Loading...
2 - Approval of May 2, 2002 minutesCITY OF BOULDER PLANNING BOARD SUMMARY MINUTES May Z, 2002 Council Chambers Room, Municipal Building 1777 Broadway, 6:00 p.m. The following are the minutes of the May 2, 2002 city of Boulder Planning Board meeting. A permanent set of these minutes is kept in Cenh-al Records, and a verbatim tape recording of the meeting is maintained for a period of seven yeazs in Central Records (telephone: 303-441-3043). BOARD PRESENT: Macon Cowles Thom Krueger, Vice Chair Simon Mole Tina Nielsen, Chair Alan O'Hashi Beth Pommer John Spitzer STAFF PRESENT: Brent Bean, Seniar Planner Eob Cole, Director of Land Use Review Steve Durian, Transportation Engineer David Gehr, Assistant City Attorney Elizabeth Hanson, Planner Linda Hill-Blakley, Housing and Human Services Mary Lovrien, Board Secretary Peter Po]lock, Planning Director GUEST PRESENT: Maro Zagoras CALL TO ORDER Chair T. Nielsen declared a quorum at 6:05 p.m. Sha pointed out a list of desired outcomes for the agenda items and ground rules far conducting the meeting. The following additional business was conducted. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The approval of the March 21, 2002 Board minutes was deferred to a later date. 3. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION Brant Seibert, Member of the Dakota Ridge Homeowners' Association, 4966 Dakota Boulevard: He spoke about his concerns that some of the goals identified in the North Boulder Subcommunity Plan will not be achieved in the new development at Dakota Ridge--specific regulations in the zoning are not restrictive enough to accomplish some of the goals, and building s: \plan\pb-items~minutes\020502min City of Boulder Planning Board Minutes May 2, 2002 Page 2 types that face each other across the street and building materials are not compatible. He said that the guidelines state that any change in design rules should occur at the rear or side property lines rather than down the middle of the street. He suggested an overlay zone that would require by- right projects to he reviewed by the Planning staff with neighborhood notification. Staff responded that the azchitecture in the Service Industrial zoning across the street from the mixed- use development will not be the same as is found in the village center of Dakota Ridge, but the design of the buildings will be reviewed by staff and the neighborhood. 4. DISCUSSION OF DISPOSITIONS, PLANNING BOARD CALL-UPS There were no dispositions or Planning Board call-ups to discuss. 5. MATTERS FROM THE PLANNING BOARD, PLANNING DIRECTOR, AND CITY ATTORNEY (T6is item was discussed at the end of the meeting.) A. O'Hashi asked if there was interest in contacting the Downtown Management Commission regarding parking on east Pearl Street, but the Board members indicated that they did not have an interest in pursuing this item. B. Pommer cautioned the Board about ex-parte contacts, such as visiYations with applicants outside of the Planning Board meetings or discussion about applications that have not been heard by the Board. She also cautioned the Board members about questioning their own ability to make decisions; if the Board member does not feel qualified to make a comment, simply do not say anything. M. Cowles said that he was disturbed by the Board approval of the international-style building at 902 Pearl Street. He said that the Board needs to start denying some of these development applications. J. Spitzer explained that if this project was not approved, the applicant could build a structure that did not provide a view corridor for the West End Tavern. S. Mole suggested that working on the Code will provide better solutions. P. Pollock invited the Board to attend a brown-bag lunch on May 13 to hear brief presentations by those city planners who attended the American Planners' Association Conference in April. He said that on May 14 and on August 13, there will be joint Planning BoardlCity CounciU7obs to Population Task Force meetings. He said that staff will send a summary of the Board's comments regarding the Jay/47th/Kalmia properties to City Council. There was discussion about the preferred options for the school site adjacent to the Jay and 47th property and comments made regarding a maacimum house size that were not included in the summary. M. Cowles said that he will be unable to be the Board representative to the Downtown Design Advisory Board. M. Zagoras, who presented the effectiveness training for Boazd members last week, gave feedback on the effectiveness of tonighYs meeting. She complimented the Board on posting the ground rules for the meeting; listening; providing good humor and eye contact; following the key issues and desired outcomes; pointing out the items that were in the Board's purview; agreeing on the issues; making specific arguments; discussing each issue in sequence and keeping to the specific issues; and clarifying definitions. She suggested that the Board chart comments so that when a motion is made the points are readily available; determine the extent to which the Boazd s:\plan\pb-items~minutes\020502min City of Boulder Planning Board Minutes May 2, 2002 Page 3 designs a project (some boazds will state that a project does not meet the criteria and deny the project, and some boards try to make the project happen with some redesign); state the likes and dislikes of a project and then allow staff to try to implement the design; focus on what does not work in the project rather than discuss what does work; and inform the public about upcoming meetings through use of the web site and other methods. 6. CONSENT ITEM A. Public hearing and consideration of Site Review Amendment #LUR2002- 00009, the Henry and Anne Beer Residence, to eliminate a previously approved accessory building from the plans and construct a new 771 square foot studio addition north of the existing attached garage at 1460 Sierra Drive. The addition causes the measured building height to be 48 feet, where the existing house was previously approved by the Planning Board in 1989 to a measured building height of 38 feet. (No change proposed to the apparent total building height.) L. Hanson said that one outstanding issue was the proposed fence location, but after meeting with the applicant and appellant, there was agreement on rivo options. J. Spitzer asked Ms. Hanson to clarify that the appellants were satisfied with the agreement. She said that the most important issue to the appellants was the visibility of the fence posts, and that both sides were agreeable to the new wording For Condition 4. B. Pommer asked that this item be removed from the consent calendaz so that further discussion could occur. J. Spitzer disclosed that he met briefly on the site with the appellants but did not learn of any information that was not contained in the packet. Public Hearing: There was no public participation. Return to the Board: B. Pommer asked if a condition could be added to allow the fence to be moved at a later date should the situation change with the neighbors. L. Hanson suggested that if such a change did not significantly alter the intent of the plan, it could be handled through the minor modification process; this would ensure that the agreement just reached is not compromised. J. Spitzer suggested that any change could be negotiated with future property owners. L. Hanson conected an errar in the Site Review Amendment number; the conect number is LUR2002-00009. MOTION: On a motion by B. Pommer, seconded by M. Cowles, the Planning Board approved (7-0) Site Review Amendment #LUR2002-00009, incorporating the staff inemorandum dated May 2, 2002 (preparation date Apri125, 2002) and the attached Site Review Criteria Checklist as findings of fact with the change in Condition 4 to read "At the time of building permit application, the Applicant shall submit a final fence plan, including the location, height, and s:\plan\pb-items~minutes\020502min City of Boulder Planning Boazd Minutes May 2, 2002 Page 4 spacing of fence posts and buffer landscaping for the new fence along the east property line, subject to the review and approval of the Planning Director." 7. ACTION ITEMS A. Continuation of public hearing and consideration of an appeal of Use Review #LUR2001-00059 for a restaurant over 1,500 square feet in a new building at the northeast corner of 16th and Pearl Streets. J. Spitzer was recused because he did not attend the meeting where this issue was first discussed. L. Hanson said that this item was continued from the Apri14, 2~02 meeting. She said that the key discussion at that meeting and the basis for the neighborhood's appeal of the use review approval was the size of the restaurant. She said that the applicant has revised the use review proposal and reduced the size of the restaurant in the following ways: the first floor has been reduced to 4,000 square feet; the size of the indoor seating area has been reduced to 2,500 square feet; the number of indoor seats has been reduced to 135; and the number of exterior seats has been reduced to 45 seats. She said that the applicants have added a Good Neighbor Plan that addresses parking, noise, trash, and community feedback. She said that staff finds that the plan meets the use review criteria and that the reduced size may address some of the pazking and noise impacts. She said that the appellants aze in fauor of the reduced restaurant size and have suggested three additional conditions for consideration: a floor plan with no dedicated bar, a dining area of no more than 135 seats, and a request that the Board ask the Downtown Management Commission to work to resolve parking issues in the neighborhood. She said that the catering portion of the restaurant is addressed in the applicant's written statement. J. Midyette, azchitect for the project, said that he met with the City Manager regarding this project. He said that the City Manager stated that he had authorized more police officers to enforce the neighborhood parking and clarified that any of the requirements of an approval, such as closing time, are enfarceable no matter who is operating a restaurant, and a new use review would be required if a tenant wanted to change those rules. He explained a few design changes in the preliminary floor plan and outlined the enhy on 16th Street for the other retail customer, the outdoor seating, the parking provided for management employees in the parking gazages, provision of Ecopasses for other restaurant employees, the height of the building (33 feet), and the reason for not requesting a building height of over 35 feet. Jeff Kozak, owner of the proposed restaurant, explained that the reduced space will require that some food preparation work will need to be done off site and assured the Board that the catering will only be a large take-out service. He said that the parking requirements outlined in the Good Neighbor Plan will be taken seriously, that there will be no dedicated bar, and the reduced inside dining area will accommodate no more than 135 seats. He addressed the provision of Ecopasses for employees. s: \plan\pb-itexnsUninutes\020502min City of Bouider Planning Board Minutes May 2, 2002 Page 5 Crystal Gray, Appellant, 1709 Spruce Street, thanked the applicant for listening to the neighbors' concerns. She said that although the neighborhood is in agreement with most of the items in the revised plan, she suggested that Condition 4 be revised to require a use review for any future use to ensure that the use is the same as stated in the approved plan. She suggested that Condition l.a. be revised to indicate that seats located on Pearl Street cannot extend more than 40 feet onto 16th Street to minimize impacts. She also suggested that the conditions state that there will. be no bar area and that liquor is to be beer and wine only. She addressed the design of tha original plan to have floor to ceiling windows along 16th Street. She asked that employee parking in the garages be addressed with the Downtown Management Commission because it is a deterrent to employees to have to pay to park. She compared the impacts from a retail establishment and a restaurant use. Public Participation: Steven Wallace, 1813 Pine Street: He said that he still thinks the reduced size of the restaurant is too large for the site. He said that this proposed restaurant is located in the RB2-X zone, which allows a 1S floor area ratio (FAR) and a square footage of no more than I,500 square feet without a use review. He questioned the rationale for approval of a restaurant size of 5,400 square feet where only 1,500 square feet is the allowed use. He said that people have compared the proposed restaurant to other establishments along the Pearl Street corridor, but those restaixrants are not in the RB2-X zone. He explained that this zoning was put in place because the commercial area immediately abuts a residential use. Return to the Board: The $oard discussed what it considered to be the key issue (whether the proposal with the revised conditions of approval is compatible and minimizes impacts to the nearby residential neighborhood). The Board agreed on the following criteria: that the use is consistent with the purpose of the zoning district; that the use provides a direct service or convenience to the neighborhood; that the use is compatible with and has minimal negative impact on the use of nearby properties; that the proposed development will not significantly adversely affect the infrastructure of the surrounding area; and that the use will not change the predominant character of the surrounding area. The Board agreed that the conversion of dweliing units to non- residential uses is not applicable in this application. The Board agreed to delete (2)(C) and (D) from the Use Review Criteria Checklist because these criteria were not applicable. B. Pommer suggested that a reference be made that there will be no bar area in the restaurant. MOTION: On a motion by B. Pommer, seconded by A. O'Hashi, the Planning Board approved (6-0; J. Spitzer recused) Use Raview #LUR2001-00059, incorporating the staff inemoranda dated May 2, 2002 (preparation date April 25, 2002) and April 4, 2002, with the attached Use Review Criteria Checklist as findings of fact, and using the recommended Conditions of Approval with an amendment to Condition 2 to read "Prior to issuance of a building permit, the s:lplan\pb-items~minutes1020502min City of Boulder Planning Board Minutes May 2, 2002 Page 6 Applicant shall submit a final floor plan which meets the size and seating limitations described in Condition No. 1 and does not include any baz-style seating azeas, subject to the review and approval of the Planning Director." B. Public hearing and consideration of Site Review #LUR2001-00033, to permit development of a three-story building with a height of up to 44.5 feet at 902 Pearl Street. The request proposes a mixed use development containing an office/commercial area and six residential units. T6e applicant is seeking creation of vested property rights in accordance with Sectioa 9-4-12 "Creation of Vested Rights," B.R.C. 1981 for 9,9A5 square feet of retail, 8,445 square feet of office, and six dwelling units. B. Bean explained that at the time of original submittal it was possible to build a third floor as a by-right element (50 feet wide along Pearl Street and 75 feet deep along 9th Street). He said that the regulations were amended last fall so that the by-right element is no longer applicable to this property. He said that the applicants have not relied on the by-right solution at any time during this process because they had intended to construct a larger structure than the by-right solution available last summer or allowed today which would be a two-story structure across the property. He said that the applicant is requesting a height exception to 44.5 feet. He said that the proposed plan has taken into account the character of the Pearl Street area by providing a two-story element along that frontage and provided a stepped-back third story from both Peazl and 9th Streets to reduce the perceived heights of the new buildings. He said that the applicant has addressed concerns from the neighbor to the east by removing the second and third floor in the southeast corner to provide a view corridor to the southwest toward the Flatirons. He said that the applicant has addressed concerns of residential use in a primarily commercial area by providing such uses only on the westem half of the building on the second and third floors. He said that office and retail use will separate the existing business to the east. Ae outlined the key issues: consistency with the Downtown Design Guidelines; presentation of an attractive streetscape and incorporation of design elements appropriate to the pedestrian scale; compatibility of building design with the existing chazacter of the surrounding area; appropriateness of the requested height in this area; and whether the site review criteria have been met. He said that design elements have been included that will help to break up the scale and bulk of the building, such as recesses in the structure, the stepping back of the third floor to ensure that the pedestrian would not see the height from the north side of Pearl Street, material types, and the assurance that the building height would fit with the scale of the existing area. Terry Willis, Urban Design Group, explained the site characteristics, including the 24 underground parking spaces with an entrance on the alley side; the residential bonus of a.5 FAR; the third-story element on the corner; office space on two floors; the pocket park on the alley that will satisfy the open space requirement; the consideration of the disaggregation of the sale of the parking spaces from the units; the buffering of the residential use from the noise of the s: \plan\pb-items\minutes\020502min City of Boulder Planning Board Minutes May 2, 2002 Page 7 surrounding area; the stepping back of the third floor from Pearl Street; window size and the use of building material to address the historic facades along Peazl Street; and the dedication of land on the 9th Street side to widen the sidewalk. Public Participation: Wyndham Hannaway, 839 Pearl Street; T. Nielsen read his comments into the record since Mr. Hannaway was not able to stay for the meeting. Mr. Hannaway said that the proposed construction is an inappropriate size and out of scale for west Pearl and that a 44.5 foot height will block the mountain view corridor for the entire block. He stated that this proposal is out of character to all the neighbors' efforts to preserve the west end of Pearl. He said that he had previously sent a letter to staff but that letter was not included in the packet. T. Nielsen asked B. Bean about this concern, and he indicated that all correspondence received after the first of the yeaz was included, but previous letters, many of which were seen in the earlier proposal, were not included. She said that a notebook of all correspondence is available. Harry Evenstad, 2635 Mapleton Avenue #19: He presented petitions of over 8,000 signatures collected by the West End Ailiance. He said that the peopie who signed the petitions think that the proposed building would do irrepazable harm to the West End by changing the character o£ the neighborhood and that the residential and retail use is not the highest and best use. Michelle Goren, 844 19th Street: She said that she was ill informed that this issue was going to be discussed on May 16 rather than tonight. She thanked the developer for providing a view corridor for the West End Tavern. She said that she was concemed about the residential use being located in a successful but noisy entertainment district and asked that this issue be discussed further. She was concerned that residents will complain of the downtown noise, and that a fine for a noise violation is quite high for each offense. Ed Withers, P.O. Box 4417: He said that he is in favor of the proposed building-the redesign of the building is attractive and the view corridor from the Wast End Tavern has been preserved. Ha said that he has owned 10 residential units (recently torn down) across the street from the proposed site, and in no occasion was there any resident who moved out of the units because of the noise. He said that those residents moved there to experience the vibrancy of the downtown Peul Street community. David Stricklin, 3190 14th Street: He said that he applauds the efforts by the applicants to hy to make a compatible use of the building. He said that the by-right use that was in place when the property was purchased was obviously flawed as evidenced by the fact that staff changed the requirements. He said that this change was a huge victory for the citizens of Boulder. He said that the proposed building, although attractive, is out of scale with the surrounding area. He was concerned about the noise issues that will be raised by the residents in this building. He said that a two-story building with a 1.7 FAR would be appropriate for this space. He said that the s:\plan\pb-items~minutes\020502min City of Boulder Planning Board Minutes May 2, 2002 Page 8 monetary issue is why the developer needs 24 parking spaces, and part of the money will be used to defray the inclusionary housing requirement. Charles Picketh, 10072 West 100th Place, Westminster: He said that the proposal is a very responsible project. He said that he intends to be a residential property owner in the building. Geoff Simpson, 4810 Kings Ridge Blvd.: He said that he has an interest in purchasing one oF the residential units in the proposed development. He said that the developer has made a fair compromise in the design of the building. . Raymond Mayer, 2060 Broadway: He said that it is important that whatever is done, it is done well. He said that he is impressed with the proposed project. He said that a residential use is very important, and he is interested in such a place for himself. Rusty McCoy, 4778 Kings Ridge Boulevard: He said that downtown Boulder residential property has been a huge draw for locals and visitors, and the continued developmeni of both east and west Pearl is vital to the community. He said that the demand for such residences far exceeds the supply. He added that this project will benefit downtown Boulder in a positive way. Doug Thorburn, 2251 23rd Street: He praised the work of the developer in trying to create space that is rooted in history and architecture. Scott Dale, 955 lOth Street: He said that he supports the project, and the process has been a good example of people working together and addressing sensitive issues. He said that providing a view corridor for the West End Tavem was a creative solution, and the two-story appearance of the front along Pearl Street enhances the pedestrian experience. He said that having the residential component is a requirement to see this project move forward. Mark Kreloff, 2016 18th Street: He said that he is in favor of this very elegant and beautiful project, and that Boulder needs more downtown mixed-use projects, especially those that incorporate residential units. He said that he is interested in purchasing a residential unit in this building. Jason Busch, 1050 Walnut Street: He said that he is in favor of this project because his business thrives off the combination of residences and busanesses in the azea. Gwen Dooley, 730 Spruce Street: She said that the landscaping in the alley is moot; pedestrians do not walk in the alley because of the delivery trucks using the space. She said that the developer has done a good job in trying to meet the aesthetic needs, but the building is too massive and too tall. She said that Walnut Street was designed to build such buildings, but the thought of the Downtown Alliance was that Peaz] Street should maintain the low height, especially on the south side to allow the views and sun to come through for the pedestrians. She s; \plan\pb-items~minutes\020502min City of Boulder Planning Board Minutes May 2, 2002 Page 9 said the noise on Pearl Street will not mesh with residential use. She asked the Board not to grant a 44.5-foot height variance. Return to the Board: The Boazd and staff discussed the reason for the large number of parking spaces that would be provided where the parking requirement would be much smaller (the reasons are to provide circulation space and to build out the underground sita to take advantage of the cost break per space); the fact that the inclusionazy zoning would be provided off site (L. Hill-Blakely explained that the applicant would provide 50 percent additional community benefit in the form of inclusionazy zoning cash-in-lieu or $143,000); the four key issues (consistency with the Downtown Design Guidelines, presentation of an attractive straetscape, and incorporation of desigi elements appropriate to a pedestrian scale; compatibility with the existing character of the surrounding azea; height issue; and satisfaction of the Site Review Criteria); the height recommendations for the first floor in the Downtown Design Guidelines (up to 14 feet for the first floor and up to 12 feet for the second floor); whether the alley could handle the traffic with the delivery trucks and the alley-loaded gazage; the reason that inclusionary zoning can be devaloped off site; whether the opan space provided is sufficient for the residents and whether it will be available for passersby; the applicanYs plan for the 24 parking spaces; whether the applicant could build the parking spaces if the parking requirement were eliminated; and how noise will be dealt with in the construction of the residential units. Individual Board members made the following comments, not by consensus: Consistencv with the Downtown Boulder DesiQn Guidelines The corner of the building at 9th and Pearl Streets is important and forms a gateway to the pedestrian mall and presents a view from Mapleton Hill. The residential unit on this comer is so prominent and should be toned down. Since this is a residential unit, there will be times when it will be dark and will not function as a gateway and some times when it will be very light. . The intent of the Downtown Design Guidelines was that Walnut Street corridor was designed to take the bulk and mass of buildings, and that the height would be stepped down toward Pearl Street to make it more pedestrian friendly and to reflect the more historic character of the area. • Overall, the design is appropriate, particulazly along Pearl Street. . The corner element is attractive, and the openness creates a liveliness to the building. s:\plan\pb-items~minutes\020502min Ciry of Boulder Planning Board Minutes May 2, 2002 Page 10 . The entire second floor has a loft about it that is inconsistent with the existing buildings along Pearl Street. The buildings on the south side of Pearl Street contain the major expression in detailing at the first floor level, but this is not represented in the proposed architecture. The second story residences do not add vitality to the west part of Peazl but detract from it. It represents a startling change from the buildings to the east on Peazl. The building should be kept to a 35-foot height--there are many examples of three-story buildings within 35 feet. The style of the building violates 2.4 and 2.5 of the Downtown Design Guidelines: (2.4) states that the height, mass, and scale of buildings should be considered and (2.5) states that a human building scale should be maintained rather than a monolithic or monumental scale. The building design is consistent with the Downtown Design Guidelines; they are guidelines and not directives. The historic district boundary reflected the gas station on this site rather than whether the bailding needed to relate to the rest of the street. Presentation of an attractive streetscane and incoraoration of desian elements appropriate to a aedestrian scale . The way the third floor has been stepped back has created the scale of a two-story building to the pedestrian. The building does not necessarily present an attractive streetscape because of the residential component on the second floor and the possible disarray of items in the space. . Ask the applicant to submit an interior lighting plan to address lighting that might affect the pedestrian experience, such as ensure that a spotlight is not directed into the street. ComuatibilitV with the existin¢ character of the surroundine area The building design is compatible with the existing character of the surrounding area and is consistent with the zoning. The type of building material proposed to be used fits with the existing character, and the window design along the different elevations matches the Pearl Street area. There is an uncertainty that this building is compatible with the existing character of the azea; some sense of the area should be reflected in the building design, other than just the materials used in the construction. . The modern building design is not compatible with the surrounding area even though there are materials and pieces that reflect the area. There are also window curves and a variety in s: \plan\pb-items~minutes\020502min ~ City of Boulder Planning Board Minutes May 2, 2002 Page I1 height with the existing historic buildings that the proposed monolithic building does not provide. . The building design is compatible with the buildings along Walnut and 9th Street which are more contemporary buildings. These more modern buildings aze part of the surrounding area. . The expanse of glass for the residential units will display all sorts of items, such as television sets, that might not be attractive from the street. . Approving buildings of the scale proposed encourages high-end residential uses that detract from the downtown. If such a building scale is approved on the south side of Pearl Street, we will have to approve such building scale on the north side as well. The appropriateness of 44.5 feet in heieht for this site . It would be possible to build a three-story structure at 35 feet, based on the Downtown Design Guidelines. . The proposed proportions for the second and third floors are appropriate, and in this instance, a height of 45 feet is acceptable. . If the Board limits the building to 35 feet, the residential uses will probably not be built. Satisfaction of the Site Review Criteria . Create a low curb along the alley to get some separation from the open space and the alley. . The parking that will be built is beyond the maximum requiraments, for the residential use. One of the worst things that can be done is to set up a situation where there is long-term parking that is not under the control of the Planning jurisdiction. . Consider removing the parking requirement for the residential use because the use is in an area that is a parking district. . Include other architectural and site design elements appropriate to a pedestrian scale in the findings, such as the commercial scale of the building with the window and store fronts on Pearl and the reference to increased width of the sidewalk on 9th Street. . Consider requesting that the architect return to Pianning staff with alternative sketches for the building. s: \plan\pb-items~minutes\020502trtin City of Boulder Planning Boazd Minutes May 2, 2002 Page 12 . Ensure that the development will adhere to the outdoor lighting ordinance when it is approved in the summer. MOTION: On a motion by A. O'Hashi, seconded by B. Pommer, the Planning Board approved (6-1;•M. Cowles opposed) Site Review #LUR2001-00033, incorporating the staff memorandum dated May 2, 2002 (preparation date April 19, 2002), the attached Site Review Criteria Checklist as findings of fact, and the Conditions of Approval as listed with the following amendments: Change Condition 3.c. to read "A detailed plan for the design and placement of outdoor furniture within the 15' X 46' landscaped area along the alley, including a raised grade from the alley;" and add Condition 3.f. to read "The Applicant shall submit a lighting plan that minimizes exterior light pollution onto the public right of way." J. Spitzer supported the motion even though he has a reservation about the design of the building. He said that if this proposal is not supported, the applicant can build a 35-foot tall, by-right structure that will be a significantly higher elevation along Pearl Street and will cause the loss of the view corridor for the West End Tavern. He supported the motion also because of the wide support at this public hearing. T. Krueger supported the motion as well but suggested that there should be a historical sense in the design of the building. S. Mole supported the motion because the design is acceptable. A. O'Hashi said that he was concerned about the residential uses in an entertainment district; however, testimony from prospective buyers indicates a full understanding of the noise issues. T. Nielsen supported the motion and stated that the applicant has gone to great lengths to work with the owners of the West End Tavern. She was concerned about the mixed use in this azea. M. Cowles opposed the motion because he thought that the building is not consistent with the Downtown Design Guidelines. The Board members asked that the Downtown Design Advisory Boazd review the second floor residential element on the corner of the building to consider requiring that the window on the residential unit be opaque to hide what is behind the glass. 8. ADJOURNMENT The Planning Board adjourned the meeting at 11:45 p.m. s:\plan\pb-items~minutes\020502min