Loading...
3 - Citizen ParticipationFrom: "Crystal Gray" <crystal_boulder@hotmail.com> To: <earthlaw@aol.com> Date: 07/18/2001 11:31:25 PM Subject: St. Johns Church at 1419 Pine Street To: Planning Board Member: From: Crystal Gray Date: July 18, 2001 Re: St. Johns Episcopal Church at 1419 Pine Street I apologize for this last minute input but the Whittier Neighborhood Association never received pians for this project. We read about it in the Sunday Daily Camera. W hen a member of the association picked them up from the planning department at 430 p.m. today the planner didn't even include the staff memo so we do not have that as of this writing. The staff member also said that the planner was not sure of which maighborhood this was located in and that is why no neighborhood group was notified. Please request that the planning department gets training on the Boulder Neighborhoods and do proper referrals. Most departments in the State do this! This is especially important because the applicants will be future neighbors and it is better to start off with a good meeting and discussion rather than come in at the last minute. So here are our last minute comments (without the benefit of the staff memo): 1. The project is generally a very good project with a thoughtful site design and architecture that fits the site. It does need some careful study in a few areas of the phase II development along 15th Street and on the gable end at the corner of 15th and Pine. 2. It is good that the second phase will include 3 replacement residential units for the apartment that was torn down...although we read this in the applicants May 7th response letter we could not find them on the phase II plans. 3. The Gable end, at 45', facing Pine needs some details above the 1 st floor windows. It is uninteresting but with some details it could be very interesting and a better design. Although we normally object to anything over 35' near the residential areas of the neighborhood, the 45 ' gable end is more of an architectural feature than a large mass. 4. The facade on 15th Street is not as interesting as the west facade of this same structure. It has no pedestrian interest and this should be reworked. The dormers facing west are more interesting than the square forms facing 15th. There are no windows along the side walk facing 15th. This could benefit from windows. 5. This should be referred to DDAB for comments and returned to the PB. At lease refer Phase II since that is where the problems seem to be. 6. There should be no left turn into the parking from 15th or Pine due to the closeness to the corner. The neighborhood association usually prefers no new curb cuts and for parking to come off the alley but since they are removing a curb cut on Pine we can see how they would need this. 7. It is good that the curb cut is removed from Pine since this is on the popular bike lane.8. We would encourage the Church to inform members that parking is available free in the downtown and at the parking gargages on Sunday rather than in the neighborhoods. Thank you for considering these comments at the last minute. As we said at the beginning this is a good project but could use some detailing in certain areas. Mr. Ron Kubec St. John's Episcopal Church 1419 Pine Street Boulder, CO 80302 1 June 2001 Re: St. John's Episcopal Church Use of Parking Spaces - 15"' & Spruce Dear Mr. Kubec, RECEIVED JUL ~ 9 2001 HartroMt ASSOC.. r Thank you for your inquiry regarding leasing parking spaces at our parking structure at 15`x' and Spruce Streets. We understand that St. John's desires to have the use of up to 30 parking spaces for use on Sunday mornings to augment your on-site parking. At the current time, 15th & Spruce Building, LLC, the owner of the parking structure, opens the parking structure for free parking on weekends and weekdays after 5:00 PM. Our information shows that, on Sunday mornings, our parking garage is less than 10% utilized and is never more than 50 cars (leaving 275 spaces empty) on any given Sunday at any time. I have personally counted and believe that this is underutilization percentage also holds true for the Public parking garages in the area. If one is to drive through the downtown area on a Sunday morning they would note that there are also plenty of on-street parking spaces in and around downtown, which are available. In any case, St. John's is welcome to utilize the 30 spaces in our parking garage, which you have requested on Sunday mornings. Due to the fact that we have 325 spaces in the structure, with no more than 10% utilization on Sunday mornings, I am confident that there will continue to be availability for your use of 30 of those spaces. Not to mention the excess of 900 spaces in the city parking structures less than 2 %z blocks from the Church. Again, our parking structure is currently free of charge on Sundays, so there would not be any cost to the Church to utilize these spaces. In the very unlikely possibility that, in the future, events could dictate that parking on Sunday mornings could become a premium and we and the City of Boulder would have to charge for use of parking spaces, we ofcourse would be happy to negotiate a market rate lease for spaces for your church goers. In the meantime, feel free to park in our lot on Sunday mornings. We understand your desire to avoid building a large on-site parking lot just for your needs on Sundays. We all knew that land is a precious resource downtown, and we agree'that creative use of the. currently under-utilized parking structures, (including the City/CAGID lots) is a better solution for this particular issue. If we decide to lease the spaces for Sunday mornings in the future, we will contact you with the details. If you have any questions or require additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, 7 Nold Midyette, Managing Member 1936 14'" STREET, BOULDER, COLORADO $0302 pc: File, 15th & Spruce f\PSMP\Property\l5th\ "HAR07071" MEMORANDUM July 19, 2001 TO: Will Toor, Mayor Members, Boulder City Council FROM: Shirley Deeter, Chair, Boulder Public Library Commission Members, Boulder Public Library Commission SUBJECT: North Boulder Village Center-North Boulder Branch Library At the July 11, 2001 Library Commission meeting, the Commissioners discussed issues and concerns regarding the pending recommendation that the city consent to participate in the North Boulder Village Center development review application for a concept plan in order to include the city-owned parcel. Because the North Branch Library continues to be the Commission's top priority capital project and because members agree that a partnership with the Village Center developer can help make that project a reality, the Commissioners passed a motion (4-0) endorsing the concepts expressed in the July 6, 2001 memorandum from Marcelee Gralapp to Peter Pollock on this matter (attached). We would be happy to answer any questions you might have or provide additional information on this matter if needed. cc: Planning Board MEMORANDUM July 19, 2001 TO: Peter Pollock, Planning Director FROM: Marcelee Gralapp, Library Director SUBJECT: North Boulder Branch Library/North Boulder Village Center The north branch library has been included in our annual Capital Improvement Program for more than a decade and has been part of our long range building plan since 1984; significant momentum for its implementation came when the north branch library concept was included in the North Boulder Subcommunity Plan. The village center, as envisioned in the NBSP, provides a synergistic relationship with our branch library facility -the Broadway location gives library users access via excellent alternative transit modes, the retail outlets permit amulti-purpose trip, the location is visible and easy to get to, and the adjacency to the mobile home parks, east and west of Broadway, allows the branch library to better serve the residents of those neighborhoods. We concur with Planning staff that a grocery store is key to making the NBSP plan-village center work. In preliminary discussions, the North Boulder Village developer, Jim Loftus, expressed a willingness to partner with the City, constructing the shell of the branch library facility on his North Boulder Village Center parcel and constructing the Village Green, as envisioned in the NBSP. Mr. Loftus has also indicated that the branch library and Village Green would be dedicated to the City. As the goal of Safeway Inc.'s land donation to the City was to allow space for public uses, we suggest that plan approval of the North Boulder Village Center development include specific language that reinforces this offer to build and dedicate to the City the branch library and Village Green. With such language, the intent initially forwarded by Safeway, Inc. will be honored. Please be advised that this memo reflects the Library staff position on this matter; the Library Commission has not had an opportunity to discuss the issue. The Commission will be meeting on Wednesday, July 11 and the Commission's position will be forwarded to Planning Board and City Council once members have had a chance to review the issues and information on this item. cc: Library Commission JOHNSON REPUCCI F3 BERG LLP A'TTORNF.YS AND CiDVNSt;LORS AT LAW Geoaee V. Bean IR. 1401 WALNUT STREET, StJ[TE 5U0 RIC.IinRD A. I[1HNYDN BOULDER, COLORADO !50302 MICHAEL 6 Rfeuccl TELEPHONE J05-gg2-IBOO NEIL G KINC TELEFAX Sn.1-442-OIAI KIMRfRLY E. LORD www.jrWaw.com GIOVANNI M. Rltccltn Or COUNSEL July 13, 2001 }~i¢ FacsiPnlle & j,1.S. Mait City of Boulder Planning Board P.O. Box 791 Boulder, Colorado 80306 ATTN: Mary Lovrien tiElUl C:, FLETEK1fYfR WM. IKe KR niNIEWif:'L STEPHEN C. LAAQ()N IIELAINE a. RfSNICK Re; EliPnination of Conditiw~al sleight I'rovisions.furrhe 8731-E and RBl -X Zoning Districts set jnrth in.Sectian 9-3.2-4, B.R. C„ X96/ To the City of Boulder Planning Board: On Wednesday, July 1 ], 2001, the Planning Botnd (the "Board") bald a public hearing on the elimination of conditional height provisions for the RB1-E and RB 1-X Coning Districts set forth in Section 9-3.2-4, B.R.C., 1981. Despite the fact that the public hearing wss held for the purpose of the proposed ordinance change only, the Board took voluminous testimony regarding the site review application for the 902 Pearl Street project. During the proceedings, one of the Board members requested that testimony taken during the July 11, 2001 hearing be made part of the 902 Pearl Street site review application record. As you are aware, the notice f'or this public hearing explicitly stated that the matter to be heard and discussed was the elimination of conditional height provisions for the RB 1-E and R$1-J. Zoning DistricU set forth in Section 9-3.2-4, B.R.C., 1981. No notice was published regarding a public hearing on the 902 Pearl Street sire review application or project. While we believe that the 902 Pearl Street project is the target of the proposed ordinance change and is the only reason that this ordinance proposal was recommended by staff, the fact remains that the 902 Pearl Street site review application was not before the Boazd for its review on Wednesday, July 11, 2001. Theref--ore, to allow testimony from the July 11, 2001 hearing to become a part ofthe 902 Pearl Street site review application record is to deny the applicant and any other interested citizen equal right to participate and to be heard in the context of this public forum. City oFBoulder Plamting Board ]uly 13, 2001 Page 2 If the citizens who participated at the ]uly 11, 2001 hearing regarding the proposed ordinance changes wish to voice their concerns in regard to the site review application far 902 Pear] Street, [hey should be required to do sa at a properly noticed public hearing in which the 902 Pearl Street site review application is legitimately before the Board for hearing. Sincerely, FIe 1 C. Ple meyer ec; Steven Cherner Terry Willis, AIA David Gehr, Esq. Arent Baun Peter Pollock NTEIVIOR4.NDUIVI TO: Mayor Toor and Members of City Council FROM: Ron Secrist, City Manager Peter Pollock, Planning Director DATE: July 19, 2001 SUBJECT: Conditional height provisions for the RB1-E and RB1-X zoning districts Last Wednesday. July 11, 2001, the Planning Board unanimously voted to recommend to City Council the elimination of the conditional height provisions for the RB 1-E and RB 1- Xzoning districts set forth in Section 9-3.2-4, B.R.C., 1981. This provision allows for a third floor and up to a 45-foot high building for properties at the intersection of two public streets within an area defined by 50 feet along the front yard and 70 feet along the side yard, with review and approval at the staff level. The effect of this action is that during the 120-day period after the Planning Board action, the city shall not approve an application for a conditional height review as described above. The attached Planning Board memo gives the rationale for this action. In summary, a variety of sources have expressed concerns about the appropriateness of buildine scale and mass along Pearl Street, primarily to the east and west of the Mall. In general, these areas permit a [wo-story, 3~-foot tall building without review. Additional building floor area and height are permitted through a discretionary site review process requiring Planning Board approval. The conditional height provisions referenced above allow for additional building height through a staff review process with no call-up to Planning Board. Given the reaction to both the 9`h and Pearl Street project review and the more general concerns raised at the Downtown Alliance, staff recommended that the conditional height provisions be eliminated pending fiirther analysis during the 120-day pending ordinance period. Initial analysis indicates 25 parcels of land where this conditional height provision could apply. The intent of the provision was to encourage additional building mass at the corner sites in the downtown. This historical btilding pattern is best seen at Pearl and Broadway (although the building heights there are greater than 45 feet). The Planning staff and Board have indicated that the additional building height may well be appropriate in some portion of the downtown area covered by these zoning districts, but there are probably areas where it is not. The issue of the appropriate level of review, i.e., staff level conditional review or Planning Board level site review, will also be a factor in determining where additional building height on comer properties might be appropriate. The 120-day period lasts until November 8, 2001. During this period, staff will conduct an analysis of the conditional height provisions, meet with the Downtown Alliance on September 1~, and bring forward refinements to the proposed ordinance change to Planning Board in October. Many concerns have been expressed about the impact on the proposed development project at 902 Pearl Street. This project is currently in the site review process. The applicant has the option of pursuing its current proposal with the Planning Board, amending their proposal, or pursuing a by-right option of a two-story building at up to 35 feet in height. The option affected by the proposed ordinance is the additional building height at the corner through the conditional review. ATTACHMENT Attachment A: Planning Board Memorandum dated July 11, 2001