Loading...
Minutes - Planning Board - 11/29/2001APPROVED FEBRUARY 7, 2002 • CITY OF BOULDER PLANNING BOARD SUMMARY MINUTES November 29, 2001 Council Chambers Room, Municipal Buildittg 1777 Broadway, 6:00 p.m. The following are the minutas of the November 29, 2001 City of Bouider Planning Board meeting. A perxnanent set of these minutes is kepf in Central Records, and a verbatim tape recording of the meeting is maintained far 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 Pommer 5TAFF PRESENT: ~ Bob Cole, Director of Land Use Review Steve Durian, Transportation Engineer Don Durso, Associate Planner Dauid Gehr, Assistant Ciry Attorney Gary Kretschmer, Planning and Zoning Mary Lovrien, Board Secretary Peter Pollock, Planning Director Deon Wolfenbarger, Historic Preservation Planner 1. CALL TO ORDER Chair A1 Gunter declared a quorum at 6:05 p.m., and Yhe following business was conducted. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES There were no minutes to approve. 3. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION There was no public participation. 4. DISCUSSION OF DISPOSTTIONS, PLANNING BOARD CALL-UPS The Board discussed the lack of development activity on the Cox Corner Subdivision. The Board had no comments on fhe fechnical document review for 1565 Kalmia Avenue. ~~ s:\plan\pb-items~ninutes\011129miu.wpd City of Boulder • Planning Board Minutes November 29, 2001 Page 2 5. MATTERS FROM THE PLANNING BOARD, PLANNING DIRECTOR, AND CITY ATTORNEY P. Pollock explained Yhat the Planning 101 course will not occLir untii next year, Uut the videos fi•om last year's course will be shown on Channel 8. He described the outreach that will be conducted regarding the vacancies on tha Planning boards. He addressed whether the Transportation Advisory Board (TAB) has the authority in the code to review land use issues. He said that unless City Council requests comments from TA~ on the transpartation issues related to Title 9, it would not be a part of their scope. T. Nielsen asked that TAB receive a copy of the Planning Board agendas to infarm them of land use issues that will have an effect on transportation. T. Krueger suggested that Board members attend the public Forums regarding the Transportation Master Plan (TMP) update. A. Gunter said that there is a need to have transportation policies match the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP) policies. M. Cowles mentioned that at the joint TAB/Planning Board meeting regarding Transportation Demand Management (TDM) the Board members discussed that there should be some imagination, thought, and analysis in developing TDMs to provide tools to use both in individual development projects and on a city-wide basis. He said that the city would do well to hire an experienced consultant, such as Jeffrey Tumlin. P. Pollock said fhat Mr. Tumlin is parC ofthe feam thaf has been selected to help with the TMP update. M. Cowles said that he would prefer to see someone of Mr. Tumlin's quality made an expert ~ consulting directly with the city rather than being part ofa team where he might be used. He said that Mr. Tumlin's approach to TDM strategy is to increase the tax revenues and protect the quality of life. He asked if the Planning Board coLdd direct TAB to hire a cons~iltant. D. Gehr said that the Planning Board could state a preference for a policy direction. 6. ACTION ITEMS A. Public hearing and consideration of amendmettts to Title 9, Land Use Regulations. The changes include, but are not limited to, crente Transportation Demand Management criteria, add several new definitions to the Code, ~Ilow breezeway and walkway connections between the principal and ~ccessory buildings, allow v~riances for non-mobile homes in non-mobile home zoned parks, establish use review criteria to implement recently-adopted policies of the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan, establish consistent posting requirements for discretionary and conditional use reviews, reduce off-street parking requirements in the LR-D zoning districts, ~nd establish a method to calculate slope as it relates to building height measurement. Also, the Board is ~sked to review and commevt on Title 8 changes regarding encroachments into Yhe right of way and Title 10 changes regarding the historic preservation demolition ordinance. ~ s:Aplan\pb-items~minntes\011129min.wpd City of Boulder . Planning Board Minutes November 29, 2001 Page 3 B. Cole gave a brief overview of the organization of the amendments and described the proposed changes: Transportation Demand Management (TDM) proposal (intends to address transportation impacts from all new office development in both a by-right and discretionary context, including accessibility of alternative transportaYion to the users of the building and programmatic techniques, such as Ecopass and van pool programs); single family parking in LR-D, MR-D, and HR-D zones (will address the different parking standards in developing districts for idenYical development); new iise review criteria (relates to BV CP changes and more clearly spells out the desire to keep existing residential units and not displace them by non-residential uses); allowing larger restaurants in the BMS-X zones (will allow larger restaurants through by-right and conditional use review procasses); standards for the extension of site and use review approvals (will address requests to extend approvals beyond the three-year period far Board- and staff-level extensions); recission ofuse review approvals (will address the process for converting a use review to a conforming residential use); separation between principal and accessory structures (will address design limitations because ofthe six-foot separation); street and alley tree locations (will provide specificity in the code for what counts far street trees in those circumstances when there are already existing trees that might not meet the current standards); forms of ownership for ADUs and OAUs (will recognize other Torms of ownership); method of calculating slopes on steeply sloping sites (will provide a mathematically correct approach for calculating slope and wi11 clarify the place where the structure can be loeated); and recreational uses in residenYial zones (will eliminate redundant language in the code). ~ Additionally, he noted the following proposed amendments: split zoned buildings where zoning lines run through the middle of buildings; definition of building envelope; protection of residential zones From height increases; financial guarantees required prior to Temporary Certificate of Occupancy; revision of the definition of setback; mobile home variances; creation of consistent posting and notice requirements; graphics for setback averaging; application requirements on variances; removal of unrelated code language; and options chart for antenna for wireless communication. Public Participation: Jerry Wyss, Transportation Advisory Bonrd, 302 27th Street: He said that the review of TDMs by the Transportation Advisory Board (TAB) is not yet a high priority. He encouraged the Planning Board to approve a resolution requesfing that TAB accelerate the review of TDMs. Premena, E.O. Box 1038: He addressed Amendment 23 conceming locationa] opYions forwireless telecommunication services. He was concerned that the definition ofwireless services would include amateur radio seivices and local area networks. G. Kretschmer responded that the definition of wireless services relates to those commercial services covered under the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regulations. B. Cole said that these services are regulated because they have the potential to have substantial visual impacts and to exceed the local height regulations. • s:\plan\pb-items\mi nutes\011129min.wpd City of Bouldet• . Planning Board Minutes Novembe~• 29, 2001 Page 4 Dee Andrews, Chair of the University Hill Neighborhood Association, 888 15th Street: She addressed Amendment 4 that would allow larger restaurants to locate on the Hill through a conditiona] use review, She said that the Neighborhood Association is in favor of these positive changes to aYtract a quality, sit-down restaurant to the Hill. She said that the criteria that l~as been put into place in this proposal (close by 11 p.m., provide a good neighborhood policy, and facilitate public meetings with the neighbors) minimize any potential negative impacts to the neighborhood regardless ofthe size. Steve Dodd, 3076 7th Street: He addressed Amendment 8 that addresses the reduction of the existing six-foot miuimum separation requirement between principal and accessory buildings. He said that the connection is of key importance when adding on to existing buildings, and there are times when the connection presents greater difficulty than keeping the uew stiucture separate from the existing building. He presented a case whera the property ownars want to build a porch within the building envelope, but it cannot be connectad to the house because it would interfere with the solar panels on the roof. He said that the solution is a detached, covered porch, but the code would require that it be separated from the house by six feet. FIe argued that the building code does not require that this separation occur if the porch is part of the principal use of the residence. He said that the separafion was instituted Co address detached garages wbich take advantage of the more ]enient setbacks for an accessory building. He outlined ways that the Board could reviaw such a structure . and suggested that the code be changed to allow such struetures if they are within the principal building setbacks. Rehirn to the Bonrd: Amendment #1, Transportation Demand Management Option Points. The purpose of the amendment is to establish a points system to implement Transportation Demand Management (TDM) requirements for office uses over a certain size threshold and for parking reductions below code requirements and parking increases above code requirements, S. Durian explained Yhe establishment of a points system to implement the TDM and said that the points should address solutions to impacts. He explained how a proposal that requests 100 percent of the required parking and a proposal that requests a parking reduction would both obtain points. T. Nielsen suggested that Yha titles of (c) and (d) on page 61 of the staff inemorandum be changed to read "Calculating the Number of Option Points Required far Office Space" and "Calculating the Number oFOption Points Required for Parking Increases and Parking Reductions" respectively; that the off ce size threshold of 3,000 feet be staYed explicitly; thaY on page 62 the points be separated by bullets to make it more readable; and that the last point under Site SpeciFic TransportaYion Demand iY[anagement Tachniques on page 62 regarding projects that contain a mix of residential and non- residential uses be explained more Pully since the points system is for office uses. 5he said that this ~ s:Aplau\pb-itemstininutes\Ol 1129min.wpd City of Boulder • Plavning Board Minutes November 29, 2001 Page 5 is a very detailed program, and she is not comfortable approving this plan until it has been tesCed. B. Cole corrected the last sentence of thc second paragraph on page 61 to read "No person shall occupy, construct, or operate any use of land in violation of its approved transportation deinand management plan." B. Pommer suggested putting a chart in the specific transportation techniques and breaking the point system into columns. She also said that she would like to have input from the people who would be using this point system. S. Durian explained that the building size of 3,000 square feet was based on one point for 10 employees assuming one employee per 300 square feet of office. He said that staff did not consider floor area ratios (FARs) becaixse the square foot measurement is easier to calculate quickly. He described the process by which the TDM plan was put together. He said that a formal work group composed of Transportation staff developed the point system based on a study conducted by Charlier and Associates in 1997. He said that the group analyzed an impact fee wheraby a developer would pay a dollar amount, and that money would be spent by the city to make an improvement either on- or off-site. He described the reasoning for developing a point system. D. Gehr further explainad that one of the ideas discussed in developing a point system was a way to pay a fee or tax in lieu of compliance. He said that an impact study would have to be conducted to implement such a program which would not meet the timeline staff was trying to work under. He • said that the structure used to devalop a point system was based on the energy options points prograra so that flexibility could be built into the system. He said that the requirements of the program would be in perpetuity, and if the landowner wished to do something different later, he would be required to make a change through the city. The Board asked that staff raturn with information on the alasticity of demand for the various tools that will be used to help the Board compare and conYrast the different tools, to inchide data on quantifying impacts, Yo skeCch out a few examples oF different scenarios, to outline other TDM programs on the site, to determine where the fees might be directad if thare is a fee for every parking place per month, to have sYandards and TDM strategies that relate to a travel mode shift, to determine how such a parking or TDM agreement might be changed for an existing landowner ar a new landowner who acquires the property, to determine what needs or does not need to be in the point system, to determine program options, and to show how a performance-based system would be implemented. MOTION: A. Gunter made a motion to continue the discussion on TDMs to December 6, 2901 as the last item on the agenda. The motion failed for lack of a second. The Board generally thought that this date would not give stafPsu~cient time for further analysis. MOTION: On a motion by T. Nielsen, saconded by T. Krueger, the Planning Board contimied tha discussion on Transportation Demand Management Option Poinis to Januaiy 17, 2002 (6-0), ~ s:\plan\pb-items\minutes\011129min.wpd City of Boulder ~ Planning Board Minutes November 29, 2001 Page 6 Amendment #2, Reduce single family residential parking requirements in LR-D, MR-D and HR-D. The purpose of the amendmant is to reduce the off-street parking requirement for detached singie family residential units in the low, medium and high density "developing" zoning districts, Crom 1.5 spaces to 1 space per unit. B. Cole explained that this change would require one parking space for a single family detached unit in these zones. He further explained that under certain circumstances in these zones multiple detached units can be built on a single lot, and there may be situations where it may be advantageous to haue more parking than jusC one per unit. MOTION: On a motion hy A. O'Hashi, secondad by A. Gunter, the Planning Board approved the staff recommendation to amend the bulk regulation of Section 9-3.2-i to require one off-street parking space instead of 1.5 spaces for single family detached homas in the residential "developing" zoning districts (6-0) as noted in the staff inemarandum dated November 29, 2001 (preparation date November 21, 2001) with the clarification that it is only a single detached unit on a lot as opposed to one that has multiple units on the lot even if they are detached. • Amendment #3, New Use Review criteria. The proposed amendment would establish use review criteria to implement recently adopted policies to the Boulder Valley Comprehensive • Plan which encourage the conservation of existing residential dwelling units. The Board asked staff Yo address neighborhood institutional uses to either convert to another type oPneighborhood institutional use ar to residential use; to address the net loss of residentia] units in business zoning districts; and to address preservation and community character, Policy 2.13. MOTION: On a motion by A. Gunter, seconded by T. Nielsen, the Planning Board approved the staff recommendation to modify the Use Review criteria (6-0) as noted in the staff inemorandum dated November 29, 2001 (preparation date November 21, 2001); and f~irther, tkat staff address the issues as noted by the Board before it is sant to City Council. Amendment #4, Larger restaurants without use review in the BMS-X zones. The purpose of the amendment is to altow larger restaurants to locate in BMS-X zonas, such as on the Hill, through a conditional review, instead of a use review. The Board and stafP discussed the determination that 5,500 square feet for a restaurant in this zone would be appropriate and what the impaets might be; the appropriate building size in a potential histaric district; whether there could be more than one 5,000 square foot restaurant on the Hill bacause of additional impacts; concern for what could happen to other BMS-X zones that have not been developed; restriction of the atnendment to the Hill; determination of a realistic square footage; meaningfulness of the 11:00 p.m. closing time; restricting the expansion to oue building rather than . s:Aplan\pb-items~minuYes\Oll 129min.wpd City of Boulder • Planning Board Minutes November 29, 2001 Paga 7 allowing cross connections; allowing one 5,500 square foot restaurant and restricting others to a smaller square footage or requiring other requests of 5,500 square feet to go through a use review; comparing the downtown and student areas in Fort Collins; the timeline for conditional use review and use review processes; the existing standard for maximum restaurant size; and where impacts may be more significant For by-right size, conditional review, and a use review. D. Gehr explained that the exemption to allow breaking through a wali to combine spaces only applies in certain downtown zoning districts and only above the first floor. He said that this exemption would not apply in the BMS-X zone, except that cross connections can be done ifboth buildings are in common ownership. MOTION: On a motion by T. Krueger, seconded by B. Pommer, the Planning Board continued this item to January 17, 2002, and asked that staff provide a revised ordinance based upon the direction given by the Board (5-1; A. Gunter opposed). A. Gunter opposed the motion because he said that he would like to address the issue sooner. A. Gunter offered a friendly amendment that the item be reviewed by the Board on December 6 if the analysis for the ordinance revision can be completed earliar. B. Pommer did not accept the friendly amendment because of the public notification issue. • Amendment #5, Standards for extensions of Site and Use Review approvals. The • purpose of the amendment is to establish standards for extensions of use and site review approval prior to expiration. The Board and staff discussed granting an extension only for very extenuating circumstances, and that economic cycles and market conditions are not extenuating circumstances; the provision of evidence of substantial work towards completing the proj ect; and the kinds of evidence that would be required to demonstrate reasonable diligence. A. Gunter suggested striking the following phrases in the second sentence under 9-4-8 (b) (2) (A) "...attempts to secure construction financing, drafting plans for building permit or technical document review..." and striking the folIowing phrases in the first sentence under 9-4-8 (b) (2) (B) "...or economic cyclas and market conditions prevented the construction of the project dLUing the ariginal approval period." The vote was 3-3 (T. Nielsen, B, Pommer, and M. Cowles voted against the suggestion). Since there was a tie vote, the Board upheld the staff recommendation to adopt the new criteria as noted in the staff inemorandum dated Novernber 29, 2002 (preparation date November 21, 2001). Amendment 6, Rescission of Use and Site Review approvals. The purpose of the amendment is to create a mechanism Co eliminate existing disci~etionary use review approvats when the reason for the approval has terminated, and the property will return to con£orming "by righY' status. • s:lplanlpb-itemslminutesA011129min.wpd City of Boulder • Pianning Board Minutes Noveinber 29, 2001 Page 8 MOTION: On a motion by A. Gunter, seconded by B. Pommer, the Planning Board approved the staff racommandation (5-0; T. Nielsen was not present for this item) as noted in Yhe staff memorandum dated November 29, 2001 (preparaCion date November 21, 2001). Amendment 7, Split zoned buildings. The purpose of tlze amendment is to provide direction for development on lots with more than one zoning category, specifically where an existing stnicture is bisected by the zoning line. MOTION: On a motion by A. O'Hashi, seconded by A. Gunter, the Planning Board approved the staffrecommendation to amend Section 9-3.1-2 (4-0; T. Nielsen and T. Krueger were not present for this item) as noted in the staff inemorandum datecl November 29, 2001 (preparation date November 27, 2001) and with the added direction from the Board that there be no net loss of residential use. Amendment #8, Separation between principal and accessory strucfures. The purpose of the amendment is to consider reduction of the existing six-foot minimum separation requirement between principal and accessory buildings. The Board and staff discussed developing criteria that broadens the scope for granting variances and • the nead to ba cautious in how this would apply to other requests that the Board is not currently considering; whether the Board of Zoning Adjustment and Building Appeals (BOZABA) looked at other design solutions in the specific building permit application where the standards could be met; a concern for changing the code and setting a precedent in such a situation; that there are a lot of other solutions that could be reached without changing the code for this speciFic situation; concern about the implications of such a change; whether the six-foot separation requirement is justified; creation oP a distinction between enclosed and open structures to be less stringent on the open steuctures; and the need for analysis of other uses that could be affected by a code change. MOTION: On a motion by M. Cowles, seconded by T. Krueger, the Planning Board approved the staff recommendation of no change to the current standard far Amendment #8 (5-1; A. Gunter opposed) as proposed in the staff inemorandum dated November 29, 2001 (preparation date November 21, 2001). A. Gunter opposed the motion because he said that thare is a solLrtion that provides more flexibility anci would allow better buildings some places without a lot of unintended consequences. Staff asked the Board to provide comments on the demolition regulations related to historic structures. D. Wolfenbarger said that three code changes were recommended, inchiding designation of discontiguous historic districts, change in the threshold of building size that could be reviewed at the comuiittee level, and defnition of demolition, primarily to define demolition for review of non-landmarked buildings. She explained the unintended consequences of the sxisting definition of ~ s:Aplan\pb-items\minutes\011129min.wpd City o C Boulder Planning Board Mimrtes • November 29, 2001 Page 9 demolition. She said that flie Landmarks Preseivation Advisory Board recommended approval of these regulations to City Council. D. Gehr explained further that the change in definitiion woLild apply to review of demolitions outside of the historic districts, and the purpose of the review is to detenniue wllether the structure may have historic vatue. He said that if it is determined that~ the building has histaric value, Yhen a stay of demolition is granted, and during that time alternatives to either demolition or designation as an individual landmark are reviewed. The Board and stafF discussed the fine imposed or additional controls on landowners who do not comply with the existing demolition standards for laudmarked buildings (the Landmarks Board has full control over new construction) and farnon-landmarked buildings (there is no additional penaltybeyond the fine); how the 70 percent demolition standard was developed; and statistics of how many demolition requests are approved at the committee level (75 percent), at the Board level (25 percant), and how many requesYs at the Board level review have a stay placed on fhem. She said fhat onty one building has been landmarked over owner objection. Amendment #9, Street and Alley Tree Locations. The purpose of the amendment is to clariFy where street trees and alley trees can be located when adjacent to alleys and within front yard landscape setbacks. MOTION: On a motion by A. O'Hashi, seconded by A. Gunter, the Planning Board approved the staff recommendation (4-0; T. Nielsen and T. Krueger were not present for this item) as noted in • the staff inemorandum dated November 29, 2001 (preparation date November 21, 2001). Amendment #10, Definition of Building Envelope. The purpose of the amendment is to create a definition far `Building Envelope." MOTION: On a motion by A. O'Hashi, seconded by B. Pommer, the Planning Board approved Yhe staffrecom~nendation (4-0; T. Nielsen and T. Krueger we~•e not present for this item) as noted in the staffmemorandum dated November 29, 2001 (preparation date November 21, 2001). Amendment #11, Protection of residential zones from height increases. The purpose of the amendment is to clarify existing standards to protect "residential zoning districts" rather than a specific use from impacts which are a result of building height. The amendment will provide greater protection for residential zones. Amendment #12, Forms of ownership for ADUs and OAUs. The purpose of the amendment would add revocable living trusts as a fonn of allowable ownership for Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU) and Owner Accessory Units (OAU). Amendment #13, Financial guarantees required prior to TCO. The purpose of the amendment is to resolve inconsistency betwean Building Code and Land Use Regulations regarding financial guarantees and issuance of Certificates of Occupancy. • s:\plan\pb-itcros\minutes\O 1 ll 29rniu.wpd City of Boulder • Planning $oard Minutes November 29, 2001 Page 10 MOTION: On a motion by M. Cowles, seconded by B. Pommer, the Planning Board approved the staff recommendations on Amendments #ll, #12, and #13 (4-0; T. Nielsen and T. Krueger were not present for this item) as noted in the staff inemorandum dated November 29, 2001 (preparation date November 21, 2001}. Amendment #14, Revise definition of "setback." The purpose of the amendment is to revise the definifion of "setback" to indicate that setbacks ara measured to the oLrter perimeter of the building or structure whether above or below grade. Amendment #I5, Mobile home variances. Tha pmpose of the amendment is to permit variances to bulk standards for mobile homes located in mobile home parks not zoned MH- E. Amendment #16, Consistent posting and notification requirements. The purpose of the amendment is to establish consistent posting requirements for discretionary reviews, including several conditional usa reviews which require public notification, as well as variances, solar exceptions, and wetlands permits. MOTION: On a motion by A. Gunter, seconded by M. Cowles, the Planning Board approved the staffrecommendation for Amendments #24, #15, and #26 (4-0; T. Nielsen and T. Krueger were • not present for this item) as noted in the staff inemorandum dated November 29, 2001 (preparation date November 21, 2001). Amendment #17, Use charts - referral to definitions. The purpose of the amendment is to identify that each land use category foLmd in the land use tables has a specific definition and users of the code should refer to the definition section. The Boaz~d and staff discussed that the use category showu in the charts is a general description that may represent a broader range of uses than indicated, and that the use chart and definitions should be reviewed. Amendment #18, Method of Calculating Slope. The purpose of the amendment is to establish a simplified method of calculating "slope" such that correct building height measurement procedures can be selected. The Board and stafFdiscussed the cross-section example that shows that the center portion of the lot is the only buildable portion of the lot, that the bulk of the slope is in the rear yard setback, and that it would adversely impact the calculatioil for the most 1eve1 part of the site. • s;lplan\pb-items\nunutes\Ol I 129min.wpd City of Boulcler • Planning Board Minutes November 29, 2001 Page 11 • Amendment #19, Recreational uses in residential zones. The purpose of the amendment is to create consistent land use terms for recreational uses that are allowed to be considered in residential zones, • Amendment #20, Graphics for setback averaging. The purpose of the amendment is to provide a graphic showing an example of setback averaging in the appendices. • Amendment #21, Variance application submittal reqnirements. The purpose of the amendment is to revise the minimum variance application materials requirements to include floor plans, demolition plans, and architectural elevations. • Amendment #22, Removal of unrelated code language. The purpose of the amendment is a code correction to remove incorrect, unrelated language in a cross-reference. • Amendment #23, Options chart - wireless telecommunications antennae. The purpose of the amendment is to add a chart of locational options for wireless telecommunication antennae. MOTION: On a motion by M. Cowles, seconded by B. Pommer, the Planning Board approvad the staff recommendations for Amendments 17-23 (4-0; T. Nielsem and T. Krneger were not present • for this item) as noted in the staff inemorandum dated November 29, 2001 (preparation date November 21, 2001). A. Gunter offered a friendly amendment to add a standard under Section 9- 3.2-3 (Amendment 18) that would allow existing buildings to use 25 feet from the building around the building as tha area that would be used for measuring the slope. M. Cowles and B. Pommer accepted the friendly amendment. 7. ADJOURNMENT: The Planning Board adjourned the meeting at 10:30 p.m. • s:\plan\pb-i tems\minutes\011129min.wpd