Loading...
Minutes - Planning Board - 7/11/2002APPROVED SEPTEMBER 5, 2002 CITY OF BOULDER PLANNING BOARD SUMMARY MINUTES July I1, 2002 Council Chambers Room, Municipal Building 1777 Broadway, 6:00 p.m. The following are the minutes of the July 11, 2002 city of Boulder Planning Board meeting. A permanent set of these minutes is kept in Centra] 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 Thom Krueger, Vice Chair Simon Mole Tina Nielsen, Chair Alan O'Hashi Beth Pommer John Spitzer STAFF PRESENT: Brent Bean, Senior Planner Bob Cole, Director of Land Use Review Steve Durian, Transportation Enginaer David Gehr, Assistant City Attorney Linda Hill-Blakely, Housing and Human Services Nan Johnson, Associate Planner Mary Lovrien, Board Secretary Ruth McHeyser, Directar of Long Range Planning Pater Pollock, Planning Director Mike Randall, Planner 1. CALL TO ORDER Chair T. Nielsen declared a quorum at 6:05 p.m., and the following business was conducted. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES May 2, 2002: T. Nielsen made a correction on page 7, second paragraph, last sentence, to read "He said that a notebook of all correspondence is available." M. Cowles suggested an amenciment on page 2, third paragraph, fifth sentence, to read "He said that the Board needs to start denying development applications where the design is unacceptable. If buildings incompatible with the character of the neighborhood are going to be erected, let it be by the hand of the developers and not with the imprimatur of the Planning Board." T. Krueger suggested that instead of changing the sentence to better reflect what was meant, that a verbatim sentence s: \plan\pb-items\minutes\020711 min City of Boulder Planning Board Minutes July 11, 2002 Page 2 be substituted. The Board deferred approval of the minutes of May 2, 2002 until the verbatim passage is inserted. May 16, 2002: On a motion by T. Krueger, seconded by A. O'Hashi, the Planning Board approved the minutes of May 16, 2002 as presented (6-1; M. Cowles did not vote because he did not attend this meeting). May 28, 2002: On a motion by T. Nielsen, seconded by T. Krueger, the Planning Board approved the minutes of May 28, 2002 as presented (6-1; J. Spitzer did not vote because he did not attend this meeting). June 6, 2002: T. Krueger suggested that on page 7, second paragraph, 4th sentence, change to read "J. Spitzer said that the self-storage units are not compatible with the existing neighborhood, considering the bicycle path that goes in front of the property." On a motion by T. Krueger, seconded by T. Nielsen, the Planning Board approved the minutes of June 6, 2002 as amended (6-1; B. Pommer did not vote because she did not attend this meeting). 3. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION Steve Erickson, Attorney for Dan Lukeusow: He spoke regarding the Board denial of Use Review LUR2001-00065 on June 6, 2002. He observed that the use review process was not effective in his client's case; it was not apparent to Planning staff that a storage facility was an inappropriate or undesirable use at the proposed location. He suggested that before fees for technical review, engineering, site surveying, and attorneys are paid that a process, such as a concept review, be conducted before the applicant is required to file a formal detailed application. He said that it was frustrating that the Board discussed residential uses when the existing land use is industrial and was not an element that could be considered from a technical land use standpoint unless there was a zoning change. T. Nielsen suggested that the Board and staff discuss this issue, along with other Board procedures and meeting effectiveness, at its meeting on August 15, 2002. 4. DISCUSSION OF DISPOSITIONS, PLANNING BOARD CALL-UPS The Board had no comments on the wetland permit for reconstruction of Broadway from University to Pine or the Planning Board disposition (205 Canyon, Watershed School). 5. MATTERS FROM THE PLANNING BOARD, PLANNING DIRECTOR, AND CTTY ATTORNEY (This item was discussed at the end of the meeting.) P. Pollock addressed calendar issues, including the Board review of the University of Colorado South 1041 issue scheduled for July 18. He said that this issue comes before the Board because of an Intergovernmental Agreement with Boulder County and other adjacent communities that states that the city is required to render a decision if the county is reviewing a 1041 in the city's service area. He explained that the Board can only review the criteria in the 1041, and that any comments the Board makes have to relate to that criteria if they are to be applied by the county. He outlined the following upcoming meetings: July 24, the Gunbarrel Community Association concerning the Gunbarrel Square s: \plan\pb-items\minutes\02071 I min City of Boulder Planning Board Minutes July 1 l, 2002 Page 3 Town Center; September 10, a joint Planning Board/City Council study session regarding the Jobs to Population Balance Project; and August 13, a joint Planning Board/City Council study session regarding code issues,]arge-scale annexations, and scoping the "pop-up" and "scrape- off' issue. B. Pommer suggested that portable outhouses at construction sites be regulated in the building code. P. Pollock said that he would mention this suggestion to the Building Inspector. M. Cowles said that he received a call from a citizen asking that he meet with a couple of floodplain experts regarding the South Boulder Creek floodplain. He said that he declined because the Board will review the CU South 1041 permit, and he wanted to hear comments at that time. A. O'Hashi reported on the Downtown Design Advisory Board (DDAB) meeting. He said that M. Cowles could not attend the DDAB meeting and requested that his suggestion that canopies not be removed from the new Shell market be passed along. J. Spitzer suggested that it would be helpful to have a staff architect or consultant to Facilitate the Board's suggestions for the North Boulder Village Center. T. Nielsen suggested that the Board discuss Board process and meeting debriefing effectiveness on August 15, 2002. M. Cowles suggested a discussion regarding the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan as it relates to effectiveness in implementing the issues before the Board. P. Pollock said that the forum for this discussion is during discussion of the Action Plan. 6. ACTION ITEMS A. Review and adoption of ~ndings made on the decision to deny Use Review #LUR2001-00065 made on June 6, 2002, for a self-storage facility located at 3620 Walnut Street. The Planning Board approved a motion on June 6, 2002 to deny a Use Review application for a self-storage facility located at 3620 Walnut Street and continued this item to this meeting in order to adopt the findings of fact. The following changes were made in the Compatibility Section: M. Cowles corrected a spelling error (predominant) in Findings 2 and 3. T. Nielsen suggested changing the second sentence in Finding 6 to read "The fire safety wall, required to be constructed on the property line because of the configuration of the cargo containers and the chain-link fence that would surround the storage units for security, is not compatible with and will have adverse impacts on the adjacent property." M. Cowles suggested changing the second sentence in Finding 7 to read "The appearance of the proposed cargo containers and loss of mature trees will result in an unsightly appearance with a design that is inconsistent with the existing and emerging character of the area." MOTION: On a motion by M. Cowles, seconded by S. Mole, the Planning Board approved the findings of fact as amended above in conjunction with the denial of Use Review #LUR2001- 00065 as outlined in the staff inemorandum dated July 11, 2002 (preparation date June 27, 2002) (5-1; A. O'Hashi opposed the motion, and B. Pommer did not vote because she did not attend tha meeting when this item was £rst discussed). A. O'Hashi opposed the motion because he thought that the applicant met the burden as presented in his case and as initially approved by the Planning staff, and the project is consistent with the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan; further, the expansion of a local business adds value to the community and to the property that has minimal impact in terms of increasing jobs and does not detract from the character of the neighborhood. s: \plau\pb-items\minutes\020711 min City of Boulder Planning Board Minutes July 11, 2002 Page 4 B. Public hearing and consideration of Site Review #LUR2002-00025 to allow construction of an addition to the existing residence at 2520 Panorama within an LR-E (Low Density - Established) zone resulting in a building height of 46 feet. B. Bean said that he would answer questions that the Board had regarding the project. Bruce Wilson, Applicant, responded to T. Krueger's question about the existing square footage of the house and the square footage when the project is completed. He said that the existing house is approximately 2,000 square feet, and the addition is approximately 1,600 square feet, excluding the two-car garage. J. Spitzer asked about the height of the proposed building as it projects out over the hillside and how it relates to the steep slope ordinance. B. Bean responded that the steep slope ordinance does not apply to this site. He said that the height is about 35 feet from the low point as it fits into the hillside up to the top of the new roof, and the four-foot extension in the front is slightly more than 35 feet. He added that the 25-foot average height above grade at any point along the slope (steep slope averaging criteria) is not met. Public Participation: Fred Fernold, 2355 Balsam Drive: He asked if the project would have an additional story above the Panorama frontage. B. Bean explained that there would not be a new floor added above the Panorama portion of the building, but there would be a four-foot addition to the front of the house for the entryway. Return to the Board: The Board and staff discussed the south elevation of the proposed expansion and the four-foot extension on the front of the house that will be built to provide a more expansive entryway. MOTION: On a motion by M. Cowles, seconded by S. Mole, the Planning Board approved Site Review #LUR2002-00025 adopting the staff inemorandum dated July 11, 2002 (preparation date June 25, 2002) as findings of fact and the single condition of approval that appears on page 4 of the staff inemorandum (6-1; T. Krueger opposed). T. Krueger opposed the motion because he was in favor of limiting the four-foot extension of the entryway to the height of the existing roofline. C. Public hearing and consideration of Site and Use Review #LUR2002-00016 for Bixby School to demolish 2,867 square feet of the existing school (including a one-bedroom residential unit) and rebuild with 3,160 square feet of preschool area, plus a Phase II 1,400 square foot school addition at 4760 Table Mesa Drive. A parking reduction is requested, but no change in school enrollment is proposed. N. Johnson explained that the school is requesting the total phased expansion with no increase in student enrollment, the demolition of one residential unit, and a parking reduction. She addressed s: \plan\pb-items~ninutes\020711 min ~uy af f~outder Flsnnin~ Board Minutes July I1, 2U02 Pag~ S eh~ k~y issuac of campatibility and in~pacts on the surraunding residential neighbonc~~ad, lha paekin~ for the mixeci use af th~ South Cra~k Plaexnad Unit Develaptu~nt (PUDj, and the loss of an~ residenti~l unit, She aazd that thera witl net be anq additic~nal impacts beeaLrse tli~re will not be an inorease xn ~tuct~nt enrolln~ant and that there will be adequate parki~lg ox~ th~ site. 9ha said ttiat part of' the expansion wllt aliviinate the tc~p-floor reait9ential unit; although the 1~aulcJer Valley Comprehensive Ptan (~3VCP} doe. not fiupport the loss of rasidentiai anits> Yheze is causideratian if there is a co~vruunity bene6t, She said that in this oasc staff cc~nchideci that ths caznmuniry bene~it is tl~e educational use. 3he said thaE impacts to the swrounding area witl be rxiiuimal beaause ther~ is c~ctensive acreening and maiure laneisc:apirig, and the matarial~ used in the eons~niction nf the bnilding will mateh the existln~ buiidin~. I'hil McEvoy, ArchiteoY for the praject, distributed a letter fl~m tl~a soils en~izieer which documented the zziain reason that the reniodel is neeclett. Ha explaineii the types of repairs mada to the schooi over the years, He said that the expansion will provide meeting space, a commercial kiichan, stoa~age, and stai'f restmoms. He addecl th~t the expansion will rearieut the mzin entry fnr the se}~ool sa that ii is separata from the presehacrt plc~ygraund. He expitined how the funds for the expansion will be raisad. Pat I3aker, Co-foundsr and Directar of tl~e Bixby 5chqol, 4764 TaAlr Mes~ Drive, explainad th~; bagirmings af the school. She said Chat two r~sid~ntial units wer~ built abuve the schoal because n#" The advantage of an-site z•esidents. Shz aaid that from the begi~ming the schaol has provided before- ~3nd a~tar-schoel care with a typical enrollmsnt Q£ between 17S and 185 students tbr tha 9-month academie year. She said thaf eurcently 24 of the families have more d~an oi~e child at the schaol, staff has six children attending the sohool, and I7 pr~-schoot children have otder siblings who attend etementary schaol; this age anci service mix si$ni.~cantly r~duce daily ear trips. She s~id that Bixby Schan3 benefits I3oulder by providing high-quality ed~tcation, chiid car~ far students, af}er-scha4l classas and summer school, ~aid serve~ a larg~r aga range and offi.rs mora sez`vices ta fi~tiilias than do mobt other sctiools. Pt~blie Partic'spation: There was na pnblic partiCipation. 12eturn to the Boarci: d. Spitzer disalosed that h~; took a tour of the $ixby 3chool and the site but dici ~ot acquire any sdditioi~ai informatian that iq nat pmvid~c~ in the staff matc;riats. The ~3oard and staff diacuesed the ramainittg square foatage that c~n be develaped an the site {staff said that the tptal square faotaga of 48,000 square fe~t for the commercial ~ses h~d been built out, the PUD allowed 20 residential unita to be 6uilt on tap of the buzld'eng, and a furCher analysis wouid be needsd ta determiL~e tha status of the residential units); fha pc~ssibility af building one or ~vo r~sic~ential units on the si#a; whether there is adequate parking on the site for tlte current use and whether additionai parking mi~ht b~ needed if the site is not fully buil# out (th~ 20 x•esidential units cannot h~ bailt withouC praviding 2b additianal parking spaees}; w~ether tl~s school promotes s~~ Ecopass systetn for its empTayee~ tv ralzeve the necd for addirinnal p~~king (S. Duriau s~id that since the enrailment will not increase anci there is nat a parking pmbiern, it does nat rnak~ sense s:\planlpb-it~mstrninutes102071 I min City of Boulder Planning Board Minutes July 11, 2002 Page 6 to require Ecopasses); whether Ecopasses could be required as part of a Transportation Damand Management for any future expansion in enrollment or stafF or far the existing use or to accommodate the building of residential units; and the requirement that the school maintain the car pooling. The Board and staff further discussed the elimination of the affordable housing unit; the provision of a condition that would permit the school to build up to 2,400 square feet in two permanently affordable units for the employees of the school (L. Hill-Blakely explained that because the units are accessed through the school the applicant would need private funding to build the apartments in order to rent to school employees; subsidy city funds are available, but the renting of such units would be open to the public and not open just for school employees); the possibility of building two residential units along the alley or in the back of the site (Phil McEvoy stated that the sites suggested are identified in the original PUD as required open space and serves the entire PUD far South Creek and not just the school, and the area east of the building and around the playgrounds should not have a housing unit because of security conflicts with how the residents and students access the property). MOTION: On a motion by B. Pommer, seconded by S. Mole, the Planning Board approved (7-0) Site and Use Review #LUR2002-00016 for the Bixby School, incorporating the staff memorandum dated July 11, 2002 (preparation date June 27, 2002) and attached site and use review criteria checklist as findings of fact, using the recommended Conditions of Approval, and including an additional Condition 7 to read "The Applicant shall continue its program that is designed to reduce the number of vehicle trips to the school which includes educational efforts of employees and the families of students, and encouraging alternatives to the single occupant or family trips through the use of car pools, bus trips, cycling and walking." M. Cowles offered a friendly amendment to add Condition 8 to read "The Applicant shall be permitted to replace the unit that is being lost provided that it is in a location that is subject to the review and approval of the Planning Director that is consistent with the approved plans and the underlying zoning district regulations." B. Pommer and S. Mole accepted the friendly amendment. D. Public hearing and consideration of Site Review LUR2002-00019, North Boulder Village, for a mixed use plan comprised of 223 dwelling units and 35,200 square feet of retail space located at the southeast corner of Broadway and Yarmouth Avenue; building height is requested to be modified in accordance with Site Review criteria from 35 feet to 45 feet; and amending the North Boulder Subwmmunity Right of Way Plan to change the Rosewood Avenue alignment, and eliminating the two east-west road connections in accordance with the North Boulder Village site plan. R. McHeyser said that this site is in the larger area envisioned as the Village Center in the North Boulder Subconmzunity Plan (NBSP), and she exptained how this particular site fits within the larger context. She gave a brief history of the 1990 annexation of the area, the zoning placed on the land, and the problem with the historic commercial zoning and existing commercial uses in the county. She said that the city was concerned that there would be strip commercial in the area s:\plan\pb-items~minutes\020711 min City of Boulder Planning Board Minutes July 11, 2002 Page 7 and regional types of uses that were more appropriate for the Boulder Valley Regional Center (BVRC) and that there would be no heart to the subcommunity. She said that one of the ideas that grew out of the NBSP was the village center. She said that this center was envisioned as having a full complement of neighborhood-scale services for residents and employees and would include residential, office, and civic uses to add vitality to the center and to ensure that there would be both daytime and nighttime activity in the area. She said that the NBSP addressed where the village center would be located (both sides of Broadway and both sides of Yarmouth). She added that the NBSP addressed how the village center would transition to the adjacent residential areas and to the industtial area on the west. She said that as part of tha village center, the plan envisioned a grocery store; since this particular site does not include a grocery store, staff wanted to be sure that there were other options within the village center far a grocery store. She pointed out sites that would accommodate such a store. D.Gehr said that the city and the applicant have been in negotiation concerning joint development options_thaY may be available for the developmenY of the public parcel, including changing covenants so that the development would be more consistent with the applicanYs plans as well as provide opportunities and advantages for the building of the library. He said that one proposal is to move Rosewood Avenue and to split this right-of-way; another is that the applicant would construct some necessary improvements to his property on the publicly-owned parcel, including a number of stormwater detention facilities that would serve both parcels. He said that part of the negotiation being discussed is that the applicant would provide the shell for the library, although it is not part of the Site Review approval. M. Randall explained the key issues (whether the application meets the Site Review criteria, whether the Site Review conforms to the goals and objectives of the NBSP, and whether tha amendment to the North Boulder Subcommunity Right-of-Way Plan is in accordance with tha subcommunity goals). He said that about 20 percent of the site is usable open space, and additional private open space is associated with the residential units. He addressed the applicanYs request for a height modification to 4S feet (various heights with some buildings exceeding the 35 foot height limit). He said that the zone requires a minimum of 15 percent open space for projects that go over 35 feet in height which is met in this project. He addressed the floodplain plan for Fourmile Creek that requires moving the existing Rosewood Avenue right-of- way alignment farther north and requires an amendment to the NBSP. Tim Van Meter, Architect, 1213 17th Street, addressed the community benefits that will be part of the new urban neighborhood, including 45 units of affordable housing, a new community library, the beginning of a village green, and the beginning of the village center envisioned through the NBSP. He said that this concept plan addresses the concerns that the Board had in earlier concept plans for the site, including the concept for the village green, the connection from the site to the village green, the connecting pedestrian lane, the main plaza area witb views to the west and southwest, the retail area along Broadway and in the interior, shared private residential open space, streets as view corridars, architectural features of the buildings, the request for height variances to provide a wide variety of building types, the housing types, landscaped short- s: \plan\pb-items\minutes\020711 min City of Boulder Planning Board MinuCes July I 1, 2002 Page 8 term parking area, and other parking that will be available on the site, including garages, tuck- under parking, and on-street spaces. He said that even though Rosewood Avenue couid be narrower, the width is appropriate for the medium density development. Public Participation: Rivvy Neshama, 1655 Oak Avenue: She said that although progress has been made on the concept plan, this plan still does not represent a village center. She said that the plan ignores or goes against the NBSP because of the huge housing density and does not allow 20 percent of the site for affordable units. She said that allowing so much space for housing means very little space for a variety of retail space, including a 10,000 square foot neighborhood-scale grocery store-far less than the NBSP envisioned. She said that missing from this proposal is a true central plaza of a substantial size that would be pedestrian and bicycle friendly. She said that a height variance would ignore the welfare and destroy the view of the adjacent neighbors, is out of character with the neighborhood, would set a bad precedent far all future north Boulder development, and does not provide a street friendly village center with a sense of openness. She said that the vision of the NBSP was that this proposed site would be the major village center while the adjacent areas would be supplemental. Jim Logan, 3743 Nelson Road: He said that the concept plan does not have a heart or core for the community gathering space. He suggested that the private open space areas be opened into a u-shape urban design so that the courtyards become part of the community. He said that the Board has a long history of protecting the views of the citizens of Boulder by its height ordinance; he suggested that the height of the buildings along 14th Street be 35 feet to protect the views. He said that the residential units along Yarmouth look like suburban apartments, and the architecture needs to be more urban and of better quality. Kyle Mathews, 4632 14th Street: He said that the residents in north Boulder would not like to see a height variance which would sacrifice some of the views and might set a precedent for other developments. Susie Weaver Stewart, 1455 Yarmouth Avenue: She said that the community development should consider the height and views of the neighboring areas. She asked about the distance between the buildings and Yarmouth Avenue and if staff understood that the height of the buildings would shadow the street in the winter and prevent snow melt. M. Randall said that the Residential Main Street (RMS) and Business Main Street (BMS) zones emphasize building structures to the edge of the right-of-way, although there is a stepping back of the third story along Broadway to accommodate a wider sidewalk. He said that staff is concerned about solar access to the street; however, when the building is next to the street it is more difficult to get as much sun to the sYreet. Michael Signorella, 2119 Bluff Street: He noted that the plan calls for a lot of concrete, brick, flower boxes, trees and grates that will be counted as open space. He said that an interesting roofline could be created without a height variance and said that one parking unit per dwelling s: \plan\pb-items\minutes\020711 min City of Boulder Planning Board Minutes July 1 l, 2002 Page 9 unit would not be sufficient. B. Cole clarified that open space for developments is not the same as open space that is purchased through the Open Space Department; on-site open space is essentially anything that is not covered by building, parking, and automobile circulation (hardscaped areas, pedestrianways, sidewalks, and plazas), and private open space includes outdoor space that is direcfly accessible to an individual dwelling unit (decks ar balconies). M. Randall addressed the concern about limited parking for the residential units by stating that some of the units have access to more than one parking space on the site, and on-street parking is available. Patricia McMahon, 4500 19th Street: She opposed the height variance because she would lose all the views to the west. She asked the Board to consider that the additional height of the buildings will cause ice to remain on the sidewalks. Return to the Board: The Board and staff discussed the measurement of height at the lowest point on the site (staff indicated that the lowest grade on the site would be the southeast corner, but the height would vary from building to building and would tend toward the south and east in each situation); the fact that there is more than sufficient open space based on code requirements on this site far the amount of building area proposed; the concern that negotiations between the city and the applicant for the publicly-owned parcel might not be acted upon by the applicant once approval is given for the Site Review (D. Gehr assured the Board that as part of the negotiation, the applicant would be required to pay a substantial sum of money in development excise tax so that the applicant will pay for the shell of the library); the percent of the land that is devoted to surface parking, tuck-under parking, or automobile facilities that excludes the public rights-of- way far roads; the fact that the parking spaces that are in the structures below grade in the urban block is 38 percent of the total number of parking spaces that are called out for the site; the height of the buildings in the surrounding area (the tallest is about 25 feet) and the height of the buildings in the proposed plan and how they are perceived from the streets; the assumption that a large grocery store or other retail stores will be built on one of the adjacent sites as they redevelop (P. Pollock said that the proposed site is a portion of the vision of the NBSP for a village center but not the only village center; he said that it is not certain that a grocery store will be built on ona of the adjacent properties but there could be economic value for doing such a project). The Board and staff further discussed conformance with the NBSP, including whether the urban neighborhood site serves the sunounding neighborhood or serves only the homes in the development (R. McHeyser said that because the parcel is adjacent to Broadway, the retail development would serve the entire subcommunity; the types of retail services proposed for the site (Jim Loftus, Applicant, stated that he does not know for certain what kinds of businesses will locate on the site but assumes a coffee shop, bagel shop, a dry cleaner, a restaurant, and a bank. He said that he is not certain that there are enough people in the service area to fill 35,000 square feet of retail space). B. Pommer and T. Nielsen said that the plan conforxns to the NBSP; the plan is a guideline, and the reality today is that some of the ideas in the plan cannot be s: \plan\pb-items\minutes\020711 min City of Boulder Planning Board Minutes July ] 1, 2002 Page 10 fulfilled. T. Krueger, S. Mole, J. Spitzer, and M. Cowles were reluctant to say that it actually conforms to the NBSP because there are some important ideas in the plan that are not represented in the proposal, such as a grocery store anchored village center. M. Cowies asked that the Board discuss 1) open space and plazas; 2) parking; 3) the solar gain that will occur from south facing windows; 4) whether all the affordable housing should be built on site; 5) a 25-foot to 50-foot building pattern to break up the urban block; 6) the use of the public property far the detention pond for the site; 7) the lack of enough retail stores; and 8) height of the buildings. S. Mole added a discussion item about whether the retail uses will be concentrated on this one site or whether adjacent sites will be part of the village center. J. Spitzer added a discussion item about creating a plaza area that would work as a village center for this site and as a part of a larger village center. T. Krueger clarified that the NBSP addresses this parcel by stating that the area should include the highest intensity and mix of uses in the village center. He said that the focus of the NBSP is that this parcel is the dominant piece for the village center. The Board and staff discussed whether the building height, mass, scale, orientation and configuration are compatible with the existing character of the area or the character established by the adopted plan for the area; whether buildings present an attractive streetscape; and the definitions between private open space for the residents of the dwelling units and shared open space. Individual Board members made the following comments, not by consensus: . Compatibility of building heights does not exist with the surrounding areas. Stepping back the 14th Street face or the 3rd floor would provide more of a view corridor for the adjacent neighborhood, make them less imposing, make them more open, and would prevent creating a division from the mobile home park community. . The massing, bulk, and height of the buildings along Yarmouth are too large and so different from the buildings proposed along Broadway. . Maintain the 25-50 foot building pattern as outlined in the Downtown Design Guidelines for nonhistoric buildings. . Create a courtyard with two u-shaped areas facing each other ar two u-shaped areas that are parallel to make it more inviting for people to come into those courtyards. • The flat roofs and comice lines on the commercial buildings are very appropriate, but the transition into the residential units should maintain that modular look rather than having it look like mountain condominiums. . The public open space, including the plaza area, needs to be inviting and large enough that would make adjacent neighbors feel welcome. s:\plan\pb-items\minutes\020711 min City of Boulder Planning Board Minutes July 11, 2002 Page 11 . There need to be options for connections, such as walkways, through the development to the east and to the south. . There needs to be more plaza space at the turnaround area to provide more connection and to provide a gathering space because it would be larger and closer to the library. There are too many small plaza areas that do not create a heart to the village center. MOTION: On a motion by J. Spitzer, seconded by S. Mole, the Planning Board tabled the discussion of this project pending resolution of three issues: 1) providing a stronger plaza statement, such as fountain design and how the buildings overlook the plazas so that the plazas become mare of a focal point or gathering place for the entire community; 2) making sure that all the affordable housing is built on site; and 3) redesigning the residential project in a very strong historic manner or very ultra contemporary manner or something that breaks up the facades into a more urban pattern, and stepping the buildings back from 14th Street so that the buildings do not have a looming presence over the mobile home park and that the views are not blocked from the mobile home park. S. Mole added that the applicant present eye level, detailed streetscape views of the residential portion of the project, to work on the plaza area by Fourmile Creek, and consider relocating a portion of the plaza area along Broadway closer to the library to provide greater connectivity to the library. M. Cowles added that although the plaza area along Broadway is a grand space, it invites people to walk between the two buildings into a parking lot. He suggested taking a building such as the one designed near the park space and using that type of form at the corner or flipping the two sides so that the plaza is placed on the south side near the park. He said that he was concerned about the amount of parking in the interior; the function of the center plaza could be improved if traffic from people looking for a parking space was eliminated. T. Nielsen suggested addressing the height of the buildings and the design of the courtyard. T. Krueger suggested that the issues boil down to the following issues: open space and plaza, parking configuration, building design, livability and relationship, solar siting and construction, height of the buildings, and design of the courtyard. L. Hill-Blakely said that the proposal is to build 30 of the permanently affordable units on site and to provide the remainder in cash-in-lieu. She said that the ordinance requires that only half of the 20 percent permanently affordable units be built on site. M. Cowles said that this project is a very dense development, and if the Board allows a height exemption, then it seems reasonable to have all the aFfordable units on site. P. Pollock cautioned the Board about granting exemptions if all affordable units are placed on the site; there are certain standards used for granting variances that should not be overlooked in order to get al] the units on the site. D. Gehr addressed the proposal for a stormwater treatment pond on the city-owned parcel as a part of the ]ibrary negotiation. He said that the city thought that it would be preferable for stormwater treatment to be in a natural setting rather than a structured setting and this was something that the city could exchange for some other things, such as having the applicant build the shell of the library and to size the treatment pond appropriately so that it would serve the library site and the applicanY s site. s: \plan\pb-items\minutes\020711 min City of Boulder Planning Board Minutes July 11, 2002 Page 12 The above motion was not voted on; instead, the following substitute motion was introduced: MOTION: On a motion by B. Pommer, seconded by M. Cow-es, the Planning Board continued this item to August 8, 2002 (6-1; A. O'Hashi opposed the motion because he thought that these concerns could be addressed as conditions in an approval). The Board agreed that the applicant should address the following issues: 1) break up the housing faqade, including the two podium buildings along Yarmouth, 13th Street, and 14th Street making sure that a new design works with the buildings that face Lara's Lane and Rosewood; 2) the building height along 14th Street relative to the view from the mobile home park and ways to mitigate the impact of the height in that location; and 3) the plaza connecting to Lara's Lane from Broadway (how it is treated as a continuous area and how it deals with parking and streets cutting across it), the Yarmouth and Broadway corner plaza (better design to enclose the space and block from street traffic and the parking area); and an expanded plaza near the library area and how it should function (a heart to the development and a place for people to gather). 7. ADJOURNMENT The Planning Board adjourned the meeting at 12:15 a.m. on July 12, 2002. s: \plan\pb-items\minutes\02071 I min CITY OF BOULDER, COLORADO BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS MEETING SUMMARY FORM ~ NAME OF BOARD/COMMISSION: Planriirig BOard DATE OF MEETING: JuIy 11, 2002 NAME/TELEPHONE OF PERSON PREPARING SUMMARY: Maly LOVI'10ri, 441-4464 NAMES OF MEMBERS, STAFF AND INV[TED GUESTS PRESENT: Board Members Present: Macon Cowles, ThomKrueger, Simon Mole, Tina Nielsen, Alan O'Hashi, Beth Pommer, John Spitzer Staff Members Present: Brent Bean, Bob Cole, Steve Durian, David Gehr, Linda Hill-Blakely, Nan Johnson, Mary Lovrien, Ruth McHeyser, Peter Pollock, Mike Randall OUTLINE OF AGENDA 1. CALL TO ORDER - The Planning Board declared a quorum at 6:05 p.m. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - The minutes of May 16, 2002, May 28, 2002, and June 6, 2002 were approved. 3. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION - Steve Erickson, attorney for Dan Lukensow, spoke about the Board denial ofthe self- storage units on Walnut Street. He suggested that a process, such as a concept review, be conducted far applicants before a formal detailed application is submrtted and before fees for technical review, engineering, site surveying and attorneys are paid. He also expressed frustration that the Board discussed residential uses when the existing land use is industrial and was not an element that could be considered from a technical land use standpoint unless there was a zoning change. 4. DISCUSSION OF DISPOSITIONS, PLANNING BOARD CALL-UPS - The Board had no comments on the wetland permit for reconstruction o£Broadway from University to Pine or the Planning Board disposition (205 Canyon, Watershed School). 5. MATTERSFROMTHEPLANNINGBOARD,PLANNINGDIRECTOR,ANDCITY ATTORNEY-Calendar issues were discussed, including the Board review of the 1041 State Interest Review for the University of Colorado - ~ Boulder South Tennis Court Replacement Project on July 18. P. Pollock explained the parameters for the Board review. He said that there have been two community meetings with the Gunbarrel Alliance concerning the Gun6arrel Square Town Center, and a third meeting is scheduled for July 24; a joint Planning Board/City Council study sessiori regarding Jobs to Population Balance will be held on September 10; and a joint Planning Board/City Council study session regarding code issues, large-scale annexations, and scoping of the "pop-up° and "scape-off' issue will be held on August 13. B. Pommer suggested that portable outhouses at construction sites be regulated in the building code. M. Cowles said that he received a call from a citizen asking that he meet with a couple of experts on the South Boulder floodplain, but he declined because the Board will be reviewing the 1041 for the CU South project. A. O'Hashi reported on the Downtown Design Advisory Board (DDAB) meeting. He said that he passed on a request by M. Cowles that the canopies not be removed from the new shell market; DDAB approved fhe project with the canopies. J. Spitzer suggested that it would be helpful to have a staff architect or consultant to facilitate the Board's suggestions for the North Boulder Village Center. T. Nielsen suggested that the Board discuss Board process and meeting debriefing effectiveness on August 15. M. Cowles suggested a discussion on how the Board is implementing the issues in the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan; P. Pollock responded that the best forum for this discussion is when the Board reviews the Action Plan. 6. ACTION ITEMS A. Review and adoption of findings made on the decision to deny Use Review #LUR2001-00065 made on June 6, 2002, f'or a self-storage facility located at 3620 Walnut Street. The Planning Board approved a motion on June 6, 2002 to deny a Use Review application for the self-storage facility and approved a motion to continue this meeting in order to adopt the findings of fact for the denial. The Planning Board approved the findings of fact as amended (5-1; A. O'Hashi opposed the motion, and B. Pommer did not vote because she did not attend the meeting when this item was first discussed). A. O'Hashi opposed the motion because he thought that the applicant met the burden as presented in • his case and as initially approved by the Planning staff, and the project is consistent with the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan; further, the expansion of a local business adds value to the community and to the property that has minimal impact in terms of increasing jobs and does not detract from the character of the neighborhood. B. Pnblic liearing and consideration of Site Review #LUR2002-00025 to allow constrnction of an addition to the existing residence at 2520 Panorama within an LR-E (Low Density - Established) zone resulting in a building I~eight of 46 feet. The Planning Board approved the construction of the addition (6-1; T. Kraeger opposed). T. Krueger opposed the motion because he was in favor of ]imiting the four-foot extension of the entryway to the height of the existing roofline. C. Public hearing and consideration of Site and Use Review #LUR2002-00016 for Bixby School to demolish 2,867 square feet of the existing school (including a one-bedroom residential unit) and rebuild with 3,160 square feet of preschool area, plus a Phase II 1,400 square foot school addition at 4760 Table Mesa Drive. A parking reduction is requested, but no change in school enrollment is proposed. The Planning Board approved the Site and Use Review for the Bixby School with changes to the conditions regarding Transportation Demand Management and the loss of the rental unit (7-0). D. Puhlic hearing and consideration of Site Review LUR2002-00019, North Boulder Viltage, far a mixed use plan comprised of 223 dwelling units and 35,200 square feet of retail space located at the southeast corner of Broadway and Yarmouth Avenue; building height is requested to be modified in accordance with Site Review criter-a from 35 feet to 45 feet; and amending the North Boulder Subcommunity Right of Way Plan to change the Rosewood Avenue alignment, and eliminating the two east-west road connections in accordance with the North Boulder Village site plan. The Planning Board continued the discussion of this project to August 8, 2002 pending resolution of the following issues: architectural character, height and bulk of the multi-family buildings; size and funetion ofpublic spaces, and library access (6-I; A. O'Hashi opposed). A. O'Hashi opposed the motion bacause he thought that these concerns could be addressed as conditions in an approval. 7. ADJOURNMENT - The Planning Board adjoumed the meeting at 12:15 a.m. on July 12, 2002 II TIME & I.OCATION OF ANY FUTURE MEETINGS. COMMITTEES OR SPECIAL HEARINGS: 7ulv 18. 2002 II • •