Loading...
2 - Draft Minutes - Planning Board - November 6, 2008 CI'T'Y OF BOULDER PLANNING BOARD ACTION MINUTES November 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: 303-441-3043). Minutes and streaming audio are also available on the web at: http://www.bouldercolorado. ov/ PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: KC Becker Bill Ilolicky Elise Jones Willa Jo}mson Phil Shull, Chair Adrian Sopher PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Andrew Shoemaker STAFF PRESENT: David Gehr, Assistant City Attorney Karl Guiler, AICP Plazmer Il Katie Knapp, Civil Engineer II Ruth McI-Ieyser, Executive Director of Community Planning Robert Ray, Land Use Review Manager Paula Weber, Administrative Specialist III Mary Ann Weideman, Administrative Services Manager 1. CALL TO ORDER Chair, P. Shull, declared a quorum at 6:05 p.m. and the following business was conducted. 2. APPROVAL, OF MINU'fF,S No minutes were scheduled for approval. 3. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION No one from the public addressed the board. 4. DISCUSSION OF DISPOSITIONS, PLANNING BOARD CALL-UPS Call-up items: Broadway Reconstruction F}oodplain Development Permit (LUR200$- 00090). Item was not called up by the Planning Board. I ACTION ITEMS A. Consideration of a Planning Board recommendation to City Council of an ordinance amending Sections 10-3-10 and 10-3-11, B.R.C. 1981, to eliminate the need for new rental license inspections when a change occurs from the ownership of rental housing units by one or more individuals to ownership by a limited Liability company under specified conditions and setting forth related details. Case Manager: Maly Ann Weideman, Administrative Sel-vices Manager M. Weideman presented the item to the board. Public Hearing Sheila Horton, Building Rental Housing Association Y.O. Box 17606, Boulder, spoke in support of the staff recommendation. Board Discussion There was no board discussion on this item. Motion On a motion by W. Johnson, seconded by A. Sopher, the I'lannin~ Board recommended (6-U-, A. Shoemaker absent) chat C'Ity COUnCII at)nrove an orduzance amending; Sections 10-3-10 and 10-3-1 I, [3.R.C. 1981, to eliminate the need fir new rental llcel7se 117spCCtlOlls 4Vhe17 a change occurs 11.0111 the; Ownership ol~rental housinh units by one or mare individuals to ownership by a limited liability company under spcciticd conditions and setting f~>1-th related details InC01'})OI'atlnl; the st£111 ]]lelnOralldllll7 dated November 6, 2007, aS fn7d117gS Of fact. B. Public hearing and consideration of the following items related to the Boulder Mobile Manor redevelopment project located at 2037 Valmont Road - a 204,429 square foot (4.69 acre) property within the RH-4, High Density Residential zoning district: l . Consideration of an ordinance to permit useable open space (for the purposes of pel-mitting the proposed density) and parking within the public rights-of--way to be included in the site coning calculations. The ordinance is requested as a result of the required dedication of public rights-of way through the property connecting Valmont Road with Arnett Road; and, 2. Site Review, Preliminary Plat, and Use Review applications (shown respectively) #LUR2008-00007, #LLJR2008-00008, and #LUR2O08-0(1(109, to redevelop the existing mobile home park of 66 mobile horz7e units with 79 new fixed-foundation homes (attached and detached), two mixed-use buildings, and a community building on the site. 1'he proposal includes a height modification to permit 39.5 foot tall structures along Valmont, setback modifications predominantly within the development, and a parking reduction of 2%>. "1'he Use Review entails approximately 8,423 square feet of office/commercial space on the ground floors of the new buildings along Valmont. Applicant/Property Owner: Boulder Housing Partners Case Manager: Karl Guiler, A1CP Planner lI Motion Oll a 111Ut1011 1)y F',. Jones, seconded by A. Sopher, the 1'lannin~ Board recommended (G-0. A. Shocnull:er abtiellt) th21f 13UUldel' NlUblle MaIlUI' 1'CdeyeloT)Illellt pl'U~eet bC CO11tIIlUed l0 December 4. 2008. C. Continuation of Site Review application #LUR2008-00012, 1 S80 Canyon. The proposal is for a new four-story, 54-foot tall, mixed-use building of 27,942 square feet, which would include 14 residential units, on-street retail space facing Canyon, and 18 off=street parking spaces within a subtel-ranean parking structure and on the grade level of the structure. The development is proposed on a corner lot of approximately l 1,122 square feet zoned Downtown Five (DT-5). Modifications are required to permit the height above 35-feet, an additional story above three-stories, and a 0 foot rear yard setback, where 1S feet is the code standard. The applicant also requests vested rights pursuant to Section 9-2-19, B.R.C. 1981. Applicant/Property Owner: Brian C. Joseph Case Manager: Karl Guiler, AICP Planner II Staff Presentation K. Guiler presented the item to the board. Applicant/Owner Presentation Brian Joseph presented the item to the board. Public Hearing No one from the public addressed the board. Board Discussion P. Shull said with the west side parking removed, the space is much better. E. Jones was happy to see a non flat roof and added that she liked the curved roo£ She also recognized the improvements to the front and the corner. P. Shull was concerned about the south set back, the twenty foot front set back, parking (specifically for retail traffic), quality of open space, the east elevation, the west elevation, and the foul-th floor. W. Johnson was concerned about the cornel- at 1 Gth and Canyon. She liked the recessed third floor originally shown in the concept plan and was concerned that it has since been changed in the site review plans. P. Shull said the 20 foot setback is appropriate. He added that having more room on Canyon is healthy. A. Sopher questioned the commercial use for this property. He said parking will be an issue with any commercial space. A. Sopher said the planting of trees is essential on Canyon. P. Shull was concerned about spill over parking. K. Becker said her concern with parking is the effect to the suI-roundill:g neighborhood. W. Johnson said the zones are set up to make parking a little uncomfortable. She agreed that Canyon can set a psychological barrier if you are going to park in a structure downtown. P. Shull said the garage door seems out of scale for this area and suggested that glazing or wood could make it more attractive. B. Ilolicky suggested that an aluminum lighted door, glass panels, or metal panels, would give more of a pedestrian rhythm. 3 Mr. Davis said they would explore that option. He asked if there was any leeway for the door to be smaller. He said it is feasible for the garage to be much smaller given the limited use and controlled nature of the garage. B. Holicky suggested a condition to reduce the size of the garage door or drive to 18 or 20 feet wide and design the door differently with inset glass or aluminum panels. A. Sopher agreed. P. Shull suggested that this should not be a coifing door, but rather a high speed door. Mr. llavis agreed. B. Ilvlicky suggested that the applicant consider using another color to break up the mass of the east elevation. A. Sopher said that they have done a good job with the west elevation. E. Jones said the west wall is not attractive. A. Sopher said the project is limited due to the zero Iot line. W. Johnson agreed with E. Jones. She suggested adding a condition to have the second and third floor step back three feet so that windows could be added. She added that if it is a five foot setback to the middle panel then there would still he some variation. P. Shull said because it is on a zero lot line, it does not mean that there can't be a window, it is just a very expensive window. Mr. Davis said That with ere to three there can not be any windows. B. I-Iolicky said ifthe masses were more integrated, the project would work better. E. Jones said it would make the building a lot nicer to have the views to the west. B. Hoiicky agrc;ed with E. Jones. A. Sopher said the reason the south side looks better is because the windows, trellises, and handrails make it more lxuman. W. Johnson agreed with A. Sophcr's and B. Holicky's comments that the architecture could be more integrated on the south and north facades. She saw the fenestration working well there. She said the issue of having more light is a good reason to have an alley or light there and said a mid block break could be a nice amenity as well. K. Becker weed with W. Johnson. P. Shull said there is merit in A. Sopher and B. Iloliclcy's suggestions for some integration of both brick and stucco at the outside skin and lighter stucco at the setback portion. He also supported more human elements with trellises, balconies and windows to create an off set and more interesting elevation. K. Becker liked the curved feature of the forth floor but questioned if there should be a fourth floor. E. Jones questioned whether the project could be this big and have nice transitions. K. Becker said the church across Canyon is less compelling than the buildings that are next to it. A. Sopher said the architects have done a lot to step down the building in a fairly considerate way to the neighbors to the cast. W. Johnson was pleased with the changes and the increased subtlety of the fourth floor. She suggested refining the corner of 16'h and Canyon to make it more elegant. She added that this block is appropriate for the fourth floor with a couple of contingencies. B. Ilolicky said the transition from 16`h Street to the north seems reasonable. IIe understood the concern of blocking the views, but did not think that was a reason to deny the project. P. Shull said the form is I~iirly innovative and added that the safe bet is to stay at three floors. A. Sopher said if the method oI• articulation of the roof at the upper right image of the northwest corner view came down and broke that mass it would create a more transparent and delicate feeling of the western side. W. Johnson said the entire western side needs to have windows. She also agreed with A. Sopher's comments about the roof. 4 P. Shull said glaring would be an amenity for the developers and buyers. He said if the board placed a condition to push those walls back, we do not know what we would get. W. Johnson said she would propose that it he a square foot reduction. P. Shull understood that it could be an affordable reduction in square footage of about 600 s.f. B. Holicky was not thrilled with the reduction in square footage. He was concerned that getting rid of the three feet could significantly change the building. He added that there are plenty of buildings with little or no windows that arc considered to be great architecture. IIe preferred giving the applicant direction and letting the applicant decide on the best design. I-Ie suggested that the applicant work with the Planning Director to add fenestration, detailing or visual interest to the west elevation. Mr. Davis said the applicant would be comfortable working with staff to make the changes that are needed to make the Planning Board comfortable. He said the suggestions made by the Planning Board, as a whole, are acceptable. However, he said the applicant may not he willing to reduce the square footage. He added that there is a real limitation on the percentage of window space that is allowable. W. Johnson asked if there is advice from other board members about the two story element of the corner of 16`'' and Canyon being harsh. A. Sopher said the corner has a lot to do with the height of the three-story brick mass. He said there seems to be an erosion of the mass on the second floor, which calls into question the mass at the ground floor. W. Johnson asked about the size of the mechanical units. Mr. Davis said the units are modest and that they are difficult to see them from the street for quite a ways, as they are currently modeled. B. Ilolieky asked if the model is the unit, not the screen. Mr. Davis said the model is the unit and not the screen. K. Becker asked how tall the units will be above the fouz-th floor. Mr. Davis replied, up to the five foot height. B. Holicky preferred not having a screen. E. Jones suggested that staff will work with the applicant to come up with a solution with the least visual impact. K. Becker asked if the Planning Board could require a green roof. K. Guiler said if the board could find that the green roof satisfies the site review criteria, then the board could require it, otherwise it is not a requirement. W. Johnson suggested adding a condition of some modest artwork on the site. E. Jones said there needs to be a good pedestrian scale. D. Gehr noted that the comprehensive plan states that the city can encourage public and private projects to have an art focus and incorporate public art. P. Shull summarized concerns of the board: . On the east elevation, the Planning Board advised the applicant to work on the garage door to narrow it to its fw~ctional limit to no more than twenty feet, with a commercial store front quality panelircd garage door. 2. On the west elevation, the Planning Board advised the applicant to work on the west elevation from top to bottom, review integration of materials, adding visual interest on the entire west elevation and leaving the details up to the Planning Director. 3. The Planning Board encouraged the applicant to incorporate modest public art in the northern open space. 4. The Planning Board advised the applicant to incorporate education about parking facilities in all of their advertising, and be mindful in the way which they advertise the parking. 5 B. Holicky said this is a well designed building and that part of that is the fourth floor. He said • the fourth floor is exceptionally interesting. He noted that if other people develop a fourth floor . in the same zone, on the same side of Canyon, should look to this quality of design as an example. Motion On a motion by I'. Shull, sccondecl by VV. Joiu><son, the Plannln~ Board at)t)roved (4-2. E. Jones and K. Becker opposed and A. Shoemalcrr was absent) Site Review application #LLIR2UU~-(l0U 12, ti)r the property located at 1 ~~0 Canyon, incorporating the staff memorandum and site review criteria checklist dated November E, 2008 as findings of fact, subject to the following, conditions of approval: Under condition 2 a) add: The final architectural plans shall he revised to include: i. A reduction in width to 20 feet or less for the garage door on the east elevation. "the garage door shall have a panelireci commercial storeti•ont ug alit ii. -Revised elevation of the west side of the building that adds fenestration and architectural features that acid visual interest to that elevation. Under condition 2 c) add: To the extent practical the applicant shall t)rovidc some form of public art. Add a new condition 5: The Applicant shall develop and implement a parkins; managerllcnt and edlll;atlUllill ])Tall that IS Illtendl'd l0 111101"lll OCLllpalltS and visitors ot~ the parking and alternative mode options that arc available to the site. 6. ]VIA"TIERS FRONT THE PLANNING BOARD, PLANNING DIRECTOR, AND CITY ATTORNEY The board discussed plans for a holiday party for the Planning Board Inetnbers. R. Ray gave the board an updated on the Nitro project. The board reviewed the calendar noting that A. Sopher will chair the December 4 meeting and that E. Jones and B. Holicky will be absent on November 20. 7. DEBRIEF/AGENDA CHECK S. ADJOURNMENT The Planning Board adjourned the meeting at 9:40 p.m. APPROVED BY Board Chair DATE 6