Loading...
Minutes - Planning Board - 01/18/2001• APPROVED APRIL 5, 2001 ~ CITY OF BOULDER PLANNING BOARD MINUTES January 18, 2001 ~ / Council Chambers Room, Municipal Building 1777 Broadway, 6:00 p.m. The following are the minutas of tha Jamiary 18, 2001 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). PLANNING BOARD PRESENT: Peter Gowen A1 Gunter, Vice Chair Andria Jacob Tina Nielsen Alan O'Hashi Beth Pommer Mark Ruzzin, Chair BOULDER URBAN RENEWAL AUTHORITY (BURA) PRESENT: Ira Barron ~ Susan Connelly Richard Epstein Richard Lopez Gerald Lee Francoise Poinsatte Clyda Stafford Philip Shull Joni Teter BOULDER URBAN RENEWAL AUTHORITY (BURA) ABSENT: Denis Nock STAFF PRESENT: Bob Cole, Director of Project Review Don Durso, Associate Planner David Gehr, Assistant City Attorney Elizabeth Hanson,Planner Mary Lovrien, Board Secretary Brad Power, BURA Susan Richstone, Comprehensive Planner ~ s:~plan\pb-iteme\minutes\O10118min.wpd ~ ~ City of Boulder Januaiy 18, 2001 Planuing $oard Minutes Page 2 ~ 1. CALL TO ORDER Chair M. Ruzzin declared a quorum at 5:40 p.m., and the followiug business was conducted. 2 JOINTBOULDERURBANRENEWALAUTHORITY(BURA)/PLANNINGBOARD MEETING M. Rnzzin stated that the purpose of the meeting of the BURA and Planning Board is to talk about upcoming issues regarding the Boulder Valley Regional Center (BVRC), Crossroads, the Boulder ValleyComprehensive Plan (B VCP), and design guidelinas adopted for Yhe BVRC. B. Cole said that although specific projects can l~ighlight some of the key conflicts, such as objectives for urban design, issues with the jobs/housing balance, reduction in future job growth in the community, and objectives for economic revitalization ofthe BVRC, the objective ofthe meeting is to talk about the more general policies. P. Shull said that it is important far BiJRA and the Planning Board Yo collaborate with each other in tha vision of the BVRC. He said that the mandate far BURA is to review the opportunities available with an eye to some of the economic realities. He suggested that Bi.JRA offer more specificity on the racently-adopted development guidelines, including housing, and that the Boards focus on the definition of"urban" and how that might be counter to other values in tha community and discuss whether Crossroads will determine the character of the area. The Planning Board and BURA discussed the design guidelines in relation to community priorities; economie vitality; 28th Street charette process; potential policy clashes; what constitutes mixed-use development--retail, office use, housing; funding for affordable housing, structured or underground il parking; transportation; traffic management in the area; architectural control; provision of housing ~~ for all Yhe new jobs that will be generated from redevelopment; definition of urban (buildings that are smaller scale, streets that support pedestrian and bicycle use, mass transit, and, to some extent, automobile flow, more density, especially to make mass transit cost effective, mixed use of afPardable and market rate housing, retail, and office uses); impacts of inchisionary zoning to redevelopment projects that incliide housing (allowing more density to make the project more economically feasible, making necessary code revisions, or having a code structure that permits flexibility); a recognition that not all sites will be appropriata for housing in a mixed-use project; whether there is a need for an area plan for the Crossroads area; creation ofprimary jobs rather than service sectar jobs in the primaiy business area; parking issues; financing for housing and parking; connectivity of the north part of 28th Street and the eastern industrial area to the BVRC; the feasibility of requiring mixed-use zoning for all sites in the BVRC (cost might ba too prohibitive in terms of the extra building infrastnicture); the limitation to build the town out at capacity because of Yhe finite traffic capacity; and provision of ]ess commercial and retail to try to balance the jobs/housing equaYion. 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES November 16, 2000: B. Pommer suggested revising the second sentence on page 4, last paragraph, to read "A. Gunter suggested that the public, inctuding property owners and neighUorhood associations, be notified extensively since the published notice was not specific enough about the ~ s:Aplan\pb-items\minutesVOl Oll Smin.wpd ~ City of Boulder January 18, 2001 Planning Board Minutes ~ Page 3 • proposed changes, and this item has the practical effect of changing zoning and increasing density significantly." On a motion by P. Gowen, seconded by B. Pommer, the Planning Board approved (7-0) the minutes of November 16, 2000 as amended. December 14, 2000: A. O'Hashi suggested changing the second sentence in the second paragraph on page 7, to read "Creating a contract can be done which will not set a precedent because the extension can be limited to Yhe existing site without allowing any expansion of the water for any othar purpose to any other property."He suggested changing the third sentence in the third paragraph to read "Fun parks experience a business cycle at a location that generally results in a change in the use due to changes in the neighborhood character over time." B. Pommer suggested a change in the fourth sentence, last paragraph, on page 2, to read "She addressed the concern expressed by landowners who had contacted her that they might be prevented from developing as allowed by zoning since the numbers in the plan would be exceeded." On a motion by P. Gowen, seconded by B. Pommer, the Planning Board approved (7-0) the minutes of December 14, 2000 as amended. 4. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION There was no citizen participation. 5. DISCUSSION OF DISPOSITIONS, PLANNING BOARD CALL-UPS The Board had no comments regarding the Planning Department disposition (Lot 3, Airport South Subdivision). ~ 6. MATTERS FROM THE PLANNING BOARD, PLANNING DIRECTOR, AND CITY ATTORNEY (This item was discussed after the action items.) B. Cole reported on staffing of the Downtown Design Advisory Board and said that the next meeting will be held on February 7. He pointed out the schedule for the Planning 101 sessions. S. Richstone updated the Board on the BVCP process and distributed packet repllcement pages regarding the January 23 City Council/Planning Board study session and a copy of Resolution 775 concerning commercial/industrial growth management. A. Gunter asked staff to find out how much commercial and residential square footage has been built in the last five years and present this inFormation at the January 23 study session. B. Cole updated the Board on the increase in new applications just before the increase in development review application fees took place. M. Ruzzin updated the Board on the Homeless Shelter Warking Group meetings. He announced that the work of the group will be highlighted during an open house on January 24, and a public hearing on the issue will be held on February 22. He also discussed the schedule for completion of the BVCP and pointed out that the Planning Board will have its retreat ou April 14 and a Board reception on April 18. A. Gunter suggested that at the retreat the Board discuss items for the Planning Department work plan, including ways to make transportation work better with new development. He corrected his statement made at an earlier Board meeting regarding the Gateway site. He said that supplying water to the Gateway site is proFitable, and the only time it would not be profitable is if Yhe city ran out of raw water and had to build a new treatment facility. ~ s: \p I a n\pb-i tems\minutes\01 O 118m i n.wpd ~ ~ City of Boulder 7anuary 18, 2001 • Planning Board Minutes Page 4 He distributed a letter that he wrote to the CoLinty Commissioners regarding his dissenting vote on the BVCP policies. ACTION ITEMS A. Public hearing and consideration of a request for Concept Pl~n Review and Comment #LUR2000-00005 to develop the site loc~ted at 1675 Y~rmotrth Avenue (northwest corner ofYarmoutl~ Avenue and 17th Street). The proposal is to build a 35,400 square foot medical building anc! 118 pnrking spaces wliicli will house the People's Clinic. The property is zoned MU-D (Mixed Use- Developing) (south 2/3 ofthe property) and MXR-D (Mixed DensityResidential- Developing) (north 1/3 of the property). D. Durso said that the People's Clinic is proposing to relocate and consolidate its current facilities to the Yarmouth location, which is composed of threa different lots with split zoning. He discussed staff issues ofwhether the location is appropriate Por the use and whether the scale and character are appropriate for the neighborhood. He described the uses on the three lots and the surrounding area, the height ofthe buildings, options for housing development with shared parking, parking on the site, and a site design that would allow the building to Face 16th Street. Nolan Rosall, 616 14Yh Street, applicant representative, described the area surrounding the site, the ~ site plan issues, including the location, configuration of and access to the building, circulation pattern and patient drop-off area, landscaping features, size and height of the two-story building, screening of the mechanical eqLtipment on the roof, developuient of the two adjacent properties, the proximity ofthe clinic to patients in the area, tl~e proposed less-than-standard parking for the site, and the types of housing that might be placed on the adjacent lots. Sherry Waserman, Executive Director of the People's Clinic, explained the need For additional square footage to serve more patients more efficiently without adding staff and the necessity for the patient drop-off area. Cindy Brown said that the Housing Authority has been in discussion with the People's Clinic and has offered a letter of interest to explore the possibility of developing housing on the site and adjacent sites. Public Participation: Jim Logan,1455 Yarmouth #114: He said that he was concerned that one large building with no mixed-use component was not appropriaCe for the zone. He suggested that the plan be reviewed by the Planning Board as a mixed use project with the clinic, housing, and parking in the middle of ~ screened site. Marcia Richardson,1737 Yaupon Avenue: She was concerned about the size ofthe building and lack of transportation in this area. She suggested that the Board review proposals for adjacent land and that anything built not be noticeable. ~ s:\plen\pb-items\minutes\010118min.wpd ~ City of Bouldar January 18, 2001 ~ Planning Board Minutes Page 5 Terence Nickie, 467417th Street: He was concerned Yhat, although the siYe is zoned for mixed use, only an out-of-scale clinic with a veiy large, unscreened parking lot is proposed. He said that the proposal is not compatible with the neighborhood and suggested that the project be scaled back, that the building itself be a buffer For 17th Street, that the facade of the building be designed so Yhat it blends with Che community, and fhat no vehicular access be allowed on 17fh Streef. Laura Weaver, 4676 17th Street: She said she is supportive of tha People's Clinic at this location anly if there are amendments Yo the plan. She said that the building needs to be shifted to mitigate the impact of parking and lights. She said that mixed use could be used to integrate the People's Clinic into the neighbarhood and could serve as a buffer between the two communities. She was concerned about traffic on Yarmouth and the overflow parking that would oecur on 17th Street. Jim Peters, Chair oF the Board of Directors of the People's Clinic and Vice President of Boulder Community Hospital: He said that the clinic is importattt to the community, it provides health care to those peopie who may not otherwise receive primary care, it is an active participant in health care issues for the county and city, and it has been an excellent partner with the hospital in providing primary care for people who come through the emergency room and need follow-up care. He asked that the Board review the project favorably because the conCinuing growth in the community is creating a need for additional space for the clinic. ~ Brandon Fields, Board of Directors of the People's Clinic,1416 Elder: He said that the People's Clinic was founded almost 30 years ago to provide primary medical care to the uninsured and underinsured. He said that about 87 percent of the patients of tlie clinic are Boulder residents, and more than one-third of Che patients are childrea. He said that the clinic is willing to wark with the Housing Authority to make this site mixed use on the adjacent lots. Sherry Waserman, 1100 Poplar: She added that the focus of the Peopie's Clinic has been neighborhood concerns. She said that the elinic is in the middle of its patient service area; just to the south of the proposed site is Yhe Boulder Meadows Mobile Home Park of which there is almost a 90 percenY match against the clinids patient list. She said that last year the clinic patient load was 10,044 patients. Helen Maisler, Director of Cliuical Services, Boulder County Health Department: She said that the People's Clinic is a vahtable part of this community and serves a diverse group of people who work in low-paying jobs without health insurance. She said that it is the combination of private providers as well as a whole netwark of community health centers that makes this community so rich in being able to serve the critical health care needs of its population, She said that the People's Clinic cannot provide adequate health care at its present locations in a way that meets standards ofcare. She said that it is important to keep the clinic in the same service area because of transportation access. She urged the Board to heip the clinic meet the needs of all famiiies. ~ s:\plan\pb-i[cros\mi nutes\010118miawpd City of Boulder Jantiary 18, 2001 • Planning Board Minutes Page 6 Bruce No11,1740 Yellow Pine Avenue: He said tliat the People's Clinic project is ill conceived for the chosen location and that the scale of the project and the parking lot are too large. He said that the surrounding area is residential and will become more so, and a structure the size of the elinic wonld be out of place in Yhis community. He said that the k~af~ic volurt~e thaY the clinic ~vould generate is tmdesirable in a residential neighborhood, and the location would cause clients to take lengthy bus rides and transFers to reach the clinic. Ha said that smaller clinics would better serve the client base. Bill Vorlage, Board member of the People's Clinic, 7132 Old Post Road: He read a letter from Kathryn Long Gates which he thinks represents the views of the curreut neighbors of the People's Clinia The letter states that the close proximity of the clinic has caused no problems or in any way had a negative impact on their property and that their experience over the many years might allay faars that other property owners might have. Satlie Charles, 973 Gilbert Street: She said that many families in Boulder are seen by the clinic, and the mission of the clinic is to be a good neighbor and to keep those families healthy. Greg Simmons, 493610th Street: He said that he supports the project Uecause the clinic serves a need and it needs to grow. Pete Leibig, 5463 Pueblo Place: He said that the ciinic is called a community health center because . it is there to serve the community. He said that the clinie will be located close to many families who use the services. He said that one of the struggles that community health centers constantly face is coming up with resources to serve the people, and running lots of small clinics costs more than running one larger clinic that can meet all the needs in the community. Mark Young, 570 Yuma Circle: He questioned the need to build such a large clinic because it seems tl~at people are being taken care of adequately, although maybe not as efficiently or as cost effective as possible. He suggested that the Board not necessarily look at how to accommodate the People's Clinic but how to take care of all the neighbors in the area. He was concerned about the plan for the building if the People's Clinic outginws Yhe facility, that the facility would not have adequata parking, that the structure is one large mass rather than several smaller buildings, that the clinic shouid be located along Broadway, and that there is no plan submitted for the adjoining property. He said that in its present form, he would not support it, and the present proposal is not consistent with small communities serving themselves, Dirk Friel, 1770 Yellow Pine: He questioned why such a project would be considered without having YarmoLith widened He said that traffic will increase and suggested that the citybuild bicycle lanes. Mark Matababe, 4672 17th Street: He said that he supports the People's Clinic but not the proposed site because it is not in scale with the rest of the neighborhood and that the patient growth • does not seem to be a problem at the existing site. s:Aplan\pb-items\minutesV070118min.nvpcl City of Boulder January 18, 2001 • Planning Board Minutes Page 7 Riclc Koopman, P.O. Box 65: He said that there is a new off-street bicycle path on Yarmouth that goes from Broadway to 19th Street. He addressed parking concerns by stating that a developer cannot count off-street parking in the proposal. He said that the city is asking the applicant to reduce its parking. He said that this property is a mixed use zone, but there is no requiremenY that a development include both residential and commercial in tl~is zone. He said that neighbars who buy homes here should realize that this property around them is not necessarily the same as their property and there could be things built exactly what the People's Clinic is proposing. He said that there is nothing in the North Boulder Subcommunity Plan which prohibits or specifically addresses that this properiy should be all residential or all commercial or a mixture of both. He said that transportation is Ueing proposed to be increased in the area. He said that this proposal is less than half the size of the Boulder medical center and will have less than a fourth the number of employees. Lou della Cava, 5266 Waterstone Drive: He said that he is aware of the amount of support the clinic gives to Boulder Community Hospital and asked the Board to support the clinic in this location. Return to the Board: The Board and staff discussed the uses and density that could be found under this zoning, impacts that this clinic would create versus what wouid be allowed on the site by right, and the square • footage of the proposed clinic. Individual Board members made the following commants, not by consensus: Consider screening the parking on the site with residential use; provide adequate parking on the site so that it does not spill into the neighborhood; covsider having a performance based criterion by which that iFthe clinic cannot keep the cars out oFthe neighborhood because the parking lot fills up, the amployees will not be able to park there; and conduct an analysis of the use of the parking at the current site and some justification for the ratio proposed for the current site because the current proposal is not a good solutiou; • The use in the zone is appropriate; the question is appropriate scale, density, and characteristics of the use and of the site; • Consider mixed use on the site with housing on 17th Street and shared parking; consider providing housing for employees on the site and on the adjacent site; • Encourage employees to use alternate modes of transportation; consider how traffic impacts will be mitigated; • Ensure that the use creates as few impacts as possible and, indeed, Pewer impacts than the • most probable development of the site; s:\plan\pb-items\mi nutes\O l01 I Smin.wpd City of Boulder Jamiary 18, 2001 • Planning Board Minutes Page 8 • Considerreconfiguringthelocationofthebuildingtoofferabettertransitionfromresidential to mixed use; consider breaking up the buildings and housing admiuistrative services into separate buildings to scale down the mass; • Make sure that the architecture of the building fits in with the surrounding area; consider a desigu charette with other architects to explore better ideas on Che arct~itectural design of the buildivg; • Consider keeping Seventeenth Street closed; • Consider going beyond the light standards in this particular case to keep all the lights away from the adjoining properties; • Make sure that the parking lot is lockad after hours so that it does not become a congregation place; • Consider restricting delivery times and restrict the hours of sales people to the times when the patienY load of the clinic is low so as not to disturb the neighbors; consider lowering the height of the building or at least cover mechauical equipment on the roof to address noise. • • Provide a place to sit outside during the summertime for patients and employees; • Ma1ce sure that noise from Yhe mechanical equipinent located on the rooftop is not a problem to neighbors; • Ensure that emergency vehicles can get in and out of the parking area; • Address the entire property at the site review. B. Public hearing and consideration of a request for Concept Plan Review and Comment #LUR2000-00004 for three redevelopment options far the southwest corner of 28th 5treet and Canyon BoulevArd (thrae retail buildings existing). The options are 1) minor renovation of existing buildings, 2) a one-story 27,435 sq. S. retail building with 94 parking spaces, and 3) a four-story 55,220 sq. ft. ratail/office building with 161 parking spaces (75 second level spaces). The property is zoned RB-E (Regional Business-Established) and is located in the Bouider Valley Regional Center. L. Hanson gave a brief overview of the key issues identified by staff: Land Use-Housing (should housing be encouraged on this site) and Land Use-Offices (should new office space be discouraged for this site in an attempt to reduce the projected job growth). She discussed four redevelopment • s:\pI an\pb-itcins\m i n utes\O l O 118min.wpd ~ City of$opider ~ .Tannary 18, 2001 ~ Plauiung Board Minutes options forthe2gth and Canyon site buil~~g, a a {a four-sto Richstone ~ ~~~~ ~O's~~O1yi~etail/office buildiu ~foottallre page9 said that t raiUoffice buildin revitalizing the eom WO key them~s g, and no ~~~l~e to ~h~ ~, a one-storyretail She said that if m~rcial areas °f the BpCp are e~sriiz fhe areas outeide do W d mixed use co encourag~ng ~1fforc~abla b~~j~irigs). ,~, usas, there wOZ71~ be a ntown wera to uld incTude housing in so~n~ coin holisin dditional sigrtl~cant job develo g and p at more urba m~rcial areas, ~. Hanson grO~s th in thesa ~ densities foreo askad the Board To evalitate u,hether ~~~~as. mmercial gnidelittes, specificail s~tndaz'ds• She ~~~so yplae~mentofthe buiidin ~~ °p~oi~ asked ttle Board g and parkin ~eet the inient oP the BURA desigp of the site, eoonomic develo ~' ~onsider g and com Rdaether tha Pment i r~e desirable scala and ~~ance ~yith tli~ s~eetscape econorn~~ ~oal shoilld ~provem~nf on the h~acter for affact consid site, and the cit ' ~eVelop~~n~ LoU della ~'aYion ofthe afherka Y S econom{c skeYchesog~$Va, 5266 Waterstone Ylssuas, g~al and this site, includin~~~rr~develo ~r~ve, Applicant gtheconflio nantopt~ons. ge , describad the corner site and and surface ggoals ofthe de elo~~bad sotna oftha reasonabla parking, ths cit di~SculYies of preseuted returnontli~irinv stme tandn ~arandthecitq(the developingat residential g~ retail, and reduced marlcet wants retail uses but he thou manageable risks , ~$rI{~ng' ~nd the dey~lo ~ office, ~ To provide housin ght that because the site is so in en e, r 1~ rhat 11e Pers waut ~ should be i•e ~ W~uld beprohibitive, ge ~Sked the$oard had tookafl develo would be unsuitable dt~n~~uding continual changas I~ aao d' lfso, w}~at statement should be in d abthi ~btner FTe e ~d the cost to de~,~~o wableFA~s hethertheythop im le pers and suggested ' zOning, ~nd uses are dastabilizin ght the siYe P mentation. nloderate res g, c(~s~.uc~Ve ~phasiaed that pottses, flaxib~e ,and~~bilitating EricHartro aPPlication, and incren~ental Wi~~ t nft,HartronftFauri ~ng fo complY with the BVRC hitects, 801 Hepresent~additionalskeYchasoftfl~pouro MainStreet,Loui3yr~~e guidelineS a~ this site, ~n~jud~11 ' d~scribed theprobletns padestrian acc~ss, trans « ppriation Pt~onspro osed gprovidingsurfaca Publie P~r •. Supe1'stop,"parkin ~ ~~ the probiems with each • parking, t-crpat~on, g spaces, density use~ and >>ncluding There was no pUg~t~ archite~~re. Return to p~icipatiott. t6e Board; The Board discuss s~'~etsca e ~ ~~zlding location P character Yhat is not ' making t~~e site guidelines; tha need for necessarily suburb p~d~g flood ep~1y ~tabIishlpgapa~~cu1ar businesses far this loc written cou~tn~n1t ~~o an, tha ation. Y nomic susfainabilit ~~ain issu~, applicafion Ygoals in the code °f the , and typeS of s: Vplanipb-~tems\minutas1010! 18rni fl. W~~ City of Boulder January 18, 200] • Planning Board MinuYes Page 10 Individual Board members made the following comments, not by consensus: • Housing does not have to go everywhere; housing is not an appropriate use on this corner because it is not economically feasible; there is not a market for living 1t this location; access is difficult; the density is too great; and the development does not provide the kinds of amenities necessary for housing; • The one-story option is not viable. • When the redevelopment occurs, wait until the surrounding context is better known and develop with a view that it willlast a long time and will contribute to the long-term health of the 28th Street corridor; • If Crossroads were to redevelop in the future with a lot of housing, office space at this site makes a lot of sense, and if it does not, given the conundrum with the jobs/housing balance, iY is not quite as attractive; • Office uses are appropriate For the site and ought to be encpuraged because it is an opportunity to eliminate some of the ofFice uses from residential areas; and offices represent primary jobs versus secondary jobs generated by the retail sectar; develop a better mix • between office jobs and retail jobs so that there is a better mix oftaxpayers in the community who are working here, living here, and spending their money here; • Consider the partial two-story retail/office building because it has a pedestrian feel and is similar to the Downtown area; • The guidelines should be treated only as guidelines and not as a regulation; a good design is more important at this comer than the jobs/housing tradeoffs; • Considar a way to consisYently apply the guidelines to all sites; find ways to mitigate the impacts if the guidelines are not followed that helps achieves tha goals of the BVRC in a different way; • Provide good landscaping on the site; • A one-story redevelopment is not enough to make a statement or spur fiirther redevelopment in the area, and the two-story option seems to solve that; 8. ADJOURNMENT The Planning Board adjourned the meeting at 11:35 p.m. ~ s:\plan\pb-items\min u[es\01 Ol 18min.wpd