Loading...
Minutes - Planning Board - 03/01/2001APPROVED JUNE 7, 2001 CITY OF BOULDER PLANNING BOARD MINUTES March 1, 2001 Council Chambers Room, Municipal Building 1777 Broadway, 6:00 p.m. The following are the minutes of the March 1, 2001 City of Boulder Planning Board meeting. A permanent set of these minutes is kept in Central Records, and a tape recording of tha meeting is maintained for a period of seven years in Central Records (telephone: 303-441-3043). BOARD PRESENT: Peter Gowen A1 Gunter, Vice Chair Tina Nielsen Alan O'Hashi Beth Pommer Mark Ruzzin, Chair BOARD ABSENT: Andria Jacob STAFF PRESENT: Bob Cole, Director of Project Review Don Durso, Associate Planner David Gehr, Assistant City Attomey Mary Lovrien, Board Secretary Peter Pollock, Planning Director Mike Randall, Planner 1. 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 There was no citizen participation. 4. DISCUSSION OF DISPOSITIONS, PLANNING BOARD CALL-UPS There were no dispositions or Planning Board call-up items. s:\plan\pb-items\minutes\010301 min.wpd City of Boulder March 1, 2001 Planning Board Minutes Page 2 5. MATTERS FROM THE PLANNING BOARD, PLANNING DIRECTOR, AND CITY ATTORNEY This item was discussed after the action items. M. Ruzzin noted that Mike Hughes of CDR will be the facilitator at the Planning Board retreat on April 14. P. Pollock said thaY the March 8 meeting regarding the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan will include the staffpresentation and the public hearing. He said that the Board could either adopt the staFf recommendations, request additional work on some items, prepare a resolution on managing commercial growth, defer consideration of changes pending certain actions, or reject the recommendations. He mentioned that the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) would be reviewed by the Board in July. He distributed a copy of the flyer for the Community Development Coordinator and the Zoning Administrator positions. 6. ACTION ITEMS A. Continuation of public hearing and consideration of a recommendation to City Council concerning amendments to Title 9, Land Use Regulation, of Boulder Revised Code, 1981 concerning new standards for the siting of overnight, day and emergency shelters and transitional housing. P. Pollock distributed a memorandum regarding follow-up items from the February 22 Planning Board public hearing and provided additional information regarding location of properties that are adjacent to schools and location ofresidential properties adjacent to Transition Business, Community Business, and the Business Main Street zones. He said that although substantial portions of the deliberation were completed, several items were identified for further discussion and are listed below, along with policy options that could be considered for each of the items. D. Gehr changed the first sentence in 9-2.4-25 (g) and 9-3.4-26 (g), Alcohol Use Prohibited Near Schools, to read "No person shall admit another person that may be under the influence of alcohol or illegal drugs into a facility that is within five hundred feet from a school." Accessory Services: The Board agreed that under definitions for emergency and overnight shelters that accessory services are meant for the occupants. 2. Transitional Housing: The Board agreed to change the words "overnight accommodation" to "housing." 3. Waiting Area De~nition: The Board agreed that the "waiting area" standard under day shalters will be the same as that used for overnight shelters. 4. Occupancy Rules: The Board agreed to clarify the occupancies that can be granted by conditional use review and those that can be granted only through use review. s:~plan\pb-items\minutes\010301 min.wpd City of $oulder March 1, 2001 Planning Board Minutes Page 3 Process for Reviewing the Management Plan: The Board agreed to require that the original management plan include methods for future communication with the neighborhood, and that the management plan shall address the frequency of ineetings with the surrounding neighborhood for the purpose of reevaluating the adequacy of the management plan and that the first meeting will occur within the first year of operation. 6. Notice Requirement: The Board agreed to require a 600 foot notice requirement far the good neighbor meeting. Parking: The Board agreed to use the standards in the proposed ordinance which specify parking requirements and allow up to a 50% parking deferral within conditional or use review. Open Space Standard: The Board agreed to use the standards of the current code for the particular zone district to set the required quantity of open space and specify any particular issues concerning the quality of the open space for each shelter type, such as waiting areas or outdoor assembly areas. bamp Shelters Near Schools: The Board agreed (4-2; B. Pommer and A. Gunter opposed, and A. Jacob was absent) to include as a required element of a management plan that if a "damp" overnight ar day shelter is within a certain distance of K-8 schools, a jointly (school and shelter) prepared safety plan be included in the management plan. A. Gunter and B. Pommer supported a restriction on the location of overnight shelters next to schools. 10. Parking 5tandards for an Addiction Recovery Facility: The Board agreed to use the standards of the current code far the particular zone district to set the required quantity of parking and to use staff level or site review level parking reduction/deferral processes to consider fewer parking spaces. 11. Appropriate Review Process for Ovemight and Day Shelters in the High Density Residential Zone Districts: The Board agreed (4-2; B. Pommer and A. Gunter opposed, and A. Jacob was absent) to use the standards of the proposed ordinance for the HR/HZ zones that allow shelters smaller than 75 occupants and with no occupancy per dwelling unit increase over four to be considered as conditional uses, and that larger shelters and shelters proposing occupancy per dwelling unit increases would be considered as a use review. (B. Pommer and A. Gunter voted against the measure; they wanted to require that all overnight and day shelters in the HR/HZ zones be considered under use review because of impacts, because other similar uses, such as hostels and hotels are required to undergo use review, recourse to the Planning Board rather than courts is appropriate, and there are significant unintended consequences. Those Board members who approved the above option stated that they were looking for a positive management plan which will prevent problems from arising and mitigate the problems that do arise.) s:\plan\pb•items\minutes\010301 min.wpd City of Boulder March 1, 2001 Planning Board Minutes Page 4 12. Overnight Shelters in TB (Transitional Business}, CB (Community Business), and BMS (Business Mnin Street) zones Adjacent to Residential Zones, and Appropriate Definition of Adjacent: The Board agreed that ovemight shelters in TB, CB, and BMS zones be reviewed when the subj ect property is adj acent to residenYial zones, and to expand the definition of"adjacenY' to include streets of a minor arterial or below. 13. Calenlation of Multiple Occupancies from Different Shelter Types Included in One Facility: The Board agreed to include tha cumulative total number of occupants from all facets of the proposed project, including emergency shelter uses and transitional housing to calculate the total number of occupants. 14. Review Process in TB, CB, and BMS zones Adjacent to Residential Zones: The Board agreed (4-2; B. Pommer and A. Gunter opposed, and A. Jacob was absent) not to require a use review far any sized overnight shelter in TB, CB, and BMS zones when they are adjacent to residentia7 zones. B. Pommer and A. Gnnter said that a use review is the appropriate kind of analysis for these particular sites. 15. Use Review for Overnight or Day Shelters within 300 feet of K-8 Schools: The Board was split (3-3) whether to require a use review for overnight or day shelters within 300 feet of K-8 schools. The Board revised the following items in the proposed ordinance: 9-3.4-25 Overnight Shelter. (a) (3) Notice for the Meeting (third sentence): "The applicant shall mail or deliver a copy of the proposed management plan to the residents of the property and record owners of the properiy within the surrounding neighborhood that is within three hundred feet o£ the property at least ten days before the meeting." (b) Management Plan (first sentence): "The approved management plan shall address how the applicant will prevent or mitigate the potential adverse impacts that a facility may have on the surrounding neighborhood." (b) (1) Elements of a Management Plan: "The management plan shall contain the following components Yhat address the prevention or mitigation of potential adverse impacts the facility may have on the surrounding neighborhood, to the extent necessary: hours of operation; client arrival and departure times; coordinated times for deliveries and trash collection; mitigation of noise impacts; security; loitering; employee education; the facility's responsibilities as good neighbors; neighbarhood outreach and methods for future communication; drug, alcohol, and weapons policy; and dispute resolution with the surrounding neighborhood." s:\plan\pb-items\min utes\010301 min.wpd City of Boulder March 1, 2001 Planning Board Minutes Page 5 (e) Parking: "The facility shal] provide off-street parking at the rates set forth below. The approving authority may grant a parking deferral of up to Fifty percenC of the required parking if the applicant can demonstrate that the criteria set forth in Sections 9-33-8, `Parking Deferral,' B.R.C. 1981, have been met." (g) Alcohol Use Prohibited Near Schools (first sentence). "No person shall admit another person that may be under the influence of alcohol or illegal drugs into a facility that is within five hundred feet from a school." MOTION: On a motion by P. Gowen, seconded by A. O'Hashi, the Planning Board approved (6-0; A. Jacob was absent) the ordinance as outlined in Attachment A of the staff inemoranduin dated February 27, 2001 and as modified above with the exception of No. 15. A. Gunter offered a friendly amendment to exclude the items where there was not consensus (9, 11, 14). M. Ruzzin offered a friendly amendment to pull out of the ordinance 9-3.4-28 (d) (3), Compatibility, for a later discussion. P. Gowen and A. O'Hashi accepted the friendly amendments. B. Public hearing and consideration of Site and Use Review LUR-2000-00022 to expand the existing Kellogg Child Development Center located at 2580 Iris Avenue into the adjacent home at 3365 Folsom Street. Tl~e applicant is seeking creation of vested property rights in accordance with Section 9-4-12 "Creation of Vested Rights," B.R.C. .1981. This property is zoned ER-E (Estate Residential - Established). M. Randall explained that the applicant plans to acquire the residential property to the south of the existing facility to provide additional classroom and office space and to maintain an apartment on the second level. He noted that the approval would be for one child care facility and one dwelling unit on the two properties, that the additional house is not approved as a separate child care center use, and no division of the dwelling or school buildings into more than one dwelling unit shall be permitted. He addressed whether the use would be consistent with the purpose of the zoning district, whether the use would provide a direct service or convenience to or reduce adverse impacts to the surrounding uses or neighborhood, compatibility with the neighborhood, whather there would be an adverse effect to the infrastructure of the surrounding area, including water, wastewater, and storm drainage utilities and streets, and whether there would be a change to the pradominant character of the surrounding area. He noted that the impacts would be traffic and parking availability on the site. He said that the applicant is requesting a parking deferral because there is no need for additional parking. Diane Hagemark, Board member of the Kellogg Child Development Center, said that some of the advantages oF expanding into the next property include a large backyard for playground space, additional classroom space, areas with windows to the outdoors, and an apartment to house one to s:\plan\pb-items\minutcs\010301 min.wpd City of Boulder March 1, 2001 Planning Board Minutes Page 6 three staffinembers ar interns, and compliance with the State Licensing Commission, She addressed the parking issue on the street, plans to add a full-day kindergarten into the program in the future, and the proximity of the school to the children who attend the school. Public Participation: Tina Kingery, 3355 Folsom Street: She said that she supports the school expansion into the adjacent propertybecause the school is running out of space. She said that although she is concerned with parking impacts, she does not think it is caused by the day care center. She asked that staff requast the city to place "no parking" signs in front of mailboxes, both for mail delivery and for visibility to the bicycle lane. She said that she prefers to have the backyard space remain as it is rather than as a parking lot. She said that she thinks that the noise from the house will be decreased in the evening because the people presently renting the house are noisy. Return to the Board: B. Cole said that he will speak with staff in Traffic Operations about Yheir ability to stripe in front of mailboxes. The Board and staff discussed whether parking reductions, such as granted for Iris Hollow, are working as Yhey are supposed to, whether the addition would lessen the impact in the neighborhood, the parking deferral, restrictions if the, applicant is going to accept HUD funds, provision of additional landscaping on the site, circulation issuas on the site, and the leasing of the apartment to employees of the site. Lorna Kellogg, applicant, said that the center has not applied for HUD ar Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funding for this project and does not intend to do so. She said that the center will not be displacing the current tenants under their current lease. MOTION: On a motion by T. Nielsen, seconded by A. Gunter, the Planning Board approved (6-0; A. Jacob was absent) Use Review LUR2000-00022 as set forth and with the conditions stated in the staff inemorandum dated March 1, 2001 (preparation date February 16, 2001). C. Public hearing and consideration of a request for Use Review (LUR 2000. 0003) to allow the Boulder Montessori to increase enrollment by 15 students and 2 staff, and to increase the size of the existing structure by an additional 979 square feet of floor area for an additional classroom, for a total of 6,724 square feet located at 3300 Redstone Road. This property is zoned LR-D (Low Density Residential - Developing). D. Durso described the site surrounding the existing school and the shared parking concept outlined in the original Planned Unit Development (PUD). He said that when the school was approved, the s:\plan\pb-items\mi nutes\010301 min.wpd City of Boulder March 1, 2001 Planning Board Minutes Page 7 PUD indicated that the school would have 15 park[ng spaces on site and shared parking with the condominiums and overflow parking in the commercial area. He said that in 1980 the PUD was amended and the commercial facility area was eliminated and replaced by condominiums, and, as a consequence, there is confusion in the division of parking. He said that the two key issues are compatibility with the surrounding residential areas in terms of traffic, noise and congestion and provision of a direct service and convenience to or reduction of adverse iinpacts to the surrounding neighborhood. He said that some impacts include the lack of parking and the number of trips generated. He attacYted a parking analysis, a trip generation analysis, and a diagram indicating other schools in the area and where the students come from. He presented a package of letters in support of the expansion from parents whose children attend the school. He asked the Board to approve an additional condition that limits Yhe maximum of 90 students on the site at any one time. B. Cole explained that when staff originally recommended that the project be denied, iY was because all the information was not available and that the staff recommendations changed based upon further information. Mari~ Burkenharder, President of the Boulder Montessori School Board of Directors, explained why the school wants to expand (reduce class size, offer higher wages for the teachers, tuition affordability, expansion of the scholarship fund), the school's philosophy and its mission, and the activities offered. Vern Seieroe, architect, explaitted the diagram which shows where the students live. He said that he has discussed with the homeowners' association about erecting gates to the parking area, dividing the parking, providing some signage which designates parking, and planting buffer alongside the playground. Public Participation: Bruce Neuman, Board of the Shanahan 8 Homeowners' Association: He said that parking is a problem during peak times or for evening meetings ar activities. He said that only a small portion of the parking lot is owned by the school. He said that the parking lot serves 40 residential units, not 16, for overflow and guest parking and that the school has not addressed the residents' concerns about parking. He asked the Board to either table the item so that the school and homeowners can come to an agreement on a joint proposal for additional parking or restricted use ar deny the proposal on the basis of the lack of parking. John George, 4543 Eldorado Springs Drive: He read a letter from Marlene Costed in support of the school expansion project because of its quality programming for the last 25 years, to the tremendous interest in Montessori education, and to the success ofthis educational method. She said that 8 of 10 schools had wait lists and there is more demand than supply. Mr. George also spoke on his own behalf and said that the school needs to expand because of the size of the classes, staff expenses, and long-term survival of the school. He asked that the Board approve the expansion. s:\plan\pb-itemslminutesi010301 min.wpd City of Boulder March 1, 2001 Planning Board Mimrtes Page 8 Daisy Pettum, 3231 Redstone: She distributed letters, a document that shows the actual property lot lines and the easement that the school has across the property, and the proposed parking plan. She said that the school owns only 10 of the parking spaces, and she does not understand how staff can dictate how parking spaces can be allocated on someone else's property. She suggested that the sehooi work with the homeowners to work out a solution. She said that she does not trust the parking study because it was not conducted by a third party. She was also concerned that the school impacts the neighborhood with faciliYies that does not really serve the neighbarhood. She said she was confused by what seems like conflicting conditions regarding development of additional parking. Maryann Felkins, Boulder: She said that she is in support of the expansion of the school to accommodate those students who would otherwise not be able to attend. She explained the many benefits of the school in her life and that of her son's. Patrieia West, Boulder: She said that she supports the school expansion because it will allow the school to meet the needs of the families and the children by reducing the class size. She said that there would be improvements to the kitchen and other parts of the school and exterior repairs to the existing building. She read portions of a letter from Joe Mantione who said that he chose to live in the neighborhood so that his child could walk to school and that it would be a positive activity in the neighborhood. Elizabetl~ Yaegen,1050 Arapahoe: She asked the Board to approve the modest expansion of the school. She said that the school has served a wide, diverse group of children in Boulder and meets community needs that other schools might not be able to do. She said that there are ways to solve the parking problems, such as staggering the drop-off and pick-up times. Mimi Condon, Boulder: She said that the staff at the school is committed to their craft and suggested that the community support the teachers. She said that there is a long waiting list at the schooi, and another 15 children would make a big difference in the community. Lee Gambiner, 3240 Endicott: He said that when the school is not in session, the homeowners have 100 percent use of all the parking places. He said that four or five times a year there is a parents' meeting in the evening, but adding more students will not affect the parking. He said that the school is acting in good faith to resolve the parking issue and the school is working on spreading out the parking needs so that there is less congestion. Peter Mandics, 3268 Cripple Creek Trail: He said that the school is excellent but parking is an issue. He said that there are parking conflicts during school functions when residents are returning home from work that have not been resolved. He asked the Board to either table or deny the request so that the two groups can come to an agreement. s:\plan\pb-items\minutes\010301 min.wpd City of Boulder March 1, 2001 Planning Board Minutes Page 9 Karen Olsen, Administrator, Boulder Montessori School: She said that the expansion is a way to sustain the character of the school and asked that the Board support the application. Return to the Board: The Board and staff discussed the existing and proposed parking on the site, different uses for the parking, whether the parking should be built as proposed, a sohttion to parking for the Open Space trail, overflow parking forhomeowners, and the water tabte issue that might prevent the construction of additional parking. The Board was troubled by the confusion on the parking issue and suggested that before a decision is made the school and homeowners bring a joint agreement to a future meeting. Mr. Seieroe asked that the Board extend its consideration beyond 30 days with the stipulation that Planning staff participate in the discussions with the homeowners and the school in developing a plan that all can support. MOTION: On a motion by B. Pommer, seconded by T. Nielsen, the Pianning Board continuad (6- 0; A. Jacob was absent) this item to April 19,~2001. ADJOURNMENT: The Board adjourned the meeting at 11:35 p.m. s:AplenApb-items\minutesVOI030I min.wpd