Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 2 10.22.2020 PB Summary minutes CITY OF BOULDER PLANNING BOARD ACTION MINUTES October 22, 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 Jean Gatza, Meeting Moderator Curtis Weller, Civil Engineer I Elaine McLaughlin, Senior Planner Kurt Firnhaber, Director of Housing & Human Services James Hewat, Senior Planner 1. CALL TO ORDER Chair, H. Zuckerman, declared a quorum at 6:02 p.m. and the following business was conducted. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES On a motion by J. Gerstle and seconded by L. Montoya the Planning Board voted 7-0 to approve the September 17, 2020 minutes as amended. On a motion by J. Gerstle and seconded by L. Montoya the Planning Board voted 7-0 to approve the September 24, 2020 minutes as amended. 3. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION a) Lynn Segal commented regarding the format of virtual meetings. 10.22.2020 PB Draft Minutes Page 1 of 5 4. DISCUSSION OF DISPOSITIONS, PLANNING BOARD CALL-UPS / CONTINUATIONS A. CALL UP ITEM: Floodplain Development Permit (FLD2020-00067); 2850 Kalmia Avenue. Partial Interior Remodel of The Boulders Apartments Clubhouse. The decision may be called up by Planning Board on or before October 27, 2020. B. CALL UP ITEM: Floodplain Development Permit (FLD2020-00080); 4095 19th Street. Private Residence High Hazard Zone Fence Plan. The decision may be called up by Planning Board on or before October 27, 2020. C. CALL UP ITEM: Floodplain Development Permit (FLD2020-00081); 1940 Walnut Street. Retaining Wall Replacement Along Boulder and White Rock Irrigation Ditch. The decision may be called up by Planning Board on or before October 27, 2020. None of the items were called up. 5. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS A. AGENDA TITLE: CONCEPT PLAN REVIEW for redevelopment of the property located at 1820 15th Street, Grace Commons Church (formerly known as First Presbyterian Church) for an addition to the existing church campus along with the redevelopment of the site referred as the church “annex” located at 1603 Walnut Street. Proposed on the main church campus is demolition of an existing addition and construction of new building area for a total of approximately 104,873 square feet on the campus. Planned uses include assembly and recreation space, along with meeting rooms, with building height up to 49 feet. Proposed at the annex property at 1603 Walnut Street is a new four-story, 55-foot tall mixed use building with ground floor non-residential uses including church assembly space, a small café, and ground floor parking, along with 30 permanently affordable residential units on the second and third floors, and an event space and deck on the fourth floor. Reviewed under case LUR2020-00033. Board members were asked to reveal any ex-parte contacts they may have had on this item. • D. Ensign, J. Gerstle, S. Silver, and L. Smith had performed individual site visits and had attended various meetings at that location over time. H. Zuckerman disclosed the engineer for this project is JVA and the architect is Coburn and that he has been working with both on a project in Gilpin County. H. Zuckerman has no contractual relationship with either entity and stated he could be fair and impartial on this matter. In addition, one of the scheduled public speakers tonight, Robyn Wolf, who lives in the property adjacent to 1603 Walnut Street, had approached him and his law firm to represent her. Once he realized Ms. Wolf was seeking counsel to help her voice her position regarding this Concept Plan, H. Zuckerman provided her with referrals for another attorney to represent her. Staff Presentation: C. Ferro introduced the item. E. McLaughlin presented the item to the board. Board Questions: E. McLaughlin and J. Hewat answered questions from the board. 10.22.2020 PB Draft Minutes Page 2 of 5 Applicant Presentation: Doug Smith, Josh Felix, and Pete Weber, representing the applicant, presented the item to the board. Board Questions: Doug Smith, Josh Felix, Pete Weber, and Catherine Bean representing the applicant, answered questions from the board. Public Hearing: 1) Scott Herrin spoke in opposition to the proposal’s design stating it would not respect the existing neighborhood, specifically the setbacks and how they relate to the Chamberlain Historic District. 2) Peter Welles spoke regarding some concerns related to the events space on the fourth floor as proposed, specifically the outdoor space and possible noise. 3) Robyn Wolf spoke regarding some concerns related to the proposed amenity deck on the southeast corner on the fourth floor. She expressed concern with people possibly jumping from the amenity deck to the adjacent building. In addition, she expressed concern regarding the location of the HVAC system. 4) Linda Silverthorn spoke regarding some concerns related to the proposed parking and that there may not be enough. In addition, parking in the alley is currently an issue and there is a concern that it may become worse. The alley also needs to be paved. 5) Sam P. spoke regarding some concerns related to the proposed housing. He questioned the city endorsing or funding a church project and how the finances were going to be separated. 6) Lynn Segal spoke in opposition to the project. 7) Kevin Eggleston spoke concerning the proposed HVAC system and the possible noise transmission. He would like that to be considered. 8) Grant Couch agreed with the issues that his neighbors had raised regarding the project. He said the open space on the fourth floor with the event space was a concern and suggested it could be smaller and indoor as opposed to outdoor. He expressed a desire that while construction is done, that the alley not be closed. 9) Claudia Hanson Thiem spoke in support of the project. This could revitalize the church campus and the downtown area. She strongly supported the opportunity to create permanently affordable housing downtown and the feasibility of housing on this site should be protected. The housing residents should have access to the same amenities as their neighbors. Taller building, lesser setbacks and stronger facades should be seen in this location. The parking reduction is in order. 10) Silvana Galbetti agreed with the issues that his neighbors had raised regarding the project. She had concern regarding the possible noise from the proposed open space. Board Comments: Key Issue #1: Does the project, on balance, meet the relevant policies of the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan? • J. Gerstle said the project is generally compliant with the BVCP objectives. • D. Ensign agreed. Staff outlined the BVCP polices that were well met and ones that will need work moving towards Site Review. A good Transportation Management Plan will be needed. In addition, a good management plan will be needed for the open rooftop deck and its use. The location of the HVAC system will need to be addressed. In general, it will be a good addition to the downtown mix and will conform to the Comp Plan. 10.22.2020 PB Draft Minutes Page 3 of 5 Key Issue #2: Is the proposed project consistent with the Downtown Urban Design Guidelines for the Non-Historic District? • S. Silver agreed with staff’s report, especially regarding the concerns with the lack of transparency along 15th Street. She encouraged the applicants to address that. She agreed the proposed glass prow at 15th Street and Walnut appeared odd or out of place. Regarding the annex building, she felt strongly it should be subject to setbacks since it faces the Chamberlain Historic District. The neighbors have legitimate concerns regarding the proposed large public space. She suggested reimagining the top floor space to better protect the existing neighbors. • L. Smith said she would like to see some of the proposed surface parking moved to an underground parking structure. If not possible, then perhaps tuck-under parking. She suggested having “movable” street furniture to be incorporated which will activate the space better. If parking is moved, she asked to make sure the shared public green spaces would be accessible and visible from the street. The design appeared to be an improvement from the existing building. She agreed with S. Silver regarding the transparency. She also suggested perhaps stepping down the building towards the Chamberlain Historic District. • P. Vitale agreed with the previous comments. The proposed glass prow appeared out of place and out of historic nature and character of the neighborhood. • L. Smith added that some of the most beloved buildings have an odd design feature, such as the proposed glass prow. She recommended refinement of the feature. • D. Ensign said that this location has an opportunity for something impactful. Perhaps that feature could evolve into something that would do that and suggested the Design Advisory Board could assist with that. Regarding the above ground parking along 15th Street, he said there should be some opportunities to do some screening between the building and the parking which could turn into a community-based art project. Since this area is DT-5, the city’s most concentrated area, it is expected for intensive uses to be developed. • J. Gerstle agreed with the previous comments. The corner of 15th Street and Walnut would be a good location for something exciting to happen on corner. The idea of having some setback on the annex building at the top floor should be considered. The visual impact would be beneficial. • L. Montoya recommended allowing more glazing of the building to allow people to look in to allow more engagement and gathering of the community. She would also like to see an emergency exit at the corner implemented. • H. Zuckerman agreed with the staff analysis regarding the project’s conformity with the DUDG guidelines. In addition, he agreed with the previous board comments. Regarding the annex building, he agreed that a setback should exist on the top floor or at least a better design to respect the relationship to the neighboring historic district to the west. Measures should be taken to avoid impacts on neighboring properties from the roof deck. Developing a management plan and having good neighbor policies would be important. He approved of the intensity and design, but suggested that removing some residential units from the annex building and adding units on the main campus could resolve compatibility issues with 1655 Walnut, liven up the church side, and possibly make underground parking feasible. The FAR on the main campus is 1.1 where 2.7 is allowed, so there is room to add more affordable housing. Regarding the design of the church building, the grey block corner treatment does not provide transparency at ground level, appears unusual, and should be avoided. He approved of the intention to add accessory uses and found the proposed use mix to be appropriate. The proposed design pieces lack the solidity and felicitous proportions of the original building. 10.22.2020 PB Draft Minutes Page 4 of 5 • S. Silver, J. Gerstle and P. Vitale agreed with H. Zuckerman’s comments. Board Summary: Since this is a Concept Review, no action is required on behalf of the Planning Board. 6. MATTERS FROM THE PLANNING BOARD, PLANNING DIRECTOR, AND CITY ATTORNEY A. AGENDA TITLE: Letter to City Council Board Comments: • The board agreed to discuss and draft the letter at the Planning Board meeting on November 19, 2020. 7. DEBRIEF MEETING/CALENDAR CHECK 8. ADJOURNMENT The Planning Board adjourned the meeting at 9:11 p.m. APPROVED BY ___________________ Board Chair ___________________ DATE 10.22.2020 PB Draft Minutes Page 5 of 5