The URL can be used to link to this page

Minutes - Planning Board - 07/19/2001APPROVED OCTOBER ] S, 2001 • CITY OF BOULDER PLANNING BOARD SUMMARY MINUT~S July 19, 2001 Counci- Chambers Room, Municipal Building 1777 Broadway, 6:00 p.m. The following are the minutes of the July 19, 2001 City of Bonlder Planning Board meeting. A parmanent set of these minutes is kept in Central Kecords, and a verbatim tape recording of the meeting is maintained far a period of seven years in Central Records (Yelephone: 303-441-3043). BOARD PRESENT: Macon Cowles Thom Krueger Tina Nielsen Alan O'Hashi Beth Pommer Mark Ruzzin, Chair BOARD ABSENT: A1 GunCer S STAFF PRESENT: $ob Cole, Director of Project Review Don Durso, Assoeiate Planner David Gehr, Assistant CiCy Attarney Ann Goodhart, Open Space and Mountain Parks Elizabeth Hanson, Planner Mary Lovrien, Board Seeretary Peter Pollock, Planning Director A1 Quiller, Recreation Admiilistrator Mike Randall, Planner Maureen Spitzer, Parks Planner GUEST: Charlie Manlove, Member of the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board 1. CALL TO ORDER Ckair M. Ruzzin declared a quorum at 6:05 p.m., and the following business was conducted. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES June 7, 200L• M. Cowles suggested that on page 12, note at flie end of the conditions "The following conditions were revised and approved by the Planning Board on June 28, 2001: 2.f, "The ~ Applicant shall provide a plan, developed collaboratively with the neighborhood, subject to the review and approval of the Planning Department, for the ongoing commtmication between the Applicant and Che sixrrounding neighborhood that provides an opportunity far fhe surrounding City o f Boulder July 19, 2001 ~ Planning Board Minutes Page 2 neighbors to address off-site impacts that the use may have on the surrounding area, including, but not limited to, impacts from lighting, noise, landscaping, and parking and how those impacts can be mitigated or prevented." Condition 5: "The Applicant shall use the access to 16th Street in accordance with the approved plans." Condition 6: "The specific architectural design shown on the approved plans (inehiding materials) is to help assure compliauce with the approval." B. Pommer suggested that on page 3, ~dd the following sentence to the end of the second paragraph "Guy Fromme, Applicant, commented that even though the aerospace industry creates some future uncertainty, the intent of Ball Aerospace is to remain in the Boulder area." She suggested that on page 9, change the first clause of the fifth paragraph to read "CraaCe a site thaC resembles Pikes Place Market in Seattle with many small shops or a store that offers such goods under one roof--an anchor grocery store may not be needed;" M, Ruzzin suggested that on page 6, Condition 6, change to read "Prior to or concurrent with a building parmit application, the Applicant shall submit final architectural plans demonstrating that it minimizes the impacts on the view from the patio of 1480 Sierra Drive." On a motionbyT. Krueger, saconded by A. O'Hashi, the Plamiing Board approved the minutes of Juna 7, 2001 as amended (6-0; A. Gunter was aUsent). 3. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION Robert Law, 4820 Thunderbird Circle: He spoke about tl~e 28th Street corridor study. He requested that the Board suggesY that the Transportation staff bring tiip to date their web site on the • 28th Street corridor stLidy. He said that on the south segment staff has wisely decided to postpone considering Boulder Creek to Arapahoe because it has neverbeen determined how theywill interface with Che niiddle section (Arapahoe to Pearl). He asked that Planning staffgive a presentation on what is happening on the middle section. He said that the scope for the corridor has never been to look at the state of the art and has never considered the interface with retail and offices. 4. DISCUSSION OF DISPOSITIONS, PLANNING BOARD CALL-UPS M. Cowles suggested that on the disposition for the Sundquist Building, change the maker of t11e friendly amendment to M. Cowles instead ofD. Gehr. The Board had no commenfs on the Planning Department dispositions (Technical document for 16ll Canyon and Gunbairel Technical Center Replat), or Yhe wetland permit (IBM Storm Water Detention Pond Improvement Project). 5. MATTERS FROM THE PLANNING BOARD, PLANNING DIRECTOR, AND CITY ATTORNEY (Tliese items were discussed at the end of the meeYing.) B. Pommer suggestad that the Board Ue careful when discussing pending projects that are noti nnder review at the moment unless tihey have already been approved by the Board. T. Nielsen proposed that the Board schedule a discussion about starting the meetings earlier and creating an agenda so that meetings adjourn at 10:00 p.m. P. Pollock mentioned that there is a Saturday workshop about meeting management at the American Planning Association conference in Aspen. He said that the Board discussion on the Crossroads Framework Plan will be held in September, and there is an opportimity for each Board member to meet with a member of tha Boulder UrUan Renewal Authority (BURA). He said that the North • Boulder Village application proposal will be reviewed by City Council on August 7. He said that staff is developing a plan to deal with the analysis and the zoning issues in tha downtown zoning discussion, and the Downtown Alliance will discuss the issue. City of Boulder ~ July 19, 2001 Planning Board Minutes Page 3 6. ACTION ITEMS A. Public hearing and consideration of ~ request to annex ~ 114 acre p~rcel ofland located at 2446 Sumac Avenue, with an initinl zoning of Rurnl Residenti;tl- Established, and a minor amendment to the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP) Area I, Area II, Are1 III Map, to cltange the designation from Area IIB Yo IIA for this property. D. Durso explained that the city ofBoulder Flood UYility has requested to annex the 1.14 acre parcel to connect the existing residential dwelling to the citiy's water and wastewater uCility systems. He stated Yhat the annexation meeYs the requirements of the State, Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan, and the North Boulder Subcommtmity Plan, and that the zoning of Rural ResidenYial - Established is appropriate. He explained that a partion of the parcel Yo the norYh (Perlitz property located at 2455 S umac Avenue), which was purchased by the city far flood improvements, has since been sold. He said that the west side of the piroperty was retained by the city as a floodplain and for a trail. A. Goodhart said that after the city purchased the Perlitz property in 1996 for $410,000, the city subdivided the parcel and sold the house and remaining property for $585,000. She said that there were no size restrictions placed on the house because the hoiise was located in Yhe high-hazard flood zone, and if the house were demolished, the owners could not rebuild on the site. She explained that even though the garage on the property at 2446 Sumac is located in the high-hazard zone, there could . Ue some significanY redevelopment potential because the house is outside this zone and in the 100- year floodplain. Public Participation: There was no public participation. Return to the Board: The Board and staff discussed the expecYaCion for annexation and zoning of the Githens Acres parcels; the fact that if a portion of the loY were subdivided and the resulting lot was less than 30,000 square feet, the parcel would be considered a nonstaudard lot which would reduce building height but keep setbacks the same; the use of Che parcel for flood mitigation which means that either the hotiise would be demolished so that the entire site could be used for flood control or the house could be sold; the possibility of deed resh~icting the house before tl~e house is sold to get some community benefit as an affardable unit the possibility of earmarking the profit from the sale of the house into a fund to benefit the community, such as a cash-in-lieu for a£fordable housing and to direct the City Manager to disperse the fitnds; the fact that since this parcel is an enclave, the Board does not have the authority to add conditions that are not consistent with what is already required of other annexations; since the purchase price for the parcel was $60Q000, there is a possiUility that Flood Utility would rather scrape the house rather than offer it for affordable housing aud it might be better to capture any value added at sale to contribute to affordable housing. ~ MOTION: On a motion by B. Pommer, seconded Uy T. Krueger, the Planning Board recommended (6-0; A. Gnnter was absent) that City Council approve Anuexation #LUR2001-00020 City of Boulder July 19, 2001 . Plannii~g Bo1rd Minutes Page 4 of the property as shown on the Annexation Map, included as Attachment E, into the city with an initial zoning of RR-E, with findings and conditions as stated in the staff ~nemorandum dated July 19, 2001 (preparation date June 21, 2001), witih the addition oFthe Condition 4 to read "Tha profit, if any, from the eventual sale of the property by the city be allocated by the City Manager at the time of sale giving due regard to the needs of the city's affardable housing program." B. Public hearing and consideration of Site Review #SI-2000-16 (LUR2000-SI016) to expand St. John's Episcopal Churcl~ located at 1419 Pine Street. Tl~e request includes an expansion of existing charch offices, classrooms and parish hall. The total square foot addition proposeci is approximately 8,000 square feet and 3,800 square feet of underground parking. The request includes a height of up to 45 feet for the new addition and a parking reduction request of73 percent. Setbackvlriations inclucle a proposed sideyard (south) setback for ~ stairwell of 20 feet where 25 feet is required, and a proposed frm-tya-•d (east) setback for parking of6 feet where 25 feet is required. The applicant is seeking creation of vested property rights in accordance witlt Section 9-4-12 G°Creation of Vested Rights," B.R.C.1981 for a two phase project. ~ Phase I consists of an addition of 8,000 square feet of office, meeting and religious education space, and 3,800 square Teet of underground pnrking to be completed within three years. Phase II consists of a colonnade structure Yo be completed within six years. B. Cole said that tha Whittier Neighborhood Association sent a letter stating that they had not received a specific notificaYion of this application, but he said that all the Code-mandated noYice requirements were met and that staff thought that the neighborhood was notified. He ouYlined the steps to resolve this problem in the future. D. Durso said that the applicant is requesting to expand the church offices, classrooms and parish hall which would result in approximately 8,000 additional square feet and 3,800 square feet of underground parking, He outlined the requested variations to the code (height variance for a building up to 46 feet, a parking reduction of 73 pereent, and two setback variarions) and a request for vested rights. He outlined how the additional square fooYage wonld be ttsed and how the reconfigLiration offhe surface parking wouId be completed. He said that staff concluded that the applicant does not have fo submit an executed lease with the parking garages to guarantee 30 spaces because the owners ofthe garages are reluctant to execute a lease for zero dollars and have stated ihat the church can use the stnicriire on Sundays as Iong as space is nvailable. He said that improvements are proposed on Che site along Pine Street, that the massing of Yhe proposed addition is compatible with the surrounding area (a mix of commercial and i~esidential to tha east) and relates to the existing structure, the height of the addition ivould be perceived as bei2lg very close to the 35 foot height ]imit ~ when looking at it fi•om the east as the ground slopes upward, and tl~e applicant could meet its parlcingneeds, even wiCh theparlcingreduction, wit~h theadditional adjacentparkinggarages and on- street parlcing. City of Boulder Jttly 19, 2001 S Planning Board Minutes Page 5 Ron Kubec, Applicant, 813 Racquet Lane, said that he had attempted to contact Crystal Gray of the Whittier lVeighborhood Association a year ago to discuss the proposal, but the messages were not retuiYied. He explained the intent of the piroposed church expansion (need for offce space for additional personnel, consolidation oPits programs at one site, and expausion ofthe parish hall) and described the differant parts of the plan, He addressed how the church will encourage the parishioners to use the private parking spaces (notice in the church bulletiu and the monthly newsletter) and the willingness to work oLrt a plan far the leased parking spacea He addressed Yhe question about the size ofthe original house on the site that was razed and how the massing ofthe addition flows from the site of the original house to the parish hall. Eric HartronFt, Architect, described the two phlses ofthe proposal, including parking and massing of the addition, and addressed the concerns fi~om the WhitYier Neighborhood Association. He explained the reasoning why the applicant chose not to haue the proj ect reviewed by the Downtown Design Advisory Board (DDAB) and that it had been reviewed by the Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board. He addressed the timing of the second phase and the request for approval of vested rights of up to six years beyond the approval date and the process that was used to remove the hoitse that had been used for office space and apartments. Pnblic Participation: There was no public participation. ~ The Board and stafF discussed adequacy of parking during weekday uses and on Sunday to accommodate existing and future uses; the loss of the residential unit; the addition of windows for the addition; requiring a Transportation Demand Management Plan to prevent so muc11 parking in the neighbarhood; the provision of sleeping space for Uie homelass; the leasing oF church parking spaces; parking monitors 6o direct people to the parking garages; additional progranzs that would require more parking; whether to ask the applicant to have the project reviewed Uy DDAB; requirement to have a lease with a parking garage to accommodate parking needs; enforcement action that might be taken if sufficiant parking is not available; the approval that would be reqnired if the applicant did not complete the proj ect within the six-year period; and how the massing of the addition relates to the structures that had existed on the site. MOTION: On lmotion by M. Cowles, seconded by A. O'H~slti, the Planning Board approved Site Review #LUR2000-SI016 (6-0; A. Ganter was absent) with the recommended conditions of approval set forth in Attachment A in the staff inemarandum dated July 19, 2001 (preparation date July 3, 2001). T. Nielsen offered a fi~iendly amendment that Condition 4"Prior to bnilding permit application the applicant must submit an executed lease with the garage located at 15th and Spruce for thirty parking spaces to be used on Sundays, as set forth in its written statement" Ue deleted. T. Nielsen affered a friendly amendment to add Condition 4 to read "If the City Manager so orders, ~ the Applicant shall cease to lease out all or a portion of the 21 parking spaces which are considered to be deferred paz•king spaces and proposed to Ue leased to oPf-site users." CiCy of Boulder July 1), 2001 . Planning Board Minutes Page 6 B. Pommer offered a friei~dly amendment to change the wording in Condition 1 to read "The applicant shall be responsible for ensuring that the developmant shall Ue in compliance with all approved ptans and the applicant's written stateinent daYed May 7, 2001, on file in the city of Boulder Planning Department, supplemented by the elevations set forth in drawing A-200 presented at the July 19, 2001 Planning Board meeting." T. Krueger offered a fi~iendly amendment to add Condition 5 to read "Prior to a building permit application, the Applicant shall submit a detailed Transpartation Demand Management Plan to the Public Works Department for review and approval that provides far a significant and practical shift away from single occupant vehicle use for Lhe daytime, weekday parking uses." T. Kreuger offered a friendly amenduient to add Condition 6 to read "The Applicant shall consider tiie feasibility of adding housing to the site as part of any future subsequenC site review for the expansion oP floor area on the site." M. Ruzzin offered a friendly amendment to add Condition 7 to read "The Applicant must submit an executed lease with the garages located at 15th and Spruce or 15th and Pearl for 30 parking spaces to be used on Sunday in the event there is no longer frae parking in both structures on Sundays." M. Cowles and A. O'Hashi accepted the friendly amendments. ~ C. Public hearing nnd consideration of Land Use Review #LUR2001-00007 for :t Site Review Amendment to change the plans for an approved Phase 2 two-story building at 174a 30th Street, just east of the existiug CompUSA store at 1740 30tn Street. Tl~e proposed Phnse 2 plans show a new three-story, 33,900 squnre fooY, 45 foot tall retail and office building. L. Hanson said that this applicaYion is an amendment to the 1998 approved Site Review plans to change the Phase II plans to build a three-story, 45-foot tall retail and oPPice building. She said that a key part of the approved and proposed plans are pedestrian and Uicycle connections to the Crossroads area, Sunrise Center, and to the Boulder Valley Regional Center in general and to enhance usable open space areas on the site. She said that there are aspects of the plan tihat staff believes onlyminimallymeeYs the siYe review criteria (variations to the city's landscape requirements and pedestrian circulation Yo create more meaningful amenities on Clie site). She describad the changes in the existing approval and the current proposal regarding the connections (widening of the east-west sidewalk and the north-sottth connection). She said tltat the applicant did not request that Yhe $oulder Urban Renewal Authority (BURA) review the project. She mentioned that au npdated traf6c study was provided with the SiCe Review amendment, and staff did not think there were any threshold Uoundaries and issues in terms of the change in square footage. Tom Tolleson, Applicant, 135 Aspen Circle, discussed the north-south and east-west pedastrian accesses. He said that much of Che traffic lanes have already been established, and the widths just ~ barely fit within the property lines. He noted that only five feet of landscaping on both the north and south was left rather than eight feeY that is now required. He said that including more landscaping City ofBoulder Ju1y 19, 2001 ~ Planning Board MiauCes Page 7 would mean eliminating some parking spaces wi~ich is at a premium. He said that additional open space for the general public is provided through upper-level decks and other amenities (canopies far the walkways, street trees, and Crees on the uppei•-levet deck). He said that the overall site l~as almosC 20 percent of open space as opposed to Yhe required 15 perceut. Lou Della Cava, Applicant, discussed the vesCed rights issue that was waived in 1997. He said that at fhe time the approval was granted for the CompUSA building, the second building was proposed to be a two-story structure, and a lot of attention was given to the design oCthe entira site and to the north-soLitih and easf-wesf connections. He said Chat the cuii~ent three-stoiy desigu adds son2e aestheYie interest and decks to the building, and he hopes to attract a restaurant to that additional floor space. He described the basement storage space and stated the reason why Yhe originaI footprint of the building was retained. Stephen Tebo, Applicant, said that it is not an option to make the footprint of the building smaller. He said that the proposal is only a fraction of the square footage that could potentially be allowed on the site. Public Partieipation: There was no public participation. Return to the Board: ~ The Board and staff discussed the number of jobs that would be generated from the additional square footage; the advantage of a restaurant use on the site; compatibility oF the design wiCh the surrounding area; how the parking interfaces with the King Soopers' parking area; ways to strengthen the pedestrian connections between the two separate sites; lack of functionality of the pedestrian shade shuctures; incorporation of more plant material that would help increase the pedestrian use; parking issues from surrounding sites; concern about the lack of landscaping in the plan; parking requirement for the building square footage, inchiding the restaurant use; the basis for the staff recommendation tha4 the plan minimally meets the site review criteria; and the lack of required landscaping on the site to justify Yhe additional story on the b~tilding; MOTION: T. Nielsen made a motion that the Planning Board approve Land Use Review #LUR2001-00007 incorporating the staff inemorandum dated July 19, 2001 (preparation date 7uly 6, 2001) and the attached Site Review Criteria Checklist as findings oFfact, using the recominended conditions of approval in Attachment A. B. Pommer seconded the motion. A. O'$ashi offered a friendly amendment that prior to a building permit application, the applicant sliall submit a detailed Transportation Demand Management Plan for on-site employees to the Directar of Public Warks for review and approval that provides for a practical and significant shift away from single-occupant vehicle use, T. Nielsen and B. Pommer accepted the friendly amendment. T. Krneger was concerned that the size of the Uuilding and amotint of square footage allowed for ~ parking and lai~dscaping do not work. He also was uncomfortable with the fact that the applicant only mivimally nzeeYs the site review m•iteria and current landscape standards. FIe continued by stating that a smaller Footprint, 45-fooY high building may Ue more acceptable if iY malces room far City of Boulder July 19, 2001 . Ptanning Board Minutes Page 8 more landscaping in arder to malce Yhe parkiizg area feel more pedestr'tan fi•iendly. M. Ruzzin said that he was concernad that there was not a sYafF analysis about the impact from additional office space and there was too much on the site. T. Nielsen introduced tl~e motion because she thoaght that imposing this additional landscape requirement satisfies Yhe site review criteria. She said that she would prefer Yo approve Yhe motion because otherwise the applicants could build according to the original approval which she beliaves is not as good a solution as that in the proposed amendment. B. Pommer supported the motion because she thoeight that the lanclscaping condition meets the criteria and the building design is an advantage. A. O'Hashi said that he would like more integration of how this ameadment fits in with the entire neighborhood and mare analysis with regard to tl~e Crossroads EasY and the Sunrise Center plans. Since tha Board would not be able to get a majority vote for approval, the Board made the following motion so that the applicant could consider design modifications that might make it more acceptable to a majority of the Board. MOTION: On a motion by T. Krueger, seconded by M. Ruzzin, the Planning Board continued this matter Co the September 13 Board meeting (5-1; M. Cowles opposed, and A. Gunter was absent). M. Cowles could not support the motion because he does not think that the amendment meats the site review criteria and that there is too much square footage in one space. He said that he is unlikely ~ to approve the 45-foot height thaY is reqnested unless the footprint of Che building is reduced. He said that he is not in favar of eontinuing the item to another time because tonight is the time to make a decision on this application and allow the applicants to build the building that was approved in 1998, and by continuing Yhe item, the Boarcl is giving a message to staff that they can bring site review amendment applications that are incomplete. D. Public hearing and consideration of Use and Site Review, LUR2001-00039, n proposed amendment to the approved Use and Site Review of the North Boiilder Recreation Center adding Platform Tennis Courts to the outdoor facilities situated on the eaet portion of the property and south of the surface courts, located at 3170 North Broadway, zoned P-E (Public Established) and LR-E (Low Density Residential-Estnblished) on 6.5 acres. M. Randall explained that in April the Planning Board considered and approved the expansion of the North Boulder Recreation Center (NBRC); however, the platfonn tennis courts were not included in the ariginal approval because there was no recommendation from the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board (PRAB) for a new site. He said that subsequently PRAB conducted a public hearing on May 21 and considered alternate sites for the courts and came to the conclusion that they should be kept at the NBRC. He said that this item is before the Board as a site review amendment to create space at the NBRC for the platform tennis courts. FIe reviewed the key issnes (whether the site improvements and design of the platForm tennis courts installation minimize the negative impacts lipon the adjacent residential neighborhood and whether the platfo~m tennis courCs are reasonably • compatible with the existing character of the surrounding area). He said that by redLicing Che lighting around tl~e courts, by placing tlie courts at ground level, by laudscaping with shrubs to buffer City of Boulder July 19, 2001 . Planning Board MinLrtcs Page 9 visibility and noise fi•om the courts, staff has concluded that the impacts will be substantially mitigated. He said that stafFalso conchided that the courts 1re a reasonable recreational use to expect at the sita. M. Spitzer said that staff reviewed both Yhe East and South Boulder Recreation Centers as a possible site for the platfoim tennis. She said thaY the aualysis involved looking at site constraints and a cost analysis to move the courts. She explained the cost breakdown, including the cost to relocate the coLirts, the cost to lower the courts, and the cost ofnew lighting. She noted that there are abouY 100 platTotln tennis players that use the facility, azid the players come from Boulder, Broomfield, and Denver. C. Manlove, PRAB member, said that there ware other factors other thanjust the cost to move the courts (the South and East recreation centers are too windy and their usability without wind barriers would be reduced, and there was a desire by the user community to keep the courCs in their existing location). A. Quiller discussed the constnxction schedule and the relocation of the platform tennis courts is part of an initial phase. Public Participation: Ric Day, 3110 Jeffersmi Street: He said that at the May 21 PRAB meeting, several members expressed concern that neighbors at the East and South $oulder Recreation CenYers would oppose • the placement oFplatform tennis courts because of lights and noise even though the nearest homes are over 500 feet away. He was concerned that his neighborhood around the NBRC does not qualify for the same level of consideration because the.proposal calls for the placement of the courts as near as 150 feet from homes and apartments. He sai,d thati platForm tennis is a seasonal activity with little use during the summer months, and he questioned why valuable park space would be used for such a seasonal activity when there are other sites availaUle that have no competing use. Will Shafroth, 2029 Mapleton Avenue: He spoke in favor of the platform temiis locaYion at the NBRC. He said that the PRAB and staff caine up with good improvements to the original proposal that dealt with the noise, lighting, and the open space issues. He suggested that the users of the platform tennis would be willing to work with staff and the neighborhood to adopt a good neighbor policies, including making sure thaC Yhe lights get turned ofPwhen Yhe players are finished and ways Co keep the noise down and setting up a process with the NBRC to address specific complaints. Peter Feer, 1427 C~scade Avenue: He favored the amendment as approved by the PRAB. He addressed the alternaYive sites thaY were recommended and Yhe conclusion was that the cost would be less at the present location. He said that wind is not just an inconvenience, it is a serious detractor to the actual game, and neither of the alternate locations would be suitable because they do not have outdoor lit facilities at this time and would be a new intrusion. He said that the platform tennis at the NBRC has been an existing use for 17 years. Mike Befeler, 890 Cyprns Drive: He said that platform tennis is a great stress relief and a good . qLiality of life activity. He said that the expansion of the recreation center is forcing moving the platForm tennis causing changes to the terrain. He said that it is important to retain a resource that City oP Boulder July 19, 2001 ~ Planning Boac•d Minutes Page 10 is being widely used, is popular, attd where the users are willing Co work with the commuaity to minimize the impacts. Gary Horvath, 4531 West 124th Avenue, Broomfield: He said thac he supports the staff recommendation. He said that currently the light and noise pollution are exaggerated by having the courts so close to the bnilding because of light and noisa refraction. He thought that by moving tha courts to the open area, a loC of the problems will go away. Eileen Goode, 625 WestAsh Street, Louisville: Slie supportad the decisionby PRAB. She saidthat the three criteria that is important to consider are the changes to the aetual court to minimize the noise, the new lighting will reduce the spillover into the adjoining area, and the increased landscaping will reduce visibility and noise. She said that it is an expensive move to the other sites and can lead to more contention, and platform tennis is primarily a winter sport so the noise issue is somewhat abated because windows tend Co be closed. Elizabeth Dining, 3100 Jefferson Street: She said that she was concerned aUout the relocation of the platform tennis courts because of noise and light pollution, the proximity to residents, and the diminished usable open space. She said that the proposed courts would be as close as 90 feet to the Housing Authority housing and will liave a negative effect on the quality of life to people living • adjacent to the proposed site. She said that Olmsted Park will be almost nonexistent if these courts are moved to this site and will eliminate spaces for children to play. She said that either East or South Boulder Recreation Centers could accommodate these courts in a less intrusive way. She asked the Board to place the courtis at another site. Alexandra Slcewes, 302515th Street: She said that she was concerned about the reloc~tion of the platForm tennis courts because oftl~e disturbance to the nearbyresidenfs and the loss of open space. 5he said she did not undersYand why these colirts could not be placed at the alternate sites when they wauld be 900 feet from residences. Susan Albers, 2950 18th Street: She said that by relocating tha courts to the open space, prime space will be taken fi~om families and children and the quality of life will be harmed. She said that there is too mLtch on this site, and plenty of space at the other recreational sites. She said that a good naighbor would move to a bigger space and not jeopardize the quality of liFe of the adjacent neighbors. Bill DeOreo, 3030 15th Street: He said that at the PRAB meeting thare was no mandate to put the courts on this site because the vote was 4 to 2. He said that many qf the players who use the courts come from out of town, and tha East Boulder Recreation Center would be a mors appropriate place because these playars drive by this site. He said that the staff inemorandum fails to point out the tremendous discrepancy in the size between these sites and tha difference in the distance to adjacent homes. He also said that the East Boulder Recreation Center could accommodate any firture ~ expansion. He asked that the Board deny the application. City of Boulder July 19, 2001 • Plantting Board Minutes Page 11 Tom Houlihan, 4251 Peach Way: He supported retaining the courts at the NBRC. Ha said that the noise from platform tennis is aboLrt the same from Che tennis coiuts. He said tl~at Che lights from the tennis courts are probably much worse than the platfarm Cennis courls because of the size. He said tihat the staffrepart gives a fair statement of comments from the PRAB meeting from Uoth sides of the issue. He said that the courts have been at the NBRC for 17 years and should remain there. Gwen Dooley, PRAB Member, 730 Spruce; She said that this was a difficult issue far some ofthe Board meinbers. She said that there is not much financial diFference for any of the sites, but the lighting that would be reqnired at the East Boulder Recreation Center would cost $16,OOQ but other than that cost, it would have been preferable Co move the courts to East Boulder. Chip Isenhart, 2028 17th Street: He said that he supported kesping the courts at the NBRC. He said that while the courts have an impact, the retention pond on the open space creates a sitLiation that leaves the grassy area fairly nnusable in some aspects. He said that there are two outfall structures where stiorm drainpipes are in the bottom of the retention basin which will be enclosed in a concrete box which prevents iunning activities. He said that the remaining open space will ba an area for a landscape buffer and provide a small space for recreation. Return Yo the Board: • The Board and staff discussed the site at the East Boulder Recreation Center regarding the cost to elevate the courts because of the high ground water; the cost of tha walkways that would be required at the EBRC and the SBRC; the impacts to the neighborhood; requirement of a good neighbor policy; and impact to platform tennis under the construction schedule. MOTION: On a motion by M. Cowles, seconded by T. Krueger, the Planning Board denied Use and Site Review #LUR2001-00039 (4-Z; B. Pommer and T. Nielsen opposed the motion, and A. Gunter was absent) as outlined in the staff inemorandtiim dated July 19, 2001 (preparation date July 6, 2001) with the following Findings: Based on the evidence presented to the Planning Board at the July 19, 2001 ineeting, the Planning Board finds that the two elements given the location of the platform tennis courts in relation to the surrounding residenYial use, the applicant £ailed Yo demonstrate that the negative impacts upon the adjacent residential neighborhood would be minimized. 2. Given the location in relation to the residenYial uses the applicant failed to demonstrate that Che platfonn teruiis courCs were reasonably couipaCibie with Che existing character of the surrounding neighborhood. M. Cowles supporCed the motion because the proposed location of the platform tennis woLild not minimize the negative impacYs to the adjacent residential neighborhood because of the noise and • would not be reasonably compatible with the existing characYer oFthe sLirrounding area. He said that the incursion into the Olmsted pocket park would impact an area that people enjoy. M. Ruzzin City oC Boulder July 19, 2001 ~ Plamiing Board Minutes Page 12 s~tpported the motion because he thoughY that the circumstances had changed for the neighbors that sun•ound the site, and that the amount of programs that is planned for the site is all fhat the site can handle. I-Ie said that should there be a need to expand tha platform tennis, there wotzld not be additional space at theNorCh BoulderRecreation Center to accommodatethe expansion. T. Krueger said that the courts are compatible with the existing character oFthe area, but more important is that the site improvements do noY minimize the negative impacts on the neighborhood, even with the change of the design. A. O'Hashi said that he was concerned that the players are trying to expand the numbars of players and bacome a mare popular activity in town but that the NBRC would not be able to accommodate such growth. B. Pommer did not support the motion because she agraed with the staff in its recommendation that it satisfies the use and site review criteria. She also said that the platform tennis use happens when the tennis courts are not in use. T. Nielsen did not support the moYion because the existence of the tennis courts creates a much larger impact than the plaYform tennis coixrts do and that the platform tennis courts are a potenrial asset to the neighborhood. She said that ifpeople live in a neighborhood that has a recreation center, there is a certain ~moLint of impact that is accepted. She said that the plaYform tennis courts fit into the context of a recreation center, and the impacts are not excessive relative to the other activities that are already there. . E. Public Learing aud consideration ofthe fotlowing changes to the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan as part of the five year update : a. ndditional ehanges to the policy on jobs:population balance b. introduction to the implementation section P. Pollock said that he has sent to the Board the changes to the policy on jobs:population balance made by City Council and would like Planning Board support for the changes. He said that the second paragraph was changed to read " Public P~rticipation: There was no public participatiion. Return to the Board: The Board and staff discussed the fact that tlte new wording does not reduce the projected ratio, that the implamentation process is not included in the policy MOTION: On a motion by A. O'Hashi, seconcied by T. Krt-eger, the Planning Board approved the additional changes to the policy on jobs:population balance (5-I; B. Pommer opposed, and A. Gunter was absent) as outlined in the staff inemorandum dated JLily 19, 2001(preparaYion date July 11, 2001) including the revised Attachment A dated July 18, 2001. T. Krueger offered a friendly amendment to approve the text for tlze introduction to the implementation section of the plan. A. O'H~shf accepted the friendly amendment. B. Pommer offered a friendly amendment to change the • last sentence in the third paragraph on page 4 of Attachment B to read `Bxisting plans are summarized in the "Subcommuvity and Area Plans" section of the Comprehensive Plan." She City of Boulder July 19, 2001 • Planning Board Minutes Page 13 oPfered a friencily amendment to change the first senCence of the last paragraph on page 4 in AYCachmenY B to read "The action plan inchides new initiatives, projects, plans, processes, and regulatory changes needed to implemenf changes made to the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan." A. O'Hashi and T. Krueger accepted the friendly amendments. B. Pommer asked that the items be voted on separately, and T. Krueger withdrew the friendly amendment to the main motion. B. Pommer said that she did not support the change becalise the Board is receiving changes that have not gone through a public hearing. MOTION: On a motion by T. Krueger, seconded by T. Nielsen, the Planning Board approved the text for the introduction to the implementation section of the plan (6-0; A. Gunter was absent) as noted in the staff inemorandum datad July 19, 2001 (preparation date July 11, 2001) incoiporating the friendly amendments made by B. Pommer as noted above. 7. ADJOURNMENT The Planning Board adjourned the meeting at 12:05 a.m. on July 20, 2001. • •