Loading...
Minutes - Planning Board - 5/16/2002APPROVED JULY 11, 2002 • CITY OF BOULDER PLANNING BOARD SUMMARY MINUTES May 16, 2002 Council Chambers Room, Municipal Building 1777 Broadway, 6:00 p.m. The following are the minutes of the May 16, 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 PTtESENT: Thom Krueger Simon Mole Tina Nielsen, Chair Alan O'Hashi Beth Pommer John Spitzer BOARD ABSENT: Macon Cowles • STAFF PRESENT: Brent Bean, Senior Planner Bob Cole, Director of Land Use Review Steve Durian, Transportation Engineer David Gehr, Assistant City Attorney Gary Kretschmer, Planning and Zoning Mary Lovrien, Board Secretary Peter Pollock, Planning Director 1. CALL TO ORDER Chair T. Nielsen declared a quorum at 6:00 p.m., and the following business was conducted. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES On a motion by B. Pommer, seconded by T. I{rueger, the Planning Board approved the.minutes of March 7, 2002 as presented (4-0; 5. Mole and J. Spitzer did not vote because they were not Board members at this time, and M. Cowles was absent). 3. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION There was no citizen participation. • s: \plan\pb-items~ninutes\020516min City of Boulder Planning Board Minutes ~ May 16, 2002 Page 2 4. DISCUSSION OF DISPOSITTONS, PLANNING BOARD CALL-UPS The Board had no comments on the Planning Board dispositions (Maxim Place, 1601 Pear] Street L.L.C., and 1460 Sierra Drive) or the Planning Department dispositions (Carrie Subdivision and 1305 Pine Street). 5. MATTERS FROM THE PLANNING BOARD, PLANNING DIRECTOR, AND CITY ATTORNEY (This item was discussed at the end of the meeting.) T. Krueger pointed out the memorandum regarding the Greenways Advisory Committee meeting agenda item on the 2003-2008 Greenways Capital Improvement Program to be held on June 5, 2002. J. Spitzer commented on the staff inemorandum regarding the 47th/Jay/Kalmia properties, specifically that staff is recommending Option B for the Kalmia property. He said that from the individual Board comments, the Board liked the densities in Option B but liked the grid pattern in Option C. P. Pollock said that he will pass this information on to staff. A. O'Hashi pointed out a good article in the packet from Preservation Magazine and suggested that the Board read it in light of the "pop-up" and "scrape-off' discussion that will be held. T. Nielseu asked that staff ensure that when an item is to be reviewed by the Board for a second time that the draft Board minutes from the earlier meeting be provided in the meeting packet. B. Pommer mentioned an incorrect date for the Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board that was sent to the Downtown Alliance; the correct meeting date is June 5. • The Board debriefed the effectiveness of the meeting. It was suggested that the objectives for each project be brief and that the title "desired outcomes" be changed because it appears that the outcome is prejudgad. T. Nielsen was concerned about the amount of joviality that the Board was having with the Gunbarrel applicants; the public could interpret this as not having concern about the opinions of those who oppose the project. B. Pommer said that the reason the discussion was uncomfortable was because the Board was changing the code to fit a project. T. Krueger added that it was uncomfortable because there was a clash in values of what the neighborhood wants and the policy direction of the Board. He also cautioned the Board that deciding an issue on what some individuai groups want is not necessarily a democratic process and is exemplified in the values conflict. A. O'Hashi said that the pubiic might have a different perception of the Boud's action because the language of the amended conditions was crafted from the applicanYs handout. 6. DISCUSSION ITEM A. Public comment and Board discussion of whether or not to initiate amendments to North Boulder Subcommunity Right-of-Way Plan regarding modifications to Front Range and Lykins Avenues. P. Pollock said that the discussion to consider elimination of planned extensions of Front Range and Lykins Avenues into the Dakota Ridge neighborhood arose from the review of the homeless shelter conditional use application at Front Range and Broadway. He said that the neighbors are • concerned about the street conneetions from Broadway into their neighborhood. S. Duriaa s:\plan\pb-itams\minutes\020516min City of Boulder Planning Board Minutes ~ May 16, 2002 Page 3 explained that most of the right-of-way changes in the North Boulder Subcommunity Plan (NBSP) are done through site reviews approved by the Board; however, there are no site review approval applications from any of the properties that would affect these alignments. He stated that the city would be unlikely to purchase these rights-of-way or build these streets. He said that if the Board would like to initiate amendments to the NBSP, staff would conduct more study on the issue, including a traffic analysis and a city staff analysis. He pointed out the proposed street alignments and mentioned several issues, including whether the roads are appropriate for the specific zoning (whether a pedestrian or vehicle access should cross industrially-zoned lots into a residential neighborhood), whether the alignments are appropriate because of the nearby homeless shelter, traffic compatibility (whether cut-through traffic would be a problem), and crime and emergency response from these roads. He pointed out the different existing and possible proposed uses in the area. He explained that the SKIP bus uses the existing Front Range Avenue from Broadway as a turnazound, and in the future, once the village center is built out, the bus will extend its services farther north into the new residential development. Public Participation: Michael Kracauer, 4868 lOth Street: He said that he was concerned about the safety of children if the road alignments are extended into the neighborhood. He said that these two proposed street alignments are supposed to service the area that is already built out, but there are not many people in the neighborhood who are requesting these connections. He said that the ~ shelter turns away some people who might present a possible danger who then might then take the short walk into the neighborhood if Front Range is extended. Michael Colucci, 4905 Dakota Boulevard: He said that these connections will provide clear and unimpeded access to the neighborhood from the proposed homeless shelter and property adjacent to the neighborhood. He outlined what he considered to be flawed or erroneous claims made by staff: the concerns of cut-through traffic from outside the Dakota Ridge neighborhood using the proposed Front Range and Lykins streets are believed to be unwarranted (this statement is not supported by factual data); because the two alignments are skewed between llth and Broadway it will lessen pedestrian activity from outside the neighborhood to points inside the neighborhood while still providing residents the ability to reach Broadway (such a skewed alignment may promote foot traffic for homeless turnaways into the neighborhood who seek cover from shelter and city authorities after being turned away, and simply skewing a street will not prevent foot traffic into a neighborhood); there was no opposition for a pedestrian and bicycle connection through Lykins Avenue and that the street connections will create walkable neighborhoods (the neighborhood does not prefer a pedestrian opportunity into an industrial area that includes a homeless shelter, a strip club and warehouses); and the pedestrian route would provide a vital connection for access to transit on Broadway from the neighborhood because the SKII' bus will run through Phase 5 of the North Boulder subcommunity which aiready has easy pedestrian access (vehicular congestion is not a problem and further vehicular access is not needed because the vast majority of residents will use existing entrances at lOth Street and Dakota Boulevard as well as the proposed extension of Sth Street to Lee Hill Road). He said that • s:\plan\pb-items\minutes\020516min City of IIoulder Planning Board Minutes • May 16, 2002 Page 4 even the Homeless Shelter Management Plan recommends the abandontnent of the street extensions. He asked that the Board vacate the plan to extend these two streets into the Dakota Ridge neighborhood. He said that the decision by the Planning Board and City Council to take away the public hearing in the siting of the homeless shelter is a travesty to the entire citizenry of Boulder. He said that the Planning Board and City Council are pawns to well-heeled, special interest groups that orchestrate public policy accordingly. Marianne Gattan, 942 Lykins Avenue: She said that the dynamics of the neighborhood are changing because of the relocation of the homeless shelter. She said that the entrance to the homeless shelter will be on Front Range, and as people are turned away from the shelter, they will be exiting onto Front Range and might walk into the Dakota Ridge neighborhood. She pointed out that there are twenty elementary school students who ride the bus on the corner of Dakota and Front Range and Lykins and Fountain. John Hinkelman, 4862 Fountain Street: He said that when this area was developed with the grid network in mind, it was assumed that a lot of the uses in Dakota Ridge, as well as the area east of Dakota Ridge, would be compatible. However, he noted that the land use pattern has changed (the existing zoning allows the strip club, and the zoning change allows a homeless shelter adjacent to the neighborhood). He said that because these uses are not compatible with the neighborhood, there is no need for an access through the area, and residents who access the SKIP bus will do so either farther south on Broadway or farther north if the bus extends its . service. He said that another reason not to allow the street extensions is to prevent direct, easy access from the homeless shelter and the strip club into the neighborhood. He said that cutting off direct access into the neighborhood is also recommended by the Boulder Police Department and the homeless shelter. He asked that staff conduct a full analysis of this issue. Neal Lurie, 4934 lOth Street: He said that the families of Dakota Ridge are speaking with a consistent voice opposing the Lykins and Front Range Avenue connections to the industrial area because additional traffic presents a safety concern to the huge population of children who play on l Oth Street and because the industrial area is not safe at night. He said that the NBSP calls for appropriate adjacent land uses, and allowing unnecessary alignments between a residential community and an industrial area tears down the sense of community. He said that access just a few blocks to the north will provide sufficient access to transit stops. Catherine Lurie, 4934 lOth Street: She said that there is no logical reason for these connections because it does not help with transportation and contributes to safety concerns in the neighborhood. She asked that the NBSP be amended to eliminate these street connections because it does not meet the needs that are outlined. Peggy Wrenn, 3320 13th Street: She said that the homeless shelter does not see a reason for the street connections and agreed to support the neighborhood in opposing the connection. She said that although she believes in connectivity, Front Range is not useful in terms of connectivity because of the lack of desirability in connecting the industrial uses to the residential uses. • s:\plan\pb-items~ninutes\020516min City of Boulder Plarming Board Minutes • May 16, 2002 Page 5 Greg Harms, Member of the Board of Direcfors of fhe Boulder Shelter for the Homeless, 924 Eldorado Lane, Louisville: He said that the Board supports the request by the Dakota Ridge Neighborhood Association to eliminate the planned extension of Front Range Drive from Broadway to lOth Street. He said that the shelter has nothing to gain from the extansion of this street and believes that the elimination of this plan would help reduce neighborhood concern about the shelter's relocation to Broadway and Front Range. He clarified that the shelter does not turn away people with weapons (if someone turns in a firearm to the shelter, the police are called, and if a person with a weapon is tumed away, it is because he is concealing the weapon). He said that the Boazd did not come to a decision ragarding the extension of Lykins Street. Karen Elliot, 4925 lOth Street: She said that she was concerned about the proposed connections because children sometimes play in the street. She said that her faznily uses the bus on Broadway and never has been concerned that it is a long walk. Deb Shioshita, 4942 lOth Street: She said that lOth Street directly intersects with Lykins, and if this were a through street it would not be safe for children who now play on the street. She said that she was particularly concerned about the uses that occur in the warehouses and would not like to see a connection into the residential community. She also said that there has not been a]ot of interest in the Ecopass system from people who live in the block so there is no need for closer access to the SI{1P bus through the industrial azea. ` Brant Seibert, 4966 Dakota Boulevard: He highlighted areas on Yhe map that are noY a classic grid pattern. He said that the extension of the two streets is an exceptional circumstance that would warrant a variance from what the NBSP proposed. He said that the cunent access on the roads that go to Lee Hill is adequata, and there is no need for the accesses because the uses on either side of Broadway are not compatible uses. David Chamblee, 591 Wingate Avenue: He requested that the Board abandon the extension of the two roads; this would go far in addressing tha neighborhood concern and Fear regazding the relocation of the homeless shelter. He said that cunently the shelter has no way to force people to leave the neighborhood. Return to the Board: S. Durian clarified that the Police Department supported cul-de-sac neighborhoods because street connectivity allowed more points of escape for perpetrators, and the Fire Department saw no particular benefit for the two extensions other than escape routes for the neighborhood. The Boazd discussed the three issues (whether to initiate a process to determine whether Front Range should remain as a vehicular connection, whether to initiate a process to determine if Front Range should remain as a pedestrian/bicyclist connection, and whether to initiate a process to determine whether Lykins should remain as a vehicle connection or be changed to a pedestrian/bicyclist connection). • s: \p lan\pb-items\minutes\020516min City of Boulder Planning Board Minutes • May 16, 2002 I'age 6 The Board and staff discussed the process for extending the streets should the industrial area be redeveloped either through site review or a by-right development; whether to separate the three issues because each one has different impacts; the process for determining whether to vacate the rights-of-way, the difficulty of making the street connections in the future if the rights-of-way are vacated, and the process that would occur to amend the NBSP to reopen the connections even after the Board had approved the closing of the connections; whether to address this issue at site review; the assumption that fewer streets in a neighborhood mean safer streets; the need to adhere to the discussion on the one issue that was published rather than to rephrase the key issues into three; the need to discuss this issue with a proposal that deals with site review criteria; the opportunity for a type of development to occur that would not require site review and would be guided by the NBSP if no action is taken to amend the plan; and a way to build in a trigger to initiate a study in a timely way in the future but not necessarily immediately. MOTION: On a motion by S. Mole, seconded by A. O'Hashi, the Planning Board initiated a public hearing on the removal of Front Range and Lykins Avenue connections from the North Boulder Subcommunity Plan (4-1; T. I{rueger opposed, B. Pommer was not present for this item, and M. Cowles was absent). T. Krueger opposed the motion because he thought that these issues should be discussed as part of a site review. 7. ACTION ITEMS • A. Public hearing and consideration of : 1. An amendment to the conditions of approval for Dakota Ridge Village Site Review #SI-95-25, to delay the timing for completion of Fifth Street, and 2. Amend the North Boulder 5ubcommunity Plan to relocate the Fifth Street extension to Lee Hill approximately 300 feet east. B.Bean said that the Dakota Ridge Village development was approved in 1999 and included a provision that Sth Street be extended south to Lee Hill Road to provide the connectivity as stated in the North Boulder Subcommunity Plan (NBSP) and in accordance with the traffic studies. He said that this amendment is for a different alignment across the city of Boulder Open Space trail system so that the connection of Sth Street to Lee Hill Road is at a right angle. He said that the Open Space Board oF Trustees (OSBT) will meet next week to discuss whether to allow the realignment across the traii. He said that when the Open Space Department purchased the property from an adjoining property ownership (Parson family), a restriction was placed on the trail that prevented it from being used for public right-of-way purposes. He said that the city has negotiated an agreement with the Parson family to release this restriction for that portion of the trail adjacent to Lee Hill Road, which will allow Sth Street to be constructed. He pointed out the two key issues: 1) reasons why construction of Sth Street should not be delayed (the applicant cannot acquire the existing North Boulder Subcommunity right-of-way portion; the Carrie Subdivision will be extending Sth Street to the Open Space trail; until Sth Street is extended, the connection from Sth Street through Lykins to 6th Street actually serves to provide connection for the initial traffic from the northeast areas of Dakota Ridge Village; the OSBT will need to release • s:\plan\pb-items~minutes\020516min • ~ City of Boulder Planning Board Minutes May 16, 2002 Page 7 acknowledged that there may be other areas where it could occur). its portion of the right-of-way; and the Pazson family will need to release tha right-of-way requirement for a portion of the trail), and 2) should the location of Sth Street be relocated 300 feet east (this alignment was desirable at the time the. NBSP was adopted, but it was Richard McCabe, Applicant, 526 Arapahoe, said that he would be available for questions from the Board. Public Participation: Brant Seibert, 4966 Dakota Boulevard: He said that he supports moving Sth Street. However, he does not support any delay in the conshvction of Sth Street because any delay woald mean that more traffic would pass by Dakota Boulevard and the existing pazk and future park in the subdivision and more traffic on l Oth Street where children play. Margaret Brown, 557 Windgate: She said that she would support the early construction of Sth Street if construction trucks used another access besides Sth Street. B. Bean said that the cunent agreement with Dakota Ridge states that such trucks will use Larimer as the primary access. Return to the Board: The Board and staff discussed whether the proposed change in Condition 6 of the July 1, 1999 Planning Board Notice of Disposition would accomplish the public's wishes to build the road early. In response, B. Cole suggested that Condition 6 be changed to indicate that the extension to Sth Street be constructed after either of the conditions is satisfied. MOTION: On a motion by S. Mole, seconded by A. O'Hashi, the Planning Board approved (5-0; B. Pommer was not present for this item, and M. Cowles was absent) an amendment to the Dakota Ridge Site Review approval to extend the requirement of Condition 6 of the July 1, 1999 Planning Board Notice of Disposition to read as follows: Prior to, or in conjunction with, the filing of the Subdivision Plat for the Fifth Phase of the Site Review or upon release of the right-of-way restriction across the Open Space trail by the Parson family and the dedication of right of way crossing the Open Space trail as necessary to complete the connection of Sth Street to Lee Hill Road, whichever occurs first, the Applicant shall construct the extension of 5th Street to Lee Hill Road, at no cost to the city of Boulder. . Also amending the North Boulder Subcommunity Plan as follows: The location of Sth Street be Road to align with the wesl Boulder Subcommunity Plan. moved approximately 300 feet east along Lee Hill ;rn edge of the Carrie Site Review on the North s:\plan\pb-items\minutes\020516min City of Boulder Planning Board Minutes ~ May 16, 2002 Page 8 B. Public hearing and coasideration oF an amendment to Title 9, Land Use Regulations to reduce the residential open space requirements in the RB-D (Regional Business Developing) zoning district. P. Pollock said that tha Board has commented on two concept reviews for the Gunbarrel Town Center development. He said that one of the objectives of the concept reviews was to identify issues or concerns related to the Land LJse Regulations that may prevent the accomplishment of objectives that might be put forth in the concept plans. He said that the RB-D zoning that applies to the Gunbarrel Town Center has an open space requirement of 1,200 square feet per dwelling unit, and the type of plan reviewed would not be possible under that zoning provision. He mentioned that at the second concept reviaw the Board was asked whether it would entertain a change in the code to initiate a]evel of open space requirements that might be more appropriate to the objectives shown on the concept plan. G. Kretschmer said that the reasoning behind the recommendation is to achieve densities equivalent to other high-density residential areas that cunently exist in the city in the RB-D zoning district, to require reasonable amounts of boYh public and private opan space, and to allow some flexibility to reduce open space in a manner that is consistent with the existing code. He said that staff thinks Yhat the numbers shown achieve that goal without significant changes to the code. He said that several developmenYS were compared to determine the open space • requirements (Iron Flats, Meridith Park, and Whittier Square), although some are in different zoning districts and have different criteria. Public Participation: Paul HIamer, Gupbarrel Community Association, 5653 Table Top Court: He said that the jobs to population balance is a good policy goal, but it cannot take tha place of planning. He said that even at a one to one ratio, it will not guarantee that there witl not be incommuting with its impacts of congestion. He su$gested that the housing that is being created be appropriate to the kinds of jobs available. He noted that many of the jobs that were in Gunbarrel have been lost to other communities. He said that residential uses on this property foreclose the possibility of a desperately needed town center on the only land available for this purpose, and the approvai of an open space reduction will pave the way for a project that is strongty ob~ected to in the comrnunity. He explained that he represents the views of people who attended a meeting of the Gunbanel Community Association. Frank Marceau, Applicant Representative, 6685 Gunpark Drive: He said that in order to accomplish the goals of the Bouider Valiey Comprehensive Pian and the jobs to population balance critaria, each project should 6e able to rest upon its own merit. He said that flexibility is key to the achievement of mutual goals of the public and the private sector. He said that 300 square feet of opan space per Iiving unit might work to maintain the concept provided that the private open space requirement being considered is abandoned. He said that open space should • be good quality, plentiful, accessible, and able to provide for the sharad amenities. He said that s: \plan\pb-itemslminutes 1020516min City of Boulder Planning Board Minutes • May 16, 2002 Page 9 the concept of private open space is an overly restrictive requirement for a mixed-use project and determines an azchitectural form not in keeping with good urban design principles. He said that it is not reasonable from an architectural nor a practical standpoint to insist that each and every dwelling unit have essentially the same element incorporated and that every unit should have free and full access to open space and those shazed amanities in the overall plan. He said that the proposed private open space plan should be dropped from consideration as being inappropriate to the zoning model. Tim Van Meter, Architect for the Applicant, 1213 17th Street: He said that the open space requirement does not offer enough flexibility to creaYe an urban ahnosphere with a variety Yo the architecture. He said that in other developments in the West, the average amount of common open space is about 200-250 square feet, and the average density is about 30-35 units per acre-- none of the developments are required to provide private open space. He suggested that the Board require only a pubiic open space of 250 square feet per unit and allow the 60 square feet of private open space to be added to the common open space. Erik Hartfronft, Architect for the Applicant, 801 Main Street, Louisville: He said that the Board asked that more residential units be included in the development. He said that if the height of the buildings is lowered and the open space is increased much beyond the 200 to 250 squaze feet range, it represents a different development with a loss of 75 to 100 units. • Return to the Board: The Board and staff discussed the general intent of the RB-D zoning district (the intent was for a more classic suburban apartment project rather than a mixed-use project, and it was built on a pyramid zoning so that the uses and densities were built on to give a higher and best use); the appropriate amount of open space for such projects; the trade-off of the mix of uses and how the open space requirement fits into each scenario; whether the developments that provided 250 squaze feet of open space represent neighborhoods that provide service to people within a 5 to 10 mile radius or serve people who live within the community; the height of the buildings and the street atmosphere of other developments; development of open space azeas that create excitement and serves the need for urban open space in Gunbanel; other ways to accomplish the same thing, such as rezoning or discretionary review; discussion of the different open space reduction numbars and the need for an analysis of the results; the need for continued architectural assistance so that different alternatives are reviewed; the need to determine the minirnum squaze footage that would provide quality open space; the suggestion that additional common open space may be substituted for private open space at a ratio of one to one; the need for residential spaces in the town center to ensure that the retail spaces will be sustainable; the possibility of unintended consequences of the reduction in open space; qualitative criteria and objectives for open space; how much the Board could vary the private open space standard; and the need For clear definitions for "significant adverse impacts" and "high-quality, functional, and usable" outdoor space. • s: \plan\pb-items~minutes\020516min City of Boulder Planning Board Minutes . May 16, 2002 Page ]0 MOTION: On a motion by A. O'Hashi, seconded by T. Krueger, the Planning Board recommended (5-1; B. Pommer opposed and M. Cowles was absent) that City Council approve the ordinance amending Title 9, Land Use Regulations, B.R.C. 1981, to reduce the residential open space requirements in the RB-D zoning district as outlined in Attachment A of the staff memorandum dated May 16, 2002 (preparation date May 3, 2002) with the following additional amendments under Section 9-4-I 1 Site Review: ( j) Densitv Increases: The open space requirements in the RB-D district may be reduced by up to 60 percent. (1) O~en Space Needs Met: The needs of the projecYs occupants and public for high- quality, functional, usable outdoor space are met; (2) Character of Project and Area: The open space reduction does not adversely affect the character of the development nor the chazacter of the surrounding area; and (3) (E) The reduction in open space is part of a mixed use development that includes both residential and non-residential uses within an RB-D zoning • district that provides high-quality urban design and contributes to improving the livability of the surrounding area. T. Krueger offered a friendly amendment that staff return to the Board with final wording for approval. S. Mole offered a friendly amendment thaf staff consider varying ar reconfiguring the private open space standard. A. O'IIashi accepted the friendly amendments. B.Pommer opposed the motion because she was concerned that there should be an analysis of unintended negative consequences before a final number is approved. MOTION: On a motion by T. I{rueger, seconded by A. O'Hashi, the Planning Board continued this item to May 28, 2002, with finaI wording for approval (6-0; M. Cowles was absent). 8. ADJOURNMENT The Planning Board adjoumed the meeting at 10:25 p.m. ~ s:\plan\pb-items~ninutes\020516min