Loading...
2 - Minutes, 02/01/01CITY OF BOULDER PLANNING BOARD MINUTES February 1, 2001 Council Chambers Room, Municipal Building 1777 Broadway, 6:00 p.m. The following are the minutes of the February 1, 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). BOARD PRESENT: Peter Gowen A1 Gunter, Vice Chair Andria Jacob Tina Nielsen Alan O'Hashi Beth Pommer Mark Ruzzin, Chair STAFF PRESENT: Brent Bean, Senior Planner Bob Cole, Director of Project Review Russ Driskill, Parks and Recreation David Gehr, Assistant City Attoiney Scott Kuhna, Development Review Mary Lovrien, Board Secretary Michael Penny, Development Review Cindy Pieropan, Housing Planner Peter Pollock, Planning Director 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. CTTIZEN PARTICIPATION Nolan Rosall, 61614th Street: He addressed tha process of the Homeless Shelter Working Group regarding developing the tand use code for homeless shelters. He said that there will be a few difficult issues to address, including reviewing the many types and sizes of shelters, creating a balance between review procedures that are staff level with no opportunity for a public hearing and review procedures that require a public hearing, determining appropriate conditions, developing an objec;ive process, and avoiding hearings and issues that are emotional and confrontational rather s:\pl an\pb-items~ninutes\010201 min.wpd City of Boulder February 1, 2001 Planning Board Minutes Page 2 than reviewing impacts to the neighborhood. He suggested that tl~e goal should be to find a reasonable range of zones and locations where any of these shelters can operate and stil] protect the right for public review. A. Gunter suggested that both sides present their rationale for each finding good statistics, and factual testimony about what has worked or not.worked over time in other communities. Garland Campbeli, 4395 Grinnell: He addressed the work that the Homeless Shelter Working Group is conducting. He said that he is opposed to having a decision of this magnitude made by Planning staff. He said that a small day-care center and a house of worship are required to have a public hearing yet a lazge institution that might have over 100 transients will not have any public hearing. He was also concerned that 14 of the people in the group have expressed an intention that the existing shelter should be moved from its present location. He suggested that the Board consider the industrial area for a shelter. 4.. DISCUSSION OF DI5POSITIONS, PLANNING BOARD CALL-UPS The Board did not have any comments on the Planning Department disposition (3080 Galena Way addition). 5. MATTERS FROM THE PLANNING BOARD, PLANNING DIRECTOR, AND CITY ATTORNEY A. Homeless Shelter Code Briefing P. Pollock said that at its meeting on February 22, the Board will discuss a report from the Homeless Shelter Working Group, staff analysis, and a recommended ordinance. Don Elliott, consultant &om Clarion Associates, addressed the research that was conducted, the results ofthat research, and some of the unresolved issues. He said that the group researched data ftom 12 cities around the country that were similar to Boulder and from ]arger cities. He said that the issues included how cities define shelters, where they are allowed, and under what conditions. He noted that although there was no uniformity in how the cities dealY with the situation, the trend is to treat different kinds of shelters differently; for instance, a number of the cities allow shelters to occur in higher density residential zone districts and usually through a review process, and many cities allow shelters in commercial zones with or without a hearing and in industrial zones with a hearing. He said that the range of conditions include occupancy conditions related to the size of the facility, or requirements that the shelter must be a non profit, must be a certain distance from another facility, or must have a management or neighborhood plan. He described the committee's thoughts regarding the results of the study, including definition of shelters (overnight, day, and emergency shelters and transitional housing), use in zone disMcts (allowing shelters in most zone districts, allowing shelters mostly in commercial and industrial zone districts as a conditional use, or that shelters eithernot exist in residential areas or that they exist only by use review), and conditions (that occupancy limits should be the basic governing framework, provision of a good neighborhood pian, and spacing from other similar facilities). He said that s:\plan\pb-items\minutes\0 ] 0201 min.wpd City of Boulder February 1, 2001 Planning Board Minutes Page 3 continued discussion surrounds 10 percent of the zone districts including the issues of conditional use versus use review and large shelters, the number of people or the size of the facility in relation to other structures around it, the appropriateness of housing a large number of homeless peopla in such a large facility, types of shelter, and shelters near schools. (This item was discussed after the action items.) M. Ruzzin said that the Planning Board retreat will be held on April 14, the Board reception will be held on April 18, and the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP) land use map hearings will begin on March 8. P. Pollock distributed a memorandum that staff sent to City Council regarding managing commercial growth and said that the Board will discuss the matter on February 15. P. Pollock said that the Board is scheduled to meet several times in March to try to completa the update on the BVCP before new Board members are appointed. He asked the Board to recommend that the appointments of new members be delayed until tha end of March. MOTION: On a motion by A. O'Hashi, seconded byM. Ruzzin, the Planning Board recommended (6-0; P. Gowen abstained) that City Council delay the appointment of Board members until March 30, 2001. 6. CONSENT ITEM A. Consideration of a recommendation to City Counc9l concerning the purchase of a portion of the Mesa Memorial Baptist Church property (approximately 1.73 acres zoned LR-E) at the northwest corner of Table Mesa Drive and Yale Road for a neighborhood park. P. Pollock explained that at one time there was interest in building housing on this site, but the Mesa Memorial Baptist Church wished to sell the property only for a park. R. Driskill said that the park site is too small for a neighborhood park. He said that the site would be a designed as a pocket park to include a small playground, picnic tables, and possibly some community gardens. He said that no parking and no activities that would draw people from outside the neighborhood would be provided. Public Participation: Cecilia Ruffing, 705 Yale: She said that currently she and her neighbors have to cross a very busy intersection to gei to the nearest park. She said that she supports the park at this location. Molly Tayer, 620 Yale Road: She said that a park has been a dream of tha neighborhood since 1996, and she supports the purchase at this site. MOTION: On a motion by P. Gowen, seconded by B. Pommer, the Planning Board recommended (7-0) that City Counci] authorize the purchase of a portion of the Mesa Memorial Baptist Church at the corner of Table Mesa Drive and Yale Road (approximately 1.73 acres) for a neighborhood park as proposed in the staff inemorandum dated February 1, 2001 (preparation date January 16, 2001), s:\plan\pb-items~ninutes\010201 min.wpd City of Boulder February 1, 2001 Planning Board Minutes Page 4 7. ACTION ITEMS A. Continuation of public hearing and consideration of Site Review #SI-2000-19 and Preliminary Plat #5-2000-14 for the "Village at Boulder Creek" to permit development of 126 new units (44 Permanently Affordable and 82 three- and four-bedroom apartments) for a 6.66 acre property located on Taft Drive between 28'h and Folsom Avenue, zoned High Density Residential (HR-E). The proposal includes a request for height exception for buildings to 52'9", an exception to the solar requirements oTSection 9-3.3-19, and a parking reduction of 7.7%. B. Bean said that the applicant proposes to develop a 6.67 acre parcel to include 44 pernlanently affordable units and 82 three- and four-bedroom apartment units, primarily for student housing. He said that the applicant is asking for variances to front and rear yard setbacks, a parking reduction of 7.7%, solar shadow exceptions, and height exceptions. He described the open space areas throughout the site and recreation facilities aC the Good Samaritan facility and inteniai to the student housing building. He discussed the area that is in the 100-year floodplain, the boimdary of the floodplain, and the soils report. Stuart Davis, applicant, said that the site is designed to create a frue neighborhood environment by including housing for families of mixed incomes, different generations, and varying lifestyles, and encouraging a rea] sense of community by placement and design of buildings and open space that promotes social interaction among the residents. He said that the allowable density within the HR-B zone would permit up to 181 units on the site, but due to neighborhood and city concerns about density, height, parking, and open space, the density has been reduced to 165 units. He said that an additiona123 affordable units above the city's 20°/u inclusionary requirements have been proposed. He described the activities that would be allowed in the major active and passive open space areas and described the linkage to the Boulder Creek Trail which would connect the project to city-wide pedestrian and bicycle trails. He described the architecture of the buildings and the mitigation plans to address the constraints of the site (floodplain, narrowness of the site, and stability of the slope). Bill Bayless, applicant representative, described American Campus development and management methods, including developing and refurbishing on-campus housing, developing and acquiring off- campus properties, and managing on- and off-campus student housing. He said that five to seven adults will be ]iving on the site, including a general manager, resident director, and resident assistants. Public Participation: Robin Youngelman, University Heights Citizens Group, 2600 University Heights Avenue: She said that the neighborhood is concerned that the project would affect the stability ofthe hill and the structural integrity ofthe properties above. She noted that there is a significant amount of water that s:\plan\pb-items\minutes\Ol 0201 min.wpd City of Boulder February 1, 2001 Planning Board Minutes Page 5 continually seeps from the hill, and priar disturbances to the toe of the hill have caused damage to the property above. She said that the soils engineer hired by the neighborhood to review the soils study said that the hill, if left as it is, does not require work under most reasonable scenarios; this development is creating its own need for increased stabilization. She said that should this project be built, stabilization of the hill will require easements from some property owners, and at this time the property owners are disinclined to grant these easements. She said that the study concentrated on only one property on the steep part of the hill, and the condition of the rest of the hill is still in question. She questioned why the burden of avoiding liability by installing drains now be shifted to the neighbors when no such wish would exist without this project. She said that density raises concerns about congestion, pazking, traffic, noise, privacy, and physical impact on the neighborhood. She said that the number of bedrooms proposed and that already exist is 10 times the number of people living in the University Heights block in an area of the same size. She compared bedrooms per square foot of lot area between this project and other nearby high density residential developments and indicated that those developments, on average, provide 35 percent more land per bedroom than this project does, and projects along Moorhead around the Meadows Shopping Center provide 28 percent more land per bedroom than this project. She said that because of the proximity to the University, this neighborhood is burdened with a density which is not imposed on other $oulder neighborhoods. She questioned the timing of the traffic study which was conducted in July when classes were not in session and said that there is already a fair amount of cut-through traffic in the neighborhood. She asked that no parking reduction be granted because Taft Street and University Heights Street are highly congested and completely parked every day that the University is in session. She indicated that the land use regulations suggest that the building should be treated as a rear yard with a requirement for 25 foot setbacks. She asked that the Board treat the neighbors' backyards the same way as any other backyard and atlow for reasonable and enjoyable use by providing an adequate transition between these two dissimilar uses and eliminate all south-facing balconies. She said that the backyard of the affordable housing units is more intrusive, and the neighbars should not have to endure the consequences of inappropriate siting. She noted that the height exception would allow the buildings to rise above the crest of the hill, and she asked that a well-designed fence be constructed at the rear yard lot line to address trespass issues. Lorna Devine, 2695 University Heights Avenue: She said that it is not appropriate to build student housing in a residential neighbarhood. She said that Orlando, Florida, in its attempt to integrate student housing in a residential neighborhood, required new rules, including a 400-foot buffer between student apartments and the residences. She said that the proposed plan will create special problems which will be expensive, time-consuming, disruptive, and difficult to solve. She said that Planning staff concludes that water from a flood would not exceed 18 inches on this site, but floods do not follow rules as to how high they shouid go. Sha said that fhe proposed project is not consistent with the BVCP which supports residential neighborhoods by seeking appropriate building scale and s:\plan\pb-items\minures\010201 min.wpd City of Boulder February 1, 2001 Planning Board Minutes Page 6 compatible character of new development, desired public facilities, and mixed commercial uses, and sensitively designed and sized right of way. She added that the BVCP states that a mixture of land use types, housing si2es, and lot sizes may be possible if properly mitigated and respectful of neighborhood character by providing careful design to ensure compatibility, accessibility, and appropriate transitions between land uses that vary in intensity and scale. She questioned the large number ofvariances required and exceptions to the land use regulations. She said that pratecting the environment is very important to Boulder, including this ]and whicb is filled with trees, grasses, wildflowers, wetlands, deer, fox and many other animals and plants. She suggested that partnering with a private developer would accelerate the development of new student housing on the Williams Village site and suggested this option rather than invading residential neighborhoods. She suggested that the city hold approval of the project pending the outcome of a review by a commission that could explore all the issues, such as alternative sites or buffers. Lauri McNown, 2772 Bella V+sta Lane: She said that the project is too dense and out of scale far the character of Boulder and the neighborhood, and she urged the Board to review the number of bedrooms proposed, not just the number of units. She said that the primary concerns of Boulder residents are crowding, growth, traffic, and the loss of the essential character of the city, and this project exacerbates every one of those problems. She mentioned that the BVCP stresses the importance ofpreserving neighborhood character, and the University Heights neighborhood is small but stable, owner occupied, and unique in its proximity to the University and commercial districts. She noted that the neighbors are concerned about the stability of the slope, parking, neighborhood character, traffic, and the number of variances requested. Polly Warkentine, 2490 University Heights Avenue: She said that this project will destroy an existing pocket park. Steve Marshall, 1339 Mountain Pines Road: He was concerned about a low density residential area adjacent to a very high density area, building height, especially for the residents of the neighborhood, proposed setbacks, scale of the building, setback variance which would reyuire extensive excavation into the steepest part of the hillside, traffic through the neighborhood, the financial impact on housing value, and backyards used as a buffer. He said that the Good Samaritan does not interfere with the neighborhood and is not 12 feet from the property line. He said that Taft Drive and the University Heights neighborhood is always full of cars on school days and questioned where the excess parking will be accommodated.. He said that the development is proposed on an incompatible site, and the hill is stable except when a portion of the hill was excavated for a parking lot. He said that the project is overly large for the site, and it presents significant and unnecessary complications for a long-established neighborhood and their respective property owners. Scott Marshall, 41 S Greenway Lane, Broomfieid: He addressed the following concerns regarding the hillside adjoining the University Heights neighborhood: 1) the report is not conclusive enough to determine the long-term stability of the hillside because of inadequate field data to perform a s:\plan\pb-items\minutes\O I0201 min.wpd City of Boulder February 1, 2001 Planning Board Minutes Page 7 proper slope stability analysis for the entire hillside, 2) the report is not extensive enough for a proper evaluation; 3) some of the conclusions of the report are based on the assumption of high ground water conditions for the hillside, but field data collected by CTL Thompson do not support this assumption; 4) one of the options for stabilizing the slope is a permanent soil and nailing, but such an approach has inherent problems with long-term use, and there is no guarantee of slope stability, especially for permanent use. He said that the use of retaining walls could restrict the future development and use of the properties in the University Heights neighborhood, thereby decreasing the value of each lot; 5) the report admits that homeowners will have some risk of minor settlement from the dewatering; 6) CTL Thompson assumed a high ground water condition that does not match data they themselves collected. Even using the inaccurate assumption of high ground water, the stability of the hillside will not improve significantly; and 7) if water in the hillside does actually contribute to the instability of the slope, it is the homeowners' choice to resolve, not the city of Boulder ar the developer. He asked the Board to reject the proposal or at ]east perform a proper and detailed engineering evaluation of the hillside prior to its decision. Linda Marsha11,1339 Mountain Pines Road: She explained that in 1971 the entire property had been rezoned to HR-E. She added that the property was treated as one piece of property rather than two so that Good Samaritan could expand on the north side, and the site on the south side could act as the needed buffer for the neighborhood. She said that the neighbars believe that the south side, even though included in the HR-E zone, was to remain a transitional or buffer zone between two extreme property uses. She said that it has never been built upon except for the parking lot. She added that because one piece of ]and is zoned in a certain way does not mean that every square foot of it can be built on at that same density. She said that setback requirements, height restrictions, and all other regulations are designed for and should be used to keep buffers and reasonableness in place between different zoning type uses. She said that in this case, staff is out of line with the intent of zoning laws, master planning, land use regulations, and reasonableness. She said that staff claims that the buffer zone is the hill itself, but the hill is the backyard and does not mean that it is not used. She said that neighbors will see only a 40-foot concrete building 12 %2 feet from their backyards, primary views wil] be obstructed, and the building heights are not respectful of their properties. She said that fire danger to their homes increases with the development of this project. She suggested transitional uses and, at the very least, smaller, shorter buildings. Robert McNown, 2772 Bella Vista Lane: He said that the impact of this proposed development extends beyond the neighborhood ofUniversity Heights, specifically on the members of the Harvest House Sporting Association and the users of the Bouider Creek path as it passes by this development. He was concerned about density, parking problems, height (which will cast a shadow on the creek path and on the recreational facilities), invasion ofprivacy, the threat of trespassing, and the inappropriate variances proposed in this location. He said that the density, noise, and height will negatively affect the many users o£ the creek path. s:\plan\pb-items\minutes\010201 min.wpd City of Boulder February 1, 2001 Planning Board Minutes Page 8 Charles Morrison, 2525 Taft Drive: He said that on the negative side, some of the residents of the Good Samaritan would not like to hear the construction noise but admit that it would be fun to watch the project proceed, and it would be nice to keep the isolatibn that they now experience. On the more positive side, he said that this is good business for Good Samaritan because otherwise rents will be increased if funds are not obtained in other ways. He said that achieving a planned community is critical, the development seems compatible with the Good Samaritan concept and operation, and long-term control of the community is to be provided by a responsible company. Marcie Demchuk, Director of Community Relations, Good Samaritan Center, 2525 Taft Drive: She said that the mission of Good Samaritan is to provide senior housing and other supportive services for those in need in the community and to remain affordable to the residents. She said that the Center has been exploring partnerships that would support the capital improvements that need to be made and continue the mission in the community. She said that the proposed development will establish a residential communitywith ahomeowners' association andneighborhood covenants, the development would provide on-site community assistance, and the design and management structure reflect a long-term commitment to the seniors in the community. She also said she hoped that the affardable housing would help in recruiting and retaining employees. Ryan Hughes,1200 Holly Place: He said that it is difficult for a student to find affardable housing. He noted that even though there are lots of issues with students living near residential areas, management of the project will allow the community to coexist with other neighborhoods. Ricky Weiser, 4020 North 75th Street: She said that the most westerly building is the most inappropriate in design, size, and location. She said that a cityproposal to increase bus traffic on 28th Street will move the Boulder Creek bridge and cut back the east face of the hill itself. Tom Lamm, Louisville: He said that the applicant is assuming that he can demand easements from the homeowners to dewater the hill, and if the homeowners do not grant these easements, the homeowners are going to be subject to ]iability in the event that the hill slumps. He asked the Board to withhold approval of this project until that particular legal issue can be reviewed. Ron Stump, Administrator at the University oFColorado, 4110 South Hampton Circle: He said that the developer is offering opportunities for service learning to the University of Colorado students. He differentiated issues with this project and student housing on the Hill noting that housing on the hill has absentee landlords, ]ack of ]ive-in managers, and lack of intentional educational programs. Everett Jones, 3353 Madison Avenue: He said that he is concerned with off-campus student housing that does not provide educational opportunities. He said that this housing would be similar to on-campus housing with live-in managers and geared toward upperclass students and those who seek a quiet atmosphere to finish their academic year. s:\plan\pb-items\minutes\010201 min.wpd City of Boulder February 1, 2001 Planning Board Minutes Page 9 Paul Tabolt, University of Colorado: Ae said that there are four reasons to support the project: 1) the University of Colorado has made its plans known that the student population wil] grow at about .76 percent per year, and the number of housing units has declined in proportion to the population; 2) Seventy-five percent ofoff-campus students live within walking or biking distance of the campus which reduces traffic congestion and competition for parking spaces in neighborhoods; 3) there is minimal developable land available within walking distance to the University; and 4) the developer has the potential to provide 309 student beds by fail of 2002; the University at its most accelerated pace cannot provide housing before fall of 2003. Sally Eisenberg, 2590 University Heights: She said that a lot of wonderful things have been said about Titan's ability to manage the student housing, but that continues only as long as Titan owns and manages that residence. She said that in the event that they suffer economic failure or sell to another entity, there may not be the same quality of management that they have presented. David Spiro, 2600 University Heights: He said that the primary concerns are the stability of the slope and the livability of the neighborhood. He said that this particular project with its high density is inappropriate for the site, the neighborhood, and Boulder. He said that visitors already have a difficult time parking on the street. Return to the Board: The Board discussed key issues provided by staff, including consistency with site plan criteria, building height, parking reduction, and sound design and construction standards relating to the hillside on the southern portion of the property. The Board added additional issues, including the intrusion of the western building on the hillside, solar access, and setbacks. The Board discussed how the setbacks were measured; setback along the hillside; how the open space provided at the Good Samaritan would be integrated with the rest of the project; design of the open space to make it usable and functional; the solar access protection ordinance as it applies to this application; liability responsibility for failure of the slope of the hill; results of the CTL slope study; interpretation of the code that addresses the location of the reaz and front yard setbacks; height exceptions as part of architectural benefits and aesthetic improvements; problems withplacing the parking underneath the building; deferred parking rather than a parking reduction; necessity of having a gated parking area for the Good Samaritan if there is plenty of parking; justification for the parking reduction; neighborhood parking permit ordinance; protections in case the applicant sells the property to ensure that the existing protections would remain with the property; bicycle parking and storage on the site; noise from rooftop venting pipes or mechanical equipment; difficulty in relaxing the inclusionary zoning requirement that would require all units to be built on-site or whether cash-in-lieu could be provided; incentives for developers to bypass the growth management requirement byproviding affordable housing on site; whetherthe extra 15 percent affordable housing could be placed off-site to reduce the density and issues of the slope; and provision of more diverse housing by spreading the market rate housing and affordable housing throughout the buildings. s:\plan\pb-items\minutes\010201 min.wpd City of Boulder February 1, 2001 Planning Board Minutes Page 10 In addition, the Board discussed ensuring that the final engineering plan will be completed before final approval, offering third party or neighborhood consultation of the final engineering plan, reducing some of the issues with the slope, moving the westerly building to the east, balancing the need for community benefits with the impacts that will occur on the adjacent neighborhood, providing a fence along the south property line to prevent trespass issues, and addressing noise from south facing balconies and how they are factored into open space criteria. Scott Kuhna said that he is comfortable with the results of the study. Darrell Homequest, CTL Thompson, said that the steepest part of the slope was analyzed to see what the potential problems were, and more study wil] be done in the final design. He explained the options for reinforcing the hillside. The majority of the Board said that the applicant has scaled back the project, the applicant is developing the project at a lower density than that which is permitted, the proposal does satisfy multiple community goals in terms of providing a mix of housing, especiallystudent housing, offers positive amenities such as a connection to the Boulder Creek path, the site will be managed to minimize impacts, there is appropriate oversight regarding the stability of the slope, and the application maximizes community benefit. MOTION: On a motion by P. Gowen, seconded by M. Ruzzin, the Planning Board approved (6-1; A. Gunter opposed) Site Review #SI-2000-19 and Preliminary Plat Review #5-2000-14 incorparating the conditions provided in the staffinemorandum dated January 25, 2001(preparation date January 12, 2001) and the attached Site Review Criteria Checklist as findings of the Board. A. Gunter offered an amendment, seconded by B. Pommer, to add Condition 8 to read "The Applicant shall provide a privacy fence or wall along the south property line, the design to be approved by staff, if it is determined by the city that such a fence or wall can be provided consistent with fire access requirements. The Board accepted the amendment (5-2; P. Gowen and A. Jacob opposed). P. Gowen opposed the motion suggesting that the applicant and the neighborhood find a solution without presupposing a solution. P. Gowen offered a friendly amendment to add to the second sentence in Condition 3.a. to read "The detailed engineering plans and drawings shall include, without ]imitation, a soils analysis, borings and engineered slope stabilization plans for cut and fill areas along the existing hillside, assuring that the hillside will be stabilized and that the cut and fill will not cause additional adverse off-site impacts on adjacent properties or to the buildings to be constructed on site." M. Ruzzin accepted the friendly amendment. P. Gowen offered a friendly amendment to add a last sentence to Condition 3.a. to read "The City Manager will consult with an engineer selected by the University Heights neighborhood if so requested prior to approving final engineering plans." M. Ruzzin accepted the friendly amendment. s:\plan\pb-items\minutes\010201 min.wpd City of Boulder February 1, 2001 Planning Board Minutes Page 11 A. Gunter did not approve the motion because he thought that this project was too dense for the site, the density was inappropriate next to an existing, low density neighborhood, significant variances have to be granted to increase the number of units, the neighbors' yards are being used as a buffer, the character of the neighborhood will be destroyed, the height of the buildings will impact the University Heights neighborhood and the residents of Good Samaritan, and there will be other significant negative impacts to the neighborhood. B. Public hearing and consideration of a Concept Review and Comment Plan #LUR2000-00007 for the "iPark" industrial•park, located at the north end of Spine Road on lots 9,10,11 & 12 of The Greens Industrial Park, to review the proposed development for four new buildings and an existing building containing up to 121,000 square feet of floor area. This property is zoned IG-D (Industrial General - Developing). MOTION: On a motion by P. Gowen, seconded by B. Pommer, the Planning Board continued (7-0) this item to the meeting on February 15, 2001. C. Public hearing and consideration of a request for Concept Plan Review and Comment#LUR2000-00002 for the Western Disposal Service and Public Service Company Master Plan. The proposal is to subdivide a parcel approximately 55.4 acres in size located at 2655 North 63rd Street into two lots. The property is zoned IM-D (Industrial Manufacturing-Developing). MOTION: On a motion by P. Gowen, seconded by B. Pommer, the Planning Board continued (7-0) this item to the meeting on February 15, 2001. 8. ADJOURNMENT: The Planning Board adjourned the meeting at 11:35 p.m. s:\plan\pb-items\min utes\010201 min,wpd