STEPS 1. Review comments and if desired, provide a written response prior to Planning Board. 2. Consider holding a neighborhood meeting in advance of Planning Board. 3. Planning Board tentatively scheduled for October 6, 2011- V. CITY CODE CRITERIA CHECKLIST Guidelines for Review and Comment The following guidelines will be used to guide the Planning Board's discussion regarding the site. It is anticipated that issues other than those listed in this section will be identified as part of the concept plan review and comment process. The Planning Board may consider the following guidelines when providing comments on a concept plan. 1. Characteristics of the site and surrounding areas, including, without limitation, its location, surrounding neighborhoods, development and architecture, any known natural features of the site including, without limitation, mature trees, watercourses, hills, depressions, steep slopes and prominent views to and from the site; The site is just over 1.5 acres, rectangular and with mild slope descending to the southeast. An existing two-story medical office building, constructed in 1967, exists on the north part of the site adjacent to Alpine Avenue. The southern part of the site is almost entirely paved with surface parking. Greenspace exists along the building's northern frontage on Alpine Avenue. In addition to having two access points from Alpine, the site abuts a 20-foot east-west alley on its west side and a north-south portion of 10th Street, which terminates at the southeastern corner of the side. These access points are currently blocked. Uncharacteristically, the public right-of-way of 10tH Street continues in an east-west narrow strip along the south side of the property. Specific details of the site can be seen in Figure 1 below: L 71 er- -Alp' -Av .L 1000 Alpine Avenue _ ~ { . r `~r-hrfrlt[ ~I ~rL rr' ~ lam. eilh `.TIfP?I a~-~ -'r!f f I _ _t !r v r ~ ~ c y ~ i .P" T f w "!fir'.'l' f- O• T M!Endip 4W w Figure 1-1000 Alpine Avenue site conditions. Address: 1000 ALPINE AV Page 11 Agenda Item 5C Page 59 of 65 M r__tr+- _ f 416- o F _ t ' F fJet^rlantls t R + i f~ e -f6 try+.. Boulder Community Hospital i 7 IF IJurth Eoulder Pa+k _ t t r~ PiktR'tfi'V ~tl p'" ~91r _ ~ p4eil f I Qs f F q r~ui rr ~x iEx f + 's l T 1° ¢ a ~ r i _ t ~ti{i fRh ~t G#,AYt F14 I. • Y' ~ ~ ~-~FPI I. 1 . rf!"'~fl+=F . Ideal Market ~ ~tL• _ . ~ i, I N ~ S t:...., ~ .,.E ~ P XVLL m :,1 =+A Community Plaza 1 F 'Jt 1000 ALPINE i- ,F tr cfel r l j d. r; a Rt fir, F F , '.7 1 i.. row. tvlapleton - artn S F ffi ~ ~ ~ I U' is ~ f 1 I c .~J` _Y , i , _ I. % Figure 2-1000 Alpine surrounding context. Figure 2 shows that the subject site is surrounded by a variety of apartment and medical office buildings; many of which were constructed in the 1960s. Boulder Community Hospital, which is looking to locate many of its core services to the foothills hospital, is located immediately north across the street. Broadway is located to the east and serves as a high use multi-modal corridor through the mixed-use area composed of Community Plaza and Ideal Market among other office, medical and retail uses. Across 9th Street to the northwest is the 12-acre North Boulder Park and further west are the predominantly single-family neighborhoods of Newlands and Mapleton. Address: 1000 ALPINE AV Page 12 Agenda Item 5C Page 60 of 65 Low Density Residential q Park. Urban and Other : , Public 7 W: o Al/F Q Community Business Mixed Density Residential vU ' Transitional Business High Density Residential Mixed Use Residential] Eiu Figure 3- BVCP land use on and around the site. Figure 3 above shows the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP) land use designations on and around the site. The subject property, shown outlined, is designated Transitional Business and is within a highly diverse area in terms of land use, with High Density and Mixed Density Residential to the south and west, Mixed Use Residential and Community Business to the southwest and east respectively. To the north are Park (i.e., North Boulder Park), Public (i.e., Boulder Community Hospital) and Low Density Residential (i.e., Newlands neighborhood). Address: 1000 ALPINE AV Page 13 Agenda Item 5C Page 61 of 65 ~ o 4q FIR L -71 00 BT-1 LN RMX-1 t oc~a i i.. a RH-5 !s LE 5a, 13 Figure 4- Zoning on and around the site. Consistent with the BVCP land use, the site's zoning is Transitional Business (BT-1). The site is adjacent to the RH-5, High Density Residential zoning district, and a Public zone to the north, which includes the hospital. The areas north and west are zoned RL-1 (Low Density Residential) and RMX-1(Mixed Density Residential). The zoning to the east along Broadway is BC-2, Business Commercial, which exemplifies the commercial center of Community Plaza, Ideal Market and the office and retail uses along Broadway. 2. Community policy considerations including, without limitation, the review process and likely conformity of the proposed development with the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan and other ordinances, goals, policies, and plans, including, without limitation, subcommunity and subarea plans; As a potential Site Review project, development of the site is subject to compliance with the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP), which has a wide variety of policies that apply (see Section VI below for those policies that would directly apply). Approval of a Site Review application requires consistency with the BVCP. A preliminary assessment of the project's consistency with the BVCP is discussed within the `Land Uses' and 'Building and Site Design' section of this document. 3. Applicable criteria, review procedures, and submission requirements for a site review; Site Review: The project would require Planning Board approval of a Site Review application due to the requested height modification to build higher than 35 feet. Submission requirements would be the same as any other Site Review and would have to satisfy the requirements of sections 9-2-16 and 9-2-14(d), B.R.C. 1981. Prior to the public hearing, staff reviews would follow a standard three-week review track where comments or a recommendation would be rendered at the end of that time. If revisions were required, additional review tracks could be scheduled. Once the application is refined such that a staff recommendation can be made, it is scheduled for Planning Board review. The application could only be Address: 1000 ALPINE AV Page 14 Agenda Item 5C Page 62 of 65 approved if Planning Board finds that all the criteria in Section 9-2-14(h) of the Land Use Regulations are met. The Site Review application is subject to City Council call-up within 30 days of the Planning Board decision. 4. Permits that may need to be obtained and processes that may need to be completed prior to, concurrent with, or subsequent to site review approval; Technical Documents: After Site Review, Technical Documents would be required to allow staff to review more detailed plans to affirm compliance with regulations related to engineering, architecture, landscaping, drainage, lighting etc. Once all the site conditions were found to be compliant with all applicable codes, a building permit for the new structures could be reviewed. Building Permits: Each building would require a separate building permit and would have to be consistent with the approved Site Review and Technical Documents. 5. Opportunities and constraints in relation to the transportation system, including, without limitation, access, linkage, signalization, signage, and circulation, existing transportation system capacity problems serving the requirements of the transportation master plan, possible trail links, and the possible need for a traffic or transportation study; The general site location is prime access to Broadway and 9th Street, which are considered a highway and arterial respectively- The site itself benefits from access from Alpine Avenue, 10th Street and an alley. 6. Environmental opportunities and constraints including, without limitation, the identification of wetlands, important view corridors, floodplains and other natural hazards, wildlife corridors, endangered and protected species and habitats, the need for further biological inventories of the site and at what point in the process the information will be necessary; The site is already developed with a two-story building and parking. Minimal impact to natural systems would occur. The proposed project would add more pervious surface, plantings and open space and would be considered an enhancement over the existing condition. 7. Appropriate ranges of land uses; and Discussed in No. 2 above. 8. The appropriateness of or necessity for housing. Discussed in No. 2 above. VI. Applicable BVCP policies The following BVCP policies have been found applicable to the project: 1.21 Jobs:Housing Balance. Boulder is a major employment center, with more jobs than housing for people who work here. This has resulted in both positive and negative impacts including economic prosperity, significant in-commuting, and high demand on existing housing. The city will continue to be a major employment center and will seek opportunities to improve the balance of jobs and housing while maintaining a healthy economy. This will be accomplished by encouraging new mixed use neighborhoods in areas close to where people work, encouraging transit-oriented development in appropriate locations, preserving service commercial uses, converting industrial uses to residential uses in appropriate locations, and mitigating the impacts of traffic congestion. 2.04 Compact Land Use Pattern. The city and county will, by implementing the comprehensive plan, ensure that development will take place in an orderly fashion, take advantage of existing urban services, and avoid, insofar as possible, patterns of leapfrog, noncontiguous, scattered development within the Boulder Valley. The city prefers redevelopment and infill as compared to development in an expanded service area in order to prevent urban sprawl and create a compact community. 2.19 Compatibility ofAd"acent Land Uses. Address: 1000 ALPINE AV Page 15 Agenda Item 5C Page 63 of 65 In order to avoid or minimize noise and visual conflicts between adjacent land uses that vary widely in use, intensity or other characteristics, the city will use tools such as interface zones, transitional areas, site and building design and cascading gradients of density in the design of subareas and zoning districts. With redevelopment, the transitional area should be within the zone of more intense use. 2.26 Mixed Use and Higher Density Housing. The city will consider mixed use and higher density housing along certain multi-modal corridors through an area planning process that engages the public and addresses issues such as the urban design, street network, and compatibility with the surrounding area. 2.27 Variety of Activity Centers. The city and county support a variety of regional, subcommunity and neighborhood activity centers where people congregate for a variety of activities such as working, shopping, going to school or day care, recreating and residing. Activity centers distributed throughout the community in focused nodes of concentrated activities at three scales- regional, subcommunity and neighborhood-are key elements of the overall city structure (see description at the beginning of this chapter). Activity centers should be located within walking distance of neighborhoods and business areas and designed to be compatible with surrounding land uses and intensity and the context and character of neighborhoods and business areas. Good multimodal connections to and from activity centers will be encouraged. (See Policy 6.10 Multimodal Development.) 2.31 Commitment to a Walkable City. The city and county will promote the development of a walkable city by designing neighborhoods and business areas to provide easy and safe access by foot to places such as neighborhood centers, community facilities, transit stops or centers, and shared public spaces and amenities. 2.40 Physical Design for People. The city and county will take all reasonable steps to ensure that new development and redevelopment, public as well as private, be designed in a manner that is sensitive to social, physical and emotional needs. Broadly defined, this will include factors such as accessibility to those with limited mobility; provision of coordinated facilities for pedestrians, bicyclists and bus-riders; provision of functional landscaping and open space; and the appropriate scale and massing of buildings related to neighborhood context. 2.42 Enhanced Design for the Built Environment. Through its policies and programs, the city will encourage or require quality architecture and urban design in private sector development that encourages alternative modes of transportation, provides a livable environment and addresses the elements listed below. a) The context. Projects should become a coherent part of the neighborhood in which they are placed. They should be preserved and enhanced where the surroundings have a distinctive character. Where there is a desire to improve the character of the surroundings, a new character and positive identity as established through area planning or a community involvement process should be created for the area. Special attention will be given to protecting and enhancing the quality of established residential areas that are adjacent to business areas. b) The public realm. Projects should relate positively to public streets, plazas, sidewalks and paths. Buildings and landscaped areas-not parking lots-should present a well-designed face to the public realm, should not block access to sunlight, and should be sensitive to important public view corridors. c) Human scale. Projects should provide pedestrian interest along streets, paths and public spaces. d) Permeability. Projects should provide multiple opportunities to walk from the street into projects, thus presenting a street face that is permeable. Where appropriate, they should provide opportunities for visual permeability into a site to create pedestrian interest. e) On-site open spaces. Projects should incorporate well designed functional open spaces with quality landscaping, access to sunlight and places to sit comfortably. Where public parks or open spaces are not within close proximity, shared open spaces for a variety of activities should also be provided within developments. f Buildings. Address: 1000 ALPINE AV Page 16 Agenda Item 5C Page 64 of 65 Buildings should be designed with a cohesive design that is comfortable to the pedestrian, with inviting entries that are visible from public rights of way. 4.40 Energy-Efficient Land Use. The city and county will encourage the conservation of energy through land use policies and regulations governing placement, orientation and clustering of development and through housing policies and regulations. The conservation of energy is served by the development of more intense land use patterns; the provision of recreation, employment and essential services in proximity to housing; the development of mass transit corridors; and efficient transportation. 4.41 Energy-Efficient Building Design and Construction Waste Minimization. The city and county will continue their efforts to improve the energy and resource efficiency of new and existing buildings. The city and county will continue to improve codes, standards and regulations assuring energy and resource efficiency in new construction, remodels and renovation projects. Energy conservation programs will be sensitive to the unique situations that involve historic preservation and low-income home owners and renters and will assure that programs assisting these groups are continued. The city and county will encourage renovation of existing buildings over demolition and will develop policies and programs that promote the reuse of materials salvaged after deconstruction in development and construction practices. 6.10 Multimodal Development. The transportation system will accommodate the planned land use pattern, which includes higher densities and mixed use in the core area and activity centers, a variety of densities in the fringe areas, compact community size, and the possibility of one or more city auto-free zones in the future. Three intermodal centers will be developed or maintained in the downtown, the Boulder Valley Regional Center, and on the university's main campus to anchor these three activity centers to regional transit connections and to serve as hubs for connecting pedestrian, bicycle and local transit to regional services. The land along multimodal corridors will be designated as multimodal transportation zones when transit service is provided on that corridor. In these multimodal transportation zones, the city will develop parking maximums and encourage parking reductions. To minimize the negative impacts from automobiles, the city will develop strategies to facilitate and encourage the use of small, fuel efficient automobiles, particularly for urban commuting. 6.11 Managing Parking Supply. The city will actively manage parking supply in the community consistent with the desire to reduce single-occupant vehicle travel and limit congestion. Parking needs will be accommodated in the most efficient way possible with the least number of new parking spaces. The city will promote parking reductions through parking maximums, shared parking, parking districts and parking management programs where appropriate and taking into account impacts to surrounding areas. 7.10 Keeping Low- and Moderate-Income Workers in Boulder. The city will explore policies and programs to increase housing for low and moderate income Boulder workers, particularly essential workers, by fostering housing opportunities through mixed use and multi-family development, developing permanently affordable housing on vacant and redevelopable sites, by considering the conversion of commercial and industrial zoned or designated land to residential use, and providing preferences within city-subsidized projects for housing Boulder's workforce. (See Policy 2.21 Mixed Use.) VII. Conditions On Case Not applicable to Concept Plan reviews. Address: 1000 ALPINE AV Page 17 Agenda Item 5C Page 65 of 65 CITY OF BOULDER PLANNING BOARD AGENDA ITEM MEETING DATE: October 6, 2011 AGENDA TITLE: Public hearing and recommendation to City Council on an ordinance that proposes amendments to Title 9, "Land Use Code" B.R.C. 1981 to add Community Gardens as a permitted use in all zone districts and establishing related performance standards. REQUESTING DEPARTMENT: David Driskell, Executive Director of Community Planning and Sustainability Charles Ferro, Land Use Review Manager Karl Guiler, Planner II OBJECTIVES: 1. Hear Staff presentation 2. Planning Board discussion 3. Recommendations on changes to the code EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Community gardens have generated national and local interest regarding the overall benefits to the community from locally grown foods and fostering a sense of community within neighborhoods. To address this growing interest, the city has drafted new city wide policies relative to community gardens for inclusion in the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP) as part of the 2010 BVCP Update. These new policies have been approved by both Planning Board and City Council and will be effective in the near future when approved by all four approval bodies. Presently, the Land Use Code does not recognize or address community gardens. Therefore, staff is proposing amendments to the Land Use Code to include a definition for community gardens and adding them as an allowable use in all zoning districts. While the use is encouraged, community gardens have the potential to create impacts to neighborhoods. Staff has therefore drafted proposed regulations to mitigate those impacts. The proposed ordinance changes are found in Attachment A. BACKGROUND On the national and local stage, urban agriculture has been growing in popularity. Some of the benefits that have been touted from urban agriculture are: it can reduce a community's dependence on non-local foods, which must be imported into the community, creating greater environmental damage through industrial production and long-distance transport; it provides direct access to good that is fresh; it is safer in that community gardens typically use fewer pesticides, if any; it creates a greater attachment to the earth and nature for urban residents than Agenda Item 5D Page 1 of 38 might otherwise be the case; and it supports community building and socializing between neighborhood residents. This growing movement has lead to the proliferation of garden plots within cities around the country, and many communities have organized non-profit groups that manage a variety of community gardens. Local examples are Denver Urban Gardens and within Boulder, Growing Gardens. Weblinks to these groups are below: ✓ Denver Urban Gardens: dug.org ✓ Growing Gardens: www.growinggardens.org Despite the growing interest in community gardens in Boulder, the city's Land Use Code does not necessarily recognize community gardens as a use. Therefore, staff initiated research on other communities, began a dialogue with members of the community as well as with representatives from Growing Gardens, and developed code language intended to encourage and permit community gardens, while also establishing regulations that would avoid poor operation practices and their related impacts on residential neighborhoods. ANALYSIS The Land Use Code permits agricultural uses on residential, mixed-use, public and agriculturally zoned lots per Table 8-1 of chapter 9-8, "Use Standards," B.R.C. 1981. Agricultural activities are defined in the code as Crop Production: "Crop production" means the commercial growing of horticultural materials such as vegetables, fruit trees, flowers, ornamental plants, and sod for wholesale sales. Other similar uses recognized in the code are greenhouses and nurseries which are defined as follows: "Greenhouse and plant nursery " means an establishment where flowers, shrubbery, vegetables, trees and other horticultural and floricultural products are grown, propagated, and may be sold. Crop production is not prevalent within the city limits, although Long's Gardens has operated at 3240 Broadway (near the intersection of Hawthorne) since 1905. The Long's property is zoned A, Agriculture, and is used primarily for agricultural purposes. It also contains community gardens operated by Growing Gardens, which manages the Cultiva! Youth Project and Children's Peace Garden at the site. While community gardens can be considered a subset of crop production, they do have different operational characteristics: ■ Community gardens generally occur on smaller pieces of land as compared to larger scale farms. ■ Rather than being a piece of land cultivated by one party, community gardens are managed by an organization that permits and rents out separate raised garden plots to members. ■ Because the site contains individual raised plots, the visual appearance of community gardens differ from other forms of agricultural production. Agenda Item 5D Page 2 of 38 ■ Fruits and vegetables grown are typically for the use of those members that grow the food, whereas a farm generally is for wholesale purposes, where produce is sold elsewhere (e.g., a farmers market). Based on these different operational characteristics, the community garden use is not entirely akin to crop production and warrants a new use classification. The following new use definition is therefore proposed for inclusion in section 9-16, "Definitions," B.R.C. 1981: "Community Garden " means land or roof tops that are gardened by one or more persons that do not reside on the property that does not have on site sales and is not a crop production, or agricultural, greenhouse, or plant nursery use. While the city intends to encourage community gardens, it also recognizes that there could be potential for adverse impacts on adjacent properties. Some potential impacts are: - Increased activity on a small piece of land due to the draw of community garden members to their individual plots; - Smell from the use of manure, compost and/or trash in close proximity to neighboring residential uses. - Noise from mechanized equipment; - Potential parking impacts; and - Visual clutter from plots that are not appropriately maintained. Therefore, to mitigate these potential impacts, performance standards are proposed for section 9- 6, "Use Standards," B.R.C. 1981. Community gardens would be considered a "conditional use" within section 9-6 and therefore, managers and members of such gardens would be expected to follow the regulations to ensure compatibility. No permits would be required to operate a community garden. The proposed performance standards are as follows: (a) Community Gardens: The folloN,ing criteria apply to community garden uses: (1) Retail Use Prohibited. Sales of goods or products are prohibited on the community garden unless otherwise permitted by section 9-6-5(c), "Temporary Sales or Outdoor Entertainment, " B.R. C. 1981 or within any commercial use permitted within a non- residential zoning district. (2) Use of Manure: No persons shall use manure other than that which is composted in accordance with the USDA National Organic Program as specified in Title 7: Agriculture, C F.R.§205.203(c)(2). (3) Water Conveyance: The site is designed and maintained so that water is conveyed off- site into a city right-of-way or drainage system without adversely affecting adjacent property. (4) Water Conservation: No persons shall use sprinkler irrigation between the hours of 10am and 6pm. Drip irrigation or watering by hand with a hose may be done at anv time. Agenda Item 5D Page 3 of 38 (5) Mechanized Equipment: No persons shall operate mechanized equipment, including without limitation, lawn mowers, roto-tillers, garden tractors, or motorized weed trimmers outside of the hours of 8 am to 8 pm, Monday through Friday and 10 am to 8 pm Saturday and Sunday. (6) Maintenance: No persons shall fail to maintain the community garden in an orderly manner, including necessary watering, pruning, pest control, and removal of dead or diseased plant materials and otherwise in compliance with the provisions of Chapter 6, "Health, Safety and Sanitation, "B.R.C. 1981. No person shall store tools outdoors when the tools are not in use. (7) Trash/Compost: No persons shall fail to store trash/compost in the rear, of the property and remove trash/compost from the site weekly. Trash/compost receptacles should be screened from adjacent properties, through landscaping, fencing or storage within structures. Compost piles shall be setback at least ten feet from any property line. (8) Setbacks: Structures accessory to the community garden use, such as accessory storage or utility buildings, gazebos, trellis, or accessory greenhouse structures, and activity areas exclusive of garden plots, shall comply with all applicable principal structure form and bulk standards in the applicable zone district per chapter 9-7, Form and Bulk Standards, B.R.C. 1981. No person shall construct a garden trellis that exceeds eightfeet in height within any set back on the property. (9) Identification/Con tact lnfor•mation: The community garden shall post the site with a clearly visible sign near the public right-of-way that includes the name and contact information of the garden manager/coordinator. The contact information for the garden manager/coordinator shall be kept on file with the City Planning Department. Staff finds that these are reasonable standards that should be applied to community gardens. Many community gardens which are already operating are managed under best management practices that address many of these issues. PUBLIC COMMENT AND OUTREACH Staff mailed public notices to residents that live within 600 feet of identified community gardens (mostly those operated by Growing Gardens) within the city to solicit input on how neighbors viewed the gardens within their neighborhoods. Staff posed the following questions for neighbors: 1) What impacts have you experienced as a neighbor of a community urban garden? 2) Are there things that you would change? 3) Are there things that you feel could make community urban gardens more successful? Staff also reached out to Growing Gardens, Denver Urban Gardens, and other interested parties to comment on potential regulations. Most comments received to date have been positive. However, some neighbors, mostly in proximity to the larger agricultural operations of Long's Gardens and the community gardens at that location, complained about the smell of raw manure and impacts of members parking in their neighborhood to access the gardens. Agenda Item 5D Page 4 of 38 There is currently no proposed parking requirement for the gardens as most gardens are expected to serve those that would be within walking or biking distance to the sites. However, if parking impacts continue to be an issue or increases with the addition of new community gardens, staff would consider bringing amendments to the proposed code in the future to require parking if necessary. Public comments are found in Attachment B. Some recent comments on the ordinance express the following concerns: • Low volume irrigation systems should be used and are better from a water conservation perspective; • Maintenance section may be too restrictive from the standpoint of not permitting weeds or tool storage near garden plots; • Alternative language is proposed that would be more flexibility about locating trash/compost on properties, and • Concern about the restrictions on the usage of manure. Requiring low volume irrigation systems may be warranted, but this would require further research and consultation with garden managers regarding implementation. With regard to the current maintenance section and the concerns that have been raised: the ordinance is meant to avoid any worst case scenarios where plots are not adequately maintained. Should members choose to store tools by their plots in a way that is not visual obtrusive, there should be no issues. Staff is hesitant to add more flexibility on trash/compost and manure as these have the largest potential for impact. While a provision to permit aged manure was considered, feedback from the Colorado Department of Agriculture and Boulder County Agriculture led to the recommendation to use the more widely used industry standard as the basis for the ordinance. The City Department of Parks and Recreation has also proposed language changes to the ordinance that would establish standards for garden plots on city property. As the ordinance is meant to apply more broadly, the planning department staff believes these specific requirements would be more appropriately implemented through Parks and Recreation policies and management plans. Nevertheless, the proposed language changes from Parks and Recreation are provided in Attachment C for the Planning Board's consideration. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that Planning Board recommend to the City Council an ordinance that adds Community Gardens as a permitted use within all zoning districts and establishes related performance standards. Approved B D id Ddskell, Ex u i irector Department of Community Planning and Sustainability Agenda Item 5D Page 5 of 38 ATTACHMENTS A. Draft Ordinance B. Public Comments C. Parks and Recreation proposed changes to the ordinance Agenda Item 5D Page 6 of 38 ATTACHMENT A 1 ORDINANCE NO. 2 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 9, LAND USE CODE, TO ADD NEW REGULATIONS RELATED TO PERMITTING 3 COMMUNITY GARDENS AS CONDITIONAL USES IN ALL ZONING DISTRICTS, AND SETTING FORTH RELATED 4 DETAILS. 5 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BOULDER, 6 COLORADO: 7 Section 1. Section 9-16-1 is amended by the addition of a new definition to read: 8 9-16-1 General Definitions. 9 "Community Garden" means land or roof tops that are gardened by one or more persons that do 10 not reside on the property that does not have on site sales and is not a crop_Production or agricultural, greenhouse, or plant nursery use• 11 "Crop production" means the commercial growing of horticultural materials such as vegetables, 12 fruit trees, flowers, ornamental plants, and sod for wholesale sales. 13 "Greenhouse and plant nursery" means an establishment where flowers, shrubbery, vegetables, 14 trees and other horticultural and floricultural products are grown, propagated, and may be sold. 15 Section 2. Section 9-6-1, Table 6-1, B.R.C. 1981, is amended to read: 16 TABLE 6-1: 1 SE TABLE 17 Specific 18 Use Use Modules R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 MH M1 M2 M3 131 132 B3 134 B5 D1 D2 D3 11 12 13 14 P A Standard 19 Agriculture and Natural Resource Uses Open space, 20 grazing and * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * A A pastures 21 I Communi* C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C 99-64(a~ Gardens - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 22 Crop A A A A A A A A A A A A * * * * * * A A production 23 Mining * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * U * * U industries 24 Firewood * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * A A A * * C:\Documents and Settings\foxxdl\Local Settings\Temporary hltemet Files\Content.0utlook\S8YCUM30\Draft Conununity Gardens ordinance 9 30 l1.doc Agenda Item 5D Page 7 of 38 1 operations Greenhouse 2 and plant * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * A A A A A A nurseries 3 4 Section 3. Section 9-6-4, B.R.C. 1981, is amended to read: 5 9-6-4 Agriculture and Natural Resource Uses. 6 (a) Community Gardens: The following criteria- apply to_community_garden uses: 7 (1) Retail use prohibited. Sales of goods or products are prohibited on the community garden unless otherwise permitted by section 9-6-cl`Temporar Sales N Outdoor 8 Entertainment," B.R.C. 1981 or within any commercial use permitted within a non- residential zoning district. 9 (2) Use of manure. _No persons shall use manure other than that which is composted in 10 accordance with the USDA National Organic Program as specified in Title 7: Agriculture, C.F.R.§205.203(c)(2). 11 (3) Mater conveyance. The site is designed and maintained so that water is conveyed off- 12 site into -a ci _ right-of-way or drainage system without adversely affectin&adJacent property. (4) Water conservation. No persons shall use sprinkler irrigation between the hours of 13 IOam_and 6pm. Drip irrigation or watering by hand with a hose may be done at any time. 14 (5) Mechanized equipment. No persons shall operate mechanized equipment, including without limitation, lawn mowers,_roto-tillers garden tractorsor motorized weed trimmers 15 outside of the hours of 8 am to 8 pm. Monda through Frida~and 10_am to 8 pm_Saturdav and Sunday. 16 (6) Maintenance. No persons shall fail to maintain the community Rarden in an orderly 17 manner, including necessary watering, pruning pest control, and removal of dead or diseased plant-materials and otherwise in_compliance _with _the provisions of Chapter 6_, "Health,_Safety 18 and Sanitation," B.RC.1981. No person shall store tools outdoors when the tools are not in use. 19 (7) Trash/Compost. No persons shall fail to store trash/comDost in the rear of the RroDert 20 and remove trash/compost from the site weekly. Trash/compost receptacles should be screened from adjacent proEerties~through landscaping fencing or storage within structures. 21 Compost_piles shall be setback _at_least ten- feet from an - roperty line. 22 (8) Setbacks. Structures accessory to the community garden use such asacc_essor sh e or utility , buildings,- azebos trellis or accessory regnhouse structures, and activity areas 23 exclusive of garden plots, shall comply with all applicable principal structure form and bulk standards in the applicable zone district per chapter 9-7. "Form and Bulk Standards." B.R.C. 24 C Tocuments and Settings\foxxd I Tocal Settings\Temporary ffitemet Files\Content.0utlook\S8YCUM30\Draft Conununity Gardens ordinance 9 30 l1.doc Agenda Item 5D Page 8 of 38 1 1981. No person shall construct a garden trellis that exceeds eight feet in height within any set back on the property. 2 (9) Identification/Contact Information. The community=garden-shall post the site with a 3 clearly visible sign near the public right-of-way that includes the name and contact information of the garden manager/coordinator. The contact information for the garden 4 manager/coordinator shall be kept on file with the City Planninpartment. 5 Section 4. This ordinance is necessary to protect the public health, safety, and welfare of 6 the residents of the city, and covers matters of local concern. 7 Section 5. The city council deems it appropriate that this ordinance be published by title 8 only and orders that copies of this ordinance be made available in the office of the city clerk for 9 public inspection and acquisition. 10 INTRODUCED, READ ON FIRST READING, AND ORDERED PUBLISHED BY 11 TITLE ONLY this day of , 20. 12 13 Mayor Attest: 14 15 City Clerk on behalf of the 16 Director of Finance and Record 17 READ ON SECOND READING, PASSED, ADOPTED, AND ORDERED 18 PUBLISHED BY TITLE ONLY this day of , 20. 19 20 Mayor 21 Attest: 22 23 City Clerk on behalf of the Director of Finance and Record 24 C:\Documents and Settings\foxxd I Tocal Settings\Ternporary Hrtemet Files\Content.0utlook\S8YCUM30\Draft Conununity Gardens ordinance 9 30 l1.doc Agenda Item 5D Page 9 of 38 ATTACHMENT B Guiler, Karl From: Ben Turner [ben@growinggardens.org] Sent: Monday, September 13, 2010 2:37 PM To: Guiler, Karl Subject: Community Garden feedback Hi Karl, I received the letter requesting Community Garden input. I lived across the street from the Holiday Garden for 5 years, and now I live next door to the Kerr Garden in Louisville. In addition, I work every day next door to the Hawthorn Garden. 1) As a neighbor to community gardens, I have experienced nothing but positive impacts on those neighborhoods. From increased outdoor physical activity by residents to the social opportunities created by people working outside in the neighborhood (talking amongst each other, and with passersby), the gardens seem to stimulate the life of the community and make it a more enjoyable place to live. The sights and smells of colorful plants and flowers, the addition of birds and insects, and the contribution of these gardeners to their community via composting, sharing vegetables, and donating vegetables to those in need are all wonderful things. 2) Changes I think need to be made only in terms of making more garden spaces available and ensuring that more gardens are accessible to aging and disabled residents. 3) Community urban gardens could be even more successful I think if they are very well planned into the fabric of the neighborhoods, with features like shade trees, fruit trees, picnic areas, composting areas; and inclusion in low-income housing areas. .Thank you for your time, Ben Ben Turner, Grower iCultiva! Youth Project Growing Gardens of Boulder County 1630 Hawthorn Ave. Boulder, CO 80304 ben(@growinggardens.org (303) 818-5686 - cell 1 Agenda Item 5D Page 10 of 38 Guiler, Karl From: JD JEANNIE ROBINS01 ` Sent: Monday, September 13, /-u Iu v:55 vivi To: Guiler, Karl Cc: Guiler, Karl Subject: urban gardens Hello Karl Guiler My name is JD Robinson, my family has owned the property directly east of Long's Gardens for the past 60 years, currently my mother owns the house at 1720 Hawthorn Ave. We have been very blessed to have this magnificent open space next door to us for this long of time, especially in Boulder. The Long family has been wonderful neighbors and we have enjoyed the area. I think the gardens are a great idea and have been no problem to us for the most part. The only time that we have difficulty is during the fall season, I would like to see more trash dumpsters in the area as we end up with several bags, plastic and sometime trash cans on her property. I have heard some speculation on the future of the area ie: vegetables and eventually an orchard across the eastern side. This is very interesting since our property used to be an orchard to begin with. The garden has been good for the community and we hope that it remains for many years to come. Thanks for you concern about the neighborhood JD Robinson i Agenda Item 5D Page 11 of 38 Guiler, Karl From: Ronald F. White I Sent: Wednesday, September 15, 2010 2.52 PM To: Guiler, Karl Subject: community gardens Karl, being a neighbor of one of the community gardens I would like to voice several complaints. Parking should be provided, raw manure should not be allowed to be dumped at any time, odor and files are overwhelming . Anytime I have voiced a complaint nothing has ever been done, and No one has ever gotten back to me. More than once they have had barbecues and loud beer parties late at night, sincerely yours, Sharon White 3160 Jefferson Street Boulder; CO 80304 303-443-5971 Regards from the white house Agenda Item 5D Page 12 of 38 Guiler, Kart From: Aaron Brocket Sent: Wednesday, September 15, 2010 9:28 PM To: Guiler, Karl; holmes@bouldercolorado.gov Subject: Community gardens I received a letter recently that said that the city is considering expanding the urban gardens program. I think this is a great idea. It promotes community and allows for local food production, which I feel is critical to making the city more sustainable. We live one block from the community garden in the Holiday neighborhood and it has been 100% positive for our neighborhood. There have never been any negative effects of any kind. It increases foot traffic on the sidewalk, which is great it gives us a chance to talk to our neighbors! Regards, Aaron Brockett 1601 Yellow Pine Ave aaron@charondevelopment.com (303) 442-9197 x Agenda Item 5D Page 13 of 38 Guiler, Karl From: Alex Weaver,',-----_ Sent: Thursday, September 16, 2010 10:59 PM To: Guiler, Karl Subject: comments on community garden We live right next to the Hawthorn garden, and have lived in this neighborhood for 10 years. 1. impacts: - 100% positive. Absolutely no negative experiences. - this is a jewel, a truly wonderful piece of community in the heart of Boulder - We have shared a plot there for 10 years with a friend who lives a half-mile away - a great way to spend time with friends - We enjoy meeting other neighbors at the garden and building community - many long-time community neighbors have had garden plots there over the years; they all enjoy the community - it is a really inclusive gathering place for everyone including the low-income Hispanic families who live in the public housing by the rec center - it provides a great walking loop for low-income families to get out with their children and exercise - also a very nice safe place for the elderly neighbors to exercise - the teens at Growing Gardens have never been a problem for us - we've taken neighbor kids over-there to introduce them to gardening; they've loved it - people are very generous in sharing their excess produce with neighbors 2. changes: - I would only suggest no more energy-intensive greenhouse projects 3. to increase success: - keep it going forever, please - continue with existing garden rules, which are reasonable - pricing is reasonable - PLEASE do not impose cumbersome regulations that will only inhibit success - figure out how to work with the owners of Long's Gardens forever - right now the land is just on a long-term lease - continue dog leash requirements in the garden i Agenda Item 5D Page 14 of 38 Guiler, Karl From: Angela McCormick Sent: Friday, September 17, 2010 5:42 PM To: Guiler, Karl Subject: Urban Gardens Holiday Karl- I own the property at 1517 Easy Rider and wanted to respond to your inquiry about the community garden across the street. I have not had any bad experiences with this use being close to my unit. I love the fact that there is a neighborhood garden in the midst of the housinc, and see this as a valuable feature to the usefuhzcss of the land and character of the neighborhood. Thanks- angela Angela McCormick 2855 7th Street (residence) Boulder CO 80304 1 Agenda Item 5D Page 15 of 38 Guiler, Karl From: Randy Comptor ' Sent. Sunday, September 19, 2010 1:48 PM To: Guiler, Karl Subject: urban garden survey Karl, 1) 1 enjoy the open space, community and nature that the garden provides. 2) List of plot owners and phone numbers? Community swimming pool instead? 1 often wonder if this would have more community participation and enjoyment. Big dream, I know. 3) Can't think of any. Randy Compton 1600 Zamia Ave. 303-449-2737 1 Agenda Item 5D Page 16 of 38 Guiler, Karl From: David Secund~ Sent: Monday, September 20, 2010 10:08 AM To: Guiler, Karl Subject: Community Garden feedback Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged I'm a homeowner at 1945 Grove St, right across the street from the Goss/Grove Community Garden. Here are my thoughts: 1) Impacts: All very positive. The empty space was an eyesore and an area frequented by transients. Now, the community takes pride in the space and due to its activity, the transient population doesn't hang out there. The spot has turned into the social epicenter of the neighborhood in a very positive way. 2) Things to Change: That garden was created with an aesthetic in mind that served the neighborhood. I think that the cost difference of raised beds (which were used) vs. non-raised beds was minimal, but it looks much better. I think there should be a design standard for new gardens that require raised beds, enclosed tool storage, seating (at least a bench), and signage. I think increased preference should be given to gardens that involve community members, have public art/sculpture, have seating, etc. 3) 1 think a temporary garden plan should be created to utilize vacant lots for one or more years. This could add to neighborhoods that are in transition. Yours in Adventure, Dave David Secunda, Founder/Program Director Avid`- Adventure www.Avid4.com david@Ayid4.com Office: 720-249-2412 x1 Fax: 303-265-9445 4W yW . W i Agenda Item 5D Page 17 of 38 Guiler, Karl From: Mary Margaret Golter Sent: Monday, September 2u, zu-i u s:6-i eio To: Guiler, Karl Subject: community urban gardens Dear Karl: I'm responding to a Dept. of Community Planning and Sustainability letter of September 7 to people located near community gardens. The "Fortune Park" gardens at 4th and Canyon are very near my house. The only impact on me is positive. The gardens are beautiful and I love the fact that they are near me. I can't think of anything to suggest to make community urban gardens more successful except to have more of them. Thanks for asking, Mary Margaret Golten 432 Pearl Street Boulder, CO 80302 1 i Agenda Item 5D Page 18 of 38 Guiler, Karl From: Bonnie Lowdermilk " Sent: Tuesday, Septembc., 1, 2U 10 12:55 PM To: Guiler, Karl; holmes@bouldercolorado.gov Subject: community garden In response to your letter of Sept. 7, asking comment about community gardens: 1) The garden beautifies the neighborhood, fun to watch all the things growing, gives neighbors an opportunity to meet, get to know one another, provides nice green spot in a densely packed neighborhood where water is used to produce nutritious food instead of grass. I am a gardener and part of why i bought the property was because I knew I could have a plot, plus the garden insured I have a nice view of the foothills. 2, 3) can't think of anything to change or make them better. Bonnie Lowdermilk www.bonnielowdermilk.com/live X Agenda Item 5D Page 19 of 38 Guiler, Karl From, Sent: . V 1z!unesoay, 6eptember 22, 2010 8:54 AM To: Guiler, Karl Subject: Community Urban Gardens Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Hi Karl, I just noticed that you wanted comments before September 22"d, not by September 22"d , so I may be too late. For what it is a worth a few comments: Being the land owner for the Hawthorn Community Gardens I have an admitted bias. In the almost 35 years that there have been community gardens on our property we have experienced very few complaints from the neighboring property owners. The most frequent complaint or comment is that some plots are not "tidy" enough. This can be mitigated to a great extent by having a more manicured border area surrounding the garden that is mowed or mulched and helps to blend into the existing residential landscape. My experience as a neighbor has been only positive. The community garden is a wonderful place to see diversity in plants, techniques, and gardeners. it is one of those rare places in our modern world where true "community" can be experienced and appreciated. We take visitors for tours of the gardens and I watch numerous people take a lunch or other break strolling through the gardens. The gardens create an oasis of calm in an increasingly frenetic urban area. I would provide more area for bike and car parking, storage for tools, and communal areas to process harvested crops. I would like to see community gardens allowed in various locations and with varying scale. I support the concept of growing in front yards and street side areas, as well as in public spaces. Outreach to help educate people on how to use their garden plots more effectively and for a longer part of the season would be helpful. This could also include tips on making gardens visually more palatable to the neighboring property owners. Please feel free to contact me. Thanks, Catherine Catherine Long Gates Long'; Gardens P.O. Box 19 Boulder, CO 80306-0019 303-442-2353 303-413-1323 fax catherine@longsgardens.com i Agenda Item 5D Page 20 of 38 Guiler, Karl From: Neshama Abraham Paiss rnr~~~ Sent: Thursday, May 05, 2011 1 To: Guiler, Karl Cc: Zev Paiss Subject: Thank you for meeting today Attachments: Neshama_Urban _Ag_BVCP.Sec.9.doc; ATT00001..htm; Neshama_PRAB_handout.4.25.doc; ATT00002..htm Hi Karl, We so appreciate your making the time to meet today re new thinking and codes to support growing food within Boulder. Well done on the Community Urban Gardens draft you have created! I think it's excellent, and I agree with the broad philosophy of allowing local food growing in all zones subject to the specific guidelines you have presented. T am happy to put in more studied time for feedback, however, I would like to make an immediate suggestion for updating the City Land Code that you add an additional land use definition and/or section for Neighborhood Farms. Unlike the Community Urban Garden model which is composed of multiple small garden plots managed by a group of individuals, the Urban Neighborhood Farm is 1-5 acre in size and each Fann is managed by a single food grower, i.e. an experienced farmer, who is selling organic vegetables, fruits, and other food items for a living. The Neighborhood Farm will accomplish different goals. In addition to providing jobs and employment training, these Farms will:. • Grow food year-round - the farmer needs a greenhouse and hoop house (solar powered) for maximum food production, a farm stand, a shed for a tractor and tools, and a covered gathering area for workers to eat meals together and plan the day's work • Sell organic food commercially, e.g. salad greens to BVSD for their salad bar program, to local markets and restaurants, and to individuals and businesses through a CSA model - the farmer needs a farm stand where neighbors can walk or bike to pick up their share, and allow on-site retail food sales where people can meet the farmer, and see where their food is grown. • Serve as an educational resource and model for innovative food production methods, such as aquaponics, an indoor closed system for high volume vertical food growing of plants and fish together. We need zoning to help Neighborhood Farms accomplish the above easily so farmers can concentrate on growing food. Please consider Zev and I resources and likewise we would appreciate being kept in the loop. I'm attaching two background dots FYI. One is a food backgrounder on food costs and availability I prepared for PRAB and the other Urban Ag recommendations I put together for Chris re the Draft Boulder Valley Comp Plan. Thank you again for your time and openness to local food growing. It's time for our City catch up to other cities who recognize the importance of policies that support a local and sustainable urban agriculture system for our Citizens. With best wishes, Neshama Neshama Abraham, President 1 Agenda Item 5D Page 21 of 38 Guiler, Karl From: Reich, Joel I Sent: Wednesday , -1313 st 24, 2011 1:26 PM To: Guiler, Karl Subject: RE: Community gardens Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Hi Karl- Thanks for including me when you sent this out. I would be happy to serve/advise in any capacity that might be helpful as this process moves forward. Below are some suggestions I have regarding the attached draft proposal: - I think the time has passed for anyone to be using sprinkler irrigation in community gardens, regardless of the hour. Low-volume irrigation systems (such as drip systems, soaker hoses, etc.) are much better from a water conservation perspective, as well as from a crop health perspective, For several years, they have been required in the garden I manage. Everyone has been very happy with the change (many were already using low-volume systems). I know that some people are intimidated by the idea, but the construction and use of these systems is very simple. I teach classes on the subject, and would be happy to do so for groups of community gardeners. - In the "maintenance" section, I think wording should be added to address weeds. While some weeds will always be a reality, I think it is reasonable to expect gardeners to remove/kill weeds before they flower, -1n the "trash/compost" section, I'm not sure if it is appropriate/necessary to stipulate that the trash and/or compost be located at the "rear of the property". Each property is different, and access to the rear of each property may not be adequate for compost/trash purposes. Given that the proposed rules will apply to gardens that do not yet exist, perhaps better wording would include "No person shall fail to store trash/compost in an appropriate location. Appropriate locations will be no less than 10 feet from property lines and will be screened from adjacent properties through the use of landscaping, fencing or storage structures." Hope this helps, Joel Joel A. Reich Horticulture Extension Agent Colorado State University Extension Boulder County 9595 Nelson Road, Box B Longmont, CO 80501 (303) 678-6386 office (303) 678-6281 fax From: Guiler, Karl [mailto:GuilerK@bouldercolorado.gov] Sent: Wednesday, Auaust ?4 anti In-27 AM To: P'- - -,m'- 'n rn,-rnrmir1errnrnmr__, _ CL r nov- 1 Agenda Item 5D Page 22 of 38 Guiler, Kart From: Barbara Bronk Sent: Sunday, Augur To: Guiler, Karl Subject: Re: Community gardens Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged I have fully read the proposed guidelines and think they are very good - perhaps some neighborhoods may he opposed he the long hours of use of 'r? r= r,= ti;,' wFG F?`.... ; ,..E`V V 'i(' i(5 f?fj iii ._r _ Original Message From: Guiler, Karl To: r ~r k'arl Aaron Brockett 'decor- 'qr- u,. -6n, -•.rtNink.nei ; F Uc: Gatza, Jean ; 'jreich(d)bouldercounty.org' Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2011 10:28 AM Subject: RE: Community gardens Also, if you could provide comments prior to Sept. 9th that would be very helpful. Thank you. Karl From: Guiler, Karl Sent: Wednesday Au us" 24, 2011 10:27 AM To: Aaron Brooke 'h^~ ^om'; F. I~L.:..Ir'~.t.. - . ...........Fl'7fE.~.:~m', 'JesC lermu!~ta,V~ns,.. ---_.L_..r.__•-~F_V tk. . ::e hf aiuv- }i Cc: Gatza, Jean; GuiiE _ J4FiJl14vuri~y.yiu Subject: Community gardens Hello: The City of Boulder is looking to include Community Gardens within the zoning code as a permitted use in all zoning districts. Presently, the use.is not specifically addressed in the zoning code. Consistent with recent policy changes to the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan, the city wishes to promote community gardening. However, to ensure that the use is operated in a manner that minimizes impacts to surrounding neighbors, new performance standards are proposed: Community Gardens would not require any special permits to operate, but managers of the gardens would have to be aware of the standards and comply with them. i Agenda Item 5D Page 23 of 38 Guiler, Kart From: Brady Smith I , Sent: Thursday, Septemoer ui, 2011 12:10 PM To: Guiler, Karl; cathy@growinggardens.org Subject: Community Garden Zoning Attachments: Hops 1.jpg; Hops 2.jpg Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Dear Mr. Guiler, I am writing in regards to the proposed community garden zoning ordinance. I currently rent one garden plot which lies in the middle of the Hawthorn Garden. In general, I am in favor of a measure such as this because it gives credibility and stability to the Growing Gardens program and will help to ensure community garden areas in the City of Boulder continue to be valuable parts of their respective neighborhoods. I wish to express one area of concern regarding the 8 ft. limit on structure height. I am an avid homebrewer and currently grow 14 varieties of hops plants (20 plants total with some duplicates) in my garden plot. Hops produce best when allowed to climb a vertical trellis. My current trellising method involves using two U-posts joined in the middle by small bolts. When fully erected, each trellis is approximately 12 ft. tall and needs to be in place from early June through late August. I completely disassemble each trellis and remove them from the garden for the remaining nine months of the year. Based on positive comments of fellow gardeners and residents of the surrounding neighborhood too numerous to count over the past six years, I believe the hops plants provide an attractive addition to the Hawthorn Garden, and I strongly desire to continue growing them using my current trellising method. Please consider revising the ordinance to include approved seasonal structures of this nature. If necessary, please advise as to how I may apply for a zoning variance. Attached, please find two recent pictures from my garden. If you wish to see them in-person, a few, remaining unharvested plants with their full trellis will be in place through this weekend. Thank you for your consideration. Please feel free to call or email me with any questions. Brady Smith 720-626-1335 i Agenda Item 5D Page 24 of 38 Guiler, Karl From: Sent: , lursoay, zseptember 08, 2011 9:00 PM To: Guiler, Karl Subject: RE: Community gardens Attachments: Draft Community Gardens ordinance 8.23.11. suggestions from CLG.DOC Hi Karl, Thanks for the opportunity to review the proposed ordinance to address Community Gardens. I'm attaching the proposed ordinance with a few comments. I've put my suggestion/comments in green italics. I believe there is a typo in the definition of Community Garden. Unless I'm misunderstanding the legalese it should say means land or roof tops that are gardened not of that are gardened. I realize that the definitions of "Crop production" and "Greenhouse and plant nursery" are in the existing code. I think the "and" in the greenhouse definition is just a typo. I do question why crop production specifies "wholesale" sales. I engage in crop production that is both for retail and wholesale sales. in general I think the ordinance is a step in the right direction, but I would like to see as little restriction as possible. 9-6- 4 (a) (9) Identification/contact information makes it possible for anyone to comment or complain about any problems that may arise. Problems will be different in different neighborhoods and at different times - please don't go overboard in anticipating problems and therefore unduly restrict gardens. Thanks so much for your work on this. Catherine Catherine Long Gates Long's Gardens P.O. Box 19 Boulder, CO 80306-0019 303-442-2353 303-413-1323 fax catherine@longsgardens.com From: Guiler, Karl [mailto:GuilerK@bouldercolorado.gov] Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2011 10:27 AM Tc 1 - aulyL ylvvvllly-d%jI Cc: Gatza, Jea Subject: Community gardens Hello: 1 Agenda Item 5D Page 25 of 38 Guiler, Karl From: Patricia Stricklin ' -et] Sent: Wednesday, September 14, Ieu'1'i t .J5 PM To: Guiler, Karl Subject: Re: Community gardens Hi Karl, I realize that my reply is late and may not be helpful at this late date, but here are my thoughts: the proposed regulations for the community gardens seem fair and comprehensive and address the concerns of both the neighbors and the gardeners. However, the problem that has been plaguing us from the very beginning is still apparent in this document. There are absolutely no consequences listed for those who choose to ignore the regulations. This has been the issue all along, and it is still not addressed. With no consequences for breaking the rules, what good are they? I, and several of the neighbors who have reviewed this document would like to see it revised to include consequences THAT WILL BE ENFORCED for those who do not comply with the regulations. This will help to alleviate the attitude that a few gardeners have who refuse to keep their plots clean and who refuse to turn over their manure within 48 hours. Also, trash, old furniture, plastic tubs, etc. need to be removed for the winter. This needs to be enforced so that the neighbors are not subjected to these eyesores when the gardens are not in use. Thank you for compiling these regulations. Your hard work has not gone unrecognized. Best, Patti Stricklin On Aug 24, 2011, at 10:28 AM, Guiler, Karl wrote: Also, if you could provide comi7ienis prior to 5cpt. 9th that would be very helpful. Thank you. Karl From: Guiler, Karl Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2011 '0:27 AM To: Aaron Brockett; 'Lonalrif`-1hi'-- 'k-nnnrn 'desertottArn. - _..=XC311uo.Com` "ilink.net'; nllimafPVA(WdUI.[dJf31, .....e.a.net't `Carl _ ~~u7UC315.Vfu 4GFCgF } y+: u -n.s.org' Cc: GaU Je Subject: Community gardens 1 Agenda Item 5D Page 26 of 38 Guiler, Karl From: Patty Greenberg Sent: Thursday, Septeiawer zz, 1u11 11:01 PM To: Guiler, Karl Subject: tools in plots Thanks for the email about the meeting in the garden. I think that it should be ok for gardeners to leave their own tools in their own plot, especially if they have some kind of storage bin that looks neat and unobtrusive. I kind of understand limiting use of manure because of neighbors etc. Patty Greenberg Plot 302 Hawthorne `f i `f i i i g. I I 1 Agenda Item 5D Page 27 of 38 Guiler, Karl From: JPC Sent: Frida\,, -opiember 23, 2011 11:00 AM To: Guiler, Karl Subject: Community Garden - proposed rules Manure: Since runoff--from gardens will be to city sewers I can see no reason not to allow manure. Fully composed material is not that widely available and is often costly. It might be necessary to have a rule that manure must be dug in or watered within 24 hours as an odor control. Tools: What is the purpose of not allowing people to leave their own tools in their plot when they are not using them? It is their own risk. Crif Crawford, Hawthorn plot #517 Agenda Item 5D Page 28 of 38 Guiler, Karl From: jennifer louder Sent: Saturday, September 24, 2011 1:55 PM To: Guiler, Karl Subject: community garden thoughts.... Hello. I happily have a half-plot in the Hawthorne Gardens. So far, all has been great. I fully support the part of the plan that allows only for the use of manure that is organic and approved... Also, preserving water is important. The 10-6 restriction is good in full summer, but what about in the spring and fall when it is cooler, and watering at say 1 lam or 7pm is fine? Even in full summer, it is still hot at 6 to water, so I try to go at say 8pm- Thanks for considering this, Jennifer Cornell s' z Agenda Item 5D Page 29 of 38 Guiler, Karl From: Sharon Bolsinger Sent: Sunday, September 25, 2011 4:12 PM To: Guiler, Karl Subject: Further Details It isn't clear to me why the storing of our own tools on our rented plot isn't acceptable. Does the city have the same regulation for gardens on other properties (owned,leased,rented) in the city limit? I am opposed to the city getting involved and regulating a non- profit, such as growing gardens. ,This isn't a good use of their time. Instead, they need to focus on housing, homelessness, and other pertinent issues that have a real impact on people. y ;i i Agenda Item 5D Page 30 of 38 Guiler, Karl From: Mark Willard [markwillard.boulder@gmaii.com] Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2011 10:59 AM To: Guiler, Karl Subject: proposed city ordinance Greetings Karl, I am emailing to inquire about the proposed city ordinance that would restrict the use of manure in community gardens. As I understand it the restriction is as follows, Use of Manure: No persons shall use manure other than that which is composted in accordance with the USDA National Organic Program as specified in Title 7; Agriculture, C.P.R. 205.203(c)(s). I would like to know the reason behind such a proposal. Has there been problems with the community gardens stemming from the use of manure other than as specified in the proposed ordinance? I questioned Cathy Chittum with Growing Gardens about it. Apparently there have been no situations that she is aware of. Thank you. a Regards, Mark Mark Willard markwillard.boulder a,gmail.com 4586 7th Street 80304 (303) 443-9753 Forwarded message From: Cathy Chittum <cathyLwgrowingaardens.or > Date: Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 1:12 PM Subject: Re: Community Gardens News To: Mark Willard <markwillard.boulder(c-~gmail.com> Hi Mark, I know of one complaint from a Hawthorn neighbor who had flies in her house, which were later determined to be cluster. flies which live in the soil and not in manure. The county extension agent came out and did the testing. Karl made it sound like there were other complaints, which we are not aware of. It might be easiest for you to call Karl and speak with him directly since I don't know more. Sorry. Cathy Chittum Director Community Gardens 303.443.9952 www.growinggardens.org 1 Agenda Item 5D Page 31 of 38 From: Mark Willard <markwillard. boulder@gmail.com> To: Cathy Chittum <cathy( growinggardens.org> Sent: Tue, September 13, 2011 12:13:20 PM Subject: Re: Community Gardens News Cathy, Could you share with me the specific complaints neighbors have had at Hawthorne. I can't imagine how the use of manure is a problem. It would seem to me that if Growing Gardens were to regulate it's use in such a way as to mitigate neighbor complaints, the ordinance would not have to be instituted. It just seems that the ordinance is overly restrictive. What is proposed seems like an expensive, less sustainable approach to tapping into local sources. For me I am building a small compost area. Manure is a vital component to building a living eco-system in the soil. The more information you could provide about past problems regarding the use of mamtre, the better. Thank you. Regards, Mark Foothills Gardens Plots 7 & 8 Mark Willard markwillard.bouldergpiail.com 4586 7th Street 80304 (303) 443-9753 On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 1:08 PM, Cathy Chittum <cathyowgrowinggardens.org> wrote: Hi Mark, Yes, at Hawthorn it's become an issue with surrounding neighbors. No complaints at Foothills, but this ordinance would affect everyone. Please send your comments to Karl, it's helpful for him to hear from current gardeners. Thanks, Cathy Chittum Director Community Gardens 303.443.9952 www.growinggardens.org From: Mark Willard <markwillard.boulder@gmail.com> To: cathy0growinggardens.org Sent: Sun, September 4, 20117:54:39 AM Subject: Re: Community Gardens News 2 Agenda Item 5D Page 32 of 38 Guiler, Karl From: Cathy Chittun, or,_ Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2011 2:28 PM To: Guiler, Karl Subject: Re: Community gardens Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Would aged manure be acceptable? I know this will become an issue with gardeners and I'm trying to clarify what this means. We have a rule that manure needs to be worked into the soil within three days, but that doesn't always happen and manure sits there for weeks attracting flies and smelling. So I understand why this is being addressed. Thanks, Cathy Chittum Director Community Gardens 303.443.9952 www.growinggardens. org From: "Guiler, Karl" <GuilerK@bouldercolorado.gov> To: Cathy Chittum j Sent: Thu, August 25, ~wii 1:13:34 NM I Subject: RE: Community gardens 1 Cathy, Effectively yes. We are responding to complaints from the community about the use of raw manure and the smell etc. We felt that this was something that would need to be addressed to create more compatibility between gardens and adjacent residential. 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(o)-bouldercolorado.gov From: Cathy Chittum [mailto:cathy@growing gardens,org] Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2011 11:34 AM To: Guiler, Karl Subject: Re: Community gardens 1 Agenda Item 5D Page 33 of 38 Hi Karl, Does this mean no manure unless it's a part of compost? We currently allow gardener to place straight manure on their plots in the fall. (1 )Use of Manure: No persons shall use manure other than that which is composted in accordance with the USDA National Organic Program as specified in Title 7: Agriculture, C.F.R.§205.203(c)(2). Thanks, Cathy Chittum Director Community Gardens 303.443.9952 www.growinggardens. orp From: "Guiler, Karl" <GuilerK@bouidercolorado.gov> To: Aaron Brockett <aaronbrockett@charondevelopment.com>; "ronaldfwhite@msn.com" <ronaldfwhite@msn.com>; "ben@growinggardens.org" <ben@growinggardens.org>; "jjktrobinson@msn.com" <jjktrobinson@msn.com>; "desertotter@yahoo.com" <desertotter@yahoo.com>; "shieldwolfc@msn.com" <shieldwolfc@msn.com>; "a.mccormick@comcast.net" <a. mccorm ick@com cast. net>; "mtomusiak@gmail.com" <mtomusiak@gmail.com>; "blowdermilk@yahoo.com" <blowdermilk@yahoo.com>; "iris-info@longsgardens.com" <iris-info@longsgardens.com>; "zev@abrahampaiss.com" <zev@abrahampaiss.com>; "maryhey@earthlin k. net" <maryhey@earthlink.net>; "greg@groundlogic.com" <greg@groundlogic.com>; "gwendooiey@comcast.net" <gwendooley@comcest.net>; "clyda@q.com" <clyda@q.com>; Marcelee Gralapp <gralappm@comcast. net>; "pattistricklin@earthlink.net" <pattistricklin@earthlink.net>; "benfish1@comcast.net" <benfish1@comcast.net>; "judugwili@aol.com" <judugwill@aol.com>; "ollimaleya@aol.com" <ollimaleya@aol.com>; "barbarabronk@comcast. net" <barbarabronk@comcast.net>; "Cathy@growinggardens.org" <Cathy@growinggardens.org>; "Cathy@growinggardens.org" <Cathy@growinggardens.org>; "ramona@growinggardens.org" <ramona@growinggardens.org> Cc: "Gatza, Jean" <GatzaJ@bouldercolorado.gov>; "Guiler, Karl" <GuilerK@bouldercolorado.gov>; "jreich@bouldercounty.org" <jreich@bouldercounty.org> Sent: Wed, August 24, 2011 10:27:04 AM Subject: Community gardens Hello: The City of Boulder is looking to include Community Gardens within the zoning code as a permitted use in all zoning districts. Presently, the use is not specifically addressed in the zoning code. Consistent with recent policy changes to the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan, the city wishes to promote community gardening. However, to ensure that the use is operated in a manner that minimizes impacts to surrounding neighbors, new performance standards are proposed. Community Gardens would not require any special permits to operate, but managers of the gardens would have to be aware of the standards and comply with them. The proposed standards will be reviewed by Planning Board and may be adopted by City Council later this year. It is anticipated that Planning Board would review the proposed changes to the code in October. Once officially scheduled, an email notice will be sent. City Council would be scheduled afterwards. The reason you are getting this email is because you have previously expressed an interest in the proposed regulations after notice was sent out last year. Please see the attached ordinance and if desired, provide any comments you might have in an email back to me. Comments will be considered prior to Planning Board and will be sent to the board for their review. Thanks for your participation and input. Karl z Agenda Item 5D Page 34 of 38 ATTACHMENT C POTENTIAL REGULATIONS FOR COMMUNITY URBAN GARDENS - 4Present definitions- None. 4Problem statement- The City Land Use Code currently does not have definitions or principal uses relative to community urban gardens or have been established by-right on vacant, public, or private land. Staff is looking into drafting specific definitions for community gardens and allowing such uses as principal uses in all zoning districts, if considered appropriate. If necessary, standards and/or requirements will be created for such uses that will either be incorporated into the definitions or included in the Use Standards section of the code. Staff is looking to get input from the community gardening community as well as neighbors of existing community urban gardens before bringing draft regulations to Planning Board (potentially October) and City Council (potentially November and December). 4Possible new definitions/language- Community Urban Garden means a single piece of land or roof top of any size that is gardened collectively by a group ofpeople, either local residents and/or a non-profit organization, for the benefit of'the local neighborhood or community. A community garden may be a principal use on an undeveloped lot or an accessory use upon a developed lot. Community gardening does not include gardening for any commercial or agricultural enterprise. [Proposed] Comment: I don't understand the last sentence. What if a company/ton-profit wants to manage the garden and sell to Urban Garden- A private or public facilityfor° the growing and/or selling of fruits, the neighbors? flowers, vegetables, or ornamental plants by one or more persons. "Urban Garden " use includes associated buildings and structures incidental to or necessary for the use's operation, including but not limited to detached utility buildings for storage and irrigation systems1equlpment. [Denver]' - Comment: I'm not clear on the difference behwen Conmrututy Urban Garden and the Urban Garden. Garden- The raising of produce, for personal consumption, and not for resale as a commodity. [Denver) Community Gardens- shall consist oj'land used for the cultivation offruits, vegetables, plants, flower, or herbs by multiple users. The land shall be serviced by a water supply sutfjicient to support the cultivation practices used on the site. Such land may include available public land. [Model recommended language] -+Possible new code language- Community Urban Gardens: The following criteria apply to community urban garden uses: Agenda Item 5D Page 35 of 38 I . Soils testing recommended- Prior to operation of any community urban garden, testing of the soil is strongly recommended to avoid contamination issues. J_. `;',oil ciihane rncni - Eti-11 soil ftl_hancemetat on vublic lame . I , ilia of - - l Formatted: Bullets and Numbering I,IIt, ~clrrlF,fl I';~f~ilag(;rU. Beehives» ehibitPd Beehives aFe Piet permitted within - - ~ Formatted: Bullets and Numbering gffdenS. Retail use prohibited- Retail or whole sale of goods or products derived from the - j Formatted: Bullets and Numbering community urban garden use are prohibited. Surplus goods may be sold off the premises in a location permitted by the land use code. Use of Pesticide- No pesticides . II_ It uc-us: ,cl w arty <"sF ? r, Formatted: Bullets and Numbering ril`v 7 IS':ill ~t' Iole t red ' s( Aanagernerri Aps)roved t estii ide, drill Deleted:, insecticides or noxious wii:hotl-t specil7r.. apqproval orn the city s tote rated Peso Manager. substances which are prohibited by applicable law for fertilization or production of edible produce shall be i used on any community urban garden. Use of Fertilizer- Fertilizers and soil enhancers shall be used accol Ali rI table and anv potential fetilizer use must be reported to the city Ti_ntefrrat~" Formatted: Bullets and Numbering Manager at least one week prior to LSt:. All fertilizer applications roust be posted Formatted: No underline on site. with an aj3pI°OVed green ulf?Il. I tat cal OI' organic fertilizers are preferred to _yliilw,tk' ft fillizei'S. Use of Manure- Manure brought to a site must be well comNosbed and aged a - - Formatted: Bullets and Numbering minimum of six months and shall be kept dry, -a not allowed to imftce u13 - -Deleted: as practical. Impact on adjacent properties- The site is designed and maintained so that water - - - Formatted: Bullets and Numbering and fertilizer will not drain onto adjacent property. Water conservation- No sprinlder irrigation is permitted between the hours of - - Formatted: Bullets and Numbering I Oam and 6pm. Drip irrigation may be used at any time. A-' dr- a A4 a,Dagdr with srarcleris an cip1_[LopD_t-y will be resvonsible for water co=s and 1iy rrraintc narice 0f past yabout- Rrol1nd pr+nlri?r co, (tl 0nF , r - s. Mechanized Equipment- The use of hand tools and domestic gardening tools and - - Formatted: Bullets and Numbering equipment are encouraged. Operation of any mechanized equipment shall be limited to the hours of 8 am to 8 pm. Any dr rnup i.o_uublic ;i ldl- rI lF to °qU1.' f ftrI i- OA~aYl'+/ 0li1E'r' P~2t_'cjr;il i';I riiPC(_3Gtlvrty will be the responsibility of the (1)C _rrt l'/faIt ager'S to rFpalt - I_l . Maintenance- The community urban garden shall be manicured and maintained to - Formatted: Bullets and Numbering be orderly, including necessary watering, pruning, pest control, and removal of dead or diseased plant materials and shall otherwise be fully compliant with the provisions of Chapter 6, Health, Safety and Sanitation, B.R.C. 1981. Tools shall Agenda Item 5D Page 36 of 38 be returned to shed structures after use_and_pathways between plots must remain j Formatted: Highlight clear and weed-free. Comment: Iron public land, does the 7 2. Trash/Compost- Trash shall be stored in the rear of the property and removed t city provide the shed or do they? from the site rninitnally once r)t',, week o,' ~is Trash/compost Formatted: Bullets and Numbering J receptacles should be screened from adjacent properties, as practical, through -(-Deleted: ly landscaping or storage within structures. Community urban gardens west of Broadway veil install bear resistant trash/compost receptacles. Caawo,;t mwr,,r t,e { Deleted: are encouraged to ~_1?_} f~l _~)I_'O")i l.ll I i[l {Illltilflii t- ~7 ,,11;t1 il[i~~lC ~.~C _:'i!c;J. Garden leases- Community urban gardens are permitted on any lot provided that Formatted: Bullets and Numbering the applicable owner, public or private, has indicated written approval and the use is otherwise consistent with the provisions of this section. Operators of the gardens must provide evidence, upon request, that a lease agreement with the property owner has been secured and that liability insurance is held by the site user. Setbacks- Structures incidental to the community urban garden use, such as - Formatted: Bullets and Numbering J accessory storage or utility buildings, gazebos, trellis, or accessory greenhouse structures, are pennitted subject to compliance with all applicable accessory structure form and bulk standards in the applicable zone district per chapter 9-7, Form and Bulk Standards, B.R.C. 1981. i Individual or a collection of contiguous community urban gardens in excess of 200 members and/or 2 acres are subject to the following additional requirements: 1. Administrative Review- Large community urban gardens are subject to Conditional Use approval of an administrative review pursuant to section 9-2-2, "Administrative Review Procedures," B.R.C. 1981. 2. Site plan- A site plan shall be provided to the city as part of an administrative review pursuant to section 9-2-2, B.R.C. 1981 that shows the general location of plots, bike and vehicle parking, fencing, structures, etc. 3. Parking- Off-street parking is appropriate to the use and needs of the garden and the number of vehicles used by its users, regardless of whether it complies with other off-street requirements of this chapter. The parking spaces are not required to be surfaced with asphalt or paving. Bike parking is also encouraged. 4. Kitchens- Community urban gardens in excess of 2 acres may include incidental kitchens for the preparation of food grown on the premises, and where such food may be consumed on the premise or is delivered to an off site location for sale. 5. Management Plan- Site users must have an established set of operating rules addressing the governance of the garden, hours of operation, maintenance and security requirements and responsibilities; a garden coordinator to perform the Agenda Item 5D Page 37 of 38 coordinating role for the management of the community gardens; and must assign garden plots in a fair and impartial manner according to the operating rules established for that garden. The name and telephone number of the garden coordinator and a copy of the operating rules should be kept on file with the City Planning Department. 6. Public notice- The applicant is responsible for providing written notice of the request to all abutting property owners and provide evidence to the city that such owners were given notice and a map of which properties were noticed. Agenda Item 5D Page 38 of 38