Planning Commission Minutes 2017 08 10

Home Browse Search

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes August 10, 2017 Page 12 of 19 Because it is a long fagade, we thought of bringing in different materials. We are concerned about the north and south sides. On Figure 7, looking at the public zones, there are articulations provided. Punch -out windows are not unheard of in the CTC if you look at Figure 10 where there are glass and punch -out windows. We are looking for something similar. As far as the recommendation of denial, we know this is unusual. On something related to architecture, we couldn't think of anything for a condition. We could work on percentages or a minimum amount of accent material different than concrete, and have a measurable standpoint. I don't think we want to lock ourselves or the applicant into something that stringent. We feel it is better to have a design that everyone can react to instead of trying to measure it. Staff recommends denial of FedEx Planned Unit Development, Resolution 19, Series 2017: A resolution recommending approval of a request for a final Planned Unit Development (PUD) to allow the construction of a 109,396 SF building and associated site improvements for a FedEx Boulder County Van Facility for Lot 1, Block 3, the Business Center at CTC. Moline asks Staff if this building and site really has four public zones. Zuccaro says yes, technically the south is a public zone because of the way it is written in our code. Any area facing a street within a certain depth is a public zone. It is unusual to have all four sides as public zones. Vasbinder says if you look at the aerial and 1900 Taylor, it is similar in that it has four public zones, but it is specifically a different building because it is a front parked, rear loaded building. There is very little articulation in this building. It has dock doors and drive in doors along the entire south fagade. This building is different because there is no front parked, rear loaded. This is loaded and serviced on three sides. It is very difficult to hide or conceal or incorporate other features into a building when the majority of the building is service doors. Closed Public Hearing and discussion by Commission: Rice says with respect to the conservation easement issue, my view is that Mr. Wood's letter dated September 14, 2005, is dispositive of this issue and very clearly states that driveways are generally permitted in the easement. How we would turn that into an interpretation only as necessary, I have no idea. I think Mr. Wood's letter is dispositive. I would also add that Mr. Vasbinder has provided more than adequate explanation as to why it makes sense to put that driveway where they have designed it. With regard to the architectural issues, this is a matter of philosophy. I don't believe as a PC, it is our job to design buildings. I don't think we should nick - pick and tell people how to build their buildings. Our issue is does it meet standards? In this case, we have a little hybrid because we have a standard, but we are saying you not only have meet that standard, you have to "go above" those standards, whatever that means. I think everybody agrees that there is no objective measure of that but becomes one that is subjective. My personal view is that they have gone way beyond that. I think they have a very nice building and subjectively from my perspective, it does exceed the IDDSG. If you want to make findings as to why it does so, I would incorporate Mr. Vasbinder's testimony, because I think he articulated very clearly how they have exceeded the standards. I support the proposal. If we are to move to approve, I would remove Condition 3 from the draft of the resolution because I don't think that driveway should be relocated out of the easement. O'Connell says there are two big issues here, the architecture and the easement. I will address the architecture first. We are dealing with a unique situation. It states either "above or exceed" the IDDSG. There are no clear guidelines as to what that means. It is up to interpretation. In that case, I think it should be interpreted to the favor of the applicant. I think they have gone above and beyond the guidelines from what we see. I have made a list tonight that includes metal siding, glass, punch glass on all sides, awnings, textured walls, redesigned articulations, color scheme, parapets, form liners, and landscaping. If we need criteria to justify going above and beyond, there it is. I am convinced that given the nebulous definition, we have to interpret in their favor. On the easement, I agree with everything Rice said about Wood's letter. In Section