Minutes - Planning Board - 12/06/2001APPHOVED JANUARY 17, 2002
~ CITY OF BOULDER
PLANNING BOARD SUMMARY MINUTES
December 6, 2001
Council Chambers Room, Municipal Building
1777 Broadway, 6:00 p.m.
The following are the minutes of the December 6, 2001 City of Boulder Planning Board meeting.
A permanent set of thase minutes is kept in Central Records, and a verbatim tape recarding 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 Pommer
STAFF PRESENT:
Kate Bernhardt, Superintendent of Parks, Planning and Construction
S Cindy Brown, Housing Authority
Bob Cole, Director of Land Use Review
Russ Driskill, Parks and Recreation
Don Durso, Associate Planner
David Gebr, Assistant CiYy Attorney
Mary Lovrien, Board Secretary
Peter Pollock, Planning Director
Maureen Rait, Public Works for Development and Inspection Services
Mike Randall, Planner
Corey Schmidt, Chief Building Inspector
Mike Weil, Director of Environmental Affairs
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
There were no minutes to approve.
3. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION
There was no citizen participation,
• s:\plan\pb-items~ninutes\011206min.wpd
City of Boulder
~ Planning Board Minutes
December 6, 2001
4. DISCUSSION OF DISPOSITIONS, PLANNING BOARD CALL-UPS
There were no dispositions or Planning Board call-ups to discuss.
Page 2
5. MATTERS
A. Status of the development and implementation of a Green Points Program for
commercial construction.
P. Pollock introduced C. Schmidt, tha new Chief Building OfficiaL M. Weil said that two of the
top priorities in City Council's environmental sustainability subcommittee goals were energy
efficiency and resource conservation. He said that after Planning Board and Environmental Advisory
Board review, City Council adopted the International Energy Conservation Code (IECC) and
approved the residential Green Points Program. He said that the third initiative was to look at the
development of a commercial Green Points Program, potentially developed along the lines of the
voluntary, incentive-based Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) program of the
U.S. Green Building Council. He added that should the LEED program be adopted as a mandatory
program, additional negotiation would be necessary with the U.S. Green Building Council because
the current structure does not require mandatory compliance.
• He described the program, including the fact that applicants select from a list of resource and energy
conserving building measures with various leveis of certification (rating levals range from Certified,
Silver, Gold, and Platinum). He said that the city of Boulder adopted a policy that all its major
facilities and renovations will be built to the Silver standard. He mentioned other cities that are using
the LEED standard for their buildings and described the program adopted by the city of Seattle. He
said that there are no public entities that require LEED compliance for private sector development.
He presented an agenda for the Sustainable Design Workshop that will be held on December 10 and
11, 2001 to assist staff with the formulation of the proposal for moving forward with a Green Points
Program. He said that the Green Building Council is developing a LEED standard far care and shell
finish versus a building that is tenant finished and for a mixed-use commercial development.
The Board and staff discussed the LEED calculator regarding sustainable sites and alternative
transportation components; whether the work will be coordinated with the update of the
Transportation Master Plan; the city's work on Transportation Demand Management and how it
relates to optimizing energyperformance; whether a surveywill be conducted regarding the mapping
of potential "brownfield" redevelopment sites in the city; description of the Ensar Group that will
conduct the two-day workshop; incentives far private commercial developers to comply; problems
with compliance in a mixed-use development; a requirement of Basic certificltion and having
incentives built above that level; how LEED relates to the InYernational Energy ConservaYion Code;
Yha percentage of energy savings that could Ue anticipated with each of the various levels; the
. s:\plan\pb-items\minutes\011206min.wpd
City of Boulder
• Planning Board Minutes
December 6, 2001
Page 3
increment in energy savings because of the adoption of the IECC; the fact that there is not the
possibility of changing the point allocations for the standard calculator sheet; and corralation
between any additional costs and the energy benefit derived from those points to make sure that the
energy savings are significant (the costs to implement might be high or it might take many years to
recoup the investment cost).
(This item was discussed at the end of the meeting.) T. Krueger asked abouY the minar site
review modification for the property located at 800 Arapahoe to reconfigure parking spaces to save
an existing tree. B. Cole said that the applicant is attempting to move forward with the project. P.
Pollock said that he will give a briefing to City Council on December 18 on the wark of the Jobs to
Population Balance Task Force. He said that the Task Force has mostly been focused on data issues
regarding employment and population in 2000 and the projections in 2020; in the next phase he
hopes that the group will come to agreement around the baseline, a projection under current policy,
and development of scenarios.
He said that the first neighborhood meeting was held on the proposed relocation of the homeless
shalter, and these maetings will continue on December 12, December 18, and January 24. He said
that after these meetings, a staff-level review of the application will be conducted that will not be
• subject to Planning Board call-up. He gave an update on the neighborhood meeting far the Jay and
47th parcel and said that a copy of the summary material regarding the issues and concems that were
discussed was distributed to the neighborhood. He said that a consultant has been hired to generate
some development alternatives.
He said that staff is conducting a Transportation Advisory Board (TAB)/Planning Board post-
meeting discussion that will address Transportation Demand Management (TDM) measures. He said
that on December 11 City Council will conduct a study session on the Memorandum of
Understanding regarding the process for disposition or zoning of school properties, and on December
13 City Council will meet with the School Board to discuss this issue. D. Gehr said thaY he wiil draft
proposed amendments to the Land Use Regulations for Planning Board review that address
institutional conversions in rasidantial zones and standards for the conversion of rasidential uses in
non-residential zones.
6. ACTION ITEMS
A. Continued public hearing and consideration of a request for Use Review
#LUR2001-00057 for professional and technical offices, ~rt or craft studio
space, in the Naropa University project area of the Holiday Drive-in Theater
Redevelopment site located at 4650 North Broadway and zoned Mixed Density
Residential (MXR-D).
• s:\plan\pb-items~sninutes\011206min.wpd
City nfBc~ulder
~ Planning Baard NSinutes
]Jecember 6, 2001
1'age 4
M. Randall said that the Holiday I7rive-In `I'hc~atar Redevelopment pr~ject inclndes two mixed use
areas {n~n-residential use mixed with rasidai~Yial use}. H,e said that the Studio Mews (L'tJR2001-
Od051 j was appraved October l l, 2001, and the peesen# appiicarion by Naropa University is ta
provide non-residential "flex spaces" of 704 ~r mora square faet in different buildings that are
primarily reaidential. He outliueti spme potential uses by Naropa, including affice and studio space
far Natopa faculty aiid student5, professionel and tachnical offices, or art or craft studios. He said
cl~at even tnough sorna level af service aud oppartunity wi11 be giv~i to residenfs ~f the Holiday
17ri~e-In siCe, there is a re~~lizeiCian that not ~Il of tl~ese spaces will be used by residants. He prdposed
an additianal condition that tenazits af the "flex space" wauld Goniply witJ~ tha s#atemen[s tha
applicant has made in tha application rnatarials.
He adtiressed whether the Use Review Criteria have 6ean satisfiad (pravisian of a dirccf sar~ ice or
conaaziience to thE neighbarhocrd; ~pecific citygolioies such as providi~ig moderate incams hausin~,
residantial and nan-rasidentiai mixed uses> azid group li~~in~ arrungeulettCs for special popiilati~ns;
and cotnpatt`bility with and minimal negativa impact on the uso of the nearby prc~perties}, Fie said
that thsre are ~~a adjaoeut residential areas {the developm~nt ~n the norih side of I,c;e Hiti Road is
indtitstrial in nature, and, sinae the stndios a.re on tha edge c~f tha d~~elopn~ent, iC has little ~nftuer~ee
on the interior nf the site), He said that ataff oancluded tha# the MXR-L~ zc~ne with the use review
allawance fnr these us~s does intend that these uses will be part of ti~at zoning district.
~ Jorin ~'alff, Arahitect for ihe xpplicant, 490 Marine S~reet, said that the non-residential buildings
along I~ee Fiill Drive ar~ intended, for tbe mo,st part, to be rented as affardable office space of lass
ihan 70Q sq~iare feet ($1~ a square fndt per yaar). He said thai these spaces wauld pravide a buffer
ta the site from Lee Eiill Road and The industeiat uses to the narth. FIe listed some of the passible
tenants anct adtiressad parkittg for the non-residential uses. ~Ie said that if is hopad that the "flex
spaces" caa be rented to ~eople 3iving in the neigtiborhood, but to restrict tha space to only thase
users might cri~pla the ability to rent the spac~s. I~e said t[~at fhe spaces oould nat be uead fqr a
residence because showars would ttot IaE pravidad, and thera wou(~i be inininiai kitchen space. t;.
Brawn, addressed the target marKet program ~uhich woutd give peo~le who are considerin$ renting
ar buying on the site the opport~anity to rant the ~paee.
Sue Evans, hlaropa, e~laiu~d the leasia2g of the stuciio spao~, ineluding the teims and mana~ement
af the leasec. She said that the pi~n is to giva first pr"soxity to n:erslbers of ihe Narupa coinmunity, the
secand priority would be fo people on tha site, a~~d tha third priority waald be a combin~tian af tliase
~rortps with the wider }3oulder eomtnunity.
s:lplanlpb-itams\minutesi01120Gmin. wpd
City of Boulder
Planning Board Minutes
• December 6, 2001
Public Participation:
Page 5
Robert Sharp, 5995 Marshall Drive: He said that since the community is providing the area
primarily for affordable housing and office space, it does not make sense that preference could be
given to a nonprofit organization. He said that those spaces should be available equally to everyone
in the commixnity. He was also concerned that spaces would be rented for an affardable price initially
but not remain permanently affordable and suggested that there be qualification criteria for
businesses renting an affordable space. He also said that there should be easy access to the spaces
for delivery of products and materials. C. Brown said that the land is currently owned by Boulder
Housing Partners, but a portion is being sold to Naropa. She said that no subsidy for affordability
is provided for that site; the affordability is provided through their own internal pro forma which will
go to provide the more affordable housing. She said that Naropa's mission and existing market
conditions will cause only certain kinds oftenants to rent the space because of the industrially-zoned
land across Lee Hill Road.
George Watt, Barrett Studio Architects, addressed overflow parking on the site, including the ample
on-street parking on 14th and 15th Streets adjacent to the Naropa development. Regarding a question
concerning the possibility oFconverting the office space to residential, M. Randall said that because
the residential component far the site has been developed to the maacimum, the only ways to change
the "flex space" to residential would be to either incorporate that space into the adjacent residential
• units to make them larger or to change it through code amendment.
Return to the Board:
The Board and staff discussed whether the parking and parking management plan would be adequate
for the proposed uses; what uses might not lend themselves to the space or configuration of the site;
the definition of what kinds of businesses would be allowed in professional and technica] office
spaces; the possible tenants for the studio spaces and concern about the impacts and traffic
generation for different kinds of uses; the possibility that some of the spaces could ba customized
for the tenant during pre-leasing; ways the space could be converted to residential units; assurances
that the spaces would not be used as residential spaces; kinds of separation requirements between
the units; the design of the buildings and garages; the provision that the use must provide a direct
service and convenience to the neighborhood rather than draw from the larger community which
would narrow the kinds ofuses that would be appropriate; the possibiIity that the use review could
be changed if the uses changed; the requirement of a marketing plan for both the initial and future
leasing of the studio spaces which would give preference first to Naropa-affiliated people, second
to people in the Iocal neighborhood, thitd to artists, therapists, and craftsmen, and fottrth to other
uses to make iti much more ]ikely that the leases will result in what Naropa envisions; the occupancy
limits for the sYudio spaces; the intent of the proposed uses in the applicant statement; how a tenant
will qualify for the affordable spaces; Yl~e uses that would be inappropriate, snch as classrooms that
operate from 6 to 9 p.m. with parking that would spill over the existing spaces; the process for
•
s: \plan\pb-items~minutes\011206min. wpd
City of Boulder
Planning Board Minutes
• December 6, Z001
Page 6
marketing to the four groups at the same time rather than requiring a priority among the groups; lease
to a mix of uses from the four categories as more desirable rather than ali one type of use to
minimize the parking impacts; a leasing priority to local people rather than people from outside
Boulder; and development of a one-time marketing plan.
MOTION: On a motion by A. O'Hashi, seconded by A. Gunter, the Planning Board approved Use
Review #LUR2001-00057 and adopted the staffinemorandum dated December 6, 2001(preparation
date November 23, 2001) as findings of fact (6-0) with the recommended Conditions of Approval
indicated in Attachment A, including the addition of Condition 4 to read "The Applicant shall use,
occupy, or otherwise operate the areas noted as `flex space' on the approved plans entitled `Naropa
Housing at the Drive in,' dated October 15, 2001, in a manner consistent with the applicanYs written
statement dated November 9, 2001. The written statements and plans referred to in this condition
are attached to the staff inemorandum dated Novembar 23, 2001 in preparation for the December
6, 2001 Planning Board meeting as Attachment C and on file with the city of Boulder Planning
Department;" and, further, the addition of Condition 5 to read "Prior to the issuance of a certificate
of occupancy on any of the `flex space,' the Applicant shall develop and implement an ongoing
marketing program subject to the review and approval of the Planning Director, that is designed to
prioritize the marketing of the flex space in a manner that may result in a mix of uses and users that
include: persons affiliated with Naropa University; residents of the neighborhood that is bounded
on the south by Yarmouth Avenue, on the north by Lee Hill Drive, on the east by Highway U.S. 36,
• and on the west by Broadway; arts and crafts studio uses; and technical and professional office uses."
T. Nielsen offered a friendly amendment to delete Condition 5. A. Gunter did not accept the
friendly amendment. He said that because Naropa does not have a professional leasing organization,
requiring the applicant to develop a marketing plan to accomplish what theyhave represented in their
written statement will make it much mare likely that they will be able to carty it out.
B. Pommer offered a friendly amendment to make a substitute Condition 5 to read "Prior to the
issuanca of a final certificate of occupancy for any of the `flex space,' the Applicant shall develop
ancl imp~ement a marketing program, subject to Yhe reaieev and appro~~a1 of the Planning Director,
that is designed to prioritize the marketing of the `flex space' and encourage a mix of uses that may
include persons affiliatad with Naropa University; residents of the neighborhood that is bounded on
the south by Yarmouth Avenue, on the north by Lee Hill Drive, on the east by Highway U.S. 36, and
on the west by Broadway; arts and crafts studio uses; and technical and professional office uses." A.
O'Hashi and A. Gunter accepted the friendly amendment.
D. Gehr explained that Condition 5 would allow tha applicant to use the property as they have
represented in Yheir written statament, but they would haue to make an effort to market the properties
to a variety of people in the priority set forth in the list.
•
s:\plan\pb-items~minutes\011206min. wpd
City of Boulder
Planning Board Minutes
• December 6, 2001
Page 7
B. Public tiearing and consideration of a request for Concept Plan Review and
Comment #LUR2001-00054 for two parcels. One is located at the north end of
Stazio ballfields, a~ong Butte Mi11 Road (zoned P-E, Public Estublished) and the
other is located at 5150 Valmont (Mountain Ocean, Ltd., zoned IG-D, Industrial
General-Developing). The proposal is to relocate the existing Mountain Ocean
Ltd. from a parcel surrounded by V almont Park, owned by the City of Boulder
Parks and Recreation Department to an indastrial site currently on an
undeveloped portion of the Stazio Fields.
D. Durso said that this is a concept plan review and comment for a land exchange with Stazio
Ballfields and Mountain Ocean. He described the project background, including the size and zoning
of each tract, overall site plan proposed, and the size of the existing building owned by Mountain
Ocean. He explained that the applicant would be required to develop a site review amendment for
the Stazio parcel, and staffwould be required to change the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan
(BVCP} land use map for the parcel, to rezone both parcels, and to subdivide 4he Stazio parcel. He
said that utilities would naed to be provided, and Butte Mill Road would need to be reconstructed.
He said that issues identified by staff include consistency with the BVCP (jobs-population balance,
compatibility of adjacent land uses, and diversified employment base), environmental constraints
• (Jones-Donnelly irrigation ditch, aprescriptive 50-foot easement around the ditch, existing historical
buildings on the site, and the necessity of retaining walls in order to develop the site), and
compatibility with nearby uses (other uses in the area are either vacant or are large industrial uses).
He explained that the applicant will be subdividing the site into two--one parcel for its operations
and the other to be sold to another developer. He described the service utility problem for a second
building, the redevelopment potential for the existing Mountain Ocean site, and the difference in net
acreage between the applicant site (.87 acres) and the site proposed by the Parks and Recreation
Department (1.5 acres with about a third undevelopable if all development is kept south ofthe ditch).
Verne Sieroe, Architect for Mountain Ocean, 1936 14th Street, said thaY if the development is
shifted south, the land swap would require the relocation of the ballfields to another park site. He
said that the applicant considers the landscaping around the current site as an asset; the plan for the
proposed siYe is Yo survey the location of significant trees and adjust the design of the building to
optimize the amount of the vegetation that could be preserved. He described the proposed design of
the building and egress and ingress to the site. He explained tl~e need for the additional acreage--that
a portion of the land could be sold to fund the construction of a new building and could offset the
amount of money required from the Parks and Recreation Department. K. Bernhardt said that the
Parks and Recreation Advisory Board (PRAB) and City Council urged that the Parks Department
purchase the Mountain Ocean site so that the Valmont Park site could become whole. She said that
some funding has been reserved for such a land swap. She said that the current Mountain Ocean
building would consist of both a public and Parks and Recreation use in the near term, and possibly
•
s:\plan\pb-items~minutes\011206min.wpd
City of Boulder
• Planning Board Minutes
December 6, 2001
Page 8
be a part of the 33,000 square feet of mixed use commercial development in the long term. R.
Driskill explained the purpose of providing land rather than cash.
Public Participation: There was no public participation.
Return to the Board:
The Board and staff discussed the intent of PRAB when they purchased the Valmont Park site; the
evaluation of whether this zoning change would be eligible to be revised during the annual BVCP
update or the five-year update; examination of the utility service to the site and who will pay for the
utility extension; exploration of an option that would allow an exchange without the development
of a second building for lease or sale; the 30 percent parking reduction for the existing Mountain
Ocean site; the potential to develop a portion of the Valmont site along the hillside below the county
jail for residential development as a way to pay for the existing Mountain Ocean site; a requirement
that the Board make a recommendation to City Council on the appropriateness of disposing Park
property for this purpose; and tha appropriateness of this particular site plan.
Individual Board members made the following comments, not by consensus:
• • Preserve the cottonwood trees near the ditch and the wetlands in the area.
• Make sure that a fire truck can turn around in the space proposed.
• The land swap would be a great idea; the building could be used for Park activities. The land
swap has significant benefits--it involves a local employer, it has an industrial use, and it is
possible to maintain most of the environmental characteristics of the site,
• The problem with the expansion is that it can create another 22 jobs. Instead of development
potential, it would be better to pay cash rather than add the additiona122 new jobs with the
resulting impacts. Housing is greatly needed in the city overall, but there is an ample supply
of jobs.
• Even though the proposal would create 22 additional jobs, there is a real community benefit
to having the Valmont Park site completed. The purchase of tha Valmont Park site actually
eliminaYed potenYial jobs on that site.
• There is concern about the increased development potential that would be allowed at the new
site and what would be allowed at the cunent Mountain Ocean location. If there is an
additiona110,000 square feeC of development potential between the build-out oFthe existing
site and the square footage of the iwo proposed buildings, it might not be an equitable deal
•
s: \plan\pb-items~minutes\011206min.wpd
City of Boulder
Ptanning Board MinuYes
• December 6, 2001
Page 9
for the city. Explore the trade-offs of providing Park land or cash; make sure that there is an
equitable trade--that both parcels are of equal value.
• Consider in the assessment the costs to make the changes in each scenario. Is there an option
where the city provides the site and the 8,000 square foot building and some other in-kind
contribution in order to make it an equitable deal. This would be a preferred outcome rather
than giving away more land to be developed which creates more jobs.
• The zoning change is a creative solution for the city to gain what it has wanted on the sites.
• Parking might not be adequate at the Mountain Ocean site with the parking reduction
proposed?
• The applicant should provide additional information in another concept raview befare
Planning Board. Have PRAB review the proposal to determine why it would prefer trading
land rather than cash.
• Paying additional money for keeping the second lot that realistically would not be used as
a park might not be a fiscally sound way to spend Parks Department money.
• • The responsibility of the Planning Board is to ensure that more commercial density is not
created than is consistent with the other BVCP policies.
• In the Parks plan there is more than this particular site (on Valmont) that is dedicated for
Community Business. Some amount of the square footage could be used for Park-related
activities or local businesses that would service the neuby communitytherebyreducing trips
into Boulder.
• Conduct a review appraisal as opposed to fiill appraisal. Look at the jobs generation
assessment of the scenarios. The appraisal would need to incorporate other scenarios that
would eliminate the additional square footage.
7. ADJOURNMENT:
The Planning Board adjourned the meeting at 10:10 p.m.
•
s:Aplan\pb-items~minates\Oll 206min.wpd