Loading...
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