Loading...
2 - Minutes, 6/2/05CITY OF BOULDER PLANNING BOARD ACTION MINUTES June 2, 2005 Council Chambers Room, Municipal Building 1777 Broadway The following are the action minutes of the June 2, 2005, city of Boulder Planning Board meeting. A permanent set of these minutes and a tape recording (maintained for a period of seven years) is retained in Central Records (telephone: 303-441-3043). BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Macon Cowles, Chair Simon Mole, Vice Chair Elise Jones Claire Levy Adrian Sopher John Spitzer, Phil Shuil, absent STAFF PRESENT: Peter Pollock, Planning Director David Gehr, Assistant City Attomey Brent Bean, Senior Planner Brent Wilson, Planner 1. CALL TO ORDER Chair, M. Cowles declared a quorum at 6:10 p.m. and the following business was conducted. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES None 3. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION (6:11 pm) Tim Thomas, 2300 Arapahoe 4. DISCUSSION OF DISPOSITIONS, PLANNING BOARD CALL-UPS (6:14 pm) 5. ACTION ITEMS (6:16 pm) A. Public hearing and consideration of a request for annexation of the site at 5729 Arapahoe Road with an initial zoning of "General Industrial - Developing" (IG- D), to allow for the future development of a 4,700 square foot auto sales facility. Applicant: Hobbs Design Firm, representing Gregory Kotsaftis and "Go Motors" S:~PLAN~PB-ITEMS~Ivlinutes\6.2.05 min.doc Public Participation: None MOTIONS: On a motion by S. Mole, seconded by E. Jones, Planning Board recommended city council approval ofAnnexation and Initial Zoning and BVCP Area Change request #LUR2004-00075 to City Council, incorporating this staff memorandum and as findings of fact, subject to the following recommended conditions of approval: Prior to first reading of the annexation ordinance, the applicant shall: a. Pay a Storm Water and Flood Management Utility Plant Investment Fee of $4,730.00 (in accordance with Section 11-5-7 of the Boulder Revised Code, 1981), based upon an existing impervious area of 5,500 square feet; and b. Sign and file petitions for inclusion in ffie Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District - Boulder Municipal Sub-District, and pay all applicable fees on land and improvements for inclusion in such districts. 2. Prior to building permit submittal for any new building, the applicant shall: a. Provide to the city, at no cost and in a location and form acceptable to the Director of Public Works, an 18 foot-wide public access easement from the adjoining property owner to the east to the adjoining property owner to the west, in aligrunent with existing drive aisles; and b. Provide evidence of conveying a private easement across 5729 Arapahoe Road to the property owner of Lot l, Buming Tree Subdivision for drainage purposes; and Prior to a building permit application, the Applicant shall submit Technical Document Review applications for the following items, subject to the review and approval of the Planning and Development Services: a. Detailed engineering drawings for proposed public and private utility systems meeting the requirements of the City of Boulder Des:gn and Construction Standards; b. Detailed engineering drawings and legal documents for the proposed public easements (as referenced in all "City of Boulder Land Use Review Results and Comments" for the project dated November 4, 2004, March 3, 2005, and Apri122, 2005), meeting the requirements of the City of Boulder Design and Consh-uction Standarcfs; c. A detailed Final Stormwater Report and Plan meeting the requirements of the City of Boulder Design and Consh'uction Standarcls; and d. Detailed plans and documentation necessary for review and approval of a"CDOT State Highway Access and Utilities° permit. S:~PLAN~PB-ITEMS~Minutes\6.2.05 min.doc 4. Any existing structures requiring the use of a individual sewage disposal system shall be connected to the city's existing wastewater main (in accordance with Section 11-2-8 of the Boulder Revised Code 1981) prior to any building permit application; upon any declaration by the Boulder County Health Department to cease and desist using the sewage system or other declaration that sewage system constitutes a threat to the public health; or within 180 days of the effective date of the annexation ordinance, whichever occurs first. At the time of disconnection of the individual sewage system and connection to the City's wastewater system, the applicant is required to abandon the existing septic system in accordance with Boulder County Health Department and State regulations; and Vote 5-0 (P. Shull, J. Spitzer absent) Break: 6:27 to 632 B. Public hearing and consideration of Concept Plan Review and Comment LUR2005-00021, Landmark Lofts comprising 1.88 acres zoned HRl-X (High Density Residential 1- Redeveloping), to develop 100 condominium units and a restaurant at 1000 28~h Street. The request includes a reduction in open space from 60% of the site to approximately 45% of the site. Applicant/Owner: Jim Chanin Presenter: Brent Bean Public Participation: None Concept Plan Review and Comment: Simon Mole: Liked the general architecture proposed. Found it to be visually interesting and a good mix of materials including brick and metal. Roofline is appropriate. Concemed about viability of the open space, does not support the open space as proposed. A solar study of the site including height at the south property ]ine and future bui(ding heights should be completed for Site Review application. The spaces will be shaded and uninviting during the winter months. Supports a continuous building frontage along College to open up the courtyard areas. Building is to repetitive across the College frontage. Would support a height increase that opens up the courtyard areas, but does not support the current plan. Retail/restaurant use is appropriate for this site. Deck open space areas should be emphasized for this development. Private open space needs are critical to a dense housing project. Macon Cowles: Expressed a concern that the plans do not respond to useable open space needs of the project. Citing several sections of Pattern Language to express open spaces needs as follows: • Active nodes (30), Open space needs to be within 3 minutes walking time of residents to be used by residents. S:~PLAN~PB-ITEMSVvlinutes\6.2.05 min.doc • Promenades (31), places where people can meet. • Quite Backs (51), areas where walkways are provided at the back of a project to create pleasant walkways and connections between uses. • Accessible Open Space (60), consolidate open space into lazger spaces. • Positive outdoor space (106), leR over spaces won't be used, make them into areas that function as outdoor rooms. ~ • Hierarchy of open space azeas (114), open space is the key to a successful development of this site plan. Project looks over parked. A TDM study should be provided encouraging shared use of vehicles (rent a caz share program) and reduced parking demand for the site. Restaurant use is great. This plan does not take advantage of the potential for this site. A height increase would be appropriate for consideration at this location to make the open space and building locations function better. A shadow analysis for the buildings and south property line and adjacent uses would be very appropriate for this site. Restaurant is a good use for the site. This site does not take advantage of site opportunities such as the western views. Needs extensive solar study. Fourth floor building setbacks make sense to fit in with the contacts but his in not necessarily true for this neighborhood: Decks are not good open space if they are used for storage. Development should provide onsite storage areas for bikes, and sports equipment such as canoes, kayaks, etc. Arrangement of units across from one another creates a friendlier living environment. Decks can be problematic. Claire Levy: Like the architecture proposed. Student/undergraduates are not going to buy units in this project, but they may rent from investors. Applicant should consider the impacts of a rental project. Like the fact that the courtyards allow you to see into the project from Coilege. Open courtyards need to be wider spaces. Find a way to open them up to provide more light, even if it means removing units from the south end of the buildings. Courtyards need to be more of a public space and less of a corridor. Too much pazking proposed and the number of driveways cuts onto College need to be reduced. Building height is not a problem. Big problem with the number of curb cuts. East part of the site is currently serving ]ow income families will they be displaced? Loss of these units is a concern (note, 20% of the project has been proposed to be permanently affordable). Retail use is appropriate. Open space reduction is okay if the areas are redesigned to provide more social/meeting area type spaces. Will dogs be allowed, where will they be walked if permitted? Elise Jones: Like the concept, the density and architecture is appropriate for this site. This is a good location for a coffee shop. The four curb cuts along College do not work. She would support a single building with a height exception and connected parking garages. The open space reduction is not appropriate as designed. The spaces are designed as comdors and need to be proposed as open space areas. Concerned that there will not be adequate suniight in the inner courtyard areas. A solar analysis of the courtyards based on proposed and existing buiidings and heights at the south property line is necessary. Parking on site should be reduced. Okay with east west corridors. S:U'LAN~PB-ITEMSU~Iinutes\6.2.05 min.doc 4 Adrian Sopher: This is a challenging site, given the existing slope east to west across the site and the difference in grade at the south property line. Concerned about repetitive nature of the architecture (four similar building fronts along College). Open space areas proposed are mazginal. Does not support the plan as proposed. Sound transmittal elements of the design between spaces have been address well. Would support taller building on this site. The height issues seem to be undermining the design. Would support the decreased open space if the scale and functionality of the open space areas is improved. Neighboring property to the south clearly shades this site. Open or closed (continuous) building(s) along College not an issue. Curb cuts along College should be reduced to one. Four curb cuts are not appropriate at this location. Retail use at this location is very appropriate. Increasing the amount of commercial would be okay. Southeast corridor creates a visibility concem. Architecture should address College and 28`h Street as two different building frontages. The views to the west from the center of the site should be given a strong consideration. More ofthe project should benefit from the view to the west. The scale of the buildings appears to be appmpriate for this site and the current zoning designation. Concept Review 1000 28th Street: Planning board Comments ~une 2, 2005 ~ = Agree M' A X= Disagree E. Jones S. Mole Cowles ' Sopher C. Levy - = Neutral OK with Architecture J J X X J OK with Courtyards X X X X ~ oK with Density J ~ J J J Would consider height exceptfon if it ~ J J ~ J improved design and open space OK with 4 curb cuts on College X X X X X OK with the requested open space X X X X X reduction of this design Like the retail component ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ OK with East-West Corridors ~ - X ~l ~ want detailed solar analysis at Site J J J J J Review Less parking, and robust TDM on site, including consideration of disaggregating J J parking from the units S:~PLAN~PB-ITEMS~Ivlinutes\6.2.05 min.doc 5 Break: 8:37 to 8:41 6. MATTERS FROM THE PLANNING BOARD, PLANNING DIRECTOR, AND CITY ATTORNEY 7. DEBRIEFlAGENDA CHECK 8. ADJOURNMENT The Planning Board adjoumed the meeting at 9:32 p.m. APPROVED BY Board Chair DATE S:~PLAN~PB-ITEMS~Ivlinutes\6.2.05 min.doc