The URL can be used to link to this page

Meeting Packet - Planning - 11/3/2011 CITY OF BOULDER PIX*P~ PLANNING BOARD MEETING AGENDA DATE: November 3, 2011 TIME: 6 p.m. PLACE: Council Chambers, 1777 Broadway 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The October 6 and 20 Planning Board minutes are scheduled for approval. 3. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION 4. DISCUSSION OF DISPOSITIONS, PLANNING BOARD CALL-UPS/CONTINUATIONS A. Floodplain Development Permit: LUR2011-00067 and Wetland Permit #LUR2011-00068, Arrow Wood Park Bridge Replacement B. Floodplain Development Permit: LUR2011-00063, Boulder Community Hospital OSB IV C. Use Review: LUR2011-00042, Independent Motors, 5440 Arapahoe Road D. Use Review: LUR2011-00064, Proposal to create a 6,732 square foot indoor athletic facility in existing tenant space in IG zone with hours of operation from 6:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m., seven days per week. 5. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS A. Item Cancelled: 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%. 6. MATTERS FROM THE PLANNING BOARD, PLANNING DIRECTOR, AND CITY ATTORNEY A. 2012 Board and Commission Questions for Review 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.eov, at the Boulder Public Main Library's Reference Desk. or at the Plamring and Development Services office reception area, located at 1739 Broadway. third floor. 1 CITY OF BOULDER PLANNING BOARD MEETING GUIDELINES CALL TO ORDER The Board must have a quorum (four members present) before the meeting can be called to order. AGENDA The Board may rearrange the order of the Agenda or delete items for good cause. The Board may not add items requiring public notice. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION The public is welcome to address the Board (3 minutes* maximum per speaker) during the Public Participation portion of the meeting regarding any item not scheduled for a public hearing. The only items scheduled for a public hearing are those listed under the category PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS on the Agenda. Any exhibits introduced into the record at this time must be provided in quantities of ten (10) to the Board Secretary for distribution to the Board and admission into the record. DISCUSSION AND STUDY SESSION ITEMS Discussion and study session items do not require motions of approval or reconmiendation. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS A Public Hearing item requires a motion and a vote. The general format for hearing of an action item is as follows: 1. Presentations a. Staff presentation (5 minutes maximum*) b. Applicant presentation (15 minute maximum*). Any exhibits introduced into the record at this time must be provided in quantities of ten (10) to the Board Secretary for distribution to the Board and admission into the record. c. Planning Board questioning of staff or applicant for information only. 2. Public Hearing Each speaker will be allowed an oral presentation (3 rnninnutes maximum*). All speakers wishing to pool their time must be present, and time allotted will be determined by the Chair. No pooled time presentation will be pennitted to exceed ten minutes total. • Time remaining is presented by a Green blinking light that means one minute remains, a Yellow light means 30 seconds remain, and a Red light and beep means time has expired. • Speakers should introduce themselves, giving name and address. If officially representing a group, homeowners' association, etc., please state that for the record as well. • Speakers are requested not to repeat items addressed by previous speakers other than to express points of agreement or disagreement. Refrain from reading long documents, and summarize continents wherever possible. Long documents may be submitted and will become a part of the official record. • Speakers should address the Land Use Regulation criteria and, if possible, reference the rules that the Board uses to decide a case. • Any exhibits introduced into the record at the hearing must be provided in quantities of ten (10) to the Secretary for distribution to the Board and admission into the record. • Citizens can send a letter to the Planning staff at 1739 Broadway, Boulder, CO 80302, two weeks before the Planning Board meeting, to be included in the Board packet. Correspondence received after this time will be distributed at the Board meeting. 3. Board Action a. Board motion. Motions may take any number of forms. With regard to a specific development proposal, the motion generally is to either approve the project (with or without conditions), to deny it, or to continue the matter to a date certain (generally in order to obtain additional information). b. Board discussion. This is undertaken entirely by members of the Board. The applicant, members of the public or city staff participate only if called upon by the Chair. c. Board action (the vote). All affirmative vote of at least four members of the Board is required to pass a motion approving any action. If the vote taken results in either a tie, a vote of three to two, or a vote of three to one in favor of approval, the applicant shall be automatically allowed a rehearing upon requesting the same in writing within seven days. MATTERS FROM THE PLANNING BOARD, DIRECTOR, AND CITY ATTORNEY Any Planning Board member, the Planning Director, or the City Attorney may introduce before the Board matters which are not included in the formal agenda. ADJOURNMENT The Board's goal is that regular meetings adjourn by 10:30 p.m. and that study sessions adjourn by 10:00 p.m. Agenda items will not be commenced after 10:00 p.m. except by majority vote of Board members present. *The Chan may lengthen or shorten the time allotted as appropriate. If the allotted time is exceeded, the Chair may request that the speaker conclude his or her connuents. 2 CITY OF BOULDER PLANNING BOARD ACTION MINUTES October 6, 2011 1777 Broadway, Council Chambers A permanent set of these minutes and a tape recording (maintained for a period of seven years) are retained in Central Records (telephone: 303-441-3043). Minutes and streaming audio are also available on the web at: http:/hvww.bouldercolorado.gov/ PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Aaron Brockett Bill Holicky Willa Johnson Tim Plass Danica Powell Andrew Shoemaker, Chair Mary Young STAFF PRESENT: David Gehr, Assistant City Attorney Charles Ferro, Land Use Review Manager Karl Guiler, Senior Planner Jessica Vaughn, Planner I Chandler Van Schaack, Associate Planner Heidi Schumm, Civil Engineer I 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 D. Powell, the Planning Board approved 5-0, with 1 absent (B. Holicky), 1 abstain (W. Johnson), the September 15 Planning Board minutes, as amended. 3. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION 1. Peter Richards, 470 University - Provided a neighborhood perspective of the University Hill area projects, such as the Tavern and the theatre, the vacancies and the community's responses to the projects. 4. DISCUSSION OF DISPOSITIONS, PLANNING BOARD CALL-UPS 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. 3 The board did not call these items up. 5. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS A. Item was Postponed - 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. 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%. Mike Boyers, the applicant, requested of the board to postpone the item. On a motion by W. Johnson, seconded by A. Shoemaker, the Planning Board approved 7-0, to accept the postponement of the item to a future date. C. Public hearing to consider a Concept Plan entitled Near North Apartments, LUR2011-00049, 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. Staff Presentation K. Guiler presented the item to the board. Applicant Presentation Scott Holton, Principle of Element Properties presented the item to the board. Public Hearing 1. Tom Hand, 4869 Darwin Ct. - Architect and representative for 2600 9t' Street has concerns about the safety of 9th Street due misaligned streets and alleys and the extensive use by pedestrians, bikes and cars using it as an alterative to Broadway. He noted that the originally proposed design makes the street more hazardous. The neighbors are in agreement that the east/west access to 9th Street definitely should not be allowed, but the group does support the new design submitted by the applicant. 2. Steve Lebang, 443 Alpine - Spoke in support of the project with the alternative plan that does not include access to 9th Street. He also suggested that there should be a 4-way stop sign to address the intersection. 3. Mark Hunter, 2108 S. Coffman, St., Longmont - Represents the tenant of 1000 Alpine. He has concern about the interim step due to the lack of available medical space. In addition, the interim parking will affect the patients coming to the medical offices. 4 Board Discussion BVCP Policies: General land use The board would like to better understand the hospital's goals and plans for the existing medical components of the building, as well as the timing for the future east campus construction. The board requested to meet with the hospital, ideally pre-approval, to get and give input on this project. The board also felt that this part of town is transit rich, so a residential project like this is a good thing, but the key will be to make it work. Access and connection Most of the board felt that access on l0a' Street will be better, with a pedestrian link to 01 Street. But it was felt that the project will need a strong mid-block connection to break up the superblock of 101h Street. On a motion by T. Plass, seconded by W. Johnson, the Planning Board approved 7-0, to reopen the public hearing to take additional comments. Public Hearing 1. Eric Hoddes, PhD, 300 Oakwood Pl. - Manages the Sleep Center located at 1000 Alpine. His office is located within yards of the new construction project. He cited that the lease for the building says the owner cannot disrupt business, but this project will interfere with their business and potentially have them loose their accreditation. 2. Bridget Tawa, 1000 Alpine #260 - Office manager for Boulder Family Medicine - The project is going to interfere with the building's businesses, to include parking. She asked for the building to continue being a medical building and for construction begin only after the building if vacant. She cited concerns for the noise, handicap safety due to the construction and noted that the tenants were not informed of the project. 3. Dr George Garmamy, 1000 Alpine #180 - He is a 30 year tenant of the building and runs the only neurological project in Colorado. He cited concerns for the parking reduction due to the fact their patients are in high need, often wheelchair bound, and other disabilities they need to get to the medical offices. He asked the board and the applicant to consider the impact. Site and building design In summary, the board felt it was too early to talk about building design. The board cited various concerns that will be noted at Site Review, such as the importance of paying attention to grade, open space and the on-site detention. Most liked the green roof, but there was some concern about its ability to function. Board comments varied from Boulder being the place to experiment with such a concept to it could be good for marking and concern for its functionality. There were varied reactions to the podium parking concept. Parking Reduction/Phased-in construction The board favored parking reductions to various degrees, but there was concern for how it may affect the area medical offices. There were also issues with car storage during the transition. From a transit perspective, it was felt that this project is located in a great area to support a carless lifestyle due to the vicinity amenities. The board requested feedback about parking for similar projects. In regards to the phased-in construction, the board felt that if there is a phased in approach, the applicant will need to be cognizant of temporary parking shortfalls and how to address it. 5 Height modifications The board was open to height modifications under the right circumstances and consistent with previous comments. 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. Staff Presentation K. Guiler presented the item to the board. Public Hearing 2. Catherine Long Gates - Owner of Longs Gardens and hosts the Hawthorne Community Gardens on her property. She commented that community gardens should be conditional use and asked for allowed use in all agricultural areas. She recommended that water conservation be suggestion, but not tell people how to garden. And the code already addresses noise, so this doesn't need to be more restrictive. Overall, she asked for the board to go with minimal restrictions and change, as needed vs. starting restrictive. 3. Mark Willard, 4586 7th Street - He spoke to the raw manure restrictions, as it is free and the best for organic gardens. He cited prices of all other amendments being cost prohibitive. He suggested restricting seasonally and turned in within x number of days, since it is appropriate to the seasonal farming, such as October to March. 4. Cynthia Girard - She is a community gardener and asked for minimal ordinance to sustain community gardening. She felt the trash ordinance as appropriate and asked to remove free amendments like raw manure. Board Discussion A. Brockett expressed concern that adding conditional use regulations will make gardens more restrictive than they are now and would prefer to allow the current gardens to function as they have thus far. A. Shoemaker likes that the code is outlined on two pages for ease of use, likes adding seasonal restrictions for watering and manure, and feels these regulations set minimal standards for gardens to operate in neighborhoods. M. Young agrees with A. Brockett. She is concerned this ordinance creates double standards for community gardeners versus private home gardeners. She supports the ordnance but wants the performance standards left to garden managers, as they currently are. B. Holicky felt the original wording regarding watering was correct to promote conservation and won't support the motion if the manure aspect is left, as it isn't appropriate for urban community gardens due to the scale. M. Young felt that is a double standard. A. Shoemaker noted that the mechanized gardening equipment limitation is appropriate, however A. Brockett noted that gardeners at HOA landscaping using mechanized gardening 6 equipment is currently acceptable within the city, so felt also creates a double standard for gardeners. On a motion by W. Johnson, seconded by M. Young, the Planning Board approved 4-3 (Opposed B. Holicky, A. Shoemaker, and T. Plass) to recommend to the City Council an ordinance that adds Community Gardens as a permitted use within all zoning districts and establishes related performance standards, with the following • Page 1, line 21, recommend to change the allowed use table to include use in an agriculture zone; • Page 2, paragraph 2, with regards use of to manure: no person shall use manure other than aged manure (with actual language to be determined by s~f); • Page 2, paragraph 4, recommend to delete paragraph on water conservation; • Page 2, 6, recommend to delete the last sentence of regarding tools and be silent on the issue of tool storage; A. Brockett asked for a friendly amendment for a 9 am start. W. Johnson accepted the friendly amendment. B. Holicky is not supporting the motion because it is not appropriate to subject a residential neighborhood to the large impacts the scale community gardens creates from the use of raw manure and noise from mechanized equipment. A. Shoemaker isn't supporting the motion as drafted due to the water conservation being contrary and inconsistent with what has been discussed previously by the board and the goals of the city. T. Plass isn't supporting the motion because he wants stricter water conservation measures. 7. MATTERS FROM THE PLANNING BOARD, PLANNING DIRECTOR, AND CITY ATTORNEY A. D. Driskell provided an overview of: a. the October 20th agenda- Depot Square and Breweries Code (B. Holicky and A. Shoemaker will recuse) b. Chautauqua Stewardship Framework - a consulting firm has been retained for public process to design scope and schedule. c. October 19 - Shared Streets Workshop. M. Young 1-4:30 workshop. All board members invited to 5:30-8:30 pm d. BVCP - county approved all except for planning reserve policies and process. e. 2012 Budget 8. DEBRIEVAGENDA CHECK 7 9. ADJOURNMENT The Planning Board adjourned the meeting at 9:33 p.m. APPROVED BY Board Chair DATE s CITY OF BOULDER PLANNING BOARD ACTION MINUTES October 20, 2011 1777 Broadway, Council Chambers A permanent set of these minutes and a tape recording (maintained for a period of seven years) are retained in Central Records (telephone: 303-441-3043). Minutes and streaming audio are also available on the web at: http:/hvww.bouldercolorado.gov/ PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Aaron Brockett Bill Holicky Willa Williford (formerly Johnson) Tim Plass Danica Powell Andrew Shoemaker, Chair Mary Young STAFF PRESENT: David Driskell, Executive Director of Community Planning & Sustainability Clay Douglas, Assistant City Attorney Susan Richstone, Comprehensive Planning Manager Charles Ferro, Land Use Review Manager Elaine McLaughlin, Senior Planner Bev Johnson, Planner II Jessica Vaughn, Planner I 40 Heidi Schumm, Civil Engineer I Debbie Fox, Administrative Specialist III Of TRACK 1 1. CALL TO ORDER Chair, A. Shoemaker, declared a quorum at 6:05 p.m. and the following business was conducted. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 3. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION 4. DISCUSSION OF DISPOSITIONS, PLANNING BOARD CALL-UPS A. Subdivision of the property located at 1685 38th Street, TEC2011-00004. 1685 38th Street The board did not call this item up. 5. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS A. Site Review and Preliminary Plat for RTD bus rapid transit station, 78 permanently affordable housing units, 390 space parking structure, a 140 room hotel and renovation and repurposing of historic depot building, along with associated plaza space and public arts display. 9 1 Applicant / Owner: Scott Pedersen/Regional Transportation District (RTD) and City of Boulder W. Williford was recused from item 5A. Staff Presentation E. McLaughlin presented the item to the board. Applicant Presentation Scott Pederson, owner of the Pederson Development Company, presented the item to the board. Public Hearing No one from the public spoke to the board. Board Discussion Building Architecture Overall, the board was pleased with the changes made since concept plan. The board had mixed reaction to the curtain wall as it currently exists, with issues cited with the environmental and durability concerns of the current proposed materials. The board is comfortable with staff dealing with the changes at a later step in the process. There was some concern with the ground level architectural design, but in general there was an acceptance of how it is currently proposed. Landscaping Some board members felt the plaza needs a better definition of place and more integration of public art to provide shade for seating and drawn the public to the area. On a motion by M. Young, seconded by D. Powell, the Planning Board approved 6-0, (W. Williford recused) Site and Use Review application LUR2011-00046 and Preliminary Plat application LUR2011-00045 based on the findings provided within the memorandum dated October 20, 2011 and with the following conditions of approval and adding a recommendation that the Applicant shall add increased detail at the pedestrian level on the architectural plans and to integrate greater landscape and shade opportunities in the plaza to the extent practical: CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Conditions of Site Review Approval: 1. The Applicant shall be responsible for ensuring that the development shall be in compliance with all approved plans dated Oct. 10, 2011 on file in the City of Boulder Planning Department, except to the extent that the development may be modified by the conditions of approval. 2. Prior to a building permit application, the Applicant shall submit a Technical Document Review application for the following items, subject to the review and approval of the City Manager: 10 2 a. Final architectural plans, including materials and colors, to insure compliance with the intent of this approval and compatibility with the surrounding area. The architectural intent and quality shown on the elevation plans dated Oct. 10, 2011 is acceptable. Planning staff will review plans to assure that the architectural intent and quality is implemented throughout the process. 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/drainage report and plan meeting the City of Boulder Design and Construction Standards, which include information regarding the groundwater conditions (geotechnical report, soil borings, etc.) on the Property, discharge points for perimeter drainage systems and methods that will be used to protect the existing wetland areas. e. Final transportation plans meeting the City of Boulder Design and Construction Standards and CDOT Access Code Standards, for all transportation improvements. These plans must include, but are not limited to: Junction Place plan and profile drawings, Junction Place 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. In addition to all other requirements, the Applicant shall provide final drawings that depict: i. A multi-way boulevard style access plan as provided by the city, that provides for a shared pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicular access system along the Pearl Parkway frontage; or ii. An access plan that includes on-street parking that is consistent with the street section requirements for Pearl Parkway that are described in the Transit Village Area Plan. f. A detailed landscape plan, including size, quantity, and type of plants existing and proposed; type and quality of non-living landscaping materials; any public art (to address safety and circulation); 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. 11 3 i. A sign program to insure compliance with the intent of this approval and the requirements of section 9-9-21, B.R.C. 1981. 3. Prior to Building Permit application the proposed outdoor seating area, as shown on the approved plans, that projects into the Lot 1 shall be approved as a right-of-way lease pursuant to section 8-6-6, B.R.C. 1981. 4. Prior to a building permit application, the Applicant shall submit a Technical Document Review application for a Final Plat, subject to the review and approval of the City Manager and execute a subdivision agreement meeting the requirements of chapter 9-12, "Subdivision," B.R.C. 1981 and which provides for the following: a. The construction of all public improvements necessary to serve the development. b. The Applicant shall dedicate to the City all of the necessary right of way, including without limitation the right of way for Pearl Parkway and Junction Place and all easements needed to the property with all transportation and utility services necessary to serve the development c. The Applicant shall construct the following public improvements, at no cost to the City and may receive reimbursement, for part or all of the cost of such improvements shown on the approved preliminary engineering plans dated Oct. 10, 2011. Any reimbursement arrangement shall be done in compliance with Chapter 9-12, "Subdivision," as part of a final plat and subdivision agreement approval. i. The off-site improvements shall include Junction Place (including water, storm sewer, sanitary sewer and dry utilities) from Pearl Parkway to the north side of the depot/parking structure access roadway for the full east half of roadway to the ROW limits, and the west half to the back of curb as shown on the project plans. This cross section north of the bus ramp is currently being refined. The roadway construction shall be concrete to the north side of the RTD bus access ramp; ii. The Applicant shall pay the full cost of the multi-use path connection at the northeast corner of the Property; iii. The Applicant shall pay its pro rata share of the costs of the bridge that crosses over Goose Creek (which includes additional supporting path connections) near the northern edge of the Property. The Applicant's pro rata share estimated at the time of this approval is two percent; iv. The Applicant shall pay its pro-rata share for street lights and signalization at the Pearl Parkway - Junction Place intersection. The 12 4 Applicant's pro rata share estimated at the time of this approval is twenty-five percent; and v. The Applicant will be responsible for providing the City with the value of the public improvements, including construction and design, associated with the standard cross-section which the Applicant would have been required to build in the Transit Village Area Plan for Pearl Parkway, also including accommodation for parking that supports the development. The City will be responsible for any incremental cost associated with upgrading the public improvements to a multi-way boulevard style access plan. The Applicant will also be responsible for the ROW/easement dedication for these improvements. Conditions of Use Review Approval for a Restaurant with Outdoor Seating within the Depot Building: 1. The Applicant shall be responsible for ensuring that the development shall be in compliance with all approved plans dated Oct. 10, 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. Size of the approved interior use shall be limited to 3,000 square feet. b. Size of the approved exterior use shall be limited to 1,800 square feet. c. The approved interior use shall be closed from 2:00 a.m. to 8:00 a.m., seven days per week. d. The approved patio use shall be closed from 12:00 a.m. to 8:00 a.m. seven days per week. e. Trash and bottles shall not be removed to outside trash containers between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m. 2. The Applicant shall not expand or modify the approved use, except pursuant to subsection 9-2-15(h), B.R.C. 1981. Conditions of Use Review Approval for a Restaurant or Tavern with Outdoor Seating within the Hotel: 1. The Applicant shall be responsible for ensuring that the development shall be in compliance with all approved plans dated Oct. 10, 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: 13 5 a. Size of the approved interior use shall be limited to 3,000 square feet. b. Size of the approved exterior use shall be limited to 1,800 square feet. c. The approved interior use shall be closed from 2:00 a.m. to 8:00 a.m., seven days per week. d. The approved patio use shall be closed from 12:00 a.m. to 8:00 a.m. seven days per week. e. Trash and bottles shall not be removed to outside trash containers between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m. 2. The Applicant shall not expand or modify the approved use, except pursuant to subsection 9-2-15(h), B.R.C. 1981. B. Public hearing and recommendation to City Council on proposed amendments to Title 9, "Land Use Code", B.R.C. 1981, regarding use standards and for breweries, brewpubs, distilleries and wineries. A. Shoemaker and D. Powell recused themselves from 5B item due to the appearance of impropriety since their children attend Boulder Country Day. B. Holicky also recused due to the fact he his client will be immediately affected by the outcome of item 5B. W. Williford joined the meeting. 4e Staff Presentation B. Johnson presented the item to the board. je Public Hearing 1. Clif Harold, 2440 Pearl Street. Executive Director of the Boulder Economic Council. He spoke in support the staff recommendation and noted that the code change is common sense and necessary for businesses that are vital to Boulder's economy - natural food and tourism. 2. Mike Sheilds, 4820 Nautilus Ct, pooled time with Eric Shannon, 700 Yellow Pine, and Tony Eam Law, 4724 Bella Vista Drive - Head of School for Boulder Country Day (BCD). He outlined the school's history and mission and implored the board to consider a 500 ft. setback for these types of businesses operating near schools to keep the children safe. 3. Buddy Ketchner, 1801 13th Street, pooled time with Stephen Katke, 5637 Rim Rock Court and Cindi Hart, 4464 Hogan Ct - On the board of BCD. He asked the board to close loophole of 500 ft. of selling liquor from schools for the safety of the children. 4. Joe Brooker, 9470 Owl Lane, pooled time with Ilena Sica, 1001 North Street, and Eugenie Holbrook, 912 Juniper Ave - Chairman of the BCD board. He also asked to close loophole of 500 ft. of selling liquor from schools to give buffer. He cited the Thunderbird issue as a possibility for another loophole during Site Review, if this isn't added in the code. He also asked for the 500 ft. measurement be made from the 14 6 school's property boundary and that it should include tap rooms and bars. He asked to sit down with staff to help craft proper language. 5. Peter Weber, Coburn, 6318 Jay Road - Architect for the Avery Brewery project. He supports the ordinance and spoke to the fact there aren't a lot of places to eat in Gunbarrel. He also supports staff recommendation for having items like this dealt with at the site review level. He also noted the 500 ft. is specific to the restaurant, not taprooms. 6. Steve Breezley, 370 Rendezvous - Director of Operations for Avery Brewery. He spoke on Adam Avery's behalf and asked for the code change because food helps control liquor consumption in a responsible manner. Avery supports staff recommendation. 7. Matt Cutter, 1501 Lee Hill #20 - Founder of Upslope Brewing. He explained how they use food trucks to help provide food for their patrons and that this code change will help reduce liability, so he supports the staff recommendation. 8. Jeff Brown, 4168 Amber Place - President of Boulder Beer. He agrees with the need for the opportunity and option to provide food for patrons. He spoke of the concern for the land use code changes that could change his neighborhood from Industrial to Mixed Use with the new development at Pearl and 30t1' 9. Patrick Perrin, 660 Arapahoe - Council for Avery Brewery. He supports staff recommendation for code change, does not support the 500 ft. restriction. The restriction would prohibit the food from being 500 ft., not the tap room or brewing elements. He noted that the 500 ft. rule applies for a city issued license and discretionary whether to apply, eliminate or reduce the rule. 10. Katherine Wittenberg, 1790 Baseline Road -Parent of student at BCD. She reemphasized that the children are across the street from a brewery and restaurant and implored the board to keep the 500 ft. rule. Board Discussion The board addressed the following questions, as posed by staff: 1) Does the board support the proposed definitions for breweries, brewpubs, distilleries, tap rooms, tasting rooms and wineries? The board agreed unanimously. 2) Does the board support the proposed change to the use table? The board agreed unanimously. 3) Does the board support the proposed use standards for restaurants, breweries, wineries and distilleries? W. Williford asked for item 3.5A to be amended with "1000 sq. or greater" per the potential discrepancy in the proposed definitions and proposed ordinance. The City Attorney responded that staff will review and amend that discrepancy, if needed. T. Plass would like staff to consider whether there should be a maximum size, with additional requirements, as larger restaurants will have larger impacts. A. Brockett agreed 15 7 and suggested a graded percentage as the square footages got larger. W. Williford would support that suggestion. 4) 4. Does the board support an additional use standard to require a 500 ft. restaurant set back from schools? A. Brockett understands where the parents of Boulder Country Day are coming from, but the intersection of state liquor law and local authority does not lend itself well to the 500 ft. setback in this circumstance. He noted that the potential source of problem is the tap room/tasting room, so it doesn't seem right to place greater restriction than what the state currently regulates. Therefore he would not support the additional restriction. T. Plass agreed. He also noted that since the rule is in regards to restaurants with food and not to the liquor in the tasting room, it this does not seem to be appropriate to limit the loop hole that was cited during the public hearing. W. Williford agreed with what has been said thus far and is disinclined to put restrictions on restaurants. She encouraged BCD to continue to work with Avery through the other regulatory avenues. She will support the staff recommendation. M. Young also agreed with what has been stated and will support the city's desire to support responsible drinking, therefore will support the staff recommendation. T. Plass noted that the potential abuses would likely happen when school is not in session. He did have concerns about the broader implications in regards to the concentration of these facilities in a given area, as well with the size limitations. He questioned what the public transit will be for facilities in industrial areas, recommended getting the police involved for the issues regarding large restaurants/large taprooms and suggested that staff go the to Beverage License Authority to get their input on the larger implications. He does agree that serving food with liquor is good and also agreed with speaker from Boulder Economic Council. A. Brockett noted that the compatibility issue with Avery Brewery Concept Plan and BCD will be closely reviewed when it come through in December. On a motion by W. Williford, seconded by A. Brockett, the Planning Board approved 4-0, (B. Holicky, D. Powell and A. Shoemaker recused) to recommend to City Council the approval of the proposed amendments to Title 9, "Land Use Code", B.R.C. 1981, regarding definitions and use standards for breweries, brewpubs, distilleries and wineries, per the staff memorandum. T. Plass asked if the board agreed that the staff be directed to review the implications he outlined under board discussion. 7. MATTERS FROM THE PLANNING BOARD, PLANNING DIRECTOR, AND CITY ATTORNEY 8. DEBRIEF/AGENDA CHECK 9. ADJOURNMENT The Planning Board adjourned the meeting at 8:32 p.m. 16 8 APPROVED BY Board Chair DATE 17 9 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Board FROM: Katie Knapp, Floodplain and Wetlands Administrator DATE: October 20, 2011 SUBJECT: Call Up Item: Arrow Wood Park Bridge Replacement Floodplain Development Permit (LUR2011-00067) Wetland Permit (LUR2011-00068) This decision may be called up before Planning Board on or before November 3, 2011 A floodplain development permit and a wetland permit were approved by Planning and Development staff on October 19, 2011 for the replacement of a pedestrian bridge over Skunk Creek at Arrow Wood Park. The proposed project is located at Arrow Wood Park which is directly north of the intersection of Arrow Wood Lane and 321'd Street. The proposed improvements include: • removing the existing pedestrian bridge and replacing it with a new concrete bridge • regrading the side slopes of the channel in the vicinity of the bridge and providing soil rip-rap slope protection • restoring disturbed areas by planting trees, shrubs and a native seed mix. The proposed work will be within the flood conveyance zone of Skunk Creek. The low chord of the bridge structure will be located above the 100-year flood water elevation. The applicant has demonstrated that the project will not adversely impact the floodplain or cause a rise in the floodwater elevation during the 100-year flood event. A copy of the floodplain development permit is attached. The proposed project will include excavation and grading within the wetland and wetland buffer areas in order to construct the new bridge abutments and provide stream bank protection. Impacts to the wetland and wetland buffer areas will be minimized and best management practices will be utilized during construction. Disturbed areas will be restored with native plants. The project will result in 0.10 acres of wetland impacts and 1.70 acres of wetland buffer impacts. A copy of the wetland permit is attached. The floodplain development permit and wetland permit were approved by Planning and Development Services staff on October 19, 2011 and the decision may be called up before Planning Board on or before November 3, 2011. There is one Planning Board meeting within the 14 day call up period on November 3, 2011. 18 Agenda Item 4A Page 1 of 4 Questions about the project or decision should be directed to the Case Manager, Katie Knapp at 303-441-3273 or by e-mail at knappk(c~bouldercolorado.gov. Attachments: A. Floodplain Development Permit B. Wetland Permit 19 Agenda Item 4A Page 2 of 4 Attachment A CITY OF BOULDER Planning and Development Services 1739 Broadway, Third Floor • P.O. Box 791, Boulder, CO 80306-0791 phone 303-441-1880 • fax 303-441-4241 • web boulderplandevelop.net Land Use Review Floodplain Development Permit Date Issued: October 19, 2011 Expiration Date: October 19, 2014 (Pursuant to Subsection 9-3-6(e), B.R.C. 1981) Permit Number: LUR2011-00067 Contact Information JOHN COGDILL 5200 EAST PEARL STREET BOULDER, CO 80301 Project Information Location: 0 30TH ST Legal Description: OUTLOT A & S PT LOTS 1 & 2 AUR ORA TERRACE 1 & OUTLOTS A & B BASELINE 4 E AURORA Description of Work: Floodplain Development permit to replace an existing pedestrian bridge in Arrow Wood Park over Skunk Creek. Type of Floodplain Permit: Floodplain Review W/ Analysis Creek Name: Flood Protection Elevation: Not applicable Conditions of Approval The proposed project/activity is approved on the basis that it satisfies applicable requirements of Chapter 9-3-3, "Floodplain Regulations," Boulder Revised Code 1981. Other floodplain requirements as set forth in Chapter 9-3-3 which are not specifically outlined in the conditions of approval below remain applicable to this project/activity. Improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the plans submitted as part of the floodplain development permit application. The applicant shall confirm in writing that all improvements have been completed in conformance with this Floodplain Development Permit. The applicant shall obtain a site inspection and approval from the City of Boulder Floodplain and Wetlands Administrator upon completion of the project. Prior to scheduling the final inspection, the applicant must submit to the City, final as-built survey information that matches the proposed design. The survey shall be prepared by a Colorado licensed land surveyor and reviewed by a Colorado registered professional engineer to certify compliance with the floodplain development permit. Inspections To schedule an inspection, call 303-441-3280 and refer to your permit number (LUR2011-00067). Final Floodplain Inspection 20 Agenda Item 4A Page 3 of 4 Attachment B CITY OF BOULDER A 1 Planning and Development Services 1739 Broadway, Third Floor • P.O. Box 791, Boulder, CO 80306-0791 phone 303-441-1880 • fax 303-441-4241 • web boulderplandevelop.net Wetland Permit Date Issued: 10/19/2011 Expiration Date: October 18, 2014 (Pursuant to Subsection 9-3-9(k), B.R.C. 1981) Permit Number: LUR2011-00068 Contact Information JOHN COGDILL 5200 EAST PEARL STREET BOULDER, CO 80301 Project Information Location: 0 30TH ST Legal Description: OUTLOT A & S PT LOTS 1 & 2 AUR ORA TERRACE 1 & OUTLOTS A & B BASELINE 4 E AURORA Description of Work: Wetland permit to replace an existing pedestrian bridge in Arrow Wood Park over Skunk Creek. Conditions of Approval The proposed project/activity is approved on the basis that it satisfies applicable requirements of Chapter 9-3-9, "Wetlands Protection," Boulder Revised Code 1981. Other wetland requirements as set forth in Chapter 9-3-9 which are not specifically outlined in the conditions of approval below remain applicable to this project/activity. The applicant shall obtain a site inspection and approval from the City of Boulder Floodplain and Wetlands Administrator upon completion of the project. Best management practices shall be applied to all phases of the project and shall conform to the requirements of the "City of Boulder Wetlands Protection Program: Best Management Practices" adopted July, 1995; and "City of Boulder Wetlands Protection Program: Best Management Practices - Revegetation Rules" adopted July, 1998. The project site shall be monitored annually for three years. Monitoring reports shall be submitted to the city of Boulder Planning and Development Services prior to September 1st of each year. If it is determined that the restoration is not successful, then corrective measures will need to be established and implemented to ensure a successful project. A mitigation monitoring fee of $650 per year will be due at permit issuance. Inspections To schedule an inspection, call 303-441-3280 and refer to your permit number (LUR2011-00068). Wetland Mitigation Inspection Wetland Mitigation 2nd Year Wetland Mitigation 3rd Year Final Wetland Mitigation Insp 21 Agenda Item 4A Page 4 of 4 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Board FROM: Katie Knapp, Floodplain and Wetlands Administrator DATE: October 20, 2011 SUBJECT: Call Up Item: Boulder Community Hospital OSB IV Floodplain Development Permit (LUR2011-00063) This decision may be called up before Planning Board on or before November 3, 2011 A floodplain development permit was approved by Planning and Development staff on October 19, 2011 for the construction of a new Outpatient Services Building (OSB-IV) at the Boulder Community Hospital. The proposed project is located at the foothills campus of the Boulder Community Hospital at 4747 Arapahoe. The new building is proposed to be constructed at the location of the existing parking lot to the west of the existing hospital structure. The proposed structure will be partially within the flood conveyance zone of Boulder Creek. Prior to the construction of the existing hospital building, the project site was filled with soil so that the ground surface elevation at the location of the proposed building is currently above the base flood elevation of the 100-year flood event. The applicant has demonstrated that the project will not adversely impact the floodplain or cause a rise in the floodwater elevation during the 100-year flood event. A copy of the floodplain development permit is attached. The floodplain development permit was approved by Planning and Development Services staff on October 19, 2011 and the decision may be called up before Planning Board on or before November 3, 2011. There is one Planning Board meeting within the 14 day call up period on November 3, 2011. Questions about the project or decision should be directed to the Case Manager, Katie Knapp at 303-441-3273 or by e-mail at knappk(a)bouldercolorado.gov. Attachments: A. Floodplain Development Permit 22 Agenda Item 4B Page 1 of 3 Attachment A CITY OF BOULDER Planning and Development Services 1739 Broadway, Third Floor • P.O. Box 791, Boulder, CO 80306-0791 phone 303-441-1880 • fax 303-441-4241 • web boulderplandevelop.net Land Use Review Floodplain Development Permit Date Issued: October 19, 2011 Expiration Date: October 19, 2014 (Pursuant to Subsection 9-3-6(e), B.R.C. 1981) Permit Number: LUR2011-00063 Contact Information JAMES LENHART 1426 PEARL #300 BOULDER, CO 80302 303-499-7795 Project Information Location: 4747 ARAPAHOE AV Legal Description: TRIANGULAR PT SEC 28-1 N-70 N O F ARAPAHOE AVE LESS FOOTHILLS MEDICAL BLDG & LESS TABLE MESA MEDICAL BLDG CONDOS & LESS TE BO MEDICAL PAVILION BLDG CONDO S 16.18 AC M/L LAND 95% EXEMPT & IMPS 100% EXEMPT PER DPT FI Description of Work: FLOODPLAIN DEVELOPMENT PERMIT: Construction of new outpatient services building (OSB-IV) west of the existing hospital, over an existing surface parking lot. Type of Floodplain Permit: Floodplain Review W/O Analysis Creek Name: Boulder Flood Protection Elevation: 5,235 Conditions of Approval The proposed project/activity is approved on the basis that it satisfies applicable requirements of Chapter 9-3-3, "Floodplain Regulations," Boulder Revised Code 1981. Other floodplain requirements as set forth in Chapter 9-3-3 which are not specifically outlined in the conditions of approval below remain applicable to this project/activity. The applicant shall obtain a site inspection and approval from the City of Boulder Floodplain and Wetlands Administrator upon completion of the project. The applicant shall confirm in writing that all improvements have been completed in conformance with this Floodplain Development Permit. As required by section 9-3-3(a)(16) of the Boulder Revised Code, 1981 the improvements must be constructed with all electrical, heating, ventilation, plumbing, and air conditioning equipment and other service facilities designed and located so as to prevent water from entering or accumulating within the components during conditions of flooding. Prior to final inspection and issuance of a certificate of occupancy, the applicant shall submit a Floodprofing Certificate, prepared by a Colorado registered professional engineer, certifying that the structure has been floodproofed to the required flood protection elevation. No Certificate of Occupancy will be issued for any structure where this provision has not been satisfied. Prior to scheduling the framing inspection, the applicant shall submit a rought elevation certificate to the Planning and Development Services Center to verify that the finished floor elevation of the structure will conform with the flood protection elevation requirement. This interim survey shall be prepared by a professional Land Surveyor, registered and licensed in the State of Colorado. 23 Agenda Item 413 Page 2 of 3 Prior to final inspections being scheduled, the applicant shall submit an Elevation Certificate, prepared by a Colorado registered land surveyor, certifying that the structure has been constructed at or above the flood protection elevation. This certification shall be provided on a standard Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Elevation Certificate. (FEMA Form 81-31) No Certificate of Occupancy will be issued for any structure where this provision has not been satisfied. Inspections To schedule an inspection, call 303-441-3280 and refer to your permit number (LUR2011-00063). Rough Elevation Certificate Final Elevation Certificate Final Floodplain Inspection 24 Agenda Item 4B Page 3 of 3 MEMORANDUM Call-Up Item To: Planning Board FROM: Jessica Vaughn, Planner I DATE: October 20, 2011 SUBJECT: Call Up Item: 5440 Arapahoe Road Use Review (#LUR2011-00042) request to locate a 14,000 sq. ft. service of vehicles with limited outdoor storage use at 5440 Arapahoe Road to be known as Independent Motors, Ltd. The proposal includes the construction of a 6,784 sq. ft. building and a 2,171 sq. ft. addition to the existing building (5,045 sq. ft.) for future expansion, totaling 14,000 square feet. Improvements to the site include the construction of onsite detention, reconfiguration of the existing onsite parking, updated landscape and streetscape design and dedication and construction of a 12-foot multi-use path. This approval is subject to call-up on or before November 3, 2011. Attached is the disposition of approval for a Use Review request to locate a 14,000 square foot service of vehicles with limited outdoor storage use at 5440 Arapahoe Road for Independent Motors, Ltd. The Use Review request includes the construction of a new building (6,784 square feet) adjacent to an existing building (5,045 square feet) and a future addition to the existing building (2,171 square feet) for the expansion of the service of vehicles with limited outdoor storage use, totaling 14,000 square feet (see Attachment A, Staff Disposition). Existing Conditions: The project site, 5440 Arapahoe Road, is located within the Business Community-1 (BC-1) zone district which is defined as: "Business areas containing retail centers serving a number of neighborhoods, where retail-tvpe stores predominate" (section 9-5-2(c)(2)(G), B.R.C. 1981). Currently, the site has two access points from Arapahoe along with an unstriped, gravel parking lot and minimal landscape (see Vicinity Map below). Also existing on the site is a 5, 045 square foot building, currently occupied by a lighting supply store. The project site is located on east Arapahoe Road, just west of the intersection of Arapahoe and 55th Street on the south side of the street. The surrounding properties are utilized as a mix of uses, including single family residential units adjacent to the south, 25 Agenda Item 4C Page 1 of 13 offices and restaurant uses to the west and north, and other vehicle related services to the east. i = _ 4.~ The surrounding properties to the - - - = i ~+J~,' fi west and north are zoned BC-1__,_ _ while the properties adjacent to the = ' ' I'' ` P south are zoned Residential Low-2 (RL-2) and Residential Medium-1 T ai I_ f (RM-1). The adjacent properties ;.E to the east are not within city limits; they are an enclave. krapahoe Road Igo Process: r- i Pursuant section 9-6, "Use Standar°ds," B.R.C. 1981, service ''R'~° A►'"~ - - of vehicles with limited outdoor storage use in the BC-1 zone district can only be approved if the "vr: = criteria for Use Review are met, OL 0.: section 9-2-15, B.R.C. 1981. 5440 Arapahoe Road 14 1- 11 + N. Proposal: The applicant's proposal is to complete build-out of the proposal _ in two phases. Initially, the applicant is proposing to construct - { n1= a 6,784 square foot building for, the proposed use adjacent to the existing building, Vicinity hiap 5,045 square feet. The first phase of the proposal includes various site improvements that will bring the site into compliance with City landscape, parking, access and onsite detention standards. Additionally, the applicant will be dedicating and constructing a 12-foot wide multi-use path per the City of Boulder Transportation Master Plan. Phase two of the proposal will be triggered by the termination of the lease by the lighting supply store at which time the applicant will construct the 2,171 square foot addition to the existing building, now totaling 7,216 square feet and eliminate the separation between the two buildings. The service of vehicles use will occupy the entire space, 14,000 square feet. Analysis: Overall, the proposal will provide a direct service to the neighborhood that is consistent with the existing character and provide an adequate buffer to the adjacent residential properties to the south through landscaping and fencing. Ultimately, the proposal 2 26 Agenda Item 4C Page 2 of 13 accommodates for the future expansion of the existing business as well as the redevelopment of an outdated site. The proposal will improve the existing site conditions to not only be compliant with city requirements in terms of landscaping, parking, access and detention, but will also provide a transportation connection amenity along Arapahoe Road. Please refer to Attachment B, Use Review and Parking Reduction Criteria for Reviell, for a complete analysis of the proposal. Public Comment: 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. No responses to the public notices were received. Conclusion: Staff finds that the proposed Use Review meets the relevant criteria pursuant to section 9-2-15, "Use Review," B.R.C. 1981. This proposal was approved by Planning and Development Services staff on October 20, 2011 and the decision may be called up before Planning Board on or before November 3, 2011. There is one Planning Board meeting within the 14-day call up period, November 3, 2011. Questions about the project or decision should be directed to Jessica Vaughn at (303) 441-4161 or vaughniL&,,bouldercolorado.gov. Attachments: Attachment A: Staff Disposition Attachment B: Use Review Criteria for Review Attachment C: Proposed Plan Set and Written Statement 3 27 Agenda Item 4C Page 3 of 13 Attachment A 44' CITY OF BOULDER Planning and Development Services A 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: Independent Motors, Ltd. DESCRIPTION: USE REVIEW request to locate a 14,000 sq. ft. service of vehicles with limited outdoor storage use at 5440 Arapahoe Avenue for Independent Motors, Ltd. The proposal includes the construction a 6,784 sq. ft. building and a 2,171 sq. ft. addition to the existing building (5,045 sq. ft.) for future expansion. Improvements to the site include the construction of on site detention, reconfiguration of the existing on site parking and updated landscape and streetscape design. LOCATION: 5440 Arapahoe Avenue COOR: N02W01 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: See Exhibit A APPLICANT: Bill Bender OWNER: The Meridian Company APPLICATION: Use Review, LUR2011-00042 ZONING: Business Community-1 (BC-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: October 20. 2011 Dat By: Da id Driskell, x cutive 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: November 3, 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: 5440 Arapahoe Avenue 28 Agenda Item 4C Page 4 of 13 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 October 20, 2011 and the Applicant's written statement dated October 20, 2011 on file in the City of Boulder Planning Department, except to the extent that the development may be modified by this approval. Further, the Applicant shall ensure that the approved use is operated in compliance with the following restrictions: a. The approved use shall be closed from 7:00 p.m. through 7:00 a.m. seven days per week. b. The size of the approved use shall be limited to 14,000 square feet. 2. The Applicant shall not expand or modify the approved use, except pursuant to subsection 9-2-15(e), B.R.C. 1981. 3. Prior to 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 architecture plans, including materials 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 October 20, 2011 is acceptable. Planning staff will review plans to assure that the architectural intent is performed. b. A final utility plan meeting the City of Boulder Design and Construction Standards. c. A final storm water report and plan meeting the City of Boulder Design and Construction Standards. d. A detailed landscape plan, including size, quantity, and type of plants existing and proposed; type and quality of non-living landscape materials; any site grading proposed; and any irrigation system proposed, to insure compliance with this approval and the City's landscape requirements and which includes detail of the trash enclosure area. 4. Prior to building permit the Applicant shall dedicate to the City, at no cost, the following easements as shown on the approved plans, meeting 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 2 feet from the south edge of multi-use path. b. A drainage easement encompassing the limits of the detention pond adjacent to the right-of-way. Address: 5440 Arapahoe Avenue 29 Agenda Item 4C Page 5 of 13 Attachment B Case LUR20 1 1-00042 Project Name: Independent Motors, Ltd. Date: July 13, 2011 USE REVIEW CRITERIA Criteria for Review: No use review application will be approved unless the approving agency finds all of the following: 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; 5440 Arapahoe is zone Business Community-1 where the service of vehicles with limited outdoor storage is permitted through the Use Review process pursuantsection 9-2-15, "Use Review,"B.R.C. 1981. The service of vehicles with limited outdoor storage is defined as: "...the repair, servicing, maintenance, or installation of accessories for vehicles including motorcycles, motorbikes, automobiles, trucks, snowmobiles, trailers, campers, recreational vehicles, sailboats, and powerboats where outdoor storage of a vehicle does not exceed five consecutive days" (section 9-16, "Definitions," B.R. C. 1981). Y (2) Rationale: The use either: Y (A) Provides direct service or convenience to or reduces adverse impacts to the surrounding uses or neighborhood; 5440 Arapahoe provides a more central location for an existing Boulder business to serve its clientele. The proposed use is consistent with the general character of the area and will provide adequate screening/buffer between the site and the residential uses to the south to reduce the adverse impacts. 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 30 Agenda Item 4C Page 6 of 13 N/A (D) Is an existing legal non-conforming use or a change thereto that is permitted under subsection (e) 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; The use review application request includes the construction of a new building (6,784 sq. ft.) for the relocation of an existing Boulder business, the reconfiguration of the existing parking to meet development standards, the construction of an on site detention pond as well as updating the landscaping on site. All of the improvements will bring the site into compliance with current City requirements. A landscape buffer is proposed at the rear of the property to mitigate adverse impacts to and provide screening for the residential properties to the south. Adjacent properties with frontage along Arapahoe are industrial in nature, including a lighting supply company (located on the same site), additional automobile related and commercial uses. Y_ (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; As a result of this use review the property has agreed to update the site with onsite detention as well as construct the improvements required along the site's Arapahoe frontage, including a 8-foot planting strip and 12-foot multi-use path. Y_ (5) Character of Area: The use will not change the predominant character of the surrounding area; and The proposed vehicle service station with limited outdoor storage is consistent with the character of the area along Arapahoe Road. Surrounding uses include additional vehicle service/repair and commercial properties. Generally, the east Arapahoe area has become dilapidated, not meeting landscape and parking requirements. The proposal will drastically change this site making it compliant with all current development standards, including landscape, access, parking and detention. Additionally, as a result of the level of 31 Agenda Item 4C Page 7 of 13 redevelopment of the site, the applicant will be construction public improvements along Arapahoe Road, including a 12-foot multi-use path and 8-foot planting strip. 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, religious assembly, social service use, benevolent organization use, art or craft studio space, museum, or an educational use. Not applicable; this is a commercial project. 32 Agenda Item 4C Page 8 of 13 Attachment C TKT srcl~it4ecturce F> and cannulting, p.c. October 20, 2011 Use Review Written Statement - Independent Motors, 5440 Arapahoe Avenue Existing and Proposed Use: The existing site currently has one 5,045 s.f. single story building located on it which houses CES Electrical Supply Company. This use is classified "Retail Sales <5,000<20,000 s.f." This business has 4 full time employees and operates M-F, 7:00- 5:00 and Sat, 8:00-12:00. They currently make an estimated 35 trips to the site per day. Most all trips are by automobile. The applicant is proposing to build an additional 6,784 s.f. one story building behind the existing one to move his automotive repair business into. In the future, he hopes to be able to demolish the existing building and expand the building he's proposing now to 14,000 s.f. This use is classified as "Service of Vehicles with Limited Outdoor Storage", and is the one that requires the Use Review. He's seeking Use Review approval for the 14,000 s.f. at this time. Independent Motors is an automobile repair shop that is engaged in the repairs and maintenance of vehicles. The storage of vehicles is limited to no more than 5 days/4 nights. All repairs are made inside the building. This business has 12 full time employees and operates M-F, 7:00-5:30. They estimate having 60 customer trips/day, 36 employee trips/day, and 8 supplier trips/day. Most all trips are by automobile. Adjacent Uses: The site is bordered by a residential neighborhood to the south, and commercial uses to the west and east. This includes an automotive repair facility and car rental agency to the east and an auto parts store to the west. Project Narrative: The applicant, William Bender is seeking to buy this parcel of land in order to move his automotive repair facility, Independent Motors from the building he currently leases in west Boulder to this location. He plans on keeping the existing building that is on the site and will continue leasing it to CES Electrical supply, and build a new building behind it for his use. Independent Motors has been owned and operated by Bill in Boulder for 28 years. He will lose his lease at his current location and would like to remain in Boulder so he can serve his clientele. This part of Arapahoe Avenue currently houses other 4141 Arapahoe Avenue, Suite 100 (303) 443-5355 Boulder, Colorado 80303 Fax (303) 444-5085 33 Agenda Item 4C Page 9 of 13 Independent Motors Use Review - Written Statement October 20, 2011 Page 2 automotive related services, and the ability for him to buy this parcel and move to this location is an excellent opportunity for him to be more centrally located to his clients. The new building is being designed within the land use regulations for this zoning district and will be compatible with the more recently re-developed properties in the area. The current building is 46 years old, and the site will be greatly enhanced by this re- development. Storm drainage, paving, and landscaping will all be brought up to current code. Criteria: 1. Consistency with Zoning: The proposed use is consistent with the BC-1 zoning district in that it is a retail oriented business that can serve a number of nearby neighborhoods and is surrounded by other retail businesses. 2. Rationale: The proposed use provides a direct service to surrounding neighborhoods. In addition, it provides a more central location for its existing customer base than at its current location in west Boulder. He will have a bigger facility at this location, which will allow for him to add customers from the surrounding areas. 3. Compatibility: The proposed development is designed within the current land-use code requirements and therefore its size, scale and site features will be in line with the newer developments in the area. While the existing building will remain, the site will be upgraded to current development standards, and thereby improve the area. Arapahoe is well suited to handle the development. 4. Infrastructure: The drainage system, which is 46 years old, will be upgraded to current standards and the new building tied into City water and sewer. 5. Character of Area: The use is consistent with the surrounding area as there are other automobile related uses adjacent to the site and on Arapahoe. The building design will be in line with the newer, nicer structures in the area. 34 Agenda Item 4C Page 10 of 13 V OWNER: AREA PERCENT PARKING 5PAGE5 REQUIRED: THE MERIDIAN COMPANY I SPACE PER 300 S.F. (HABITABLE AREA= 1325 OLD TALE ROAD BUILDING COVERAGE INITIAL FLOOR AREA: 11,82a S.F./ 300 = = 3q SPAGES E5 BOULDER, COLORADO 80303 EXISTING 5,045 S.F. FUTURE FLOOR AREA: 2,11 S.F./ 300 = _ ~ SPAGES :5 PROP05ED b,784 S.F. TOTAL PARKING REQUIRED: = 46 SPAGES E5 APPLICANT: FUTURE EXPANSION 2,171 S.F. TOTAL 14,000 S.F. 34.2% pROP05ED NEW PARKING SPAGES: = 41 SPAGES ~ ~ ~ ~ c~ DO o r (h WILLIAM G. BENDER .5 L~ a 4404 50UTH HAMPTON CIRCLE PROP05ED FUTURE PARKING SPAGES: = 14 SPAGES .5 ~ ~ o PARKING, ~ DRIVES BOULDER, COLORADO 80301 (ASPHALT AND CONCRETE) TOTAL PARKING PROVIDED: = 55 SPAGES U ~F .5 ~ ~rn'm N ^ 303-44~-8a8a phone EXISTING N/A~ PROP05ED 17,537 S.F. REGULAR SPAGES (a'xle') = 38 SPAGES ~ E5 U ~ S o FUTURE EXPANSION SMALL GAR SPAGES (7'G"xl5') = 14 SPAGES 75q S.F. ~ v :5~ ~ ~ ARGHITEGT: HANDICAP SPAGES (8'XiQ' W/8'Xlq' A15LE) = 3 SPAGES TOTAL 18,2Q6 S.F. 44.8% :5 ~ \o. C m RVP ARCHITECTURE AND CONSULTING, P.G. m ~ 4141 ARAPAHOE AVENUE, SUITE I DO SIDEWALKS TRASH BALL SMALL GAR SPAGES SHOWN DASHED A5 PART OF FUTURE ~o 4 BOULDER, COLORADO 80303 ~ EXPAN510N. IF EXPAN510N TO 14,000 S.F. OCCURS, REQUIRED s~~m~~ EXISTING N/A 303-443-5355 hone 5PAGE5 = 46 AND PROVIDED = 55 (IIa.5Y OF REQUIRED) V~gro~ p PROP05ED 2,~~ 1 S.F, 303-444-5085 fax FUTURE EXPANSION 0 S.F. NOTE: THERE ARE I6 EXI5TING 5PAGE5 THAT ARE BEING ' L ~ ~ ~ o TOTAL 2,~~1 S.F, 6.8~ REMOVED AND REPLACED. CIVIL ENGINEER: td ~ ~ Q~ JLB ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS OPEN SPACE (LANDSCAPED) ~o 743 PEAR COURT EXISTING N/A~ LOUISVILLE, COLORADO 8002 PROP05ED 8,-120 S.F.~~ ~m a 303-604-1634 hone FUTURE EXPAN510N 2 q30 S.F. p TOTAL 5,7x0 S.F. 14.2Ro GENERAL 51TE NOTES: I. PROPOSED SITE DEVELOPMENT IS IN CONFORMANCE WITH BULK ~ LANDSCAPE ARGHITEGT: TH BULK STANDARDS FOR BG-I ZONE. 2. PHASE ONE BUILD-OUT 15 FOR NEW BUILDING ADJACENT TO EX151 r To EXISTING oNE. U5E REVIEW 5EEK5 U5E NATURE'S DE51GN A550GIATES, LLG TOTAL LOT 51ZE 40,87 S.F, 100 APPROVAL FOR 14,000 S.F. WHICH INCLUDES A SECOND PHASE G ~ PHASE GON515TING OF DEMOLITION OF THE 15674 INDIANA GULCH ROAD O.Q384 ACRES EXISTING BUILDING AND EXPAN510N OF THE PROP05ED BUILDING ' BUILDING WITH ADDITIONAL PARKING. ~ ~ O JAMESTOWN, COLORADO 80455 ~IMP0551BLE TO D15TINGUISH CURRENT EXI5TING MIX OF PLANNED EXPAN510N WOULD RESULT IN OPEN SPACE DEGREA5IN( EGREA5ING TO 5,7`~O S.F. (14.2% OF 51TE ~ m ~ 303-45q-3333 hone ASPHALT, GRAVEL AND VEGETATION. AREA). p ~ , 303-45q-0644 fax ~~DOES NOT INCLUDE PARKING LOT INTERNAL LANDSCAPE 3. OPEN SPACE - 10% MIN. IF BLDG. HT <25 , 20~ IF HEIGHT >25 fT >25' ~ O AREA OF 881 S.F. 4. SETBACKS - 20' FRONT, O/12' INTERIOR (NON-STREET), 20' REAR. 20' REAR. O O 5. PROP05ED BUILDING HEIGHT OF 24'-II" 15 BASED ON ONE-STORY NE-STORY BUILDING W/MEZZANINE. EXI5TIN6 Lv O BUILDING 15 APPROX, 15' HT, HEIGHT 15 MEASURED FROM TOPO E ~M TOPO ELEV. 5236 (LOW POINT W/IN 25'). ~ ~ U 5EE ADDITIONAL NOTE ON SHEET A2. 6. 5EE PARKING BREAKDOWN TABLE ABOVE FOR EXISTING AND PR 7. 5EE CIVIL REPORT ON PRELIMINARY DRAINAGE AND UTILITY FINL G AND PROP05ED PARKING COUNTS. N 'ILITY FINDINGS.. ~ ARCHITECTURAL Al COVER SHEET /SITE PLAN A2 FLOOR PLAN /ELEVATIONS i I I ~ l ~ I x EL=5235.3b (Lt I I I EL=5235.3b (LOW PT. W/IN 25' OF FUTURE E~JILDIN6) X EL=5235.'!8 (LOW PT. W91N 25' OF PROPO ED BUILI~ING)"52~' LANDSCAPE I~ ~I ; EXI5TING PATH 'H / / I AND RAMP L-1 CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE PLAN 2~~ I ~ all ~ ~ I X15TNG UTILITY POLE I I I 0 AND O.H. POWER LINE ITY POLE - ~ ~ JER LINE f5z~_ ,5Z"~ I I I N I EXI5TING SttEiNAG~ ~NAG~ ~ ~ ~ ~ j ~ S00'05'50"E 271.70' ~ ~ ~ I I I I ~ ^ i I I - ~o io ~o ~o - /1~ I .I 1'-' I 36/-. I ~I EXI5TING ENTRY ' I I i~~~ Il W I I I I A I I AND BIKE PATH I EX. G 5 I EXISTING ~ I I TO BE REMOVED 42 -4 ~ I I I N e III OVERHEAD ELECT. 8q,_4„ 45`3"- - TO BE REPLACED - - - I I SHOWN DASHED I I I I / I I I l I I I I tE OF~MAX. I I I I ,PROPOSED ~ I I E 15TING~ I ~ FUTURE BUILDING I I I I c R~ cur o ~ I B ELMf~ ~ EXPAN50N uG I ~ EXISTING ON STORY _ _ _ I Q II ONE-STORY B~ILDING' 24'_0" ~ I. .I I ~ (14,000 S.F. ± I I I I I m I I I I ~ TOTAL) I I I I I BUILDING ,784 S.F.t _ _ I ~ 0 ~ ~ 5,045 S.F.t ~ DRIVE IN _ _ ~ I L I l I I I I II I I I 1 ~s27~ I, DRIVE IN ! ~ DOOR I I I l I I I EXISTING STORM I ~ ~ I DOOR _ - ~ W I D TENTON SEWER AND ' N P ND TION I i ~ . I, ',I ~ IN I I I I~, I LET5 LINE OF EW II 11 ~ L y z I I I ~.„~„~A~< ~ ~ ~ PUBLIC A GE55 ~ W I ,ESS I I FUTURE I o O ~ I , ~ I EASEME T (2' 2' PARKING - _ I o O ~ ~ ~ o ~I I ~ ~ Q; , FROM B GK OF OF I SPACES - ~ I ~ ~ I ~ ~ ' ~ ~ PATH) yti~ W N / I I BIKE PARKI G w ~ ~ O vr.+r` ' 1 I ~ O I ~ ti f I, ~ I I c0 I x I - _ - - - - - I o ~ m 5' SIDEWALK ENTR1~ _ _ ~ o - ~ I ,I I ~ - ' I 0. ~I 0 ~ ~ e I I I LQ I I h+l I ~ I i .d ~ I I I iIl a ~ I co i 2'-0" J ~ N ~ , I I J ~ Cs CJ ---I I~ I in I I I II'- I '-01' I I ~ I ' ~ ~ ---I ~~wahca A.vc _ wal?aMaon-~ . ~,r ~ I I , I s j ~ I PROJ N0: 11-24 I I NEW 24 WIDE I ~ ITE I I I ENTRY (CURB A D I , EXISTING _ _ J DATE: JUNE 30, 2011 ~ I I I I ; NEW 12 WIDE MULTI U., IDE MULTI-USE PATH (TO BE NECKED FENCE i ~ r ' I GUTTER) AT I I I LOCATION OF I DOWN AT PROPERTY e PROPERTY LINE TO TIE INTO EXISTING 41 PARKING EXISTING ~ ~ ~ _ _ I ~ REV: OCT. 6, 2011 ~ a.~,n ~ I I ' ADJACENT PATH). NG ~.,~I, _ , , EXI5TING CURB I T PATH). NOTE THAT EASEMENT AT THIS SPACES CONTOURS / I OCT. 18, 2011 - ~ ~ - I ' GUT ' I LOCATION 15 INGREA~ j ' I I I PATH TO ALLOW FOR J IS INCREASED TO 4' FROM BACK OF (55 FUTURE) NEW TRASH I g $ 4't ~:p I I I 9 ~ ~ o I I ' I OF PATH AWAY FROM ALLOW FOR FUTURE RECONFIGURATION ENGL05URE W/2 3 _ _ J AWAY FROM UTILITY POLE GU. YARD / DUMPSTE 5 h I I. ,I a. I. I ~ ~ S ~ ~~J WXMU~q CU Hdmc. F, I I I I I - - EXI TIN UT EXI TIN UTILITY P LE ~ry'ti~ AN O.H. POW R LI E 23 ~ I) ~,un.~ I I I AN O.H. PG I I I I I I `~~a I I I I 1 I I I I 1 I 6' LANDSCAPE BUFFER f Copyright ©2011- All rights I I m I I I ~ I ~ Z9fZS` _ - - - * ~ - ~ - - ~ - - * ~ - ~ reserved RVP Architecture and I I N00'05'S0'W 271.70' Consulting, P.C. All design _ _ _ ~ - _ _ drawings and written material ~ II ~ ~ I-----~ I I I p I herein may not be used or I I ' EXI5TING PATH NTH i duplicated without the written NORTH NOT TO SCALE'. ~ , , AND RAMP I 1 I I~ I i consent of RVP Architecture and ~ Consulting, P.C. I. i I I D' 10' 20' 4D' 60' SITE PLAN WVGII / X71 I G rLM 35 Agenda Item 4C Page 11 of 13 i= i i ' i II ~ ~ / ~ ~ , ~ ~ I ~i J L- - - - , ,ft I, i 1' 1 X111 'f'1 'I' ~ ~ m 0 0 0 ; , , ~ ~ ~ ~ d , ~ , , , 3 „ ~ , V ~ ~ m 0.~ [ X SOUTH ELEVATION ; ~oQo SCALE: I/8" = I'-O" m ~ ~ ro ~ U~~ro~ NOTE: T.O.PARAPET ELEVATION ~o~ 15 120'-0" (525q.7 0565) EXISTING BUILDING PRaPOSED BUlLD1N~ USED BUlLD1NG ~ Q U d' SPLIT FAGED GMU ~ ~ LOWEST POINT OF FINISHED WALLS Q ~ ~ GRADE WITHIN 25' OF NEW 0 r------------------------- ---------------------------------~p1ZQ~!_L5_1`kS!It~L~~1I_Q~ 11~------------------ ° ~ EX151TNG BUILDING (5EE 51TE PLAN) _ i LINE OF FUTURE ExPANSION SHOwN 5235.36. ALLOWABLE r ~ L ~ DASHED BUILDING HEIGHT 15 5260.36 U5G5 - ~ ~ ~ m ~ t~ i i 1 WITH 10% MIN. OPEN SPAGE _ i, i, i, ~ 'r ~ 51GNAGE AREA L i Z AWNING ABOVE ' , ~ WINDOWS ~ = Z - - i ~ 1~ ,1 '1 o I ry I , ~ 3 0 ~ - - - - I „ - ~ ~ ~ I ~ , , , „ II , ~ ~ , , - I O I ~ - - I (O i NOTE: PROPOSED LOW PO V 'OSED LOW POINT SMOOTH FAGED GONG. OF NEW BUILDING (FLOOR SLAB) IS ELEVATION 523q .DING (FLOOR BLOCK ACCENT PANELS ~ EVATION 523q.1 AND BANDING (2' ABOVE FPE) `PE) WEST ELEVATION SCALE: I/8" = I'-O" 84'-4" ~ i i I I I I ~ i I I I I ~ i I I I I i ~ ~ Q i 0 i i i I I I I I i ~ O i i i I I I I I i i L i nL` i W i i 0 ~ i i i ~V} 1^v O EXISTING BUILDING TO REMAIN ~J I I I I ~ I i I ~ REPAIR SHOP ~ ~ ~ i r i i I I I PROJ N0: 11-24 I I - - DATE: JUNE 30, 2011 I I IIIIIIIII I I REV: OCT. 6, 2011 OCT. 18, 2011 I uP ro STORAGE I I MEZZANINE I I PARTS 17'8"x38'0" I I I I I I I I tf1 I I I I ~ I I O Q I I R.R. ~ I I I I ~ Copyright ©2011 -All rights ~ reserved RVP Architecture and I I I Consulting, P.C. All design I I WAITING/SERVICE drawings and written material I I I I herein may not be used or duplicated without the written I I consent of RVP Architecture and I 1 I I R.R. Consulting, P.C. EXPANSION SHOWN DASHED I L z__ HIGH NINDOW5 NINDOW5 HIGH WINDOW5 D NEW BUILDING FLOOR PLAN D NORTH SC ALE: IAe '-0" FLOOR PLAN 36 Agenda Item 4C Page 12 of 13 I I I N ~ N O X I I I ' 'y r~,d ~n ~ ~1 ~ ~1 ~0a _ ~ C 2, . I U x ~R Licensed LandscapeArchitectw~e x ~ NATURE'S DESIGN I I N x x x x ASSOCIATES LLC I I ' 15674 Indiana Gulch Rd. I - I Jamestown, C0 80455 I ~ J ~ I I L I ~ phone: 303-459-3333 I I I fax: 303-459-0644 email: martinekOhughes.net I X A N . I ~ ~ ~ ~ N ~I , „'~'.'n' ~ ~ EXISTING TREE 1 TO BE REMOVED ~ W~.~~~~ ( J a u ~ r ~v a W ~ w ~ { r O I - r W v I ~ ~ I / I P R O P O S E D 1::::::::: i i ~ l - N J w I 0 ~l E STORY ' 0 ~ ~ - BU ~D _ W I I EXISTING TREES L ~ I ,EES I - TO BE REMOVED I I )VED 784 Sd ~ _ 1 I I XISTING TREE ~ ~ x A l I ~ ~ ' ~ ~ - ~~~u~ ~ I 0 BE REMOVED i ~ ~ ~ y ~ ~ ~ W y i ~ W ~ i i I I N N ' a z I I ~i ~ W I ~ ~ W 1 x ~ I I N y W w P,` ~ I - ~ n W SUTURE x ~ ~`_1 I O I I ~ ..W..yvv~Y~ PARK NG - I ~ ~ W v N L~; . %~WW~~~ - I ~ .'4; 14 S.C. x, SPACES ~ ~W.~W. a..... xI_I_i J II ~ L - I l n _ - - . , I x, J~ D N l I S ~ I . I I~l ~ - x~~ ~ + - i I I . •r'\ 1 • I ~ i ~ 4 EXI TIN RE ~ ~I! / . N ~n a o rr ~I. x~'~~~i TO E OV ~ ~ i . . it ~ ~ I ~ ~ + ~ _ ~ 4~ N W I ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ o a~ ~ I I • ---_I' - ~ x ~ ~ I h, ~ o N N I I I ~ ~ ~ o 0 I ~ ~ V I I o EXISTING TREE ~ ~ ~ I TO BE REMOVED ~ ~ ~ I x ~ ~ 0 4 i - 4~ ~ ~ ~ i ~ 0 i i 1.. ~ ~ i ~ o 0 1 i i x ~ ~ G4 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ - = ~ - . , ~ / % ~ i ~ I I~, ~ ~ ~ 1 ~ / ~ f~ I■■~ i i ~ ~I i i I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ • • ~ ~ ~ • Psi I III i ~ , I, I I x I ~ x I ~ ~ ti x\ X X x x x x ~ x x x / ~ x 0 I ~ ~c ~ ~~y~~~~: ~r ~ ' NU~I JU V~V ~ x ' ~ I I ~ PROJECT DATA: TOTAL TOTAL REQUIRED PROVIDED OTAL LOT 51ZE 40 877 S. F. 40 877 S.F. 1TREE~S SHRUBS PER 8 TREES 8 TREES TOTAL PARKING LOT DRIVES SIZE 17 537 S.F. 1500 S.F. f~ ~ R T H 17 537 S.F. 40 SHRUBS 40 SHRUBS LANDSCAPE KEY TOTAL AREA LANDSCAPE KEY NOT COVERED FOR GROUND TREATMENT BY BUILDING TOTAL NUMBER OF ~ C A I~ ~ 1 " - 10 ~ ~ " PARKING STALLS 39 41 FOR PLANT MATERIAL oR PARKwc LOT i~,5i~ s.F, 11,511 S,F, TOTAL INTERIOR Plan ~atE: • EXISTING TREE IRRIGATED TURF AREA PARKING LOT 877 S.F. 881 S.F. trees in turf areas will be ringed with wood mulch LANDSCAPED AREA TOTAL INTERIOR ~~/d1 /11 PARKING LOT TEMPORARY DRYLAND TURF AREA LANDSCAPED AREA AS A PERCENTAGE OF 5.07 5.027 TOTAL PARKING LOT AREA `I, • NEW 2" CAL. DECIDUOUS SHADE TREE TOTAL NUMBER OF TREES R2V1510n5: IN INTERIOR PARKING LOT 5 5 LANDSCAPED AREA WOOD MULCH (PATHWAY BARK, OR SMALL FIR FIBER) TOTAL NUMBER OF SHRUBS 10/06/11 IN INTERIOR PARKING LOT 53 53 LANDSCAPED AREA ~ NEW 1.5" CAL. DECIDUOUS ORNAMENTAL TREE TOTAL PERIMETER PARKING LOT ADJACENT 38 L.F. TO STREET TOTAL PERIMETER PARKING LOT ADJACENT 243 L.F. TO ADJOINING PROPERTY NEW 5' CONIFEROUS TREE TOTAL NUMBER OF Sheet Number; PERIMETER PARKING LOT 14 14 TREES REQUIRED PROVIDED TOTAL NUMBER OF TOTAL QUANTITY OF NEW #5 DECIDUOUS SHRUB PERIMETER PARKING LOT 49 49 TREES 27 27 SHRUBS TOTAL NUMBER OF STREET TREES ARAPAHOE 8 $ NEW #5 EVERGREEN SHRUB TOTAL NUMBER OF N/A N/A TOTAL QUANTITY of ALLEY TREES SHRUBS 102 102 LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE STAMP (to provide ground coverage) 37 Agenda em age 13 o 3 MEMORANDUM To: Planning Board FROM: Chandler Van Schaack, Associate Planner DATE: November 3, 2011 SUBJECT: Call Up Item: 3640 Walnut St. (LUR2011-00064) USE REVIEW: Proposal to create a 6,732 square foot indoor athletic facility in existing tenant space in IG zone with hours of operation from 6:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m., seven days per week. This decision may be called up before Planning Board on or before November 9, 2011. Attached is the disposition of approval for a Use Review to allow for a 6,732 square foot indoor athletic facility in an existing tenant space with hours of operation from 6:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m., seven days per week. Existing Conditions: 3640 Walnut St. is located in East Boulder in the - I_ - i Crossroads East neighborhood, within the o Subject Area - - _ Industrial- General (IG) zone 3640 wa►nurSa district. The IG zone district - is defined in section 9-5-2, B.R.C. 1981 as "General 1 ~ - - s X0~ industrial areas where a wide range of light industrial uses, including research and manufacturing operations B P - and service industrial uses are located. Residential uses r and other complementary uses may be allowed in appropriate locations.' Pursuant to section 9-6-1, B.R.C. 1981, the proposed - indoor athletic facility use is allowed in the IG zone only if approved through a Use Review. The existing uses on the subject site include an emergency veterinary clinic and a building supplies warehouse. There is a broad range of uses on surrounding properties, including warehouse and office uses on the adjacent properties to the east and west, industrial service uses to the north and a variety of commercial and service uses in the Boulder Valley Regional Center to the west. Nearby high density residential developments include the Twenty Ninth Street Residences as well as the Peloton, located at 30th & Walnut and 33rd & Arapahoe, respectively. 38 Agenda Item 4D Page 1 of 12 Currently the site is nonconforming as to parking, with 43 spaces where 49 are required (the IG zone requires 1 parking space per 400 square feet of floor area), approximately 55 percent of which do not meet current parking stall size standards (the maximum allowable small car stalls for a development with up to 49 spaces required is 40 percent). Proposal: The Applicant is proposing to locate the Flatirons CrossFit Gym in a 6,732 square foot tenant space within an existing 19,343 square foot building. Currently the space is almost entirely vacant except for three small offices, which would be relocated to the second floor of the building if the proposed use is approved. Activities offered would include weightlifting, endurance, rowing, and metabolic conditioning. The facility would also offer sports recovery services such as Physical Therapy, mobility and other recovery modes (for further information see Attachment C, Applicant's TYritten Statement). The hours of operation for the proposed facility would be from 6:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m., seven days per week. Expected class times would be 6:00 am, 7:30 am, 9:30 am, 12:00 pm and 5:30 pm, with personal training scheduled in between as needed. The proposed facility would have approximately 5 instructors and up to 25 customers present at any given time, with 7:30 a.m. and 5:30 p.m. expected by the Applicant to be the busiest times. In addition to modifications to the existing building, which include the addition of two new doors and minor interior improvements, this proposal includes adding 17 new full-size parking spaces to the site (see Attachment D, Site Plan). Adding these parking spaces would bring the total number of spaces on the site to 60 where 49 are required, 55 percent of which would be full size, code compliant stalls. While city policy dictates minimizing parking where possible, it should be noted that no new paving will be added to the site. All of the new parking spaces are a result of striping existing paving on-site that was formerly unused (see Attachment F, Improvement Location Certificate). 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 Review Criteria for Review). This proposal was approved by Planning and Development Services staff on October 26, 2011, and the decision may be called up before Planning Board on or before November 9, 2011. There is one Planning Board meeting within the 14-day call up period, on November 3, 2011. Questions about the project or decision should be directed to Chandler Van Schaack at (303) 441-3137 or vanschaackck,,bouldercolorado.gov. Attachments: Attachment A: Staff Disposition of Approval with Conditions Attachment B: Vicinity Map Attachment C: Applicant's Written Statement Attachment D: Site Plan 2 39 Agenda Item 4D Page 2 of 12 Review criteria for Review Attachment E: Imp Attachment F. ovement Location Certificate 3 Agenda Item 4D Page 3 of 12 40 Attachment A CITY OF BOULDER so 4.'r Planning and Development Services 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: Flatirons CrossFit DESCRIPTION: USE REVIEW: Proposal to create a 6,732 square foot indoor athletic facility in existing tenant space with hours of operation from 6:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m., seven days per week. LOCATION: 3640 Walnut St. COOR: N03W03 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: See Exhibit A Attached APPLICANT: Jim Bray OWNER: Savage Properties, LLC APPLICATION: Use Review, LUR2011-00064 ZONING: IG (Industrial General) CASE MANAGER: Chandler Van Schaack 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: ~V Date By: David riskell, ecutive 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 below mentioned. Appeal to Planning Board expires: November 9, 2011 IN ORDER FOR A BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION TO BE PROCESSED FOR THIS PROJECT, A SIGNED DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AND SIGNED PLANS MUST BE SUBMITTED TO THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT WITH DISPOSITION CONDITIONS AS APPROVED SHOWN ON THE PLANS, IF THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT IS NOT SIGNED WITHIN NINETY (90) DAYS OF THE FINAL DECISION DATE, THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL AUTOMATICALLY EXPIRES. Address: 3640 Walnut St. 41 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 October 21, 2011 and the written statement dated October 20, 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 approved use shall be closed from 9 p.m. to 6 a.m. seven days per week. 2. The Applicant shall not expand or modify the approved use, except pursuant to subsection 9- 2-15(h), B.R.C_ 1981. Address: 3640 Walnut St. 42 Agenda Item 4D Page 5 of 12 EXHIBIT A LEGAL DESCRIPTION A TRACT OF LAND LOCATED IN THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 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 EAST 1/4 CORNER OF SECTION 29, TOWNSHIP 1 NORTH, RANGE 70 WEST OF THE 6TH P.M., THENCE SOUTH 00 DEGREES 02 MINUTES 20 SECONDS WEST, 949.40 FEET ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID SECTION 29; THENCE NORTH 89 DEGREES 57 MINUTES 40 SECONDS WEST, 485.00 FEET AT RIGHT ANGLES TO THE EAST LINE OF SAID SECTION 29 TO A POINT OF CURVE TO THE RIGHT; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY 249.62 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE TO THE RIGHT TO A POINT TANGENT, SAID ARC HAVING A RADIUS OF 1006.00 FEET AND A DELTA ANGLE OF 14 DEGREES 13 MINUTES RIGHT; THENCE NORTH 75 DEGREES 44 MINUTES 40 SECONDS WEST, 78.10 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 14 DEGREES 15 MINUTES 20 SECONDS WEST, 40.00 FEET TO A POINT ON THE SOUTH RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF WALNUT STREET, TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THAT TRACT DESCRIBED IN BOOK 1202 AT PAGE 116, SAID POINT BEING THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING: THENCE SOUTH 14 DEGREES 15 MINUTES 20 SECONDS WEST, 407.34 FEET TO A POINT ON THE SOUTH LINE OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 29; THENCE NORTH 89 DEGREES 49 MINUTES 30 SECONDS EAST, 154.89 FEET ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 29; THENCE NORTH 14 DEGREES 15 MINUTES 20 SECONDS EAST, 371.22 FEET TO A POINT ON THE SOUTH RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF SAID WALNUT STREET; THENCE WESTERLY 150.06 FEET ALONG THE SOUTH RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF SAID WALNUT STREET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. 43 Agenda Item 4D Page 6 of 12 Attachment B City of Boulder Vicinity Map Pea'~~ St I'G . - US-2 - IS-2 M u - Pearl Pk" a I-S - 1 T O Subject Area 01%1- 3640 Walnut St N wdln4#_SS - IG - 1- -BR P P R VA _ 3 eoooaoaa.oaeooooo o............ Location. 3640 Walnut St Project Name: 3640 Walnut Street Gym City of\ Boulder Review Type: Use Review NOR The information depicted on this map is provided as graphical representation only. The City of Boulder Review Number: LUR2011-00064 provides no warranty, expressed or implied, as to 1 inch = 400 feet the a~ccuracyy and/or completeness of the information Applicant: Jim Bray cont~SJY4el~QCY1 4D Page 7 of 12 Attachment C BRAY Architecture, Inc October 20, 2011 Chandler Van Schaack City of Boulder Planning Department P.O. Box 791 Boulder, CO 80306 RE: Use Review submittal for change of use at 3460 Walnut Street, Boulder CO, LUR2011-00064 Savage Properties, LLC (Owners of 3640 Walnut) wish to add Flatirons CrossFit gym as a tenant to the existing building. The gym's goal would be to deliver world class fitness to a broad range of fitness levels with the desire to improve lifestyle, longevity, and quality of life. Activities offered would be weightlifting, endurance, rowing, and metabolic conditioning. They also plan to offer sports recovery services such as Physical Therapy, mobility and other recovery modes. The gym will typically be open from 6am to 7 pm with 7:30am and 5:30pm being the busiest times. Class time will be 6:00am 7:30 9:30 12:00 and 5:30 with personal training scheduled in between when needed. Staff would consist of 5 instructors that would be serving approximately 25 users at any given time. The proposed use will take up 6,732 square feet of the existing 19,539 square foot facility. While two doors are planned as modifications to the existing building envelope no other alterations to the existing architecture are planned. Parking will also be added in addition to the required 1:400 ratio to bring the site in conformance. Thank you for your consideration and please feel free to contact me with any concerns on this matter. Sincerely, Jim Bray AIA, Leed AP. NCARB 1300- C Yellow Pine Boulder , CO 80304 303. 444.1598 45 Agenda Item 4D Page 8 of 12 Attachment D ■ ■ .....'T I I:' I I' I 8 TYP. ti I I I m x I I z I v I I I m ~W x ~ ~ ~ v m 9'-0" I'~ /'I z D TYP, O m~ ~m ' cn~ vb " m v r.Z z I O r m ~ ~ o z ~ ~ 0 0 0 o Cm - ~ m I nth I I CD v" 17'-0" TYP. n n rr I ~ O I i Z r D °c y ~ ~ _ o C I o a ~ T ~ ~ m z ~ ~ N Drn ~ ~ ~ z o Zop ~ n z ~ ~ - ro ~ ~ ~ m z -o cr c> 'f1 - I ~b ~r 3~ ~ ~-p~Qo 1" i ~ " C~~, S C O ~ ~ C 1 ~ "3 r m c Q (n N Y I"n w m d mm~ ~ xo 19.0 m y ~ C O I O2.o ~ ~ ~ n ~ I TYP, n ~ z m O ~ cn N p c~ ,zi . w ~ ~I y ~ O ~ ~ o N O m Z 7 m ~ ~ o @r1 ~ ~ I ~ ~ 4y ~ r I ~ ~ Z ~ v 4 m ~ b I I ~ ~ ~ Il1 ~ ~ ~ D r - ~ ~ I-~ m ynD- I 0~ ~ v~oZ ~ N~N~ I Z Z ,c ~ y -0 00 x ~ mm cl) ~ D ~ ~ N O ~ OrZ 2 ~ r_ ~ G3 z Z N O~ ~ V I a D O m -1 < I m p Z cn m m D 1 I I N N W W 0~ N W W fa ~ ~ I ~ ~ i I TYP. z I ~ W cn cn ~ C ~ v ~nr~ ~ cv0 ~vyZm ~ rm Z z ~ D I om <~~Z I I' °-D °~mr ~ m i '0 v o ~ ~ (n D O n r J ~ ~ O Z 1 N RI f• 9 ~ .1 c ~ I. ~ 20'-0" ~ . ~ 1,1 ~ m W b N T N V r D z ~b M 19'-0" TYP. I I ~ m X C C N ® ~ ~ ~ vv m Z D~ ZZ Uy ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ M ~ zD p~ D I p c0 ~ I I ~ D m (p I ~ ~ m~ ~ " m C? I ° O ~ N I II ~ I Z I a'o ~ I m m oomi ~ ~ ~ D D j N n ~ ~ ~ I (0 Oi l _ I m.l~ m°'D Ir V I I I I I F-- ~j Z O L = I~ I' I' • I I • ~ ' .i' ~ rn ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O LJ m ~ m ~ m cp c ~ ~ Q ~ a ~ ~ m ~ z n~ o ■ ~ ~a BRAlf o~ i w o VcMzcture, Inc. Agenda Item 4D Page 9 of 12 46 Attachment E Case LUR20 1 1-00064 Project Name: Flatirons CrossFit Date: October 21, 2011 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 9-5-2(c), "Zoning Districts Purposes," B.R.C. 1981, except in the case of a non-conforming use; The subject property is located within the iG (Industrial - General) zone district. The 1G zone district is defined in section 9-5-2(c)(4)(B), B.R.C. 1981 as "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." Pursuant to section 9-6-1, B.R.C. 1981, the proposed indoorathletic facility use is allowed in the IG zone following Use Review approval. The proposed gym use is consistent with the purpose of the zoning district in that it would be a complementary use to the existing uses in the surrounding area. There are currently several warehouse and office uses located on nearby properties, as well as a mix of commercial and residential uses to the east and south, respectively. The proposed gym would be complementary to the existing uses in that it would provide a service to employees of nearby businesses as well as residents of nearby housing. X (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 facility would provide direct service to the surrounding uses and neighborhoods. The other uses on the site are an emergency veterinary clinic and a building supplies warehouse, and there is a broad range of uses on surrounding properties, ranging from warehouse and office uses on the adjacent properties to industrial service uses to the north and regional business uses to the west. Nearby high density residential developments include the Twenty Ninth Street Residences as well as the Peloton, located at 30r" & Walnut and 33rd & Arapahoe, respectively. Situated between this variety of uses, the property is in an ideal location to serve both nearby residents as well as employees. Gyms, veterinary clinics and building supply retailers tend to be high turnover uses that utilize significant parking during peak times. The proposed facility would reduce impacts to surrounding uses by providing additional parking beyond what is required by city parking standards. Currently the site is nonconforming as to parking, with 43 spaces where 49 are required (the existing building is 19,343 square feet, and the IG zone requires 1 parking space per 400 square feet of floor area), approximately 55 percent of which do not meet current parking stall size standards (the maximum allowable compact car stalls for a development with up to 49 spaces required is 40 percent). This proposal includes adding 17 new full-size parking spaces, which would bring the total number of spaces on the site to 60 (approximately 22 percent over the required number of spaces), 55 percent of which would be full size stalls. While city policy dictates minimizing parking where possible, it should be noted that no new paving will be added to the site. All of the new parking spaces are a result of striping paving that was formerly unused. Striping additional parking spaces will ensure that other businesses located in the building will not be impacted by the new use. 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 Address: 3640 WALNUT ST Page 1 47 Agenda Item 4D Page 10 of 12 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 indoor athletic facility would have minimal negative impact on the use of surrounding properties in that it would occupy an existing tenant space, thereby minimizing the amount of construction necessary, and would also increase the overall parking on the subject site by 22 percent over the required parking, thereby more than accommodating any new vehicular traffic created by the use. The hours of operation for the proposed facility would be from 6:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., seven days per week. The proposed facility would have approximately 5 employees and up to 25 customers present at any given time, with 7:30 a.m. and 5:30 p.m. expected by the Applicant to be the busiest times. With the busiest times being in the early morning and evening hours, potential conflicts with surrounding uses would be minimized. The proposed indoor athletic facility would be located in a 6,732 square foot space within an existing 19,343 square foot building. Currently the space is almost entirely vacant except for three small offices which would be relocated to the second floor of the building if the proposed use is approved. The other uses currently located in the building include an emergency 24-hour veterinary clinic and a building supplies warehouse use with a small office component. The design of the proposed facility is such that only minimal interior changes would be required. 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 site is served with adequately sized city utilities. Because the proposed use is relatively small and would occupy an existing tenant space, the impacts to the infrastructure of the surrounding area would be negligible. 3640 Walnut is well designed for the types of traffic expected, including, without limitation, automobiles, bicycles, and pedestrians. X (5) Character of Area. The use will not change the predominant character of the surrounding area, and Currently there is a mix of uses on the properties surrounding the subject site, including manufacturing and distribution, wholesale businesses, various industrial service uses and office uses. While the proposed indoor athletic facility would provide a service not currently offered in the immediately surrounding area, the character of the area would not be changed due to the relatively small number of changes to the building being proposed. 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, religious assembly, social service use, benevolent organization use, art or craft studio space, museum, or an educational use. Not Applicable. Address: 3640 WALNUT ST Page 2 48 Agenda Item 4D Page 11 of 12 Attachment F 1~- O 1.4 1.4 d} 3 Cz G t i 2 E. H U A L~r, ~jy, 0 O • ~ r ;'4c 0 a FW 1~7~rrl t- w 41 U1 {p 'C1 1~ 0 y ~f► Gl 4+ ,Q 0 'b 0 a d) e-1 .G Me a 0 C: 0 U0~0 1 ~Qm,oro-4 1~ 44 041 0 PC to a G G H yuu~ Ca$4 ao 1,1 x G CHI pl Q J IZ2'llti ~~151oh~(~ } jr. M 41 D 'U E N 0 i. ..y .w N w Q 4) ,v'ole " v ~ 44 0 Y' W 41 (d V 0-4 CL r.1 0 40 $-.43 to to "4 Cd 0 4) dl -0 r4 "4 14 u rQ 4.11 •,r, 1W •z~ M 03 0 47 A 0 a? m m C) W V 0 W r7 py M•d 0) w xx N S ~ I h A c4 N Ca: b1 JJ Cl 3~~ 'C G d) W ~bdl C a 44 M 0 1. wv 41 J-_ -0 C) Vy~&0 7 1R s v 0~ W u 4) Go U G X tez .rod' w 4,:x w "o O C a) 00 a:61 c a r >d=1 ov°8 M 3 3 a a„ a~~ 7 .4 ~d 4u C rb'tz ~ 00 at N d ° v 1 d) tT 44 )a H 0 ~'M o V s rd'%% A'8!! ga Y~ E v N m V a 0 H a r c r- Ll 6M K GC O d►rvb'~na~ g o x "j G ao w la r 4 a, t N (a C 0~+ G o a a } d .r4 n G •.1 C 0 b C a lfl H G 4) 0 a = 3 ~ ~ fi 2 ~ 0~ ro a v •.1 ~ o v a rr.. q L m Doti C Q a v 3 0 0 C7 o u N N +1 u V QI 0 u. F w ov 44 w o µq NV a s 4+cOka ~dCa)>,G C N a lu r4 S t, (L I- u 0) k .y .C 0 (d k P c' s k C ca m k k G U aJ G Co o C y G o a 9nu°1 ?.y P 0 k 0 En 3 rV 0 0- u° a 14 0 44 14 ~4 F4 H 0 = 0 C* Co G ¢ Cu -Q a b lohl5 J ' C) a O 0 t1 e u Curl 4-1 0 q b° I I+a 7- N k 44 •~0wHGU1CeOC7Co0 Y OR N d >7 CL 0 E 7 0Z.J C 4) a u 0,4_ -.4 C 0 44 i` J 1v k A b> e-l C u.> C: > u o 0 4 I. H Rf ° 0HQI~ NF+C z~°~ ~ I 4) ,4 41 14 0 d) E ro $4 r E . 0% V loll o -,4 06 49 Agenda Item 4D Page 12 of 12 CITY OF BOULDER PLANNING BOARD AGENDA ITEM MEETING DATE: November 3, 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 50 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) nn ~Y , y t~ 955 Broadway F ~ f 1 PP ' / f M F F: r~v t y k ~ e t t. c ;s ~r• Aurora Avenue 1715 Aurora Avenue I J% k ~ '4~ Z7 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? 51 Agenda Item 5B 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 52 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 ` F t SOUTH BUILDING NORTH BUILDING - 1 I - kw: 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. 53 Agenda Item 513 Page 4 of 108 \ h ' a- ~ Al. F a. .11 "WE 5`RE~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. 54 Agenda Item 513 Page 5 of 108 Hardi Plank Metal Accent l- ' Glass= Jill. Stucco Wood ,rf 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. 55 Agenda Item 5B Page 6 of 108 h 5" MADING ~~IT I I llaa . .14 ` aP d Il ~ MANN" s e 1 M STREET Illustration 4: Concept Plan Elevation from Aurora Avenue and 17th Street On April 18, 2011 the applicant submitted a development proposal request for Site Review. 56 Agenda Item 5B Page 7 of 108 Site Context Located in the University Hill neighborhood, near the ~y 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 RH-5955 Broadway as "High density residential areas primarily used for a variety of types of attached residential units, including, 1^ without limitation, apartment buildings, and where 1715 Aurora Avenue / complementary uses may be allowed" (section 9-5- 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~ properties transitions from the RH-5 zone to the Z RM-2 ° J Residential Medium-2 and Residential Low-1 zone `r' ? 0 f districts both of which allow lower densities than the t n 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 •t ,4 nonresidential uses also exist, including religious assemblies and University Hill Elementary.:{!' _ y r c J r, The site is also subject to varying topography with ~I* EL 5422 approximately 20 feet of grade change between Aurora ; Avenue and Broadway as shown by the topographical' map located (Figure 2) to the right. `y, snip '-}h• .r`_ 07 Both 955 Broadway and 1715 Aurora have a Boulder ' rr ' Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP) Land Use Designation of High Density Residential (HR). The k f' BVCP defines the HR land use as residential areas ~ t El. 5441 where the density is more then 14 dwelling units per acre. The BVCP makes the assumption that while densities may vary within a particular land use ' 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 c a Valley Land Use Designations are located in near ass Broadway proximity to the site including directly adjacent high P density residential, medium density and public land use designations. Given the site's close proximity to the 1 l., Pesos HR university and the aforementioned ' Y r-` h,`'T surrounding mix of uses, the adjacent streets are subject to a high demand for on-street I Aurora Avenue o P r .11 III L~773 parking. The project site is not located within 1715 Aurora Avenue o the University Hill General Improvement - cn'R - District or within a Neighborhood Parking ❑ I LR ❑ SI .`Jl fj ir?f 57 Agenda Item 5B Page 8 of 108 Permit Program, and there are no other restrictions on on-street parking along 17'" 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. 58 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' 3.5' Side Adjacent (17th Street) 125 75 Rear Aurora Avenue 25' 5.5' 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 3,165 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 at least six units, or one-half of the active fraternity members living, in the south building as well as one unit for a full time resident advisor. The remainder 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. 59 Agenda Item 513 Page 10 of 108 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 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 171h 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 17th 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 17th 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 60 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 61 Agenda Item 513 Page 12 of 108 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 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, (-1.9%), 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. 62 Agenda Item 513 Page 13 of 108 Arapahoe jl~ y 3 E-• g ~ ° m"~, University © c f LL of Colorado © ~~~r=r: 6t1~1 Boulder Main Campus a Colorado ~ The Site j Parking Arws oa ~~°°s°"'"'^'°°"c°`t' Nbto.e ycle Parking Arws i ,rr - - I wca.v r Tapes Mt1-s.EwuME Wf FWrm r..<i ~ - - ~ - ars~ zsh.. ~TEIAMwm bllMN+e) sl Figure 4: CU Student Permit Parking within Three-quarters of a Mile of the Site Please refer to Attachment C, Applicant's 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 (TOM) 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 63 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 985 16th 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. 64 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. 65 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. 66 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, or one-half of the active membership, 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 3,165 square feet of interior space and shall also include the associated "outdoor space" generally described as the patio and yard adjacent to the Fraternity Meeting Space, on the west side of the building. e. Social events associated with the fraternity use shall only occur in the area designated as the Fraternity Meeting Space and its associated "outdoor space." A social event is considered to be an event where the number of attendees exceeds 50 persons. Social events in the Fraternity Meeting Space with groups of 50 or greater shall end by 2:00 a.m. There shall be no more than 20 such social events per year. f. Social events in the "outdoor space" associated with the Fraternity Meeting Space shall end by 9:00 p.m. g. 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. h. 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. i. Outdoor amplified music shall end at 9.00 p.m. No live outdoor music is allowed. j. If the residential component of the fraternity use ceases to exist, the area designated as the Fraternity Meeting Space shall be used for fraternity uses that meet the requirements of Title 9, Boulder Revised Code, 1981 or as an accessory use to the principal residential use. 67 Agenda Item 513 Page 18 of 108 9. The parking provided in the on-site parking garages shall remain unbundled from the units at all times and shall not be assigned to any particular use. Approved B 61:d- :d dskell, Ex u i irector 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 68 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 69 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 STORAGE STORAGE ~ STAIR TO DECK ~ - ' ~ EL~VAT R l - .i I / LOBBY - - - - - - N ~ ° ' ~ _ _ - DN - - ~ ~j ~ VAN ~ 3" 0 15-10 3' 0 ~ ~ r UNIT 4A UNIT 4A UNIT 4E 9 FULL'SIZE ELEV 2 FULL SIZE _ _ ~ ~ ~ ~ BIKE PARKING 11 1 9 D 9 0 9' 0" 9 0 9' 0" ~ 8 0 8' 0 8' 0" 9' 8" 9' 0" ~ - -26 BIKES ~_p~ C~' ~ ❑ o '-p' ~ ROOF OVER ENTRY b ~ ~ ~ M ~ i INVERTED U-RACKS -SEE DETAIL ON SHEET SD2 _ o ENl ENTRY ~ m 0 ~ ~ i ~ rn j I~I III , I ° 8-5' 8'-1" ~ 8-1" ~ 8'-1" 8-1" 8'-1 ~ 8'-1' 8-1" ~ 8'-1" ~ 8-1" ~ 8'-1' 9 -7 ~ _ b w ~ _ t ~ rn N 1 11 SMALL GARS ~ 1 ~ ~ CAR I ~ ~ A4.1 ~ ~ PA: PASEO UNIT 4A UNIT 4A a UNIT 4A UNIT 4A FRATERNITY ~ ~ ~ - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ COURTYARD ~ ~ MEETING SPACE 995 SF ~ 10 SMALL CARS ° UP ~ 24'-0" ~ 19'-0" ' L~ [7 [7; Q 0 I ~ ~ ill - m I Upi I ~i~ ~ i Ia~,~ l - Ir. o PARKING GARAGE ~:;;'.ri.t . ~ _ ~ N I ~ ~ STAIF ~ STAIR ~ DN EGRE: _ EGRESS - i TER M } - I G, d o GAS METERS 20'-0" - UNIT 4C UNIT 2A UNIT 4A I i WALT b WALK 3 SMALL CARS ~ 7 FULL SIZE STOR b I 7._9.. 4' T-9" 4' ~ I TYP TYP ~ ~ TRASHI . RECYCLE ~ ELECT METERS ALLEY PARKII ALLEY PARKING ~ o GARAGE 3 GUEST & CA ENTRY 3 GUEST & CAR SHARE o, _ ~ GAS METERS - - f ROOF OVER 4 LEVEL N 2 GARAGE ENTRY A4.1 5 UP A4.1 DN ~ ii i ~ i~ i I q 5 FULL SIZE 1 SMALL VAN ' ~ CAR 2'-5.. .r 9'-3" 9._p., 9'-0., 9._p.. 9._p.. 8._p.. $,_p~~ 8._p,. a~_p~~ VIIATE R M UNIT 4E 4 ~ d I ~ nDN, I~ m U o N COMMON . ' s MAIN E EV EQU P - i~ ' ENTRY ~ ~ Q ~ ~ I I I ~ ~ 5 FULL SIZE 1 SMALL ~ U RECREATION cAR ~ ~ „ STUDY . ~ UNIT 3A ~ 1 - rn A4.1 o ~ ~ , 0 0, _ h FUTURE STORAGE ~ ~ ~ - 19'-p" * 24'-p" ~ 15'-p.. . ~ N_ ~ ~ ~ _ ~ ° ° - ~ STORAGE PARKING SUMMARY TABLE ~ ~w; ~ ~ REQUIRED PROPOSED ~ i ~ - 20'-0" ~ I~ - ~ I STANDARD SPACES 9'x19' 113 37 ~ ) INVERTED U-RACKS -SEE - - - - J - i COMPACT SPACES 7'-9"x15' N.A. 50% MAX 40 49.3% OF TOTAL DETAIL ON SHEET SD2~ ~ ACCESSABLE SPACES 9'x19' 4 4 ~ ) TOTAL 113 81 71.6% OF REQ'D ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 15° ~ ~ 12°i° ~ UNIT 36 - I 4 BIKE PARKING - - - ~ ° 34 BIKES ! _ UP fo ~ ~ 3,6„ I ~ 3~Ip~~ I I 5/0 ~ /o III I C 1, ° ~ ° I n, ^^T^~^ ..nT'^^ ~ UP I 1 O I TRASH ! RECYLE II tLCV I Kll, IYIC I CK.7 3 GARAGE ENTRY LEVEL N1 A4.1 FLOOR PLANS ACACIA STUDENT HOUSING © OZ ARCHITECTURE r7 o' s' 16' 32' FINAL ARCH ITECTURP64'LANS ~ -uRp64'LANS CASE LUR 2011-00028 17th & Broadway Al. 1 Boulder, Colorado Rev 10-07-2011 AHCH11111M 70 Agenda Item 513 Page 21 of 108 2 A4.1 i ' UNIT 46 T UNIT 4A UNIT 4A ROOF ROOF CORRIDOR ~I it li 4 ROOF I!~ UNIT 4A UNIT 4A !I 4 i 1 I A4.1 UNIT 4A UNIT 4A ROOF ~ I L _ f ~ . , . , ~i li 1 UNIT D UNIT 4D ~ . NORTH BUILDING ROOF 6 A4.1 A4.1 ~ STAIR TO DECK ~ ROOF i ~~::i ~ r - - e - _ _ ~ _A-- C ~ ~ _ UNIT 4A UNIT 4A UNIT 4E UNIT 46 UNIT 4A UNIT 4A CORRIDOR ORRIDOR ` ~~f _ - i• FRATERNITY FRATERNITY I~ ENTRY ~I I~ ~ Milli ~ I MEETING SPACE _ , o w n~ 2170 SF i~ L ~ - UNIT 4A N nn; PORCH , r 1 on y UNIT 4A UNIT 4A UNIT 4A A4.1 UNIT 4A UNIT 4A ~ ~ UNiT 4A ~ COURTYARD I 1nl ~ ~ MAIN ENTRY 1 I' ~~Q ~ , i~ ,:>..I.. , a-~-~+ i . , i..~ I I,_ ROOF UNIT 4D UNIT 4C UNIT 4A - ~ , - . ~ . LEVEL S2 LEVEL N3 FLOOR PLANS ACACIA STUDENT HOUSING © OZ ARCHITECTURE r7 A~ 0' 8' 16' 32' FINAL ARCH ITECTURP64'LANS ~ .2 -uRP64'LANS CASE LUR 2011-00028 17th & Broadway Boulder, Colorado Rev 10-07-2011 AHCH11111M 71 Agenda Item 513 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 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 72 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 73 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 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 74 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 75 Agenda Item 5B Page 26 of 108 - - - ~r r ~ ,1 [ ~ ~ . ~ r i ~ ~ ~ e ~ ~.i. ' ~ . - --z.- ~L7:y At b r I -'-j F i..J..F ~,L~ C ~x t G t ,.-Z T ~ ~J I L,. 1 i yi 5= [ 3 L I'! i_ tI TT S 7 7 Z i f }t 1 S 5 - ♦ -*7 r r..} l Jig. TI - L + ~ TF }1.-. t + 'Fl J t .Jl I _ ~ + I ~ - _~~'Yr 3 T a h l.:' - + J ! _C', : - 3J ~ - ~ r J 1 -r _ ;~`1 _ _ ' ~ ~ - , er ~ ~ ~ `71 t ~:=t '7 ~ tt 7~`; k I.,:~ I ~ ~ ~ 7 ` - ~ 1 :-tit j: I L rJ;J ~ [ rt,r ' ~ - - - 1 - • q' [ '.[r i- 7. 1 . _ .I-~ J1 I'__ ' 1 - ~ I t i Y; I r; Fj ...,'C3 t 3 } ~•'r ~;~y - ! ~ ~ ~ - ki t ,.wi ~ ~ I 'F - I Ci - ,t,-`- r ~7T t Z < f '.I '.li t r .1"i-.? ` } 7. - _ _ . x. - 'l - { e ~ 1 i - { - - III . - ~ ~ _ 6r ` t~ I _ - ~ . _ ~""rnad ♦ - i I. I _ I `L 1' ,r . i „ - , I . ~ _ ,1. • ' n i 1 1, a , ~ _ ~ - ~ i i i~: i ~ , ~ , - 1 ~ - v , t ~ - ~ - - ' ' - I a. _ a.a f - - _ ~ . _ 9• k °l ~ - r - -„i .a_y ~__Y ~7 111_- ~:~t a I III : ~ _ 1 } t41' I~ _ - ~ , . I " I -I. _ -r-`r . _ ~ _ ~ - _ - _ ~ ~ _ t '~'V f 4_~ . - w ' of ~ • i i ~ _ .;fir ~ y " ~ .,+~1 I ~~'i - 1 ~ t ~ „ I ` I . z. ' ~ ~ 1 n ■ v, _ .J. ,7. f"r .4 _ 1• . , a w ~ ti ~ 4 ~ w ~ i1 I s. yp • ~ ~ 1 se ~ . S _ ' f- r ~ ' ~ ~e Y yf ~-i; ~ Ir Y F6t e ~s f t y Y a 1 ~ ~ 4~'.: 111 ~I-'- BSI _ +Y~-~ _ i ~ ~V Y ~ f it I ~ ~ r "1P '#~5y ~p _ ~'1 p i i - ~A - ' ~ •-+y _ y,;~: sJ~' - w e ~ r .13 : ~s ^ p, ~ Y''~~, ~ : ~*•~+k~ ~ s~ 1~ - - i I _ i ' ~ 1 - _ ' ~ - ~ ~y - - - - . - - ~ - a - - - - - y, _ _ - 4 ° ~ ' i` ~ ~ t ~ c - ~ ~ ~ f . . Ili - 1 1 ' ~ _ + a ~ _ ~ 1~ E .f r' _ _ ~ _ i , i i _ - '1 _ • 1 °1 r..>r - e.r~. ....:a ~y... i~ ~ -•~r -1-f I 7' _`r''' ~i I ' ...r- ~ - ~ ~i _ I~ r- R ~ I 1 1 ' - ~ : . ~ I I ~ . _ A , ~ i, . ' I r 1 ~ li ~ j ~ ~ ~ +il~ _ t ~ .r ~ ~ ~ I .1 .I,~ _ ~ V ~ - _ _ _ - 'i . . ' .,..fir - 'F ~ ".a r ~a. ° r~~ rr e, =.L' ' i~ ~ ~ i - 1 I -r-. r,~ :L.. w. ~ - ~ -r f ~ - ~ ~ ; - ~ .1 .ice ~ . _ . x • l . -j ~j? ° pq,~q,~~ya~~ 1iy' - + . } . ° , : - ~ I'Lt P,T__.. } t._ 1~ - I . LL'. I -ia`rl _i { F- t I 7 4'.. ~ r:, ~ ~ I~ ~S ~ .<fl: t. i, ~ y - - '_J ~ - I' t I._-:i.E~ ~1 _`J;~ E.1.~. k ~ } w ~4' r . y.. 1 _ { y; ~ r_ may' i~ - i ~•r~ _ + ,y _ .rh ,1 I rt~~'h*~k~ -1_ t1L - I _ I r.a. 1.: -i '_i _.i • r~. ~ ~ _ .k~ - ~'~`~l } v~l 1c~,.`,~ J ,!.a♦rt Fv,„ 'r'~ „;s~,~.l~... - 1 ( F~~` y~ - 14 k 1, - . , ~-n - - i r~' , f ~ ~ k~,rb.A w 6 jy' y.,.C ''t't -'.ss a: ~~5 ~ Tyr ~'r; ~ ~ ~ iR yx 4~ ~ ice" ~f It a- * ~i ~ S S r~ k ~ I r - .~}v - - ~."i - __yF~ _ - - ~ r,-' d • - - _ rte'"- - - i ~+r.-:, - - _ ~ ` jJ~ ` ~ ~ - I - R ~~'."L ~'~w .t .nom s - .rr- ~ r r~~ , ~ may"' a ` ~ y .w . ~ _ - ~ - _ .f . : _ r ~ _ ~ _ - - ~ - _ a _ _ ~ w r • ' - r .r - 1 f ♦1. it r. ~ + ~ .r _ .sf i - y 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 76 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 1- -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 77 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 3 5'-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) 'y -~o 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" L 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 rURr 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. 7 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 i,nrru {~yr ~ o ~ - - _ ~ ; 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~--- ~ (ACA - ~ .HIl'~----------------------I ~ I ~ 2 i ~ ~ ~ S ~ \ ~II11~~11 ~ 2 ~ i SA ~ > ~6 S4 I 1 3~ A~ ° ~J' ~ j a ° ~ a a ° a 32 0 ° CONCRETE / 9 ~ ~ ~ a' / \ ~i ~ ~ _ SIDEWALK 38 ° PER SURVEY ~o p / / S ~ ` ~ ~ PER COB STDS ~ 3j ~ (VERIFY) ~ z o~ ~ S ~ ~ ~ s / 39 36 2.0% 31 ~ cP 0 (TYP} ~ Z ~ ~ 1VA, Inwrporated 1319 Spruce Street i \ ~ ~ G ~ ~ ~ ~ ~S ~ u: ~ ~ 0 i TOW 40.10 \ ~ ~ •0 1.30 ~ ~ ~ ~ BOW VARIES TOW 37.10 CONNECT TO / ~ ~ 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 / \ ~ ~ ~ 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 \ ~ 0 TO BOW VARIES INV IN 17.00 ~ g C ~ / DECK PATIO RO F RAIN S ~ / + STAIRS ~ 0 D \ ~ ~ ~ / 43.20 41N NORTH BUILDING MAX WALL HT 1'-6" o INV OUT 16.80 (VERIFY) "v 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 0 ~ ~ I's ! ~ ~ ~ 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, ~ D \ ~ ~ 130 LF I I~ s ~ ti • ~ \ s ~ ~ ~ ~ 9,L \ ~ ~ I 5.0% a 12" RCP ®1.0% ' ti y0 ` ~ \ 5 ~ I PASEO ~ s.F s ~ \ s a CURB RAMP I (RE: ARCH, ESCAPE) o ' Q _ s ~ ~ s ~s~ I ~ •s o ti` ~ (nP) I 2 0% RAISED PLAZA ~ ~ s s ~ ~ ~ a (RE. MECH, ESCAPE, ARCH) '0 I W ~ ~ ~ ~ / R° ~T1 ~ v' / ti~ ; ~ s Q 1 A Q ~ rTl ON ° Z ~ L.1. / ~ RAISED PLAZA 1.5' COLORED 0 ~ ~ G ~ ss ~ (RE: ME( / 1 a (RE: MECH, ESCAPE, ARCH) CONC STRIP p B/W WALK ~ ~ ~ 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 _ - Z ~ . ss \ a - ~ ° ~ _ _ 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 ° ~ 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 I 0TH S ~ INFORMAT ON) ° STORM GRAIN ~ ^ B IDES a ° )RM DRAIN ( ) a 'u, 12 INV OUT 21.00 ~ tia j I ~ ~ RE: ARCH ~ (nP) / ( ) ~ s / s ~ M o \ ~ ° Q 'k~ / ~ ° a da ~ 4 d ~ ' ~ W ~ T a o ~ ~N ~ o / ~ h a a 5° / ~ g S p-a 5 a ~ 21.5 ~ p° ° h~ M '~f / S ~ 5. ~ ~ W U / . ~ / ......~.CONCREIE..~...~ fTl / ff Z; \ / ~ AAI~KINGAREA..,.. f pr y / f`J ~f ~ ` I ~ \ V MATCH EXIST Of I ~ u z z . IMIT RE SE AN Z' \ GRADES ~~~~~,~L~ r ~ ~ JANI!ARV ~!-S1' ~p ~ N ( L ED LEA D I I ~ ~ ~ WATER QUALITY a , \ \ 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 \ ~ ~ ~ ~d~ / ~oN m -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 ~ N DRAWN: JCD \ A~,~ ~ ! s ~S / 1 CHECKED: SJD \ o / ~ ~ 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 80 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. = 5421.2x° 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 ,~,,,,y, 36 LF 3 HYDRANT z FIRE SERVICE ~ ~ o ~ 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 ~'j, ~ ~ + ~ I + + ~ + r I \ - ~n9 \ \ DZ ~ o 0 0 si \ \ ~ ' ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 0 0 0 `moo Q -ip ~ ~ o I ~ q o ~S' \ \ ~ ~~m / i s \ ~ ~ zA I ~G z o,~ ~ o r~~ o ~ I ~m~=" V^ ~ T ~ C \ cP G z \ \ S ~ ~ 0 i F \ \ A F i 9 \ ` ~ ~ i ~ ~i ` wN i ° S ozZm \ ~ m V so c,~..< ~ ~ \ ~ \ 'lr 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 ~ ~ ~ I ~ J` \ A ti~ \ 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 ti • ~ s o ~ ~ J' \ 3~ ~ a N v, o o s \ 5 F R ~ o ~ z Q = ~ ~ \ s ~a \ I ~ ~ s ~ o~ \ Z ~ ti ~ L. 'S s °F I o 0 t~ / ~ ~ ~ ~ A I ~ cn 'd~ ,p ~ _ , a ~ Dm ~ o ~o Z~ ~ Z ~o 7. `9 \ S. / ~ ~ \ \ CONNECT TO EXIST 6" FIRE SERVICE VERIFY ~ ( ) m ~ W °U e"eo 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 \ ~ `~c ~ ` 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 \ ( ) II ~ CONNECT TO 6 ~NNECT TO 6" o I (TYP, RE: ESCAPE) Q \ SANITARY CO ~ REUSE EXIST 1 1 2" \ ~ INV 5420.83 SANITARY CO ~ INV 5420.83 ` / , / ~ ~ DOMESTIC METER \ (RE: PLUMB) (RE: PLUMB) , i ' ~ ~ v / FOR SITE IRR ~ ~ / \ ~ ~ t I ~ I ~ N / ~ 33 LF 3 PVC \ ( ~ y~ SD ---J SD SD I ~ ~ . ~ ~ ~ ` SD SD D ~ ~ ~ / SD SD SD--~---SD S D Ir. -P s ~ , • • • • • • . ~ ~ Q IT'f f o, ti ~ C ~ i ~ % ~ , ~ 33 ~L1' 3 • TYPE.. K . /,n , ~ ~....COP.PER. PIPE ••..•.•.•..•..•.•..CONNECT•.TO. B.UILDiN.... • • • • • • • • • • . , , @ 7.5~ ~ . r-, . ~ \ DOMESTIC SERVICE RE: MECHtv~uEwl,r. _ ~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/ 6x8 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 ~ 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 ~ N \ \F ~ ~j o s 'L ~ s /y \ •M~~M~~~M~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~ ~ ~ \ I a v ~ x s \ ~ ~ I ~ 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 81 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, _ =:11 ` 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} 82 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 00040757.000:3} 83 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: I . 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 i00040757.DDC:31 84 Agenda Item 513 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. b. 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} 85 Agenda Item 513 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 {00040757.DOC:3} 86 Agenda Item 513 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} 87 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. 88 Agenda Item 513 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. 89 Agenda Item 5B Page 40 of 108 5. 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 '/a 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. 90 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. 91 Agenda Item 5B Page 42 of 108 Attachment C Acacia Fraternity Chapter Meeting Room Management Plan October 21, 2011 Amended October 31, 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 27, 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 maintains ownership and operations at 955 Broadway to this day, and the Colorado Acacia Fraternity House Corporation Board (a Colorado non-profit herein referred to as CAHCB) 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 2011, the Colorado Chapter has initiated over 1,100 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 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 apartment units. Each apartment unit will have a common living space, including kitchen and living room, but also be suited to house between one and four fraternity members, each with their own private bedroom and bathroom. The minimum number of residential units dedicated to the fraternity use will be at least 6 units or one-half of the Acacia fraternity active membership. Current membership is quite small, but is anticipated to grow to a significant number in the coming years. {Attadunent C_Management P1an.DOC:1 } 92 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. 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 20 times per school year and will be focused on members and their invited guests. At all times, the on-site adult (non-undergraduate) resident advisor will be present or immediately available to facilitate appropriate behavior and to advise and guide the members. Alumni members and CAHCB 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 than would be healthy for the culture of the fraternity. By having the "best-in-class" apartments available onsite, 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 CAHCB 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 (RA): 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. {Attadunent C_Management P1an.DOC:1 } 93 Social Gatherings: Monday Evening Formal Dinners • Attendance limited to fraternity members, their dates/personal guests and guest speakers • Over by 2 AM Social Events • Up to 20 social events will be hosted per year, typically held on weekend evenings, Thursdays, Fridays and Saturdays. A social event is defined as a coming together of individuals for a common purpose and where the total number of attendees present exceeds 50. • All social events shall fully comply with IFC Rules. Management of Social Events Under the InterFraternity Council Event Planning Bylaws 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 the City of Boulder 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 uniformed security consisting of active fraternity chapter members. In addition, 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, and make arrests for underage drinking or any other unruly behavior. It is the fraternity's policy and protocol to have the Resident Advisor call one of the property owners to report any unruly behavior, and mutually decide whether to call police as well with the security officer in charge. It is the responsibility of the Resident Advisor, or his selected adult designee, to shut down all fraternity events at the times agreed to herein. • There will be no amplified outdoor music permitted after 9:00 p.m. and no large groups will be permitted outside after 9:00 p.m. • There will be no alcohol served to anyone who is not of legal age to consume alcohol (21). • Alcohol service will fully comply with all Interfraternity Council Event Planning Bylaws at cu. Parking Management: There is a 27% 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 an established car share program to have one of their vehicles parked in one of the project's onsite surface parking spaces located in the {Attadunent C_Management P1an.DOC:1 } 94 alley. The car will be provided for the 2012 fall semester. The car share program will be available to project residents through an online registration and reservation process. Reservations for the car are required in advance and are typically done on an hourly basis. The car share organization manages the program entirely; the project only supplies the permanent parking space. Offsite 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 onsite 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 at least one mile of the project site. Events / Social Gatherings: Attendees at social functions or any other chapter activity who do not live on site, but are intending to drive their own cars to such functions, will be incentivized to park in a public parking facility on CU's campus, or on the Hill and walk to the chapter house. Parking cost reimbursements or credits to non-resident attendees will be issued as determined to be appropriate by CAHCB to properly incentivize such offsite parking. 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 onsite. There is a large public parking garage located just two blocks from the project site (see map attached) that normally has many spaces available on weekend evenings for public 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. Security protocol will follow all applicable Interfraternity Council Event Planning Bylaws, including having uniformed security officers consisting of active fraternity chapter members. {Attadunent C_Management P1an.DOC:1 } 95 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 University Hill Neighborhood Association (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. {Attadunent C_Management P1an.DOC:1 } 96 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. 97 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. 98 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; 99 Agenda Item 513 Page 50 of 108 _Y _(Iii) 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. 100 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 171h 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. 101 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. 102 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. 103 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. Y (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. 104 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. 105 Agenda Item 513 Page 56 of 108 Attachment E ~tr F _ r... Ar7 . y University of Colorado Boulder Campus Student Transportation Survey Report of Results March 2006 Prepared by: 4w eNATIONAL ESEARCH CENTER Inc. 3005 30'h Street • Boulder, Colorado 80301 • t: 303-444-7863 • f.• 303-441-1145 • www.n-r-c.com 106 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- 2 N N y N d' C O O Z O O O N Report of Results 107 Agenda Item 513 Page 58 of 108 CU Student Transportation Survey March 2006 I Executive Summary Survey Background The university of Colorado conducted this survey- 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 CU 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. Follolkving are the percent of days respondents reported using each mode of transportation: • Walk, 27% • Ride a bus(es), 26% • Bike, 21 % • Drive alone, 11 % • Alulti-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 ou 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- mode for those respondents who indicated more than one category-. Results were sinular to those observed for the typical week: • Rode a bus(es), 26% • Walked, 24% . z 0 0 N Report of Results 0 Page 1 108 Agenda Item 513 Page 59 of 108 CU Student Transportation Survey March 2006 • Biked, 18% • Multi-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 examined 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 primalT, mode of transportation by those living iii 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 tunes 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 pm (18%) and 5:00 pm (18%). Suiveyed 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 wav, 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 airy 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 • 21 to 30 minutes, 9% W • 31 to 45 minutes, 7% • 46 to 60 minutes, 2% • More than an hour, 2% o 0 N Report of Results 0 Page 2 109 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 miiles, 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 when they comae 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 oi-Ilp 18% in 2005. While few students reported to driving on the dad- 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 structure with a pernut, 42% • Residential street, no meter, 22% • CU lot or stricture `vith 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. • 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% • 1 Day, 10% • 2 Days, 4% • 3 Days, 3% • 4 Days, 2% • 5 Days, 6% a U • 6 Daps, 1% • 7 Days, 4% 0 z 0 0 N Report of Results 0 Page 3 110 Agenda Item 5B Page 61 of 108 CU Student Transportation Survey March 2006 Students were then asked where they usually park jrhefi they drive to school. `'lien students drive to school they are most likely to park iii a CU lot or stricture with a permit: • CU lot or stricture with a periiut, 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, iio charge, 6% • Other lot, stricture or space, with permit, 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 slight uicrease from 2001 and 2000 where 86% and 91%, respectively reported they had a RTD sticker on their Buff OneCard. 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 tlieN- 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% • Tliere is no bus service to my home, 10% • I need my vehicle before and/or after the work-day to transport children or do errands, 9% • There is no bus service to campus, 4% Approximately tvvo-thirds (62%) of students surveyed reported ridiuig the bus at least once during a typical week for reasons other than commuting to school. Survey participants were asked how 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% • 6-10 blocks, 5% r • 11-15 blocks, 2% • More than 13 blocks, 6% 2 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 0 Page 4 111 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 halt (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 them did not show a change from 2001 or 2000. Those reporting having a bicycle increased in 2005 (63%) compared to 2001 (52%). 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 5 112 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 uinderstand the school anud work commute of Boulder's "daytime" population; that is, those who study at the University, or are employed withui Boulder. Those -,,,ho study or work iu 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. Tliis 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 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, 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 N N W l6 C O Z O O O N Report of Results 0 Page 6 113 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, tollowed 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 7 114 Agenda Item 513 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 900% 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 orre in 10 of those completing the survey reported drivuig 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 Rode a 2% L bus(es) 2 M 26% 0 c 0 Z 0 0 N Report of Results 0 Page 8 115 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 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 ui Boulder (50%) than those that h ing 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 younger 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 9 116 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 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 anv other hour of the day. About what time did you leave home for school today? 30% 25% C 20% 0 n 15% 0 C 2 10% am 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 CO m ca as ca ca ca ca m m co ca Q Q Q n n n a o- n n Q Q N r N CO cn Co CO M O N r N CO V U" Co N co O O U C a) C N U L 2 N a) N a) D" l6 C O Z O NN Report of Results O Page 10 117 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:OOpm 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 11 118 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% 20% c °L 'D 15% 0 c 10% a~ 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 ca ca m <v m m m m ~a ~a co m a a a n n a n a n n CL n N N M l17 CO f~ W CT O N N M l17 CO I~ M M 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 day for departing the campus are 3:00 pm (18%) and 5:00 pm (18%). About what time do you usually leave school? 30% 25% 4 a -(D 20% CL a a' 15% 0 c ID 10% N U ~ C 5% C ID 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 m m m iv m co <v U> CO m m ca a a a CO Q a Q n Q a n O N r N M V CO I- ~ 0 O N N V C(") O fl- M O O N l6 C O Z 0 O N Report of Results 0 Page 12 119 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:OOpn1 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% 10:00pm 0.0% 1.4% 11:00pm 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 13 120 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% m U L U N N N N D" l6 C O Z 0 O N Report of Results 0 Page 14 121 Agenda Item 5B Page 72 of 108 CU Student Transportation Survey March 2006 The average time spent making the school commute was 17 mirnrtes; the average distance was 5.8 miles. Just over 15% of the school commutes took 5 minutes or less, with slightly over half (52%) taking between 6 to 15 minutes. 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 15 122 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 havivig a parking pernut for the Boulder campus. 1112001, 31% of those surveyed reporting having a parking permit compared to only 18% 1112005. Do you currently have a Boulder Campus parking permit? Yes 18% No 82% Parking Permit Status by Year 2005 18% 2001 31% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Percent of Respondents Who Have a Parking Permit U L 2 N N N N D" l6 C O Z O O O N Report of Results 0 Page 16 123 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 siuveyed (71 reported never parking a motor vehicle on campus. A little more than one-tenth (11%) of those survejyed 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 m 7 Days 4% 0 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% Percent of Respondents 0 z 0 0 N Report of Results 0 Page 17 124 Agenda Item 5B Page 75 of 108 CU Student Transportation Survey March 2006 Students were their asked where they usually park when they drive to school. Thirty percent of students reported parking in a CU lot or sttlicttvue with a pernut, 22% reported parking on a residential street with no meter and 19% reported parking in a CU lot or structure «ith cash pavment. Other lots, strictures or space with a permit or cash payment were used the least (2%). 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 9% 1 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 N N D" l6 C O Z 0 O N Report of Results O Page 18 125 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 free bus rides throughout Boulder and the Denver metropolitan area. Most students (94%) sure, ey=ed reported having a current RTD sticker on their CU 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% 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% L 2 Percent of Respondents With a Current RTD Sticker M N N 0 Z 0 0 N Report of Results 0 Page 19 126 Agenda Item 513 Page 77 of 108 CU Student Transportation Survey March 2006 Survey participants were asked how far their home was from the nearest bus stop that they world 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 2% 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 20 127 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 a~ 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 21 128 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 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% 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 22 129 Agenda Item 5B Page 80 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 halt (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 a~ U L 2 N N N N D" l6 C O Z 0 O N Report of Results 0 Page 23 130 Agenda Item 5B Page 81 of 108 CU Student Transportation Survey March 2006 Available Transportation Options Siu-vey participants were asked to indicate if they had a car (or other motor vehicle) or bicycle available to them for commutuig to school. Roughly two-thirds reported havvig 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 1112005 (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 0 Z 0 0 N Report of Results 0 Page 24 131 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 N N D" l6 C O Z 0 O N Report of Results 0 Page 25 132 Agenda Item 513 Page 83 of 108 CU Student Transportation Survey March 2006 I Appendix A: Respondent Demographics Characteristics of the survey 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 a~ Respondent's Gender L What is your gender? Percent of Respondents 2 Female 47% N W Male 53% 0 Total 100% z 0 0 N Report of Results 0 Page 26 133 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 gnestion 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% AP.Sp01!(IP./1tS may tOtR1l7101E tj7<lil 100% as 1'eSp0 identP Jl'el'e allowed lilot-e thrall aw 1e.Sp0Y1Se 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 lei 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% N U 203 2% 205 2% N N 225 2% AB 2% o BOUND 2% z 0 0 N Report of Results Page 27 134 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 a~ U L U N N O N D" l6 C O Z O O O N Report of Results 0 Page 28 135 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 29 136 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 9% 3 5% 4 2% 5 2% 6 1% 7 0% 8 0% 9 0% 10 0% 11 0% 12 0% c5 15 0% 2 Total 100% U L 2 N N N N D" l6 C O Z 0 O N Report of Results 0 Page 30 137 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 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 31 138 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% U Other 1 % 2 0 Z m 0 0 N Report of Results 0 Page 32 139 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 I 0% 128 0% 15 0% 2 0% 20-BX 0% 20 0% 206 0% 208 0% 210 0% 228 0% 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 33 140 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 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 0 z 0 0 N Report of Results 0 Page 34 141 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% r- I do not usually drive to school 55% N N Total 100% 0 z 0 0 N Report of Results 0 Page 35 142 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% *Re ondents may total 11rore than 100% as res potideiits n,ei-e allowed jnore thart one respoyue. a~ U L U N N N N D" l6 C O Z 0 O N Report of Results 0 Page 36 143 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 37 144 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% o 209, SKIP 0% z 0 0 N Report of Results 0 Page 38 145 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 39 146 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% C 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 40 147 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% o THE BOUND 0% z 0 0 N Report of Results 0 Page 41 148 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 I 20% Senior 22% Graduate student 16% Total 100% 2 U L 2 N N N N l6 C O Z 0 O N Report of Results 0 Page 42 149 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% U C N C N U L 2 N N N N l6 C O Z O O O N Report of Results 0 Page 43 150 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% U C N C N U L 2 N N N N l6 C O Z 0 O N Report of Results 0 Page 44 151 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 Valley Employee Transportation Survey since the baseline studv conducted in 1991. Survey Administration 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 irr 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, Luc., the company conducting the survey and analyzing the results. An e-memo explaiiring 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 O O O N Report of Results 0 Page 45 152 Agenda Item 5B Page 103 of 108 CU Student Transportation Survey March 2006 Data Analysis The data were imported from the webseiz-er to an SPSS (Statistical Package for the Social Sciences) dataset, the application used to analyze the data. Respondent characteristics of the surveyr sample were compared to those for all CU Boulder students and were statistically adjusted to reflect the larger population when necessary. The results of the weighting scheme are presented in the following table. For the most part, frequency distributions and menu ratings are presented in the body of the report. A complete set of frequencies for each survey question is presented iii Appendix B: Complete Sui7ey 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 l6 C O Z O O O N Report of Results 0 Page 46 153 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 instrument. 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 O N Report of Results 0 Page 47 154 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 it take?. 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 155 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 times-> 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?..- J 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 156 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 157 Agenda Item 5B Page 108 of 108 Page 3 PLANNING BOARD Annual Application - 2011 ~ o QF SQL The Planning Board consists of seven members appointed by City Council, each to a five-year term. The Board studies long-range planning matters, including the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan, and makes recommendations to City Council. The Board serves as an advisory board to City Council on applications for annexation and rezoning. The Board reviews and approves certain site and use review applications. The Board appoints one of its members to attend the Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board meetings as a non-voting advisor. Staff Liaison: Ruth McHeyser Meetings are generally held the first, third and fourth Thursday of the month at 6 PM in the City Council Chambers. The Boulder City Charter requires representation of both genders on City Boards and Commissions. Interview dates are March 3, 8 and 10th; group interview times will be scheduled and posted to the City's web site on Tuesday, February 22. Name Street Address and Zip Code Home Phone Mobile Phone Work Phone Email Address (REQUIRED) Occupation Place of Employment Do you reside in the City of Boulder? Yes No Are you a citizen of the United States? Yes No A. What are your technical qualifications for this position? BLA Application (January 2011) 1/6/2011 1 158 PLANNING BOARD Annual Application - 2011 ~ o QF SQL B. List all potential conflicts of interest. ANSWER ALL OF THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS: 1. What do you think are the most important planning issues facing the City? BLA Application (January 2011) 1/6/2011 2 159 PLANNING BOARD Annual Application - 2011 ~ o QF SQL 2. What expertise or insight could you bring to the effort? Other than the Pearl Street Mall, identify the three most successful and the three least successful examples of planning, or the failure thereof, in Boulder. Please explain what elements contributed to these projects' success or failure. BLA Application (January 2011) 1/6/2011 3 160 PLANNING BOARD Annual Application - 2011 ~ o QF SQL 3. Describe specific changes you would make to the City of Boulder Planning regulations, and explain why you would make the changes. BLA Application (January 2011) 1/6/2011 4 161 PLANNING BOARD Annual Application - 2011 ~ o QF SQL 4. Twenty years from now, how do you envision the built environment of Boulder having evolved in a way that advances the community's sustainability goals (economic, environmental and social) in an integrated way, and how would you like to contribute to that vision during your time on the board? RETURN APPLICATIONS TO marshalld@bouldercolorado.gov FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, CONTACT Boulder City Council Attention: Dianne Marshall 303-441-3002 303-441-4478 (FAX) BLA Application (January 2011) 1/6/2011 5 162