Loading...
2 - Draft Minutes - Planning Board - 9/16/2010 Return to Agenda CITY OF BOULDER PLANNING BOARD ACTION MINUTES September 16, 2010 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:/hvww.bouldercolorado.gov/ PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Bill Holicky Tim Plass Andrew Shoemaker, Chair Mary Young Elise Jones Danica Powell PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Willa Johnson STAFF PRESENT: David Driskell, Executive Director of Community Planning and Sustainability David Gehr, Assistant City Attorney Sam Assefa, Senior Urban Planner Charles Ferro, Land Use Review Manager Elaine McLaughlin, Senior Planner Jessica Vaughn, Planner I Debbie Fox, Administrative Specialist III 1. CALL TO ORDER Chair, A. Shoemaker, declared a quorum at 6:05 p.m. and the following business was conducted. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES On a motion by E. Jones, seconded by M. Young, the Planning Board approved 6-0, with 1 absent (W. Johnson), the August 5 Planning Board minutes. On a motion by T. Plass, seconded by E. Jones, the Planning Board approved 6-0, with 1 absent (W. Johnson), the August 19 Planning Board minutes, as amended. 3. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION No one from the public addressed the board. 4. DISCUSSION OF DISPOSITIONS, PLANNING BOARD CALL-UPS A. Nonconfroming Use Review, LUR2010-00034, 1240 Cedar Ave. B. Floodplain Development Permit, LUR2010-00005, and Wetland Permit and Wetland Variance, LUR2010-00004, Trail connection and bridge over Boulder Creek The board did not call up these items. Previous View 1 Return to Agenda 5. ACTION ITEMS A. Consideration to amend the Crestview East Annexation Agreement, #LUR2010-00035, for a waiver of the full cash-in-lieu amount for affordable housing for 2131 Upland Avenue. 2131 Upland Avenue is within both the Residential Low-1 (RL-1) zone districts (north half of property) and the Residential Estate (RE) (south half of property) zone district. Staff Presentation J. Vaughn presented the item to the board. Public Hearing No one from the public addressed the board. Board Discussion There was no board discussion on this item. Motion On a motion by T. Plass, seconded by D. Powell, the Planning Board approved (5-O)(B. Holicky abstained, W. Johnson absent) B. Consideration of two related Site Review amendment applications, #LtJR2010-00006 and LUR2010-00007, that includes the following: 1) Request to modify the existing Celestial Seasoning's PUD to document removal of a 7.8 acre parcel of land from the PUD known as Lot 1 that has been owned by Covidien. 2) Request to modify the existing Covidien PUD/Site Review to include that same 7.8 acre lot and construct a new 60,000 square foot office building and a new parking structure within the main campus of Covidien. Applicant/Owner: Covidien (Valleylab, a Colorado Corporation, also known as Tyco Industries) A. Shoemaker disclosed that his partner, Paul Schwartz, previously represented Covidien in an anti-trust matter that concluded in August 2008 while employed at a previous law firm. A. Shoemaker, nor his law firm, has ever represented Covidien. Staff Presentation E. McLaughlin presented the item to the board. Applicant's Presentation David Wolff, Coviden lawyer, presented the item to the board. Public Hearing 1. Carl Worthington, 1805 29t" Street, #2054 (Pooled with Linda Trumble, PO Box 458, Niwot, Tom Trumble, PO Box 9500, Heather Sakai, 2185 Floral, Chris Doeval, 10466 Garaund Dr., Tim Trumble, PO Box 9500) spoke in opposition to the project and offered designs that would better meet their clients' needs. 2. Tom Merrigan, 1712 Pearl Street, represents Trumble Real Estate, Pawnee and the Tomhawke Partnership - spoke to the need to address the parking, but not in favor of the project. Favored the alternative offered by C. Worthington. Previous View 2 Return to Agenda 3. Dave Kousman, 1900 15th St., Boulder 80302 (Pooled time: Peter Schaub, 1900 15th St., Steven Chrisman, PO Box 18390, Jerry Moore, PO Box 18390) - lawyer with Faegre & Benson LLP and represents Corporate Place and Pawnee Properties, acknowledged the parking issue and support of growth, but the project should be denied because: 1) potentially legally deficient, 2) FAR transfer is not consistent with code, 3) violates reasonable expectations and unreasonable burden on commercial neighbors 4) better parking options are available as previously cited, and 5) the proposed parking structure violates the covenants at Longbow. 4. Joe Stientjes, 5914-D Gunbarrel Avenue. 80301 - Written statement: Please allow to build parking structure, gets cars off the street! Thanks! 5. Frances Draper, 2292 Kincaid PI - spoke in favor of the project, in particular the headquarter aspect, that headquarter companies are often courted by other cities, so denying this could cause a corporate citizen to leave Boulder. 6. Andre Kliskak, 4652 White Rock Cir 96 - Works at Coviden, but also lives down the street from the complex. Spoke in favor of the project because the roads are dangerous for bikes along the road where all the cars park. 7. Chris Allen, 4680 White Rock Cir #7 - attested to the street traffic on Spine being dangerous for drivers and bikers. Board Discussion Transfer of floor area issue A. Shoemaker questioned staff as to whether Coviden's is subject to community/economic viability issues. Staff responded that the BVCP must be compliant, which does address the economic base and encourage growth with local businesses. D. Powell noted that the .3 FAR does not change with the transfer, so they are under their .4 allotment for the FAR. T. Plass commented that Lot 1 is appropriate to not be development due to the open space, therefore he is in favor of the transfer. B. Holicky, E. Jones and A. Shoemaker agreed. Parking garage T. Plass supports the staff recommendation and the analysis. If the applicant wanted to go the route that the neighbor proposed, that would work, as well. M. Young supports the staff proposal and likes the consideration of the neighborhood parking and safety and in line with BVCP. E. Jones agrees with M. Young and T. Plass. She stated the project does not cause undo burden, is a fair trade off to mitigate the safety issues, and agrees with T. Plass that it would also work if the applicant wanted to work with the neighbor's plans, but that does not need to be mandated. D. Powell agrees with the stated comments, especially since making the street safer is an added bonus to this design. A. Shoemaker supported the motion. Previous View 3 Return to Agenda Motion - On a motion by T. Plass, seconded by M. Young, the Planning Board approved (6-0,) the Site Review amendments LUR2010-00006 and LUR2010-00007, incorporating this staff memorandum and the attached Site Review Criteria Checklist as findings of fact, and using the following recommended conditions of approval. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL SITE REVIEW AMENDMENTS (Valleylab/Covidien PUD - LtTR2010-00006 and Celestial Seasonings PUD - LL1R2010-00007) 1. The Applicant shall be responsible for ensuring that the development shall be in compliance with all approved plans dated Aug. 24, 2010 on file in the City of Boulder Planning Department, except to the extent that the development may be modified by the conditions of approval. 2. The Applicant shall comply with all previous conditions contained in any previous approvals, except to the extent that any previous conditions may be inconsistent with this approval, including, but not limited to, the following: Development Agreement recorded at Reception No. 963106 (for Planned Unit Development #P-88-24, #H-88-3) (Valleylab PUD); Development Agreement recorded at Reception No. 2901384 (Valleylab Site Review, LUR2007-00024) Development Agreement recorded at Reception No. 1026288 (for Planned Unit Development #P-88-35, #SR-88-28, and #RZ-88-3) (Celestial Seasonings) 3. Applicant shall ensure that the density on Lot 1 Herbaria Subdivision shall not exceed 41,842 square feet, upon approval of this Site Review Amendment that provides for the transfer of 53,158 square feet from Lot 1 to Lot 10A. 4. Prior to a building permit application, the Applicant shall submit a Technical Document Review application for the following items, subject to the review and approval of the City Manager: a. Final architectural plans, including materials and colors, to insure compliance with the intent of this approval and compatibility with the surrounding area. The architectural intent shown on the elevation plans dated Aug. 24, 2010 is acceptable. Planning staff will review plans to assure that the architectural intent is performed. b. A final site plan showing the corrections and additions requested by this approval, including building setbacks on fully dimensioned plans. A signed survey drawing should also be submitted. c. A final utility plan meeting the City of Boulder Design and Construction Standards. d. A final storm water/drainage report and plan meeting the City of Boulder Design and Construction Standards, which include information regarding the groundwater conditions Previous View 4 Return to Agenda (geotechnical report, soil borings, etc.) on the Property, and all discharge points for perimeter drainage systems. e. A detailed landscape plan, including size, quantity, and type of plants existing and proposed; type and quality of non-living landscaping materials; any site grading proposed; and any irrigation system proposed, to insure compliance with this approval and the City's landscaping requirements. Removal of trees must receive prior approval of the Planning Department. Removal of any tree in City right of way must also receive prior approval of the City Forester. 5. Prior to a building permit application, the Applicant shall submit to the City, at no cost, the following as part of Technical Document Review application and subject to the approval of the City Manager: a. A lot line elimination between Lot 7 of Longbow Park Replat `B' and Lot 10A of Longbow Park Replat `D.' C. Public hearing and consideration of Site Review, LUR2010-00030, and Preliminary Plat, LUR2010-00031, Junction Place Village, located at Pearl Parkway and future Junction Place, for a mixed use development with 319 apartments, structured parking that will become part of city managed parking district, and approximately 15,000 square feet of non-residential floor area on 5.02 acres, within the MU-4, Mixed Use-4 zoning district. Applicant / Owner: Scott Pedersen/Pedersen Development Co. A. Shoemaker disclosed for the record that his partner, Jim Ghisseli, represented Mr. Pederson in 2009. It did not involve this property. A. Shoemaker has never represented Mr. Pederson, nor is his firm currently doing any work with Mr. Pederson. Staff Presentation E. McLaughlin and S. Assefa presented the item to the board. Applicant's Presentation Scott Pederson, Pederson Development, 4949 N. Broadway, Boulder, presented the item to the board. Public Hearing 1. Kurk Norback, 777 Dellwood Ave - represent Community Cycles and resident, spoke the Pearl Street concept plan and asked the board to be open to new ideas on the boulevard, not just accept the concept that has been proposed. 1. Ann Haebig, 785 33rd St - spoke in opposition to the process regarding Pearl Street, as she has concerns about the connection for west bound cyclist. 2. Sue Prant, 3172 29th Street - advocacy director for Community Cycles. She expressed concerns as well about the Pearl Street design, in particular regarding the westbound bikes paths, sidewalk conflicts with the entrances/pedestrians and asked to be part of the process earlier and be part of the pre-planning phases to represent cyclist. Previous View 5 Return to Agenda Board Discussion Massing and scale Regarding massing and scale, M. Young commented that this version is improved. She likes the variety and complemented the applicant on the changes. T. Plass found the design consistent with TVAP and Area Plan and didn't have an issue with massing and scale. E. Jones agreed with M. Young, in particular on the non-flat roofs. B. Holicky concurred with M. Young, but has concerns with the fact the massing all looks the same. He recommends that each building should look different. M. Young, T. Plass and A. Shoemaker agreed. Height E. Jones felt that the height is appropriate to the area. M. Young commented that there is enough variation in height and therefore consistent with the Comp Plan. Designs and Materials B. Holicky expressed concern there isn't any DDAB review for this area. For example, the designed on page A3.4 (page 228 of PB Packet), should be closed railings for more privacy and connote difference between public and private space and wants to see increased architectural detail. On page A3.2 (page 226), south elevations, is very spare. He expressed concern about the larger buildings not having variety as it goes up from the first floor. And all three of the structures look too similar. But without design oversight, has concerned about negative community comments due to the lack of architectural variations of the buildings, such as the Canyon projects. With that, B. Holicky also wanted to emphasize that he supports the project. A. Shoemaker asked staff for what types of mechanisms could be utilized in this case, similar to DDAB. E. Jones agrees that the diversity would be helpful and questioned, if by accepting this project, it could be stipulated that other projects in the area not look like this one to avoid the Canyon affect. T. Plass agrees with E. Jones and B. Holicky. T. Plass expressed the materials need to be differentiate among the buildings and the courtyard spaces are too bleak compared to the exterior. He would like to see more detailed thought put into this aspect. In addition, he found the street facings too busy and is concerned about the horizontal lapse siding. T. Plass suggested different treatment of materials to alleviate the concerns. M. Young spoke to the courtyard trees (page 228) and questioned how those trees will happen with the underground parking. She suggested vaulting the courtyard so that the trees can exist in that area with the underground parking. D. Powell likes the courtyards and the ground plain, and agrees to the need for architectural elevation, but the landscape plans and the pavers work with the layering and terracing. She likes that the project is not a car centric project. A. Shoemaker agrees with B. Holicky and expressed concerns with this project being the first that all following applicants will follow this project. He requested that diversity of building designs be stipulated in the TVAP. The size will cause a reaction from the public and therefore questioned the board about the best way to move forward. Previous View 6 Return to Agenda B. Holicky questioned staff if it was possible to send this project to DDAB for comments. Staff responded that a condition could lay out a process. T. Plass questioned if it would be better to continue the item to have staff and the applicant refine the project. B. Holicky asked if that would be possible, while also having DDAB comment on the project. The board asked the applicant for their preference. The applicant expressed that the details are minor and by referring it to DDAB for input and additional work with staff would be preferred and wouldn't burden the Board with another meeting. E. Jones is comfortable with allowing the applicant to move forward as long as the board provides a bit of direction. B. Holicky feels comfortable with the applicant making the changes since they have been so willing thus far. D. Powell likes the idea of this going to DDAB and comfortable with the applicant for the same reasons that B. Holicky expressed. Expectations are high for this project, so seems like everyone wants to make this work. M. Young like the DDAB aspect, as well as see it come back to the board since this is a first project. It is important to get it right. A. Shoemaker is comfortable with the proposed approach and the applicant has shown good faith. Westside Connection T. Plass is comfortable with intention of the connections plan being realized. D. Gehr offered the following for the connections plan amendment: The planning board approves moving connection number 29 on page 58 of the Transit Village Area Plan up to 50 feet to the west and onto the adjacent property finding that: • The amendment is necessary due to a physical hardship because of the grade differential that occurs at the existing location of the connection between the properties, and that • Such amendment is consistent with the objectives of the connection in that the primary purpose of the connection is to provide back door accesses needed for redevelopment along 30th Street. Additional Comments M. Young saw a lot of opportunity for green roofs and feels it would be a good addition to the development, due to the numerous views onto flat roofs. The art master plan expressed the need for the diversity of materials, so she felt the material connections between developments is important to get right the first time, in particular on the walkways, as this helps creating a sense of place. She also expressed concerns with the number of bike spaces (32 short term spaces) seems too minimal. And with concern to the potted trees, M. Young felt this is not a good idea for this project. In regards to the area by the pool, it would be a good area for bike parking and more pedestrian interests by the pool area. E. Jones also spoke to the potted trees and concerns that the trees could be an issue. She would prefer to see real trees planted in the courtyards to insure survivability. M. Young spoke the trees on the west elevation of the east building being of particular concern. (Page 228) The board spoke with the landscape architect for clarification on the types of trees and types of plantings. There is a combination of potted and vaulted trees. The courtyard trees on the western are in the ground, on the eastern is also ground planted trees. There are some vaulted Previous View 7 Return to Agenda trees in the `L' shape part of the courtyard, otherwise they will all be ground planted. If the underground parking is moved to the western building, they would be vaulted to address this issue. The board questioned the number of 32 spaces. The applicant responded that code requires that number. D. Gehr responded that TVAP outlines an increase in bike parking standards. The spaces are based on retail and visitor, not residential. The board prefers that the number of spaces get doubled. The topic of green roofs was discussed and it was determined that it is not appropriate to mandate. Motion On a motion by E. Jones, seconded by A. Shoemaker, the Planning Board approved (6-0) Site Review case no. LUR2010-00030, and approve the Preliminary Plat case no. LUR2010-00031, incorporating this staff memorandum and the attached Site Review Criteria Checklist as findings of fact, and using the following revised conditions of approval. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. The Applicant shall be responsible for ensuring that the development shall be in compliance with all approved plans dated Sept. 3, 2010 on file in the City of Boulder Planning Department, except to the extent that the development may be modified by the conditions of approval. 2. Prior to a building permit application, the Applicant shall submit a Technical Document Review application for the following items, subject to the review and approval of the City Manager: a. A final site plan showing the corrections and additions requested by this approval, including building setbacks on fully dimensioned plans. A signed survey drawing should also be submitted. b. A final utility plan meeting the City of Boulder Design and Construction Standards, including but not limited to providing an area in which to set the Xcel utility boxes required for undergrounding of the existing overhead electrical lines. C. A final storm water/drainage report and plan meeting the City of Boulder Design and Construction Standards, which include information regarding the groundwater conditions (geotechnical report, soil borings, etc.) on the Property, and all discharge points for perimeter drainage systems. d. A detailed landscape plan, including size, quantity, and type of plants existing and proposed; type and quality of non-living landscaping materials; any site grading proposed; and any irrigation system proposed, to insure compliance with this approval and the City's landscaping requirements. Removal of trees must receive prior approval of the Planning Department. Removal of any tree in City right of way must also receive prior approval of the City Forester. Previous View 8 Return to Agenda e. Final transportation plans meeting the City of Boulder Design and Construction Standards for all transportation improvements. In addition to all other requirements, the Applicant shall provide final drawings that depict: i. A woonerf-style access plan that provides for a shared pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicular access system along the Pearl Parkway frontage; or ii. An access plan that includes on-street parking that is consistent with the street section requirements for Pearl Parkway that are described in the Transit Village Area Plan. 3. Prior to a building permit application, the Applicant shall submit a Technical Document Review application for a Final Plat, subject to the review and approval of the City Manager and execute a subdivision agreement meeting the requirements of chapter 9-12, "Subdivision," B.R.C. 1981 and which provides for the following: a. The construction of all public improvement s necessary to serve the development. b. Public improvement construction extension or reimbursement agreements, to the extent necessary for any oversized improvements or off-site improvements, including the following elements: i. The City will pay for the incremental increase in cost for that portion of Junction Place street section for the 5-foot wide bike lanes and associated right of way; ii. The Applicant's pro rata share of the cost of the multi-use paths along the southern and eastern edges of the Property. The Applicant's pro rata share estimated at the time of this approval is ten percent; ill. The Applicant's pro rata share of the costs of the bridge that crosses over the North Boulder Farmers Ditch near the southern edge of the Property. The Applicant's pro rata share estimated at the time of this approval is ten percent; iv. The Applicant shall pay for four traffic signals and four street lights at the Pearl Parkway - Junction Place intersection as noted on the Engineering Plans dated Sept. 3, 2010, and may receive reimbursement for part or all of the cost of such improvements as provided by subsection 9-12-12(f), "Installation of Off-Site Improvements," B.R.C. 1981; V. The Applicant will place the overhead lines along Pearl Parkway under ground or contribute the amount necessary to underground such utilities in the event that the City places these utilities underground as part of a capital improvement project; and vi. The Applicant will be responsible for providing the City with the value of the public improvements, including construction and design, associated with the standard cross-section which the Applicant would have been required to build in the Transit Village Area Plan. The City will be responsible for any incremental cost associated with upgrading the public improvements to a woonerf-style access plan. Previous View 9 Return to Agenda vii. The planning board approves moving connection number 29 on page 58 of the Transit Village Area Plan up to 50 feet to the west and onto the adjacent property finding that: a_ The amendment is necessary due to a physical hardship because of the grade differential that occurs at the existing location of the connection between the properties, and that b. Such amendment is consistent with the objectives of the connection in that the primary purpose of the connection is to provide back door accesses needed for redevelopment along 30th Street. 4. The Applicant shall install bollards (or equivalent traffic control device approved by the City Manager) at the north and south end of the asphalt drive along the western property line within 30 days of request by the City Manager after the private easement along the western property line is abandoned or otherwise extinguished or vacated. 5. This approval is conditioned upon an effective rezoning of the property as described in Ordinance No. 7745. This approval will become final on the effective date of the rezoning. 6. Prior to application for a building permit, the Applicant shall submit a Technical Document Review application for the review and recommendation, of the Downtown Design Advisory Board and review and approval of the City Manager: Final architectural and site plans including materials and colors, to insure compliance with the intent of this approval and compatibility with the Transit Village Area Plan. The architectural intent shown on the elevations plans dated September 3, 2010 is acceptable except as modified by this condition. The Downtown Design Advisory Board is asked to look at the following design issues: a. Consistency with the architectural design criteria of the site review criteria, the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan, and the Transit Village Plan. b. The design should create a level of architectural diversity among the separate buildings on the site, including a variety of building styles and where not everything looks the same. c. Materials and enhanced architecture - Consider the appropriateness of the lap siding and of additional articulation on the southern fayade and interior courtyards. 7. The Applicant shall provide a total of 64 visitor bicycle parking spaces on the Property in locations throughout that will be approved as part of a Technical Document Review. Feedback on Sustainable Street Concept T. Plass likes that the city is starting new idea for streets, but wanted to make it clear that nothing has been determined. Previous View 10 Return to Agenda A. Shoemaker agreed, but was surprised that the concept currently proposed isn't considered bike friendly. He appreciated the feedback from the Community Cycles representatives. E. Jones agreed and expressed the need to be clear what paths are for what, so that people are using the corridors correctly. (i.e. commuting vs. leisure) B. Holicky agreed with E. Jones and also expressed the need to figure it out now for the project since the residents of this project are going to be entering directly to and from a very busy part of Pearl Street. 6. MATTERS FROM THE PLANNING BOARD, PLANNING DIRECTOR, AND CITY ATTORNEY D. Driskell gave the board an update on Boulder Matters. B. Holicky gave an update on the Affordable Housing Task Force. M. Young and E. Jones are switching board duties on the Landmarks Board. M. Young gave an update on the Civic Use Task Force, with details provided about the St. Julian east platform and options being considered for a potential buy-out. 7. INFORMATION ITEMS A. The Greenways Advisory Committee (GAC) Draft Plans for Ecosystem Restoration of South Goose Creek and Cottonwood Pond. A. Shoemaker gave an update on the GAC tour. 8. DEBRIEF/AGENDA CHECK 9. ADJOURNMENT The Planning Board adjourned the meeting at 9.55 p.m. APPROVED BY Board Chair DATE Previous View 11