Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06.25.20 PB MinutesCITY OF BOULDER PLANNING BOARD ACTION MINUTES June 25, 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 Peter Vitale Harmon Zuckerman, Chair PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: N/A STAFF PRESENT: Charles Ferro, Development Review Manager Hella Pannewig, Assistant City Attorney Cindy Spence, Administrative Specialist III Elaine McLaughlin, Senior Planner Sloane Walbert, Senior Planner Jean Gatza, Meeting Moderator 1. CALL TO ORDER Chair, H. Zuckerman, declared a quorum at 6:05 p.m. and the following business was conducted. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES On a motion by J. Gerstle and seconded by D. Ensign the Planning Board voted 7-0 to approve the June 4, 2020 minutes as amended. 3. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION a) Lynn Segal 4. DISCUSSION OF DISPOSITIONS, PLANNING BOARD CALL-UPS / CONTINUATIONS A. CALL UP ITEM: Site Review Amendment for 2655 N. 63rd Street: for phasing plan revisions to a previously approved campus for Western Disposal Services that includes a Waste Transfer Building for sorting and transferring solid waste (for both public drop-off and Western Disposal trucks) off-site; a Gate House for public weigh-in and weigh-out; a new corporate office building that also provides leasable space for future tenants in the same/similar industry; a Shop Building that serves as the command center for the fleet of waste collection vehicles and vehicular service bays for maintaining the vehicles; a Container Building for construction, servicing and repairing of the various waste/recycle/compost container units used for commercial and residential use. The decision may be called up before Planning Board on or before June 26, 2020. B. CALL UP ITEM: Minor Site Review Amendment for 5995 Arapahoe Avenue for a 7,103 square foot addition to expand the service area of the existing Flatiron Subaru Automobile Dealership. The decision may be called up before Planning Board on or before June 26, 2020. None of the items were called up. 5. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS A. AGENDA TITLE: Public hearing and consideration of a Site Review to redevelop the properties at 1727 and 1737 Pearl Street with a 28,222 square foot three-story mixed-use building containing 9,439 square feet of commercial space on the first floor and 14 residential units on the second and third floors (case no. LUR2018-00073). Development includes one level of underground parking with 14 vehicular parking spaces. Board members were asked to reveal any ex-parte contacts they may have had on this item. • H. Zuckerman stated the engineering firm on this project, Scott Cox and Associates, is also working on a development project in Gilpin County in which he is the attorney on the project handling entitlement. No work has been done for over a year and there is no contractual relationship with the engineering firm. H. Pannewig confirmed that this relationship does not amount to a conflict of interest. H. Zuckerman confirmed that he would remain fair and impartial. J. Gerstle stated that he had previously worked for the predecessor of Scott Cox and Associates in high school but could be fair and objective 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: Adam Wertz, the property owner, and Chris Russell, with Studio Architecture, presented the item to the board. Board Questions: Adam Wertz and Chris Russell, representing the applicant, answered questions from the board. Public Hearing: 1) Ray Wrigley spoke in opposition to the project concerning the north elevation and setback as proposed. 2) Lori Hunter spoke in opposition to the project concerning the north elevation and setback as proposed. 3) Lynn Segal spoke in opposition to the project. 4) Zach Zeldner spoke in support of the project. 5) Crystal Gray spoke in support of mixed use at the project. She spoke in opposition to the project concerning the north elevation, setback and height as proposed. 6) David Foster encouraged special sensitively in the interface zone for this project. Board Comments: Key Issue #1: Does the project meet the applicable Site Review criteria in Section 9-2-14(h), B.R.C. 1981? • P. Vitale clarified that the issues of solar shadow and design components would be discussed at TEC docs review. This would be a positive development for Pearl street. The project must meet 2020 Energy code. • S. Silver said this project does not meet site review criteria. Specifically, the mass and height do not meet site criteria according to 9-2-14(h)(2)(f)(i). The proposed third story will create a problem for the homes on alley and will be impacted. In addition, she said it may not be meeting 9-9-17(d)(1)(b) regarding solar access. In addition, she did not believe it met 9-2-14(h)(2)(f)(xi) in that there would be no mitigating of energy from this site. • J. Gerstle was concerned with the impact on the alley and residences to the north and that it would be unacceptable. • D. Ensign said the proposal was acceptable from the BVCP standards. Open space considerations have been done. There has been a green plan proposed for the setback in the front and rear. The elevator idea is a nice component in that it will allow the vehicles to be off the street and not be an enormous amount of energy. In general, this is an area for mixed use and would be appropriate. The proposal is a beautiful design. The wedding cake design works well due to the side setbacks. • L. Smith approved of the site design. The neighbors along the alley will be affected, that is just a fact. Perhaps the third story could be brought in more. She would like to see solar panels on the flat roof. She appreciated the trees and bike racks on the street elevation. She approved of the courtyard and trying to keep it open. The mixed use and retail are positive features. • H. Zuckerman agreed with D. Ensign. If the project were two stories instead of three, it would be entitled to thirty-eight feet in height by right. The north elevation is well-articulated with the third floor being stepped back five feet over a third of its width, and the whole building is set back fifteen feet from the alley. There is a condition of approval that the project must meet solar access requirements. He suggested an additional condition adding the wiring for PV panels on the roof to meet site review criteria. • S. Silver recommended a setback on the northern end on the third floor. She was okay with the proposed third story, however the mass on the north end did not appear appropriate given the interface zone. • P. Vitale agreed. • L. Smith added that she would like to see wiring for electric cars and to integrate affordable housing into future developments and neighborhoods. • L. Montoya liked the courtyard and commercial components. She was concerned there was no opportunity for affordable housing. Key Issue #2: Is the proposed project consistent with the Downtown Urban Design Guidelines for the Non-Historic and Interface Areas? • S. Silver suggested regarding the courtyard a condition to require a clear plan by the applicant for a heating element within courtyard to be clear and ice-free. She said she would like to see more minimized impacts to the adjacent neighborhood alley houses. • D. Ensign said that he did not consider the wall along the alley unreasonable. • H. Zuckerman agreed. • S. Silver said that reducing the third floor slightly would be a reasonable compromise. • J. Gerstle voiced concerns about the setback modifications proposed at the side yard and along Pearl Street. He questioned whether the mass and scale of the building would set a precedent for future properties that redevelop on the block, particularly the adjacent properties to the east and west. S. Silver agreed with his concerns. Motion: On a motion by D. Ensign seconded by H. Zuckerman the Planning Board voted 5-2 (S. Silver, J. Gerstle opposed) to approve Site Review case no. LUR2018-00073 incorporating the staff memorandum and the attached Site Review Criteria Checklist as findings of fact, and subject to the conditions of approval recommended in the staff memorandum. Applicant Rebuttal: Jeff Dawson, with Studio Architecture, thanked the board for their feedback. 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 9:43 p.m. APPROVED BY _________ Board Chair ____7/30/2020_______________ DATE