Meeting Summary Form - Planning Board - 10/25/2001CITY OF BOULDER, COLOKAllO
NAMF.S ON MFM6ER9, 9TAFF AND INVITFD GUC9TS PRGSCNT:
Board Members Present: Macon Cowles, Al Gnuter, Thom Knteger, Tina Nielsen, Beth Pommer
Board Members Absent: Alan O'Hasl~i, Mark Ruzzin
St~t'f Members Present: BoU Cole, Steve Dmian, Don Dnrso, Jeiry Gordon, Neil Holthauser, GaryKretscl~mer, Mary Lovrien, Cindy
Pieroroan, PeYer Pollock
OUTLINE OF AGENDA
L CALL TO ORDER - The Planning Board declared a quorum at 6:05 p.m.
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - There were no minutes to approve.
3. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION - Jane Monson and Bill Nagel spoke aUout a large accessory building sited near their
properfy lines. They asked the Board to address this setback issue in Phase I oFthe review of the land use code. Christian
Griffith and Deb Lavender spoke about the low-densiCy residential property on the Hill that is adjacent Co high-density
residential zoning. They asked the Board to either increase the zoning so that at least four unrelated people could legally
occupy this residence, or create a sunset clause on the surrounding non-conforming buildings, or crcate an immediaYe
sunset clause on the surrounding non-conformiug buildings if there are a number of violations that accrue against those
buildings over a certain period of time.
4. DiSCUSSION OF DISPOSITIONS, PLANNING BOARD CALL-UPS - The Board had no comments on the
Planning Board dispositions (9th and Canyon Civic Building and the Holiday Drive-in Theater Site), The Board and staff
discussed the reasons why the city receives county referrals.
5. MATTERS FROM THE PLANNING BOARD, PLANNING llIRECTOR, AND CITY ATTORNEY- The
following upcoming meetings were noted: the SOth anniversary of the Planning Department on November 7 and the
• TransporYation Advisory Board/Planning Board maeting on November 27. The Board and staff discussed calendar issues,
future agenda items, and Board recruitment.
6. STUDY SESSION
A. Study sessiou regarding 2001 aud 2002 proposed Land Use Regulation amendments. Staff presented a list of
proposed amendments to the Land Use Regulations and a proposed phasing schedule. The Board was asked to address
whether the phasing achedule is satisfactory, whether additional amendmenYs should be added, and whether some
amendments should be deleted from tbe list. Included were major wark items in Phase I(demolition ofstructures -histaric
preservation; transportation related issues; restauranUtavern size limitations in the BMS-X zones; inclusionary zoning
ravisions; and several nonsubstantive Title 8 amendments regarding how encroachments in the public right of way and
within public aasements are treated), Phase II (outdoor ilhimination and building ooverage limitations for the combination
of single Family deYached strucYures and acoessory structures), and Pbase III (]ow density residentia] off-street parking
raquirements, non-conforming regulations, and jobs/population related amendments). Minor work items also were
discussed for each phase.
13. Stndy session regarding the University Hill Zoning Study concerning the area snrronnding the University Hill
commercial district. Staff discussed the putpose of the study which was to address the perceived land use and zoning
conflicts on the Hill and the major themes (1) declining quality and condition of the properties immediately surrounding
tl~e commercial district, 2) the poor transition between the commercial, the high-density residential, and the low-density
residential uses, and 3) balancing Yhe need for more student housing with the desire within the neighborhood to manage
density). Staff discussed the land use history since the1890s and showed maps of the development and zoning pattern
from 190C to 1997. Also discussed were fhe different zoning trends diseovered through the analysis and the zoning
conflicts. StaFf discussed the pros and cons of the following three proposed policy options and aslced the Board for
' direction: 1) no change, 2) code revision to allow greater flexibiliTy For improving, rehabilitating, and/or expanding non-
conFormities, and 3) zoning change to either try to eliminate the non-conformities, to zone Yhem into cottformity by using
~ the existing zoning oategory, or to create a new zoning category. The Board basically thought that the problems on the
P[ill are not zoning problems and ofPered a number of ways to address tha problems on the Hill, including providing a
sunset clause for non-confonning uses, setting up some regulaYions and ineentives, and landmarking tl~e area.
7. ADJOURNMENT - The Planning Board adjourned the meeting at 10:40 p.m.
"fIMF. & LOCA'f10N OFANY FU'fURE MF.F.'PWG5, COMMI'P'PEHS OR SPECIAL FlFARINGS: November I, 2001
NAMF.ITF.LIsYIiONF. OF PERSON PRF.PARINC SUMMARY: M3TY LOV[1011, 441-4464