Loading...
2 - Approval of Minutes, 3/7/02CITY OF BOULDER PLANNING BOARD SUMMARY MINUTES March 7, 2002 Council Chambers Room, Municipal Building 1777 Broadway, 6:00 p.m. The following are the minutes of the March 7, 2002 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 Pommer STAFF PRE5ENT: Bob Cole, Director of Land Use Review David Gehr, Assistant City Attorney Gary Kretschmer, Planning and Zoning Mary Lovrien, Board Secretary Cindy Pieropan, Housing Planner Peter Pollock, Planning Director GUEST PRESENT: Nancy Clanton, Clanton and Associates 1. CALL TO ORDER Chair A. Gunter declared a quorum at 6:10 p.m., and the following business was conducted. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES January 17, 2002: B. Pommer suggested that the last two sentences in the first paragraph on page 6 be changed to read "B. Pommer opposed the motion because she thought that a Use Review was the tool to use in these cases to address impact issues. She indicated, however, that the good neighbor plan might be able to handle a good number of the issues. She was concerned about the lack of recourse available under Conditional Review." T. Nielsen suggested that the first sentence in the second paragraph on page 6 be changed to read "(This item was discussed after Item 6.C.)" M. Cowles suggested that on page 9, first paragraph after bulleted items, change to read "P. Poliock summarized the Board's request: First, to develop a toolkit to deal with new development that comes before the Board in the near term and, second, that there is the expectation that a city-wide TDM plan wiil be developed in conjunction with the update of the Transportation Master Plan in dealing with the impacts in the Jobs to Population Task Force." On a motion by T. Nielsen, seconded by T. Krueger, the Planning Board approved the minutes of January 17, 2002 as amended (6-0). s:\plan\pb-items~minutes\020307min City of Boulder Planning Board Minutes March 7, 2002 Page 2` 3. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION Premena, P.O. Box 1038: He commented on the illumination ordinance. He asked the Board to focus on the real issue of intensity of light and not necessarily the bulb wattage. He said that it is inappropriate to consider all retrofitting of lights as being very expensive. He said that a new . ordinance presents a problem if retroactive enforcement of nonconforming lighting is not dealt with. He suggested that education will solve many of the problems. Lynn Segal, 538 Dewey: She suggested that instead of using street lights energy efficient lights should be placed on individual houses; this type of light would be less invasive and better distributed. She suggested that bright blue caz headlights be illegal because of the glare. Jane Monson, 721 Iris Avenue: She said that a huge detached gazage is being built adjacent to her property line which is causing a negative impact--drainage problems on her property because of the huge roof area that drains toward her land and light pollution in her yard from the structure. She said that not only is she discouraged with the pace that the city is dealing with the issue of accessory structures, but she is discouraged that there is no mention of changing the setbacks for such structures. She said that even if the number of accessory structures is limited, these structures will continue to be built to the maximum height possible just three feet from adjacent properties. 4. DISCUSSION OF DISPOSTTIONS, PLANNING BOARD CALL-UPS A. Gunter asked about the interior lot line elimination for the parcel at 3375 Mitchell Lane. D. Gehr said that the reason such a lot line would be eliminated is to satisfy Uniform Building Gode requirements. The Board had no comments on the wetland permit for the Broadway Underground Utilities Relocation at Boulder Creek project or the Carrie Subdivision located at 597 Lee Hill Drive. B. Pommer asked about the citizen call-up request for a proposed development at 1601 Pearl Street. P. Pollock said that the Board will hold a public hearing on this item on Apri14. 5. MATTERS FROM THE PLANNING BOARD, PLANNING DIRECTOR, AND CITY ATTORNEY (This item was discussed at the end of the meeting.) M. Cowles asked the City Attomey to draft a code change that would disaggregate the cost of parking in development applications. The Board and staff acknowledged A. Gunter for his five years of service with the Board. P. Pollock gave an update on the study session with Planning Board, City Council, and the Jobs to Population Task Force. He said that the group moved beyond the data question and began to focus on the objectives. He said that the Task Force is struggling with how to create the different scenarios but will have a qualitative discussion on what the community should look like and the associated transportation and economic impacts. He outlined the further meetings of the Task Force and said that there will be another joint study session on May 14 with the Boazd, Task Force, and City Council. He said that there was a community workshop regarding Jay/47th Street and Kalmia properties, and the Boazd will review a full range of options on March 21. He pointed out that Board effectiveness training will be conducted on April 27. He said that a staff s:\plan\pb-items~minutes\020307min City of Bouldar Planning Board Minutes March 7, 2002 Page 3- report regarding its findings on the potential use of the McKenzie Junction site by other city departments will be sent to the Board. He reported on the status of the Mountain Ocean ]and swap with the Parks Department--the issues involve road improvements and access to the Stazio Fields site that the Parks Department would be required to provide. 6. DISCUSSION ITEM A. Study session regarding proposed amendment to exisfing illuminatiop ordinance. Amendments being considered include the establishment of maximum illumination levels and minimum uniformity ratios based on zoning districts and individual land uses, as wel! as the requirement of the use of "white IighN' (metal halide, fluorescent, etc.). B. Cole and G. Kretschmer introduced N. Clanton, a well-known expert in the lighting field in the country and the warld. G. Kretschmer said that the purposes of the amendment to the existing illumination ordinance are to implement the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP) resource conservation policies and to address City Council goals regarding energy conservation. He clarified that the regulations will be applicable only to private properties, including city-owned properties, and not to street right-of-ways or to state or federal properties. He said that the Transportation Department has already adopted a cut-off fixture requirement for city streets (no light would be projected above horizontal), and the city has already begun to use metal halide or white light in high pedestrian areas. N. Clanton discussed lighting levels needed for visibility. She said that if Boulder decides it wants to be a low ambient community, data will be available to guide that process. She showed images from space of the sky glow or light pollution, images from Los Angeles in 1908 and the present, and lights from gas station canopies that present a safety concern. She said that Boulder, along with Denver and other communities along the Front Range, can darken the skies. She defined light pollution (light that goes straight up into the sky and represents wasted energy and retlectad light) and light trespass (glare light that goes from one property to another). She outlined the four zones of ambient light ranging from Zone E1 (intrinsically dark) to Zone E4 (high ambient). She said that the proposed ordinance for Boulder is 0.1-foot candles at all property lines or Zone E1. She defined some of the existing lighting levels: 100-foot candles at some gas stations, 10-foot candles at some big box retail parking lots, a 1-foot candle typically for street lighting, and a.O1-foot candle for moonlight. She said that the Boulder ordinance will define the maximum amount of light that will be allowed (1-2 foot candles for residential, 3-5 foot candles for other uses, and 10 foot candles for canopies). She described how ]umens can be measured in fluarescent, incandescent, metal halide, high pressure sodium, and induction lamps. She said that it was determined that the safest lighting on the University of Colorado campus was one of the lowest lighting levels because the lighting was uniform. She described photometric luminance which refers to the light source, and that equivalencies have been developed s:\plan\pb-items~minutes\020307min City of Boulder Planning Board Minutes March 7, 2002 Page 4~ (residential light cannot be brighter than an 18-watt low-compact fluorescent, and commercial light cannot be brighter than a 26-watt compact fluorescent). She said that disability glare (a ]ight where a person could be temporarily blinded) should not be allowed. She said that the ordinance would require a fully shielded light if tHe bulb is above the prescribed wattages. She explained that under low-level lights, a person relies on peripheral vision-the high pressure sodium street lights eliminate peripheral vision whereas white light detects movement coming from the sides. She said that the proposed ordinance will require the use of white light, and the advantages are that lower levels can be used, and it is more effective for visibility. She showed a chart that showed the efficiencies of the different lighting systems at night; prohibited lights that create sky glow; the effectiveness of shielded lights in producing less light pollution; a picture of the star magnitude or the number of stazs visible between severe light pollution and a dark sky; and pictures of light fixtures (full cut-off lights which direct all the light downward, cut-off lighting which allows a little light in the sky and produces an angle to the sides; and the semi-cut-off lights common under gas station canopies). She explained that if a gas station is redeveloped, the semi-cut-off lights will not be allowed; they will be required to have flush recessed lights that can project down. She suggested that the Board take a night-time tour of selected areas in town, measure the lighting, and use the data to test the ordinance. B. Cole directed the discussion toward three questions: 1) Does the proposed ordinance address BVCP and City Council policy, 2) is more public input needed, and if so, what kind will be most effective before the Board takes any further action, and 3) are the compliance and applicability sfandards proposed acceptable? The Board and staff discussed making the ordinance stricter than what is proposed; making sure that the light from one property does not trespass on adjacent properties; retrofitting the city street lights; requiring a retroactivity clause on non-conforming lights; educating the public about lighting; developing a curfew when lights would be turned off; understanding the wattage amount (energy consumption) and ]umin rating (method of ineasurement to determine how much light the bulb produces); providing incentives to convert lighting; making sure that the final ordinance is fluid and more explanatory and making the exceptions more clear; considering a plan to enforce regulations for redevelopment projects when the project is at 25 percent or more of assessed value; determining the cost to retrofit city parking lots; addressing LED lighting; and measuring commercial signs if it contributes to the lighting on the site. Individual Board members made the following comments, not by consensus: Provid~ information on the energy savings for each watt and the number of years it might take to recoup the investment. . Provide opportunities for additional public input. s:\plan\pb-items\minutes\020307min City of Boulder Planning Board Minutes March 7, 2002 Page 5` . There should be a retroactivity or amoritization provision in the ordinance (10 years to ansure compliance with some flexibility to add a few years before compliance is mandatory). . It is important not to exclude the city street lights from the ordinance requirements because . the existing lights are so bright that homeowners feel that they need to get brighter porch and yard lights. . Provide an enforcement mechanism that allows mediation for lighting disputes rather than a judicial remedy. There should be an enforcement mechanism to correct motion sensor detectors that are misdirected off the property. . The use of full cut-off light fixtures might not be sufficient; a 60 degree lighting angle might be appropriate. . Write the ordinance so that projects have to comply with the current standards at the time a building permit is received regazdless of the size of the project and even though development applications have vested rights. . Provide a code restriction to ensure that a direct light source is not seen beyond the property line. The ordinance should include indoor lighting that floods off the property. . Address lights for commercia! signs. . While the lighting ordinance proposed is better than what exists, we should consider a restriction of Five watts. • Provide additional lighting examples, especially examples of inappropriate lighting and what the glare would be from this lighting. • Provide good public education on the new lighting standards. 7. ACTION ITEM A. Public hearing and consideration of amendments to Title 9, Land Use Regulations. The changes include, but are not limited to, correct a numerical error in sma11 car parking requirements, allowances for below-grade setback exceptions, allow breezeway and walkway connections between principal and accessory structures, clarifications as to what qualiCes as open space, permit transfer of ftoor area in MU-D zoning district, and inclusionary zoning revisions. The following items wil- be discussion items only: revisions to subdivision regulations establishing a minor subdivision process, limitations on sizes, quantities and setbacks for accessory buildings, and addressing issues regarding administrative offices in industrial zones. s:\plan\pb-items~ninutes\020307min City of Boulder Planning Board Minutes March 7, 2002 Page 6e B.Cole gave a brief overview of the amendments that are being considered for City Council action and several items for Board discussion. Public Participation: James Petit, 906 Union Avenue: He said that he was concerned about the amendment regarding breezeway connections from principal buildings to accessory buildings and limitations on the size of accessory buildings. He questioned that if the garage meets the principal building setbacks, could not the entire space between the house and the garage be enclosed. He said that he was confused by the similaz definitions for a breezeway and a covered walkway. He also was concerned about the setback limitation for a walkway between the house and the garage and about the current practice of prohibiting breezeway connections that came about without notice to affected homeowners when just two years ago connecting breezeways was allowed so long as the connection was not an enclosed space. He said that it appears that staff is trying to prohibit attached three-car garages in the amendment regarding accessory structures by limiting the structure to 500 square feet and allowing a third garage in a separate building; in this case the mass and design impact would be much greater than a 30-foot, three-car garage on the same site. He asked that the Board not approve these recommendations. Return to the Board: Amendment #1: Permit the transfer of floor area between lots within the MU-D zoning district pursuant to a site review approval. MOTION: On a motion by T. Krueger, seconded by A. O'Hashi, the Planning Board recommended (6-0) that City Council amend Section 9-3.2-19 in Amendment #1 to allow the transfer of floor area within the MU-D zoning district pursuant to Section 9-4-11, "Site Review" as outlined in the staff inemorandum dated Mazch 7, 2002 (prepazation date February 26, 2002). Amendment #2: Clarification of required development application fees. MOTION: On a motion by T. Krueger, seconded by A. O'Hashi, the Planning Board recommended (6-0) that City Council amend Section 9-4-2 of Amendment #2 to require that all applicable fees will be collected per the fee schedule found in Section 4-20-43 of the Boulder Revised Code as outlined in the stafF memorandum dated March 7, 2002 (preparation date February 26, 2002). Amendment #3: Clarification as to what will or will not qualify as required open space. B. Pommer asked the reasons why any landscaped areas less than two feet in width located within an elevated planter not less than 18 inches in height would qualify for required open space because it would not provide usable open space. T. Krueger said that anything less than two feet wide means that a developer is trying to develop the site too densely, and this should not be s:\plan\pb-items\minutes\020307min ~ City of Boulder Planning Board Minutes March 7, 2002 Page 7` counted as open space. G. Kretschmer said that elevating the planter provides a physical barrier and provides passive open space. MOTION: On a motion by B. Pommer, seconded by A. O'Hashi, the Planning Board recommended (6-0) that City Council amend Sections 9-3.2-6 and 9-3,2-7 in Amendment #3 as outlined in the staff inemorandum dated March 7, 2002 (preparation date February 26, 2002), including an amendment to delete the reference on page 9 that would allow an elevated planter not less than 18 inches in height to qualify as open space. Amendment #4: Address issues that have arisen during the implementation of inclusionary zoning along with some minor language clean up. C. Pieropan clarified questions about what is meant by the new section stating that in mixed unit typa developments the unit type mix of permanently affordable units should proportionately reflect the distribution of the unit type mix of market rate units, the requirement that should the rental units turn into home ownership units within five years they would become permanently affordable, and the repeal of the Moderate Income Housing Program to take care of any development that might have obligations under this ordinance. D. Gehr outlined the criteria that will be used to detennine alternative dishibution ratios (that it results in a better design than not using the distribution). MOTION: On a motion by B. Pommer, seconded by T. Krueger, the Planning Board tecommended (5-0; M. Cowles was not present for this item) that City Council approve Amendment #4 as outlined in the staff inemorandum dated March 7, 2002 (preparation date February 26, 2002). Amendment #5: Allow detached garages and carports to be attached to a principal building by a "breezeway" or covered "walkway." MOTION: On a motion by B. Pommer, seconded by A. Gunter, the Planning Board deferred action on Amendment #5 until it can be reviawed in a more comprehensive way to ensure that it does not create unintended consequences (6-0). Tha following amendments were discussion items only: Amendment #6: Establish maximum sizes and maximum numbers of accessory buildings permitted in low density residenYial (RR, ER, & LR) zoaing districts. The Board and staff discussed limiting the height or square footage of accessory buildings on abutting lot lines or on lots that do not have an alley to sepazate the two lots; crafting the ordinance in such a way that the standards vary when two different zoning districts abut each other; creating a bulk plane standard to address large accessory buildings; the number of non- conformities that can be created in the community from a bulk plane standard, providing a s: \plan\pb-items~minute s\020307min City af Boulder Planning Board Minutes March 7, 2002 Page 8' combination of a bulk plane standazd and a square foot limitation; considering that the setback for the garage that abuts an adjacent property line would be the average of the setbacks; considering that if an accessory building is built within accessory building setbacks there would be a limitation on the size, and that anything greater than a certain size would have to be built _ within the principal building setback; considering not allowing accessory buildings over 500 square feet outside the principal building setback and limiting the height of the building; identifying the structure as a garage and not an accessory building so that the setback for a garage in the rear and the side property line that does not have an alley as a buffer has to be the same as the actual setbacks of the footprint of the principal structure; this would prevent a garage from being built next to a property line; considering landscape standards when an alley does not exist between two properties; and considering that this issue is a higher priority than any other code revisions. Amendment #7: Create a minor subdivision process to simplify the process £or small subdivisions and revise the lot line adjustment and elimination process to allow more flexibility and create consistent requirements. The Board and staff discussed allowing a minor subdivision process; reconfiguring the lot lines; making sure that when lot lines are adjusted the ability to develop or impacts to other properties are not increased; and requiring that adjustments represent the intent of the original plat structure. Amendment #8: Establishment of a minimum size requirement for o£f-site affiliated industrial users when considering administrative offices as a principal use. The Board and staff discussed having the industrial and office square footage not exceed each other (1:1 ratio); making sure that corporate offices have a manufacturing facility that is as big as their corporate office space; and making sure that a lot of non-aonformities are not created. S. ADJOURNMENT The Planning Board adjourned the meeting at 10:40 p.m. s:\plan\pb-items\minutes\020307min