Loading...
05.03.2012 PB Agenda Packet with 5A-Revised CITY OF BOULDER PLANNING BOARD MEETING AGENDA DATE: TIME: PLACE: 1.CALL TO ORDER 2.APPROVAL OF MINUTES 3.PUBLIC PARTICIPATION 4.DISCUSSION OF DISPOSITIONS, PLANNING BOARD CALL-UPS/CONTINUATIONS 5.PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS a. b. 6.MATTERS FROM THE PLANNING BOARD, PLANNING DIRECTOR, AND CITY ATTORNEY 7.DEBRIEF MEETING/CALENDAR CHECK 8.ADJOURNMENT CITY OF BOULDER PLANNING BOARD MEETING GUIDELINES CALL TO ORDER AGENDA PUBLIC PARTICIPATION DISCUSSION AND STUDY SESSION ITEMS PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS 1. Presentations 2. Public Hearing 3. Board Action MATTERS FROM THE PLANNING BOARD, DIRECTOR, AND CITY ATTORNEY ADJOURNMENT CITY OF BOULDER PLANNING BOARD ACTION MINUTES April 5, 2012 1777 Broadway, Council Chambers PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: CALL TO ORDER B. Holicky D. GehrL. MayS. WeaverB. Bowen. APPROVAL OF MINUTES PUBLIC PARTICIPATION Bruce Dierking, 2595 Canyon Blvd. – DISCUSSION OF DISPOSITIONS, PLANNING BOARD CALL-UPS PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS A.Public hearing and consideration of a Use Review request, no. LUR2012-00011, for a mixed use building with a 1,385 square foot coffee shop with 24 seats, open seven days a week from 6 a.m. until 10 p.m. and with one 800 square foot residential unit at the rear, located at 1852 Arapahoe Ave. As part of the Use Review request the applicant is also requesting a 30 percent parking reduction. The restaurant is located within the Residential High-1 (RH-1) zone district. Applicant: James Trewitt, Arch 11, Inc. Owner: Arapahoe Mercantile Co., LLC Staff Presentation J. Vaughn Applicant Presentation James Trewitt, Arch 11, Inc., Public Hearing Board Discussion M. Young M. YoungA. Brockett D. Powell B.Public hearing to consider a Site Review application to construct a new four-story 55- foot tall, 84-unit apartment building with below-grade and podium parking. The existing First Christian Church building is proposed to be landmarked and re-purposed as a clubhouse facility for the apartments. Case no. LUR2012-00003. Applicant / Owner: Steven Simonetti/First Christian Church Staff Presentation E. McLaughlin Applicant Presentation Steve Simonetti, Adrian Sopher, Architect Public Hearing Steve Crowder, PO Box 211, Niwot – Barbara Wilkins-Crowder– PO Box 211, Niwot Carol Poore, 614 E. Cheseter St. Lafayette Heather Avens, 1125 Nottingham St, Lafayette Board Discussion Height, Mass and Scale L. May A. Brockett B. Bowen S. WeaverA. BrockettB. Bowen M. YoungS. Weaver B. Holicky Architecture B. Bowen A. BrockettS. Weaver S. Weaver M. Young L. May M. Young B. Holicky Open Space M. YoungB. Bowen South Connections from TCP M. YoungS. Weaver L. May B. Holicky Parking Reduction M. Young Solar Exception S. Weaver Recommended Changes M. Young A. Brockett B. Bowen S. Weaver L. May B. Holicky S. WeaverM. Young L. May B. Holicky B,/ HolickyS. Weaver D. Powell 7. MATTERS FROM THE PLANNING BOARD, PLANNING DIRECTOR, AND CITY ATTORNEY C. Ferro M. Young A. Brockett M. Young 8. DEBRIEF/AGENDA CHECK 9. ADJOURNMENT CITY OF BOULDER PLANNING BOARD RETREAT MINUTES April 16, 2012 West Conference Room, 1777 Broadway PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: STAFF PRESENT: 1.Welcome and Agenda Review 2.2012 Officer Selection B. Holicky M. Young 3.Selections of Board Liaisons: L. May D. Powell A. Brockett 4.2012 Work Program Overview D. Driskell 5.Topics for further discussion CITY OF BOULDER PLANNING BOARD ACTION MINUTES April 19, 2012 1777 Broadway, Council Chambers PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: CALL TO ORDER B. Holicky APPROVAL OF MINUTES M. YoungA. Brockett B. Bowen L. May A. BrockettD. Powell B. Bowen L. May PUBLIC PARTICIPATION Bruce Dierking, 2595 Canyon Blvd. – DISCUSSION OF DISPOSITIONS, PLANNING BOARD CALL-UPS PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS Public hearing to consider Concept Plan, no. LUR2012-00010, for the development of 232 multifamily rental units on an 8.6-acre site currently comprised of four lots. The development proposal includes three-story buildings with tuck under and perimeter surface parking as well as a 50-meter pool, clubhouse, fitness center and leasing office. Applicant: Brian Valentine Property Owner: Gunbarrel Flats, LLC Staff Presentation J. Vaughn Applicant Presentation Mathew Shultz, Trammell Crow Residential, Public Hearing 1.Kathy Giloy, 6674 Drew Ranch Lane – Board Discussion Site Design Building design Mixed use Summary Public hearing and consideration of a recommendation to City Council on the Chautauqua Collaborative Stewardship Framework. Staff Presentation L. Grauer Public Hearing 1.Madelyn Clair, 1516 Columbine Avenue – 2.Phil Shull, 497 Pearl Street – 3.Jancy Campbell, 1037 Maxwell Avenue – Historic Boulder- 4.Elizabeth Allen Board Discussion Comments on the Framework A. Brockett M. YoungA. Brockett B. Bowen L. May A. Brockett B. Holicky D. Powell M. Young A. Brockett L. May B. Bowen D. Powell B. HolickyA. Brockett S. Weaver L. MayB. Holicky A. Brockett B. Holicky 7. MATTERS FROM THE PLANNING BOARD, PLANNING DIRECTOR, AND CITY ATTORNEY 8. DEBRIEF/AGENDA CHECK 9. ADJOURNMENT M E M O R A N D U M TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Call Up Item: May 3, 2011 May 3, 2012 Agenda Item 4A Page 1 of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genda Item 4A Page 2 of 2 1)136%2(91 84PERRMRK&SEVH 3 *)PEMRI1G0EYKLPMR 631 7IRMSV4PERRIV (%TVMP %8) 'EPP9T-XIQ&VSEH[E]z*MREP4PEX 7 9&.)'8 8)',2-'%0(3'91)286):-);*MREP4PEX JSVXLIWYFHMZMWMSRSJSRIPSXMRXSX[SERHERSYXPSX EPSRK[MXLEWWSGMEXIHIEWIQIRXW8LMWETTVSZEPMWWYFNIGXXSGEPPYTSRSVFIJSVI1E] %XXEGLIHMWXLIHMWTSWMXMSRJSVXLIGSRHMXMSREPETTVSZEPSJE*MREP4PEXJSVXLIWYFHMZMWMSRSJSRIPSXMRXSX[SJSVEREVIESJ ERETTVSZIH7MXI6IZMI[VIJIVVIHXSEW:MSPIX'VSWWMRKEXXLIRSVXLIEWXGSVRIVSJ&VSEH[E]ERH:MSPIX%ZIMRRSVXL &SYPHIV &EGOKVSYRH  3R2SZ4PERRMRK&SEVHETTVSZIHXLI7MXI6IZMI[ERH4VIPMQMREV]4PEXETTPMGEXMSRJSVXLIWYFNIGX TVSTIVX]JSVEYRMXEXXEGLIHVIWMHIRXMEPHIZIPSTQIRXEPSRK[MXLWUYEVIJSSXSYXPSXEPSRKXLI*SYV1MPI 'ER]SR'VIIO8LISYXPSXRSXSRP]WIVZIWEWERSTIRWTEGIEQIRMX]JSVXLIHIZIPSTQIRXFYXEPWSTVSZMHIWETYFPMG EGGIWWIEWIQIRXMRXLIJSVQSJEQYPXMYWITEXLXLEXTEVEPPIPWXLIGVIIOEW[IPPEWWIVZMRKHVEMREKIERHJPSSH GSRXVSPJYRGXMSRW%WIGSRHQYPXMYWITEXLTIVTIRHMGYPEVXSXLIGVIIOMWEPWSTVSZMHIHEWETYFPMGEGGIWWIEWIQIRX XLVSYKLXLIWMXIJVSQ:MSPIXXSXLI9TXS[R&VSEH[E]HIZIPSTQIRXXSXLIRSVXL%TSVXMSRSJEVSEH[E]HIHMGEXMSR JSVXLIJYXYVIEPMKRQIRXSJE7XVIIXI\XIRWMSRMWEPWSWLS[RSRXLIJMREPTPEX8LIETTPMGERXVIGIRXP]VIGIMZIH XL ETTVSZEPJSVXLI8IGLRMGEP(SGYQIRX6IZMI[SJJMREPTPERWSRP]XLI*MREP4PEXMWWYFNIGXXS4PERRMRK&SEVHGEPPYT *MREP4PEX 8LIJMREPTPEXMPPYWXVEXIWEWYFHMZMWMSRSJXLIPSXMRXSX[SPSXWERHSRISYXPSXEWWYQQEVM^IHFIPS[ 0SXWERH3YXPSX%(IHMGEXIH6MKLXSJ;E] 1YPXM*EQMP]6IWMHIRXMEP 4YFPMG%GGIWWERH9XMPMXMIW JYXYVI7XVIIX XL QYPXMYWITEXLWSTIRWTEGIHVEMREKIERH JPSSHGSRXVSP WUJXWUJXWUJX EGVIW EGVIW EGVIW 'SRGPYWMSR  7XEJJJMRHWXLEXXLMWETTPMGEXMSRQIIXWXLI*MREP4PEXJSV7YFHMZMWMSRGVMXIVMEWIXJSVXLMR7YFWIGXMSR F &6' ERHXLIPSXWXERHEVHGVMXIVMEWIXJSVXLMR7YFWIGXMSR E  &6'w7XERHEVHWJSV0SXWERH4YFPMG -QTVSZIQIRXWx8LIVIJSVIXLIJMREPTPEX[EWETTVSZIHF]4PERRMRKERH(IZIPSTQIRX7IVZMGIWWXEJJSR%TVMP 1E] ERHXLIHIGMWMSRQE]FIGEPPIHYTFIJSVI4PERRMRK&SEVHSRSVFIJSVI8LIVIMWSRI4PERRMRK&SEVH LIEVMRK[MXLMRXLIHE]GEPPYTTIVMSHSR1E]5YIWXMSRWEFSYXXLITVSNIGXSVHIGMWMSRWLSYPHFIHMVIGXIHXS )PEMRI1G0EYKLPMREX  SVQGPEYKLPMRI$FSYPHIVGSPSVEHSKSZ %XXEGLQIRXW  %'MX]SJ&SYPHIV4PERRMRK(ITEVXQIRX2SXMGISJ(MWTSWMXMSR &*MREP4PEX Agenda Item 4B Page 1 of 4 Agenda Item 4B Page 2 of 4 Agenda Item 4B Page 3 of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ddress: 955 Broadway and 1715 Aurora Ave. Agenda Item 4C Page 1 of 5 Agenda Item 4C Page 2 of 5 Agenda Item 4C Page 3 of 5 C I T Y O F B O U L D E R PLANNING BOARD AGENDA ITEM MEETING DATE: May 3, 2012 AGENDA TITLE: Continuation of the consideration of a Site Review application to construct a new four-story 55-foot tall, 84-unit apartment building with below-grade and podium parking. The existing First Christian Church building is proposed to be landmarked and re-purposed as a clubhouse facility for the apartments. The applicant is also requesting to amend a connection in the 28 Street Transportation Network Plan. Case no. LUR2012-00003. th Applicant / Owner: Steven Simonetti/First Christian Church REQUESTING DEPARTMENT: Community Planning and Sustainability: David Driskell, Executive Director Susan Richstone, Deputy Director Charles Ferro, Land Use Review Manager Elaine McLaughlin, Senior Planner OBJECTIVE: Define the steps for Planning Board consideration of this request: 1.Hear Applicant and Staff presentations 2.Hold Public Hearing 3.Planning Board discussion 4.Planning Board take action to approve, approve with conditions or deny Proposal: Site Review application for an 84-unit apartment complex intended primarily for university students. A lower level/ below grade parking structure is planned, along with reuse and pending landmarking process of the former First Christian Church building. Project Name: The Province at Boulder Location: 950 28 Street th Zoning: Residential High 3 (RH-3) Comprehensive Plan: High Density Residential BACKGROUND: This item is continued from the April 5, 2012 Planning Board hearing. At the April 5 hearing, several key thth issues were identified and discussed as follows: 1.Is the proposed massing and scale of the 54-foot building consistent with the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP) intent for High Density Residential; the BVCP Policies; the RH-3 zoning, and the Site Review Criteria of the Land Use Code section 9-2-14(h), B.R.C. 1981? 2.Is the request for an open space reduction to 43 percent from the base standard of 60 percent, consistent with the requirements of Land Use Code section 9-2-14(h)(A), B.R.C. 1981? Agenda Item 5A Page 1 of 20 3.Are the proposed changes to the 28 Street Transportation Network Plan acceptable? th 4.Is a request for a parking reduction of 20 percent, acceptable in this location? 5.Is a request for a solar exception within Solar Access Area II acceptable? Planning Board indicated support for key issues 2 through 5, at the April 5, 2012 hearing. Regarding key issue 1, the board concurred that the mass and scale of the proposed building was consistent for the zoning and context. However, the Planning Board continued the application, indicating that the project did not yet meet Site Review criteria related to Building Design as a part of key issue 1. A draft of the Planning Board minutes are provided in Attachment A. The April 5, 2012 staff memo is provided in the following link. http://www.bouldercolorado.gov/files/PDS/boards/Planning_Board/April/5B._950_28th_Site_Review.pdf SUMMARY OF PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDED REFINEMENTS: The overall direction given to the applicant by the Planning Board to refine the façade of the building can be summarized as the following items: Item 1: Address the fourth story to be more transparent, less imposing and competitive with the church; Item 2: Remove hip roof elements; and Item 3: Simplify the exterior façade of the building taking cues from the church. APPLICANT RESPONSE TO PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS: The applicant provided a written statement indicating how the revised plans responded to the Planning Attachment B. A link to the revised plans and elevations are provided in Attachment C, and the original plan set that includes elements not revised such as landscaping, is provided in Attachment D. Using the existing floor plans (with the exception of the fourth floor) the applicant has addressed Items 1 through 3 as follows: Item 1: removed the west facing fourth story and replaced it with a roof terrace and provided a greater number of windows, horizontal configuration relating to the church. Removed the stucco on the fourth story overall, used cementitious paneling in a more subdued color. Item 2: removed the gabled roof elements. Item 3: redesigned façade, including: a)Removal of precast headers and sills (now brick soldier and rolock courses); b)Removal of cultured stone base; c)Redesign of d)Change of brick to a more uniform finish; e)extended the same fourth story material downward at the balcony recesses to break up the facades into smaller components; and f)added windows at staircases. Agenda Item 5A Page 2 of 20 Figures1a illustrates the revised fourth floor plan, with the west portion of the fourth floor revised as a roof terrace, intended to create greater sense of transparency for the area which backdrops the church building. Figure 1b, is an illustration of the view toward the project from the 28 Street Frontage Road, looking toward the building. th RoofTerrace 1a Figure Figure 1b: Illustration of revised apartment building to the church building Roof Terrace From this illustration, the recessed fourth story can be seen in relation to the church. The foreground, also shows the simplified building form without the, formerly planned, roof element. Agenda Item 5A Page 3 of 20 Figures 2a and 2b are comparisons of the original proposal compared to the revisions post April 5 Planning Board. th Note that, in Fig. 1a, the perspective angle is slightly different, but still provides an opportunity for comparison. Figures 3 through 6 are other illustrations, in perspective, of the proposed revised alternative. The revised plans and elevations are provided in a link in Attachment C. Figure 2a (above) and Figure 2b (below) Comparisons of previous submittal and revisions looking southeast (above) and south elevations (below) STAFF RESPONSE TO REVISIONS: Overall, staff finds the revisions made by the applicant address the changes requested by Planning Board. The results of the redesign of the façade are that the building has a more simplified appearance that provides a backdrop to the dramatic architectural character of the modernist church. Agenda Item 5A Page 4 of 20 STAFF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Board approve Site Review application LUR2012-00003 including a change to the 28 Street th Transportation Network Plan, as described herein, based on the findings provided within this memorandum and with the following conditions of approval. VI. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. The Applicant shall be responsible for ensuring that the development shall be in compliance with all approved plans dated March 19, 2012 and April 30, 2012 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 approval of the City Manager: a.Final architectural plans, including materials and colors, to insure compliance with the intent of this approval and the architectural intent shown on the architectural plans dated April 30, 2012. b.A final site plan showing the corrections and additions requested by this approval, including building setbacks on fully dimensioned plans. A signed survey drawing should also be submitted. 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, which include information regarding the groundwater conditions (geotechnical report, soil borings, etc.) on the Property, and all discharge points for perimeter drainage systems. e.Final transportation plans in accordance with 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: plan and profile drawings construction plans for the public access drive and all public sidewalks, a pavement analysis and soils report for the public access drive, and a signage and striping plan in conformance with MUTCD standards. f.CDOT access permits in accordance with CDOT Access Code Standards, for all transportation improvements within the CDOT right-of-way including the two 28 Street Frontage Road accesses and th removal of the existing accesses. g. 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. h. A detailed lighting plan showing location, size, and intensity of illumination units. 3. Prior to a building permit application, the Applicant shall dedicate to the City, at no cost, the following 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: Agenda Item 5A Page 8 of 20 a. A 29-foot wide public right-of-way along the north property line for Euclid Avenue. b. A public access easement along the north property line, south of the Euclid Avenue access drive which contains the 5-foot wide sidewalk and an additional foot beyond the back of walk. c. A public access easement along the 28 Street Frontage Road which contains the 8-foot wide th landscape buffer, 8-foot wide sidewalk, and an additional foot beyond the back of walk. 5.Prior to a building permit application, the Applicant shall submit to the City an application for Individual Landmark designation of the historic building located at 950 28 Street with a designation boundary as shown in Exhibit A. th 5. Prior to 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 6. ater system, the Applicant shall pay to the City its pro rata share of the cost of the installation on a front foot-basis for the water main improvements on the 28th Street Frontage Road. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A: Draft Minutes from April 5, 2012 Planning Board Hearing Attachment B: Applicant Statement Addressing Planning Board Comments Attachment C: Link to Revised Plans and Elevations, dated April 30, 2012 Attachment D: Link to Original Plans and Elevations, dated March 19, 2012 Agenda Item 5A Page 9 of 20 Attachment A: Draft Minutes from April 5, 2012 Planning Board Hearing CITY OF BOULDER PLANNING BOARD ACTION MINUTES April 5, 2012 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://www.bouldercolorado.gov/ PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Bryan Bowen Aaron Brockett Bill Holicky, Vice-Chair Leonard May Sam Weaver Mary Young PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Danica Powell STAFF PRESENT: David Driskell, Executive Director of Community Planning and Sustainability David Gehr, Assistant City Attorney Susan Richstone, Deputy Director of Community Planning and Sustainability Charles Ferro, Land Use Review Manager Heidi Schum, Engineering Review Manager Elaine McLaughlin, Senior Planner Jessica Vaughn, Planner II James Hewat, Historic Preservation Planner Debbie Fox, Administrative Specialist III CALL TO ORDER 1. B. Holicky Vice-Chair,, declared a quorum at 6:04 p.m. and the following business was conducted. D. GehrL. MayS. WeaverB. Bowen. swore in , and APPROVAL OF MINUTES 2. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION 3. Bruce Dierking, 2595 Canyon Blvd. – 1. Spoke to the Pearl Parkway project that is under call-ups. The regarding the code necessary for an industrial service center, should be a use review, but the code calls for site review since services generally not allowed in the industrial areas. DISCUSSION OF DISPOSITIONS, PLANNING BOARD CALL-UPS 4. A.Floodplain Development Permits (LUR2011-00076 & LUR2011-00077) Wetland Permit (LUR2011-00075) B.Site Review, LUR2011-00053, 4051 Broadway Agenda Item 5A Page 10 of 20 C.Minor Amendment to an Approved Site Plan, LUR2012-00004, 619 Arapahoe Ave. D.Site Review, LURE2008-00021, 0 47Street (Pearl Parkway and 47Street) thth The board did not call these items up. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS 5. A.Public hearing and consideration of a Use Review request, no. LUR2012-00011, for a mixed use building with a 1,385 square foot coffee shop with 24 seats, open seven days a week from 6 a.m. until 10 p.m. and with one 800 square foot residential unit at the rear, located at 1852 Arapahoe Ave. As part of the Use Review request the applicant is also requesting a 30 percent parking reduction. The restaurant is located within the Residential High-1 (RH-1) zone district. Applicant: James Trewitt, Arch 11, Inc. Owner: Arapahoe Mercantile Co., LLC Staff Presentation J. Vaughn presented the item to the board. Applicant Presentation James Trewitt, Arch 11, Inc., presented the item to the board on behalf of the property owner. Public Hearing Board Discussion M. Young thanked the applicant for restoring the building to the original use and great asset to the neighborhood. M. YoungA. Brockett On a motion by , seconded by the Planning Board approved 6-0, with 1 D. Powell absent () Use Review No. LUR2012-00011 incorporating this staff memorandum and the attached Use Review Criteria Checklist as findings of fact, subject to the recommended Conditions of Approval below: CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. The Applicant shall ensure that the development shall be in compliance with all approved plans dated March 19, 2012 on file in the City of Boulder Planning Department, except to the extent that the development may be modified by the conditions of this approval. Further, the Applicant shall ensure that the approved use is operated in compliance with the following restrictions: a. The Applicant shall operate the business in accordance with the management plan dated March 19, 2012, which is attached to this Notice of Disposition. b. Size of the approved use shall be limited to 1,475 square feet. The total number of indoor seats for the approved use shall not exceed 24. Agenda Item 5A Page 11 of 20 c. The approved use shall be closed from 9 p.m. to 6 a.m. seven days per week. d. Live indoor music performances shall not be permitted if electronically amplified. e. Trash and bottles shall not be removed to outside storage (trash) containers between the hours of 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. 2. Prior to an application for a building permit, the Applicant shall demonstrate compliance with section 9-9-5, “Site Access,” B.R.C. 1981 and submit a minor modification administrative application, if required. 3. 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 to consider a Site Review application to construct a new four-story 55- foot tall, 84-unit apartment building with below-grade and podium parking. The existing First Christian Church building is proposed to be landmarked and re-purposed as a clubhouse facility for the apartments. Case no. LUR2012-00003. Applicant / Owner: Steven Simonetti/First Christian Church Staff Presentation E. McLaughlin presented the item to the board. Applicant Presentation Steve Simonetti, Adrian Sopher, Architect owner of the building, and, presented the item to the board. Public Hearing Steve Crowder, PO Box 211, Niwot – 1.Chair of Board of Trustee for First Christen Church -- He encouraged the board to accept the proposed plans for the site to help create a revenue stream for the city and provide quality residence and meets the goals of the BVCP. The church feels the developer is showing high integrity for the historic context of the site and for the neighbors and they need to close on the site, as it is becoming a financial burden. Barbara Wilkins-Crowder– PO Box 211, Niwot 2. – She spoke to the need to see the site come to a close to keep the church viable. She noted that in light of the fact it was a holy week, the congregation could not come to show support but some did come but asked for the audience to raise their hands to show their support of the project.(approx. 15 people responded) Carol Poore, 614 E. Cheseter St. Lafayette 3., She asked the board to approve the project. Heather Avens, 1125 Nottingham St, Lafayette 4., She asked the board to approve the project. Agenda Item 5A Page 12 of 20 Board Discussion Height, Mass and Scale L. May didn’t feel previous projects along this corridor were good references points for considering this project. As for the height, he preferred the original height baseline for this area. A. Brockett wants to see high quality student housing that meets the goals of the BVCP that also preserves the church as the essential element of the site. He felt the church should be visible and prominent. He noted that the height context is dominated by the Golden West building, so the fourth story fits in. He was comfortable with the mass and scale. B. Bowen felt the open space and tight boundary were appropriate. In terms of mass, it is in the character of the neighborhood. S. WeaverA. BrockettB. Bowen agreed with and on mass and scale, but had concern about the height. He would prefer the building didn’t have the fourth story at all, as it denominates the church, but understands the need to increase the density. M. YoungS. agrees about what has been stated about the layout of the building, agrees with Weaver about the fourth story. She finds it distracting and would provide better air space for the church. B. Holicky felt the zone dictates it to accommodate the open space and found the height works well for the context, but has concerns for the aesthetics. He also had concerns about the permeability of the large building. Architecture B. Bowen did not like the aesthetics with the brick and stone. He felt there should be more balconies. He would like to see the roof top decks incorporate landscape materials to soften the building. A. BrockettS. Weaver prefers a simpler roof line. agreed. S. Weaver questioned the types of proposed trees on the west elevation and the impact for the M. Young views upon the church. noted that the Landmarks Board also commented that the street trees should not block the view of the church. L. May found the building was bland and neo-colonial, while the church was prairie architecture. He felt the building should take cues from the church, which is simple, but not plain. The fourth floor permeability could be addressed by breaking the horizon line at the top of the building, the facades need to be revisited and felt the top level needs more transparency. M. Young agreed about the fourth floor. She would like to see more quality materials, as she did not like the use of synthetic brick and stone veneer next to a historic building. B. Holicky felt that the building isn’t high quality and needs to be more simplistic. He also felt the roof lines are not appropriate next to the church. Agenda Item 5A Page 13 of 20 Open Space The boardfelt the applicant did a good job with the open space. The landscape design was attractively designed and functional. The board felt it was a good trade off to preserve the M. YoungB. Bowen church. like that the pool is no longer in the designs. would like to see more berms on the front of the church to preserve the views of the church. South Connections from TCP M. YoungS. Weaver felt the cut through will not be useful for pedestrians. felt the 4-foot alley L. May is not inviting; that there may be another way to make it better. felt the south connection B. Holicky would be a useful tradeoff if a really good building could be developed out of it. agreed. Parking Reduction M. Young The board was comfortable with the parking reduction. would like to see more bike parking along Euclid. Solar Exception S. Weaver is satisfied with the solar exception. Recommended Changes M. Young would prefer to eliminate the fourth floor due to the distraction it causes, but would support it if it could be designed differently. She would like to see more permeability up high by burying the roof and she would like to see real samples of the proposed materials at the next meeting. A. Brockett would support it if the fourth story was improved and the roofs were pitched. B. Bowen recommended stepping the fourth story back. He also recommended the applicant reconsider the cornice line, different elements to soften the roofs, the precast header over the windows and the stone on the building. S. Weaver agreed that it would be best to draw in the church designs. L. May felt the building façade needs a fundamental redesign. He recommended the building façade take cues from the church and to make a departure from the third floor to create a different palette. He suggested something more transparent. A fourth floor step back could also help address it. th B. Holicky would the façade should be more modern to match the surrounding buildings on 28 Street. He recommended working with the context that the church creates, but not mimic it. Fenestration is needed on the fourth floor, as well as good façade work all the way to the fourth floor. S. WeaverM. would like better architectural flourishes that take cues from the church, as well. rdth Young recommended bringing the materials up from 3 to 4 floor. Agenda Item 5A Page 14 of 20 L. May wants to make the building better, more transparent and less imposing so that it does not compete with the church. B. Holicky would support the fourth floor with the proposed square footage. The board asked the applicant whether they would be interested in continuing the approval to a date certain. The applicant requested a 5 minute break to confer on the options. The applicant returned with the preference that the board refer the project to DAB, the second choice would be rdth to expedite the May 3 or April 26 special section. B,/ HolickyS. Weaver On a motion by , seconded by the Planning Board moved to continue rd D. Powell item 5B to May 3 meeting. 6-0, with 1 absent () Site Review application LUR2012- 00003. 7. MATTERS FROM THE PLANNING BOARD, PLANNING DIRECTOR, AND CITY ATTORNEY C. Ferro A. updated the board on the process regarding the applicant’s response to comments made at the January 19, 2012 Planning Board meeting regarding Boulder Creek Commons (5399 Kewanee Drive) – the Board asked that the materials be transmitted to the neighbors. B.Joint City Council/Planning Board Civic Center Study Session M. Young i. will compile comments to help summarize the board’s view on the topic. A. Brockett ii. will stay at for the HHS discussion th C.2012 Retreat – April 30 at 5:30 p.m. to 7:30 p.m. i.electronics protocols ii.legislative agenda M. Young iii.paperless feedback – want 11x17 at Site Review () D.Landmarks Board ex-officio member – to be discussed at the retreat 8. DEBRIEF/AGENDA CHECK 9. ADJOURNMENT The Planning Board adjourned the meeting at 10:25 p.m. APPROVED BY _____________________ Board Chair ________________ DATE Agenda Item 5A Page 15 of 20 Attachment B: Applicant Statement Addressing Planning Board Comments Agenda Item 5A Page 16 of 20 Agenda Item 5A Page 17 of 20 Agenda Item 5A Page 18 of 20 %XXEGLQIRX' 0MROXSJYPPWIXSJ6IZMWIH*PSSV4PERWERH)PIZEXMSRWHEXIH%TVMP LXXT[[[FSYPHIVGSPSVEHSKSZMRHI\TLT#STXM [[1250,740,1787,797][12][,,][Arial]]SR!GSQCGSRXIRX I[ MH! -XIQMH! Agenda Item 5A Page 19 of 20 Attachment D: Link to full set of original plans dated March 19, 2012 http://www.bouldercolorado.gov/files/PDS/boards/Planning_Board/Attachment_D.pdf Agenda Item 5A Page 20 of 20 C I T Y O F B O U L D E R PLANNING BOARD AGENDA ITEM MEETING DATE: May 3, 2012 AGENDA TITLE: Attachment A REQUESTING DEPARTMENT: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Attachment A Attachment B Agenda Item 5B Page 1 of 60 Attachment CAttachment D Comprehensive Rezoning. Agenda Item 5B Page 2 of 60 Figure 1: Comprehensive Rezoning Map Agenda Item 5B Page 3 of 60 Regulatory Changes to the RH-2 Zone District. Attachment B Agenda Item 5B Page 4 of 60 Figure 2: RH-2 Zone District Agenda Item 5B Page 5 of 60 BACKGROUND Comprehensive Rezoning Regulatory Changes to the RH-2 Zone District. “High density residential areas primarily used for a variety of types of attached residential units, including, without limitation, apartment buildings, and where complementary uses may be allowed” (section 9-5-2(c)(1)(F), B.C. 1981. Agenda Item 5B Page 6 of 60 Objectives Key Issues 1. Density/Floor Area Calculations 2. Maximum Floor Area Agenda Item 5B Page 7 of 60 3. Parking 8EFPI6IGIRX(IZIPSTQIRXMRXLI6,>SRI(MWXVMGX 6IGIRX'SRWXVYGXMSR4VSNIGX8]TI(IRWMX] (9%GVI 8SXEP2SSJ9RMXW0SX7M^I 'ER]SR8S[RLSQIW 1YPXMJEQMP] 'ER]SR 7MRKPIJEQMP] ;EPRYXGSRZIVWMSRXSQYPXM JEQMP] ;EPRYX'VIIO &]VMKLX 7MRKPIJEQMP]HIXEGLIH  ;EPRYXERHQYPXMJEQMP] 7MRKPIJEQMP]HIXEGLIH ;EWLMRKXSR:MPPEKI-- ERHQYPXMJEQMP] *PEXWEX&EPWEQ &]VMKLX 1YPXMJEQMP] &VSEH[E]&VS[RWXSRIW1YPXMJEQMP] page 43 Agenda Item 5B Page 8 of 60 PUBLIC FEEDBACK Comprehensive Rezoning. Attachment E Attachment E Concern about being able to rebuild multiple unit buildings in the case of fire or flood Concern about how the revised floodplain regulations could affect rebuilding Agenda Item 5B Page 9 of 60 Can we change the boundary of the area to be rezoned? There should be more flexibility for additional density What impacts will the rezoning have on property values: Would like more people to live in such a convenient location, where dependence on a car is not necessary Change the regulations for Owners Accessory Units (OAUs) to permit OAUs on smaller lots: Regulatory Changes to the RH-2 Zone District. Agenda Item 5B Page 10 of 60 Attachment F STAFF RECOMMENDATION A.Comprehensive Rezoning. Attachment A B.Regulatory Changes to the RH-2 Zone District. ANALYSIS A.Comprehensive Rezoning. “The City’s Zoning is the result of a detailed and comprehensive appraisal of the City’s present and future land use allocation needs. In order to establish and maintain sound, stable and desirable development within the City, rezoning of land is to be discouraged Agenda Item 5B Page 11 of 60 and allowed only under the limited circumstances herein described. Therefore the City Council shall grant a rezoning application only if the proposed rezoning is consistent with the policies and goals of the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan” (BVCP). RH-2 Zone District Report (the “”) “…recognizing that there is no blanket fit for resolving issues in each of the subareas under consideration, in the Goss Grove subarea, the increase in density would likely continue to alter the single-family residential character found in this neighborhood.” “The key issues in this [Goss Grove] neighborhood include the preservation of existing character, a lotting pattern that discourages consolidation for larger developments, the presence of the 100-year floodplain, and the possibility of losing historic resources that add uniqueness to the city. All are counter intuitive to a high density residential district. . . The BVCP indicates that the MXR land use designation is intended for older downtown neighborhoods that have a variety of housing types and densities. The intent of the RMX-1 zone district is to permit a variety of residential land uses that maintain their existing densities, while still allowing renovation or Agenda Item 5B Page 12 of 60 rehabilitation. Both of these district intents are consistent with the existing development pattern in the South of Canyon Boulevard neighborhood” (The Report, page 49). Figure 4: Potential Historic District Boundary Agenda Item 5B Page 13 of 60 Figure 6: Zoning Map Figure 5: Land Use Designation Map “Additionally in older downtown neighborhoods that were developed with single family homes but for a time were zoned for higher densities, a variety of housing types and densities are found within a single block. The city’s goal is to preserve current neighborhood character and not exacerbate traffic and parking problems” Agenda Item 5B Page 14 of 60 B.Regulatory Changes to the RH-2 Zone District. pages 52-53 Density Maximum Floor Area Occupancy of Dwelling Units Agenda Item 5B Page 15 of 60 8EFPI*PSSV%VIE%REP]WMW 1E\2YQFIVSJ 8SXEP9RMXW1E\MQYQ*PSSV0SX(IZIPSTQIRX 0SX7M^I7XSVMIW1E\*%6 4IVQMXXIH%VIETIV9RMX'SZIVEKI*PSSV%VIE ,IMKLX WUJX 7GIREVMSWUJXJIIX%TTVS\ WUJX  7GIREVMSWUJX2%JIIXWUJXWUJX Parking Agenda Item 5B Page 16 of 60 8EFPI4EVOMRK%REP]WMW 7M^ISJ2YQFIVSJ4EVOMRK 8SXEP9RMXW 9RMXW&IHVSSQWTIV9RMX6IUYMVIH 'YVVIRX6IUYMVIQIRX 4VSTSWIH6IUYMVIQIRX2% Agenda Item 5B Page 17 of 60 NEXT STEPS ATTACHMENTS A, 1-4: B: C: D: E: F: Agenda Item 5B Page 18 of 60 Two University Hill General Improvement District (UHGID) parking lots: University Av BT-2 RH-2 existing and proposed zoning Proposed Zoning BMS P Pennsylvania Av BMS RH-5 College Av Proposed Zoning BMS RL-1 Properties Proposed for Rezoning Ownership Parcels Zoning Districts (Existing) ´ Agenda Item 5B Page 20 of 60 050100Feet A portion of the Boulder Municipal Airport: existing and proposed zoning Proposed Industrial Zoning P MH Properties Proposed for Rezoning Ownership Parcels Zoning Districts (Existing) ´ Agenda Item 5B Page 21 of 60 050100Feet The former Junior Academy site at 2641 4th Street: existing and proposed zoning RMX-1 Proposed Zoning RL-1 RL-1 P Maxwell Av Properties Proposed for Rezoning Ownership Parcels Zoning Districts (Existing) ´ Agenda Item 5B Page 22 of 60 050100Feet ATTACHMENT B _ PLANNING BOARD MINUTES Agenda Item 5B Page 23 of 60 Agenda Item 5B Page 24 of 60 Agenda Item 5B Page 25 of 60 Agenda Item 5B Page 26 of 60 Agenda Item 5B Page 27 of 60 Agenda Item 5B Page 28 of 60 Agenda Item 5B Page 29 of 60 Agenda Item 5B Page 30 of 60 Agenda Item 5B Page 31 of 60 Agenda Item 5B Page 32 of 60 Agenda Item 5B Page 33 of 60 Agenda Item 5B Page 34 of 60 ATTACHMENT B - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Agenda Item 5B Page 35 of 60 Agenda Item 5B Page 36 of 60 Agenda Item 5B Page 37 of 60 Agenda Item 5B Page 38 of 60 Agenda Item 5B Page 39 of 60 Agenda Item 5B Page 40 of 60 Agenda Item 5B Page 41 of 60 Agenda Item 5B Page 42 of 60 Agenda Item 5B Page 43 of 60 Agenda Item 5B Page 44 of 60 Properties Proposed for General Zoning Map Revisions ATTACHMENT C Lookout Rd Jay Rd Site 3 Proposed Zoning IG Site 4 Proposed Zoning RL-1 Site 2 Proposed Zoning BMS Site 1 Proposed Zoning RMX-1 and Proposed Zoning DT-1 (1511 & 1520 Grove St) Site 2 Proposed Zoning BMS Properties Proposed for Rezoning Agenda Item 5B Page 45 of 60 00.250.5Miles ATTACHMENT D TABLE 9-1: RESIDENTIAL PARKING REQUIREMENTS BY ZONING DISTRICT AND UNIT TYPE RL, RM, RMX-1, RH-3, RH-4, RR, RE, MU-1, RH-5, BT, BC, Zone District MU-3, BMS, RMX-2, MU-2, BR, IS, IG, IM, MU-4, RH-7, StandardDT, A, RH-6MH, IMSP, RH-2RH-1RH-3 Agenda Item 5B Page 46 of 60 ... Agenda Item 5B Page 47 of 60 9-8-3 Density in the RH-1, RH-2, RH-3 and RH-7 Districts. Agenda Item 5B Page 51 of 60 Agenda Item 5B Page 52 of 60 AttachmentE Agenda Item 5B Page 53 of 60 Agenda Item 5B Page 54 of 60 Agenda Item 5B Page 55 of 60 Agenda Item 5B Page 56 of 60 JessicaVaughn Planner1 1739Broadway POBox791 BoulderCO803060791 December5,2011 Re:Meetingon12/1/11GossGrove,owners'input DearMs.Vaughn Wearetheownersof1701and171118thStreet,Boulderandourfamilydidlivethere for7years. WehavebeeninvolvedwiththispendingchangeofuseforGossGrovesinceearly2010 byattendingmeetings,speakingatthemeetings,writingletters(emails)tothe plannersandcouncilmembers,andvisitingwiththeBoulderplanners. Ourpositionhasbeenandcontinuestobethatthehighestandbestuseofthis propertyshouldbemultifamily. Webasethisconclusionontheimmediateneighborhoodasourpropertyissurroundby multifamily.AsdrawntheGossGrovechangemapmayhaveincludedourproperty basedsolelyonitspresentuseassinglefamilyhomesanddidnottakefullyidentify thatthefuturecompatibilityinthiscaseshouldbemultifamily. takeanotherlookat1701and1711. Weaskthatyou Sincerely CharlieandFlorieKane 266HillsideLane Telluride,CO81435 9707082222 Agenda Item 5B Page 57 of 60 ATTACHMENT F Agenda Item 5B Page 58 of 60 Agenda Item 5B Page 59 of 60 Agenda Item 5B Page 60 of 60