Office of Facilities Planning
Research Laboratory No. 2, Room 301
453 UCB
Boulder, Colorado 80309-0453
(303) 492-1275
FAX: (303) 492-7186
Meeting Minutes
DATE:
Wednesday, November 11, 2009 1:00 p.m.
SUBJECT:
North of Boulder Creek Master Plan Task Force
LOCATION:
UMC 247
ATTENDEES: Mona Elhelbawy
Alfred Flores
Matt Reisman
Oliver Gerland
Kristen Epley
Deb Cook
Tom Goodhew
Jonathan Akins
Phil Simpson
Robin Suitts
November 11, 2009 -UMC 247
Present: First time attendees- Mona Elhelbawy, Newton Court resident, Matt Reisman,
Graduate Student, Oliver Gerland, Kristin Epley and second time attendees Deb Cook,
Alfred Flores, Jonathan Akins, Tom Goodhew, Robin Suitts, Phil Simpson; absent
today: David Chadwick, Beverly Johnson, Robert Harburg (city Veterans Day holiday)
Phil oriented the new members about property boundaries, existing structures, flood
way and floodplain issues. Jonathan spoke about code implications for the
redevelopment of the property. Phil stated that in the event of a flood, the floodplain is
expected to be anywhere from 6 inches to 2 feet deep in water as it flows west to east
across the property along the creek, north to Arapahoe, and backs up at Folsom bridge.
In contrast, the floodway, closer to the creek, is expected to be 3 feet deep with a velocity
fast enough to knock a person down.
Alfred expressed, and the group agreed, that in the event of a flood, the safety of
students and families in existing student housing is important especially for those
residing in the flood flow areas where Athens Court and Faculty/Staff buildings are
situated. Phil talked about the large mountain basin near the continental divide flowing
down the narrow Boulder Canyon that is the cause of the concern. The group referenced
other past flood events in Colorado and the negative impacts. Jon stated that FEMA
allows construction of buildings above the floodplain and described the 100 and 500
year flood risks and code requirements. Jon went further to describe that the campus’
insurance carrier will require the campus to build 4 feet above the 100 year floodplain
level.
Phil described options for redevelopment:
1) Replace like-for-like housing – Issues – Difficult to finance and provide below
market housing for graduate student families that have limited resources to pay.
Charge for existing housing is 80% of market. New housing would probably be
130% of market because of the expense of redevelopment in this area, which
would by necessity include, road and utilities work, flood mitigation work, for a
total cost of at least $250 per square foot. Alfred stated that successful models he
has studied provide a wide variety of options for constituents to choose from.
2) Provide intergenerational housing coupled with attractive, high end alumni units
with a view. University of British Columbia and Penn State have built this
successfully. Alumni also help pay for and use campus amenities. Kristin
suggested that a community garden might also be popular and consistent with
student desire to support sustainable, local food options. Alfred and Phil talked
about the popularity of a passive division between the private outdoor spaces of
individual units and public space. Deb stated that market analysis would have to
ensure success of the alumni housing, that there would be no options for failure.
Phil expressed his concern that the inclusion of alumni units in a building would
double the density of development. Others in the group referenced recent
development in the city and perceived reasons for success or failure as attractive
housing. The group agreed that the location would be popular as it is close to
campus, great shopping and retail. The group also agreed that the property could
provide a great transition between CU, the city and neighbors to the north, and
that provision of housing for freshmen should be limited.
3) Redevelop the area primarily for use by Athletics and Recreation and relocate
family and graduate student housing to Williams Village, East Campus and South
Campus. Deb expressed her concern that all of these options needed financing to
make them implementable. The group struggled with the identification of
funding mechanisms for all the ideas expressed to replace existing family/grad
student housing. With regards to locating family housing on South campus, one
person expressed concerns that students might not find this a desirable location
for housing because of the distance to the main campus. Another concern would
be that if we pursue the model of creating condos, the site would be critical to the
marketability to alumni and retired faculty (to offset cost to graduate students
and families).
South Campus may be perceived as too far from campus to be really popular with
some faculty as well. Another felt that the South Campus location would be
preferable to a commute to some outlying communities. The group discussed the
need for the financing and construction of the already planned and approved
faculty staff housing southeast of the creek at Williams Village.
Matt asked about lightening risk to those playing on the fields in the area north of
Boulder creek. Phil and others expressed their belief that no data exists to
suggest that players would be at an increased risk in this area. Alfred stated that
there is currently a lightening detection and advance warning system in the
recreational areas of Boulder Creek.
At Robin’s request, Jonathan talked in more detail about requirements that “residential”
facilities in flood prone areas cannot have structured parking built beneath living units,
but that “mixed-use” facilities can. The group referenced the Peloton’s first level of
retail and other uses above parking. Jonathan referenced the city’s “6 inch rule” and
Phil drew a diagram of the requirement to build overbank area to mitigate downstream
flood impacts of development in this area. The group speculated that a mixed-use
campus building could really be beneficial, providing a village type environment similar
to the “university village” concept studied and recommended for the area by the 2030
facilities task force in 2008. Suggestions for first level amenities included dining,
bookstore satellite, classroom space, faculty and staff offices, indoor recreation,
childcare, dry lab research, city/CU joint use conference center close to Marriott and
Harvest House, space for community gathering/cultural/music programming, etc.
The group talked about Georgia Tech housing recently constructed and what each had
heard is making the high rise facility successful, including alumni housing,
intergenerational units, international students, etc.
Mona talked about the location convenience of living in Newton Court, and described
amenities that make the units enjoyable to live in. Her description of co-located open
space, recreation, community green space, and playgrounds being critical to the success
of family housing lead to a further discussion of these elements by the whole group.
Recalling earlier conversations with Phil and Jon, Robin asked about the feasibility of
grading a dual purpose, flood storage/ overbank channel to serve also as recreation,
athletics, and open space along the creek, while building structures to the north end of
the campus property lines. Jon stated that this may be ideal.
Matt stated that he’d studied real estate and that he felt that the idea to build affordable
units for graduate students coupled with higher end alumni housing with a view was a
great idea. He said that graduate students would love to be co-located with mentors
with professional work experience and possible job connections in the real world. He
said that he liked the idea of providing space for a conference center, community
gathering, that common areas are badly needed. He felt that the location near
downtown would help ensure success of this type of development.
The group felt a partnership with the city to provide a conference center was ideally
located in this area and is badly needed by the campus. Everyone felt that the facility
would be booked full time by a wide variety of user groups including the academic and
research sides of the house, as well as continuing education, alumni and athletics.
Robin tried to gain an understanding from Deb and Alfred what priority order they
would suggest razing existing structures north of Boulder Creek. The group agreed that
Faculty/Staff Court, Athens Court, and College Inn were the priorities based on flood
risk, but that Newton Court and Marine Court were close to reaching the end of their
useful life, certainly within the 10 year master plan timeframe.
The group agreed that the first development in a needed series of dominos included
building the planned faculty/staff/graduate student housing at Williams Village. This
would allow for the vacating of some of the substandard housing in the area north of
Boulder Creek.
The group suggested that everyone on the task force take time out of their schedules to
walk the entire subject area.
NEXT MEETING: Wednesday, December 9, 1-3 UMC 425