2 - Draft Minutes - Planning Board - March 06, 2008CITY OF BOULDER
PLANNING BOARD ACTION MINUTF,S
March 6, 2008
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: 303-44]-3043). Minutes and streaining audio are also available on
the web at: htto://www.bouldcrcolorado.gov/
PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT:
Elise Jones, Chair
Willa Johnson
Mdrew Shoemaker
Phil Shull
Adrian Sopher
I3i11 Holicky
PLANiVING BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT:
Richard Sosa
STATT PRESENT:
Micl~elle Allen, Housing Plamier
Juliet Bonnell, Administrative Specialist
David Gelu, Assistant City Attomey
Karl Guiler. Plamier
Ruth McHeyser, Aeting Pla~ming Director
Robert Ray, Land Use Review Manager
Susan Ricl~stone, Acting Long Range Planning Manager
t. CALL TO ORDER
Chair, E. Jones, declared a quorum at 6:05 p.m. and the following business was conducted.
2. APPROVAL OT MINUTES
No ~ninutes were scheduled for approval.
3. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
4. DISCUSSIOlY OF DISPOSITIONS, PLANNING BOARD CALL-UPS
Neither Use Review approval for Cosmos Pizza at 1325 Broadway #] 08 nor 927 7"' Street
were called up.
5. ACTION ITEMS
A. Public hearing and consideration of tlie following items related to a 35,249 square foot (0.81 acre)
property located at 1435 Cherryvale Road iv Bouldcr County:
1. Request to change the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP) Plam~ing Area from
Area IIB to IIA, and;
2. A~mexation and Initial Zoning of RR-1, Rura] Residential.
npplica»UOwner: E. [Adams Miller, III
Case Manager: Karl Guiler
St~ff Presentation
K. Gui-er presented the item to the board.
W. Johnson asked if other properties i~~ [his area have expressed interest in armexation.
K. Guiler replied tl~at there is one neighboring property currently going through an emergency
annexation and that he believes that others may be interested as well.
Applicant/Owner Presentation
Adams Miller, owner, presented the item to the board. He thanked staff for their work, but also noted the
length and difficulty of the annexation process.
E. Jones inquired why the annexation process takes so long when the city supports annexations such as
this one.
K. Guiler responded that this specific annexation has moved fairly quickly and smoothly, compared with
other annexations. He noted that some of the delay is caused by difficulty in fitting items onto the
Planning Board calendar.
D. Gehr mentioned that this annexation has paved the way for other neighboring properties whose
atmexation process will probably come forward in a much quicker manner and there will hopefully be a
continual momentum in bringing these to the board faster.
A. Sopher inquired about multiple property annexations.
D. Gehr noted that when attempting multiple property annexations certain infrastructure needs to be put
in place. The affect of the high hazard flood ways is an issue because county flood regulations vary from
city high hazard flood regulations_ How to finance the infrastructure that will serve the various properties
is also an issue. There are many factors which complicate multiple property annexations and slow down
the process.
A. Shoemaker noted that certain simple annexation cases (such as this one) should be expedited (and fit
into the Planning Board calendar schedule sooner) since they are quick items.
R. Ray mentioned that often the scheduling is difficult due to staff's capacity to handle new projects, but
it is duly noted that the board is willing to add quick items such as this one to their schedule.
Public Hearing
No one spoke to this item.
Board Discussion
Motion
On a motion by A. Sopher, seconded by W. Johnson, the Planning Board recommended (6-0, R. Sosa
absent) that City Council approve the annexation request and initial zoning of a 35,249 square foot (0.81
acre) property located at 1435 Cherrvvale Road in Boulder County incorporating the staff memorandum
dated March 6 2008 and subject to the following conditions of approval.
Staff proposes the following conditions of annexation that will be incorporated into a draft Annexation
Agreement, if supported by Planning Board:
1. Requirements. Applicant will be required to do the following as follows:
a. Prior to first reading of the annexation ordinance before City Council, the Applicant
shall:
i) Dedicate, at no cost to the city, a flood conveyance easement for that portion of the
Property which is in the conveyance zone of the 100-year flood zone of South Boulder
Creek in a location approved by the Director of Public Works.
ii) Sign and file an application, and pay the applicable fees, for inclusion in the
Boulder Municipal Subdistrict of the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy llistrict.
iii) Pay the then applicable Stonn Water and Flood Management Utility Plant Investment
Fee.
h. Prior to utility connection, the /Applicant sha11~.
i) Yay the then applicable Water Plant Investment Fee.
ii) Pay the then applicable Wastewater Plant Investment Fee.
iii) Pay all applicable utility connection and inspection fees.
2. Right-of--way improvements. Applicant agrees to participate, or enter into an agreement to
participate in its pro rata share of future right-of--way improvements to Cherryvale Road,
including paved shoulder improvements, as shown on [he Transportation Master Plan.
3. Connection to Citv Utilities. Within ] 80 days of the effective date of the annexation ordinance,
the Applicant shall connect to city water and sewer.
4. Disconnection of Septic System. Within 180 days of the efTective date of the annexation
ordinance, the Applicant shall abandon the existing septic system in accordance with Boulder
County Health Department and State of Colorado regulations and connect to city wastewater
service.
5. Drainaee. The Applicant shall convey drainage from the Property in a historic manner that does
not materially and adversely affect abutting property owners.
6. Waiver of Vested Rights. The Applicant waives any vested property rights that may have arisen
under Boulder County jurisdiction. The Applicant acknowledges that nothing contained herein
may be construed as a waiver of the citys police powers or the power to zone and regulate land
uses for the benefit of the genera] public.
7. Zonine. The Property shall be annexed ro the city with an initial zoning classification of
Residential Rural - 1 (RR-1), and except as set forth herein, shall be subject to all of the rights and
restrictions associated with that zoning.
B. Public hearing and consideration of Concept Plan Review and Comment application
#LUR2007-00084, The Residences at Twenty Ninth Street, located on the northwest comer of [he
intersection of 30th Street and Walnut Avenue (0 30'x' Street). The proposal is for the development of
an existing parking lot site with a new four-story 55-foot tall residential building containing
244 rental units and subterranean parking. The site is approximately 3.55 acres and is zoned
BR-I (Business-Regional I).
Applicants/Property Owners: Lou De1laCava & Darren Fisk
Case Manager: Karl Guiler
Staff Presentation
K. Guiler presented the item to the board.
P. Shull asked about the Twenty Ninth Street guidelines and if they applied to this project.
K. Guiler replied that this project location is excluded from those guidelines.
P. Shull mentioned that these guidelines should be followed by the applicant due to the project's
proximity to the Twenty Ninth Street development.
K. Guiler noted that he has encouraged the applicant to consider these guidelines so that their project is
compatible with the surrounding area.
E. Jones asked who made the decision to exclude the guidelines From this project location.
K. Guiler didn't know.
D. Gehr noted that compatibility with the surrounding area is a condition within site review, so these
guidelines could be included as some type of condition.
A. Sopher was confused about the regulations regarding FAR, unit count, and density as they affect this
site.
3
K. Guiler replied that site review pulls all properties together that were approved under the Twenty Ninth
Street blanket approval but you need to look at whether its going to apply to an individual site or the
whole site review area.
B. Holicky asked if this would need to be a site review amendment.
K. Guiler replied that this would be a site review amendment. K. Guiler noted that a site review
amendment was a condition of approval for the Twenty Ninth Street development.
E. Jones confirmed that there is plenty of housing potential on this site.
Applicant/Owner Presentation
Lou De1laCava, Paul Kephart, and Darren Fisk presented the item to the board.
W. Johnson asked if the permanently affordable units will be individually owned.
L. De1laCava responded that this hasn't been officially decided yet.
W. Johnson asked about the shade analysis of the courtyards that they'd done.
P. Kephart demonstrated the shade versus light on the project site during wintertime when there is the
least amount of sunlight.
P. Shull asked about the materiality in the courtyards.
P. Kephart replied that they are proposing brick, glass, stucco, cement, decorative CMU and that a color
palette is still being detemvned. The walls will include brick. Shading and outboard detailing are being
discussed.
B. Holicky asked what the grade change is across the length of the building.
P. Kephart replied that it is 2 to 3 feet.
Public Hearing
No one spoke to this item.
Board Discussion
A. Sopher asked what the shadow requirement was for this property in relation to the north property line.
He asked if there was any known traffic problem in this location.
K. Guiler noted that because it's in solar access area three, there are no shadow requirements. As far as
traffic, more research will be done at the time of site review, but currently no problems are obvious.
W. Johnson asked about the tree lawn on the west side of the sidewalk on 30'x'.
K. Guiler replied that a detached tree lawn would he required here.
TDR (transfer of density)
P. Shull liked the grouping of the density on this property. He wanted to understand if there is a
downside to not having residential scattered tluoughout this site.
E. Jones confirmed that this clustering of residential is not precluding having other units of housing in the
same area.
W. Johnson clarified that it's not required that these units be rental waits.
A. Sopher appreciated the smaller unit size and that they're rental units.
A. Shoemaker asked if there was anything that precluded decreasing the number of units and increasing
the square footage.
D. Gehr mentioned that the board could require a maximum unit size during site review.
K. Guiler noted that down the line this might require a site review amendment.
E. Jones found the TDR appropriate, but hoped that this wouldn't be the only housing at Twenty Ninth
Street.
Summary- the board didn't (rave any issues with TDR.
Number of units/FAR
W. Johnson was concerned about the pedestrian experience along the approach from 30'x' and Target and
along 30'x' Street and the corner of Walnut and 30'x'
A. Sopher was concerned about the courtyards.
A. Shoemaker liked the idea of having the courtyard and thought it would be successful.
4
B. Holicky didn't have a problem with the proposed number of units/FAR and suggested moving on to
other things since this issue is interrelated with other topics on their list for discussion.
Mass and scale
A. Sopher wasn't convinced about the sunlight and usability of the courtyards. He believed that breaking
up of [he mass and scale along 301° Street was good. He wasn't too concerned about the horizontal
breaking up of the buildings. He was accepting of what has been presented so far. A. Sopher liked the
breaks in the buildings presented in the original site plan- he missed that they were taken away in the
revised site plan.
E. Jones was a little concerned about the courtyard and its integration with [he surrounding areas due [o
its mass and scale. Shc proposed that the higher floors could be setback to alleviate the lack of
integration.
B. Holicky mentioned that they're reaching the 55 foot limit, so he'd like to see more details on how the
roof will look. He suggested having variety on the roof (not just a flat roof line).
P. Shull noted that a building of this size is difficult to think about (outside of a university or city owned
building). This would be a large rental property - a type that hasn't been seen in Boulder before. He
didn't like the protruding stairways and he'd like to see separation of some kind. He suggested defining
the pedestrian access points in some way and increasing transparency, particularly from the 30°i Street
side. He would like to see more undulation Co the roof line instead of a flat roof. He thought the building
had promise and liked it more than what is currently on 30°i Street. He doesn't want it to look like a
rental property. He'd Tike to see something included that will add street life to this area, as well as more
articulation.
B. Holicky thought the mass and scale was appropriate for this site. The design and presentation of this
building is critical so his coimnents mostly fall under architecture discussion.
Summary - t{ie board noted that mass and scale are interconnected to the other issues. If done properly,
the proposed mass and scale is acceptable to the board. Planning Board liked the breaks that A. Sopher
mentioned and would like to .ree them brought back.
Corner of 30'x' and Walnut
W. Johnson found this comer acceptable except for the void of penetration along the first floor where
she'd love to see a coffee shop or some sort of connection to the street life.
E. Jones questioned what would bring people to walk along this comer since there are access points to
the building elsewhere.
A. Sopher brought up what would happen when the Transit Village is built in this area. He was
disappointed to see no commercial space along this site. He would like to see some sort of redevelopment
occur here, especially with the Transit Village in progress. He couldn't determine along-term way of
handling this corner that would be appropriate.
A. Shoemaker wouldn't object to some commercial endeavors here that would add to the street life.
B. Holicky agreed that a coffee shop would be good for the street life, but thought that a large enough
group of rental space is important to support this. He would like to see more welcoming architectural
design He suggested a less ominous and squished design.
Summary the corner could use some more work and be more im~iting. d coffee shop to add to the street
li/e would improve this corner, but isn't absolutely necessary.
Courtyards
A. Sopher was concerned about the proposed trees in pots and their longevity since they'll be in shadow
most of the year. He was curious to see how the landscaping and hardscaping of the courtyard will pan
out.
B. Holicky noted that the main issue of the courtyard is livability and not feeling like you're on display.
He suggested that there should be some separation with trellises, the design should include opacity and
separation/privacy of the pool area. Ile didn't oppose the size and scale.
W. Johnson was concemed about the sunlight factor and didn't think that the courtyard needed to be
huge. Shc thought the applicant was headed in [he right direction.
P. Shull wanted to better understand the difference between the active and passive courtyards. He
suggested making the passive space a four season reflective space like a winter garden.
5
E. Jones was inclined to be concerned about the sunlight but noted that the applicant is pursuing this
concern. She encouraged having more vegetation and less hardscape. She was not sure who will live
here, but wondered what amenities/appeal the passive courtyard (the one without the pool) will have.
P. Shull wondered about the age range of the population that will be living renting here.
Summary -Planning Board expressed some concern about the shade to the courtyard. The board felt that
the applicant is headed in the righl direction, but sonze.fine tuning is needed.
General architecture
B. Holicky mentioned that the building feels compartmentalized. The architecture, colors, variety, and
materials in the first site plan were more appealing than the revised ones. He felt the revised plan
followed downtown design guidelines more which isn't necessary given this project's location. He
suggested using more playful, whimsical architecture and less monotonous color and material.
W. Johnson also preferred the livelier colors in the first site plan. She liked the elements (such as the
stairwells) that were the full height of the building. She suggested including patios and more
permeability. She would like to see the ability to walk all the way around the building on a sidewalk that
also connects to the parking area.
A. Shoemaker liked the division of the building (30'x' Street looking north).
A. Sopher also preferred the massing and organization(detail from the first site plan submittal.
P. Shull agreed with the preference for the first site plan- he found it friendlier and more residential.
There was a courseness/clunkiness/randomness about the firs[ model that he liked. The newer model
seems too precise and cold.
E. Jones preferred the colors and playfulness of the first submittal. She suggested separating the
buildings with more permeable entrances and trying to make the building look a little different than other
Boulder buildings.
Summary -the board preferred the aesthetics of the /first site plan submittal. Planning Board suggested
making the building Ioolr unique and different from other Boulder buildings.
Permeability
P. Shull challenged them to provide more light penetration from above and the sides. He suggested
allowing passersby to look into the interior buildinb especially along 30'x'.
W. Johnson suggested making connections outside the building meaningful to the outside space of the
building and to Macy's and Target.
A. Sopher preferred the permeability of the first submittal. Because this is such a long building along
30'x' Street he suggested adding some trees/plantings/increased setbacks along 30°i.
Summary - the hoard agreed with the above thoughts about adding more permeability, particularly along
30rb Street.
Connection to 29°i Street
W. Johnson tried to imagine the logical ]ink of moving foot traffic through this new space. She'd like to
see a more obvious connection to 29°i Street.
Comrection to 30°i Street
A. Sopher wasn't keen on 30'x' Street being an entrance to these units He did want to see the outside
private space enhanced.
B. Holicky suggested adding gardens along 30'x' Street to tie the private space into the public street. He
liked the vertical integration of the building and the street of the first site plan.
P. Shull suggested a strong connection to 30'" Street. It stems logical to have a bus stop along 30°i Street.
He commented on functional com~ections in this area.
E. Jones agreed that the wits should relate to [he street in some way.
Sunvn~ary-the board agreed that there should be a strong connection between the units and 30'x' Street.
Affordability
W. Johnson was pleased with how the units are currently set up.
A. Sopher would support whatever the applicant must do in order for affordable housing to be on site.
6
B. Holicky disagreed. He thought underserved segments of the population could be served off-site
instead of with on-site housing.
D. Gehr noted that these units could be affordable or other types of housing rentals.
P. Shull noted that it would be great to have some affordable housing on site, but it wouldn't be a deal
breaker for him.
A. Shoemaker would like to see affordable housing on site.
E. Jones thought this would be a great place for workforce rental housing which should be affordable.
Summary- the majority of the board would prefer affordable housing on site, if it can be done.
Gcnera] Sustainability
F.. Jones is looking forward to seeing the roof options during site review.
P. Kephart complimented the board and thaiilccd them for their range of comments. He inquired about
their commments on massing. Specifically, he asked if the applicant was treating the guidelines too strictly.
He heard from the board that whimsy and flexibility in the design should be added even if it might bend
the guidelines a bit.
A. Sopher replied that the applicant still needs to sell the project and it has to look good. The guidelines
must still be met, but there is more flexibility on the board than is implied by the BVRC guidelines.
L. De1laCava appreciated the board's comments, but was wary of creating a Dr. Suess-ish bright,
whimsical building that will be a fad and go out of style.
A. Shoemaker prefers timeless design and noted that there are timeless designs that are lively and don't
look just like everything else in Boulder.
L. De1laCava questioned the board about whether they thought there was a demand for the housing units
that were being proposed.
P. Shull replied that there is a market for their housing units.
E. Jones clarified that she thought affordable housing should be located on site in order to serve the
population that will he working nearby (and won't be able to afford market rate units).
A. Shoemaker complimented the applicant's presentation. The board agreed that the applicant's 3-D
building presentation was helpful in envisioning their proposal.
Motion
No action by the board is required.
Planning Board recessed at 8:59 p.m. and returned at 9:08 p.m.
C. Public hearing and consideration of a recommendation to City Council on an ordinance to permit retail
uses, subject to limitations, for a parcel of land gcncrally located at 2691 30th Sheet that is presently
zoned business transitional.
Case Manager: Susan Richstone
Staff Presentation
S. Richstone presented the item to the board and noted that the applicant couldn't be present, but was
eager to move forward.
P. Shull asked about conditions that would cause cessation to the rephase and why an addition to the
building would do that.
D. Gehr replied that they were trying not to spur redevelopment. The purpose of allowing these
additional uses would broaden the scope of people who could rent the property and keep the revenue
stream flowing wrti] the city is in a position to put Bluff Street through.
A. Sopher inquired about why they're making this so narrow instead of doing a feasibility study.
S. Richstone responded that a feasibility study is on the transportation department's 2008 work program,
but even after this, it doesn't mean that money will be in place to make this happen.
D. Gehr noted that this is just to keep productive use of the building until redevelopment of the property
that's consistent with the plan happens.
7
Public Hearing
No one spoke to this item.
Board Discussion
A. Sopher didn't hesitate to support this due to [he immediate need of [he applicant, but he did express
some concern.
E. Jones noted that people are allowed to move forward with rezoning and this particular property is
more impacted by TVAP than others.
S. Richstone mentioned that this property is quite unique and the only one in a situation like this.
Nothing else like this will be brought forward.
W. Johnson didn't express any concern.
Motion
On a motion by W. Johnson, seconded by P. Shull, the Planning Board recommended (6-0 R. Sosa
absent) that City Council adopt the proposed special ordinance, deletine section 1 B as recommended to
allow retail uses on the property at 2691 30'x' Street incorporatine the staff memorandum dated March 6,
2008 as findinQS of fact.
6. DISCUSSION I'T'EM
A. Discussion and preparation For the joint study session with City Council.
R. McHeyser went over the organization of the notebooks for the joint City Council/Planning Board
study session. The purpose of the study session is to go over council's list from their retreat initiatives
and finalize the 2008 work program.
The board agreed that they should speak with one voice to the council to provide their feedback and
agreed to discuss the major topics this evening so that they could reach consensus on as many issues as
possible. Any topics that they cannot form opinions on without reading the materia]s, they will email E.
Jones and P. Shull with their comments so that they can create a summary for the board to share with
council They will agree on a spokesperson to express the board's view on each of the issues.
7. MATTERS FROM THE PLANNING BOARD, PLANNING DIRECTOR,
AND CITY ATTORNEY
B. Holicky noted that the applicant's presentation for Item 513 went on too long.
Other board members felt similarly, but found the dialogue that occurred acceptable.
The Planning Board retreat is scheduled for Saturday, May 3.
R. McHeyser noted an east Arapahoe annexation that is moving forward quickly.
8. DEBRIEF/AGENDA CHECK
9. ADJOURNMENT
The Planning Board adjourned the meeting at 10:50 p.m.
APPROVED BY
Board Chair
DATE
3