Loading...
Minutes - Planning Board - 11/01/2001APPROVED FEBRUARY 7, 2002 • CITY OF BOULDER PLANNING BOARD SUMMARY MINUTES November 1, 2001 Council Chambers Room, Municipal Building 1777 Broadway, 6:00 p.m. The following are the minutes of the November 1, 2001 City of Boulder Planning Board meeting. A permanent set of these minutes is kept in Central Records, and a verbatim tape recarding of the meeting is maintained for a period of seven years in Central Recards (telephone: 303-441-3043). BOARD PRESENT: Macon Cowles A1 Gunter, Chair Thom I~-ueger Tina Nielsen, Vice Chair Beth Pommer Mark Ruzzin BOARD A$SENT: Alan O'Hashi • STAFF PRESENT: Bob Cole, Director of Land Use Review David Gehr, Assistant City Attomey Bev Johnson, Planner Mary Lovrien, Board Secretary Annie Noble, Tributary Greenways Peter Pollock, Planning Director Mike Randall, Planner CALL TO ORDER Chair A. Gunter called the meeting to order at 6:05 p.m., and the following business was conducted. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES There were no minutes to approve. 3. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION There was no citizen participation. 4. DISCUSSION OF DISPO5ITIONS, PLANNING BOARD CALL-UPS There were no dispositions or Planning Board call-ups to discuss, • s:Aplan\pb-items\minutes\011101min cicy of $~ulaer P2~u~ning Board Minutes ~ November 1, 2QQ1 Page 2 5, MATTERS FROM TI~E PLANA'ING BOAIiD, PLAIVNING DIRECTOR, AND CITY ATTORNEY P. Palloclz presenCad an updata of ihe Jobs to Population Balance Task rarce meating. He said thaf the Task Porce discuased the purpose a~id scope of tl~e project, tl~e rQles of the various players in tl~e project, and some of the first sfeps in the procass. T3e said lhat the Tastc Force will first look at the estimate of cunent jabs and projections that hava bean made ragarding jobs to popu2ation, and than their next goat is to develop aitarnative scanaxios and housing options. T. K~'ueger added that there was some eritiaism of the direction thaC the Task Forca was given--that it rvas too negative and did not acknowledge the positive aspects af having Baulder as a jobs center. He said tl~at dlere was some discussion concarning the suggestion from Spenae T-Iavlick that thera be a moraCorium on ali commercial development while the Task Forca is working on this issue. He said that it is important for the Task Force to achieve consensus that the data is meaningfui before reviewing the commercial zoning districts. He also suggested that the Task Force focus on compieting the work that was not 6nished if~ the compreheasive rezoning and review the current assuznptions to detarmine what neads to be done. A. Gunter suggestad that all aspecEs of theproject be reviewed, v~cluding reviewing government jabs, determining where residential uses would not work in industrial areas, aven in industr•iai areas in Area Il, and determining whether the zoning should be changed on some commercial areas in the downtown area. B. Pommer cautioned about ~ reviewing areas tl~at have rece~~Gly been rezoned; she suggested that the focus should be put i~3to context and a larger analysis should be conducted. M. Cowles said thai a number of the members of the Task Force, especially from the businesa and development cornmunity, said that it would be necessary Co raview the industrial areas and the downtown as well. A. C~mter offared a. motion that die Planning Board recammend ta City Cauncil that they adopt the point of view ofthe Task Force to widan the scope. There was no second to the motion. T. Krueger suggasted that the Boai•d review tha charge to tha Task Forca and defer Yka discussion Lartil the end of the meeting. (The fotlowiag items were discussed at the end of the meeting.) P. Pollock continued the discussion regarding tha Jobs to Popuiation Balanc~ Task Forc~. He presented a memorandun~ from Ron Seeriat and the Planning Deparhnent to the Task ~oree describing the projecY, including the Uackground, purpose, role of the Task Force and city staff, project asswnptions, and proposed timelines, Ha said that staff recommanded that ths recently acioptad Boulder Va11e~y Compxehensive Plan policy on jobs to population balanoe provide the direation for the project, specifieall~ fhe ratio of the number o£j obs Co the population in ftie Botdder Valleq ~nd the identificarioxi of a combination of actions that wiii reduce the amount of commercial growth, create more affordabie housing, and nlitigate tha impacts of traffic congestion. • s:lplnn\pb-itemslrninutes\0l 11171 miu City of Boulder P2anning Board Minutes • November 1, 2001 Page 3 P. Pollock summarized foi~r points of view that the Board expressed in its direction far the scope of the Task Force; 1) that the scope be broadened to include all jobs and all people; 2) that Che scope be limited to commercial zonas and incentive-based strategies far tbe zones that were revised in 1997; 3) that the scope be completed incrementally--start with the original task and then move beyond that scope if desired; and 4) generate a lot of ideas and then keep the Planning Board and City Council advised on what areas in the city (outside of the mapped commercial areas) were being considered. The $oard then agreed that the Task Force should not be limited to discussing the commercial zones. Some Board members suggested that the focus of the Task Force should be on commercial zones to make the project manageable, buf the scope should not be limited to that evaluation, and some Board members thought it would be important for the Task Force to brainstorm options initially and Yhen evaluate all those ideas, along with a review of tha commercial zones. P. Pollock said that the Task Farce will meet again on November 14, November 20, December 5, and December 13. M. Ruzzin asked about the status ofthe office building being constructed at the corner oF28th Street and Glenwood Avenue, and P. Pollock said that he will check on the review of the project. P. Pollock responded to a question from M. Cowles about Mr. Ruzzin's participation on the Board should he be elected to City CounciL He said that if he is elected, he can still participate at the Board meeting on November 15 because the new City Council members will not be sworn in until November 20. He reminded the Board about the SOth anniversary celebration of the Planning ~ Department and Planning Board on November 7. 6. CONSENT ITEMS A. Continuation of pubiic hearing and consideratiou of 1 Concept Review and Comment #LUR2001-00043 for the fourth phase of One Boulder Plaza, loc~ted south of Walnut between 13th and 14th Streets, to review a proposal for development of up to 99,000 square feet of retail, office, and residential use within a fonr-story building with heights of up to 55 feet. Public Participation: There was no public participation. B. Continuation of public hearing and considerntion of a Concept Review and Comment #LUR2001-00048 for Gunbarrel Town Center, for a mixed use plan comprised of approximately 138 dwelling units and 200,000 squnre feet of commercial space located at the southwest corner of Lookout Road and Gunpark Drive. Public Participation: Bill Kreck, 4858 Silver Sage Court: He said that he was concerned about the reduction in the required pa~•king for the developmcnC. He said that parking already occurs solidly along Gunpa~~k . s:Aplan\pb-iCems~minntes\011101min City of Boulder Planning Board Minutes ~ Novembar 1, 2001 Page 4 Drive during the wark day, and he questioned whether further reduction of required parking areas is a wise idea. He also suggested that a bicycle/pedestrian connection to the site be provided. Return to tl~e Board: A. Gunter explained that the Board made comments on the concept review and comment for both projects at its meeting on Octoberl8. B. Cole said that the next reviews for these projecYs will be noticed in the newspaper. ACTION ITEMS A. Continuation of public hearing and consideration of Use Review #LUR2001- 00057 for Naropa University facilities within tl~e Holiday Drive-in Theater site located generally at 4650 North Broadway and zoned Mixed Density Residential (MXR-D). B. Cole said that the project is not complete and asked the Board to continue this item. MOTION: On a motion by A. Gunter, seconded by B. Pommer, the Planning Board continued this item until December 6, 2001 (6-0; A. O'Hashi was absent). • B. Public hearing and consideration of a request to ~nnex a 0.88 acre parcel ofland with an initial zoning of Estate Residential-EstTblished (ER-E), located at 4306 19th Street M. Raudall presented a map of the Crestview East area (a Boulder County enclave located between 19th and 22nd Streets) and the parcel proposed to be annexed that lies within that area. He said that in the last fewyears four differenthomeowners have completed annexationpetitions, buttheprocess was not continued because the cost of utility infrastructure to extend to the properties has been too prohibitive for the homeowners. He said that the proposed parcel is adjacent to water and sewer from 19th Street. He said that the parcel meets all the requirements for annexation (has contiguity with the city and meets state and Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan requirements far annexation} and that the zoning ER-E (Estate Residential - Established) is consistent with the North Boulder Subcommunity Plan. He summarized the benefits for annexing the property (a number of street, right-of-way, and easement dedications for uYilities and drainage, street improvements, new streets, and bike paths). He said that the applicant will pay twice the cash-in-lieu amolmt in effect iP an additional unit is constructed on the lot. B. Cole said that many homeowners have been interested in annexing to the city, but their parcels are located farCher into the enclave, and the cost of extending utilities to tl~eir properties would be prohibitive. He said that this proposed annaxation is an importanC first step in makiug it possible for other property owners to annex in the firtura because each annexed property is required to extend the • s:Aplan\pb-items~tniimtes\O1 ll Olmin City of Boulder Planning Board Minutes ~ November 1, 2001 Page 5 utilities to the farthest extent of their propeiKy which then reduces the fiscal impact for other property owners. D. Gehr addressed a concern by M. Cowles regarding the right-of-way dedication requirement for future conveyance and whether it might be considered a taking of property. He said that annexations are a contractual relationship, and the proposed parcel is an enclave which is afforded more entitlements to annexation than a non-enclave property. He said that in this case, in exchange for zoning that will provide the opportuniYy Far an additional dwalling unit, the ciCy is asking far some benefits to ofFset any additional unit which includes the affordable housing contribution as well as the right-of-way dedications. P. Pollock said that staff will provide an economic analysis at the November 15 Board maeting regarding annexation that compares the costs associated with well and septic versus water and sewer on both vacant and developed properties in the county and city. He said that the Board will also discuss "pop-ups" and "scrape-offs." D. Gehr explained the ordinance that requires the applicant, upon annexation, to sell or execute a first right ofrefusal agreement for any water rights associated with the property. He said that the city anticipates purchasing a certain amount of ditch water. He said that as properties are annexed, the raw water is traded for treated water, especially water from the Silver Lake Ditch because it is the easiest to treat and transport. He said that the city is discussing the ordinance in terms of providing a minimum instream flow through the Silver Lake Ditch and diverting any excess to the watershed. • Public Partieipation: There was no public participation. Retnrn to the Board: The Board and staff discussed whether the conditions of approval wera relevant since some of the conditions were taken from the Narth Boulder Subcommunity Plan but not mentioned in the Crestview West annexation; wheYher the property would need to be subdivided in order to build an addiYional uniY; that a cash-in-lieu for affordable housing would ~~ot be reqaired if the existing hoi2se is expanded by gxeater than 25 percent; that Yl~is agreement provides that only new constniction would be subject to the cash-in-lieu for affordable housing; the dedicatiou of the bicycle path as an additional communitybenefit; whether the property should have a redevelopment fee on the existing house because if the house is enlarged it becomes less affordable; Yhe enclave status of this parcel (once the area of land in which tihe property is located has been surrounded by the city, each of the properties becomes an enclave even though this one parcel is not surrounded by the city); annexation of the larger enclave in CresYview East; concem about the requirement that the applicant convey the water rights to the city because the city does not need the water and has even sold water in its portfolio fo other municipalitiies; and the possibility of a study session to discuss the ardinance Yhat requires conveyance of water rights rather than allowing homeowners to continue to irrigate their properYy from Yhe ditch. • s:Aplan\pb-items\minutes\O l 1101min City of Boulder Planning Board Minutes • November l, 2001 Page 6 MOTION: On a motion by T. Krueger, secouded by T. Nielsen, t1~e Plauning Board recommended (6-0; A. O'Hashi was absent) that City Council approve the amiexation #LUR1998-AZ001 for approximately 0.88 acres located at 4306 19th Street with an initial zoning of Estate Residential- Established (ER-E), incorporating the staffinemorandum dated November 1, 2001(preparation date October 25, 2001) as findings of fact, and the Recommended Conditions of Approval as shown in Attachment A, including the amendment of Condition 7 using language provided by the City Attornay to read "In order to implement the housing goals of the Boulder Valiey Comprehensive Plan and Yo provide a special bene~t to the city as required in the BVCP, the Applicant shall pay twice the cash-in-lieu amount in effect accarding to Chapter 9-6.5-6(a)(1) B.R.C., 1981, for each additional unit constructed on the subject property, prior to application for residential building permit(s). C. Public hearing and consideration of a recommendation to City Conncil concerning the Greenways Master Plan Update. A. Noble askad the Board to recommend to City Council approval of the Greenways Master Plan update and to authorize the newly formed Greenways Advisory Committee to review the Greenways Program Community and Environmental Assessments (CEAPs). She expIained that the three-year process to update the Greenways Master Plan was developed in three phases by an inter-departmental staff group. She said thaY the 6rst phase inciuded collecting background information about tl~e •' program and evaluating the program purpose; the second phase involved identifying goals for all six objectives called out in the purpose and identifying projects and opportunities to meet those goals (this phase included a riparian habitat assessment on all the Boulder tributaries, a cultura] resource survey along the six tributaries that are part of the Greenways Program, and a reach inventory that describes the existing conditions along each reach and the projects and opportunities); and the f nal phase involved resolving organizational issues (organizational structure ofthe program, how projects would be reviewed, how proj ects would be financed, and how the system would be maintained). She said that it was decided thaC Che Greenways Program would reside in the Utilities Division of Public Warks, and the coordinator would work with the inter-dapartmental staff group to review projects. She said that the Greenways Advisary Committee (GAC), made up of one representative fi•om the Water Resources Advisory Board, Transportation Advisory Board, Parks and Recreation Advisory Board, the Open Space Board of Tnistees, and the Planning Board, would review Greenways projects fimded both from the Greanways Program, as well as other projects funded through other departments. She said that the GAC would report back to the various boards to keep them informed about Greenways issues. She said that consistency of maintenance, both for trails and habitat, was addressed through meetings with all of the maintenance groups that perfoim maintenance along tl~e Greenways. She said Yhat sYaff has calculated the cost for the completie buildotrt of the system, but since some of the funding may come fi•om private developers or from other departments, it is difficult to determine how long it would take to build out the systiem. She assured the Board that if there is any private land ownership involved in a project, the private property owners would be . s:Aplan\pb-items~n~nites\O 11101min City of Boulder Planning Board Minutes • November I, 2001 Page 7 contacted, and where there is a conri•oversial project or a project thaY has more than one alternative, a CEAP process, involving the public very early in the proj ect, would be required. B. Johnson said that the CEAP is a fonnal process Por public review, and staffworks with any private property owner well in advance of the CEAP regarding altematives and development of ideas. Public Participation: Tliere was no public participation. Return to the Board: The Board and staff discussed the fact that the GAC is a committee rather than a board because the commitCee will only meet quarterly rather than monthly; that A. Nable would be the Facilitator for the committee; an interest in strengthening the purpose statement and making it clear; thaY the purpose is to be a steward of important riparian habitat along the tributaries of Boulder Creek and Yhat the objectives sCated would be emphasized; tt~at the assets represeuted by the ditch companias be incorporated into the Greenways Program through the city's ongoing negotiations with the ditch companies; and that a step-by-step process be included as an amendment in the Master Plan that addresses how a Greenways project is started, how it is carried through, and what happens at each stage of the process in order to outline the process for working with private property owners. MOTION: On a motion by T. Krueger, seconded by B. Pommer, the Planning Board • recommended (6-0; A. O'Hashi was absent) that City Council adopt tlte Greenways Master Plan update and that City Council give CEAP approval autharity to the Greenways Advisory Committee. A. Gunter offered a friendly amendment to include a description of the actual process for public involvement in each step of the process. M. Cowles offered a friendly amendment to revise the Greenways Program purpose statement to read "The purpose ofthe Greanways Program is to extend the stewardship of the city of Boulder to the important riparian areas along the tributaries ofBoulder Creek. Tha Greenways Program will manage these areas so as to integrate the following obj ecCives: *To protect and restore riparian, floodplain and wetland habitat *To enhance water quality *To facilitate storm drainage and mitigate floods *To provide alternative transportation routes or trails £or pedestrians and bicyclists *To provide recreation opportunities *To protect cultural resources." A. Gunter oFfered a friendly amendment to add the above strengthened statement ofptupose on the page of amendments. T. Krueger and B. Pommer accepted the friendly ameudments. 8. ADJOURNMENT The Planning Board adjourned the meeting at 8:30 p.m. ~ s:AplanApb-items\minuSes\Ol l 101miu