Planning Commission Agenda and Packet 2018 03 08

Metadata

Thumbnails

Annotations

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Page 11 of 23 building a new building instead of buying an empty lot and buying a new building. He stated that these kinds of project had razor -thin margins and that they never pay for themselves in the first few years. If the parking garage were not required, the project makes a lot more sense financially. Hoefner asked if they didn't need the third story. Hartronft stated that hypothetically if the client did not want to maximize his investment, they might not need the third story. Zinke stated that as a stakeholder in the city, he thought more parking bringing more people downtown was a benefit. He added that they had held serious and meaningful debates with the members of the nearby residential neighborhoods, who had expressed concern about the effect parking would have on their neighborhoods. He stated that it was politically important to present a project that parks itself. Hsu asked about the specific design cues in the proposal with respect to traditional and midcentury architecture. Hartronft responded that the north half of the second -story buildings take cues from Western false -fronts and the south half of the main Street facade takes cues from midcentury buildings like the Empire and the Blue Parrot. The buildings behind the storefront were designed to be sustainable and energy efficiency. Hsu asked if the setback buildings took any design cues. Hartronft stated that they wanted those to be muted by comparison to the rest of the project. Hsu stated that some of the public comments were concerned that the third floor would make the whole building appear larger and asked Hartronft to address this concern. Hartronft stated that the third floor was divided into three sections. In the center was a central lobby element with an elevator. He stated that it would be hard to see most of the third floor from anywhere on Main Street, as you would never see the third floor at once. Hsu asked about the G-26 guideline that encouraged awnings. He stated that the project did not need awnings because it had recessed entryways, but he wanted to know if they had considered awnings. Hartronft stated that some store owners might want awnings. The northern part of the building would lend itself well to awnings, but the deep recess in front of the one-story building did not make sense with awnings. They would work with what retailers wanted to do. Williams asked if the parking garage was a public garage. Hartronft stated that it was being built to accommodate employees, but it followed a model called "shared parking." When the office space was not being used by Boulder Creek employees, retail tenants would have rights to parking garage in evening hours. Williams asked how the arrangement would operate financially. Hartronft stated that tenants could pay for parking to Boulder Creek.