Loading...
02.27.20 PB MinutesCITY OF BOULDER PLANNING BOARD ACTION MINUTES February 27, 2020 1777 Broadway, Council Chambers 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.bouldercolorado.gov/ PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Bryan Bowen, Chair David Ensign John Gerstle Lupita Montoya Sarah Silver Peter Vitale Harmon Zuckerman PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Charles Ferro, Development Review Manager Hella Pannewig, Assistant City Attorney Cindy Spence, Administrative Specialist III Jon White, Planner II Sloane Walbert, Senior Planner Elaine McLaughlin, Senior Planner Sarah Wiebenson, Hill Community Development Coordinator 1. CALL TO ORDER Chair, B. Bowen, declared a quorum at 6:02 p.m. and the following business was conducted. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES On a motion by D. Ensign and seconded by J. Gerstle the Planning Board voted 7-0 to approve the February 6, 2020 minutes as amended. 3. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION No one spoke. 4. DISCUSSION OF DISPOSITIONS, PLANNING BOARD CALL-UPS / CONTINUATIONS A. CALL UP ITEM: 250 and 260 Pearl Subdivision (TEC2019-00027): Final Plat to combine unplatted tracts at 250 and 260 Pearl as one 43,914 square-foot lot, dedicate right-of-way for 3rd Street, and dedicate public access and flood control easements. The call up period expires on February 27, 2020. B. CALL UP ITEM: Aloha Subdivision (TEC2019-00045): Request for approval of a two-lot subdivision of a 14,499-square foot property located at 2800 5th Street. Following subdivision, Lot 1 will be 7,003 square feet and Lot 2 will be 7,496 square feet. A residence previously located on Lot 2 has been demolished. The call up period expires on March 3, 2020. None of the items were called up. 5. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS A. AGENDA TITLE: Public hearing and Planning Board recommendation to the city manager on a request for occupancy higher than 12 persons for an existing not-for-profit permanently affordable cooperative housing unit (“Ingram Court Community Housing”) at 4662 Ingram Court. The proposed occupancy for the property is 16 persons. Case no. CHL2019-00004. Board members were asked to reveal any ex-parte contacts they may have had on this item. • B. Bowen stated that he had worked on the remodel at 4662 Ingram Court three years ago through his firm, Caddis Architecture, but he has not performed any work at that location since. He could remain impartial in this matter. Staff Presentation: C. Ferro introduced the item. S. Walbert presented the item to the board. Board Questions: S. Walbert answered questions from the board. Applicant Presentation: Lincoln Miller, with Boulder Housing Coalition, presented the item to the board. Board Questions: Lincoln Miller, representing the applicant, answered questions from the board. Public Hearing: 1) Cecilia Girz spoke in opposition to the project. 2) Jane Manning spoke in opposition to the project. 3) Fleming Schutrumpf spoke in opposition to the project. 4) Eric Budd spoke in support of the project. 5) Kurt Nordback spoke in support of the project. 6) Sarah Rodriguez spoke in support of the project. 7) Malik Salsberry spoke in support of the project. 8) Marguerite Behringer spoke in support of the project. 9) Alana Wilson spoke in support of the project. 10) Mylene Jacquemart spoke in support of the project. 11) Claudia Hanson Thiem spoke in support of the project. 12) Mendi Heris spoke in support of the project. Board Comments: Key Issue: Are the proposed 16 occupants appropriate for an existing Cooperative Housing Unit, when considering the potential impacts on the surrounding community, the number of residents proposed, the proposed habitable square feet per person, the available off- street parking, and the mission of the cooperative? • S. Silver and J. Gerstle disagreed with staff’s summary that the criteria has been met to increase the occupancy to 16 in the Ingram Coop. • S. Silver said that while she is not opposed to the increase, she does struggle with that there may be other ways to get the stability for the co-op to survive rather than increasing the occupant numbers. There are no negative impacts surrounding the community, however more conversations should be had to explore other ways to obtain stability, less turnover within the co- op and the mission of co-op is fulfilled. She suggested the neighbors and residents’ have more conversations. • J. Gerstle said he is not opposed to increasing the occupants but would like the co-op to be a success. He was not convinced that an increase in occupants would be the only thing to make that happen. The neighbors need to be happy as well. He said it would seem the basis for this request is financial and to give the co-op and residents’ flexibility. He wondered if there should be an arrangement to encourage longer term resident. He would like to see an incentive between the co-op and residents to encourage longer residences, which could make the neighbors happier. • D. Ensign reminded the board that when this co-op was reviewed by the Planning Board before, they had asked for a track record for comparison. While he didn’t agree with that request at the time, at present we do have a record to refer to and there is no evidence of problems with this co- op. He stated that extra numbers in occupancy would give flexibility. The process is stated in the ordinance passed three years ago. There is no data that persons have violated parking and not parking would be changed. He would be in support of the increase to 16 occupants. • L. Montoya appreciated the public comments. All comments are helpful. Affordability is a problem in this community. Lower income persons tend to move more and should not be penalized for that. She this would be an opportunity to increase a community feeling within the city. It would be difficult to not let the addition of four people in the co-op that might be children. She said people need to think about others and not just themselves. • H. Zuckerman said the request meets the criteria in order to recommend to the city manager. While there may be potential impacts on the surrounding community, the impacts are speculative. The facts are not there, and the criteria are met. People are feeling unwelcome here and that hurts. There are not many complaints. He said he would support the request. • P. Vitale said he does feel for the neighbors that may experience change in density. He said he hopes the increase will allow for parents with children to move into the co-op and experience flexibility. This will create less turnover, a tightly knit community, and yield a net benefit to the neighborhood. He would be in support. • B. Bowen said that a co-op is an entire community and family. Co-op housing is a bright spot on how the city can look to the future to reduce the carbon emissions, provide food security and to work together. • S. Silver said that there were neighbors that had concerns; however, an approval should not mean they were not heard. She said that the process is currently up to the neighbors to complain about other neighbors and that is a shame. She suggested a more appropriate system should be set up to address concerns. She would prefer more conversation on topic. If additional were occupants were families or children, it would be better. • B. Bowen said the concerns that were heard by the public were the concerns that were used to generate the original ordinance. Motion: On a motion by D. Ensign seconded by B. Bowen the Planning Board voted 7-0 to recommend to the city manager to authorize an occupancy of 16 persons at the Ingram Court Community Housing cooperative housing unit, incorporating this staff memorandum as findings of fact. B. AGENDA TITLE: CONCEPT PLAN & REVIEW for a redevelopment of the property located at 1313 Broadway. Proposed is a 198-room hotel along with ground floor retail, co-working office space, plaza space and below grade parking within the University Hill Business District. Reviewed under case no. LUR2020-00004. Staff Presentation: C. Ferro introduced the item. E. McLaughlin presented the item to the board. Board Questions: No questions from the board. Applicant Presentation: Chris Shears, with Shears Adkins Rockmore Architects, and Danica Powell, with Trestle Strategy Group, presented the item to the board. Board Questions: Chris Shears, with Shears Adkins Rockmore Architects, and Danica Powell, representing the applicant, answered questions from the board. Public Hearing: 1) Herb Fenster spoke in opposition to the project. 2) Jewel Brooks spoke in opposition to the project. 3) Nancy Blackwood spoke in support of the project. 4) Cheryl Liguori spoke in support of the project. 5) Jim Morris spoke in opposition to the project. Board Comments: Key Issue #1: Is the proposed Concept plan consistent with BVCP Land Use Plan & Policies? • J. Gerstle said, while they are not able to control what the University would be able to do, it would be useful for the Planning Board to see what CU is planning for the area. • D. Ensign said that he does see flexibility with a variety of things for this area. He would like to see a lot of activation on ground level and walkable neighborhoods are an important concept within the BVCP. This plan is on the right track regarding that. There is an attempt to make it more than a hotel and activate this area. It is consistent. He would be in support. • H. Zuckerman said he would like to keep continuity with the local businesses and preserve the existing businesses somehow. He suggested creating a fund for those existing businesses. He would like to see them return at regular rent levels on the first floor. • S. Silver agreed with H. Zuckerman regarding the preservation of local businesses and creating new local businesses in this area. In terms of consistency with the BVCP, this area is meant to be both a business district and a neighborhood center. She would like to see that both are being allowed, but to allow for the rest of area to be a neighborhood center and not become a high-end catalyst and would end up deterring local business. • J. Gerstle said the plan is consistent with the BVCP policies. He suggested that the plan make sure room for local businesses that are both neighborhood and student oriented. There will still be a need for these services. • P. Vitale said the plan is generally compliant. The idea of any kind of office as opposed to retail would not fit. Co-working space would be a loss and not consistent. • B. Bowen the plan should balance the kinds of uses to fit the neighborhood center and student population and regional district, which comes down to retail tendency. He agreed with P. Vitale regarding co-working space. He liked having good walkable retail and usable open space in the plan. He mentioned there are opportunities for art and welcoming points. Key Issue #2: Site Design Considerations (Engineering & Site Design) • H. Zuckerman said that as the building is pulled back from Broadway, there is an opportunity to create more sound attenuation and safety. Since trees along Broadway do not do very well, he suggested raised beds being installed. They would create shade, quiet, safety and the trees may live longer. • P. Vitale said he worries about the lower plaza and the shade that would keep it the snow from melting. He would like to see some natural curves that flow with the site. • D. Ensign appreciated a lot of staff’s comments. This is a chance to make something great as a public accommodation in that area. He would like to see the active steps for the public happen. He would like to see some interesting public art installations. He did not approve of the public space on the roof. Regarding circulation and transportation, this is an opportunity to get a better bus drop off at this location. A good TMP will be critical. • J. Gerstle said that the Planning Board should be aware of the plans surrounding the CU Conference Center. This Concept Plan is attractive in general. He would want reassurance that there is no gate between the buildings to prevent public access. The small building on Broadway for retail space should have no backside to the building. It should only have front doors facing Broadway and along the plaza. Regarding the alley going east/west, he would like to consider a pedestrian access through to the alley. • S. Silver said that Alley “A” will need to be revitalize and there should be a commitment to that at the same time this building is constructed. Regarding open space, she appreciated staff’s recommendation about softening and greening it up. This should feel less like a blank urban plaza and should have green and trees. • L. Montoya said she liked the idea of having foot traffic as well as retail in the same area. She would like to see more minority-owned businesses in this area. • P. Vitale said he sees the bridge as an opportunity to do something great and urged the applicant to do so. He urged the applicant to not design the building to resemble a high school or institutionalized. He said, regarding the “keyhole” entrance, could render itself to LED art or showcasing of some kind. • B. Bowen said the site is arranged in a very logical and legible to visitors’ fashion. The attention to views is very good. The back of northern retail building appears to be a nice area for a garden spot. He would like to see a round-about drop-off concept. It could assist with parking and loading area. The courtyards are arranged well with the stepping down walls. Finally, having the massing on the north/south along the west property line creates a nice sound buffer to the adjacent neighborhoods and properties. Key Issue #3: Building Mass and Scale Considerations • P. Vitale said that while there will be a lot of mass on the corner that the public will need to get used to, it will be a great gathering place. • H. Zuckerman said that when looking south from the northern corner of Broadway, that is the only place where it appears to be a four-story building because you would be standing below point topographically. He suggested a little relief in the wall with some articulation could help with that, rather than a flat wall. There are some concerns around solar access and site line analysis to the west especially for the sorority and perhaps more study should be done. • S. Silver said that as people are coming up the hill on Broadway, the building will appear massive. It will appear as a wall and a problem for the community. • P. Vitale said the massing cannot be fixed, therefore the only way to fix it would be to have the ground floor retail embrace the community, so they are pulled in. • S. Silver questioned how to reactivate the western side of the hotel site for the public since it would have views. • J. Gerstle agreed that the massing would be large at the intersection of Broadway and University Avenue and is especially concerned about the view as one goes up the hill along Broadway from Arapahoe. He finds the proposal in this respect to be unacceptable. He suggested a more significant setback of the third and fourth stories. Regarding the CU architecture style, and that we should be working together with them, perhaps that could be considered too. • D. Ensign said he is not as concerned with the massing as it fits within the FAR of the site. He did not think it would not appear to be that big of a wall. Currently this is an area with unattractive buildings, and we are looking at getting something nice in their place. It is not a direct view of the Flatirons going up that hill. Staff recommended a roof top deck on the southwest corner. The sorority house concerns are important and should be addressed. • B. Bowen said the overall gesture of the building is well conceived and works well with the open space and how people more around the site. The three-dimensional space of the plazas is important and see them activated. He approved of the architectural imagery. He approved of seeing white-box packaging and a solid level of detail in this concept plan. He would like to see the buildings loosen up and get more creative. Board Summary: Since this is a Concept Review, no action is required on behalf of the Planning Board. B. Bowen provided a summary of the board’s discussion. He said there was a broad consensus that the plan did meet the BVCP. There should be focus on the intersections between the neighborhood centers and the regional centers. That balance is important. The board questioned how to take the existing businesses and bring them back and promote minority owned businesses. The overall site design is logically laid out and the board recognized the need for using the alley for loading and service. The idea of the fire department hammerhead should be used to get trucks out of the way for the sorority parking. There is interest in creating permeability through to the alley. Overall permeability and approach to the site looks good. Some board members suggested terminating vistas with art. There is a strong desire for a TMP to support the parking approach. The retail along Broadway needs to be four-sided. The board would like for this to be a great building and not bland. There was varying reaction to the massing with some strong concerns to the north end and overall height. Most liked the architectural imagery, but some exceptions called out. The board would like the space, the plaza and landscape to be rich and reflect Boulder in some way. 6. MATTERS FROM THE PLANNING BOARD, PLANNING DIRECTOR, AND CITY ATTORNEY 7. DEBRIEF MEETING/CALENDAR CHECK 8. ADJOURNMENT The Planning Board adjourned the meeting at 10:33 p.m. APPROVED BY ______ Board Chair ___05/14/2020_______ DATE