Loading...
2 - Draft Minutes - Planning Board - 3/21/2002 CITY OF BOULDER PLANNING BOARD SUMMARY MINUTES March 21, 2002 Council Chambers .Room, Municipal Building 1777 Broadway, 6:00 p.m. The following are the minutes of the March 21, 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 Thom Krueger Simon Mole Tina Nielsen, Chair Alan O'Hashi Beth Pommer Jahn Spitzer STAFF PRESENT: Bob Cole, Director of Land Use Review Steve Durian, Transportation Engineer David Gehr, Assistant City Attorney Mary Lovrien, Board Secretary Peter Pollock, Planning Director Mike Randall, Planner Susan Richstone, Comprehensive Planner Andrea Robbins, Public Works/Transportation Alan Taylor, Development Review GUESTS PRESENT: Carol Adams, Studio 2 Design David Ungemah, Urban Transportation Consultants 1. CALL TO ORDER Chair A. Gunter declared a quorum at 6:05 p.m., and the following business was conducted. The Board welcomed two new Board members, John Spitzer and Simon Mole. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES February 7, 2002: T. Krueger suggested that on page 5, second sentence in the third bullet item under Compliance with the North Boulder Subcommunity Plan, change to read "There needs to be a subcommunity-wide discussion about how to meet the goals and objectives in the NBSP before the Board settles on the concept plan for this site." On a motion by T. Krueger, seconded by A. O'Hashi, the Planning Board approved the minutes of February 7, 2002 as amended (5-0; S. Mole and J. Spitzer did not vote because they were not Board members at this meeting). s:\plan\pb-items\minutes\020321.min City of Boulder Planning Board Minutes March 21, 2042 Page 2 February 21, 2002: On a motion by T. Krueger, seconded by B. Pommer, the Planning Board approved the minutes of February 21, 2002 (T. Nielsen did not vote because she was not present for this meeting, and S. Mole and J. Spitzer did not vote because they were not Board members at this meeting). 3. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION Jim Knopf, 320 Hollyberry Lane: He expressed concern that a number of conceptual trails have been removed from the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP) Trails Map without any public discussion. He thought that during the 2002 annual update of the BVCP there would be further work on developing a process to discuss trails that would involve a cross-section of stakeholders. He requested that the Board follow up on this issue and that he and Al Gunter be notified when this issue will be discussed by the Board. He also asked about the status of the annual BVCP update. P. Pollock said that he will get more information on the update. 4. DISCUSSION OF DISPOSITIONS, PLANNING BOARD CALL-UPS A. Taylor responded to a question from T. Nielsen about the mitigation of wetlands affected by the Lakewood Pipeline Reconstruction Project. He said that the wetland material will be removed and then replaced once the underground utility has been put in place. He said that the success rate for restoration on this type of activity has been very high. The Board had no comments on the Planning Department disposition (Subdivision at 805 Yale Road), a wetland permit for the Goose Creek Drainageway, or the request to vacate a public access sidewalk easement located at 5303 Spine Road. 5. MATTERS FROM THE PLANNING BOARD, PLANNING DIRECTOR, AND CITY ATTORNEY A. Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Update A. Robbins and D. Ungemah updated the Board regarding Transportation Demand Management (TDM). A. Robbins said that a TDM subcommittee has been formed consisting of volunteers from both the Jobs to Population Task Force and the Transportation Master Plan Update Task Force. She pointed out slide materials in the packet that have been shown as part of the public process. She said that while conducting the public process she discovered that people are confused about what TDM is, and staff feels that education needs to be done; as a result, the educational outreach for TDM will be expanded to include businesses and residents, employers, and employees. She added that staff is researching national strategies regarding the toolkit element of TDM. She said that the city will develop some demonstration projects, including a plan for Boulder Community Hospital and the University of Colorado east campus and research park. She said that Phase I of the city's transportation allowance education process has been developed. D. Ungemah said that in determining what TDM might be added to the toolkit it is important to determine the effectiveness of TDM as applied elsewhere; the packet materials represent a general summary of results from other projects elsewhere around the country. He pointed out a handout that showed potential application of travel reduction and how to best implement TDM in Boulder, including communities that have travel reduction ordinances in place. He addressed a concern about how TDM elements can effect a percent mode shift. He said that measuring a shift City of Boulder Planning Board Minutes March 21, 2002 Page 3 mode within a corridor is difficult because a corridor is carrying more than origin or destination traffic, but measuring a shift mode is effective when it is based upon employment centers and sites, I Spitzer suggested that staff review statistics on travel times across the community between 19$0 and the present and what the traffic will look like with job buildout, M. Cowles suggested that staff discuss with the University of Colorado reducing the automobile use by freshmen and sophomores at the campus. D, Ungemah addressed how successful TDMs can be with a grided road system as opposed to curvilinear development, He said that there will be more TDM effectiveness by site design (effectiveness will be dependent upon the layout of the streets to the destination property and the aesthetics of the surrounding properties, because aesthetics matter when it comes to the use of alternative modes. P. Pollock said that City Council, in its discussion last week on the Transportation Master Plan (TMP) update, suggested that staff' continue to work on the goals in the TMP, to work on regional connections, and to address the issue of how TDM would be linked to the jobs to population balance project and the land use scenarios that would be taken out for public review. A. Robbins said that downtown Boulder and the University Hill are areas where the city has aggressive T.DM programs that have shown huge modal shifts in transportation. She said that the success depends upon great transit, well=built, accessible, convenient bike and pedestrian facilities, limited parking and parking that needs to be paid for, and educational and marketing programs. She said that there are other places in Boulder where TDM would be effective. A Uugemah said that although trips in and out of Boulder are more challenging from a TDM perspective, van- and car-pooling can be effective in these cases when there is marketing and incentives. He said that TDM works better when the person lives and works in Boulder. (The following matters were discussed at the end of the meeting.) P, Pollock highlighted the following meetings and events: Board member reception on April 5, Board effectiveness training on April 27, and the outdoor lighting tour on April 24, He said the City Council will have a recess in June and the Planning Board decided to meet on June 6 and then not meet again until July 11, He said that a decision on the homeless shelter will be issued on Friday. B. Pommer welcomed the new Board members, John Spitzer and Simon Mole, T, Krueger asked that staff address at a later time the moving of the house at 9th and Walnut (address) and the 10 affordable units that are being eliminated and what is being done to preserve some of the residential use, the occupancy discussion that City Council had, the status of the Uni-Hill Neighborhood Association historic preservation discussion, and the status of historic district designation on the University Hill commercial district, P. Pollock said that there is an application for the Fox Theater and staff has applied for a preservation development initiative grant. He said that a letter from Alisa Spalding that was sent to the Board deals with the hours of operation of the proposed restaurant , and staff is reviewing the application. He said that he has forwarded the recommendation from Rodger Ewy concerning the international uniform traffic signs to Tracy Winfree in the Transportation Department. The Board and staff discussed the election of the Chain and Vice Chair and ex officio committee assignments on April 18. City of Boulder Planning Board Minutes March 21, 2002 Page 4 6. DISCUSSION ITEM A. Discussion of report on preliminary alternative conceptual plans for the Jay Road/47th Street and Kalmia Avenue properties. S. Richstone explained the process for discussing the development plans, and P. Pollock explained the purpose of the preliminary discussion, which is to assist the property owners in preparing a concept plan for the site. He said that the Board had indicated that it would entertain a higher density if the overall context, including street grid, mixture of housing, and connections between areas, could be seen. Some of the options include a higher density than the current land use designation in the BVCP. C. Adams described the process that occurred with the neighbors and the property owners regarding these sites. She described the boundaries of the site, including opportunities for trails within the development and to the larger area. She said that the plan is to provide a mix of housing units and a significant amount of affordable housing, to mitigate traffic issues, to enhance connectivity for all transportation modes, to provide additional park space, to be compatible with the existing neighborhoods, and to respond to neighborhood concerns. She said that the primary concerns of the neighborhoods are to provide only a bike and pedestrian path from the development to St. Petersburg Street rather than a street, to minimize traffic impacts to existing neighborhoods, to provide buffers at the edges at Jay Road and 47th Street, along the soccer fields, and at the neighborhood edges, to increase the usable park space, to decrease the density, if possible, rather than increase above the BVCP designation, and to be sensitive to existing vegetation and wildlife in the site planning of the properties. She showed slides of the properties from all sides, the three density options for both the 47th and Jay property and Kalmia property, including pedestrian connections, future trail connections, a neighborhood park, circulation pattern, automobile connections to and from the site, mix of housing, landscape buffers, and streetscape. She said that Option A for both sites was the lowest density that staff explored. She also depicted how adjacent properties that are not included in the annexation plan might develop. 47th and Jay Property: She said that Option B would offer more density but would remain within the current BVCP designation, and Option C offers additional density that is higher than the BVCP designation. She said that Options A. and B depict a bike/pedestrian access to St. Petersburg Street, and Option C depicts an access road. Kalmia Property: She said that this property is affected by the Airport Influence Zone. Park and water retention areas are planned for this area. She described the variety of connections between Palo Parkway and Kalmia and connections on the south and north and the housing mix. She said that Option A does not provide as diverse a mix of housing types as Options B and C. It offers an addition to the existing community park that would enhance the recreational opportunities and provide a variety of trail connections and pocket parks and traffic calming measures. She said that Option B adds more density and would require a change to the BVCP for a portion of the property, City of Boulder Planning Board Minutes March 21, 2002 Page 5 provides a more traditional street pattern with cul-de-sacs that have trail, connections, and provides lower density housing at the edge to provide a transition to the existing neighborhood. Michael O'Keefe, 4520 Nassau Place, spoke about the process that was conducted for the BVCP update and the planning process for the sites. He said that Option C for 47th and Jay does not encourage the concept of a family-oriented community and will likely lead to a very transitory type of neighborhood which does not reflect the surrounding neighborhoods. He said that the neighborhood is against putting a road through to St. Petersburg from the proposed development. He said that as the density is increased in the various options, the park space is decreased. He said that he was disappointed that Four Mile Creek was developed with no new park design into the community. He said that there is concern that because of the very high ratio of affordable housing that is proposed, the housing will be low quality and one- and two-bedrooms as opposed to three-bedrooms that would be indicative of family housing. He said that the commercial space proposed in Option B is unacceptable relative to the characteristics of the neighborhood., He said that the greenway connection is promoting alternative modes of transportation and encourages interactivity between the neighborhoods. He said that Option A offers more of the family-type environment that is suitable for the people in the city who work in Boulder and need the affordable housing. Dean Schooler, 4414 Apple Way, thanked the staff and the neighbors for contributing to the process. Josh Kahn, 4608 Apple Way, thanked staff for developing a process for neighborhood discussion. He outlined the three concerns from the Orange Orchard neighborhood: overall density that will impact character of the neighborhoods, the lifestyle, the traffic impact, associated pollution; impact on Jay Road, including lights, noise and pollution; and integration of the proposed development with the existing neighborhoods. Michael Markel, 5723 Arapahoe, said that the process for this development has worked well and the plans reflect some of the concerns of the neighborhood. He said that he hoped to build a j quality building site that would include diversity, and interesting streetscape, and that would fit in with the existing neighborhood. Jeff Eckert, Coast to Coast Development, 5353 Manhattan Circle, said that the process for the development plan has been beneficial. He addressed some of the key issues for 47th and Jay: connection to St. Petersburg Street (there are limited benefits and substantial opposition), size and location of park land (a close-in neighborhood park is preferred by the neighborhood), and issues for Kalmia: traffic and density. He said that affordable housing is an important city goal, and to achieve that a certain amount of density is necessary. He said that this process will help to identify the impacts that are generated from this density so that a balance of housing types can be achieved and still maintain a neighborhood character. Scott Allen, 3425 Kalmia, Calvary Bible Church, said that the process was open, inclusive, and collaborative. He said that the church is here to serve the community and feels privileged to host the meetings. City of Boulder Planning Board Minutes March 21, 2002 Page 6 S. Riehstone updated the Board on the meeting of the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board meeting where a series of questions were answered regarding the acquisition of additional park land for these developments. She said that the key recommendation from the Parks Department staff, and PRAB concurred, was that their highest priority was to add to the existing four-acre Palo Park east neighborhood park (the desired standard for a neighborhood park is five acres). PRAB preferred the configuration in Option A for adding new parks. She said that proposed green space in the center of the 47th and Jay and Kalmia properties as very desirable for a park, recognizing that it might not be appropriate to dedicate since there is a request to expand another park nearby. She said that the lowest priority was practice soccer fields in the Airport Influence Zone because it is an area needed for water retention and the size is too small and will not solve the city-wide problem for more soccer fields the PRAB's priority is to provide facilities to serve the neighborhood, She said that PRAB was concerned that the lowest density proposal had the most green space and parkland, and as the site became more dense, there was less. She said that the population standard for parks is well exceeded by the neighborhoods. She said that alternatives to the five-acre standard include smaller, dispersed parks that are more accessible to neighborhoods. P. Pollock explained that the general concern about small parks revolve around maintenance--the cost per acre is very high for maintenance as the park size goes down-and the Parks Department would rather concentrate on performing a good job on a five-acre park; the smaller parks are provided as a quality of life feature for the residents of the neighborhoods. She said that Planning staff recommends Options B for both parcels. with the density at approximately eight units per acre to provide diversity in housing types, affordable housing, and a balance with the existing neighborhoods; that a commercial use at 47th and Jay is not appropriate; that a non-residential use, such as a day-care facility, might be appropriate; that the buffer along Jay Road or the additional trail between Four Mile and the property are good uses for the land; She explained that if the maximum number of units that would be allowed by the BVCP in the larger area were exceeded it would require four-body approval; if the units are moved around a little, there would be flexibility for a two-body approval or not even a BVCP change depending on the proposal. Public Participation: Roland Sharette, Neighborhood Development Committee, 2962 Kalmia Court: He introduced the members of the Neighborhood Development committee and said that he is also speaking on behalf of Lita Chase and Sheila Horton. He said that according to the BVCP the maximum density is 200 units or 6.85 units per acre. He said that the city has increased the density by adding the land in the Airport Influence Zone, and the neighborhoods disagree because by counting this land, it squeezes more density onto a smaller space, He was concerned about building homes in the airport corridor. He presented the neighborhood plan that includes space to build a single fancily home and the higher density buildings, breaking up of the diversity of housing so that large buildings are not built in one area. He said that at the appropriate density and the right kind of housing this can be a very nice neighborhood. He explained the plan for a portion of the church property. City of Boulder Planning Board Minutes March 21, 2002 Page 7 Jim Shook, Neighborhood Development Committee, He addressed the Kalmia site, including speeding traffic on Kalmia. He said that the additional housing will generate additional traffic onto narrow Kalmia. He suggested that sidewalks be constructed on both sides of Kalmia. Joe Van Andel, Neighborhood Development Committee, 2938 Kalmia Court: He asked that the current BVCP designation of low density and, in some areas, medium density housing be maintained. He suggested that the development serve people rather than cars and to minimize the area devoted to concrete that will have benefits in terms of aesthetics and for flood control. He suggested that whenever an eight-plex building is proposed there should be underground parking rather than provide 16 surface parking spaces to maximize green space. He suggested that a large cul-de-sac with a lot of concrete be avoided; the existing tree covered areas should be maintained; any existing new traffic that is generated by this development is accounted for and not directed to Kalmia. Michael Cooper, Neighborhood Development Committee, 3821 Howe Court: He said that he is concerned about traffic that would be generated from the additional housing; he suggested that the development be kept at a low density. He said that the number of vehicle trips was generated by using the calculations based upon a nation-wide survey from the Institute of Transportation of Engineers, and the typical value for a single family is 10 trips per day and for a townhouse unit it is six trips per day. He questioned the calculation for townhomes (there might be a single family living in the duplex). He said that the Transportation Department acknowledges that there is a speeding problem along Kalmia and Palo Parkway, and directing more cars to these roads will make the problem worse. He was concerned about cut-through traffic on Kalmia. Christine Winans, 2853 Nebrina Place: She said that she was concerned about traffic in the area and suggested that traffic on Palo Parkway be mitigated by reducing the speed and providing landscaping. Cindy Hannah, 4221 Piedra Place: She said that the quality of life to the residents of Palo Park will be lowered to accommodate a lot of extra affordable units which is still not affordable to her. She asked that staff review the access issues in the larger area and the lack of sidewalks from Palo Parkway to the soccer fields and the lack of cross walks to accommodate the increased traffic. She asked the Board to reconsider the density and the safety of the residents. Rex Hickling, 4698 Apple Way: He said that the majority of the neighbors did not favor a change in the designation of the property from low density residential to medium density residential for 47th and Jay because the lower density conforms to the existing neighborhood. He said that he prefers the density outlined in Option A because the park is in the middle and the four-plexes are around the park. He suggested that the eight-plexes be centered around the park because there is a likelihood of younger children living in these units. He said that mitigating traffic (keeping as many existing trees, creating berms, and having as much of a setback as possible), restricting access to Jay Road, and noise mitigation are important. He said that no one is favor of commercial development on the corner of Jay and 47th Street. He said that it is not worth putting the needs of the city onto the existing residents in the area. City of Boulder Planning Board Minutes March 21, 2002 Page S John Sandau, Board of Directors, Four Mile Creek Homeowners, 4433 St. Petersburg: He said that families are moving away from Boulder not only for more affordable housing but the quality of housing. He said that when reviewing such developments, quality of life issues should be reviewed---does it improve it or does it reduce it? He said that the neighborhood opposed increases in density and voiced concern about traffic, changes in the character of the neighborhood, accessibility of services such as parks, cut-through traffic, and connectivity that might adversely affect the neighborhood. Alan Wasserman, 4536 Apple Way: He objected to the dense development of eight-plex housing units at the corner of 47th and Jay because it does not belong in a semi-rural area and it will increase traffic. He also objected to the outlet at Jay Road because of the noise and lights into the Orange Orchard subdivision. He said that in Option A the setbacks would be landscaped and maintained by the developer and homeowners' association for the development, but staff does not recommend such a setback. Sam Vance, 4421 St. Petersburg Street: He said that the idea of connectivity to the neighborhoods was to make it easier to drive from one neighborhood to another, but people in the existing neighborhoods walk to other neighborhoods. He said that by making an automobile connection from the new development to Four Mile Creek we are facilitating the use of automobiles. Ty Melton, 4576 Apple Way: He said that the city is highly impacting the community by adding very dense housing throughout north Boulder. He encouraged the Board to listen to the overwhelming group of people who are asking that the density be kept low. Al Gunter, 325 Foxtail Court: He said that the neighbors did not say that they wanted to look at a higher density for the development. He asked the Board to make sure that the arguments made by the neighbors are understood. He said that he was a member of PRAB when the last master plan was updated, and the way that Option A discusses connecting the park is the primary piece. He suggested that the smaller park areas should be a part of the homeowners' association. He said that the Airport Influence Zone needs to be reviewed again because most of the airplanes are using an expanded area. He said that connectivity does not work well in the Kalmia area, He addressed the reasons for the lack of practice soccer fields. He said that none of the options is creative because zoning might not allow that creativity (a new zoning designation of LR-DS for vacant, small lot development with a maximum density of six units per acre and a limitation on house size of 1,200, 1,600, and 2000 square feet and shared driveways would be appropriate). He said that we are changing the demographics of Boulder by the type of housing that is being built (patio homes for older people is not being built in Boulder, and a lot of one- and two-bedroom homes are being built that do not accommodate families). He said that the city should decide what it wants in housing in an annexation and ask for that in the annexation conditions. Return to the Board: The Board and staff discussed conflicts of use in the Palo Park East park (there is a large open field adjacent to the Pleasant View soccer fields that is being used as practice space for the adult soccer teams which does not allow another use); the potential for practice fields at the Valmont City of Boulder Planning Board Minutes March 21, 2002 Page 9 Park site; the possibility of bringing Palo Parkway into the city (annexing the street into the city might require annexing the adjacent county parcels because city utilities within the parkway serve the adjacent county properties); the possibility to require the developers to build off-site traffic mitigation (the developer can be required to do so if it can be shown that the impact from the site is causing speeding problems); the change in the airport corridor; to plan for annexing Jay Road and Palo Parkway; how the traffic counts were determined (averages of the entire range of single family houses, -duplexes, and townhouses were used); clarification of the annexation of rights-of-way (the State annexation laws require that if any part of the right-of-way is annexed that the entire right of-way is annexed into the city); the possibility of density transfers between owners; Staff asked the Board to respond to the following four questions: 1) Which options provide the j best opportunity for balancing the goals of a diverse mix of housing types, compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood, and significant affordable housing? 2) What are the priorities for community benefit from these annexations? 3) How important are the street connections to Jay Road and St. Petersburg? and 4) Is a BVCP Land Use Map change appropriate for any of the properties? Individual Board members made the following comments, not by consensus: *The city is committed to a very tight urban boundary, and it is not reasonable to think that people who live on the fringes of Boulder can enjoy a rural lifestyle adjacent to an urban edge. *Sound planning principles have to be considered, such as alley-loaded garages, streets that connect, and avoid the curvalinear connector that leads to cul-de-sacs. *There should be a higher density for the site and to have a multitude of housing types in this area and that they not be designed on a suburban model. *Provide affordable housing that would be used for employees of businesses. *The high-density housing should not be located under the flight corridor; single family houses should be mixed into this area as well. *Limited access to Jay Road and to St. Petersburg Street would be appropriate. *Prefer Option B but provide an east-west connection as presented in Option C. *Provide alleys in the development so that there can be alley-loaded garages. *Provide one-bedroom carriage houses in some parts of the development to add to the mix of housing types. *Investigate the idea of shared driveways with a detached garage at the rear of the lot to create a more pleasant streetscape. City of Boulder Planning Board Minutes March 21, 2002 Page 10 *Explore the idea of maximum square footage for these units; this will provide market-rate affordability without subsidies. *The park plan described in Option A is superior to the other options. `Explore the possibility of a cafe on the corner of 47th and Jay that would serve the neighborhood. *The connection from the new development to St. Petersburg Street is not appropriate. *The Jay Road connection is not needed because of the heavy traffic on Jay Road; the connection to 47th Street is adequate. *The buffer along Jay Road is not needed. *The traffic circle in Option A serves as a nice entry invitation that will slow traffic and avoids the noise of stopping at a stop sign. *Provide the densities that the BVCP allows because a lot of affordable housing can be provided at these densities particularly if there is a maximum square footage placed on the units. *The Jay Road connection needs to happen. *Option B for Jay Road provides the most housing types for the site. *The commercial space proposed is not appropriate and it would add additional automobile trips to an already very busy road. *Option C does not provide access to the west and exceeds the BVCP density allowed for the site. *There needs to be another east-west connection on the Kalmia property. *If we need to lower the density in Option B, eliminate the housing units adjacent to the Airport Influence Zone. *The patio home reflects a part of the diverse housing stock that has not been provided; encourage this type of home and they will be sold. *The total density is 7.2 units per acre over the entire two parcels and would require a BVCP Land Use Map change; on the 47th and Jay property the gross density is 8.5 units per acre, and on Kalmia the gross density is 6.7 units per acre. *Anything in the Airport Influence Zone may not be developed today and some land belonging to the Calvary Bible Church but may be developed sometime in the future, and the allowed City of Boulder Planning Board Minutes March 21, 2002 Page 11 development will be landbanked. Over time the gross density may be realized over time. This development potential should remain on these parcels. *On the Kalmia property allow seven dwelling units per acre which is the average over the entire area. *Consider how the connections are made not only within the developments but to the rest of the neighborhoods and through areas that are not part of the annexation. Consider a connection along Savannah Court to the south. *The major community benefit is affordable housing. *There is not much need for a significant park parcel because of the scattered green space throughout the development. j *Determine the likely effects from this development on 28th Street and the larger traffic flow issues. *Consider doing something that would make Jay Road more aesthetically pleasing; the fencing along Four Mile Creek is an eyesore. *Support the School District in its getting affordable housing for teachers and others workers and for senior citizens. *Loading the density on the northeast corner of the Kalmia properties is not appropriate because it would require many people driving through the rest of the property to get to their home; it would make more sense to distribute them, but if the multi-plex housing is concentrated, build them on the southwest corner. Distribute the density on the 47th & Jay properties. *The grid-type street layout in Option C is appropriate on the Kalmia properties. *Consider connecting through the cul-de-sacs on all three options. *Consider a right-of-way through the church property. *Consider a sidewalk or path along the park for the 47th and Jay properties. *There would be no problem addressing a Land Use Map change to have the density a little higher on the Kalmia properties. *Three-car garages should not be permitted in the developments because the streetscape would be less successful and it encourages traffic. *Support the Jay Road connection. City of Boulder Planning Board Minutes March 21, 2002 Page 12 *Prohibit the same builder from building houses on adjacent lots because production builders end up building structures that look very similar to each other; there would be some advantage to add character to the neighborhood if the creativity of a number of builders were drawn upon to build the structures. *There is a wide variety of diversity in the adjacent neighborhoods concerning density; all the options are compatible in all respects with that character. Consider three- and six-plex units to add a little eccentricity to the neighborhood character. *Consider building multi-unit housing to look like the large houses in the adjacent neighborhoods. *Consider building underground parking (in areas where there is good drainage) or tuck-under parking (in areas that would not raise the height to three stories) for some of the larger facilities. 7. ACTION ITEM A. Public hearing and consideration of an annexation request, LUR1999- AZ004, for a 10-acre parcel of land with an initial zoning of Low Density Residential - Developing (LR-D), located at 3245 Kalmia Avenue. P. Pollock explained that this annexation request is being heard by the Board ahead of the other surrounding properties because the Calvary Bible Church has a water shortage. He said that staff tried to anticipate what development might occur in the future and to protect the city's interest but to allow the church to go forward. D. Gehr pointed out some amendments to the annexation conditions in the staff memorandum. Scott Allen, Director at Calvary Bible Church, 3245 Kalmia, Applicant, said that the lack of water on the property is urgent. He explained that the church has been in existence since 1889 and half of those years the church has been located in Boulder. Tom Shirk 3245 Kalmia, Senior Pastor at Calvary Bible Church, said that the church moved to the present site outside Boulder because the land was donated and more space was needed. He said that the church has continued to grow. He explained the community benefits-helping people in crisis and needs, helping people build strong families, contributions to affordable housing (contribution for a Habitat for Humanity home), contributed personnel to the Homeless Shelter, house an overflow for homeless in the church in the winter, a youth program with over 300 children, building space to be used for meetings in the community. Public Participation: Jeff Eckert, 5353 Manhattan Circle: He said that the church needs to move ahead in its annexation request, and the surrounding vacant land that will be annexed is different from this proposal. He urged the Board to annex this current need. City of Boulder Planning Board Minutes March 21, 2002 Page 13 Roland Sharette, 2962 Kalmia: He said that he is grateful that the church has allowed the Homeowners Association to meet in its space and for the meetings regarding the concept plans for the adjacent parcels. Michael O'Keefe, 4520 Nassau Place: He said that the church offers a great community benefit, specifically, meeting space for the concept plans for 47th and Jay parcels and an open- door policy to the surrounding community. He urged the Board to grant the annexation request. Return to the Board: The Board discussed the four key questions regarding compliance with the State annexation requirements and the BVCP policies for annexation, appropriateness of the requested zoning, and appropriateness of the conditions for the parcel. The Board and staff discussed the county approved plan for the church addition; whether the church would be required to comply with the current lighting and landscaping ordinances (the landscaping in the current site plan would be approved, and new lighting standards would be required); the process for annexing land that does not have direct contiguity to the city of Boulder (flagpole annexations); the consistency of the landscaping in the site plan and the city's landscaping requirements; how the annexation agreement deals with the increased density in an I.,R-D zoning district (D. Gehr said that the annexation agreement would give the city the ability to grant an open space reduction up to 1,500 square feet per dwelling unit in order to increase the density of dwelling units on the site and that 50 percent of those units would be permanently affordable; D. Gehr explained additional amendments to the annexation conditions, including Condition z that states that the applicant will abide by the city's land use regulation approvals for any redevelopment and on Condition o regarding the Kalmia House that the annexation agreement recognize that the Kalmia House will be considered as a residential facility and as an accessory use of the religious assembly; and in Condition dd. C recognizes that part of the fee payment is based on the development of the site which gives the city the option to purchase. Individual Board members made the following comments: *Future development and use of the site if the church expands the buildings that those buildings might in some way coordinate with the surrounding street grid plan. D. Gehr said that the city would honor any development potential that the church has in the county and that anything additional would require an amendment. *The annexation complies with the State annexation requirements and with BVCP policies for annexation. *The annexation would provide many community benefits, including maintaining the faith community in Boulder, providing a linkage road, the facility is used for other community uses, providing overflow space for the Boulder Homeless Shelter. *The response to Policy 1.24(d) regarding impacts that states that the property is substantially redeveloped is inaccurate; there is potential for substantial redevelopment on this property should the church use be discontinued. City of Boulder Planning Board Minutes March 21, 2002 Page 14 *The findings for compliance with the BVCP policies for annexation (Policies 1.24(b), (c), (d), and (e) are inaccurate in that they describe annexation of county enclaves of which this parcel is not and that the parcel is already substantially developed. Delete Policy 1.24(c) from the findings and Policy 1.24(4); delete both from Attachment E because they are not accurate and they do not speak to supporting this annexation. *As of today the site is substantially developed. The church is in the Airport influence Zone so that the amount of developable property is less. *The fifty percent permanently affordable housing stipulation is too specific to the number of dwelling units; eliminate the reference to the six dwelling units and have the developer comply with fifty percent. (D. Gehr responded that this reference is for two acres for the residential parcel, and if the Board wants to specify affordable housing for the balance of the property should the church use be eliminated or if the church wished to develop housing rather than an institutional expansion, there should be a separate condition for that contingency. He suggested that the following additional condition be added: "Any additional residential development would also have to provide at least fifty percent permanent affordability in a manner consistent with that condition." *The city should not ask for 50 percent permanently affordable housing on the balance of the property (the nonresidential portion) because the church has donated the link road and the percent is too high and there are a number of other benefits that might be more beneficial in the future. *Add into the annexation agreement that there has to be consideration of some additional community benefit should the non-residential site redevelop as residential that could include 20 percent to 50 percent permanently affordable housing plus some other community benefit that is not defined. (D. Gehr explained that the annexation agreement represents a contract between the city and the developer to get additional benefits in exchange for utility services; he suggested that clarity in the contract would be very helpful for the future board that will have to implement this agreement.) *Favor 50 percent affordability on the non-residential parcel because the city would expect that level of affordable housing for any other property seeking annexation into the city. *In proposing to roll back the usual annexation fees to 1999 rates the reason that the church cannot afford the fees when calculated on the current formula should not be used as a rationale for charging the lower fee. *There may be a need for an additional link road through the property to connect with properties that abut the east and west property lines if additional dwelling units are built as is demonstrated on Option C. City of Boulder Planning Board Minutes March 21, 2002 Page 15 MOTION: On a motion by A. O'Hashi, seconded by B. Pommer, the Planning Board recommended that City Council approve the annexation of approximately 10 acres located at 3245 Kalmia Avenue with an initial zoning of Low Density Residential-Developing (LR-D), incorporating the staff memorandum dated March 21, 2002 (preparation date March 14, 2002), finding that the annexation applies to the applicable State annexation requirements and the BVCP policies related to annexation, and adopting the amended annexation agreement and adopting the findings of fact as amended (7-0). 8, ADJOURNMENT: The Planning Board adjourned the meeting at 12:25 a.m. on March 22, 2002. I +i I