Loading...
Minutes - Planning Board - 03/15/2001APPROVED SEPTEMBER 6, 2001 • CITY OF BOULDER PLANNING BOARD MINUTES March 15, 2001 Council Chambers Room, Municipal Building 1777 Broadway, 6:00 p.m. The following are the minutes of the March 15, 2001 City of Boulder Planning Boac•d meeting. A permanent set of these minutes is kept in Central Records, and a tape recording of the meeting is maintained for a period of seven years in Central Records (telephone: 303-441-3043). BOARD PRESENT: Peter Gowen A1 Gunter, Vice Chair Andria Jacob Tina Nielsen Alan O'Hashi Beth Pommer Mark Ruzzin, Chair • STAFF PRESENT: Jerry Gordon, Deputy City Attorney Jean Gatza, Planner Bev Johnson, Planner Maiy Lovrien, Board Secretary Ruth McHeyser, Director of Long Range Planning Peter Pollock, Planning Director Susan Richstone, Comprehensive Planner Randall Rutsch, Public Works/Transportation GUEST PRESENT: Jim Charlier, Charlier and Associates CALL TO ORDER Vice Chair A. Gunter 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. C~ s:\p I an\pb-iYems\mi nutes\O l03 I 5 mi n.wpd City of Boulder • Planning Board Minutes March 15, 2001 Page 2 4. DISCUSSION OF AI5POSITION5, PLANNING BOARD CALL-UPS There were no dispositions or Planning Board call-ups to discuss. 5. MATTER5 FROM THE PLANNING BOARD, PLANNING DIRECTOR, AND CITY ATTORNEY (This item was discussed at the end of the meeting.) P. Pollock presented a briefoverview of the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) scheduling meeting. He said that Board appointments by City Councii will be effective on March 30, 2001. M. Ruzzin asked that the new Board appointees be invited to the next Board meeting so that they can become familiar with current issues. 6. ACTION ITEMS A. Continuation of public hearing and consideration of proposed changes to the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan Land Use and Area I, II, III Maps as part of the Year 2000 Major Update. A. Gunter explained that this meeting is a continuation oF the meetings of March 8 and 14. He pointed out that the Board received additional written information. S. Richstone said that at the Board meeting on March 14 the Planning Board asked far additional information on Parcels 13 and 15 describing what could happen imder the current land use designation and what would be allowed • if the designation were Medium Density Residential rather than the staff proposal of Mixed Density Residential. She said that if Parcel 13 and Parcel 15A were to develop in the county, four single family residences and two single family residences would be allowed respectively; if the landowners requested annexation to the cityunder the currenY Low DensityResidential designation,195 dwelling units and 100 dwelling units would be allowed respectively; under the staff proposal of Mixed Density Residential, 540 dwelling units and 313 dwelling units would be allowed respectively; and if the parcel was designated Medium Density Residential, 433 dwelling units and 223 dwelling units would be allowed respectively. R. Rutsch said that he discussed with the city Transportation Department other impacts that were not inclLided in the initial analysis. J. Charlier said that if Parcel 13 were to develop at the Medium Density designation, the site would generate a significant net increase in traffic that could not be substantiallymitigated through altemative travei mode shifts, although the arterial street would have the capacity to handle the additional trips. He said that if further residentia] development is added at the periphery of the city, the area should be well gridded rather than developed as cul-de-sacs. R. Rutsch said that the site will have good connectivity through an underpass for a multi-use path that will be built next year, improvements to and extension of the underpass along Fourmile Creek through the Elks property, and improvements to the intersection at the Diagonal and 28th Street and collector streets. He said that from a transportation, planning, and engineering perspective, there is adequate capacity to handle the additional trips, and Yhe additional housing on both parcels could be addressed as part of Yhe development review process. . s: \p I an\pb-items\mi nutes\010315mi n.wpd City of Boulder • Planning Board Minutes March 15, 2001 Page 3 He said that the initial evaluation of Pazcel 15 showed that the site would generate 1,193 daily trips. He said that trips directed to South Boulder Road would be a significant addition of traffic to that roadway, but that there is adequate capacity on South Boulder Road to handle the traffic. He said that the site is not a mixed use location, there are no commercial establishments close by, daily trips in and out of the site would be auto-oriented, there is no high-capacity transit at this location currently; although there wil] be in the future, and it is unlikely that the increased traffic could be mitigated. He said that if the site were developed at medium density, traffic would be reduced only marginally and would still represent more traffic than could be mitigated through alternative travel modes. The Boazd and staff discussed additional mitigation options, such as a traffic signal at SSth Street and South Boulder Road; impacts of additional jobs and impacts to the transportation system; regional traffic challenges; progression of traffic signals along 28th Street for traffic flow; cut- through traffic along Manhattan Drive; development potential that might be acceptable through annexation; the possibility of not designating parcels that might be annexed into the city; and the fact that Parce113B is in the airport influence zone. The Board then proceeded to deliberate on remaining parcels in Area I and Area II. • Parce115A, south of the East Boulder Recreation Center. The proposed change to Mixed Density Residentia] wouid encourage a mixture of housing types and densities while • blending new development with the adjacent land uses. Parcel No. 15a, 15b, 15c Description: South of East Boulder Recreation Center • ~i ~=ak~.--..Y~ I ~I ~ ~ - .. - -:-r- ~~ ~ J~ I " ~ ~n ~ •--- ~ ~~~ ' ~'~ c,c~,,,_ ~ , I ExistinQ m~~~~ ~~' ~ ' Acreage:26acres ~ ~~ I '~15a ' Zoning:County-RuralResidential ~~~~~ ' i '^~ ~~~ - I ; .15c , ~~~ , ~ G ~ ~~~ ~, ~~ ,sb J%~ - ~ '-~'~ ~ ~ ~ II ~ ~ - ~~~ Sa~Th-BSaltler Rd. ~ ~u~d ~I 3B~ ~y s: \pl an \pb-i tems~minutes\0103 I 5 mi n. wpd City of Boulder Planning Board Minutes . March 15, 2001 Page 4 MOTION: On a motion by M. Ruzzin, seconded by P. Gowen, the Planning Board retained (7-0) the designation of Low Density Residential for Parcel 15A instead of approving the staff proposal to change the designation to Mixed Density Residential. The Board agreed to retain the existing designation because it was thought that the site was too isolated and does not have good transportation connections. P. Pollock said that he would draft a letter to the ]andowner, to be reviewed by the Board, which will reflect the sentiment of the Board regazding annexation issues for the site and what the Board would expect as development for the land. Parcel No. 13a, 136, 13c, 13d Description: E. of 30th. N. of Kalmia Ave ~ :, ~3 ~" ~---'~.,~~ ~~~ ,7I,,, ~ ~ ~ - , ;:, , L ' ~ ~ _ _ ~ Existing ~ ~ ~= ~ ~'= =~ d Acrea ~ "- ~ -° Pleasantviewl ge: 4? acres ~~ I _ - ~ I Socce~ ~'~ Zoning: County - Rural Fields Residential ~ ,~ ~ ~ 'aJ~ , ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~~ ~~I i ~ ~ ; Y _~ IL ~ ~ ,- ~-I Parcel 13A, east of 30th, north of Kalmia. The proposed change to Mixed Density Residential would ensure amixture of housing types, provide flexibility in the site design and compatibility with adjacent land uses, and provide enough density to ensure a significant amount of affordable housing. • MOTION: P. Gowen made a motion that the Planning Board redesignate Parcel 13A from Low DensityResidential to Medium DensityResidential instead of approving the staffproposal to change the designation to Mixed Density Residential. A. Jacob seconded the motion. The motion failed (3- 4); P. Gowen, M. Ruzzin, and A. Jacob voted for the motion, and A. O'Hashi, B. Pommer, A. Gunter, and T. Nielsen opposed the motion. The members who opposed the motion were concemed about additional traffic impacts; that if the landowners make application separately, the higher number oF units will be taken out of the context of the larger area; that the configuration and site design of the whole area is key to making the density work; and that the commerciai amenities are not in close proximity to the site. s:\plan\pb-items\minutes\01031 Smin.wpd City of Boulder Planning Board Minutes • March 15, 2001 Page 5 MOTION: On a motion by A. O'Hashi, seconded by T. Nielsen, the Planning Board retained (4-3; P. Gowen, M. Ruzzin, and A. Jacob opposed the motion) the designation of Low Density Residential for Parcel 13A instead of approving the staff proposal to change the designation to Mixed Density Residential. • Parcel 13C, east of30th, north ofKalmia Avenue. The proposed change to Medium Density Residential would ensure a mixture ofhousing types, provide flexibility in the site design and compatibility with adjacent land uses, and provide enough density to ensure a significant amount of affordable housing. MOTION: On a motion by T. Nielsen, seconded by A. Gunter, the Planning Board retained (4-3; P. Gowen, M. Ruzzin, and A. Jacob opposed) the designation of Low Density Residential on Parcel 13C instead of approving the staff proposal to change the designation to Medium Density Residential. • Parce113D, east of 30th, north of Kalmia Avenue. The proposed change to Medium Density Residential would ensure a mixture ofhousing types, provide flexibility in the site design and compatibility with adjacent ]and uses, and provide enough density to ensure a significant amount of affordable housing. • MOTION: On a motion by P. Gowen, seconded by A. Jacob, the Planning Board approved (6-1; A. Gunter opposed) the staff recommendation to redesignate Parcel 13D from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential. AREA I SITES PROPOSED FOR MIXED USE DESIGNATIONS. The changes in Area I focus on encouraging mixed use development in commercial and industrial areas, converting sites from non-residentia] to residential uses, increasing density in a few select locations, and preserving the character of existing residential neighborhoods. R. McHeyser outlined the following options for Board review: 1) selectively adopt (go through the sites one by one and adopt them as appropriate); 2) adopt a resolution following Board actions clarifying intended next steps for process for implementation, specific implementation teclmiques, and transition provisions; or 3) not to adopt the changes until mare detailed planning for all the areas or for specific areas is complete. She said that City Council has directed staff to begin the commercial growth management project after the BVCP is adopted. She said that because most of the mixed use designated sites are in commercial zones, staff would wark concurrently to both implement the mixed use designations and the commercial growth management project. The Board and staff discussed definitions of mixed use to ensure that housing is provided; how to involve affected commercial landowners; the need for discussion of impacts to the overall • s~.\plan\pb-items\minutes\01031 Smin.wpd City of Boulder • Planning Board Minutes March 15, 2001 Page 6 commercial use in the community, along with the individual sites; the choice of parcels to be redesignated; the problem of becoming too specific in the land use designations; ways to increase housing opportunities and decrease future projected job growth; the possibility of adding a separate category of "Mixed Use - Undifferentiated;" changes to the designation of mixed use business to allow up to 75 percent residential; how the proposed changes interface with the 28th Street project, such as superstops, local service, and regional bus service along the corridor, and intermodal facility just off the corridor; and the need for additional highway lanes to justify increasing housing density. The Board made changes to the following definitions: MOTION: On a motion by P. Gowen, seconded by A. Gunter, the Planning Board approved (6-1; B. Pommer opposed) a change in the definition language for Mixed Use Basiness to read as follows: "Mixed use - business development may be deemed appropriate and will be encouraged in some business areas. These areas may be designated Mixed Use-Business. Business character will predominate, although housing and public uses supporting housing will be included. Specific regulations will be adopted which define the desired intensity, mix, location and design characteristics of these uses." B. Pommer opposed the motion because she thought that the land use designation map is getting to be too much like a zoning map, and she would prefer a more general mixed use designation. • MOTION: On a motion by P. Gowen, seconded by A. Gunter, the Planning Board approved (6-1; B. Pommer opposed) a change in the definition language for Mixed Use Industrial to read as follows: "Mixed use-industrial development may be deemed appropriate and will be encouraged in some industrial areas. Industria] character will predominate. Housing compatible with and appropriate to the industrial character will be included. Neighborhood retail and service uses may be allowed. Specific regulations will be adopted which define the desired intensity, mix, location and design characteristics of these uses." The Board included in this motion a change in the definition language for Mixed Use Residential to read as follows: "Mixed use - residential development may be deemed appropriate and will be encouraged in some residential areas. These areas may be designated Mixed Use-Residential. In these areas, residential character will predominate, although neighborhood scale retail and personal service uses will be allowed. Specific regulations will be adopted which define the desired intensity, mix, location and design characteristics of these uses." B. Pommer opposed the motion because she preferred the word "encourage" to "included" in the third sentence of the definition for Mixed Use Industrial. • Parcel 4C, south of Boulder Community Hospital: The proposed change to Community Business would reflect the existing and approved commercial uses on this stretch of Broadway. • s:\plan\pb-items\minu[es\01031 Smin.wpd City of Boulder Planning Board Minutes . March 15, 2001 Parcel No. 4 South of Boulder J- ~' i_~==~ul I I - -~ ~ ~~ ~'~~~~ dTJ - ~ - - i ii~~,,~~ ~ii ~ ~ ~i. I" ~~ il ~, I ~'~--. i ..~i I ~ , ~ ~ ~-I ii I_'J~~-_''~~. _`':~II~ ' li^ - ~ ~;; ~^ `r~- ~~' Page 7 MOTION: On a motion by A. Jacob, seconded by P. Gowen, the Planning Board approved (7-0) the redesignation of Parcel 4C from High Density Residentia] to Mixed Use Residential instead of approving the staffproposal to change the designation to Community Business. M. Ruzzin said that the Mixed Use Residential designation is more appropriate because it is more relevant to the historic context of this area which was, until relatively recently, much more residential than business. • • Parcel 2A, Crossroads. The parce] is being recommended for a land use change to Mixed Use Business because it is located in a dense commercial area and is an ideal location for increased intensity of mixed use development; the mall has many vacant tenant spaces and this parcel provides a prime redevelopment opportunity; the parcel is served by high frequency transit service; improvements for pedestrian, bicycle, and auto connections are being proposed for 28th Street; and housing at Crossroads will support retail and commercial as well as transit uses along the 28th and 30th Street corridors. ro Projected DweWng Units: No Change Projected Johs: No Chan@e Existine Acreage: approximately 6.5 acres ZonWg: Community Business (CB-E) 'arcel PiO. ta vescnpuun: ~rossmaus • ~~~__~~ ~, '~ C ,~^ ~ ~~~'- ~ i i~ _ '~ P = i _ ~~Q T ~"-NJ~ r'~ -~ I'~~ ~' ^-J'` ~~ ~ ~ -^I ~ .~ - i~ -I ~ a ~ ~ ~ ^ ~ ~7 I ' ~~ ~ ^ {' , ~ ~+1 I ',- ~~ ~ i J Existinp ~~Ij AcrroRe: 6? acres ' Zonfng: Reaionai 6usinec - I es[abiished IRB-EI P'ithin the Bouldcr Urban Rene~ral An~a (BURA) s: \pl an\pb-items\mi n utes\0103 I 5 m i n. wpd City of Boulder Planning Board Minutes • March 15, 2001 Page 8 MOTION: On a motion by P. Gowen, seconded by A. Jacob, the Planning Board approved (6-1; B. Pommer opposed) the staff recommendation to redesignate Parcel2A from Regional Business to Mixed Use Business. B. Pommer opposed the motion because she thought that this parcel should be reviewed as part of the discussion on managing commercial growth. The Board did not complete the review of the BVCP redesignations and chose to continue the meeting. MOTION: On a motion by T. Nielsen, seconded by B. Pommer, the Planning Board continued (7-0) the meeting until March 22, 2001. 7. ADJOURNMENT The Pianning Board adjoumed the meeting at 10:05 p.m. • • s:\plan\pb-i tems\mi n utes\O I 0315 m i n. wpd