2 - Minutes 11/16/20CITY OF BOULDER
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
November 16, 2000
Council Chambers Room, Municipal Building
1777 Broadway, 6:00 p.m.
The following are the minutes of the November 16, 2000 City of Boulder Planning Board meeting.
A permanent set of these minutes is kept in Central Records, and a tape recording of the meeting is
maintained for a period of seven years in Central Records (telephone: 303-441-3043).
BOARD PRESENT:
Peter Gowen
A1 Gunter, Vice Chair
Andria Jacob
Tina Nielsen
Alan O'Hashi
Beth Pommer
Mark Ruzzin, Chair
STAFF PRESENT:
Randy Earley, Public Works/Utilities
Jerry Gordon, Deputy City Attorney
Jean Gatza, Planner
Bob Harberg, Public Works, Utilities
Bev Johnson, Planner
Mary Lovrien, Board Secretary
Peter Pollock, Planning Director
Susan Richstone, Comprehensive Planner
CALL TO ORDER
Chair M. Ruzzin declared a quorum at 6:00 p.m., and the following business was conducted.
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
There were no minutes to approve.
3. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION
Rick Koopman, P.O. Box 65: He said that he was concerned that the Board minutes do not give
sufficient background information needed to make decisions regarding North Boulder and the North
Boulder Subcommunity Plan. He referenced the Board minutes of October 7, 1999 regarding the
Drive-in Theater site and stated that many important Board comments were not included. He was
concerned that the minutes were passed on to other boards and commissions who mayhave assumed
incorrectly that there were no problems with the project as it was proposed. He said that he hoped
that the official record was the information contained in the recorded tapes rather than the minutes.
s:\plan\pb-items~minutes\001116tttin.wpd
City of Boulder
November 16, 2000
Pianning Board Minutes
Page 2
4. DISCUSSION OF DISPOSITIONS, PLANNING BOARD CALL-UPS
M. Ruzzin pointed out two Planning Board dispositions (Friends' School Site Review and Use
Review and First Congregational Church of Boulder Site Review) and a Planning Department
disposition (Upland Meadows Subdivision). He asked that a location and plat map be included with
future Planning Department dispositions.
5. MATTERS FROM THE PLANNING BOARD, PLANNING DIRECTOR, AND
CITY ATTORNEY
M. Ruzzin noted a staff inemorandum that will be sent to City Council requesting vacation of a
portion of steeply sloping 17th Street right-of-way located one halfblock north of Mapleton Avenue
where the 17th Street ends at the reaz property line of 1700 Bluff Street. The Board had no
comments.
(The following discussion occurred after the action items.) S. Richstone updated the Boazd on
the City Council meeting regarding the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP) policychanges.
She pointed out the following significant changes: 1) City Council added a first sentence under
Principles of Sustainability to read "Sustainable development meets the needs of the present without
compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs;" 2) City Council adopted
the following wording in the sentence in Section 2, Preservation of Community Character: "The City
will encourage the preservation of community character as reflected in tl« devel~pment pattern and
relative affordability of the existing housing stock in Boulder's varied neighborhoods" deleting
"which may include regulating demolitions and out-of-scale new homes and additions;" and 3) City
Council adopted the following wording in the sentence under Accessory Units: "Consistent with
existing neighborhood character, accessory units shali be encouraged in order to increase rental
housing options in single family residential neighborhoods" deleting "and without increasing
cumulative negative impacts on neighborhoods."
She distributed a copy of the flyer to be mailed to residents near Table Mesa and Basemar shopping
centers informing them of the December 6 meeting regazding the mixed use concept in those areas.
She said that City Council did not want to consider mixed use in these areas as part ofthe Year 2000
BVCP land use map changes.
B. Pommer suggested that the Board vote be included in the Planning Board minutes, summaries,
and dispositions, and A. Gunter suggested that the reasons for disagreement also be noted and that
more detail be provided in the minutes to get a better undersCanding of how the Board arrived at its
decisions. P. Pollock gave an update on next steps for affordable housing in Boulder. He mentioned
that the Design Committee for the 28th Street Project has been reassembled to review the objectives
for the northern section. M. Ruzzin gave an update on the Homeless Shelter Working Group, and
P. Pollock distributed information regarding the definition offive different shelter types, assignment
to land use categories, whether they are prohibited, conditional use, or use review, what those
s:\plan\pb-items~minutes\001116min.wpd
City of Boulder
November 16, 2000
Planning Board Minutes
Page 3
conditions might be, different occupancy levels, and suggested uses and conditions that require
further discussion. He said that other issues identified were overwintering, the zoning code, and
options for alternative sites.
T. Nielsen said that she was not able to attend the Downtown Design Advisory Board (DDAB)
meeting last week, but the agenda included three by-right proj ects, including a refinement ofthe Pazk
Plaza project. She said that there was a special DDAB meeting last night that reviewed the public
space at 9th and Canyon. B. Pommer gave an update on the Civic Center Task Force meeting,
including its discussion on the update of the 1992 Civic Center Task Force plan. The Board
scheduled a joint Planning Board/Boulder Urban Renewal Authority (BLJRA) meeting for 5:30 p.m.
on January 18 to discuss issues concerning redevelopment in the Boulder Valley Regional Center
and the application of design guidelines. The Board agreed to have another meeting with BURA at
a later time. M. Ruzzin reminded the Board of the joint Planning Board/City Council study session
on January 23. P. Pollock reported on the Community Development Coordinator position in the
Planning Department.
6. CONSENT ITEM
A. Pubiic hearing and consideration of the Treated Water Master Plan.
The Board took this item off the consent agenda and placed it as an action item to allow staff to
present some new information on employment and population projections. R. Earley presented
information regarding how much asbestos-concrete pipe remains in the infrastructure (4.6%) and
location of the pipes. He said that the city has a variance from the State Health Department that
waives its requirement to test for asbestos because eazlier tests indicated that it is at a low level. He
explained why the Treated Water Master Plan used a population projection from 1999 and showed
the differences in the 1999 and current projections for population and employment. He explained
why the recommendations and conclusions in the plan aze correct even with the increased population
and employment projections. He discussed the conservation plan, including notices to the public
about conserving water, a rate structure that penalizes high use, and rewards for using low water use
appliances. B. Harberg explained the purpose of the Treated Water Master Plan regarding system
and financial needs over the next 20 years and the 5-year rate updates.
Public Participation: There was no public participation.
Return to the Board:
The Board suggested that the following items be noted in the plan: the new conservation plan, the
lime-slurry treatment that the city uses to protect the asbestos-concrete pipe from degradation, and
the low hazard to the public from asbestos pipes. The Board also suggested that staff use the current
population and employment numbers in the current draft document rather than waiting six months
s:\plan\pb-items~minutes\001116min. wpd
City of Boulder
November 16, 2000
Planning Board Minutes
Page 4
to update the plan. The Board discussed the impact to the system with projected population and job
growth, water availability with impacts from global warming, the need for financial statements and
projections, funding to upgrade facilities, water rates over the last 10 years and projects that were
implemented because of the increase, updates from the Capital Improvements Program Committee
regarding master plans, projected future water peak demand for the two treatment plants and
priorities for upgrading those facilities to reach that capacity, steps taken to promote water
conservation among commercial users, the plan to use Boulder Reservoir water for drinking water,
plans for protecting the water quality in the Boulder feeder canals from contamination that might
occur from future adjacent trail use, and the possibility of destroying wetlands created by leaks in
the water distribution system when those leaks are repaired.
MOTION: On a motion by P. Gowen, seconded by A. O'Hashi, the Planning Board endorsed the
Treated Water Master Plan and recommended (7-0) that City Council adopt the Plan as presented
in the staff inemorandum dated November 16, 2000 (preparation date November 3, 2000) with a
modest technical memorandum addendum to incorporate the discussion regarding the new
employment and population projections. B. Pommer offered a friendly amendment that financial
data be provided in the Plan. The friendly amendment was accepted by P. Gowen and A. O'Hashi.
7. ACTION ITEMS
A. Request to continue a public hearing and consideration of the following
amendments to Title 9, Land Use Regulations:
a) To allow a density bonus for affordable housing in the MXR-D (Mixed
DensityResidential-Developing ) zoning district as follows: To maintain
the maximum density in the MXR-D zoning district at 10 units per acre,
but allow an increase to the maximum density when more affordable
housing is provided as follows: up to 15 units per acre when at least 30%
of the dwelling units are permanently affordable, and up to 18 units per
acre if at least 35% of the units are permanently affordable to very Iow
and low income households; and
b) Allow restaurants no larger than 1,000 square feet as a use by- right in
t6e MU-D (Mixed-Use Developing) zoning district, and allow restaurants
no larger than 1,500 square feet through use review in the MU-D zoning
district.
MOTION: On a motion by M. Ruzzin, seconded by P. Gowen, the Planning Boazd continued (6-0;
A. Jacob was not present for this item) this matter to December 14, 2000. A. Gunter suggested that
the public, including property owners and neighborhood associations, be notified extensively since
this item has the practical effect of changing zoning and increasing density significantly.
s:\plan\pb-items~minutes\001116min.wpd
City ofBoulder
Novemb~r 16, 2000
Pi~~Dg BO~'d Minutes
B~ Pu61ic hearin
III - Plannin~ ~nd consideratinn ofinitiation o~'a co
Preservation ~ Reserve Area and pag~ 5
Area. Potential e m~~~bensive stud
' p• Pollock said that Cit xAansioq of y°f ~e Area
the Area ITI . ~ur~~
Reserye desi Y CO~cil askad that the pY~In
initiafin ~ation or further re
S a study of the ducing t]ie size of tha g Bo~d consider elim'
developm~nt of the Pla ~~a ~-PI ~'ea ~ PI ~jiating the Ala
presenteda ~ingR~s~ ~ing RQSer~,e. B. JoLnson I~&Reserveandfo ~ing
mapthatshoWS~~n~ ~'e'SheouYlined presented ~onsid~r
a~nher study would entail. She WlYado ~~~'elopment a histo
and thep pt~Plapn~ngR~s~ potential based o ~' °F the
arks and Recreation mentionad • rve bound n couz~ty Zoning,
issues raised byrh~ p Advisory$o~. lssues raised b ~eS~ ~d outlined '
d reg~d~n y~e parks and R~~r jssues that
of futu~.e Op~n ~ Pen Space Board of T 8 the area ro eation De
paCea~quisitionsinthaarastaesreg~dingthepossbil~yofarkdevelo p~ment
Publicpar~cf ~'therstud mentand
patfon: Y because
Lancepe C$dor
Plannin a~ SO52 North F
g Board meetin °ptbf~~s FIi 6
desigqafion-- ~ wh~'~ the $o~.d g waY~ Sheraiteratedher
that ttrese four ~liminat statements
properties She said that if the r~perhes hava f~w ~£our properties made
nam~ desi of ~e eli from tha Rura1 pat an earlier
only, Sh~ SUggeste~ that thes ~ation is chan m~nation neservat~on
nexf fpur $ed, these °ptena used for
the Plann~nears or, ifit~ndtr turn nt to r~p~lye the Qr°n~ prope ~a~n ng Reserv~islandhrura ~n
~ Resarve Prese 1~ft in the P
dll the latid to i~ur py Spa~e> then remove all the at least for the
Jeff Brown, 4168 Amber Place: aI Preserv pro e
Recreation De ation. P rties from
said p~~ent be ke He S°bgested that the I9
im there are proven needs for a the Plafhe coReserva for lang-term future g to tha Parks atld
pacts that w park in ~at beron
ould occur on tha prop~rty ~nunit
Y, and the Park developm~nt, xe
L~o Ho[Ibe Y outu,eigh sorna of th~ negative
entire Plar~n~g R serverth FootLills Iiigh~,ay: He supPorted a furtherco
Sallypqartin,lgq7Bro mprei~ensivestud
Center k,oula adway: She Yofthis
redesi n~~a to b~ consistent~ked whether the extension of
gnated. ~t~ the Rural eit ee
P~~S~'ar1On desi rvl~s af Gateway Fun
Return to the $oard; ~~ion if the area
were
Regarding the question about the Gateu,a
~10~' for extension of wat~r servi
Y Fun Center, p, po~~ock explained
~~ ~nt0 `~a ~, but t$af extension n
that the B~Cp doos
eeds to be ~ansistc~t with the
s: iplantp(~iterrey~nutes1001116rn~n, wpd
City of Boulder
November 16, 2000
Planning Board Minutes
Page 6
land designation in Area III. He explained that the goal of the Planning Reserve is to maintain
options for the future, and the goal of the Rural Preservation is to maintain the rural character of the
land. He said that the change in land designation might be an issue far the Gateway Fun Center,
especially if it wanted to expand. The Board and staff discussed the decisions made by the Boulder
County Commissioners, Boulder County Planning Commission, and City Council, benefits that
might occur with further study in the area, whether a study needs to be initiated at this time, the
problem with allowing cityproperty to develop but not allowing private propertyto develop, the type
of development that could happen in this area, the need £or a park site in this area, and a joint
discussion with City Council regarding this issue.
MOTION: On a motion by P. Gowen the Planning Board supported a study for reducing the size
or eliminating the Planning Reserve azea for the next BVCP update but not for the year 2000 BVCP
update. There was no second to the motion. B. Pommer and M. Ruzzin expressed concern that the
study not be predetermined with a particular outcome.
MOTION: On a motion by P. Gowen, seconded by B. Pommer, the Planning Board recommended
to City Council (5-2; M. Ruzzin and A. Gunter opposed) against proceeding with a study for the
purpose ofreducing the size or eliminating the Planning Reserve area as part ofthe Year 2000 BVCP
update. M. Ruzzin offered a friendly amendment that this item be part of the agenda for the joint
City Council/Planning Board study session on January 23, 2000 should they so desire. He withdrew
his friendly amendment because the issue would probably be discussed at that meeting. M. Ruzzin
and A. Gunter opposed the motion because they thought that there is value in further study of the
Planning Reserve.
C. Public hearing and consideration of proposed changes to the Plan Amendments
section of the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan.
S. Richstone said that it would be beneficial to review the amendment section of the BVCP to
provide clarity as to the process that should occur for amending the plan. She said that Claire Levy,
consultant, convened a task force to discuss this issue and made recommendations. She explained
the provision when non-landowners request a change to the BVCP and the added procedures to
clarify that a property owner may, at his or her discretion, have Planning Board consider their request
for a change that may be considered separately from an annual or five-year review.
Public Participation: There was no public participation.
The Board discussed the following issues: Concern with the possibility of generating a lot of
applications for changes instead of reviewing a rare request that needed to be addressed at once; a
suggestion to push every request at least to the annual review with a call-up provision so that the
other four-body reviewers can vote on the matter ifthey so desire; the reason that the words "major"
s:\plan\pb-items~ninutes\001116min.wpd
City of Boulder
November 16, 2000
Planning Board Minutes
Page 7
and "minor" were deleted to distinguish the types of amendments; whether the Planning Board
should adopt findings or show cause if it wants to defer a minor amendment; that the B VCP not be
changed whenever someone makes a request; whether to notify the property owner if there is a
consideration of a change in the land use designation on that person's property; and the differences
in the language provided by the task force versus staff regarding the notification process to property
owners.
MOTION: On a motion by P. Gowen, seconded by T. Nielsen, the Planning Board adopted (6-1;
A. Gunter opposed) the changes to the Plan Amendment section of the Boulder Valley
Comprehensive Plan as presented in the staff inemorandum dated November 16, 2000 (preparation
date November 2, 2000). P. Gowen suggested a friendly amendment to incorporate revised language
on page 13, last paragraph, to read "Any property owner whose property would be affected by a
proposed change in land use designation or by service area expansions, contractions or boundary
changes will receive timely written notice that such change or changes will be considered. Planning
staff shall exert its best efforts to provide such notice within 30 days of receiving a suggestion that
is to be considered. However, no hearing on any such proposal shall be held unless the affected
property owner was provided with this written notice at least 30 days prior to the date set for the
hearing on the proposed change." T. Nielsen accepted the friendly amendment,
A. Gunter offered an amendment to the motion to delete "upon a finding of good cause" in the third
sentence in the last paragraph on page 8 to read "Changes determined to meet the criteria in this
section may still be deferred by the City Planning Board or City Council to the annual or five year
review." A. O'Hashi seconded the motion. The amendment failed (2-5; M. Ruzzin and A. Gunter
voted for the amendment, and P. Gowen, B. Pommer, T. Nielsen, A. Jacob, and A. O'Hashi voted
against the amendment).
A. Gunter voted against the main motion because he thought it was important to provide the
Boulder County Planning Commission and County Commissioners with a call-up provision to the
current process when there is a request for a change to the land use designation outside of the annual
or five-year update process.
8. DISCUSSION ITEM
A. Update on the Year 2000 Major Update to the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan -
proposed changes to plan document organization.
J. Gatza said that the recommendations regarding the text and organization of the plan are to make
the BVCP more usable. She explained the purpose of the changes in the draft introduction to the plan
and proposed changes to the outline.
s:\plan\pb-items~minutes\001116min.wpd
City of Boulder
November 16, 2000
Planning Board Minutes Page 8
The £ollowing comments were made by individual Board members, not by consensus:
• Be cazeful not to add too much language in the document. Write in a matter-of-fact manner;
• Be careful in stating that the Plan is a"shared vision of the future." Be careful in stating
that "sustainability drives the overall framework of the Plan" because it is not driving the
overall framework in the way that sustainability has been defined;
• Upgrade the graphics in the Plan;
• Remove or correct the statement "Those who can live within the city find themselves
spending an increasing amount of their income on housing." Newcomers to the city do
spend an increasing amount of their income on housing, but those who have lived in the
city for a long time do not.
• Complete an action plan;
• Work on the document or pieces of the document sooner so that Boazd members have time
to review the plan;
• Make sure that the use of "shall" and "musY' in the document is consistent throughout;
9. ADJOURNMENT
The Planning Board adjourned the meeting at 9:55 p.m.
s: \plan\pb-items~minutes\001116min.wpd