Planning Commission Minutes 2018 02 08

Home Browse Search

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Page 9 of 23 like fake history. He added that Boulder Creek Neighborhoods was a major downtown employer. Hartronft presented a list of design drivers he and the client came up with early in the project: - Meet the needs of significant downtown employer (client) - Move offices upstairs and give back the storefront - Provide rich pedestrian experience, outdoor seating - Provide all required parking on -site. Until the City provides a broader public parking option, each project should take care of its own parking. Building a lot elsewhere off -site would create new problems. - Relocate from other street level downtown buildings, from four to one. - Provide opportunities for new downtown businesses - Respect the adjacent historic buildings - Relate to eclectic downtown aesthetic — mid-century - Comply with downtown design guidelines Hartronft stated that the parking garage takes up a little over half of the square footage. The plan proposed an upper and lower deck and ramp for parking. He stated that it was not efficient to build a garage like this for 30 parking spots, and that the applicant was going to great lengths to avoid creating a parking problem. He pointed out that the central spine of the building would be open to retail and would bring the streetscape inside. He added that there would be roof decks on the second level and green roofs set back from the property lines to create relief for the second and third floor. The third floor had roof decks as well. Hartronft reiterated that the proposal included a significant upper level set back at Main Street, one story facade adjacent to the historic structure, and a Main Street sidewalk area that was expanded for seating and open space. Hartronft presented the proposed building materials. The wood was sustainably harvested hardwood for a warm material experience that was durable. There would be metal accents on the building. He showed a 3D model of the pedestrian experience from across the street. A pedestrian would be able to see the second and third floor when standing in front of the first floor building. He added that reducing square footage with the sidewalk and the one-story building was in response to respecting the historic building of the Huckleberry and promoting a positive pedestrian experience. Hartronft stated that no particular style was promoted by the Code and that the Code doesn't say development has to be historic. The Code directed applicants to use proportion, massing, and scale to respect the look and feel of Downtown. The proposal nodded to Western architecture, as well as midcentury modern buildings with an updated version of the latter's massing. He added that the Code did not say that third stories needed to be invisible. Hartronft stated that the massing in the proposal was divided into smaller elements to relate to existing context. He characterized the proposal as being an organic composition, having a human scale at the sidewalk level, and respecting the rhythm of the varying height facades Downtown. He stated that the Design Guidelines called this approach "variation," which creates a street rhythm. He added that they would like to reanimate the alley and treat it as another street, for example with a mural. He reiterated that the only waiver requests were for the stairs and the balcony in the parking garage. He stated that everything was on their property, not in the alley, and that they had no intention of using the alley as a full-blown street. QUESTIONS OF APPLICANT Williams read G-24 of the Design Handbook, stating that "new interpretations of traditional building styles are encouraged." She asked how this applied to the windows in the proposal, which she stated were very large compared to the older buildings.