Loading...
Minutes - Planning Board - 9/13/2007nE>rkovi~a~ «v oc~ra~r;e a, za~~ CITY OF BOULDER PLANNING BOARD ACTION MINUTES September 13, 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 are also available on the web at: http://www.bouldercolorado.gov/ PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Elise Jones, Chair Willa 7ohnson Andrew Shoemaker Phil Shull, Vice-Chair Richard Sosa Bill Holicky PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Adrian Sopher, recused STAFF PRESENT: David Gehr, Assistant City Attorney Karl Guiler, Planner II Ruth McHeyser, Acting Planning Director Mary Ann Weideman, Administrative Services Manager 1. CALL TO ORDER Chair, E. Jones, declared a quorum at 6:10 p.m. and the following business was conducted. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES No minutes were scheduled for approval. 3. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION Deborah Froebs, 3773 Gill Drive, Denver David Bragg, 14323 Waterside Lane, Broomfield Premena, PO Box 1038 4. DISCUSSION OF DISPOSITIONS, PLANNING BOARD CALL-UPS This item was discussed after agenda item 5. At 622 pm the Chair, E. Jones, announced Vice-Chair, P. Shull would preside over the remainder of the meeting. 5. ACTION ITEMS A. Public hearing and consideration of Site Review, Use Review and Preliminary Plat #LUR2007-00016 and Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation Change/Rezoning #LUR2007-00017 for the Washington Village project located at 1215 Cedar Avenue. The proposal includes redevelopment of the existing Washington Elementary School site as a mixed-use co-housing community consisting of 40 dwelling units, approximately 6,854 squaze feet of commercial/office space, and over 9,000 square feet of common facilities on the three-acre site zoned both Residential High Density Two (RH-2) and Residential Low Density One (RL-1). These applications follow acity-initiated Request for Proposals (RFP) process and two Concept Plan reviews (#LUR2006-00031 and #LUR2006-00092). Applicant: Wonderland Hill Development Co. Owner: Boulder Valley School District Staff Presentation R. McHeyser, Acting Planning Director, introduced the item. K. Guiler, Planner II, reviewed the seven issues identified at the July 19, 2007 meeting including: Enhancing sensitivity and compatibility with all adjacent residences to the north Increasing permeability into the site The need to better understand the community benefit that's being proposed related to affordable housing More information regarding development of the single-family lots Better transition to the adjacent neighborhood Work on building architecture to address Landmarks concerns and create more compatibility with school and neighborhood Parking reduction K. Guiler also outlined the next steps of the process. Applicant/Owner Presentation Jim Leach, Wonderland Hill, and Steve Vosper, Architecture, Inc., presented the revised applicant proposal to the board. Public Hearing Mark Fearer, 1670 Zamia Premena, PO Box 1038 Bette Hadler (representing David Hadler), 104 Model T Road Chris Russell, 4714 16~' St. Cazole Lindroos, 2525 Arapahoe, L4-237 Anne Cazson, 3085 6`h Denny Robertson, 1107 Cedar Catherine Schweiger, 628 Maxwell Ryan Farmer, 27 Arrow Leaf (POOLED TIME with Casey Milligan, 4776 Broadway) Mikki Rainey, 1302 Cedaz Richard Ham, 2920 Jefferson Cathy Fluegel, 1368 Cedar John Rainey, 1302 Cedar (POOLED TIME with Becky Glover, 1302 Cedar) Michael Hibner, 2950 Washington Paul Saporito, 2765 7th Fred Rubin, 1329 Cedar Scott Rodwin, Boulder Mark Huey, 2835 16`h Aaron Brockett, 1601 Yellow Pine Helene Lanzer, 1321 Balsam David Williamson, 1315 Elder Robert McFarland, 2300 Kalmia John Decker, 3435 17`n John Gless, 2940 13`n George Gless, 2940 13`n Chris Haltzmann, 1331 Cedar Richard Rodgers, 1615 Yellow Pine Holly Kyed, 2945 13"' Stan Kyed, 2945 13`n Dante Ortiz, 2950 N. Broadway Conor Merrigan, PO Box 4024, Boulder Barbara James, Boulder Nolan Rosall, 14`n Street, Boulder David Carson. 3085 6`n Street Tanya Toot, 1339 Washburn, Erie Andy Bush, 2345 Bluff David Wann, 1015 Cottonwood Terri Furman, 4647 Broadway Barbara Koser, 1650 Zamia Lynn Segal, 538 Dewey David Adamson, 815 North Norbert Klebl, 1240 Lehigh Simon Mole, 4153 Amber Ben Binder, 720 S. 415` Jonathan Barbieri, 409 Sol Ct., Fort Collins (POOLED T]ME with Paul Mglom, 3283 Vrain, Denver; Sandy Eichman, 1002 Acadia, Lafayette; Caleb Costin, 2118 Stuart, Longmont; Steven Toot, 1339 Washburn, Erie) Kirk Watson, 828 University Jonathan Hondorf, 2720 4`n Darren Hall, 2950 Broadway Ashley Ortiz, 2950 Broadway Chris Shears (POOLED TIME with Jeff Almeter, 905 Delos, Lafayette; Erin Bagall, 1319 Alpine) Mazlene Diamond, PO Box 4994, Boulder Bob Poeschal, 2950 Broadway Nancy Schwiesow, 1440 Elder Korkut Onazah, 3000 Broadway, #12 Tom Crane, 1090 Poplar Keene Tomsyck, 3028 14`n The boazd recessed at 10:24 pm and reconvened at 10:35 pm. Board Discussion K. Guiler reviewed the current zoning and by-right options to clarify what other types of projects might be undertaken at this location should the Planning Board deny the Washington Village project. D. Gehr explained the Memorandum of Understanding between the Boulder Valley School District and City of Boulder and Request for Proposal process. R. McHeyser described the process [he historic Mapleton School would be subject to should another developer purchase the land and clarified that non-residential use would be allowed in this location. Below are the issues the Planning Board discussed: ~Dualex Issue: The duplex is the beginning of the transition to the adjacent neighborhood. Move the duplex back away (north) from the Cedar Avenue right-of-way. Summary: The Planning Board had no issue with the revised setback, bui agreed with staff that the facade facing Cedar should be improved to be more pedestrian friendly and should connect and relate better to the streetscape. Compatibility of Buildin¢ Architecture Issue: Work on the building architecture to address Landmark's concerns and create more compatibility with the school and neighborhood. The contrasting architecture is acceptable, but should be complementary and attractive with more traditional materials and references. B. Holicky was not too concerned about the buildings being similar in architecture to the school. He thought the architecture proposed by the applicant was acceptable. A. Shoemaker would prefer to see similar/complementazy azchitecture instead of the contrasting architecture that has been proposed. E. Jones thought the proposed architecture was similaz to much of the new construction around Boulder with its flat roof line design. She'd like to see the uniqueness of the Washington School building celebrated with complementary structures. R. Sosa would like to see the adjacent structures stand out from the school. The architectural style reminds him of what's been done on Canyon and he'd rather see something more akin to the school building. W. Johnson liked the general direction that the architecture is going including the materials. P. Shull was still concerned about the back side of the north building, but overall considered the architecture to be acceptable. B. Holicky thought that Planning Board got the architecture that they asked for and that it is similar to what has been approved in the past because the applicant didn't want to take any risks by trying something new and different that might not be acceptable to the Planning Board. E. Jones agreed that architects are giving Planning Boazd "safe" architecture that is similar to what has been approved in the past, but thinks that this is a dangerous trend as architecture in the city shouldn't be too homogeneous. Summary: The Planning Board had a mixed reaction to the architecture and expressed that this one issue wouldn't make them deny the project, but in combination with other issues it may carry some weight. Permeability into the site Issue: Increase permeability on the site, either by breaking up the Broadway Building or at least creating the perception of an entry to the interior courtyard space from Broadway. A. Shoemaker felt that the current proposal was too cluttered and felt like a maze. He'd like to see more publicly accessible open space on the site. 4 R. Sosa supported more open, green space. If more open space were incorporated into the project, then the density of it would be acceptable. W. Johnson noted that the east side of the site is blocked off and private which is okay for pedestrian permeability. She introduced the idea of pedestrian pathways through units of the building to enhance pedestrian permeability. P. Shull would like to see more access to park space for residents. He noted that some of the connections didn't seem practical because they didn't seem easy to find or easy to use. E. Jones thought the Broadway building's articulation on the front has improved, but she still wanted to see more permeability and open space on this site. She suggested that shared open space between co-housers and current residents would be a good idea for the future. She noted that most of the open space is currently ornamental instead of practical. B. Holicky suggested large changes to the plans such as removing the existing library building to create more open space. A reexamination of the southwest corner was also raised. E. Jones mentioned that to balance public and private space, the courtyard (which is private) could be made smaller because it was originally misconstrued that this would be public space. W. Johnson thought the librazy was important and shouldn't be touched. R. Sosa thought the library wasn't significant and would rather see it traded for more park space in order to link the co-housing development with the greater neighborhood. P. Shull noted that the Board has misgivings about site layout in terms of open space connections and visual access in and through the site. This issue might be enough to cause denial, depending on discussion of further issues. B. Holicky noted that the Landmazks Boazd thought the library building wasn't historically significant to the site. Summary: The Planning Board felt that creating more open space on the site was a critical factor (see Condition 3.c.1. on pg. 10). Compatibility with neighbors to the north Issue: Enhance sensitivity and compatibility with all the adjacent residences to the north. Move the Broadway Building away (south) from the north property line or shorten the building and/or move the second and third stories farther back -strongly reduce the solar impacts to the Red Arrow apartments. Improve the treatment of the north building to be less imposing and more neighborly. Move the bike structure and trash enclosures to low impact/appropriate locations and build a privacy wall between the site and the single-family property along 13u'. E. Jones suggested a decent amount of work on the north side was necessary to reduce solar impact to Red Arrow neighbors. She suggested more of a setback of the second floor or further movement of the building to the south. W. Johnson noted that portico solution was good, but didn't want to see pedestrian connection in that location lost. P. Shull thought the relationship between the western Red Arrow complex had improved, but he still had issues with the eastern complex. He noted that more space is necessary between complexes and that some change to the north building is still needed to give relief and privacy to the neighboring Red Arrow buildings. B. Hollicky thought further movement of the north building south may be better by lowering impacts on Red Arrow solar access and thought the creation of a courtyard with Red Arrow could be positive. Although it was understood the impact a pedestrian pathway immediately adjacent to Red Arrow could have on their privacy. Also concerned about commercial on 5 Broadway Building northwest corner, which would be very close to residential. That corner should be entirely residential. A. Shoemaker agreed that more work maybe necessary along north property line. Summary: The Planning Board thought the north building may be too tall and too close to neighboring structures. North Property Imuacts and Parkine Issue: The extent of the proposed parking reduction is not justified. A target of closer to 55 on-site parking spaces for residential use should be attempted. Parking for commercial use should also be compliant. Information on seating for the coffee shop should be clarified or the coffee shop should be deleted. Summary: The Planning Board agreed that the proposed parking reduction was acceptable. -Community Benefits The community benefit that's being proposed related to affordable housing needs to better understood. The community benefit is unclear. P. Shull supports affordable housing on this site. He is unclear about whether the community will benefit from this project. He sees the benefits for the residents, but not for the community as a whole. R. Sosa acknowledged the larger benefits to the community such as the benefit of co-housing, but he'd still like to see the co-housing and existing community mesh further. W. Johnson thought this project would have huge community benefits. She liked the fact that it's a mixed use project on a major transportation corridor which will bring people to this azea of town for its infrastructure and amenities. She saw affordable housing and aspirations for green building (i.e., LEED certification) as community benefits. B. Holicky agreed with W. Johnson about the benefits, but also noted that it will be up to City Council to decide if this project provides the original benefit that they envisioned for this site. E. Jones also agreed that this project has positive benefits (e.g., Density on Broadway, LEED certification, and co-housing). Her decision will be steered by the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan. This project still needs some work as far as being affordable and compatible with the neighborhood. A. Shoemaker agreed that this is ultimately a City Council decision. He also agreed that affordable and co-housing will be a big community benefit, but he would still like to see more residential on Broadway in the commercial area. Summary: The Planning Board acknowledged that this project would include community benefits such as affordable housing and co-housing, but also admitted that community benefit is not a Site Review criterion and that this decision will ultimately fall to City Council. ~Sinale Familv FAR Issue: Submit more information regarding development of the single-family lots and create a better transition to the residences to the east. Options include lowering the proposed maximum FAR, stipulating building footprints and stories (including out-buildings), and/or providing sketches of the design of homes in line with guidelines. Demonstrate how the project will appropriately transition to the neighborhood, which might include: Massing study Floor area calculations 6 Preliminary sketches of the design of homes in line with guidelines and demonstrated neighborhood compatibility E. Jones mentioned that it was not acceptable to fund this project with houses that are out of scale with the neighborhood. This contributes to lack of compatibility with the exisfrng neighborhood and lack of affordability of housing which goes against the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan. If six lots are kept on the east side FAR should be dropped to a 0.5 FAR (Floor Area Ratio) and the staff recommendation of a 2500 square foot limit on the houses should be followed. E. Jones was intrigued by the notion of open space that is accessible to the community and would agree to a trade-off of higher FAR if the community open space would be provided. A. Shoemaker agreed with E. Jones about FAR and open space trade-off. Felt 13a' Street was an ideal location for greenspace. P. Shull agreed that green space is important. He was inclined to accept the six lots, but decrease the FAR. He thought that this area needed to bridge the gap between the co-housers and the existing residents. R. Sosa agreed that this area is very important in connecting to the neighborhood. W. Johnson is comfortable with reducing FAR, but doesn't want to push it down too much because the economics on this site are important. B. Holicky noted that the neighborhood will be impacted whether the FAR is decreased or not. He'd rather see the library be sacrificed to create more green space for neighborhood kids to play in and people to meet. Community and green space are more important to him than a reduction to the FAR. E. Jones agreed that open green space should be a part of this plan, but isn't sure what the trade- off should be. P. Shull agreed with B. Holicky that the size of the homes is less important and having more open space is more important. R. Sosa thought that the best location for open space is in front of the school. K. Guiler noted that the mandatory meeting space would need to occur in the Washington school building if the library is removed based on the draft covenant. W. Johnson supported the purchasing of 1-3 lots on the east side, rather than getting rid of the library. R. McHeyser noted that working with the Parks Department on the purchasing of these lots would take a minimum of two to three months. E. Jones noted that the space of the library is not commensurate with the size of the three lots. The library space is bigger than one lot, but smaller than three lots. Summary: Overall, the addition of open space seemed to be more important to the Planning Board than the reduction of FAR. Summarv of the Planning Board's Three Birrest Issues (see conditions of approval relative to these issues): North Building -reduce solar shadow impact on Red Arrow town home similar to the Broadway building (see Condition 3b1.). Size of homes on 13~~ Street -conditions on pg. 14, "A"change of FAR to .5 (averaged over 6 lots) FAR (see Condition Sa). Lack of access to public open space -create open space south of the school by removing the library or achieving it through the conversion of 1-3 single family lots on the east side as useable open space. (see Condition 3cl). Motion On a motion by W. Johnson, seconded by R. Sosa, the Plannine Board approved (5-1, A. Shoemaker opyosed and A. Sopher recused) Site Review, Use Review and Preliminary Plat #LUR2007-00016 and Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation Chance/Rezonine #LUR2007-00017 for the Washington Village project located at 1215 Cedaz Avenue subject to the amended conditions of approval. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. The Applicant shall be responsible for ensuring that the development shall be in compliance with all approved plans dated September 13, 2007 and on file in the City of Boulder Planning Department, except as may be modified by this approval. 2. Prior to a building permit application, the Applicant shall submit Technical Document Review applications for the following items, subject to the approval of the City of Boulder Planning and Development Services Division in accordance with City of Boulder Design and Construction Standards: a) A detailed landscape and tree protection plan, including size, quantity, and type of plants existing and proposed; type and quality of non-living landscaping materials; any site grading proposed; and any irrigation system proposed, to insure compliance with this approval and the city's landscaping requirements. The plans must include a certified arborist's assessment of mature tree health and the arborist's recommendations for tree protection to ensure compliance with the Restrictive Covenant and Deed Restriction and the Site Review approval with a focus on trees that have diameters of 15 inches or greater measured 4 feet above grade. The azborist shall evaluate the affect of any construction, including but not limited to foundations, grading, impervious surfaces, and the erection of walls within the vicinity of such trees, and shall prepare recommendations on protection for such trees. All recommendations by the project azborist shall appear on the landscape and tree protection plan and shall be followed. b) A detailed lighting plan showing location, size, and intensity of illumination units, showing compliance with Section 9-9-16, B.R.C. 1981. c) A detailed parking plan showing the arrangement, locations, dimensions, and type of parking stalls (including any areas of the site for bicycle parking or reserved for deferred pazking) to insure compliance with this approval and the City's Parking Design Standazds of Section 9-9-6, B.R.C. 1981. d) A detailed shadow analysis to insure compliance with the city's solar access requirements of Section 9-9-17, B.R.C. 1981. e) Final Storm Water Plans and Report for review and approval by the city. f) Final Utility Plans and Report for review and approval by the city. The revisions required to the preliminary utility report may be completed as part of the Final Utility Report. The revisions to the report may require additional off-site water infrastructure improvements. If abutting water mains need to be up-sized from 6 inches to 8 inches, the costs of design and construction of the improvements will be the responsibility of the developer. g) Final transportation plans in accordance with City of Boulder Design and Construction Standards for all transportation improvements for review and approval by the city. The applicant shall dedicate to the city, at no cost, the following public access easements for improvements shown on the site plan dated September 13, 2007, and generally described as follows: i.) 20 foot easement for emergency and shazed access; ii.) 1 foot beyond the edge of the transit shelter pad on Broadway, and; iii.) 1 foot beyond the sidewalk limits along Broadway and 13`h Street. h) Final Transportation Demand Management (TDM) plan to the Public Works Department for review and approval that ensures that the Applicant shall provide Eco-passes to the residents of the development for three years after the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for each dwelling unit. i) A financial guarantee, in the form acceptable to the Director of Public Works, in an amount equal to the cost of providing Eco-passes to the residents of the development for three years after the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for each dwelling unit as proposed in the Applicant's Transportation Demand Management (TDM) plan. j) A preliminary plat, subject to the approval of the City of Boulder Planning and Development Services Division. k) Final Plat pursuant to section 9-12-8 of the Boulder Revised Code, including the public access easements for: sidewalks along Broadway and 13`h, the shazed/emergency access drive, and the bus shelter. 3. Prior to application for a building permit on the portion of the site that is zoned RH-2, the Applicant shall submit the following items for the review and recommendation, of the Planning Director: a) Final azchitectural plans, including materials and colors, to insure compliance with the intent of this approval and compatibility with the historic school and surrounding azea. b) The final architectural plans shall include revisions that: Demonstrate that the solar shadow of the North Building shall not exceed the solar shadow of the Broadway building across the northern property line. 2. Provide at least 60 square feet of private open space to each of the 9 permanent affordability units in the Broadway Building. Depict a new masonry wall of up to 7 feet in height and fencing between the RH-2 portions of the property and the adjacent property at 2945 13`h Street. The location and design of the walls and fencing along the common property line shall be mutually agreed upon by the 2945 13`h Street property owner and the applicant or the Planning Director if the owner and applicant are unable to agree and shall be evaluated by a certified azborist and determined by such arborist as to not adversely impact any mature trees. 4. Include modifications to the south elevation of the South East Building to make the Cedar facing facade more pedestrian friendly with more window fenestration and pedestrian connections to the street from the building. c) A revised site plan that provides: 1. Usable open space in a location on the southeast portion of the site on one or more of lots 5, 6, or 7 in a location in place of the library building in front of the Washington School Building. 2. To the extent practical, move the vehicular access point for the pazking of the Broadway Building to the west to maximize the usable open space in front of the Washington School building. 3. Removal of the azbor on the north end of the Broadway Building. 4. Prior to application for a building permit on the portion of the site that is part of the individual landmazk site, the Applicant shall secure a landmark alteration certificate required by Chapter 9-11, "Historic Preservation," B.R.C. 1981. 5. Prior to application for a building permit on the portion of the site that is zoned RL-1, the Applicant shall submit a Technical Document Review application, subject to the approval of the Planning Director final architectural plans that demonstrate compliance with approved design guidelines prepared by the applicant; that includes the approved setbacks; and height limits and shall include the following limitations: a) The maximum floor area ratio (FAR) for the single-family lots shall be no more than 0.5:1 averaged across lots 2 through 7, or the underlying RL-1 FAR limit at the time of a building permit, if less than 0.5:1; b) The principal dwelling on each lot shall not exceed a floor area of 2,500 square feet, the garage shall not exceed 500 squaze feet, and any studio space above the garage may not exceed 350 squaze feet; c) The second level of the principal structure shall not exceed 75% of the ground level floor area of said structure; d) The dwelling and any accessory structures located on Lot 2 shall be no closer than 10 feet from the north property line; 10 6. The Applicant shall ensure that the approved commercial uses are operated in compliance with applicant's written statement, pursuant to the following restrictions: a) Professional and Technical Offices are approved in commercial space along Broadway not to exceed 6,854 square feet, b) A coffee shop of no greater than 750 square feet and with no more than 9 interior seats is approved within the southwest area of the space noted in a) above, and; c) Twenty-two (22) parking spaces shall be designated within the Broadway Building for the commercial uses during daytime hours and community facilities during evening hours. The Applicant shall not expand or modify the approved use (including the co-housing program for the site, the commercial space, and community facilities), except pursuant to Subsection 9-2-15, B.R.C. 1981. On a motion by E..iones, seconded by W. Johnson, the Planning Board recommended (6-0, A. Sopher recused) that City Council consider purchasin¢ one or more of lots 5, 6, or 7 as a pocket park or trading off the amount of community space required by the covenant that resulted from the Washington School Request for Proposal for public open space in front of the Washington School. 6. DISCUSSION OF DISPOSITIONS, PLANNING BOARD CALL-UPS No items were scheduled for discussion. W. Johnson and P. Shull supported calling-up the Crossroads Commons project. The Crossroads Commons project is scheduled for call-up discussion on October 18, 2007. 7. MATTERS FROM THE PLANNING BOARD, PLANNING DIRECTOR, AND CITY ATTORNEY 8. DEBRIEF/AGENDA CHECK 9. ADJOURNMENT The Planning Board adjourned the meeting at 2:26 a.m. 11 APPROVED BY Boaz C air D ~' DA E 12