2 - Draft Minutes - Planning Board - November 6, 2008 CITY OI' BOULllER
1'i_,ANNING BOARD ACT[UN MINUTES
November G, 2008
1777 Broadway, Council C'hambcrs
A pennancnt 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.houldercolorado.~ov/
PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESF,N'1':
KC Becker
Bill llolicky
Elise Jones
Wllla JO}717ti011
Phil Shull, Chair
Adrian Sopher
PLANNING BUARD MI?MBERS ABSENT:
Andrew Shoemaker
STAFF PRESENT:
David (_~chr, Assistant City Attorney
Karl Guiler, A[CP Manner II
Katie Knapp, Civil Engineer I1
Ruth McHcyser, Executive Director of Community Planning
Robert Ray, Land Use Review Manager
Paula Weber, Administrative Specialist 111
Miry /1nn ~'~~eideman, Aclmillititrative Service Manager
1. (':11,1,'1'0 ORU1!:R
('hair, Y. Shutt, declared a quorum at 6:05 p.m. and the f~llluwing business was
conducted.
2. APPRUVAI, Oh MINUTES
No minutes were scheduled for approval.
3. PtJBLIC PAR'I'[Cil'A'1'lON
N~, unc (i~oln the public addressed tl7c board.
4. UISCUtiSION 0H' DISY0ti1"1'IUNS, PLA~1NIi\G BOARD CALL,-t!I'S
(='all-up items: Broadway Reconstruction Floodplain Dcvelcaptnent Permit (Lt%LZ200R-
00090). Item was nc~t called up by lhc. Planning Board.
1
ACTION I'T'EMS
A. Consideration of a Planning Board recommendation to City Council of an ordinance
amending Sections t 0-3-10 and I 0-3-I 1, B.R.C. 1981, to eliminate the need fur 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: Mary Ann Weideman, Administrative Services Manager
M. Weideman presented the item to the board.
Public Hearing
Sheila Morton, Building Rental Housing Association P.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 Plannm« Board recommended (6-0-
A. Shoemaker absent) that City Council approve an ordinance anlerldlll;; Sections 10-3-10 and
10-3-I 1, I3.R.C. 1981, to eliminate the, need for new rental license inspcetions when a change
occurs from the ownership of rental housing units bZonc. or nwrc individuals to ownership by a
1111111CC1 llablllty COlnpally Undel' Sl?eCilled Cc)IIdItIOnS and setting fol-th related details
incorporatinr~ the staff~menu)randum dated November 6 2007 as findinrs of tact
B. Public hearing and consideration of the following items related to the Boulder Mobile
Manor redevelopment project located at 2637 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 pwposes of
permitting the proposed density) and parking within the public rights-ot=way to be
included in the site Toning calculations. Tl1e ordinance is requested as a result of the
required dedication of public rights-of--way through the property connecting Valmont
Road with A1~1ett Road; and,
2. Site Review, Preliminary Plat, and Usc Review applications (shown respectively)
#LUR2008-00007, #LUR2008-00008, and #LUR2008-00009, to redevelop the existing
mobile home park of 66 mobile home units with 79 new f xed-foundation homes
(attached and detached}, two mixed-use buildings, and a community building on the site.
The 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%. "I~he Use Review entails approximately 8,423 square feet of
office/commercial space on the ground flool;s of the new buildings along Valmont.
Applicant/Property Owner: Boulder Housing Partners
Case Manager: Karl Guiler, AICP Planner II
Motion
On a motion by E. Jones, seconded by A. Sopher the 1'lannint; 13oard I'CCOln111Calded (()-O A.
Shoemaker absent) that I3ou_ Idcr Mobile Manor redevelopment_project be continued to
Deccnzber 4, 2008.
C. Continuation of Site Review application #Lt1R2008-00012, 1580 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
ot3=street parking spaces within a subterranean parking stnzcture and on the gz-ade level
of the structure. The development is proposed on a corner lot of approximately 1 1,122
square teet zoned Downtown Five (DT-S}. Modifications are required to pez-rzlit the
height above 3S-feet, an additional story above three-stozies, and a U -foot rear yard
setback, where 15 feet is the code standard. The applicant also requests vested rights
pursuant to Section 9-2-19, B.R.C. 198] .
Applicant/Property Owner: Brian C. Joseph
Case Manager: Karl Guiler, AICP t'lanner 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 tlzc board.
Board Discussion
N. Shull said with the west side parking z-emoved, the space is rrzuch better.
E. Jones was happy to see a non flat roof and added that she liked the curved roof. She also
recognised the improvements to the front and the corner.
P. Shull was concealed about t1)c 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 f~~urth floor.
W. Johnson was concerned about the corner at 16th 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. Ne 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 surrounding 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
control}ed nature of the garage.
B. Holicky suggested a condition to reduce the sire of the garage door or drive to 18 or 20 feet
wide and design the door dif1erenily with inset glass or aluminum panels.
A. Sopher agreed.
P. Shull suggested that this should not be a coiling door, but rather a high speed door.
Mr. llavis agreed.
B. I-Iolicky suggested that the applicant cgnsider using another color to break up the mass of the
east elevation.
A. Sopher said that they }lave 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 lot 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 be 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 zero to three there can not be any windows.
B. Holicky said if the masses were more integrated, the project would work better.
E..Iones said it would make the building a lot nicer to have the views to the west.
B. Ilolicky agreed with E..Iones.
A. Sopher said the reason the south side looks better is because the windows, trellises, and
handrails make it zaaore human.
W. Johnson agreed with A. Sopher'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 tight is a good reason to have an alley or light there and said a znid
block hreak could he a nice amenity as well.
K. Becker agreed with W. Johnson.
P. Shull said there is merit in A. Sopher and B. Holicky's suggestions for some integration of
both brick and stucco at the outside skin and lighter stucco at the setback poz-tion. He also
supported more human elements with trellises, balconies and windows to create an oft~set and
more interesting elevation.
K. Becker liked the curved feattare of the forth floor but questioned if there should be a fourth
floor.
E. Jones questioned whether the project could be this big and provide a nice transition to the
adjacent neighborhood. She noted that this project would set a precedent for large, four story
buildings on the south side of Canyon as well, and she was not sure that's what the community
wants or envisions for dais area.
K. Becker said the church across Canyon is less compe}ling 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 east.
W. Johnson was pleased with the chaaages and the increased subtlety of the fourth floor. Shc
suggested refining the corner of l 6`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. Holicky said the transition from } 6`h Street to the north seems reasonable. He 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 fairly innovative and added that the safe bet is to stay at three floors.
4
A. Sopher said i f the method of 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 colrnnents about the roof.
P. Shull said glazing 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 be a square foot reduction.
P. Shull understood that it could be an affordable reduction in square footage of about 600 s.f.
B. Holiclcy was not tlu-i}led with the reduction in square footage. He was concerned that getting
ri,~i of the three Ceef could significantly change the building. He added tl~~at there are plenty of
buildings with litt}e or no windows that are considered to be great architecture. He prefeT7-ed
giving the applicant direction and letting the applicant decide on the best design. He suggested
that the app}icani work with the Planning Director to add fenestration, detailing or visual interest
to the west elevation.
le9r. Davis said the applicant would be comfortable working with staff to make the changes that
are needed to make the Planning Hoard comfortable. He said the suggestions made by the
Plaiv~ing Board, as a whole, are acceptable. However, he said the applicant may not be willing to
reduce the square footage. He added that there is a real limitation on the percentage of window
space that is a}lowable.
W. Johnson asked if there is advice firom other board members about the two story element of
the corner of l 6`~' and Canyon being harsh.
A. Sopher said the corner has a tot 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 arc currently modeled.
B. lloticky 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 fourth floor.
Mr. Davis replied, up to the five foot height.
B. Ilolicky prefen-ed not having a screen.
F. Jvnes 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. CGuiler 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 tl~e city can encourage public and private
projects to have an art focus and incorporate public art.
Y. Shull summarized concerns of the board:
1. On the cast elevation, the PlaTming Board advised the applicant to work on the garage door to
narrow it to its functional limit to no more than twenty feet, with a commercial store front quality
panelized garage door.
2. On the west elevation, the Planning Board advised the app}leant 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.
5
3. "l lie Plaru~ing Board encouraged the applicant to incorporate modest public art jn the northern
• open space. - .
4. "1'fae 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.
B. Ilolicky said this is a well designed building and that part of that is the fourth floor. I Ie 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 P. Shull, seconded by ,)ohnson, the I'lanninf; Board approved (4-2 E.
.loner and K. Becker ot~t~oscd and A. Shoemaker was absent) Site Review at~plication
tJl.Ult2OOti-OOU12, for the property located at I SKO (_'anyon, incorporating; the statt~
memorandum and site review criteria checklist dated November 6 2UU~ as findings of fact,
subject to the followinb conditions of approval:
l)nder condition 2 a) add:
"I'he final architectural plans shall be revised to include:
i. A reduction in width to 20 feet or Icss for the bara~e door on the cast
elevation. "I'he r;ara~;c door shall have a paneliied commercial storefront
unlit .
ii. Revised elevation of the west side of the buildingthat adds fenestration
and architectural features that add visual interest to that elevation.
Under condition c) add:
"I~o the extent practical the applicant shall provide some: form ofpublic art.
Add a new condition 5:
The Applicant shall dcvelo and implement aparkin ~ manag_ement and
alucational plan that is intended to inform occupants and visitors of tlic parkin,I;
and alternative mode o--ptioris that arc available to the site.
G. MATTERS FROM THE PLANNING BOARD, PLANNLNG UIRFCTOR,
AND Cl'TY A'1'TOl2NF.Y
"1'he board discussed plans for a holiday party for the Planning Board members.
R. Ray gave the board an updated on the Nitro project.
"I he board reviewed the calendar noting that A. Sopher will chair the December 4
?nccting and that I?. Jones and B. llolicky will be absent on November 20.
7. DEBRII?F/AC:h:1\I)A CHE('ti
8. ADJOURNMENT
The Planning Board adjourned the meeting at 9:4t) p.m. '
APPROVED BY
Board Chair
UA'I'E
7