Loading...
Minutes - Planning Board - 03/08/2001• APPROVED SEPTEMBER 6, 2001 CTTY OF BOULDER PLANNING BOARD MINUTES March 8, 2001 Council Chamber Room, Municipal Building 1777 Broadway, 6:00 p.m. The following are the minutes of the March 8, 2001 City of Boulder Planning Board meeting. A permanant set of these minutes is kept in Central Recards, and a tape recordiug of the meeting is maintained for a period of seven years in Central Records (telephona 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: Jeny Gordon, Deputy City Attorney Beverly Johnson, PZanner Mary Lovrien, Board Secretary Petar Pollock, Planning Director Susan Richstone, Project Manager John Pollak, Housing Director CALL TO ORDER Chair M. Ruzzin declared a quorum at 6:05 p.m., and the following business was conducted. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES There were no minutes to approve. 3. CITIZEN PARTICTPATION There was no citizen participation. 4. DISCUSSION OF DISPOSITIONS, PLANNING BOARD CALL-UPS There were no dispositions or Planning Board call-ups. ~ s:\plan\pb-items~minutes\010308min.wpd City of Bouider • March 8, 2001 Planning Board Minutes Page 2 5. MATTERS FROM THE PLANNING BOARD, PLANNING DIRECTOR, AND CITY ATTOTtNEY A. O'Hashi said that the Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board asked that they receiva updates from the Education Committee of the School District. The Board and staff discussed new Board appointments. 6. ACTION ITEM A. Public hearing and consideration of proposed changes to the Boulder Vnlley Comprehensive Plan Land Use and Area I, II, III Maps as part of the Year 2000 Major Update. This meeting will consist of a stuff presentation and the public hearing on all sites. The Board deliberations will occar on M~rch 14 and 15. P. Pollock explained that there will be a staff presentation on the proposed changes to the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP) followed by the public hearing. He said that the Board will then deliberate on the Land Use Map changes on March 14 and 15. S. Rfchstone provided some background on the BVCP, gave an overview of the proposed changes to the Land Use Map and the Area I, II, III Map, and explained the four-body approval process. 5he gave statistics on the population of Boulder Valley today, the number ofpeople who live in the area, ~ and the number who commute into Boulder to work. She said that a key concern is the lack of housing availability and housing prices. She noted that job growth is projected to increase, which means a worsening of the jobs/population balance in the community, continued pressure on the housing market, increased spraw] in the ragion, and related impacts. She described some of the proposed changes far the Area I, II, III Map and how it would increase housing and reduce soma of the projected job growth. She explained how the increase in population would result in demand for mare city services. She pointad out proposed changes to the Land Use Map, revision of the mixed density residential designation, a new Manufactured Housing designation for existing mobile home parks, and a new Environmental Preservation designation. Also proposed are revisions to the definition ofthe various Mixed-use dasignations, renaming ofthe Arterial Business designation to Transitional Businass, and revisions to the Open Space, and Urban and Othar Parks definitions. Sha explained the grouping of sites that are proposed for changes in the Area I, II, III Map. She said that in Area I the goal is to provide additional affordable housing opportunities and reduce projected employment growth by encouraging mixed use in the city's commerci al and industria7 areas, the goal for Araa IT, the area immediately adjacent to the city, is to promote a diversa mix of new affordable housing opportunities by inareasing proposed densities where appropriate and providing for needed community facilities; and the goal for Area III is to reinForce the urban growth boundary by actually . s: \p lanlpb-itemsUninutes\010308min.wpd City of Boulder • March 8, 2p01 Pianning Board Minutas reducing the areas plannad for urban daveIo bounda Pag~ 3 ry of tks planiijng araa wj1] incorporate site~ that hai e been pu chased bp space, g pro osed to the oltter J• Pollak explained the housing strate ~ t~e ~jt~ ~Or °pen said that fhe target, in a 10- gy gOaig r~at were developed in a two_ affordable, y@~ t~~e frame, ie to achieve 10 percent of the inv t~iCo U a]sC ~e explained Yhat whila currently there are a prOCass. He wiits in the community, about 2,700 m re y p~rmanantly showing the 10- o unifs are needed t achieve the ooale~anently affordable throu Yearproj~etion ofsix fo seven pero~nt ofthe housing stock that could be affordable gh currenY resources, atid that the carrent clianges being discussed g He presented a chart additionaI housing primarily throttgh annexation polic wilI e~•eate opportimi6es for TheBoard and stAffdiseussad t1~e defnition of e Y' tnclusionary zoning, aud fund~ilg, cost ofi•ea7 estate; the mixed-use conce t p~~~r~~'affordablehousing; thecurrantaverage character and urban form opcommercial areas); tha P(to provide tnore affordable housing and 2p1~rove the in differettt ~ocations (a change to tha publicprocesg fo idantifydifPerent housih f within commercial industrial areas); th Tnt grated plannin p to add a designation to sites to include hous~ing were developed based upon tha existin the projections of how much 'ob gProject (Ipp~' °b~~cYives and criferiathat J gror~,th and res d~~aj e B VCP- ~ t~e potential densi .~e assixmptions used to generate ty that could be created with the desi ~~Wth would occur pnder the B Public Participation: g arion changas, VCP; and Jeff Braup~ pres2dent of the Boar~ of Directors at the Aspen Grove Condas: He un~~rs~nds ~e great need for tpore afforc(able housin housing is actuallv acliieved by staffls ro Sa1d that he oftheKalmiaarea,specificallyParce113be~ausetheneiggbohoodic orl thatnomoreaffordable He said that he is concerned with tha deyelo additional traffic, particularly at Che 28/h gtreet entrance at ~S p Y~quipp~~ to hand1e the ~~~ W$r~1e1~ 88 A13ni Court: He said tha~ he is concarned w th the p ans for Site fhe qua[ity of life in Houlder versus affordabilif p2aced on Che outs k i r t s o f t o Y aad densit . 1 5, t r a f f i c, att d aading 213 additionat units to ~f ~he goal is to Y He states that housing s~tould nof be provide housing that is elose to jobs, g~ said t$at w212 only axaoerbate fha flooa2n 1S ~e~ ~annot h~ve an g problems in Y p°S~tive itnpaet in any of tliese areas, and the area. Richard Schlasky, 4440 approximatel 40 000 Laguna p~ace: He said that his intarpretation of tha proposal is fhat into t'own dail to ~ more jobs v~,ill be added tvl~ich meaus that Yhe number of e Y WOx~ ~s $°2ng tio double and trahsportation problems are oni foo man mutiug He said that his eonclusion is the problem is noC that Bou]der does not have enoup opl~ com Y~~bs• He said that he feels What is proposed is sociall y g~~ng Y~ ge~ Worse. i -and environment~ 1 h'rresng ~Y has Y ponsible. s:lplan\pb-~fems~minuYas1010308min.wpd City of Boulder ~ March 8, 2001 Planning Board Minutes Page 4 Fred Russell, 2415 Forest Avenue: He was concerned about the need far the Transitional Business designation for Parcel lE, and the effect on his property. A. Glen Hansen, 110 Manhattan Drive: He said Yhat his two concerns are traffic and flooding. He said that it appsars thaC mosC of the traffic in this proposed developmenY east of Dry Ditch #1 will be dumped through Kewanee and Manhattan Drive, and he is concerned about traffic around Burbank Middle School. Bob R'endeling, President of the General Board of First Christian Church, 950 28~" Street: He noted that the church is unclear on the proposed change to Parcel 7B and, therefare, cannot support the change. He explained that the mission of the church is to build a high-rise, very low rent, sevior apartment building and changing the designation will hinder plans to increase the number of low- income senior housing units. Vince Porreca, Box 22: He said that he opposes the changes in Parcel3A because the proposed revised d~nition for mixed-use industrial is unacceptable. He read into the recard information Jennifer Daugh provided. He explained the existing code provision and feels that the participatory process should occur before a hearing is even schedulad with time far a good public discussion. He said that the code just needs to be amended rathar than the plan itsel£ He said that the Board is . having a hearing on map changes before the policies have been finally adopted and suggested that the Board table any action on Yhe map and the @efinitions unYil the polieies have been adopCed. Steve Pomerance, 335 17th Street: He said that he does not think the BVCP update process ls being handled well and suggested that the procass be stopped and completed correctly. He noted that there is not a single statement of goals, and that the jobs/housing balance does not have any significance as a policy statement. He feels the objectives are not clear, and pubtic support for the objectives is not well defined. He said that people in Boulder care about traffic, affardable housing, and community diversity. He said that most of the people in this process have no clue what is really being talked about for their property. John Lupo, 5408 Omaha Place: He said that he strongly supports the city's affardable housiag goals and thinks the eityhas done a good job at identifying suitable opYions for integrating affordable housing into the community. However, he said that Parce115A, currently dasignatad as low density residential, is environmentally and visually sensitive and helps define the city's edge. He said that the change in land use would significantly increase traffic at local intersections, is incompatible with adjacent low-density residential, would have a very negative impact on the quality of life ofexisting naighborhoods, would reduce property values while incraasing the need to extend city services, and would fragment fragile plant and wildlife habitat and displace wild7ife. He urged the Board not to compromise the strong environmental preservation goals and good planning principals by attempting to shoehorn high-density housing into this important parcel, • s:\plan\pb-items\minutes\010308min.wpd City of Boulder . March 8, 2001 Planning Board Minutes Page 5 John Goodman, Green Belt Meadows: He said that he was concerned about flooding if the redasignarion proposal is approved in Parcel 15A. He said that use of streets and grids will not handle the traffic that will be generated. He described the properties surrounding Parcel 15 and how traffic is going to be affected. Tom Vallot, Mineola Court: He said that he is concerned with the proposed redesignation of Parcel 15 because of the existing traffic. He said that he understands that housing in Boulder is getting expensive but that redesignation is not the way to solve it. Thom Krueger, 655 Pleasattt Street: He said that there are too many jobs and too little affordabte housing. He suggested that the Board adopt the cl~anges to the Land Use Map and do what is best for the whole community. Warren Smadbeck,1468 Cherryvale Road: He said that he does not want high-density housing at the edge ofthe city; any density needs to be fowards the center and not on the outskirts where there are no facilities and very limited transportation. He cauYioned the Board to be aware of irrigation patterns, the shallow wells in the area, and tha traffic impact of such a land redesignation. Roland Schrette, County Avenue: He presented a latter from his neighbors who oppose the . proposed changes to Parcel 13 because they feel that the proposed action is not a responsible approach to land use, traffic, and transportation considerations and other supporting services in the area. He noted that the street grids are not possible in the area. He suggested that the Board continue the current dasignation (Low-Density Residential) for the properties inchided in the proposal. He said that the concentration of inedium and mixed-density development in this area will most certainly negatively impact the natural ecosystem now thriving there. He spoke on behalf of his neighbor, Leida Chase, who is concerned about the air corridor issue with regard to Parcel 13 and said that the diagram misrepresents the airport influence zone. He said that he spoke with Ray Grundy, Airport Manager, and he was surprised that he was not aware of this issue even though it greatly influences the air corridor in and out of Boulder Airport to the west. Ha noted that a piane accident in the middle of the Parcel 13A could happen but this tima in the middle of 396 homes. Jean Johnson: She highlighted a few points outlined in a letter from Alan and Nancy GuilIe, 5390 Illini Way, regarding Parcel 15A (an increase in traffcc due to open enrollment in the Burbank Core Knowledge program, building high-density housing in a floodplain, problems with accessing the land, lack of street capacity to handle the density, and possible flooding on adjacent properties). She said that they strongly ancourage the Board to oppose the request to radesignate Parcel 15A. Jim Johnson: He questioned the lack of adequate public notice on the issue. He said that he was concerned about the wetland and endangered species for Parcel 15A if the proposed density is approved. • s: \plan\pb-items~minutes\010308min. wpd City of Boulder • March 8, 2001 Planning Board Minutes Page 6 Warren Barker,197 Iroquois Drive: He said that the increased density on Parcel 15A would not work because Manhattan Drive canaot be widened to accommodate the increased traffic. John Banman, 235 Cimarron Way: He said that iFthere had been an opportunity for citizen input on the proposed change to Parce115A, staffprobably would not have considered such a change. He said that the staff proposal triples the building density of tha site, it puts additional traffic on already over-burdened streets, and destroys the existing neighborhood character. Ramon Tesch, 250 Cimarron Way: He spoke about Parcal2 SA, the wildlife in the area, the traffic on Manhattan Drive, the water probiems in the area, and the flooding in spring. He said that he does not agree with the proposal for making this a high-density area. John Weiner,135 Manhattan Drive: He said that he is opposed to the proposed rezoning ofParcel 15A because he feels that it would seriously diminish the quality of life for the people in the neighborhood and would not be a solution to some of the city's problems, and the land would be much better used as parks or soccer fields. He said that if the parcel is redesignated, the existing congested traffic in the area will be a nightmare. Barbara Fisher, 360 Oneida: She asked the Board to keep a low-density designation on Parce115. • Sheila Horton, 2940 Island Drive: She addressed the lack of citizen notification. She said that she objects to the change on Parcel 13 to allow 578 homes to be built where today there are 40 homes on 42 acres, She said that the traffic study was done wifh an assumption of approximately 350 unifs. She said that Kalmia is a two-lane road that cannot be widened at that point. She suggested that the city naeds recreational and other opportunities for children. Portia Young, 1548 Old Tale: She addressed the lack of notification and what she considers a flawed process. She said that she and her neighbors are concerned about traffic that would be generated if Parcels 22A and 22$ are redesignated, the fact that the area is not zoned for residential, shailow wells, and lack of amenities for such high-density housing. She said that the land is zoned service industrial and that is what belongs there. Paul Turley, 1548 Old Tale: He said that he is concernad about the changes to Parcels 22A and 22B. He said that the plan has been criticized by many paople, and he feels the plan is flawed. Jessica Sandler, Green Belt Meadows: She is concerned about the environmental issues (two threatened and endangered species) on Parcel 15A. She said that she knew nothing about this meeting even though she is on the South Boulder Creek Plan mailing list. She asked whether Resolution 705, concerning future annexations to the city, has been repealed or if it is still being followed. She said that she believes that this area falls under the definition of significant wetlands • s: \plan\pb-itemstiniuutes1010308min. wpd City of Boulder • March 8, 2001 Planning Board Mimrtas Page 7 tmder the Watlands Protection Ordinance. Staff explained that under Resolution 705, a community benefit would have to be demonstrated at the time of annexation, and any development would have to address the Wetlands Pmtection Ordinance. Blake Peterson, Green Belt Meadows: He said that he was opposed to increased density for Parcel I SA because the land is in a quasi-flood zone, and the increased traf£ic would be incompatible wifh the existing neighborhood, Joan Cardone, 84 Huron Court: She said that sha opposes the redasignation for Parcel 15 because of the impacts to the neighborhood from high-density housing (increased incidents of rage and increased traffic). She said thaY she would like to mainCain the rural community and thinks that tha study needs to be redone to pinpoint the location of the wetlands. Matt O'Nei1L• He spoke against the redesignation of Parcels 15A, B and C because he thinks the plan is ill-conceived. He thinks the city needs to promote low-density development in that area to be consistent with the rest of the community and to prevent a dacrease in home values. Alan Katz,103 Genesse Court; He asked if the Board had the authority to revise a land use map on land that is not within the city of Boulder. Staff axplained that the land is within the Boulder • Valley Comprehensive Plan which is an intergovernmental agreement between the city and the county. Mr. Katz spoke against the redesignation of Parcel 15A because of the traffic impacts and flooding issues, Ha feets that this is not the place for high-density housing. Deborah Grojean,124 Genesse Court: She said that she opposes the redesignation of Parcel 15 because it would negatively affect the quality of life for a number of peopla in many ways. She said that high-densityhousing wonld increase traffic and congestion, it will destroythe weYlands, increase noisa, and increase the crime rate. Rosemarie Kumpshedone, Genesee Court: She found out about the meeting tonight because a neighbor put a notice on the side of the mailbox. She has not heard anything tonight that would benefit the community with the high-density housing on Parcel I SA. She said YhaY she is concerned about the increased traffic, flooding, and noise. Peggy Wrenn, 332013~h Street: She spoke in favor of tha package of changes that are proposed. She said that the radesignation is only a map change, and this is a long way from any development. She said that in order to keep Boulder the kind of place people love, some urban density is needed to reduce suburban sprawl. Aaron Maripole, 1339 North Street: He said that he strongly supports the Planning staffls recommendations as iY relates to increasing permanent affordable housing. He said that the people • s: \plan\pb-itams~minutes\010308min. wpd City of Boulder ~ March 8, 2001 Planning Board Minutes Page 8 who need affardabie housing are already working and living in the community. He spoke about the community of Buena Vista which has 16 homes per acre. Todd Alexander,127 Genesee Court: He said that he is concerned about the redesignation of Parcel 15A because of tha impacts caused by flooding to some of the surrounding houses in the area. He said that high-density housing should be located closer to existing infrasYructures such as pttblic transit systems, retail centers, and jobs. Kay Zimka, Kalmia Avenue: She said that she was concerned about increased traffic, noise, and safety if Parcel 13 were redesignated. Corrine Campbell: She said that she approves the redesignation to low density for Parcel 16A but is concarned about the placement of particular buildings on that site. She said that medium density residential does not fit the nature or the integrity of that neighborhood, nor does high-density residential on Parce122 fit anything near the character of that neighborhood. She said that she likes the Golden West proposal for senior housing. Karen Decker, 140 Manhattan Drive: She said that she appreciates the need far affordable honsing but does not think the answer lies with redesignating Parcel 15. She said that she has • concerns about current traffic and wetlands and thinks there are alternative land uses that can be found that would be a long-terni benefit for Boulder. Charles Mattlove, 282710~h 5treet: He said that he thinks the overall intent offhis whole projact is good and feels that the real impact is tha growth in jobs in Boulder, not housing. He was concerned about the impacts and consequences of the proposal for a medical campus and office uses in east $oulder. He said that the BVCP should reflect the long-range vision for the community, not just the existing uses or the existing land ownership. Steve Craig, 395 Oneida Street: He thinks that it is difficult to balance quality of ]ife with the competing goals of affordable housing and transportation. He encouraged the Board to look at other solutions, rather than placing high-density housing in Boulder, that address the issue without changing tha quality of life. He said that he Yhinks discouraging the job growYh would be another way to handle this problem. Barry Robertson, 3804 Abeyta Court: He said that he feels if his neighborhood had more than a three-day notice far this meeting, more people would be at the meeting. He ~u~ged the Board to consider the quality of life issue before any decisions or changes are made to the map. Diana Smadbeck, 1468 Cherryvale Road: She said she is concerned about the redesignation of Parcels 16A and B and questioned providing 36 parcent affordable housing when only 20 percent • s:\plan\pb-items~minuYes\010308miu.wpd City of Boulder • March 8, 2001 Planning Board Minutes Page 9 is required. 5he said that 10 acres of the 17-acre parcel was supposed to be designated as open space, and the medium density designation would be for the entire 17 acres. She said she is concarned about the quality of life when 14 units per acre would be allowed in an area where houses are on one- or two-acre parcels. S. Richstone clarified Yhat the 10 acres on Yhe southein part are desigitated as open space and are proposed to retain that open space designation. Hampton Islen, 335 Oneida Street: He asked about the next process for the proposal for Parcel 15A. Return to the Board: The Board and staff discussed conflicts of interest and potential disqualification; notification from the city in regards to potential flood problems; next steps in the approval process; previous plans for the development of the 15A parcels; why the Branding Iron Mobile Home Park is currently designated Community Business and is not scheduled to change; ranging patterns and actual habitat of the jumping mouse; clarity needed for the airport influence zone; data on multi-family homes; combination of office and housing uses; the number of local businesses that are on the north side of Spruce and other areas; the possibility ofpreserving the housing uses on Parcel lE; discussion of what might be an appropriate designation for Parcel 3A; and the process for the deliberations on • March 14 and 15. 7. ADJOURNMENT: The Planning Board adjourned the meating at 10:00 p.m. • s:\plan\pb-items~cninutes\010308min.wpd