Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06.18.20 PB MinutesCITY OF BOULDER PLANNING BOARD ACTION MINUTES June 18, 2020 Virtual Meeting 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: David Ensign John Gerstle Lupita Montoya Sarah Silver Lisa Smith Harmon Zuckerman, Chair PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Peter Vitale STAFF PRESENT: Charles Ferro, Development Review Manager Hella Pannewig, Assistant City Attorney Cindy Spence, Administrative Specialist III Christin Shepherd, Senior Civil Engineer Shannon Moeller, Planner II / Code Amendment Specialist Kurt Firnhaber, Director of Housing and Human Services Jean Gatza, Senior Planner 1. CALL TO ORDER Chair, H. Zuckerman, declared a quorum at 6:09 p.m. and the following business was conducted. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES On a motion by H. Zuckerman and seconded by L. Smith the Planning Board voted 6-0 (P. Vitale absent) to approve the May 7, 2020 minutes as amended. On a motion by J. Gerstle and seconded by L. Montoya the Planning Board voted 6-0 (P. Vitale absent) to approve the May 21, 2020 minutes as amended. On a motion by D. Ensign and seconded by S. Silver the Planning Board voted 6-0 (P. Vitale absent) to approve the May 28, 2020 minutes as amended. 3. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION a) Lynn Segal b) Chris Goodman 4. DISCUSSION OF DISPOSITIONS, PLANNING BOARD CALL-UPS / CONTINUATIONS A. CALL UP ITEM: Boulder Escape Room Use Review (LUR2020-00013): Use Review for a 1,740 square-foot indoor amusement use (escape room) located at 1966 13th Street in the Downtown-4 (DT-4) zoning district. Indoor Amusement Establishment uses require a Use Review in this zoning district. The call up period expires on June 18th, 2020. B. CALL UP ITEM: Floodplain Development Permit (FLD2019-00140); Standard Wetland Permit (WET2019-00014). Broadway Reconstruction Concrete Box Culvert at Fourmile Canyon Creek. The call up period expires on June 19th, 2020. C. CALL UP ITEM: Standard Wetland Permit (WET2018-00004); Replace Existing Potable Water Pipeline Southwest of US Highway 36. The call up period expires on June 19th, 2020. D. CALL UP ITEM: Standard Wetland Permit (WET2020-00008); Goose Creek Sanitary Sewer Interceptor Replacement Project. The call up period expires on June 19th, 2020. None of the items were called up. 5. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS A. AGENDA TITLE: CONCEPT PLAN REVIEW AND COMMENT: Request for citizen, staff, and Planning Board input on a proposal to redevelop the property at 3485 Stanford Court to include 60 permanently affordable apartments for seniors (age 55+) and maintain the existing childcare facility on site. Case number LUR2020-00019. Staff Presentation: C. Ferro introduced the item. S. Moeller presented the item to the board. Board Questions: S. Moeller answered questions from the board. Applicant Presentation: Ian Swallow, with Boulder Housing Partners, and JV DeSousa, the architect, presented the item to the board. Board Questions: Ian Swallow and JV DeSousa, representing the applicants, answered questions from the board. Public Hearing: 1) John Koechel spoke to traffic, emergency vehicle access and tax credit regarding this project. 2) Melissa Moulton spoke to the existing playground and dedicating play space in the area. 3) Marie Blaney spoke in opposition to the project. 4) Ben Wilson spoke in opposition to the project. 5) Lynn Segal spoke in opposition to the project. Board Comments: Key Issue #1: Is the proposed concept plan compatible with the goals, objectives, and recommendations of the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP)? • J. Gerstle said the project does meet the BVCP criteria. • D. Ensign agreed and each criterion has been met. He suggested adding Policy 2.41 (Enhanced Design) to the list as the project would meet that policy and the design would also fit into the area. The project design would be compatible with the existing neighborhood. He agreed with staff regarding the transportation connections especially the east connection and should be improved. The connection to Table Mesa and King Soopers were acceptable but improvements would be welcome. • L. Montoya mentioned there is an existing pedestrian crossing with traffic lights across from the library which is very safe and would play an important role for this community. Regarding access to open space, the location would be compatible. • H. Zuckerman reminded the board that affordable housing for seniors was the most important issue when the BVCP updates were considered in 2017. This project would meet the Comp Plan goals and policies. In addition, in terms of community benefit, affordable housing and affordable housing for seniors would both be met. This project would be compatible to the BVCP and the repurposing of the existing architecture of the church. Key Issue #2: Would the project be compatible with the character of the surrounding area? Are the architectural and site design consistent with the site review criteria in terms of quality and compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood? • S. Silver supported staff’s recommendations regarding the building and design, specifically to the proposed adjusted height and massing. Also, to consider moving the community gardens further east so they would be located between the building and the parking area. She had concerns regarding the drive aisle along the south property line. She suggested eliminating the western parking lot altogether. Senior housing tends to have less car ownership therefore a parking reduction could be suggested. In addition, if the western lot were eliminated, it would address the drive aisle along the south property line. It could also allow the building to be extended and the height reduced. • J. Gerstle agreed with S. Silver. He added that the public permeability of this site would be a key issue. He would like to see that maintained and enhanced. He suggested to have it formally written down and a path through the site maintained. A playground in the area should be reestablished as it would ensure interaction with the community nearby. He recommended diminishing apartments on the third floor and replaced with more terrace area. • L. Smith said the community room and community space should be explored within the area and to understand the demand in the area. Regarding SUMP principles, she suggested looking at what could be offered in that area (i.e. shared, unmanaged, unbundled) and if not paid, perhaps timed as it relates to street parking, and that it continues to be explored. • D. Ensign supported the proposal. The terraces would create a nice connection to the overlook. The design would pull it away from the sanctuary building in a nice way which would be an improvement and create openness. He said there would be an advantage to a single building solution because it would be easier to play with the open space around it. The proposed massing would not be unreasonable. He agreed with eliminating the parking on the western side. This project would be appropriate where one would be transitioning from a business center. It would be an asset to the neighborhood. He thought the traffic issues might be mitigated by the lifestyles of the residents. • L. Montoya said the proposed community gardens could be shared by the nearby community and have an increasing community benefit. She approved of the idea of providing more affordable housing for this area. • L. Smith appreciated coupling the daycare and being adjacent to the senior facility. • H. Zuckerman said, regarding the design, he appreciated the open-frame, superstructure concept in the drop-off area. He recommended matching the angles to the buttresses coming out of the roof of the sanctuary. He approved of the north elevation, wall articulation, and proposed materials. The proposed design is bold but elegant. It will be a creative use of the slope. He appreciated the flexibility of the proposed Juliette balconies. He recommended the applicant consider adding some additional pedestrian infrastructure and traffic calming measures. • S. Silver suggested adding landscaping to the east side of the lot to muffle the sound of traffic. • L. Smith recommended adding pool cars or car share to defray the need for parking and be a neighborhood benefit. Board Summary: Since this is a Concept Review, no action is required on behalf of the Planning Board. H. Zuckerman provided a summary of the board’s discussion. The board spilt regarding if the building should be broken up into multiple buildings or if the massing is fine with a single-building solution. The board agreed it was comfortable with a parking reduction or an elimination of the western lot. The board suggested swapping the garden area with the parking area to be next to building. They would like to see more permeability and public access on this project. Finally, this project should provide some public amenity for what is going to be lost. Applicant Rebuttal: Ian Swallow and JV DeSousa appreciated the board’s time and will take the board’s comments under advisement. 6. MATTERS FROM THE PLANNING BOARD, PLANNING DIRECTOR, AND CITY ATTORNEY A. Retreat Topics Discussion Board Comments: • The board agreed to discuss the follow topics at their retreat on July 6, 2020.  Presentation by Dr. Carolyn Love regarding Gender Communications Workshop  Planning Department Status  Review of Planning Board’s Meeting Conduct  Discussion of “Color of Law” by Richard Rothstein 7. DEBRIEF MEETING/CALENDAR CHECK 8. ADJOURNMENT The Planning Board adjourned the meeting at 9:03 p.m. APPROVED BY ________ Board Chair __07/16/2020_________________ DATE