Loading...
Minutes - Planning Board - 11/15/2001• APPROVED FEBRUARY 7, 2002 CITY OF BOULDER PLANNING BOARD SUMMARY MINUTES November 15, 2001 Council Chambers Room, Municipal Building 1777 Broadway, 6:00 p.m. The following are the minutes of the November 15, 2001 City of Boulder Planning Board meeting. A permanent 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, Chair Thom Krueger Tina Nielsen, Vice Chair Alan O'Hashi Beth Pommar Mark Ruzzin • STAFF PRESENT: David Gehr, Assistant City Attorney Bev Johnson, Planner Mary Lovrien, Board Secretary Ruth McHeyser, Director of Long Range Planning Peter Pollock, Planning Director 1. CALL TO ORDER Chair Al Gunter declared a quorum at 6:05 p.m., and the following business was conducted. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES August 2, 2001: On a motion by A. O'Hashi, seconded by T. Krueger, the Plavning Board approved the minutes of August 2, 2001 as presented (7-0). September 6, 2001: T. Nielsen suggested that on the first page change "STAFF ABSENT" to `BOARD ABSENT." T. Krueger suggested that on that same page under CALL TO ORDER indicate that T. Nielsen is the Vice Chair. On a motion by A. O'Hashi, seconded by T. Krueger, the Planning Board approved the minutes of September 6, 2001 as amended (6-0; A. Gunter did not vote because he was not present for this meeting). • s:\plan\pb-items\minutes\011115min.wpd ~ City of Bouldar Planning Board Minutes November 15, 2001 Page 2 October 4, 2001: A. Gunter suggested that on page 2 under CITIZEN PARTICIPATION, add at the beginning "A. Gunter indicated that the Board will not discuss Yhe project at 902 Pearl SCreet." On a motion by A. O'Hashi, seconded by T. Krueger, the Planning Board approved the minutes oFOctober 4, 2001 as amended (6-0; B. Pommer did not vote because she was not present for this meeting). 3. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION Laura Conley, 3111 lOth Street: She said that she represents the Newlands neighborhood group in its concern about "pop-ups" and "scrape-offs." She urged the Board to recommend that staff review this item in its 2002 work program. 5he presented a packet of materials of the results of a neighborhood survey, including views on home construction, homes that have been sold in Newlands over the last five years, examples of homes that are common in the Newlands neighborhood, appropriate remodels that are on larger lots and in scale with the neighborhood ar are on smaller lots but have certain characteristics that mitigate the mass, and inappropriata development on small lots with high straight walls, no variation in tha roof line, no porch, and higher floor area ratios (FARs). She explained how the questionnaire was developed and what part of the neighborhood was surveyed. Sha submitted an article concerning review guidelines for new and second floor remodels for single family homes in Palo Alto, California, and a checklist of all the characteristics that are ~ reviewed to see how the project would impose on the neighborhood. She suggested that a way be found to build homes Chat fit into the neighborhood which still gives people a lot of flexibility. The Board and staff discussed the development of the Flatirons neighborhood guidelines, "sped' homes that respect the context in which they are built, the 2002 department work program, including a discussion on "scrape-offs" and "pop-nps, and tracking the nnmber of homeowners in Flatirons who have used the guidelines and getting a larger response from the neighborhood, including people who are more likely to be against any guidelines." 4. DISCUSSION OF DISPOSITIONS, PLANNING BOARD CALL-UPS The Board discussed the reason for the subdivision plat for 1495 Canyon Boulevard and the potential for residential redevelopment on the lots. M. Cowles corrected the second condition of approval to read "...no additional non-residential FAR is permitted imdar regulations in place at the time of approving this plat." 5. MATTERS FROM THE PLANNING BOARD, PLANNING DIRECTOR, AND CITY ATTORNEY T. Krueger reminded staffto make it easier and simpler to get Yhe International Energy Conservation Code forms. P. Pollock gave a repori on the Four Mile Creek meeting. He said that the property owners have submitted annexation petitions and concepts for development, and staff has invited • s:\plan\pb-items~rninutes\011115min.wpd City of Boulder . Planning Eoard Minutes November 15, 2001 Page 3 representatives from the neighborhoods, the owners/developers of the properties, and city staff to discuss alternatives and options. A. Gunter suggested that the proposal be evaluated to see if it fits with the existing character of the neighborhood and whether it represents what the neighbors want. He said that apartments are more expensive to develop and density at the edge of town has far more impacts than it does in the center of town. P. Pollock updated the Board on the neighborhood tneeting regarding the McKenzie Junction project. He said that City Council endorsed the staff recommendation regarding downtown zoning to constrain the area in which the conditional height could be considered. He said that the third reading will be held on December 4. He gave an update on the SOth Planning Department celebration, including the panel discussion that will be presented on Channel8. R. MeHeyser reported on the second meeting of the Jobs to Population Batance Task Force. She said that City Council supported the direction that was requested from the Task Force and Planning Board which was to look at all jobs and housing. She said that the group is now focused on the data source book. A. Gunter suggested that the group make corrections to the data now before build-out actually occurs. Some ofthe Board members asked that they be included in the e-mails that the group receives for its information. M. Cowles said that the Task Force thought that the Planning Board and City Council emphasized that new jobs in Boulder be high-paying, but this is not what each group • has stated. He said that just because the amount of money that is attributable to different jobs can be measured does not mean necessarily that it shouid be; there are qualities to jobs which make the work meaningful and contribute more broadly to the community that may not pay well that would be discounted ifthe focus were simply on the economic metria The Board discussed calendar issues. 6. ACTION ITEMS A. Public hearing and recommendation to City Council regarding the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP) Action Plan. R. McHeyser said that this item is a new implementation tool that was suggested as patt of the major ufldate to the BVCP. She said that the idea is to set priarities and idantify work program items to make sure that the items that were adopted in the BVCP are actually implemented. Public Participation: There was no pub2ic participation. Return to the Board: Policy Implementation 1,05 Indicntors of Sustainability: There was concern that the indicator goals include environmental indicators, and that tihey go much beyond what has been done by the Boulder County . s:Aplan\pb-iCems\minnYes\Ol l ll Smin.wpd City of Boulder . Planning Board Minutes NovemUer 15, 2001 Page 4 Civic Forum. Coordination with other agencies, such as UCAR, NCAR, and DRCOG and Boulder County was suggested, as wel] as potential hiring a consultant. Staff noted Yhese suggestions; since the action plan identifies working with the Boulder County Civic Fonim and other entities to develop indicator goals specific to the Boulder Valley, this section did not need to be revised to incorporate these suggestions. Community Design 2.13 Preservation of Community Character: Include neighborhood preservation in this category. Provide a forum far communication batween the developers of a"pop-up" or "scrape-off' and the immediate adjacent neighbors. 214 Accessory Units: The subject of "pop-ups" and "scrape-offs" is an issue that is more worthy of staff time than changing the Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) ordinanca. 215 Preservation of Existing Residential Uses: The Board askad staff to make these changes in the Land Use RegiAation updates. Environment • 4.43 Integrated Pest Management: The Board recommended that staff provide an educational outreach effort to the community to assist with the Integrated Pest Managament Program. Economy 5.09 Economic Sustainability Strategic Plan: The Board asked that staffprovide the status ofwhat is being done and provide a larger context of the balance between the environment and the economy and how to maintain a healthy economy Yo achieve some of the quality of life goals. Provide a section on how to address and prioriUze the tradeoffs of developing a healthy economy, R. McHeyser explained that the wording in the BVCP says that upon completion of this plan, the policies should be updated; the next time the policies are updated will be during the next update to the BVCP. Transportation 6.04 Multimodal StraYegies: The Board requested that sYaff not delay the expansion oF the menu of Transportation Demand Management measures to the mid-term, R. McHeyser clarified that the acYion plan does not state thaY creation of the TDM menu will be delayed, only that it would be crsated in the short term and expanded in the mid-term. • s:Aplan\pb-items\minutes\Ol 1115min.wpd City of Bouldar • Planning Board Minutes November 15, 2001 Page 5 6.07 Multimodal Development: Add to the work program in the near term to cooperate with the University of Colorado (CU) in its efEorts to address transportation issuas. CU is considering a car- share program which could reduce the impacts oFvehicles for students in their first two years of school. 6.10 Managing Parking Supply: Provide more clarity on what it means to investigate the issue of parking maximum and minimums. HOUSING The Board agreed with the policies. SUBCOMMUNITY AND AREA PLAN IMPLEMENTATION University Hill: There was question about the value of the recent advertising campaign. • MASTER PLAN AND PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION Trails Map: There is no integrated management of the trails ar p1an. LAND USE DESIGNATION MAP The Board agreed with the direction. MOTION: On a motion by M. Ruzzin, seconded by A. O'Hashi, the Planning Board approved a recommendation that City Council adopt the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan Action Plan as presented in the staff rnemorandum dated November I5, 2001(preparation date November 8, 2001) and as amended by the Board (6-0; M. Cowles was not present for this item). DISCUSSION ITEM A. Discussion regarding the 2001-2002 Planning Dep~rtment Work Program. P. Polloclc explained how staff determines its work program. He asked the Board to help identify the high- and low-priority projects to present to City Council. R. McHeyser discussed the annexation policy project which is proposed to be completed in three phases. She said that the proj ect focuses on how to implement the recently-adopted BVCP policy regarding actively pursuing • s:\plau\pb-items~minutes\02 i 115min.wpd city of Boulder ~ Planning Board Minutes November 15, 200] annexations of enclaves, fully-developed Area II parceis, and western edge properties. She aid that staff has comp]eted a dra& economic analysis regardiug tha costs and benefits to both the property owner and to Yhe city through annexation to address annaxa6on conditions based on diffarent property types; phase I will focus on individual residential annexations; Phase II will focus on group annexations, such as Githins Acres and the Cherryva]e area; and Phase III will focus on fully_ ar large]y-developed cominercial properties. The Board asl~ed staff to consider commercial annexations aither befara the group annexations or coneurrently because the group annexations wiil take more time; review Phase IIiin associalion with the Jobs to Population Balance project; provide an economic anllysis Far the city; provida the costs of the pollution to Boulder's creeks from leakage from privata ]each fields in individuaI and group annaxations; and provide an economic value forintangibles such as redevelopmentpotential, market perception, and quantity and qua]ity of wells for annexed and non-annexed, deveioped and vacant land, P. Pollock explained that staff wi11 be working on the downtown zoning analysis regarding third floars along Aearl Street from 9th to 18 StreeYs. The Board discussed the limitation of the zoning analysis to 9th to 18th Streets rather than 6th to 24th Streets. p, po~~oe~ said that there is a need For new commercial development in areas of the city outside the purvieW of ttie Downtown Design ~ Advisory Board (DDAB) to undergo some kind of design review. He mentioned that one option would be to expand the purview ofDDAB. He suggested an evaluation be conducted about the track record far the design review functiion and whether mandatory review would be required. Tha Board and staff discussed a review board composad of inembers of tha public who were not necessarily designers or developers; whether there is value in conducting such an evaluation of the procedures and effectiveness of DDAB; the policy options of expanding the purview of DDAB outside of downtown ar requiring mandatory review and compliance; expansion of DDAB into a commercial design advisory board; and DDAB as the design review board for the Boulder Urban Renawal AuYhority (BURA) or addition of one or t~vo BTJjZt~ members Yo DDAB to review projacts, P. Pollock discussed the items that are not on the work program (centars, accessory dwelling units, "pop-ups"and "scrapa-offs,"and occupancyafunits). He said that staffwould not review individual neighborhood centers unti! there is a public process. He disenssed sonle of tha centers, such as biagonal Plaza, Table Mesa, and Gunbarral Town Center. R. MeHeyser menfioned tha inereased activity far ADUs since tha code changes were made in 2000. Sha asked the $oard to address staffls proposal fhat work noT be done on ADUs next year. The Board and staffdiscussed YI~eneed to focus most of2002 staffresources on the Jobs ta Popi~~aYion Balance project; developing fhe zoning districts so that they might be applied to the sites already designated for mixed-nse business and perhaps other areas to become a prototype; changing the zoning in areas where ADUs are heavily Lised and in LoW Density Residential - Deveioping (I,R-D) areas ifADUs . s:Aplanlpb-itamsUninufes\01 I I 15min.wpd City of Boulder • Planning Board Minutes Novembe~• I5, 2001 Page 7 are allowed in new structures and new neighborhoods to allow the program to be success£iil in other parts of town rather than just where they have been used traditionally; deYermining the density increase from these changas; restricting an ADU from transferring from one owner to another-- since there is a restriction on the percent allowed in a neighborhood, this will give others in the neighborhood an opportunity to apply for an ADU; allowing an ADU in an accessory stnicture as. long as the principal structure is owner-occupied; providing mixtures of dwelling units in neighborhoods; allowing ADUs to be constructed as part of an addition, solving the privacy issues far the neighbors because then it does not matter whether the ADU is part of an additiou or part of the principal structure. R. MeHeyser addressed "pop-ups/scrape-offs" and said that the concerns are loss of neighborhood character, design quality, less affordable housing stock, and the waste in demolished and consumed resoLUces. She said this is mainly a concern in older neighborhoods in the central area where the size is regiilated by setback and height limits. She provided pictures of the existing scale of the homes and the expansions that are being built in the Newlands neighborhood. She outlined some of the solutions, such as controlling volume by floar area ratios (FARs), lot coverage, building plate heights, maximum building heights, design review, affordable housing tax, resource conservation requiremenYs, and bulk regulations. She said that in the 1990s staff attempted to have FAR regulations in residential neighborhoods, but City Council did not adopt these regulations. She said ~ that in 1994 the Flatirons neigl~borhood was chosen for the design guidelines project. She said that design giiidelines were proposed but were not adopted by City Council. The Board asked staff to add this work item as part of tha 2002 work program. The Board and staff discussed a number of options, including: creating a good neighbar policy to provide a forum for neighbors to express their concerns; landmarking a neighborhood as a way to slow down the "scrape- offs;" framing the discussion to City Council differenfly Fi~om a regulatory approach; determining what is importanY far each neighborhood rather than developing a city-wide policy; providing specificity and mandatory review and voluntary compliance; facilitating a process in supporting citizens in an effort to try to preserva their neighborhood; requiring neighborhood discussion about the building plans bePore a building permit is approved; regulating "sped' house development; requiring an affordable housing fee if 50 percent of the original house is demolished; providing education to the neighborhoods about good design ideas about expansions and "scrape-offs" and how these ideas fit into the context of the surrounding neighbarhood; providiug a videotape of a variety of architectural designs with an analysis of how they evotved and the design elements and reasons they worked; and encouraging participation at a joint American Planning Association/Lincoln Land Institute telephone conference in December regarding monster homes. P. Pollock said that he will prepare a summary oFPlanning Board's discussion for presentation to City Council. He summarized that the Board would like tio add Yhis project to the 2002 work program, to facilitaYe a discussion of a decentralized approach to design review, and to incorporate education into the process. • s:Aplan\pb-items\minutes\O 11 I I Smin.wpd City of Boulder • Planning Board Minutes November 15, 2001 Page 8 P. Pollock mantioned that a way to deal with affordable housing would be to change the occupancy of units. The Board and staff discussed addressing a non-traditional family in datermining occupancy; whether there is an affordability benefit of increasing occupancy; development of measures to include an 80 or 90 percent solution far Pences and monster homes; whether a"scrape- off' represents a new development and whether to require impact fees; the impact to the aFfordable housing stock that is caused by a new housing unit; and determination of the mechanism that is causing the houses to be scraped so that methods can be devised to stop it from happening. D. Gehr presanted a memor~ndum regarding how the stafF, through the development review process, drafts conditions of approvals. He said that staff will base conditions on the code standards and will add conditions when there are deficiencies in the code standards. He provided a draft of the 1999 Standard Conditions List which contains frequently used standard conditions and a selected list of conditions from recent Planning Board approvals centered aroundparking reductions, transportation demand management, and residential and non-residential interface issues. He also provided information on what gets approved with a Planning Board level site review approval and what does not, and the protection afforded by vested rights and standards that are not protected. He discussed the disYinction that requires a developer to comply with current building code but permits them to comply with the landscape regulations in place at the time that vested rights were granted. • M. Ruzzin thanked the staff for its support while he was on the Planning Board, especially during the time he spent as chair of the Board. He thanked the PIanning Board, specifically his mentors, A. Gunter, B. Pommer, and T. Krueger. He said that he looks forward to continuing to work with the Board in his new role as City Council member. The Board discussed whether to address the vacancy on the Board until the appointments are inade at the end ofMarch. The Board decided not to request temparary Board assignment. 8. ADJOURNMENT The Planning Board adjourned the meeting at 10:50 p.m. • s:Aplan\pb-itemslminntes\011125min.wpd