Laserfiche WebLink
Planning Commission <br />Meeting Minutes <br />April 14, 2016 <br />Page 6 of 19 <br />Gary Brothers, BVZ Architects, 3445 Penrose Place, Boulder, CO <br />The owners, Bill Arnold and Wade Arnold, are here with us. I want to thank Scott for his <br />presentation because it was very well done. I want to thank the Planning Staff for helping us <br />move this project forward. We bumped up to several issues through the process, none being <br />any tougher than dealing with the railroad right -a -ways that run down the alley that were <br />negotiated. Our goal is to continue to provide a positive extension of the existing neighborhood <br />onto our site, and to create a viable addition to the community in the commercial and residential <br />areas. I want to talk a little bit about the number of waivers we have asked for, not them <br />specifically but in general. The waiver process allows us to fine-tune this project so that it slips <br />in between what the design guidelines allows us to do, and for us to be able to horseshoe the <br />residential project into the Little Italy and community to the south. Most of our waivers are in <br />reduction of requirements. The parking increase on the commercial property is one space. We <br />laid out the parking to try and maximize it and still allow for berming of the site where we had <br />any kind of headlight exposure to the neighborhoods. It has a pretty significant amount of <br />berming between the community residential area and that commercial piece. With the location <br />of that site, we don't get the advantage of bleed over parking from other activities not filled <br />during the day. This commercial activity is really a stand-alone site and other parking in different <br />off hours would be able to fulfill any needs for the restaurant activity just isn't there. These are <br />the items I want to address. <br />Commission Questions of Applicant: <br />Moline asks how would you explain to the community the density reductions and waivers. <br />Brothers says if we use the density, even the minimum of the density required, you would be <br />adding the same percentage of units along the front or for the areas of the units that are larger. <br />You'd essentially go to more of a rowhouse look where you have four or five connected <br />together. It really creates a wall against the north of the property. The neighbors have been <br />great and at every contact with them, they are surprised we are asking for reduced density. <br />They support it wholeheartedly. We are able to make this development work because of the <br />history with the land and the economy of the land over time. We don't need to maximize the site <br />to make it financially viable. <br />Rice asks about the six conditions that are being recommended by Staff. Are those all <br />acceptable to you? <br />Brothers says I have reviewed the sixth condition to see what we would have to do to comply. <br />That is our intention. We want to bring the porches to the front of the house and have balconies <br />and dormers to delineate the house fronts. The advantage of a duplex development is that you <br />get more of a finished feel on all sides of the houses as you move through with spaces in <br />between. A lot of the requirements on the sixth condition is you break up the faces of the units. <br />A lot of those requirements don't apply to us because they start kicking in when you have ten <br />units in a row. We only have two. <br />Hsu asks about Building A and Building B having one story in the commercial area. Why are <br />they only one story and not two stories? <br />Brothers says the owner comes from a history of commercial real estate operation. His <br />evaluation is that he's willing to put a one story building on the site and eliminate the office <br />function that would typically be found above it. I think that approach for this site may be currently <br />maturing, given what has happened in the area. At the time we started this and laid out the <br />concept, it really wasn't economically something the owner wanted. We are not looking to <br />maximize the square footage of the sites. <br />Public Comment: <br />Danna Hinz, 1030 East South Boulder Road, Louisville, CO <br />I have two requests. The two concerns I have are our little building had two parking spots in the <br />original plants. I have noticed those are gone now. There is no utility easement. Currently, my <br />utilities are hooked to the blue building and there is no utility easement under the ditch for us to <br />