Loading...
2 - Minutes, 12/14/00CITY OF BiDULDER PLANNING BOARD MINUTES December 14, 2000 Council Chambers Room, Municipal Buildiug 1777 Broadway, 6:00 p.m. The following are the minutes of the December 14, 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 Potnmer Mark Ruzzin, Chair STAFF PRESENT: Cindy Brown, Housing Authority Russ Driskill, Parks and Recreation David Gehr, Assistant City Attorney Bev Johnson, Planner Mary Lovrien, Board Secretary Ruth McHeyser, Acting Director of L,ong Range Planning Cindy Pieropan, Housing Planner Peter Pollock, Planning Director Susan Richstone, Comprehensive Planner Randall Rutsch, Public Works/Transportation 1. CALL TO ORDER Vice Chair A. Gunter called the meeting to order at 6:05 p.m., and the following business was conducted. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES There were no minutes to approve. 3. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION There was no citizen participation. 4. DISCUSSION OF DISPOSITIONS, PLANNING BOARD CALL-UPS The Board had no comments on a Planning Department disposition (5517 Friends Place Arbor) and a Planning Board disposition (Boulder Waldorf Kindergarten). s: \ptan\pb-items\min utes\00121400min. wpd City of Boulder December 14, 2000 Planning Board Minutes Page 2 5. MATTERS FROM THE PLANNING BOARD, PLANNING DIRECTOR, AND CITY ATTORNEY This item was discussed after the discussion items. P. Pollock gave an update on the Homeless Shelter Working Group meetings and said that a public meeting is scheduled for January 24. He presented information on the Planning 101 course scheduled to begin on February 5, 2001. M. Ruzzin discussed the schedule for the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP) update. 6. CONSENT ITEM A. Consideration of a recommendation to City Council concerning a new lease with Boulder Day Nursery to continue their use and operation of a day care facility located at 1518 Spruce Street, within Barker Park. MOTION: On a motion by M. Ruzzin, seconded by P. Gowen, the Planning Board approved (6-0; A. O'Hashi was not present for this item) the consent agenda as proposed. D. Gehr was not present for this item because he had a conflict of interest. 7. ACTION ITEMS A. Public hearing and consideration of amendments to the MXR-D (Mixed Density Residential - Developing) and MU-D (Mixed-Use Developiag) zoning districts as described below. See the attached map for the locations of these zoning districts in the city. a) To allow a density bonus for affordable housing iu the MXR-D 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 tu very low and low income households; and b) Allow restaurants no larger than 1,000 square feet as a use by- right in the MII-D zoning district, and allow restaurants no larger than 1,500 square feet through use review in the MU-D zoning district. R. McHeyser explained that the North Boulder SubcommunityPlan (NBSP) allows the development of an affordable housing density bonus. She also noted that the MXR-D zone was created to provide diverse and affordable housing with a wide range of dwelling types and incomes. She said that the future growth chart in the NBSP estimated that there would be approximately 400 new dwelling units in the Yarmouth north area, and with the bonus density the dwelling units could potentially increase by 125 units. She addressed a concern that other landowners in the area might be prevented from developing as allowed by zoning since the numbers in the plan would be exceeded.. She said that the most recent traffic impact study discovered that the impacts of adding these units over the entire zone was minimal. s:\pl an\pb-i [ems~min utes\00121400mi n. wpd City of Boulder December 1~4, 2000 Planning Board Minutes _ Page 3 She explained the impacts that might occur to the North Boulder Village Center if restaurant uses were aliowed in the MU-D zone. She said that sYaff has revised its recommendation to allow restaurants no lazger than 1,000 square feet as a use by right in this zone. P. Pollock pointed out written comments from A. O'Hashi, who would be arriving later to this meeting, and letters from Micki Kaplan and Rick Koopman. C. Pieropan discussed the procedure for the density bonus calculations, including how to achieve a wide variety of housing types and how to make the project financially feasible. C. Brown explained that the decrease in commercial uses in this area was in response to the Board's desire to achieve more housing and more affordability. She said that residents in the area suggested adding more vitality to the mixed use zone and developing a small neighborhood center. Public Participation: Rick Koopman, 742 Cotfage Lane: He said that the NBSP allocated 90,000 square feet of non- residential building to the whole north Boulder subcommunity area and not to just this area, and he was concerned that the greater density allocated on this site would prevent other property owners from developing their sites. He said that a lot of information was left out of the minutes from the October 7 meeting, and, consequently, there is not enough information available for the Board to make these decisions tonight. He said that at that meeting the Board specifically prohibited and questioned exactly the proposal that is being discussed. He elaborated on why the proposal is not in compliance with the NBSP ar the Boulder V alley Comprehensive Plan--the area is currently medium density according to the BVCP. He said that the project will not work at the proposed density because of the parking reductions requested and the traffic that would be generated. He presented a traffic study conducted for the area regarding the number of trips that would be generated. Cindy Brown, Co-Executive Director of'the Housing Authority, 551 Pearl Street: She said that when the Housing Authority develops a site, the project must be economically feasible, it must serve a social purpose to provide housing that is affordable to very low income people, and that it should be environmentally sustainable. She said that this proposal is based on input from community meetings to provide mixed use and a gathering place for the neighborhood. She said that this is an opportunity to get at least 35 percent permanently affordable housing by spreading the fixed costs over many housing units. She said that the traffic study conducted for the BVCP addresses the additional units on the site and states that the area is well suited for additionai units because of its proximity to the proposed Village Center, a mixture of employment uses, and excellent alternate transportation mode options. Aron Maripol, Co-Executive Director for Thistle Community Housing,1339 North Street: He describad the Buena Vista housing community, including the density (17 units per acre), the affordability of the 57 units {49 aze permanently affordable), open space, and community center. He said that he supports the proposal by the Housing Authority. s:lplan~pb-itemslmiwtes100 ] 21400min.wpd City of Boulder December 14, 2000 Planning Board Minutes Page 4 Nolan Rosall, 616 14th Street: He said that he supports the proposal as presented, including the density bonus as a way to get affordable housing and the percentage of affordable and market rate units. He said that the change in zoning is consistent with the overall NBSP. He said that the plan does not negatively impact the potential expansion of the People's Clinic given the same kind of site plan review, and a larger population in close proximity to the Clinic is appropriate. He said that he thinks that a small-scale restaurant would be appropriate through a site review. Return to the Board: The Board discussed whether additional units in the area could be approved through site review; that an impact analysis would be considered in the guidelines and standards of the zone; impacts that would occur with this density and mix of units on the site; application of this zone to other areas; concern for the 80 percent density increase; review of each site to determine if the infrastructure can support the additional density and to make the area livable, not just affordable; and protection of the neighborhood with the site review process. MOTION: On a motion by M. Ruzzin, seconded by P. Gowen, the Planning Boazd recommended (7-0) that City Council allow a density bonus in the MXR-D zoning district of up to a maximum of 15 units per acre when at least 30 percent of the dwelling units are permanently affordable and up to a maximum of 18 units per acre when at least 35 percent of the dwelling units are permanently affordable, incorporating the staff inemorandum dated December 14, 2000 (preparation date December 7, 2000), including an amendment on page 26, Section 2. (a) (3) to read "For lots or parcels that are five acres or more, at least three housing types. The minimum number ofany housing type for lots or parcels that are more than five acres shall be five housing types" and an amendment on page 27, Section 2. (a) (3) (c) to read "Density Bonus for the Provision of Additional Affordable Housing: The approving authority may approve a maximum density increase up to eight additional dwelling units per acre if all of the following standards are met." A. Gunter suggested that the commercial square footage be reduced because the additional commercial space does not achieve a jobs(housing balance. B. Pommer suggested that the NBSP be clarified so that the intent to provide a density bonus is documented. D. Gehr said that it is not necessary to amend the NBSP to account for the density bonuses that are being proposed for the MXR-D zoning district--the plan contemplated a density bonus program. He said that the NBSP is not a regulatory document for the purposes of growth management and the allocation of dwelling units and floor area; those numbers were used for planning purposes. He said that when the plan was passed, the City Council adopted an ordinance requiring that development within the North Boulder Subcommunity be consistent with the plan, and that provision was ultimately replaced by zoning regulations designed to implement the plan and were adopted as part of the 1997 comprehensive rezoning project. He noted that now, the parts ofthe plan that have a regulatory component aze those that have been adopted in other parts of the Land Use Regulations, such as the standard of site review requiring development to be compatible with the character created by a plan § 9-4- 11(I)(2)(E)(I) or that new development conform to the right-of-way element of the plan §9-3.3.14(b). s: \p I an\pb-i tems\mi nutes\OO I 21400mi n.wpd City of Boulder December 14, 2000 Planning Board Minutes Page 5 Regarding the restaurant use on the site, the Board discussed the viability of the Village Center and a neigY~borhood restaurant, a requirement that a restanranY use of 1,000 square feet be subject to a use review to prevent many such restaurants from developing in the zone and to control placement and types, and the possibility of allowing a bed and breakfast where tourists and residents could patronize. MOTION: P. Gowen made a motion that the Planning Board recommend that City Council approve the policy that restaurants no larger than 1,000 square feet be allowed by right in the MU-D zoning district. The motion failed for lack of a second. MOTION: On a motion by P. Gowen, seconded by T. Nielsen, the Planning Board recommended (6-1; A. O'Hashi opposed) that City Council approve the policy that restaurants no larger than 1,000 square feet be allowed by use review in the MU-D zoning district, incorporating the staff memorandum dated December 14, 2000 (prepazation date December 7, 2000). A. O'Hashi opposed the motion because he thought that such an establishment would not be viable. 8. DISCUSSION ITEM A. Out-of-city water and sewer service for Gateway Fun Park Center located at 4800 North 28th 5t. S. Richstone said that the Gateway Fun Center had submitted a request for a service area expansion last year as part of the major update to the Comprehensive Plan. She said that Planning Board and City Council were not interested in pursuing that option, but Council said that it would be interested in considering out-of-city water and sewer service subject to restricting it to this property. She said that if City Council approved the out-of-city utility service, it would be the first extension to aprivate user in Area III. She outlined the four policy options and the findings relative to each (not extend city utility service to Gateway Fun Park, extend utility service to the existing use, extend services to the existing use and potential expansion, and expand the service azea and annex the site). Michael Johan, owner of Gateway Fun Center, said that the Planning Board and City Council indicated a strong interest in providing out-of-city service that would carefully restrict it to the property but allow the Fun Center to provide for the community's recreational and entertainment needs. He described some of the ways that make Gateway Fun Center a valued community asset and why city extension of out-of-city utilities makes sense, including entertainment and recreation value provided at no expense to the loca] government and taxpayers; limitation of the use of water and sewer to the properties identified and only for recreational and entertainment uses and the irrigation of landscape and gardens; the payment of improvement costs by Gateway Fun Center; an economic policy by the BVCP update that supports local businesses; surrounding land is, for the most part, under city ownership or owned by a quasi-govemmental entity (the Housing Authority); and the addition and improvement of recreation and attractions at the park. He presented petitions with signatures of people in support of the extension of out-of-city utilities. He urged the Board to s: \plan\pb-i temsMinu tes\00121400min. wpd City of Boulder December 14, 2000 Planning Board Minutes Page 6 recommend out-of-city utilities under appropriate restrictions and limitations such as proposed to keep Gateway Fun Center viable. Bruce Dierking, Representative for GatewayFun Center, said that the applicant is in agreement with most of the staff s findings in terms of the legal framework and the sections of the BVCP that apply. He noted that the BVCP does contemplate the extension of out-of-city utilities into Area IiI under appropriate circumstances which he believes are met in this proposal. He said that the applicant has offered to contractually ]imit utility service to Gateway Fun Center's uses. Public Participation: Kirk Cunningham, Sierra Club,1842 Canyon Blvd.: He said that the Sierra Club does not wish to see Area III land developed, and Area II lands should be reviewed on a case-by-case basis, mostly to encourage affordable housing. He said if the Sierra Club had reviewed this issue, it would be opposed to the extension of utility service to this type of development and for setting such a precedent. He also questioned having a fun park as a gateway to the city. Lancene Cadora, 5052 North FoothiIls Highway: She said that the pxoposal is for the extension ofwater and sewer service to the existing use, but eventually, if their business is to survive, they will need to have additional land. She asked that service not be provided to Gateway for the following reasons: 1) the future of the north Boulder azea is still evolving, 2) the service to an amusement park sets the stage for further non-conforming and concrete uses in the area, 3) water conservation is an issue in the community, and water should not be directed to a water park, 4) this is a privately owned business and should not require government subsidy, and 5) although Gateway states that it is a small business, she estimates that the facility brings in about $3.5 million in revenues. Leo Hollberg, 5052 North Foothills Highway: He asked that the following impact issues be considered: noise, lights, water, hours of operation, environmental issues such as wildlife, and impact to the northern part of the city. Dan Wolson, owaer of Gateway: He clarified the statement that Gateway is a benefit to the communityby providing such uses that the city does not have to provide for the community. He said that 150,000 people will visit the park this year, and the Fun Center will have revenue of a little over $1 million. He said that the owners are planning to bring in new activities rather than to expand the park. He said that the noise and light impacts to the Buena Vista neighborhood were corrected, and that the Gateway Center has a low impact on the wildlife, such as rabbits. He said that the Gateway Center would like to provide more bathroom facilities and a drinking fountain for the golf course. He discussed the hours of operation for each season and how the go-carts aze powered. He asked the Board to support the extension of service so that Gateway Fun Center can continue to grow. s: \plan\pb-items\mi nutes\00121400min.wpd City of Boulder December 14, 2000 Planning Board Minutes Return to the Board: Page 7 The Board-discussed water needs for the existing and potential uses at the Fun Center, how an agreement might be structured to provide service to the existing uses, and the process that the applicant might use to amend the agreement. Board members were split as to whether or not the city should extend out-of-city utilities to Gateway. The main reasons offered by Board members for supporting or opposing the utility extension are summarized below: Comments in Support: Gateway is an existing use, and the business will remain for many years with or without the extension of water. Creating a contract can be done which will have no precedential value at all because the extension can be limited to the existing site without allowing any expansion of the water for any other purpose to any other property. Gateway is an asset to the community as it exists currently and offers a pastime to a segment of the community that tends to be left out. The facilityneeds to remain in the community and there is not another place to put the use. There is a natural cycle to this type of business so it does not preclude future options on the site. Extend city utilities to Gateway Fun Center to provide drinking water for health and safety reasons. Comments in Opposition: • Extension of out-of-city utilities would set a precedent that would make it harder to deny another property owner's request for city utilities. • There is no reason to extend water to Gateway Fun Center. The Boazd has made numerous decisions that preclude extending water to Gateway, and an extension of water to the site would be in direct opposition to decisions that the Board has made in the not too distant past. • This application is a direct result of expectations that the Planning Reserve will be developed, not if the area will be developed. Providing water to the site will extend the development potential expectation ofthe Planning Reserve. Ifcity utilities are to be provided to Gateway, it should be through a service area expansion. • Ifwater is provided across Highway 36, there will be more requests far the same service, and such service is not logical because city water does not exist on the east side of Highway 36, and it is not appropriate. This decision to bring water across Highway 36 should be made in the context of the discussion regarding the possibilities for the Planning Reserve. s:\plan\pb-items\minu[es\001 Z 1400min.wpd City of Boulder December 14, 2000 Planning Board Minutes Page 8 If utilities are extended to the Gateway property, the Board is in direct opposition to positions made by the Board and City Council when they denied interest in the service area expansion as part ofthis BVCP update and that the remaining Planning Reserve should stay as to not preclude options for the future. Until it is known what will happen in the Planning Reserve, we should not, in a piecemeal fashion, start setting up those properties for development but keep as many options as possible available. • Do not sacrifice some of the environmental values for some of the more social oriented community values. • Even if utilities were limited to the existing site, the applicant could place an activity that does not require additional water onto an expansion area and save the water for the existing use. • The Planning Reserve was created to preserve the land far the future, and extending water to Gatewaywould not preserve the area but make it more likely that it would not be available for other uses in the future. • When the city extends water to developments, the ability ofthe water treatment plant is taxed thereby forcing the building of additional treatment capacity subsidized by citizens. • Do not support provision of water in order to provide for a water park. MOTION: P. Gowen made a motion that the Planning Board recommend that City Council approve the extension of out-of-city water and sewer service to the Gateway Fun Center on the condition that the service be limited strictly to the existing site and thaY the use of the water be limiYed to the site as it exists today and no other site. The motion died for lack of a second. Instead of making a motion, the Boazd decided to provide City Council with its many and varied comments so that Council and the County Commissioners could get a better idea of the Board's discussion. B. Discussion of the Year 2000 Major Update to the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan including: * options for reducing future job growth in commercial areas, * revised impact analysis of proposed land use map changes, * transportation impact analysis, and * proposed changes to the land use map relating to open space, public lands, and the planning area boundary. S. Richstone said that the goal of this item is to prepare for the joint Planning Board/City Council study session on January 23 to discuss options for reducing future job growth in commercial azeas, s:\pl an\pb-i tems\mi n utes\00121400min.wpd City of Boulder December 14, 2000 Planning Board Minutes Page 9 the revised impact analysis and transportation analysis from the proposed land use designation changes. She asked for comments on the outline for the revised impact analysis and whether the approach to the revised analysis addresses the Boazd's questions and concerns about the potential impacts and whether there is additional information needed. B. Johnson pointed out a draft outline regarding the revised impact assessment. Jim Charlier presented slides that depicted recent trends in traffic and transportation since adoption of the last Transportation Master Plan (TMP) in 1996 and projected future trends. He summarized by stating that the overall commute mode shares (primarily in the transit share) and resident mode shares have improved (primarily in the transit and walkJbike shares); employment has grown significantly, bringing with it increased in-commuting; external traffic is up much more than the internal traffic; and the VMT is fairly close to the 2.5 million VMT goal. He compazed year 2020 scenarios regarding the number ofjobs and dwelling units in Boulder Valley and daily VMT in 2020. He discussed the reasons people choose their transportation mode, impacts of traffic on the street system, and trip length. He said that the next steps include evaluation ofpotential impact ofBVCP changes on traffic and transportation trends, evaluation ofpotential impact oftransportation policies and travel behavior shifts on these trends, and preparation of information for the January 23 joint City Council/Planning Board study session. R. McHeyser outlined strategies for reducing job growth in the city's commercial areas (code changes, either FAR limitations on uses or maximums, purchase of sites, partnership between the city and landowners, and conversion of commercial land to residentialland). She said that the policy options that staff will bring forward will include a mixture of these tools resulting in a range of numbers of projected jobs reduced. She discussed what the by-right FAR would look like with no variances to setbacks, height limitations, and open space and parking requirements. She distributed information on non-residential FARs in particulaz zones. The Board made the following individual comments, not by consensus: Revised Impact Analysis Be clear about the assumptions that are being used to make the projections and note why the assumptions were used and the rationale. Analyze noise and pollution impacts. Transportation Impact Analysis Review out-commuting trends. s:\plan\pb-items\min utes\00121400min.wpd City of Boulder December 14, 2000 Planning Board Minutes Page 10 Options for Reducing Future Job Growth in Commercial Areas • Review the industrial land in more detail for opportunity sites, such as vacant land. Review to see what opportunities exist for converting commercial land to residential uses. • Include the job density increase that happens in every community when the price of rents increase. • Increase the number of employees making higher incomes rather than develop more retail because the lower income workers cannot afford to live in the city thereby creating more traffic. Increasing the retail base because it generates tax dollars is not sustainable. • Determine how much industrial land is much lower than a.4 FAR. Consider that more development beyond a certain percentage will need to accomplish a set of things, such as any development over 10 percent of existing industrial properties has to accommodate housing for 10 percent of the jobs. • Consider reducing projected future job growth by 50 percent. • Prepare a policy to address the increase in applications to convert residentiai to office use if office development is restricted in commercial zones. Review what a service commercial zone might look like. The staff and Board discussed the proposed agenda for the January 23 study session with City Council, the city-owned land inventory, and the potential for residential use. 9. ADJOURNMENT: The Planning Board adjourned the meeting at 11:10 p.m. s:\plan\pb-items\min utes\00121400min. wpd