Loading...
Minutes - Planning Board - 10/18/2001APPROVED JANUARY 10, 2002 • CITY OF BOULDER PLANNING BOARD SUMMARY MINUTES October 18, 2001 Council Chambers Room, Municipal Building 1777 Broadway, 6:00 p.m. The following are the minutes of the October 18, 2001 City of Boulder Planning Board meeting. A permanent set of these minutes is kept in Central Records, and a verbatim tape recording of the meeting is maintained for a period of seven years in Central Records (telephone: 303-441-3043). BOARD PRESENT: Macon Cowles A1 Gunter, Chair Thom Knieger Tina Nielsen, Vice Chair AIan O'Hashi Beth Pommer Mark Ruzzin STAFF PRESENT: Brent Bean, Senior Planner • Bob Cole, Director of Land Use Review David Gehr, Assistant City Attomey Mary Lovrien, Board Secretary Peter Pollock, Planning Directar Mike Randall, Planner 1. CALL TO ORDER Vice Chair Tina Nielsen declared a quorum at 6:00 p.m., and the Following business was conducted. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mny 24, 2001: On a motion by B. Pommer, seconded by M. Ruzzin, the Pianning Board approved the minutes of May 24, 2001 as presented (6-0; A. Gunter was not present for this item). June 21, 2001: On a motion by T. Kraeger, seconded by A. O'Hashi, the Planning Board approved the minutes of June 21, 2001 as presented (6-0; A. Gunter was not present for this item). June 28, 2001: T. Nielsen asked that the following sentence replace the first sentence on page 6 at the beginning of the last paragraph: "J. Crain asked the Board to adopt a different map than the map in the packet materials. He said that the Open Space and Mountain Parks Department is recommending that a trail designation along the Union Pacific Rail corridor between 75th and 95th Streets and the area between the city of Boulder and Lyons along the canal be changed to a study • s:\plan\pb-items\minutes\O 11018xnin. wpd City of Boulder ~ October 18, 2001 Planning Board Meeting Page 2 area." She asked that the following sixth sentence in that paragraph be deleted: "He said that the OSBT is suggesting a study area along the Union Pacific railroad corridor between 75th and 95th Streets and the area between the city of Boulder and Lyons along the canal." On a motion by T. Krueger, seconded by B. Pommer, the Planning Board approved the minutes of June 28, 2001 as amended (5-0; M. Cowles and A. Gunter were not present for this item). July 19, 2001: On a motion by A. O'Hashi, seconded by T. Krueger, the Planning Board approved the minutes of July 19, 2001 as presented (5-0; M. Cowles and A. Gunter were not present for this item). CITIZEN PARTICIPATION Ricky Weiser, 4020 North 75th Street: She noted that the controversy regarding the trails alignment along the railroad corridar between 75th and 95th Straets and the canal trail is not being handled well; every time she tries to find out what is happening with this issue, she is shuttled to a different person. She said that she has had trespassers conducting surveys on her property along this railroad corridor, and she is unaware what kiud of survey they are conducting. She said that she would like to be informed if someone is on her property. She asked the Board to stay focused on theseissues. • 4. DISCUSSION OF DISPOSITIONS, PLANNING BOARD CALL-UPS The Board had no comments on the Planning Department disposition (Floodplain Development Permit for 2121 4th Street, Sunshine Creek Conveyance Zone) or the Planning Board dispositions (1320 Meadow Avenue and 1744 30th Street Retail/Office Building). 5. MATTERS FROM THE PLANNING BOARD, PLANNING DIRECTOR, AND CITY ATTORNEY (This item was discussed at the end of the meeting.) M. Cowles asked that the Planning Board mimrtes from May 24, 2001 regarding the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan be given to the other three approval bodies (Board of County Commissioners, County Planning Commission, and City Council). He also asked that these minutes regarding the commercial growth management plan be provided to the Jobs to Population Balance Task Force that will be involved in this process. P. Pollock responded that the charge of the task force is to review the projections and to arrive at a common agreement, define a range of options that will be taken to the public for their review and comment, and talk about the process. M. Cowles suggested that the developers for the North Boulder Village Center be notified about the Board's position with respect to the Holiday Drive-in Theater site to help them with their design. M. Ruzzin asked about the letter from a neighbor regarding the county Sundquist Building. P. Pollock said that the neighbar is now getting direct notice to be involved in the neighborhood meetings. A. Gunter commanted on tha need for mare housing in the region and why housing • s:\plan\pb-items\minutes\O l I 018min.wpd City of Boulder ~ October 18, 2001 Planning Board Meeting Paga 3 remains less affordable. He said that while the city is creating some af£ordable housing, everything alse is less affardable because more jobs are added which will be Filled by people from outside the state. P. Pollock metttioned the following meetings and events: Leadership through Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) training on October 22, staff training regarding Development 101 on October 23, the Jobs to Population Balance Task Force meeting on October 30, Four Mile Creek neighborhood meeting on November 6, and a celebration of the SOth anniversary of the Planning Department on November 7. He mentioned that the Board received a copy of the Crossroads framework plan. He gave a brief outline of the University Hill zoning shidy that the Board will discuss on October 25. He distributed a copy of last year's Planning Board applicant questions and asked far suggestions for changes. He said that the deadline for Board applications is February 20. T. Nielsen suggested that the other Board members tour the new recycling center. 6. ACTION ITEM5 A. Public hearing and consideration of a Concept Review and Comment #LUR20U1-00043 for the fourth phase of One Boulder Plaza, located south of Walnut between 13th and lAth Streets, to review a proposal for development of up to 99,000 square feet of retail, office, and residential use withi-e a four-story • building with heights of up to 55 feet. B. Cole said that because the 14-day notice requiremenY was not met, the Board will conduct its hearing on this item tonight and continue the public hearing to the November 1 meeting. He said that at the November 1 meeting the Board will have an opportunity to provide additional comments, M. Cowles asked that a brief staff presentation be made at that meeting if additional public is present. B. Bean exp2ained that the applicatiou is the fourth pliase ofOna Boulder Plaza on the corner of 14Ch and Walnut. He said that the applicanY is proposing to build three floors of residential units on the property above the first floor of retail on the corner of 14th and Walnut. He addressed the four issues identified: 1) Two of tha three alternatives proposed by the applicant show additional square footage above the permitted Floor Area Ratio (FAR); 2) the Downtown Design Guidelines suggest that buildings abova the second story be set back 20 feet; these guidelines have not been consistantly applied in the downtown area but, given that the building is on the north side and will shade a portion of Walnut Street, it is appropriate to heed this guideline; 3) the existence of the drive-up faciliCy along Walnut Street where cunent regulations do not allow new drive-up facilities to be developed in the downtown area unless the property fronts Canyon Boulevard; and 4) if the existing drive-up facility is eliminated and the applicant uses all the square footage allowed on the proposed site, they will not be able to convert this space to commercial activity. He said that becausa the building is proposed to be more than two stories, the applicant will be required to apply for a site ~ s:iplantpb-items\minutes\011018min.wpd City of Boulder ~ October 18, 2001 Planning Board Meeting Page 4 review, and the Downtown Design Advisory Board (DDAB) will review the project before it returns to the Board for site review. Jerry Lee, Applicant, agreed that 99,000 square feet is the maximum that will be allowed on the site. He said Yhat whan the drive-up facility is eliminated, Yhe additiona13,000 square feet that is held in abeyance wiil be used to fill in this area. He explained that the plan will include four stories, inciuding two stories of underground parking. He explained the desire to connect the proposed underground parking with that of the adj acent development to the north. He said that providing this connection will require privatizing a sewer line under the vacated alley to accommodate the proposed development and rarouting the line to connect to a line through the park that has additional capacity. He explained the additional residential component of the plan and tl~e appropriateness of providing housing on the second floor and the plan to step back the third and fourth floors 10 feet rather than the 20 feet suggested. He explained the proposed exit and entrance for the parking garage. Bill Reynolds, Applicant, 1860 View Point Road, discussed the reasons to build more residential units on three stories, how costs can be minimized by stacking the residenfial units so fhat each unit can be more affordable, and the average size of 1,200 square feet per unit with 30 units. He mentioned that all inclusionary zoning requirements would be on site. He explained the lease arrangement that the bank has on the site. ~ Charles Deane, 625 Pleasant Street, showed the elevations of alternatives one and two of the proposed development showing ways that the drive-up facility could be developed should that use be eliminaYed. He explained the possibility of 30 residential units on the second floor as well as the third and fourth floors. He described the architectural feature on the northeast corner of the building and the stepping of the third and fourth floors. He said that the third alYernative, which is not being considered now, involves ralocating the drive-iip facility to make it safer. Public Participation: There was no public participation. Return to the Board: The Board reviewed the key issues, including the guidelines for the 20-foot setbacks for the third and fourth floors to prevent shading issues and the purpose of the open space requirement imposed in Yhis zoning district and to what extent is it a benefit for the public and to what extent it is a benefit for the tenants of the building. The fotlowing comments were made by individual Board members and not by consensus: . s:\plan\pb-items~ninutes\011018min. wpd City of Boulder ~ October 18, 2001 Planning Board Meeting Page 5 • Conduct an analysis of what the shading would Ue with the 10-foot setback rather than the suggested 20-foot setback; ice formation due to shading would be a problem for walkers on the side across from the RTD bus station. • The Downtown Design Guide(ines were developed to alIow flexibility; allow the applicant setback flexibility to develop a better design, especially given the residential component of the project. • Step back the third and fourth floors to give adequaYe deck space or open space for the residents. • Devalop the second, third, and fourth floors as residential with a setback for the third floor and an additional setback for the fourth floor on the coi~ner to allow for open space; provide some additional open space far the second floor since there will not be a setbaclc From the street and along 14th Street as it overlooks the RTD bus station. • Build the residential lobby on Walnut Street rather than on the alley, and bitild the cora of the elevator away from bedrooms or with additional soundproofing. ~ • Relocate the sewer line to make a better parking lot design. • Review the noise enforcement far the mixed-use areas. • A strong architectural feature on the corner is a benefit. • Provide the 20 percent of affordable housing on this site to get a mix of incomes (applieant agreed to the condition at the time the first three phases were approved). • Find a way to address the groundwater in the area by developing some swales downstream where the stormwater runs off the site to keep it out of the creeks. • Make sure that the affordable units are at least 80 percent ofthe total residential building area ar 1,200 square feet. • Housing development in this part of town is appropriate bacause most of the surrounding uses are located indoors and will not cause noise issues. • Encourage the elimination of the drive-up facility as soon as possible to fill in that space. • s:Aplan\pb-iYems~ninutes\Ol 1018min.wpd City of Boulder . October 18, 2001 Planning Board Meeting Page 6 B. Public hearing and consideration of a Concept Review and Comment #LUR2001-00048 for Gunbarrel Town Center, for a mixed use plan comprised of approximately 138 dwelling units and 200,000 square feet of commercial space located at the southwest corner of Lookout Road and Gunpark Drive. B. Cole said that bacause the 14-day notice requirement was not met, the Board will conduct its hearing on this item tonight and continue the public hearing to the November 1 meeting. He said that at the November 1 meeting the Board will have an opporhinity to provide additional comments. He further axplained that this is the first step in the procass, that the applicant, Board and public will share ideas, and the applicant will then take these ideas to refine the plan and submit a site review application with a more detailed set of plans for Board decision. M. Randall said that the proposal is part of a Planned Unit Devalopment (PUD) approved in 1981 and represants the central retail area of Gunbarrel. He said that residential units would be built on two levels with retail uses on the streat level and office uses on the second floor. He addressed the following key issues: 1) conformance to the goals and objectives of the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan, 2) compatibility of the building designs with the types of uses in the area, 3) presentation of an attractive streetscape and incorporation of design alements appropriate to a pedestrian scale, 4) inclusion of a variety of uses and spaces that are conducive to pedestrian/bike i use, neighborhood service and community activities, and 5) whether requested modifications to davelopment standards are justified, including parking, open space, and height. He addressed the types of uses proposed, including a possible civic use. He described the square footage and types of uses noted in the phases of the original PUD. B. Cole said thaY the site is still a mapped wetland, so the applicant has to initiaYe a process under the code in order to remove that designation; there will then be an analysis conducted to determine whether a wetland stili exists. He discussed the bus service that is available Yo the site and its frequency. Terry O'Connor, Applicant, 7312 Windsor Drive, said that those people who attended the neighborhood meetings were notified of this meeting by e-mai] messages. He explained the history of the planning of the property since he purchased the parce] in 1991. He discussed how this plan personifies "smart growth" or the creation of urban centers and neighborhoods in compact development near job centers where people want to congregate. He said that in order for the open space requirement of 1,200 square feet per residential unit to work, there needs to be financial participation both from the public and the private developers. He discussed the benefits from such a development, including a better shopping opportunity, a health-foofl oriented grocery store, locally- owned and operated restaurants, a medical center, a health club with attached swimming pool and day-care canter, an upscale drug store, and easy access to convenience-type stores that locate around ~ s: \plan\pb-itemslmin utes\011018min, wpd City oFBoulder • October 18, 2001 Planning Board Meeting Page 7 the local grocary store. He said that a community canter, a brauch library, and an hourly rental car facility for the residents are envisioned. He explained that this parcel is the only property in Gunbarrel that will allow retail, residential, and office uses. He addressed the population to jobs imbalance in Gunbarral and said that there are approximately 18,000 jobs and about 15,000 residents in Gunbarrel. Eric Hartronft said that it was a challenge to creata a retail center with housing that the people of Gunbanel want and what the market will support. He presented pictures of different types of developments that were shown at the neighbarhood meetings where the neighbors responded with their likes and dislikes. He said that providing some office space will provide a customer base for the retail and residential uses; simply building a shopping center with residential uses will not wark. He described the concept far the interior of the site, including a fountain, a ro~mdabout to slow the traffic, a plaza area to create people spaces, 1 connection with this project and the King Soopers shopping center. He also described the proposed uses, including three floors of residential, office space, and retail, a uiedical center, health c1uU and a roof-top pool, a possible Urauch library, and surface and underground parking. He addressed the need to keep parking on the site and proposed bicycling amenities and linkages from this site to the existing houses in Gunbarrel. Pnblic Participation; ~ Paul HIamer, Table Top Court: He said that tl~is parcel, together with the surrounding area, needs to be the focal point of the Gunbarrel community in the same way that the Pearl SYreet Mall is the focal point of the Boulder community. He suggested that the Board create a community gathering place that is uniquely local and identifiable, a night spot as well as a day spot, a home far local government should that eventually occur, and a place that invites the kinds of shops and amenities that are needed. He said that the project should inspire redevelopment of the adjacent properties to give Gunbarrel the identity and amenities it craves. FIe also said that tra£Fic congestion along Lookout Road, the location oP a branch library, and the siting of a recreation center should be addressed. Ha said that the city of Boulder has cxtracted dollars from the large corporate and manufacturing tax base in Gunbarrel with little return to the subcommunity. He said that if a good subcommunity plan were conducted with a livable town center, the city might have a good chance of annexing the rest of Gunbarrel. Corine Weber, Red Fox Hills: She said that Gunbanel needs a town center with a natural food gcncery store, fewer chain stores, and smaller shops with landscaping to create a park-like atmosphere. She said that she would like to see discreet signage on the stores, and the town center and the residential part of the center should reflect the existing real estate prices. • s:\plan\pb-items~niuutes\011018min.wpd City of Boulder ~ October 18, 2001 Planning Board Meefing Page 8 Jeana Hyatt, Gunbarrel Greens: She said that in the 1980s the wetland in this area was changed because constraction materials were dumped on tha land. She suggested that some of the revenue paid to the city of Bouider from the Gunbarrel commercial uses be funneled back into the community. She said that she does not agree with the extensive development on this size lot. She was concerned about the reduction in parking, the underground parking sited on unstable soils, and that the affordable housing would not be provided on the site but placed on another project. She said that Gunbarrel is not a town but a community and suggested that such a name not be givan to the development. She suggested that all stakeholders be involved in this project and that all concerned citizens be notified. She said Yhat if the residents knew of the variances requested for this project, the room would be filled with people from Gunbarrel. Chack Simmons, Cottonwood Drive: He said that he prefers restaurants and speciality shops that prevent people in Gunbarrel from having to drive to other towns. He was concerned that mistakes may be made by going too fast with this proposal, that there is nothing in the ptan that fits within the PUD, that tha parking and open space requirements are being reduced, and that the height of the building will not be attractive. He said that this site must be developed in a positive way for the community and not left as a dumping ground for building slash. Ted Napa, W indsor Court: He applauded the applicant for communicating with the residents about • the community meetings. He said that height would only impact the viaw corridor from the offices on Gunpark Drive, and the only views that would be lost otherwise are the backs of Gunbarrel Square and King Soopers. He said that he is excited about the project, and the applicant has made an affort to bring focus to Gunbarrel. Don Sterling, Idlewild Trail: He was concerned about the 55-foot height of the building when all the other buildings in the vicinity have a 35-foot limit. He said that increasing the height limit would be a severe impact to those people who live across the golf course. He said that ha does not see how att these wonderful, myriad things can be accomplished on only seven acres of land and askad where the town center will be built. He said that integrating a portion of this development with the existing center would be the only way that this could make sense. He commanted on the existing traffic problem, especialiy on Lookout Drive. He said that he would prefer to ]ook at the vacant lot rather than to have this proposal come to fruition. Jessica Hartell, 6H68 Twin Lake Road: She said that she lives very close to the property, but there is no sidewalk that allows her to get thera. She said that the existing strip-mall does not wark and is not very pleasant. She said that she is concerned with how this davelopment would integrate within the community. She said that this is a great opportunity to make Gunbarrel a wonderful place to work and live. She asked for cooperation with the city and county to address the location of a library branch, pedestrian access to the site from the neighborhoods, access to Foothills and the ~ s:\plan\pb-items~ninutes\O ll 018min.wpd City of Boulder October 18, 2001 • Plauning Board Meeting Page 9 Diagonal, the relationship between other attractions, such as Celestial Seasonings and Leanin' Tree, and creation of a safa space for kids to play and a sustainable business viabitity. Molly Tayer, 620 Yale Road: She discussed the notification process. She suggested that the staff and applicant be allowed to make a presentation at the next meeting if new members of the public are present and that a summary of the comments be provided. She asked that staff publish in ihe newspaper the approved change in notification for concept reviews so that citizens know the procedure. She also suggested that staff work with the Boi2lder Daily Camera to ensure that notification occurs properly. Return to the Board: The Board and staff discussed subcommunity planning, including a smaller-scale review of connections and integration of the town center with the surrounding area; the eneouragement by staff to work together with the applicant for future redavelopment so that options for further improvements are not foreclosed by picking a particular development pattem that might block off someone else from improving their site; the heighY regulations that require that a structure proposed for over 35 feet would need a site review process; the 1991 Gunbarrel annexation discussions; the fact that there is no view protection ardinanee; the intention to provide all 20 percent of the • affordable units on site; jobs to popularion balance in Gunbarrei; the reasons far the rush to develop the project; an article in the American Planning Association journal regarding town centers, the space that is consumed by cars, and the space created for the pedestrian experience; and the process and presentation of the proposed changes for the contimied meeting on November 1. Individual Board members made the following comments, not by consensus: Discuss with the community and adjacent property owners the details ofthe plans regarding how the parcel can be developed in a regional way; keep the Guubarrel community involved in the discussions. Provide more residential units on the site and reduce the commercial and office space if a height variance is requested to be consistent with the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan goals of sustainability. Observe the wetlands ordinance for the site; consider the importance of stormwater detention areas so that natural precipitarion that falls on this parcel is not immediately consigned to the storm sewer system; develop creative ways to ciean surface ntnoff before it either percolates into the ground or moves oFf-site, such as on-sita swales. • s:\plan\pb-items\minutes\011018min.wpd City of Boulder ~ October 18, 2001 Planning Board Maeting Page 10 • Allow the applicant flexibility to respond appropriately to market needs for the mixed use plan with the understanding of the importance of this balance of jobs to population. • Provide the 20 percent of affordable housing on this site; this achieves another important goal of mixed-use development which is having people of diverse incomes living in one space. • Make sure that the view corridors make sense. • Consider meeting the needs of people oF all ages, including the oldest members of the community; determine what would draw them to the open space and how they would use it; consider a pocket park to draw families with children and their pets; create space and amenities that will meet the needs of the residents--children, open space, play area. • Consider a varianca from the 1,200 square feet of open space that is required for each residential unit. • Consider new bicycle and pedestrian linkages to the site. • • Consider referencing the project as something other than a town center because some neighbors do not consider that Gunbarrel is a town but rather a community. • Invite a representative from the Housing Department to explain to neighbors what affordable housing means so that they have a better concept of who will be living there. • Consider appropriate lighting on the site because of its proximity to housing. • Provide additional information on the rationale for the parking reduction because sunounding businesses seem to need a lot of parking; • Consider that too much is planned for the site; the proj ect represents density for the sake of density; the height of 55 feet when everything else is 3S feet and trying to make a city center when there is no padestrian or bicycle connections do not make sense; the development should not be located in a suburb because in the amount of retail proposed on the site will not prevent people from driving into Boulder; do not put this manypeople on Lookout Road. • Dafine what a transit center for the site means. • Davelop a good Transportation Demand Management (TDM) plan that includes a wide range of options to get people to use alternative transportation modes; have a conversation with the . s:\plan\pb-items~ninutes\O 11018min.wpd City of Boulder October 18, 2001 • Planning Board Meeting Page 11 city about the TDM plan since staff is developing such a program to add validity and substance for a parking reduction. • Provide more detail on the plans and the internal circulatiou; the traffic circle might be a part of a larger park rather than having the fountain in the middla unless there is enough space around the fountain to keep people out of the traffic; the pockat park by the fountain is a nice concept, and the mix is nice. • The original PUD with its strip mall development would not have served the area well because now the needs of the araa are much better deFined. • Make sure the parking on the periphery of the site is landscaped and buffered and is a nice transition from Gunpark Drive and Lookout Road. • Recognize the importance of making sure that the area is active during the day and economically viable; consider the mixCure of uses and kinds of restaurants to ensure that it will be an active center at night. • Work on the jobs to population imbalance by targeting a 1 fo 1 ratio; develop proformas to • determine what it would look like to have tbis xatio and then conduct a market shidy to see if it will be viable as a town center. • Set the tone for the rest ofthe area so that future development will step up to the same quality of redevelopment. • Proposed retail will not meet needs of Gunbarrei residents; they wi11 still go to Longmont/Boulder for Home Depot/Target, clothing, etc. • Prefer the original PUD to the proposed development because the impacts on the community would be so much less. • Either eliminate the office space or provide first floor office along Main Street; put the office and residence together and sell them as one piece because otherwise if sold separately the residents will not work there. • The overall site needs to be planned and cannot be done a piece at a time; the parcels all around the site are unattractive. • This plan is unlikely to get the support of the majority of the residents in the community. • s: \plan\pb-items\minutes\011018min.wpd City of Boulder October 18, 2001 • Planning Board Meeting Page t2 • Do not try to make a downtown Boulder project--must fit Gunbarrel. • It does not make sense to pay the extra $15,000 per car far underground parking in the suburban setting; TDM will be difficult because everyone will' drive--even For short distances. • The town center should be two-story or maybe three story buildings and scaled with the community which is mainly single family housing and some multi-family housing. • The design of this project provides a large amount of space for cars but by placing parking undergronnd so that when pedestrians emerge, they can get immediately to the more pedestrian space. • Consider providing a 30,000 square foot grocery store. • Create the right kinds of jobs which means not just office or grocery store jobs just for the sake of s»ch jobs. • The mix of sbops and retail in the north Boulder shopping center across from the hospital ~ would work in Gunbarrel; new urbanism used in the right spot can make wonderful developments but not sure it would in Gunbarrel. • The proposal tries to present a front on Gunpark Driva but really it does not--all activity is in the center and does not relate to other nearby uses. Height should be checked so that it does not block existing views from residential areas. 7. ADJOURNMENT The Planuing Board adjourned the meeting at 10:45 p.m. • s:\plan\pb-items\minutes\011018min. wpd