[bouldercouncilhotline] Hotline: Disparities Between Approved and As-Built Projects

[cmosupport at bouldercolorado.gov]

Sender: Ferro, Charles

Hi Mary, Sam:
Thanks for the email.

The Site Review for the Avery Brewery was approved with a phasing plan. At this time, only the first phase of construction is complete. The phasing plan was designed to get the production facility/tap room operational and generating revenue before starting on the second phase. Phase II (which includes the ornate façade details
 and additional landscaping) is required to be completed by early 2018 (at the latest). Staff has been in contact with the owner’s representation and they are aware of the deadline as well as the need to comply with the Site Review approval in terms of both architecture and landscaping as they complete Phase II.
 
Please feel free to contact me with any additional questions.
Best,
Charles
 
Charles Ferro, AICP
Development Review Manager 
City of Boulder - Department of Community Planning + Sustainability
303.441.4012 - Direct
303.441.3241 - Fax

ferroc at bouldercolorado.gov
www.bouldercolorado.gov
 

From: "Young,  Mary" <YoungM at bouldercolorado.gov>
To: "HOTLINE" <HOTLINE at bouldercolorado.gov>
Subject: Disparities Between Approved and As-Built Projects

Please have a look at the two attached files. The approved version was taken from the call-up packet to Council in 2012. The other is a recent photo of the building as built. As you can see, the two are substantially different. Both of us (Mary Young and Sam Weaver) were on Planning Board during approval of this project and participated in the required Site Plan Review. At the public hearing, much of the board discussion centered around the historical reference to breweries of yore that was reflected in the architecture of the proposed building. Photos of old breweries were displayed by the architects and developers as their inspirations for the project. A great deal of time and effort on behalf of the board and staff were spent on guiding the building's appearance and materials towards an authentic call back.


Clearly, the Site Plan Review approval (and plans provided to the City Council at the time to inform a call-up) did not reflect what would eventually be built.

As we move forward on the Design Excellence/Site Review Criteria/Form Based Code efforts, the degree of disparity that can occur between site review approvals of buildings and what gets built must be greatly reduced. There should exist real value in the approval process. Disparities, such as this one, suggest a significantly impaired process.

The built version of a building should never be a surprise to the approval granting bodies. To that end, it would be helpful as part of the Design Excellence and Site Plan Review Criteria review effort for staff to provide Council and Planning Board a side by side comparison of projects as approved under Site Plan Review and then as built over the last two years. The purpose of this exercise is 1) to inform our approval bodies of just how binding (or not) Site Plan Review approvals currently are and 2) the degree to which design/materials/use changes can occur after approval. These comparisons could inform Planning Board and City Council in guiding staff on potential revisions to our approval processes.
Thank you.

 
Mary Dolores Young
Boulder City Council Member
303-501-2439
Sam Weaver
Member of Boulder City Council
weavers at bouldercolorado.gov
Phone: 303-416-6130
 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.gif
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 95 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://list.ci.boulder.co.us/pipermail/bouldercouncilhotline/attachments/20150422/048b01dc/attachment.obj 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image003.gif
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 425 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://list.ci.boulder.co.us/pipermail/bouldercouncilhotline/attachments/20150422/048b01dc/attachment-0001.obj 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image004.gif
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 409 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://list.ci.boulder.co.us/pipermail/bouldercouncilhotline/attachments/20150422/048b01dc/attachment-0002.obj 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.gif
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 387 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://list.ci.boulder.co.us/pipermail/bouldercouncilhotline/attachments/20150422/048b01dc/attachment-0003.obj