Loading...
2 - Minutes, February 1, 2007CITY OF BOULDER PLANNING BOARD ACTION MINUTES February 1, 2007 1777 Broadway, Council Chambers A permanent set of these minutes and a tape recording (maintained for a period of seven yeazs) are retained in Central Records (telephone: 303-441-3043). Minutes and streaming audio aze also available on the web at: http://www.ci.boulder.co.us/planning/planningboazd/agendas PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Elise 7ones, Chair anived 6:22 Simon Mole, Vice Chair John Spitzer Phil Shull Adrian Sopher, absent Richard 5osa " n,. STAFF PRESENT: ~ ~~ :i. Ruth McHeyser, Acting Planning Director Robert Cole, Land Use Review Manage~,.,. David Gehr, Assistant City Attorney ~~ ~~~, ~-, ~ Karl Guiler, Planner ~ ~"'~:>~=~::-. ~""~~~.;~,~ Heidi 7oyce, Administrative Specialist "~' *"+a;~;:~..-, - _ vm= $~F~ y,' ;~~~~ '•:'~{_;='' ' .. . 1. CALL TO ORD ~_'~ ~;=`" Vice-Chair, S. e, de a quorum a~,6:12 p.m. and the following business was conducted. ; ~°~~~:"~<,, ~~' ~ `~ ,__ ~ ;`,.. 2. APPROV~L OF ~s~~~;~;ru., _ :_~_ +,~~ ~x~, ifiii-'i'i:y't'+~y'• ' ~ . .S:y~: ND --an.; ~i ~~~~~: ~,~~~ 3. ,~' LIC PART~ TIO ~ - ` , k: ~ ,fr* _ ° <,~~~:._ j'~`~~`..;, 4. DISC ~"• ON OF D~~POSITIONS, PLANNING BOARD CALL-UPS k_~_, None _ ~, ' v=a.,.:~, 5. ACTION ITE1~5 A. Public hearing and consideration of Concept Plan LUR2006-00094, Table Mesa Housing. The applicant is proposing redevelopment of the existing dormant Army Reserve Training site with a variety of residential housing types (e.g., row houses, duplexes, cottages, townhomes, and affordable units) totaling 40 units on a 204,876 squaze foot, or 4.7 acre property. The proposal would ultimately require a rezoning from RL-1 (low density residential) to RM-1 (medium density residential). Applicant: Peter Stainton PropeRy Owner: Department of the Army Public Participation Shawn Coleman, 3250 O'Neil Cir. #A23, Boulder, CO David Cole, 610 S. 46`~' Street, Boulder, CO Ann Fenerty, 2805 Stanford Ave., Boulder, CO Ruth Blackmore, 705 X 415` St., Boulder, CO Linda Mark, 610 S. 46`h St., Boulder, CO Jay Burch, 620 S. 46`" Street, Boulder, CO David Finell, 4655 Hanover Ave., Boulder, CO Board Discussion S. Mole: Proposed development does not trans,iUon well to properties'~a,the west (i.e., 46~' Street); backyard to backyard better transjtion; Con~erned about dupl~xes; ~pplauds applicant considering rethink of project; encou~aged connection to Tantra; P~~ject could create bad traffic situation otherwise; Wants to see a neu~'concept plan before making any decision about rezoning. E. Jones: Project does not fit wel~iqw; needs to come B'A~3cfor second concept review, ~ does not meet comprehensive plan'~~poa~S uf<rommunity i~~'tion and enhancement; encouraged more affordable housing'~and shoi~ t~e,iptegra~~z1 throughout the project; site well-suited for smaller homes con`siste~t-with'r~~~i density zoning; access is huge issue, ring r 't work; greenspace is odd~'sized, supports cut through b/t bus stop and s~ " 1, sch ould have d~tion for expansion onto property; Commends ecologicallx,~~~ve plan `;~'sa, . k R. Sosa: I)oes not s° , access to Table Mesa- too dangerous, look at acc~B`~~~~,ra, d" issue lin 8~`to level of service; Shift green space to west ~nt singT~° k" 'ly h~ on to green space. Dces not support any rezoning at this Needs to s vation mg azchitecture and massing. Put the density and tQ on Tantra s . , , ~ J• Spi~i*„~Agreed wi~comments made by fellow Planning Board members. Could include a`~ .of o err~ ace. Affordable and moderate income housin Carve out a ~%,. P,,,~ P g• portion and ~fis;c3! s~Tiool to expand. Project should include more community benefits; applicant shoul~ Took into cottage concept ("A Chautauqua feel"). P. Shull: Does not like plan as it stands. No second access = no project. The project needs secondary access - needs to embrace context of neighborhood. Traffic study is also important. Access point needs to be further south - ring road not supported - site could support more density, but house sizes should be capped. Does not want to see 4000 sq. ft. homes - would like a denser project with more modest homes with quality open space - great site for affordable housing. Intensity on site is a big issue. No support for rezoning, unless right plan. B. Public hearing and consideration of Concept Plan LUR2006-00103, Trinity Commons. The applicant is seeking additional comment from the board in response to the board's previous commentary on September 7, 2006 regazding the proposed development of the parking lot at the corner of Mapleton and Broadway. The revised concept is for a new three-story building containing 26 residential units (13 one-bedroom affordable units and 13 two-bedroom mazket rate units), a community/church meeting space of 4,700 square feet, and 1,460 square feet of office space. Three-levels of underground pazking for 136 pa~king spaces would be direcdy below the new structure. Applicant: OZ Architecture Property Owner: Trinity Lutheran Church Public Participation _ Doris Hass, 2207 Bluebell, Boulder CO Bruce Neumann, 1029 mountain Meadov~'s,'~der, CC7~ Cindy Brown, 4800 Broadway, Boulder, CO ~`~~~;~=~_ ;~: ~~ ~~ Jim Hult, 2338 Broadway, Boulder, CO =~;~?r' Susan Waltrup, 1133 Cranbrook~~3., Boulder, CO ~~~y E. Jones: Commended applicant, i~n ith revision~t~;~t>'Ineeting PB comments and outreach to community. Support~e co ,~n and,~te idea of Special Ordinance to allow it. Thinks pro~ect could be a c y~for~ ~_"d development neaz the downtown. Supp ,, nently affo e units. ,' inance should lock in language about commu q i~benefi meeting spaL~ and non-profit aspects of office space. '~~:.yv rr: ~i%=V`~s C 4~ . J• Spitzer: This ery ; t~ng project. I~wever, does not support ramp onto ~ ~: h~. _ Mapleto~t,..;.adds a ,, , ,~~.~.s possibly three on-street parking spots; sup '` ent ~"' ~y, heafe~~~a~rking makes us nervous. Questions the isolation ~~~he greeens ' NE r and impact of ramp on plaza space. Ramp would have to ~;steep and is no essazy. ,:_~~ipper right hand side elevation from Mapleton is a ~4~nstitutional lo g; sho~d be more neighborly; Suggests two units on east explore idea ~=r~tairs coming n; maybe place less emphasis on gothic elements. ,~ ~ `' ~ S. Mole: ."` .orts p"° cy would like to see it happen. Values meeting space as community ~i~~f~E~sp. the kinds of ineetings; ordinance could set a good precedent. ~_,> Affordable ho~g is a significant benefit. Project would present huge benefits. P. Shull: Great building, however, it is not allowed. Density is OK if a better fit. This is a benefit. A lot of building. What will come off of building with budget constraints? Worried about loss of building quality due to cost. Good downtown fabric. OK with special ordinance. Applicant should work on east elevation to be more sensitive to neighbors. R. Sosa: Supports PB comments. Supports a special ordinance. OK with both ramps. Eliminate Mapleton ramp - may be an opportunity to work with neighbor. 6. MATTERS FROM THE PLANNING BOARD, PLANNING DIRECTOR AND CITY ATTORNEY , 7. DEBRIEF/AGENDA CHECK 8. ADJOURNMENT The Planning Board adjourned the meeting a t 10: 00 p.m. APPROVED BY Board Chair ~ DATE " . ~'~Y i~i 3':„}t-. _ ~s ~'E '.~+ ~ ~ s "~ ~"'f~'{.l'.~v ~#x~~y' '?. ~ . . ~ ~' Y'xY. i. ~~'~9vTM° vY.. Y~rir~.~ V4'~~1~ ~ :'•• _ ,~ $4~.i a~ I° :+~X _ ~ .3_~ 'ai 2j:, 3~,.~' ~ ~; iia ~z~`2`fr;~ - <,^r, rxsxtr:4: ., ^ %'.:j' s??, 4