Loading...
Minutes - Planning Board - 07/11/2001APPROVED OCTOBER 4, 2001 CITY OF BOULDER PLANNING BOARD SUMMARY MINUT~S • July 11, 2001 Council Chambers Room, Municipal Building 1777 Brondway, 8:00 p.m. The foilowing are the ininuCes of the July 1 I, 2001 City of Boulder Ptanning Board meeting. A pernianant set of these minutes is kept in Central Records, and a verbatim tape recording of the meeting is maintained for a period of seven years in Central Records (telephone: 303-441-3043). BOARD PRESENT: Macon Cowles A1 Gunter, Vice Chair Thom Krueger Tina Nielsen Alan O'Hashi Beth Pommer Mark Ruzzin, Chair STAFF PRESENT: David Gehr, Assistant City Attorney Sam Hartman, Library Mary Lovrien, Board Secretary ~ PeCer Pollock, Planning Director Mike Randall, Planner 1. CALL TO ORDER Chair M. Ruzzin declarecl a qiiorum aC 8 p.m., and the following business was conducted.. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUT~S There were no minutes to approve. 3. CITIZEN PARTTCIPATION There was no citizen parCicipation. 4. DISCUSSION OF DISPOSITIONS, PLANNING BOARD CALL-UPS There were no dispositions or Planning Board call-ups to discuss. 5. MATTERS T'ROM THE PLANNING BOAIiD, PLANNING DIRECTOR, AND CITY ATTORNEY P.Pollock inentioned that fhe Boulder Ui~ban Renewal AuthoriCy (BURA) will meet on August 8, and City Council will meet on August 21 to discuss the draft Crossroads framework plan. He said . s:\plan\pb-items\minutes\010711min.wpd City of Boulder ,luly ll, 2001 Planning Board Minutes Page 2 • that BURA suggested that its members could meet with two City CoLmcil members and two Planning Board members to discuss the matter before Planning Board review on September 13 aud City Council review on September 25. The Board discussed how it can become more efficient and avoid late-ilight meetings. P. Pollock said that the election of Yhe Board Chair and Vice Chair will occur on August 2, 2001. 6. ACTION ITEMS A. Public hearing and consideration of a recommendation to City Council on an ordinance to eliminate the conditional height provisions for the RBl-E and RBl-X zoning districts set forth in section 9-3.2-4, B.R.C., 1981, and seYting forth details in relation thereto. P. Polloclc said that there are issues and concerns regarding some of the zoning regulations in the downtown area, some specifically regarding 902 Pearl Street and some more general conceins from the Downtown Design Advisoiy Board, the Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board, and the Downtown Alliance. He described the three different levels of review: 1) if someone meets all the standards in the code, those proj ects can proceed directly to a building permit or 1s by-right proj ects; 2) a conditional review means YhaC if a project meets the conditions thaC are specified in Che code, staff can approve the proj ect; and 3) exceptions would proceed tlirough a discretionary process that involves staff review and sometimes Planning Boaz•d review. He said that a provision in the RB1-X and RB1-E zones allows projects that are on a corner lot, • through a conditional height review, to apply for an additional story up to 45 feet for a portion of the lot eq~ial to 50 feeY along the principal frontage and 70 feeC along the side street frontage. He said that there was a coucern that this might be inappropriaYe as a conditional use process and asked that the Board recommend to City Council the elimination ofthat particular conditional heightprovision. He said tl~at such a recommendation would trigger a 120-clay period during which City Council would ueed to review a final ordinance. D. Gelir fiirther explained that tmder the 120-day period Che City Manager will grant no building permits that are inconsistent with that code provision. Public Participation: Joe 5chneider, 950 Penrl Street: He read a letter from Dave Query which states opposition to the 902 Pearl SYreet project. He said that the design of the building is out of character with the neighborhood, deliveries will not be able to use the alley without blocking driveways and underground parking accesses, trash and recyclable pickups occur at 7:00 in the morning six days a week and would create noise problems for residential units, and exhaust from the nearby restaurants will go directly into the HVAC systems of the proposed building. Brian Grimes, 3898 Bosque Conrt: He expressed his endorsement of the proposed zoning change. He said that it is encouraging thaY Planning staff and the Plamiing Board are encouraging meaningful and substantive dialogue between developers ofnew proj ects and existing properties and businesses, • s:\plan\pb-items\minutcs\010711min.wpd City of Boulder July 11, 2001 Plamiing Board Minutes Page 3 • reviewing the appropriateness of locating residential development into the core business area, and reviewing Yhe noise enforcement ariteria in the commercial districtis. Heidi Fletemeyer, Representative of the owners of 902 Pearl, 1401 Walnut Street: She voiced concern over the timing and nature of this ordinance change a~id opposed the elimination of the conditional height provision for the RB 1-E and RB 1-X zones. She said that staFf recommended that the application for deveiopment at 902 Pearl be modified to be more in line with the conditional height provision currently in piace, and the owners discussed these options. She said that one day afrer this meeting, staff published notice of this proposed ordinance change. She said that she believes thaY the proposed change has been purposely timed to foreclose the development oPthe 902 Pearl Sri•eet property, to confiise the current site review application, and Co stall development on this corner. She said that the proposed change is arbitrary and inYenCionally discriminatory, and it is an illegal downzoning of Yhat parcel without a rational and legitimate zoning purpose as required by law. She said that the proposed change is uot based on sound planning or zoning policy, and she encouraged the Board not to recommend this change to City Cot~ncil. Snsan Wilson,104 3rd Avenue, Niwot: She said tihat the downtown Pearl Street area is a treasure of scenic and historical beauty that woulci Ue seriously degraded if construction occurs to the maximum allowed by tihe cnrrent regulation. She said that extreme incongruity of the scale of the stnicture proposed for 902 Pearl Street with the other buildings on the street is an illuminating and alarming example of the desirability for the code change. She said that economic vitality and aesthetic preservation are not mutually exclusive. • Hass Hassau, 615 Juniper Avenue: He encouraged the Planning Board Co recommend to City Council the proposed change because it is in everyone's best interest, except for perhaps the developer. He said that if there is an opportunity to mold downtown Boulder in a way that is more beneficial in preserving the character oCthe area and for the Uusinesses that are currently there, it should be taken. Charlie Papazian, 736 Pearl Street: He said that he has a high regard for the character oF the downtown Pearl Street con•idor. He said tliathe appreciates any ordinance that will help preserve that special character that exists in downtiown. He said thaY the west end of Pearl Street is one of the few remaining areas that retains Boulder's spirit. Therese Spears, 1970 13th Street: She said that she does not like some of the development proposals that are being brought forth in the city. She said that she supports the code change because otherwise the views would be destroyed and there does not need to be more office and residential space downtown. Michelle Goren, 84419th Street: She pointed out two letters that her husband had written to the Planning Board and the Downtown Design Advisoiy Board aud petitions lgainst the proposed development at 902 Pearl Street. 8he noted that her lnisband wrote Yhat a rooftop restauranY and ~ s:AplanApb-itcros\minutesA0107] Imin.wpd City of Boulder July 11, 2001 Planning Board Minutes Page 4 . penthouse condominiums are not compatible and would force the W est End Tavern out of business. She said that bigger restiaurants, deck space, and latar hours are allowed in this area, and it would be inappropriate to build over 35 feet becalise it would destroy the stabiliCy and character of the neighborhood. She said thaY he furCher states that zoning code is not only fo profecf the interests of the landowner but the interests of Yhe neighbors. She asked that any construction be donc during the slower season. Bryan Devine, 664 Tantra Drive: He said that he is in favar of the proposed ordinance and is opposed to any height variations and a mixed use aC 902 Pearl Sh'eet. He asked that the Board encourage the developers to plan a tasteful building that blends with the neighbothood raYher Chau a monolith, Ha said that the W esY End Tavern is a place where people bring visitors because it does have the best view in $oulder and is one of the few locally-owned businasses in the area. Carol Sobieniak, 944-D Pearl Street: She said that the changes in growth in this area make her feel that she is no longer at home in her owa hometown. She said that the proposed project at 902 Pearl Street is incongruenY with the established buildings and businesses in the neigbborhood. Sbe said that the proposed height of this project is monumental and, if built as proposed, will affect the historical area and anthenticity of Boulder. She said that her main concerns ara the residentiial use in a downtown area, problems with building shadow on the narth-facing alleys, traffic congestion, parking, the safety hazard oftrucks lined up in the alley, and the expensive condominiums proposed for this project. ~ Doug Emerson, 2850 7th Street: He asked whether there is a correlation between the price paid for a properCy and the likelihood of getting a variance, and the Board assured him Chat there is no correlation. He said that when granting s~tch a height variance, iC should provide affordable housing rather than high-end housing. M~ryl Swick, 628 Pleasant Street: She opposed the design and height oC the 902 Pearl Street pxoperty and supported preserving the character of the west end oP the Pearl Street Mall. She said thaf she was concerned fhat the cify even considered such a massive building at the corner of 9Ch and Pearl which would force the West End Tavem out of business. Gwen Dooley, 730 Spruce: She said that there has always been a symbiotic relationship with the businesses in Yhe downtown area. She said that thare should not be residances naxt door because of the fumes, noisa, frivolity, and tha businass that is conducted in the area. She said that she was appalled by the mass and height of the proposed building. She said thlt it was her undersYanding that such a height would only be allowed on a comer lot for an architectural alement. She supported the staff recommendation for a code change. Sha said that the proposal is not in line with the good neighbor policy for interface zones. Cindy Carllsle, 411 Spruce Street: She asked the Board to recominend to City Council the sCaff rccommendaYion. i s~.\plan\pb-itmns\minutes\010711min.wpd City of Boulder July 11, 2001 Planning Board Minutes Page 5 • Steven Taffet, 2233 4th Street: He said that perhaps the proposed zoning change will provide staff and the Board more tlexibility or it might just create more problems. He said that the existing ordinance is quite specific about verticality, massing, and arcl~itectural elements or a floor 2nd would allow a 45-foot building with mass eiYher at the front or adjacent to the eommercial btiilding. He said that this site calls for enormous cre~tivity on the part of the developer, tha part of staff, and the Planning Board. He said thaY he is not here to say that he supports or opposes the recommendation but that this requires very intensive study. Kimble Hobbs, 325 20th Street: He said that iY is our dnty as public citizens to protect the welfare and life of the city. He said that there are areas where a three-story building and residential buildings might be appropriate and recommended that staSf study this issue carefully. He recommended th~t if residences are allowed in thase zones that an entertainment district be considered so that fines far noise are noY being levied against the vital bLtsinesses iu the district. He said that the use by-right was ill-considered when it was proposed years ago. He said that staff should be given the flexibility to find the place to put the density on a site. Crystal Gray,1709 Spruce: She said that the revocation of this part of the ordinance affects the Whittier neighborhood where she lives. She said that she supports the staffrecommendation for both the west and east ends of Yhe Mall. She said that the corner of 17th and Spruce and 9th and Pearl are surrounded by three other different zones where a building like the one proposed would not be allowed. She said that the applicant should be reminded that the city's failure to give is not a taking nar is it a denial of due process, and it is also fhe city's right and the right of the citizens to ask that • parts of ordinances be changed. She said that Botiilder has a strong vision of where it wants to go and what it wants to be, and i~rban design has always b~en aboirt Yhe hearC and soul of the city. She turned in a petition signed by John Spitzer, Sharon Rosall, Leslie Durgin, Ruth Wright, Mike Figgs and several others. Nick Juele, P.O. Box 1335, Nederland: He said that the pafions of the West End Tavern will be looking at a wall rather than the Flatirons if this bLiilding is allowed to be btiilt. Return to the Board: The Board and staFf discussed the implications ofthe 120-daypariod; t]~e possibility ofincorporating the public hearing record at tonighYs meeting as part of the record should the project come forward regarding 902 Pearl Street; the legislative intent of the 45-foot height exception for architectural elements only; the effect the proposed ordinance will have on the 902 Pearl Street application; the intent of the Downtown Design Guidelines and the urban design objectives for the districts, and the guidelines for new construction in Che local downtown district; the change of niles in the middle of an applicant project; the assurance that specific context is presented to City Comicil addressing the pending ordinance r~ile and the suggesCion that even though the Board is making a parCicular recommendation, within the 120-day reviaw period another ordinance might be Forthcoming; the public process within the 120-day review period; and a comprekensive review of where additional height and residences would be appropriate. • s:\plan\pb-itams\minutes\010711 min.wpd City of Boulder July 11, 2001 Plam~ing Board Miinttes Page 6 MOT10N: On a motion Uy M. Cowles, seconded by M. Ruzzin, the Planning Board recommended • (7-0) that City Council adopt an ordinance Yo eliminate the conditional height provisions for the RB 1-E and RB 1-X zoning districts set forth in section 9-3.2-4, B.R.C., 1981, as outilined in Yhe sYaff memorandum dated July 11, 2001 (preparaYion date 7uly 3, 2001). M. Ruzzin supported the motion because, alYhough there are places in these zones where this particular conditional use is appropriate, this process will allow more specificity. A. Gnnter supported the motion because it would allow a mid-course correction Por the Downtown Alliance process ofmonitoring what happens and periodically review that monitoring to make sure tihaY it still holds true to the vision set forth. B. Pommer supported the motion because it does not really cl~ange what is allowed, it changes how the project is reviewed and how it is allowed. She said that the review will allow adequate inpuY from business owners, renters, and the residential neighbors. T. Nielsen supported the motion because this is a fareshadowing of some of the issues that will be reviewed regarding mixed use. B. Public hearing and consideration of a recommendation to City Council concerning the city's consent to participate in a development review applicatiou under Chapter 9-4, B.R.C. 1981 for the North Boulder Village Center, located at the southeast wrner of Broadway and Yarmouth, to include the city-owned parcel north of Four Mile Canyon Creek and east of Brondw~y. P. Pollock explained that in the review ofthe North Boulder Village concept plau, there was material • dealing with the extent to which that particular plan implements the vision of Yhe North Bonlder Subcommunity Plan (NBSP). He said that the stafFmemo explains the intent of the plan, the issues associated with the parCicular proposed concept plan, and how the land that is owned by the ciCy of Boulder might play a role in the provision of a grocery store-anchored village center. He said tliat the land was donaYed lo Yhe city far a library, a village green and open space, a»d part of the siYe relates to the Fourmile Canyon Creek floodway. He said that staffhas felt thaY the issue of providiug a fitll range of services in a village center is part of the intent af the NBSP. He said Yhat sYaff has provided an analysis of four options for providing a village center on the site, including the publicly- owned parcel as a part of a subsequent concept plan review. S. Hartman said that the Library Commission discussed the proposed recommendation and made a motion to endorse the concepts in the letter from Marcelee Gralapp, Library Director, regarding the north Boulder branch library and village green in the North Boulder Village Center, and her support oPthe staffinemorandum that a grocery store is key to making the NBSP village center wark. Bruce Dierking, attomey for Loftus and Coburn, said that Safeway has not indicated that it would remove the the restrictive covenant at any price. Ha said that the only way to remova the covenant is far the city to condemn the covenant. J. Loftus addressed the Board's desire for a grocery store on the site, and the plan Yo partner with the city to help make the village center plan work. • s:\plan\pb-items\minutes\010711min.wpd City of Boulder July 11, 2001 Planning Bo~rd Minutes Page 7 ~ Public Participation: There was no public participation. Return Yo the Board: Tlte Board and sCaff discussed how the mobile home park fits into the proposal; the city's roie in the application itsalf; the use o£ properties north of Yarmouth and west of Broadway as a site for a grocery store; possibility of a land trade with the developer; how to remove a deed restriction on the property (buy out the restriction from Safeway or ask the city to condemn the restriction); the need to change the zoning on the eity-ownedparcel to accommodate a grocerystore; getting outreach fi~om the residents who developed tha NBSP regarding the siting of a grocery store ar whether there should ba a grocery store; the street grid pattern; concern about how the village green component will work on another part of the siYe; facilitating a conversation with the community with the new infarmation; the potential by-right development on the site; the possibility of reviewing the NBSP to consider more alternatives which might include the city-owned parcel; participaYion in a development review applicaYion for using the city-owned parcel while at the same time investigating other options and making any necessary adjustments to the NBSP and zoning to accomplish that outcome; and Yhe perception that the city might favor ona developer over others by tha proposed partnering plan. MOTION: A. O'Hashi made a motion that the Planniug Board recommend that City Council consevt to participate in a developmenY reviaw applieation far a concept plan that would include, but not be liniited to, a community process, evaluation of possible zoning changes, and keeping in mind the North Boulder Subcommunity Plan for the North Boulder Village Center in order to include the . city-owned parcel north of Fourmile Canyon Creek and east 4f Broadway in the application. A. Gunter seconded the motion. Tha Board did not vote on Yhis motion, but instaad the following substitute motion was made. MOTION: On a motion by M. Cowles, seconded by T. Nielsen, the Planning Board recommended (7-0) to City Council that the city consent to participate in a development review application far a concept plan for the North Boulder Village Center in order to ineiude the city-owned parcel north of Fourmile Canyon Creek and east of Broadway in the application. At the same time, a variety of other options for the North Boulcler Village Centar will be explored with the community. These options will be presented to the city to determine appropriate next steps. Any necessary changes to the NBSP and zoning will be pursued as necessary. The city does not by this action endorse any specific development proposal. A. Gunter said that it is appropriate to note that the reason ttie city is participating is because of a restrictive covenant on tha North Bonlder Village site that does not allow pursuit of all Yhe various alternatives far the site. 7. ADJOURNMENT: The Planning Board adjourned the meeting at 12:10 a.m. on July 12, 2001. ~ s:\plan\plritems\minutes\010711min.wpd