Loading...
2 - Minutes, September 7, 2006CITY OF BOULDER PLANNING BOARD ACTION MINi1TES September 7, 2006 Council Chambers Room, Municipal Building 1777 Broadway A permanent set of these minutes and a tape recording (maintained for a period of seven years) are retained in Central Records (telephone: 303-441-3043). Minutes and streaming audio are also available on the web at: http:/lwww.ci.boulder.co.uslplanning/planningboardlagendas PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Elise Jones, Chair Simon Mole, Vice Chair John Spitzer Phil Shull Adrian Sopher Claire Levy Richard Sosa STAFF PRESENT: Ruth McHeyser, Acting Planning Director Robert O. Cole, Land Use Review Manager Cindy Brown, Director, Boulder Housing Partners Brent Bean, Senior Planner Karl Guiler, Planner Cindy Pieropan, Housing Michelle Allen, Administrative Specialist 1. CALL TO ORDER Chair, E. Jones declared a quorum at 6:03 p.m. and the following business was conducted. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES None 3. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION Pat Walsh, 1505 Mapleton Ave., Boulder 4. DISCUSSION OF DISPOSITIONS, PLANNING BOARD CALL-UPS Planning Board did not call-up: 1750 33`d St:, 2709 Spruce St., 1284 Elder Ave. Shull recused on the boot repair issue. 5. ACTION ITEMS A. Public hearing and consideration of Site Review LUR2006-00053 One Boulder Plaza Phase 5 zoned Regional Business 1- Redeveloping (RB 1-X), S:~PLAN~PB-ITEMSUvlirmtesVJ.06 min approv.docl to expand the proposed building floor azea on the fourth floor at 1155 Canyon Boulevard. The amendment will add floor area above 3S, requiring Planning Board consideration of the request. The applicant is seeking creation of vested property rights for a buildin~ height of 55' and total floc- _ e~ of 94,464 square feetin accordance with Section 9-4-12 (b) Crea, ested Rights, B.R.C. 1981. Applicant/Owner: representative Public Participation: None 1155 Lim~:, a Liability Company, Jerry Lee On a motion by_S. Mole, seconded by R. Sosa, Planning Board annrm~^d Site Review LUR2006-00053 and final plan dated July 12, 2006 incorporating this staff inemorandum and the attached Site RevieH Criteria Checklist as findings of fact. Vote 7-0 RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. Submit mylar of the approved July 12, 2006 record plan sets which conect the fourth floor areas to reflect the approved floor areas; 10,826 sf commercial, 10,106 sf residential; and total building floor area 94,464 square feet. 2. The Applicant shall be responsible for ensuring that the development shall be in compliance with all previous approval plans for LUR2005-00033 on file in the City of Boulder Planning Department, except as modified by these conditions of approval and the site plan dated July 15, 2006. B. Public hearing and consideration of Concept Plan LUR2006-00045, Trinity Commons. The applicant is proposing a residential community consisting of 28 dwelling units and 3,900 squaze feet of ineeting space for church and community functions at 2200 Broadway. Three-levels of underground pazking for 136 pazking spaces are also proposed. Applicant: OZ Architecture Property Owner: Trinity Lutheran Church Public Participation: Paul Whittle, 923 Poplar Pl., Boulder Cammi Wickham, 5310Illini Way, Boulder Cazolyn Nagusky, 556 Wild Turkey Tr., Boulder Mary Nickerson, 2367 Senator Ct., L.ouisville S:~PLAN~PB-ITEMSUVIinutes~9J.06 min approv.doc2 Larry Lackey, 1002 Spruce St., Boulder Doris Hass, 2207 Bluebell, Boulder Michael Zupko, 1495 Findlay Way, Boulder Doris Naumann, 2525 Taft Dr. #702, Boulder Louise Smart, 2280 Balsam Dr., Boulder Bruce Naumann, 1029 Mountain Meadows, Boulder Bob Dugan, 4705 McKinley Dr., Boulder Susan Waltrip, 1133 Cranbrook Ct., Boulder Stuart Grogan, Boulder Housing Partners Randal Rutsch, 1350 Chambers Dr, Boulder Pete List, 7496 Old Mill Tr., Boulder Shell Shuttenberg, 1547 Lodge, Boulder Planning Board Comments: Surnmary: A majority of the public comments were from representatives of the First Church of Christ Scientist. Their concems related to impacts that the proposed building's height and mass may have on their property, as wel] as the effect the parking gazage excavation could have on the existing mature trees along Mapleton. Further, there was discussion about the shading from the new 54' tall building and how it would affect their valued landscaping and could exacerbate ice and snow removal around the property and rear alley. There were also concems about the noise that could emanate from resident balconies and also the change in character that could occur as a result of the building. Many were behind the principa] of the project, but only once the above referenced impacts were addressed. Other speakers discussed the benefits the project could present by adding more senior/affordable housing near the downtown; especially along Broadway where the SKIP bus line runs. The neighboring First Baptist church indicated no objection to the proposal Elise Jones.• The concept is good and I support the small units. I would prefer that they all be permanently affordable. Look at parking to see if it can be reduced. A reduction in parking could result in a reduction of mass. Project too big for the site. Reduce mass by also changing the roof line. Look at different strategies for entryways to the courtyard. We can get a lot of community benefit with the 50% ~ffordable housing and the community space which would justify a rezoning. Not necessarily opposed to number of units, but mechanism to make it work must be appropriate. Simon Mole: The amount of affordable housing is a significant community benefit. I support the request to do the smaller 500 sf units. Height, mass, and scale aze too much on this site. The court yard does not seem functional, will be cold and icy in the winter. Putting more mass on Broadway makes sense and more next to the Trinity Church. Ok with the roof pitch and massing. Doesn't think the project is close enough to justify a rezoning. Would suggest a notable reduction in pazking and Land-marking the church, among other changes to make the project more justifiable for zoning changes. S:~PLAN~PB-ITEMS~IvIirmtesV.7.06 min approv.doc3 Jahn Spitzer: Move third floor on the west to the south side. Agrees that the smaller housing units are ok but prefers they be permanently affordable. Many buildings in the area have large gabled roofs so there seems to be a precedent for this in the neighborhood. They will be less obvious from the street because of the siope. I support a rezone to HZ-E. Sympathizes with neighboring church; perhaps setback should be increased to 15 feet, instead of 5 feet on the eas[ side. Prefers azchitectures of original design, not the revised design presented at the hearing. Phil Shull: Where is the transition in this neighborhood? Open to a flex zone approach or possible rezoning (HR1-X?). May be other roof forms that work and don't add as much to the mass. The building should be shorter on the NE and taller on the west. Could stand three story height on Broadway. Permeability might need to be addressed, the feel is fortress like and could be relieved somewhat. The couttyard concems me and the open space around the edges is not very usable. Study the way the church relates to the other buildmgs. Supports a rezoning to a higher density but does not necessarily for six additional units. Supports rezoning approach over a Special Ordinance. Adrian Sopher: Feels the massing is backwards - put the third floor along Broadway. Some form of transition that needs to be respected on the site. Downtown in terms of zoning is not the same as down town as experienced. Broadway is a high density zone and essential mu(ti modal corridor so that's where the massing and density is appropriate. The courtyard is of minimal benefit to the lazger community and may or may not work well. The project needs to respect the church design but does not need to mimic it particularly with the slope of the roof. Finds that a more unique and distinctive architecture could be explored for the building. The open space on the corner needs work on how it relates to the courtyard and works with the change in grade. The project needs and entrance. Balconies are very important with small units and may not work well on Broadway. I support the mtent to try and provide as much housing as possible. Perhaps HZ-E can work here. Supports intent of the project, but uncomfortable with any spot zoning. In regard to parking: the need for so much parking should be better demonstrated. Claire Levy: Doesn't support a rezoning - this feels like spot zonir.g. I would hate to see Broadway become a uniform far~ade of three story buildings. Doesn't see the need to make the design look like the church, it locks you into a form that doesn't necessarily work. The azchitecture could be more interesting and I don't think the pitched roof is essential. Play a little more with design. Supports fourteen units and 50% of the housing as affordable but not sure how to get there. The small size of units doesn't concern me at all. At grade units along Broadway not supported. In regazd to possible Special Ordinance: more comfortable with ordinance than rezoning, but only if project exceeded inten[ of Site Review criteria and worked hazder to match intent of current zoning. Richurd Sosa: This ~s a good location for affordable housing and the project brings additional parking to downtown. Mass and scale, the south side needs to be reworked, remove one floor from S.~PLAN~PB-ITEMS~IvIinutes\9.7.06 min approv.doc4 the east and maybe step the second floor back. The unit sizes proposed is ok. Hesitant to support spot zoning. In general the board agrees that keeping the existing TB zone and providing enough incentives to justify a special ordinance to allow any exceptions such as higher density is a better way to go than rezoning. Some incentives discussed were 50% permanently affordable housing and landmarking the church. P. Shull supports a rezoning rather than a special ordinance. S. Mole didn't support either the rezoning or a special ordinance. The board also supported exploring making a percentage of the housing senior housing (i.e., Congregate Care) to allow the density and make the project wark. 6. DISCUSSION ITEMS MATTERS FROM THE PLAN1~iING BOARD, PLANIVING DIRECTOR, AND CITY ATTORNEY 8. DEBRIEF/AGENDA CHECK 9. ADJOLTRNMENT The Planning Board adjourned the meeting at 10:05 pm APPROVED BY Board Chair DATE S:~PLAN\PB-ITEMS~Ivlinutes\9J.06 min approv.doc5