Planning Commission Agenda and Packet 2018 03 08

Home Browse Search

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Page 16 of 23 Williams stated that she was in support, even though the architecture gave her pain. She would prefer more wood and less or zero metal and less glass. However, she acknowledged that architecture was objective and no one was going to agree. She hoped that the applicant could make "shared parking" work. She stated that the building meets and exceeds the criteria. She stated that the Downtown Design Handbook and the Framework were a bit more difficult, but they were guidelines that she was here to interpret. She listed the reasons that she supported the project, relevant to her interpretation of the guidelines: Good for other businesses. - 50% or less of the footprint taken up by the third floor. - Keeping a good business in the neighborhood. - Terrace on Main is a good name. - Helps with parking in downtown. She asked the applicant to consider how the construction would affect adjacent businesses. Hoefner stated that the applicant had reached out to their neighbors and was impressed by their support of the project. He was also impressed by the applicant presentation and the staff report. He also appreciated the community involvement displayed in the emails and the people who came to speak tonight. The applicant went above and beyond to meet their own needs and the numerous requirements. He echoed Commissioner Rice in saying that he was impressed that the application only required two waivers. He supported multi -modal transportation and he supported the project. Hsu stated that he was generally in support, but he was hesitant. The positives include the rooftop space and the merging of office space and retail space. He also appreciated the community interest displayed tonight. The main negative is the application's relationship with the surrounding area. The second and third floors reminded him of Cherry Creek and the 28th Street Mall in Boulder. He liked the southern half, but not the northern half. He understood that the second and third floors looked modern because they were trying to be more subtle but he still thought those floors were too modern. He stated that the impact of the second and third floors had been mitigated by the setbacks, but he was overall in support. Brauneis stated that it was a thoughtful project. While we were all concerned about the third story, it was important to remember that three-story buildings are allowed in the Code. He appreciated the first -story response to surrounding buildings and noted that their commitment to providing parking in this location is expensive and he appreciated that they had taken that on. He added that it was interesting to note that the Commission usually has to discuss the waivers, but it had not been part of the discussion this evening, which speaks to the strength of the project itself. Rice move to approve Resolution 04, Series 2018, a request for a Final PUD to allow for a 37,171 square foot commercial building with a 10,754 square feet parking garage on 14,114 square feet, A Final plat to vacate the lot line between Lots 8 and 9; and an SRU to allow for outdoor seating and drinking establishments and a parking garage. Williams seconded. Hsu noted that there was an SRU review use and he thought it was compatible with SRU requirements. Rice thanked Hsu for bringing it up. Hoefner stated that there was also a re -plat included in the motion they were about to vote on. Brauneis asked for a roll call. Moline voted no. Passes 5-1.