Loading...
Minutes - Planning Board - 10/5/2006A~proved ~iovember 2. 2006 CITY OF BOULDER PLANNING BOARD ACTION MINUTES October 5, 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://www.ci.boulder.co.us/planning/planningboazd/agendas PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Elise Jones, Chair Simon Mole, Vice Chair John Spitzer, absent Phil Shull Adrian Sopher, arrived 6:06 Claire L.evy Richazd Sosa STAFF PRESENT: Ruth McHeyser, Acting Planning Director David Gehr, City Attorney Brent Bean, Senior Planner Chazles Ferro, Planner Michelle Allen, Administrative Specialist 1. CALL TO ORDER Chair, E. Jones declared a quorum at 6:04 p.m. and the following business was conducted. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES On a motion by P. Shull, seconded by R. Sosa, the Planning Board approved as amended the September 7, 2006 Planning Board minutes. Vote 5-0 (A. Sopher, J. Spitzer absent) 3. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION None 4. DISCUSSION OF DISPOSITIONS, PLANNING BOARD CALL-UPS 1960 Sth St (500 Peazl) No questions 5. ACTION ITEMS (6:10) S:~PLAN~PB-ITEMSUvlinutes\10.5.06 min approv.doc A. Public hearing and consideration of Rezoning Review, #LUR2006-00063, Gunbarrel Business Park Lot 1 Rezoning, to rezone 5.05 acres located at 6333 Lookout currently zoned Industrial-General (IG) to Business Community-2 (BC- 2) for consistency with the recently approved Gunbatrel Community Center Plan. Applicant / Owner: Hercules Land Development Company C. Ferro pointed out a correction, that the area is actually 5.87 acres not 5.05 as noted in the memo title. The applicant also corrected the legal description in the memo to describe the property as lot 1 and outlot C. On a motion by S. Mole, seconded by C. Levy, Planning Board approved Rezoning Review #LUR2006-00063 incorporating the staff inemorandum and the review criteria checklist as findings of fact. Vote 6-0 (J. Spitzer absent) Public Participation: None B. Public hearing and consideration of Concept Plan #LUR2006-00061. The Concept Plan includes the proposed development of 30 residential units and 21,284 square feet of office/retail space on 0.72 acres, located at 1095 Canyon Boulevard, zoned Downtown-5 (DT-5), the northwest corner of Canyon Blvd and 11~' Street. ApplicanUOwner: Tebo Development, Stephen Tebo Public Participation: Lucia McCamey, 1050 Walnut Ste: 350, Boulder Dylan Williams, 646 Pearl St., Boulder Kate Remley, 646 Pearl St., Boulder Stephen Tebo, P.O. Box T, Boulder Planning Board Comments: Elise Jones: Ok with the proposed 55 height for this building but concerned with height creeping up overall throughout the city. The open space and creek to the south help to balance it out. In exchange for going along with the 55' height and reduced setback on the south, the density should not be mased and the set back on the alley should be increased to avoid creating a dark canyon in the alley. Wants to see large street trees along Canyon Blvd. Important to lighten or create some additional diversity of the architecture along Canyon. Additional data is needed to support exiting movements onto Canyon. Simon Mole: The design fits in with the other properties on Canyon, overall impression it looks right. Supports working with CAGID to connect to the underground pazking structure for a second egress. Open to the idea of both access and exiting on Canyon. Sees some issues with developing access to the garage from ll~' Street. Does not support S:~PLAN~PB-ITEMS~Minutes\10.5.06 min approv.doc building up to the lot line in the alley. Fine with 5S height, the building will fit in with the height of adjacent properties. Ok with dividing the building in two but also Ok with the previous drawings. West elevation needs to be designed to reflect an end to the building that may be exposed for a number of years. Phil Shull: Ok with the setback variance on the south but alley needs some setback relief form the alley. This should not be just a standard alley. The north elevation needs to be well developed because the alley is a pedestrian way. We need to pay more attention to the back side of the buildings downtown. The access from Canyon makes sense, exiting onto Canyon seem problematic and would cause conflicts with other streets and pedestrian movements along Canyon. The corner tower is an improvement over the last proposed design. In site review we need to see plans showing the relationship with 1155 Canyon and the Exeter Building. Ok with 55' building heigh[ and density. Would like to see a little more step backs on the 3`d and 4~' floors. The building feels like too much of a big block. The roof line is misleading because the mechanical systems will add height and should be accurately depicted on the elevations. West elevation should work if there is a tall building up against it. More likely there will not be a building there any time in the neaz future so the west elevation has to work in the meantime. Adrian Sopher: Not convinced about the best access. Could be convinced that Canyon is the best place but concerned about the pedestrian environment we are creating on Canyon. The 55' height, and density are appropriate on Canyon - this is the place for it. The proposed uses don't energize the pedestrian uses along Canyon. Are we doing parking all the way out to the property line? If so how dces this affect the ability to have large street trees? The site does not have to be mased out for density in every direction. The upper level units to the north and the west need to be carefully considered. Concemed about the corner element, lanterns as a streetscape. Wha[ is the gateway that we're making and dces every block have to have a gateway? Eleventh Street is an important pedestrian corridor connecting the mall to Boulder Creek and addition attention needs to be given to this consideration. Claire Levy: Agree with most of Mr. Shull's comments. Willing to look at both access and exit on Canyon. We need to decide how Canyon should function from a pedestrian perspective. Feels strongly that the alley needs a setback. There is some potential for the alley to be just a canyon. The alley could be a good location for some outside seating for the restaurant. A setback on the alley would make the residential units to the north much more livable. We seem to be creating some monotony in the buildings along Canyon, more step backs in the building would help. The building is predominantly residential and something in the design should signal that it is a residential building. There may be too much similarity in the buildings downtown, would like to see the applicant play with the design a little more. People like to be able to open their windows, but this could be a problem with the mixed use nature of this site (noise and odor). Richard Sosa: Agrees tha[ the proposed entrance off of Canyon makes sense but exiting on Canyon seems problematic. We need more of a traffic study to settle this. Supports connecting to the CAGID parking structure. The alley as an exit makes sense. Does not support varying the setback on the alley, because the alley is an important pedestrian way. Likes the overall design, no problem with the proposed 55' height. Additional S:~PLAN~PB-ITEMS~Minutes\10.5.06 min approv.doc consideration needs to be given to the pedestrian needs and the human scale for use and development within the alley and 11`h St. 6. MATTERS FROM THE PLANNING BOARD, PLANNING DIRECTOR, AND CITY ATTORNEY Review of Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board's roles and responsibilities in preparation for joint meeting 7. DEBRIEF/AGENDA CHECK 8. ADJOURNMENT The Planning Board adjourned the meeting at 9:18 pm APPROVED BY ~~~~l~ Board Chair 1~ Z (~(.~ DA S:~PLAN~PB-ITEMSUVIinutes\10.5.06 min approv.doc