Loading...
2 - Approval of June 6, 2002 MinutesCITY OF BOULDER PLANNING BOARD SUMMARY MINUTES June 6, 2002 Council Chambers Room, Municipal Building 1777 Broadway, 6:00 p.m. The following aze the minutes of the June 6, 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, Vice Chair Simon Mole Tina Nielsen, Chair Alan O'Hashi John Spitzer BOARD ABSENT: Beth Pommer STAFF PRESENT: Bob Cole, Directar of Land Use Review Steve Durian, Transportation Engineer Don Dursq Associate Planner David Gehr, Assistant City Attorney Nan Johnson, Associate Planner Mary Lovrien, Board Secretary Peter Pollock, Planning Director 1. CALL TO ORDER Chair T. Nielsen declared a quorum at 6:10 p.m., and the following business was conducted. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES March 21, 2002: T. Nielsen suggested that on the first page, under Call to Order, change to read "Acting Chair T. Nielsen declared a quorum at 6:05 p.m., and the following business was conducted." On a motion by A. O'Hashi, seconded by S. Mole, the Planning Board approved the minutes of March 21, 2002 as amended (6-0; B. Pommer was absent). April 25, 2002: M. Cowles suggested that on page 4, second paragraph, change to read "The following items were pointed out: an article in the Planning Magazine concerning parking; TDM strategies (it is important that the Board include language reminding people about the environmental values in the community, such as road runoff, phosphorus loading that results from use of the liquid de-icing solution, safety of wildlife, reduction of noise, lower use of fossil fuels in the transportation system, and the reduction of greenhouse gasses)." He corrected a s:\plan\pb-items~minutes\020606min City of Boulder Planning Soard Minutes June 6, 2002 Page 2 spelling error in the fourth paragraph, third sentence, to read "R. McHeyser responded that staff is working more on the scenario provided by Steve Pomerance which would have the least amount of overall impact." He suggested changing the sixth sentence to read "M. Cowles said that the task force is not talking about the people who really enrich the life of this community- those who have opted not to trade their time for money, but are pursuing arts, teaching or writing." On a motion by A. O'Hashi, seconded by J. Spitzer, the Planning Board approved the minutes of April 25, 2002 as amended (4-0; T. Nielsen and S. Mole did not vote because they did not attend this meeting, and B. Pommer was absent). Aprii 27, 2002: On a motion by A. O'Hashi, seconded by T. Nielsen, the Planning Boazd approved the minutes of April 27, 2002 as presented (6-0; B. Pommer was absent). 3. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION There was no citizen participation. 4. DISCUSSION OF DISPOSITIONS, PLANNING BOARD CALL-UPS The Board had no comments on the Planning Soard disposition (Dakota Ridge Site Review) or the Planning Department disposition (2760 29th Street Site Review). 5. MATTERS FROM THE PLANNING BOARD, PLANNING DIRECTOR, AND CITY ATTORNEY A. Work program update (This item was discussed at the end of the meeting.) P. Pollock distributed a memo regarding the Planning Department draft work program for 2002 that defines three major categories (core services or what is fundamental to the mission of the department, core service enhancements, and community projects); a chart depicting a city-wide organizational structure, including an Environmental Services Division that is composed of the Planning Department, Public Works, Environmental Affairs, Open Space/Mountain Parks, and Parks and Recreation; a chart of the 2002/2003 City Council goals on community sustainability (affordable housing, economic, environmental, and transportation), and the key departmental projects for each of the divisions (for Planning the key projects include the Jobs to Population Balance Project, Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP) implementation, commerciai revitalization, annexation policy and projects, and code changes to foster city goals); the Public Works and Planning organizational structure; a list of the Long Range Planning Division 2002 work program; and a list of projects that will be coordinated with other departments. M. Cowles offered suggestions on how to make staff inemoranda more effective, such as numbering rather than bulleting items and creating clearer photographs in the packet. He discussed a subdivision on the southeast corner of Norwood and Broadway where the existing duplex will be razed and five large houses will be built. He asked if the subdivision regulations are actually encouraging the destruction of existing housing stock and the building of much larger houses so that the builder can recoup the lost asset that was destroyed. He suggested that s:\plan\pb-items~minutes\020606min City of Boulder Planning Board Minutes June 6, 2002 Page 3 developers be encouraged to build new houses around the existing houses. He also suggested creating more density-building more smaller houses rather than large executive houses, considering a maximum house size, and requiring a Transferable Development Right (TDR) if someone wishes to build a larger house. He said that the building of large houses is a very significant threat to the community, its culture, and its traditions. P. Pollock said that the objective of the developer is to build a by-right development. He said that the existing duplex is in a degraded state and not a major asset on the site, and the property owner is not interested in rezoning the site in order to get additional density. He said that allowing Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) and Owner Accessory Units (OAUs) in these zones may be an option for the developer. He said that the Board will be discussing "pop-ups" and "scrape-offs" this year. M. Cowles suggested that the Board discuss the BVCP and other issues, such as whether professional offices should be allowed in industrial zones and the meaning of compatibility in site and use reviews, on the third Board meeting of the month. The Board discussed the e£fectiveness of the meeting and ways for further improvement. These comments included making shorter staff and applicant presentations; addressing the salient points and keeping them to a stated time; explaining the rules of procedure for citizen participation at the outset of the meeting; making sure that the applicant focuses on the land use application rather than the philosophy or background of the proposal; making sure that each applicant is treated fairly; making sure that decisions are made on land use issues and not made based on the applicant's financial well-being or need for a quick decision because of a land option; addressing additional comments from the public after the hearing has been closed; addressing the issue without preaching or grandstanding; clearly articulating the reasons for voting or supporting a decision; and providing information to the public about how the decision ties to the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan. P. Pollock distributed a summary of the joint City Council/Planning Board meeting regarding Land Use Regulation revisions, and said that staff is evaluating the information to develop a work program. He said that the department is working with the group, Architects and Planners of Boulder, regarding land use regulations. He announced that the county tabled approval of the University of Colorado tennis courts at the South Campus because the U.S. 36 IGA requires prior review by the city of Boulder. He said that the Board will review this project in July. He announced that the Board will review the North Boulder Village Site Review application in July, including the improvements on the publicly-owned parcel and the covenants that were set by Safeway. He said that CIVITAS will assist in reviewing the overall village center concept. He announced two meetings on the Gunbarrel Town Center (June 13 and June 25) to hear the issues and concerns of the people in Gunbarrel, to respond to those issues and concerns, to deciminate the information to the stakeholders, and to decide whether there should be ongoing meetings over the course of a longer period of time. He presented the names of those who wil] be attending the meetings and said that two Planning Board members should be appointed (A. O'Hashi and J. Spitzer volunteered to represent the Board). s:\plan\pb-items~minutes\020606min City of Boulder Planning Board Minutes June 6,2002 Page 4 6. ACTION ITEMS A. Public hearing and consideration of an appeal of Use Review #LUR2001- 00065, for a self storage facility located at 3620 Walnut Street. The property is zoned IG-E (General Industrial - Established). N. Johnson said that the Planning Department issued an approved Use Review for the 3620 Walnut Street self-storage on April 11, 2002. She said that this decision is being appealed by an adjacent neighbor, Chuck Bellock, based on the use not meeting the criteria for neighborhood compatibility and visual impacts. She indicated that the storage facility was approved to provide 50-8'x20' cargo container units based on the findings that the proposal met the use review criteria. She described the existing building on the site, the uses surrounding the area (ranging from a mix of industrial uses, including warehouses, manufacturing, offices, and car dealerships, research and development offices, and a trucking firm), and architectural detail of the buildings. She provided color photographs of the surrounding area and pictures of the cargo containers. She said that the hours of operation of the self-storage facility would be seven days a week during the daylight hours with no new employees, the containers will be permanently mounted, and firewalls will be incorporated into the cargo bin structures. She said that additional ]andscaping conditions were added to provide screening from the adjacent properties, along with a 20 percent parking reduction. She indicated that the east side of the property will be built at the zero lot line which is permitted in this zoning district and will require removal of some of the trees. She said that the warehouse design is typical of the industrial nature of the azea. She reviewed the key issue of whether the location, design, and operating characteristics of the proposed use is reasonably compatible with and have minimal negative impact on the existing character of the surrounding area. She indicated that a self-storage facility is a use permitted by right in the Service Industrial zoning district and is a use that is permitted by Use Review in the IG-E zoning district. She said that impacts to the infrastructure and traffic will be lower than from other possible uses permitted in this zoning district. She said that staff believes that the concerns of the appellant can be addressed with the conditions that manage the location, design, and operating characteristics. Dan Lukensow, Applicant, introduced his attorney, Steve Erickson. Mr. Erickson distributed sets of pictures of the proposed site and pointed out that the height of the storage units will be at the level of the top of the window of the existing building on the site. He said that the row of trees adjacent to Rudi's Bakery will be removed to construct a fire wall. He addressed the objections made by the appellants by stating that the proposed use will improve upon the site characteristics, that there will be no further burden on the infrastructure from what already exists in the area, that there is compatibility with other uses in the area, that the use fosters a specific city policy by providing a service to existing industrial uses that is far closer than other storage sites, and that there is minimal use of city water or sewer and minimal traffic impacts. He mentioned that the applicant will landscape intensively to minimize any off-site views of the s:\plan\pb-items~ninutes\020606min City of Boulder Planning Board Minutes June 6, 2002 Page 5 storage units. He clarified the hours of operation (7 a.m. to 7 p.m.) and how these hours will be enforced (access through a code system available only during the stated hours). Mr. Lukensow addressed a question by M. Cowles about the vision for the duration of the use by stating that if the property is sold, the new owner could easily remove the containars. J. Spitzer asked how the uses of the containers could be controlled to prevent people from living in the units or using the units for band practice or storing hazardous materials. Mr. Lukensow said that the 50 units will be monitored by 24-hour surveillance cameras, and tanants will be required to sign a contract stating that no hazardous materials will be stored on the site. He addressed the security of the fencing by stating that there will be an eight-foot fire wall on one side, and a chain-link fence will circle the remainder of the site. Chuck Bellock, Appellant, said that the neighborhood encompasses a much larger area than just the surrounding buildings. He flescribed the boundaries of the neighborhood (retai] facilities on 30th Street transitioning eastward from retail to commercial and office uses), 33rd and Walnut Streets (Class A and B office uses), and the proposed plans for redevelopment of all the other properties adjacent to the proposed site for Class A office space. He said that all the meta] buildings, built in the county and now in the city, are non-conforming, non-standard, and not in compliance with landscaping, setbacks, architectural character, pazking, insulation, and, in most cases, floodplain regutations. He said that this is a neighborhood in transition, and the dominant proposed use adjacent to the site is Class A or B office space. He addressed the jobs to population study that the city is conducting which acknowiedges the possibility of more residential units within the industrial zones, and said that metal storage container buildings could not be considered compatible with residential use. He said that there is no buffer from the uses that have been approved through a Planned Unit Development (PUD) and the proposed use. He said that it is disturbing that an I 1-foot large block wall will be built to the property line adjacent to an office building. He defined the differences between Class A and Class B office spaces (the differences include the amount of rent that can be collected, azchitectural details, having a center lobby as opposed to having direct access to individual offices, and the quality of materials used). He asked that staff review the Planning Board minutes from all the PUDs that were approved and determine what compatibility and design standards were presented and required; all the requirements are in excess of what has been considered in the proposed application. He also asked the Board to focus on the PUD permits that are already in place or are being replaced and resubmitted. He asked that staff ineet with the all the adjacent properties owners and review their cunent or imminent plans for demolition and redevelopment of their properties and review the possibility of a residential use. He said that although in its present state the applicant could accommodate other uses that might include residential, the money that he is spanding on the proposed use will prevent it from being converted to other uses for some period of time to recover that investment cost. s: \plan\pb-items~ninute s\020606min City of Boulder Planning Board Minutes June 6, 2002 Page 6 Public Participation: There was no public participation. Return to the Board: The Board and staff discussed the pazameters of the Board's purview. B. Cole said that the Use Review process deals with compatibility of the surrounding area, along with a number of other factors, including plans that are in place for the surrounding area, the purpose of the zoning district, and the other uses that can be developed on the property. He provided a chart that lists the by-right, conditional, and use review uses for this zoning district, and outlined the definition of Service Industrial use. The Board and staff also discussed whether the fire wall had to be placed at the zero lot line so that the trees would not have to be removed (Mr. Lukensow said that the decision to place the wall on the east side was to m~imize the number of storage units that could be on the property, and Mr. Erickson explained that the zero lot line was used to provide a turning radius for emergency vehicles); the expansion of what is considered the surrounding area of the proposed use (B. Cole explained that the surrounding area depends upon the characteristics of the situation and the proposed use and impacts that would be generated by that use); the review of design in a Use Review (B. Cole said that design has been reviewed in uses within residential buildings, such as day-care centers, or elements of design that are related to the specific impacts of that particular land use, such as noise); the long-term use of the property as a cargo storage facility (Mr. Lukensow explained that he proposes to use the property as a storage facility as long as he lives, and after that his heirs can redevelop the property if they wish); the need for an access and maintenance easement for the wall (B. Cole said that there is no such requirement in the industrial zone for an access easement for zero lot line construction on the adjacent property; it is up to the property owners to work together to address the maintenance issue). M. Cowles said that this is the wrong project in this location. He also said that the use is not compatible with the existing character of the surrounding area (the surrounding area is not limited to a snapshot of the adjacent properties), and there is no evidence that this use will provide a direct service or convenience to surrounding uses or the neighborhood. He said that this property is two blocks from the proposed transit center and should not be approved in order to preserve the values that are set forth in the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan and to respect the considerable investment that the city is making in infrastructure to make this radius from the transit center a tight, dense, mixed-use area that is vibrant with life. He said that the proposed development would significantly and adversely affect the infrastructure because this area is not being planned as a place where cargo containers are appropriate. He said that the PUDs of the adjacent properties are relevant, and the use would degrade the current uses and the hope for this area as it redevelops as an integral part of the transit center. He said that if cargo containers are allowed, they can remain for a long time. D. Gehr explained that the criteria in the Code limits the Boazd to some extent to dealing with the existing character of the neighborhood and plans that have been approved for the area. s:\plan\pb-items~xninuCes\020606min City of Boulder Planning Board Minutes June 6, 2002 Page 7 S. Mole said that he was concerned about the design characteristics of the proposed use because the design would be unlike all the other buildings surrounding the site and would detract from the neighborhood. He said that he was also concerned about the long-term use as a storage facility because it would detract from other uses that the Board would like to see in this area. T. Krueger agreed that residential use is a potential use for this area, but this is not proposed for this site or the adjacent properties. He said that a very narrow range of office uses are proposed in this zoning district rather than the low-intensity industrial uses that would serve the area, and both office use and the self-storage uses are concerns and are not desirable outcomes for the area in the long term. He added that storage is probably an acceptable use on this site but not this design of storage. T. Nielsen said that the use is allowed in the zoning district. She agreed that in the long-term the site should haue a more vibrant and active presentation. She said that she was concerned about the chain-link fence and the 11-foot tall fire wall surrounding the property. J. Spitzer said that the self-storage units are not compatible with the existing neighborhood, considering the bicycle path that goes through the property. He thought that small service uses such as a welding shop, art-craft studio space, a car repair shop, or publisher would be appropriate to create a lively and diverse area. A. O'Hashi said that this project wouid not detract from the neighborhood; when the area is redevetoped, the uses can more accurately reflect the plans proposed for the azea. MOTION: On a motion by T. I{reuger, seconded by M. Cowles, the Planning Board denied Use Review #LUR2001-00065 for a self-storage facility located at 3620 Walnut Street (5-1; A. O'Hashi opposed, and B. Pommer was absent). A. O'Hashi opposed the motion because he said that this project would not detract from the neighborhood. MOTION: On a motion by T. Krueger, seconded by T. Nielsen, the Planning Board directed staff to draft findings that are consistent with its decision and continued this item to July 11, 2002 to adopt the findings (6-0; B. Pommer was absent). B. Public hearing and consideration of a request for Use Review #LUR2002- 00024 to amend a previous Use Review (#UR94-21, which allowed oftices and an adult education facility) to allow a private secondary school to replace the Rolf Institute, and continuation of the office uses, located at 205 Canyon Boulevard. The property is zoned MXR-E (Medium Density Residential- Developing). D. Durso reviewed the key issues of whether the location and operating characteristics of the proposed use will be reasonably compatible with and have minimal negative impact upon the surrounding neighborhood in terms of trafFic, noise, and congestion and whether the use reduces adverse impacts to the surrounding neighborhood. He said that a traffic study is not required unless the expected use will generate at least 100 peak hour trips (in this case a school would have peak trips that overlap with the peak hours of the general community). s:\plan\pb-items~minutes\020606min City of Boulder Planning Board Minutes June 6, 2002 Page 8 Jason Berv, Applicant, distributed draft brochures of the Watershed School. He said that this school will be significantly different from any other school and represents a unique opportunity for an innovative approach to secondary education. He said that the Soulder Creek watershed contains a wealth of human, natural, and institutional resources that is lazgely untapped by local schools. He explained that the vision of the school is to connect students with their community, to prepare students for community leadership and environmental stewardship through learning expeditions, to raise scholarship funds to make the school accessible to all families, and to create opportunities for coilaboration with other local schools. He emphasized the environmental and community responsibility aspects of the school, the sustainability as it applies to the environment and how the school conducts its affairs, and the connection to the neighborhood and larger community. He said that the school will meet the parking requirement and is intended to be comparable to the existing use. He said that city open space and park lands aze nearby, and the school intends to enter into agreements with the city to help care for those properties in an ongoing way. Public Participation: Carol HIiger, 2305 13th Street: She said that with a high school next door it might be mare difficult to rent out her adjacent property to quiet adults. She said that she is concerned that the noise level will increase with this proposed use. She referenced an article in the Camera regarding parking and noise problems at Fairview High School. Dan Charles, 208 Pearl Street: He said that he has been asked to speak on behalf of the 10 resident owners of 208 Pearl Street. He said that while they recognize the need for alternative schools and for unique educational choices, they oppose the location of the school at the proposed location because it will double the carrying capacity of its current use, especially given the strained parking and traffic situation in the uea. He said that the Rolfing Institute operates its school three months out of the year and has a maximum of only 38 students, and there still is a problem with parking overflow from the existing use. He said that in the past, people have parked in the private lots and walked up the incline to the school, an activity that has caused the homeowners' association to be sued. He said that the adjacent residential neighborhood is quiet and historic with limited parking. He said that adding a high school to this neighborhood will dramatically change the culture, environment, and traffic patterns, will disturb the ecologically- friendly commerce that occurs when residents work at home, and will hinder the ability of parents to provide a safe, secure, and controlled environment for their children. He said that it is important to note that the applicant has not contacted the residents about this project. He said that there will be night-time events that the Rolfing Institute does not have, and, instead of adults, there will be teenagers who generally lack maturity to recognize that their behavior impacts those around them. He urged the Board to reject this plan at this time. He said if the plan is accepted, consider compensating the local residents for loss in property values and adding several additional conditions, including reduction of the impact that students will have on the residents during non- s: \plan\pb-items~miautes\020606min City of Boulder Planning Board Minutes June 6, 2002 Page 9 school hours (require that cars not be permitted to idle in the parking lot for extended periods of time, prohibit music to be played in the parking lot, discourage students from using the property as a hang-out after school, and monitor the parking and traffic situation); ensure that additional bright lighting is not placed outside; limit off-hour events to three night or weekend events per month; plant shrubbery of a maximum of eight feet along the north side of the east parking lot without impacting the neighbors' views of the mountains and canyons; and limit building and ground maintenance to normal business hours of 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. He said that the school has stated that it views the surrounding area as part of their campus and urged the Board to take this factinto consideration. Tom Coogan, 208 Pearl Street: He said that studies and statistics are great but are no substiYute for judgment and experience. He said that the impact from the school is going to be great. He said that the school will have 78 students and 12 staff which almost triples the existing use. He asked the Board to consider that the neighborhood is experienced and urged the Board to consider its wishes. Dana Kusjanovic, 208 Pearl Street: She said that she is concerned about the noise from the school and the park. She asked the Board to consider maintaining the integrity of the neighborhood. Return to the Board: The Board and staff discussed the possibility of a changed use in the future and enforcement of conditions (D. Gehr said that all conditions of approval are integrated into the approval so any violations are enforceable in Municipal Court or before the Board in a compliance hearing, or through District Court to enforce the provisions of the zoning code); the comparison of parking problems at September School and the Watershed School (J. Berv said that while comparisons regarding parking are similaz, the missions of the two schools are quite different; environmental stewardship is the bedrock of the school and the commitment is to reduce any impacts from the school); the lack of area around the school for students to gather; and the fact that the applicant has not discussed this issue with the neighbors (J. Berv explained the reasons why the neighbors have not been contacted). They further discussed the Transportation Demand Management (TDM) options (J. Berv said that it might create undue burden by requiring all students to arrive by alternative modes because some students might not live near a bus line); the school year and marketing plan (J. Berv said that the school is open 10 months out of the year, and the school will grow slowly beginning with about 24 students and growing to 42 students the third yeaz); comparisons of traffic impacts between the existing medical facility and additional students on the site (S. Durian said that 4,000 square feet of office would generate about 45 vehicle trips per day compared to about 64 trips per day for 32 students; the key component is the TDM which would be expected to reduce the number of trips by half. J. Berv said that the traffic engineer with Drexel, Barrell & Co. indicated that average daily traffic generated by medical office facilities is over 2.7 times higher s:\plan\pb-items\minutes\020606min City of Boulder Planning Board Minutes June 6, 2002 Page ] 0 than the average daily traffic generated by high schools); and whether to defer the decision until a later meeting. Bruce Dierking, Attorney for the applicant, addressed the issue of the neighborhood meeting. He said that a decision was made to wait until there was neighborhood feedback given the hectic schedule of the applicant. He said that because of the contract for the property, the application had to be moved along fast, and they did not have the time to conduct a process that is normally done: He said that he thought that from the feedback staff had received from the neighborhood the applicant had addressed the concerns. J. Berv addressed possible conditions that might be imposed on the project, including landscaping, hours of building maintenance, and evening and weekend events. He explained that the Rolf Institute is approved for 38 students, but it uses only the second floor of three floors. MOTION: On a motion by M. Cowles, seconded by A. O'Hashi, the Planning Board approved (6-0; B. Pommer was absent) Use Review #LUR2002-00024, incorporating the staff memorandum dated June 6, 2002 (preparation date May 22, 2002) and the attached Use Review Criteria Checklist as findings of fact, and the conditions of approval. T. Krueger offered a friendiy amendment to add Condition 7 to read "The Applicant shall submit a plan subject to the review and approval of the Planning Director for the ongoing communication between the applicant and the surrounding neighborhood that provides an opportunity for the surrounding neighbors to address off-site impacts that the use may have on the surrounding area, including, but not ]imited to, lighting, noise, landscaping, and parking and how those impacts can be mitigated or prevented." S. Mole offered a friendly amendment to add Condition 8 to read "The Appiicant shall submit for the review and approval of the Planning Board for the years of 2007 to 2010 as shown in the applicanYs written statement dated April 15, 2002 to determine whether the Use Review criteria will be met by such expansion." T. Krueger offered a friendly amendment to add the following language to the end of Condition 8 to read "and to determine if the approved Transportation Demand Management is reducing the impacts on the sunounding neighborhood." T. Krueger offered a friendly amendment that the applicant submit a lighting plan. He withdrew the friendly amendment because it was noted that this is part of the Good Neighbor Plan. T. Krueger offered a friendly amendment to add to Condition 7 to include maintenance. M. Cowles and A. O'Hashi accepted the friendly amendments. 7. ADJOURNMENT The Planning Board adjourned the meeting at 11:20 p.m. s:\plan\pb-items~minutes\020606aun