Loading...
Minutes - Planning Board Joint Meeting with Landmarks Board - 8/18/2011 CITY OF BOULDER PLANNING BOARD/ LANDMARKS BOARD ACTION MINUTES August 48, 2011 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: littp://www.boulciercolorado.gov/ PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Aaron Brockett Willa Johnson Tim Plass Danica Powell Andrew Shocinaker, Chair Mary Young PLANNING BOARD MEMB.FRS ABSENT: Bill I-Iolicky LANDMARKS BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: BOARD MEMBERS: Mark Gerwing Kurt Nordback Liz Payton Lisa Podmajersky, Chair John Spitzer STAFF PRESENT: David Driskeli, Executive Director of Community Planning and Sustainability David Gelu-, Deputy City Attorney Debra Kalish, Senior Assistant City Attorney Susan Richstone, Comprehensive Planning Division Manager Charles Fcrro, Land Use Review Manager Sam Assefa, Senior Urban Designer Elaine Mcl.auglin, Senior Planner James I lewat, Historic Preservation Planner Katie Knapp, Civil Engineer 11 Heidi Schum, Civil Engineer 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 3. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION 4. DISCUSSION OF DISPOSITIONS, PLANNING BOARD CALL-UPS A. Wetland Pennit, LUR201 l -00044, 4474 North Broadway The board did not call tip these items. 5. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS A. Public hearing and consideration of two requests related to redevelopment of the former Daily Camera site (1048 Pearl and 1023 Walnut) into 160,000 s.f. of commercial office and retail space in two buildings connecter) by a bridge over the alley: o Concept Plan Review Comments from Planning Board o Concept Level Landmarks Alteration Certificate Approval from Landmarks Board Applicant: Victoria Canto Property Owner: Karlin Pearl Street LLC Staff Presentation E. McLaughlin and ,i. Hewat presented the item to the board. Questions from the Board to Staff T. Plass questioned whether the 61 ft height on building across the street and the 55 it height on the proposed building are measured in the same way? Staff responded the heights are fi-oin the CiIS database and are likely measured 25' of the building to the low point. T. Plass questioned the view sheds and whether alleys represent significant view sheds? Staff responded the current situation is already blocked, so it isn't considered significant. The significant view shed is from Pearl Street. K. Nordback questioned the air lease and what it means when the 20 years are up'? Staff responded that the existing ]case has been renewed once and likely to be renewed by future councils. There is a payment for the ]case. M. Voting questioned what the parking requirements are? Staff responded the building is in the Central Area General Improvement District that only requires parking for residential, so there isn't a parking requirement. But. the applicant is likely to provide it for Class A office space. L. Podmajersky asked for clarification if the height was 49', specifically on the Pearl Street side. Staff responded that 49' was due to issues of slope over the entire site and that dictated the 49' height on Pearl Street. The building is higher on the Pearl Street side and would be measured independently. The shade structure on the roof and has to be considered as part of the overall height, therefore included in the 55' overall height. L. Podmajersky asked about the open space requirement. Staff responded it is 10-20% in DT5. There is an allowance known as a Land Use Intensity Modification due to the proximity to things like the mall. It allows the applicant to reduce it 0% if they meet the criteria. L. Podmajersky asked ]low high at street face the new non-contri buting building located across the street is? Staff responded that it is likely 36-38 feet, possibly a little taller. J. Spitzer questioned whether the ground level plan outlined on page A2, is in the spirit of 30 feet widths at the storefront level? Staff responded that the Landmark Board's purview is limited to the exterior of building. It is the applicant's choice to design the interior. M. Cerwing asked if the bridge on the alley is the same width and height as the existing one'? Staff responded yes, that it is 15ft high through the alley for fire access. L. Payton asked about the current building's FAR? Staff was not able to provide that information during the meeting. L. Payton questioned the community benefit modifications? Staff in responded that community benefit is enacted at annexation, but there is a potential code change that will potentially allow an additional 1.0 FAR for non-residential, if the housing linkage fee is paid. L. Payton questioned what staff is doing to ensure this is a vibrant urban space? Staff responded the applicant will need to strongly consider the corner to create value for the community. A. Brockett asked what would be the amount of the housing linkage fee, if the DT-5 code change goes through? Staff responded it has not been calculated yet. K. Nordback asked if the parking was included in the FAR calculation? Staff responded that everything above grade counts, below grade does not. 't'here is loading space above grade, with approximately 7 loading spaces and carshare. L. Podinajersky asked to what extent the city can make requirements about how large the office spaces or number of tenants can be in the building? Staff responded that the code doesn't dictate what type of retail can go into the building, the market does. M. Deriving asked if the staff did an analysis of the alley in regards the design guidelines and use? Staff responded that analysis of the alley was limited but does take into consideration the Downtown Design Guidelines section on alley design. Applicant Presentation Vicki Canto, Vice President of Development and Matt Sewabb, founder of Karlin Real Estate and Chris Shears, Project Architect, presented the item to the board. Board Questions liar the Applicant K. Nordback asked where the entrances will be for the street level retail, from lobby or street? Applicant: It will likely be from the street, with the office space entrances from the lobby. W. Johnson asked for the applicant to explain the arcade/overliang on 11"'. Applicant:: The intension is to make the storefront as transparent as possible and it may be better to set back the building as part of the solution to handle the NE corner. W. Johnson asked the applicant as to how committed they are to public having access to the rooftop? Applicant: that isn't known yet. W. Johnson asked if the potential tenants are known and what scale and type'? Applicant: Tenants want larger floor plates, but there have been no commitments thus far. W. Johnson asked if the Walnut Street office space have below grade office space? Applicant: Yes, it is a possible alternative. T. Plass asked if they considered incorporating the existing building versus demolishing it'? Applicant: It was considered with the Walnut Street building, but not possible due to the issues with the buildings on the east and west. They are likely to reuse the structure of the building on Walnut. D. Powell asked by whom the rooftop space, beyond the cafe, will be used or leased? Applicant: A good deal will be used by tenants, except for the Walnut side, which will have urban agriculture/green roof or storm water detention. Could it be a restaurant'? Applicant: Yes. L. Podmajersky asked how committed they are to not having financial institutions in retail spaces? Applicant: It is not the intention, because not best use for Pearl Street, but they are not there yet in terms of looking at specific tenants and leasing. L. Podmajersky asked if they considered smaller modular buildings to follow more traditional patterns and offer more variety and diversity. Applicant: That is not likely for the potential tenants. L. Payton asked what is the goal of the building? Applicant: Goal is both economic and contextual, based on the needs of the eorni-nunity. K. Nordback questioned whether there are plans/changes for the walkway between Walnut and Pearl? Applicant: It needs work, but they will be studying and working on the design. M. Gerwing asked if they considered planar construction versus mass? Applicant: The process starts with larger forms, then the planes and combination of 2 best approaches. A. Brockett inquired about how the automated parking will work and whether it will be available to tenants and visitors? Applicant: It is contingent upon cost, soil and structure issues and it will be available to both tenants and visitors. Public hearing. 1. Hugh Moore, Main Street, Gold 1111I, 80302. Chair of I listoric Boulder. Representing Ilistoric Boulder, Moore spoke in general support the concept as proposed, but suggested the NE corner be less abrupt at 1 I"' and Pearl, as it will hide the view of the Flatirons. 2. David Hose, 900 Pearl #201. Owner of Tajona/Resident of Tajona building. He likes the project, but has concerns about the 300 parking spots, as it will cause significant traffic issues. 3. Elizabeth Allen. She spoke in opposition because the community n-leeting wasn't representative of the community, from her assessment, it was only the people that will benefit fi-om the building who were in attendance. 4. William Shutkin, 2103 Mapleton. He spoke in support of the project so that Boulder remains a leader in urban design. 5. Phil Shull, 497 Pearl Street. Spoke in general support of the project though expressed issues with the alley, concern that the building is too static, and recommended that the corner be revised. 6. Catherine Seheweiger, 628 Maxwell. She expressed that the historic district should have been excluded from the FAR bonus, the building is too large for the historic district and won't contribute to the streetscape. 7. Ed Byrne, 250 Arapahoe #30. He asked the board to support the project. 8. Gwen Dooley, Plan Boulder County. She questioned the demonstrated need for the arnount of office space, whether the transportation/parking be supported, noted that the massing is misleading and questioned whether the building will cast a permanent shadow. She also noted that the form is too modern to fit in with the historic scale and asked if the Camera building will be honored somehow in the new building? 9. Kevin Patrick McCarthy, 733 Pearl Street. He questioned whether the uniqueness and vision is being addressed and was dismayed that having no parking wasn't an option. He also expressed concerns about the urban canyon affect and suggested backing the building away from the street to let light in. 10. Adrian Sopher. Ile noted that the conditions of approval on page 43 of 45, 2b and 2c arc contradictory to allowing the view of the flatirons. Applicant Rebuttal The applicant did not have any questions or comments in response. Adjourn of the Landmarks Board Oil a motion by K. Nordback, seconded by J. Spitzer, the Lau dinarks Board approved 5-0 to acl]oul"n the i11CCting until the SchlCnlber 6 L.indniarks Board 1110tint". Board Discussion Mass and Scale In summary of the discussion, the board found the massing and height acceptable on the Walnut side, but there were concerns with the Pearl Street side. There were a wide variety of opinions regarding this aspect, ranging from the possibility of the four stories being too heavy to it being acceptable. The 30' bays are satisfactory under the circumstances. It was unanimous that the building needs to be unique, in line with the times, with superb detailing and attention to detail. The windows were specifically cited as an item that should not be generic. The board had consensus that the glass box on NE corner does not work as currently configured. The board varied on the range of views for how the corner could be utilized, but was in agreement that the corner is important. There was consensus that the west side glass box is better suited to the building and vital public space. The roof top opportunity is important for public use. It was asked to use cues from the historic buildings and from the fact the site was the home of the city's newspaper. Viewshed The board felt the street doesn't function properly now, so the new building should to come up to the street to continue the flow from the Mall. It was suggested to take cues from Tom's Tavern/Salt, as that entry gives a symmetrical aspect at an angle and steps down. This would also create harmony at that intersection. This could also be an opportunity to present new views on rooftop. It was emphasized that the applicant should not take away from the meeting that the board does not care about the view. Alley/] 0"' Street Walkway There was unanimous agreement that the alley needs a management plan. In regards to the bridge, the board varied on its opinion as to whether it is appropriate, too wide, too heavy and uninviting. One recommendation was to light it up to bring more life to the area. Parking The board varied on its opinion of the parking. Some felt it would be best to look at other options to get people to the office, such as bike share, other garages in the area, or a bus like Crispin Porter, instead of'having parking at all. Others found the automated parking to be an intriguing way to address the below grade parking and retail space. In either situation, it was agreed that having re,,il trees planted, especially by the plaza, would be good. Additional Comments It was recommended that the building should memorialize in some way, the Daily Camera newspaper, or highlight the evolution of the corner. It was suggested to be creative, not with just a framed picture. Some examples were to have historic headlines in the cement or old papers lining the lobby, or an informational display. Applicant Rebuttal The applicant did not have any questions or comments in response. 7. MATTERS FROM THE PLANNING: BOARD, PLANNING DIRECTOR, AND CITY ATTORNEY 1. Sept 1 - 2 Board members will be absent, so the meeting may change dates. 2. D. Powell not in on 15`x' of September 8. DEBRIEF/AGENDA CHECK 9. ADJOURNMENT The Plaiuning Board adjourned the meeting at 10:00 p.m. APPROVED BY Board lair D A F: