Loading...
05.12.21 DAB MinutesCITY OF BOULDER DESIGN ADVISORY BOARD MINUTES May 12, 2021 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/ DAB MEMBERS PRESENT: Lauren Folkerts, Chair Brendan Ash Rory Bilocerkowycz Todd Bryan Matthew Schexnyder David Ensign, Planning Board Ex-Officio Member DAB MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Kalani Pahoa, Urban Designer Cindy Spence, Administrative Assistant III Kathleen King, Senior Planner Jean Gatza, Senior Planner 1. CALL TO ORDER Chair, L. Folkerts, declared a quorum at 4:03 p.m. and the following business was conducted. A. Rules of Decorum B. Swearing in of New Design Advisory Board Members • C. Spence swore in B. Ash and M. Schexnyder as new members to the Design Advisory Board. C. Nominations and Elections of New Design Advisory Board Chair/Vice Chair • L. Folkerts was nominated by T. Bryan for Chair. L Folkerts accepted. Passed unanimously. • R. Bilocerkowycz was nominated by T. Bryan for Vice Chair. R. Bilocerkowycz accepted. Passed unanimously. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The board approved the February 10, 2021 Design Advisory Board minutes as amended. 3. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION No one spoke. 4. DISCUSSION ITEMS A. STUDENT PROJECT: Envisioning an Alternative Future for the Valmont Power Plant Vision Staff Introduction K. King presented the item to the board. Applicant Presentation Chelsea Gieryic and Ali Pfenninger, with the University of Colorado Denver, presented the item to the board. Public Participation Brian Kennedy spoke in support of the presentation. Board discussion Key Issue #1: What elements of these concepts would DAB like to see move forward? • R. Bilocerkowycz thought the presentation was very well done. He said he would encourage architecture character and detailing and see this become an architecture project. • T. Bryan questioned how this project might relate to the East Boulder Subcommunity Plan. • B. Ash thought the presentation was fantastic. She would like to see a more exploration in the future on community space and bringing focus on the drive down Arapahoe. She said it would be interesting to follow how the building would be reused and transformed into a community space. She would be interested in seeing how the JCC could relate to the revitalized Power Plant and the area itself further developed. • M. Schexnyder said he also appreciated the work done for the presentation which created a clear and compelling vision of what this location could become. He was encouraged by the level of case study done. He said he would be interested in hearing more about the case studies presented and if any of them are doing anything unique and something that made that project better for the community. In addition, he questioned what some of the policy or funding mechanism that would need to be done before this project could be implemented on any level. • L. Folkerts said she also enjoyed the presentation. The emphasis on keeping the existing power station would be important. It is a unique building but also an important part of the history and growth of the city. It would be a shame to see that disappear. She liked the idea presented of using the side of it as an outdoor movie theater. • L. Folkerts gave a summary that the board in general loved the presentation. A clear and compelling vision was given for this area. The board was excited to see how the detail of these buildings would progress and move forward. The board like the idea of creating a community space and gateway on this side of the city. The reuse and preservation of the existing building seems appropriate. The precedent giving during the presentation with the REI building in Denver was applicable. Key Issue #2: How could the student presentation be improved? • L. Folkerts gave a summary and said that the board would like to see a larger overall plan showing how this project could happen. This would involve a comprehensive phasing plan that would include all the planning phases and integrate early phases of remediation, early types of uses that could take place in conjunction with the other planning stages that would occur later. This would allow for a transition over a long period of time that allows for community engagement and buy-in and hopefully funding which could be more bite-sized. The phasing during the early stages would need to look at how the assets are projected so they would be there during future planning. And if there are any projects such as connecting paths or remediation strategies, those could begin earlier. Key Issue #3: Do these concepts offer contributions to achieving citywide goals from the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP)? • L. Folkerts agreed that this project could have a large contribution to the BVCP. In addition, the BVCP should be modified to take full advantage of whatever opportunities that may not already be laid out. • M. Schexnyder said the energy production aspect, in 20-30 years, may be completely different than today. It could be more transparent or integrated into this site. There may be a technology use for this site that we may not be thinking about. He suggested that some of the energy use may remain, yet that is unknown at this time, but it makes this project exciting. • B. Ash liked the long-term remediation idea in working with the phasing. She suggested not waiting for the power plant to stop operating or transitioning before beginning work on the remediation, landscaping, and parks and recreation surrounding the site. The building could become a working building providing energy but at the same time giving a benefit to the community. • T. Bryan suggested the city explore acquiring conservation easements on everything that would need to be remediated or restored. He said the biggest question would be what the liability is surrounding remediation. • D. Ensign said that the BVCP discusses renewal energy and environmental stewardship, and this project will touch on those issues and will align with the BVCP. He noticed that “adaptive reuse was not mentioned in the BVCP, therefore during the next major update of the BVCP, that may need to be considered and added. He said that he had visited old plants around the world that had been readapted and found them inspiring. • L. Folkerts asked the board members their opinion regarding the preservation of the existing smokestacks. She thought that keeping at least one or two of them would be good depending on the difficulty of the preservation. • R. Bilocerkowycz said he would like to see all or some of them remain. They could be capped or filled. Even if they were built into the new architecture or a monument made, homage should be paid to them and the type of fuel they once produced. 5. BOARD MATTERS None to discuss. 6. CALENDAR CHECK 7. ADJOURNMENT The Design Advisory Board adjourned the meeting at 6:03 p.m. APPROVED BY ______ ___ Board Chair ________09/08/2021_________________ DATE