The URL can be used to link to this page

2 - Minutes, 11/7/02CITY OF BOULDER PLANNING BOARD SUMMARY MINUTES November 7, 2002 Council Chambers Room, Municipal Building 1777 Broadway, 6:00 p.m. The following are the minutes of the November 7, 2002 city of Boulder Planning Board meeting. A permanent set of these minutes is kept in Central Records, and a verbatim tape recording of the meeting is maintained for a period of seven years in Central Records (telephone: 303-441-3043). BOARD PRESENT: Macon Cowles Thom Krueger, Vice Chair Simon Mole Tina Nielsen, Chair Alan O'Hashi Beth Pommer John Spitzer STAFF PRESENT: Bob Cole, Manager of Land Use Review Steve Durian, Transportation Engineer David Gehr, Assistant City Attorney Elizabeth Hanson, Planner Mary Lovrien, Board Secretary John Pollak, Director of the Division of Housing Peter Pollock, Planning Director 1. CALL TO ORDER Chair T. Nielsen declared a quorum at 6:05 p.m., and the following business was conducted. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES S~tember 26, 2002: B. Pommer suggested that in the future the minutes reflect the name of the Board member making comments. On a motion by A. O'Hashi, seconded by B. Pommer, the Planning Board approved (7-0) tlte minutes of September 26, 2002 as presented. October 3, 2002: B. Pommer suggested that on page 2, third paragraph, second sentence, second clause, change to read "whether the board and batten sheeting construction for the project is durable (George Watt explained that this project will be a system of Hardy Board planking and a pattern of battens which is a durable material with a 5-year warranty)." She suggested that on page 3, fifth bullet item, change to read "The staff and the Board need to understand that a 35- foot tall building seven feet away from a sidewalk is not necessarily pedestrian friendly." She suggested that on page 8, fifth paragraph, first sentence, change to read `B. Pommer suggested that if a Board member thinks a standard in the code needs to be changed, state that concern at the meeting rather than discussing it and the policy at lengkh at that meeting; the applicant gets to s: \p lan\pb-items\m inutes\021107min City of Boulder Planning Board Minutes November 7, 2002 Page 2 use the criteria currently approved. Making such a change can be discussed in the future." M. Cowles suggested that on page 5, second paragraph, fourth sentence, change to read "He added that the citizens might perceive unfairness when a Board member meets with the developer to discuss the plans." On a motion by A. O'Hashi, seconded by J. Spitzer, the Planning Board approved the minutes of October 3, 2002 as amended. October 17, 2002: B. Pommer suggested that on page 13, second paragraph, change to read "The Board agreed that further analysis is needed for the following proposals (please refer to the chart regarding the land use designation applications located as Attachment A):" On a motion by B. Pommer, seconded by A. O'Hashi, the Planning Board approved the minutes of October 17, 2002 as amended. 3. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION Karl Anuta, 2605 Regis Drive and Paul 5aporito, 2765 7th Street, asked the Board to reconsider its decision on the Jay Road and 28th Street parcel regarding the land use changes to be reviewed under the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan annual update. P. Saporito asked that the Board reconsider its decision based on the fact that the small parcel could be developed for increased housing density and affordable housing along with some mixed use possibilities. K. Anuta said tl~at he would like to have the parcel moved from Area II to Area I. The Board discussed this issue under Matters. 4. DISCUSSION OF DISPOSITIONS, PLANNING BOARD CALL-UPS T. Krueger pointed out a typographical error on page 2, Condition 4, fourth sentence of the disposition for the La Iguana Restaurant located at 1301 Broadway. The sentence should read "Any extension of the awning or other physical material along the sides of the patio would classify the patio as an enclosed acclimatized area and is prohibited." The Board had no further comments on this disposition or the Planning Board dispositions (amendments to the North Boulder Village and the Holiday Drive-In Theater Site Reviews). 5. ACTION ITEMS A. Public hearing and consideration of an Annexation and Initial Zoning #LUR2002-OOOSS for one lot of approximately 43,540 square feet located at 5508 Baseline Road, at the southeast corner of 55~h Street and Baseline Road. The zoning requested is Medium Density Residentiat - Developing (MR-D). L. Hanson explained that this vacant site is currently owned by the city of Boulder, and the applicant is the city of Boulder Housing Division. She said that the city has applied for annexation with an initial zoning of Medium Density Residential-Developing (MR-D) which is intended for 6 to 14 dwelling units per acre. She said that the site was designated MR-D on the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP) designation map in September 2001 as part of the five-year update, and it was found that medium density would be appropriate because of the land use to the north and the bus service that is provided along Baseline Road. She said that the Housing Division would like to develop this property with either a private or nonprofit partner to s:\plan\pb-items\minutes\021107min City of Boulder Planning Board Minutes November 7, 2002 Page 3 provide at least 80 percent of the housing units as permanently affordable for low and moderate income households. She said that the applicant has drawn up a conceptual site plan to show what six units would look like on the property; setback, parking, and open space code requirements could be met with this configuration. She noted that after recommended right-of-way dedications on SSth and Baseline, the resulting lot size would drop significantly from 43,560 square feet to 26,134 square feet. She said that the parcel, located in Area IIA, is eligible for annexation, and it affords an opportunity to provide permanently affordable housing in an existing residential neighborhood, served by city transit, and close to employment, recreation, and shopping centers. She also said that the 80 percent of permanently affordable housing exceeds the typical requirement for annexations. She said that the zoning of MR-D is appropriate for the site and consistent with the BVCP designation, and because the site is located at a major intersection, it provides some transition to the Low Density Residential neighborhood. Linda Hill-Blakley, applicant, provided some history and background of the site, the meetings that have been held with the neighbors, and intentions and plans regarding the site. She said that two years ago City Council directed staff to develop an inventory of city-owned land, excluding Open Space, with an eye toward sites that might be appropriate for affordable housing. She said that through that process this site emerged as a priority. She said that the site is appropriate for housing because it is on a major transportation corridor, near shopping and schools, aud is in a residential area, and since it is a small site, it would minimize the impact to the neighborhood. She said that the Transportation Department, current owner of the site, is receptive to conveying the parcel to the Housing Division. She said that the neighborhood views this parcel as a gateway to their neighborhood, and she said that it is also a gateway to the community as a whole. She said that there are no specific development plans yet; the intention of staff is to develop specific goals and parameters for the site, to issue a Request for Proposal (RFP) to private and nonprofit developers, and then to select a partner to actually develop the site. She said that staff is open to have neighborhood representation in the development of the RFP. She said that proposals from developers should address the target population and income ranges, include a plan to work with the neighbors, address property management and maintenance issues, and include their experience with housing. She said that 80 percent of the units would be deed restricted and permanently affordable. She stated that staff would like to build 1- to 3-bedroom townhomes, duplexes or triplexes in order to diversity the affordable housing portfolio. She also said that it has not been determined whether these units will be rental or home ownership. She said that staff will be looking at green-built buildings with water conserving landscaping, and one fully handicapped accessible unit. She mentioned that staff has conducted three neighborhood meetings and has attempted to address the concerns expressed; remaining unresolved issues include the number of units on the site, parking, access, and the median (entrance) to the neighborhood. She said that other issues raised include the property maintenance, whether the units will be rental or home ownership, s:\plan\pb-items\m inutes\021107mi n City of Boulder Planning Board Minutes November 7, 2002 Page 4 general traffic issues in the broader area, buffering, and compatibility with the neighborhood and the adjacent Montessori School. She said that a feasibility study was conducted to see how many units were possible on the site. She described the concept drawings which include two triplex units, although these are not specific plans. She said that this proposal slightly exceeds the parking requirement by one and one-half spaces, the site provides outdoor storage units, and the site access is proposed to be from 55th Street with a cut to the median north of the landscaped portion. She said that buffering and screening from the neighboring properties are proposed, such as a fence on the eastern edge, large trees on the south, east and west of the parking area, and a safety fence and possibiy a berm to the north of the property. She said that based on the conceptual studies, staff believes that six units are appropriate for the site, that the six units accomplish a balance between providing an affordable housing benefit and neighborhood concerns about density, that it addresses the constraints of the site, it offers a transition, is compatible with the neighborhood, and addresses some of the neighborhood concerns. Public Participation: Nancy Ahlstrand, 998 Cherryvale Road: She suggested that this unique lot be zoned low density because it represents an opportunity to provide affordable housing that is not crowded together. She said that because the city purchased the property at a low price a long time ago, a lot of land cost does not have to be absorbed. She said that three-bedroom units of 1,000 square feet are small; the size of the dwelling units and number of parking spaces could be expanded if there were only four ar five units. She said that given that there is no on-street parking nearby, visitors to the units cannot be accommodated. She said that she would like to see the units as family owned housing because such housing will have fewer cars. She said that the number of units that are for rent in Boulder County greatly exceed the number of units that are for sale. Ulla Merz, 5501 Aztec Court: She said that she recognizes the need for affordable housing in Boulder, but disagrees that the density proposed is compatible with the neighborhood. She presented pictures of the surrounding rural area to the east, the existing low density residential neighborhood, and the traffic that backs up during rush hour. She said that the 55th and Baseline intersection is already busy, and the six units proposed will add more traffic to the site. She proposed that the number of units be limited to four with a required Site Review to guarantee public participation. John Garlich, 5501 Aztec Court: He suggested that if the parcel is zoned MR-D, place some conditions on the site since the applicant could build more than six units. s:\plan\pb-items\minutes\021 ] 07min City of Boulder Planning Board Minutes November 7, 2002 • Page 5 Ceil Greenberg, 5474 Blackhawk Road: She said that she and her neighbars would like to propose no more than four units because of the limited parking and because SSth and Baseline is a very busy corner and that the units be owner occupied. Ashley O'Connor, 5503 Aztec Court: She said that the neighborhood density across Baseline seems to have very little relevance to this site and the neighborhood to the south. She said that the problems associated with this site concern.limited parking and the access to the site immediately from Baseline Road. She advocated that there be only four units, that they be owner occupied, and thaf there is neighborhood involvement in the final plans. She said that she was concerned that the applicant may want to increase the density if it is discovered that construction costs are higher than anticipated or to decrease the amount of landscape buffering if the drought continues and the city halts watering of plants. Return fo the Board: The Board and staff discussed the land that would be available for development (staff said that the land east of the sidewalk along SSth Street would be developed); how the neighborhood across the street to the north was developed at a density of 15 dwelling units per acre in an LR-D zoning disirict (staff said that the Stonewall Condominium development was part of a Planned Unit Development [PUD] for all of the Meadow Glen development with averaged open space); and safeguards to prevent a development of 14 dwelling units (L. Hanson said that it would be difficult to build more units on the site given the open space requirement of 3,000 square feet per unit--if the units were reconfigured the applicant might be able to fit additional units on the site. She said that unless there are variations that would trigger Planning Boac•d review, the proposal of six units would be a staff level review. She said that any citizen can call up the staff level disposition for Planning Board review). The Board and staff further discussed assurances that affordable housing would be built, even with a different applicant (staff said that the annexation conditions proposed concerning permanently affordable housing run with the land; they are not specific to the owner of the property); the perception that since the city is the applicant that the development will not be scrutinized as thoroughly as an application from a developer (T. Nielsen responded that the Board needs to do its job well no matter who the applicant is, and M. Cowles said that usually the city is held to a higher standard, such as exacting more energy efficient construction and creating community benefits); additional public involvement as part of a by-right proposal (L. Hill-Blakley said that staff intends to continue working with the neighbors as the development progresses. She said that the Site Review process would be used only if variances are requested). T. Krueger said that the MR-D zoning is appropriate for the site, and he said that he thinks that the applicant will propose only six units. M. Cowles said that he was uncomfortable approving a by-right development of six dwelling units because of the condominium style, triplex buildings with a large parking lot and suggested that since this parcel is a gateway to the community that the project come back to the Board for Site Review. He said that a better designed building might s:\p lan\pb-item s\m inutes\021107m in City of Boulder Planning Board Minutes November 7, 2002 Page 6 be constructed with less expense. S. Mole suggested that staff provide a better design before the site is annexed since this is a gateway property. T. Nielsen clarified that if six units would be allowed by-right, and the applicant meets all the standards without requesting any variances, the call-up provision would not be available. B. Pommer added that although she thought that it is appropriate to have the initial zoning on the site as MR-D, she wondered why there would be a requirement of 80 percent of the units to be permanently affordable when this exceeds the typical standard required. She said that this would be a variation that would require a staff level site review which would activate the call-up provision. P. Pollock responded by stating that since it is a city-owned parcel, staff needs to be more stringent about it, and it is important to aspire to more permanently affordable housing as a part of the annexation agreement. J. Spitzer said that since this is an important parcel to the neighborhood and a gateway to the East Bouider Recreation Center, the review should be done carefully. He distributed a site plan that represents a more new urbanist/cottage developmant. He dispelled the notion that single family cottages would be more expensive to build; he said that it is sometimes cheaper to build detached homes rather than a condominium project because the latter requires commercial subcontractors who charge more, it takes longer to build, and soundproofing and fire proofing is required. He suggested that the units be owner occupied because the occupants will have an incentive to maintain the landscaping on the site. He said that although he supports the MR-D zoning, it is essential for the city to have some strong incentives to consider different alternatives for the site. L. Hill-Blakely stated that the drawings were presented as a feasibility study in terms of what would fit on the site. She said that staff intends to issue an RFP to bring some additional designs to the table. T. Krueger said that even though he is supportive of some additional oversight of the design, he cautioned the Board to keep such oversight proportionate to the size and scale of the project-six units on one acre of land at the intersection of two very busy streets. MOTION: On a motion by A. O'Hashi, seconded by T. Krueger, the Planning Board recommended (6-1; J. Spitzer opposed) that City Council approve Annexation LUR2002-00058 for one lot of 43,540 square feet located at 5508 Baseline Road with an initia- zoning of Medium Density Residential-Developing (MR-D), incorporating the staff inemorandum dated November 7, 2002 (preparation date October 24, 2002) as findings of fact, and using the recommended Conditions of Approval as noted in the staff inemorandum; further, adding Condition 4 to read "The maximum number of dwelling units that will be permitted on the property as of right, meeting all applicable zoning and building requirements, shall be six units. Any proposal that exceeds six dwelling units shall be required to receive approval under the Site Review process." J. Spitzer reluctantly did not support the motion because, although he has confidence in the Housing Department, he was uncomfortable with the amount of control that the Housing Department has if it is a by-right project to build a quality gateway urban designed project in this area. s: \plan\pb-items\m inutes\02ll 07m in City of Boulder Planning Board Minutes November 7, 2002 Page 7 M. Cowles offered a friendly amendment to add Condition 5 to read "The plans for the project that is constructed on this site be reviewed by the Planning Board for design review and approval." He said that it is important that community and neighborhood concerns be addressed. P. Pollock expressed concern with this approach because there would be no standards for such a review. He suggested that if the Board would like to have the opportunity to review the final plans, that a Site Review be required; the Board would then have Site Review criteria which has some elements of design. D. Gehr suggested that the Board look at the Site Review criteria and limit the design review to a set of standards, such as site design and parking--this would provide some guidance to the applicant. M. Cowles said that he suggested such a design review to avoid the applicant the expense of a Site Review and the delay that is involved in such a review. T. Krueger did not accept the friendly amendment because he does not support a Site Review level requirement just to review the design of the project; he said that he has confidence that the Housing Division staff will develop a good design for the site. J. Pollak explained that there might be up to eight competitive proposals from developers who recognize that this development would have high visibility in the community. He said that the city will be weighing a variety of criteria, and he expects that there would be some representation from people who have a good understanding of design elements, affordability criteria, and environmental impacts. He said that the RFP, developed with assistance from neighborhood participation, will include 80 percent permanently affardable housing, green building components, low water use components, architectural and neighborhood compatibility, design that meets user needs, and buildings that last. M. Cowles said that with this explanation he was satisfied that a design or Site Review is not necessary. J. Spitzer offered a friendly amendment to add Condition 5 to read "The Applicant shall be required to have the plans reviewed by the Downtown Design Advisory Board with voluntary compliance. A. O'Hashi did not accept the friendly amendment. J. Spitzer offered a friendly amendment to add Condition 5 to read "All units on the site shall be owner occupied." J. Spitzer said that with an owner occupied unit there is more likelihood that there would be fewer cars per unit--this is important because there is no off-street parking in the area. L. Hill-Blakely responded that the city would prefer to have the option of either renting or selling the units. She said that the units are intended to be family household units. B. Pommer said that lower-income units tend to have fewer trips generated in a standard household and a fewer number of cars. S. Durian agreed in general with some of the public speakers that if the units are owner occupied, there is a tendency to have less need for parking on site than if the units are rental with three bedrooms. He said that the closer such units are to the University of Colorado, the more parking needs there are. B. Cole added that the intent is to provide housing for families. T. Krueger said that lower-income houses generate fewer trips and own fewer vehicles, and attached housing generates fewer trips than detached housing--all of which can be considered when discussing pazking and circulation. He added that families have a greater need for three-bedroom houses Which are in short supply because of various reasons, including students displacing families who can no longer afford such housing. J. Pollak assured the Board s:\p lan\pb-items\m inute s\021107min City of Boulder Planning Board Minutes November 7, 2002 Page 8 that affordability guidelines require that the people who would live in these units are employed 30 hours per week so these would not be student rentals. A. O'Hashi did not accept the friendly amendment. T. Nielsen said that by providing a housing subsidy, we would prefer to have that person live and work in Bouider; if someone is commuting to somewhere outside of Boulder, it is a benefit to another community rather than Boulder. She suggested that this be a condition of residence for these units. L. Hill-Blakely said that the affordability guidelines state that a preference is given to those people who live and work in Boulder. T. Nielsen explained that the motion states that the maximum number of units that can be built by-right on the site is six, and if the proposal does not vary from the standards, then there is no further formal process for recourse. L. Hill-Blakley said that the city intends to continue to invite the neighbors to meetings whenever a critical point is reached and to invite neighborhood participation in the development of the RFP. She added that this project has to meet the needs of the future residents, the broader needs of the community, and the needs of the neighborhood. T. Nielsen offered a friendly amendment to add Condition 5 to read "The Applicant shall develop a plan, subject to the review and approval of the Planning Director, for public involvement which may include the Site Review process." She offered a friendly amendment to add Condition 6 to read "The Applicant shall provide a plan, subject to the review and approval of the Planning Director, for ongoing communication between the Applicant and the surrounding neighborhood that provides an opportunity for the surrounding neighbors to address off-site impacts that the development may have on the surrounding azea, including, but not limited to, impacts related to lighting, noise, landscaping, maintenance, and parking and how those impacts can be mitigated or prevented." A. O'Hashi and T. Krueger accepted the friendly amendments. B. Public hearing and consideration of Site Review #LUR2002-00026 to remove an existing dwelling unit at 1834 Arapahoe Avenue and construct four attached two-bedroom dwelling units in the HR-X zoning district. The proposed density is 800 square feet of open space for each unit. L. Hanson said that the property is in the HR-X (High Density Residential-Redeveloping) zoning district and is located between the University of Colorado (CU) and Downtown. She said that the applicant is proposing to remove an existing dwelling unit on the property and a detached garage and to construct a new building consisting of four two-bedroom units. She said that 3,387 square feet of open space and eight parking spaces would be provided, and the building height would be limited to 31.1 feet. She outlined the key issues that relate to building and site design, height, and open space. She said that staff encouraged the applicant to create some context building drawings that relate to the adjacent existing buildings nearby. She said that staff reviewed several options to strengthen the northern elevation along Arapahoe, and there were several design changes to ground the s: \plan\pb-items\m inutes\021107m in City of Boulder Planning Board Minutes November 7, 2002 Page 9 building. She said that the proposal meets the minimum of 800 square feet of open space per unit, and staff concluded that the use of decks, landscaped front yard, and the covered patio space satisfy the need for quality open space. She said that the applicant is providing additional open space underneath the building and on the decks that is not counted under the code. She said that in trying to get additional dwelling units, especially in this kind of location that is close to Downtown and CU in a high density setting, staff found that redevelopment to the maximum number of units allowed by code was appropriate for this site. Rex Olson, 834 North Street, Architect for the project, said that he started out creating six or seven dwelling units on the property, but working with Planning staff, he has settled on four units because of the need to provide sufficient parking and open space on the site. He said that the amount of parking and open space provided meets the requirements of the code. He stated that the additional open space on the decks is important. He said that the design of the building and the density not only fit in with the rest of the neighborhood but add to it. Public Participation: There was no public participation. Return to the Board: J. Spitzer asked that the applicant provide good quality muntins for the windows rather than plastic inserts, especially on the north elevation, and to provide real stone rather than cultured stone on the north elevation, particularly at the sidewalk. He suggested that the Downtown Design Advisory Board (DDAB) quickly review the north elevation, particularly the several different kinds of window patterns, with voluntary compliance. M. Cowles said that he Was satisfied with the overall concept of the project, but agreed with J. Spitzer regazding his concerns. He said that in this location, with the great transit that exists, the minimum parking standard should not be required; in this case the developer could provide more housing on the site by excluding or limiting tenants who have cars. B. Pommer disagreed and said that the minimum amount of required parking needs to be met on this site because of its location; even though many of the residents might use transit, they need car storage. L. Hanson said that during the preapplication discussion regarding parking, staff advised the applicant to not request a parking reduction given the fact that there was no on-street parking anywhere near this project. M. Cowles said that this is a good case to show how parking drives up the cost of housing; there is a market for people who do not have cars, yet because of the parking requirement, the developer will pass along the cost to the tenants or the owners. J. Spitzer asked about the variation to the open space requirement. L. Hanson said that a determination was made when the HZ-E and HR-X zoning districts were created that as the applicant was requested to reach that minimum requirement, a site review process was required to provide additional scrutiny on high density residential projects. B. Cole added that as the density increases the amount of review increases. s:\p lan\pb-items\m inutes\021107m in City of Boulder Planning Board Minutes - November 7, 2002 Page 10 T. Nielsen asked where storage will be provided for the tenants. R. Olson said that additional space will include the attic, space under stairs, and space under the building. He said that there will be space for bicycle parking, although he thought that some of the bicycles will be stored on the decks. B. Cole clarified that staff could require additional storage for each unit to be provided on site but designed in such a way that it does not count as habitable square feet that would reduce the usable open space and required parking. L. Hanson said that staff is also recommending conditions that require final architecture, landscaping, and parking plans. MOTION: On a motion by T. Nielsen, seconded by S. Mole, the Planning Board approved (7-0) Site Review #LUR2002-00026, incorporating the staff inemorandum dated November 7, 2002 (preparation date October 24, 2002) and the attached Site Review Criteria checklist as findings of fact, and using the recommended conditions of approval; further, adding Condition 2.f, to read "A plan that will maximize the amount of storage space for the dwelling units." J. Spitzer offered a friendly amendment to add a new Condition 3 to read "Prior to a building permit application, the Applicant shall submit final architectural plans for the north elevation for the review and comment of the Downtown Design Advisary Board (DDAB) and the approval of the Planning Director as part of a Technical Document review to ensure compliance with this approval and compatibility with the surrounding area." T. Nielsen and S. Mole accepted the friendly amendment. M. Cowles offered a friendly amendment that there be no muntins in the windows of this project and that the stone wall shown on the north elevation be of real stone rather than cultured stone. T. Nielsen did not accept the friendly amendment because she was not comfortable with the conditions addressing this kind of detail. B. Pommer offered a friendly amendment that storage be prohibited on the balconies. D. Gehr said that in another application, such storage was prohibited in leases or homeowner covenants. B. Pommer suggested that the applicant include such language in the leases or covenants. M. Cowles offered a friendly amendment that the stone wall on the north end of the project be constructed of real stone rather than cultured stone. T. Nielsen did not accept the friendly amendment. She said that the Board is already requiring the applicant to go before DDAB for design considerations on the north elevation. M. Cowles said that Arapahoe is a very strong arterial, it needs a strong presence, and such a stone wall would provide an anchor for the structure; this might be overlooked by DDAB. A. O'Hashi felt comfortable that the applicants said that they agreed to do this. 6. MATTERS FROM THE PLANNING BOARD, PLANNING DIRECTOR, AND CITY ATTORNEY M. Cowles urged the Board to review the article regarding streetscapes that was in the packet because the Board has seen some projects where streets are being designed. P. Potlock noted the following Board discussions: November 14--the Jobs to Population update; November 21--the s:\plan\pb-items\minutes\021 ] 07min City of Boulder Planning Board Minutes November 7, 2002 • Page I 1 street network (Lykins and Front Range) in the north Boulder area, and 33rd and Walnut; December 5--the wetlands boundary determination, an update on the outdoor lighting ordinance, and a growth management extension for Villa del Prado. He outlined the public meetings regarding the annual update to the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan. He said that the reason why the lighting ordinance has not gone forward to City Council is to allow the business community more discussion on the item. He said that the Board will probably be invited to a function on December 6 regarding the City Manager candidates. The Board discussed the upcoming meeting regarding the Jobs to Population project. P. Pollock pointed out the memorandum from Paul Saporito asking that the Board reconsider its decision for land use changes in the annual BVCP update regarding the property a2 28th and Jay. He said that in this memorandum Mr. Saporito presented some background information that was not before the Board on the evening it considered whether to make this parcel part of the package for this year's annual changes. He asked if the $oard wanted to reconsider its prior decision regarding this parcel. MOTION: On a motion by T. Nielsen, seconded by B. Pommer, the Planning Board agreed to reconsider (4-3; M. Cowles, T. Krueger, and J. Spitzer opposed) its prior action regarding the property at 28th and Jay and scheduled a haaring on November 21, 2002. P. Pollock said that City Council had a first reading on the ordinance regarding the reduction of open space in tha RB-D zoning districts that was approved by the Board. He explained that Council will conduct a third reading to address a problem in the ordinance--the Board's discussion was to decrease the open space requirement for residential dwelling units and not to include commercial space with no residential, but since the Board approved a reduction in the percentage of site area, the ordinance did not specify residential space. The Board confirmed that its intent was to include only residential mixed use projects. P. Pollock said that D. Gehr wili add language in the ordinance to specify that this was the Board's intent. 7, ADJOURNMENT The Planning Board adjourned the meeting at 10:10 p.m. s; \p lan\pb-item s\m inutes\02 I 107min CITY OF BOULDER PLANNING BOARD SUMMARY MINUTES November 14, 2002 Council Chambers Room, Municipal Building 1777 Broadway, 6:00 p.m. The folIowing are the minutes of the November 14, 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 Beth Pommer John Spitzer BOARD ABSENT: Alan O'Hashi STAFF PRESENT: Louise Grauer, Planner Mary Lovrien, Board Secretary Ruth McHeyser, Manager of Long Range Planning 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 There were no minutes to approve. 3. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION There was no citizen participation. 4. DISCUSSION OF DISPOSITIONS, PLANNING BOARD CALL-UPS There were no dispositions or Planning Board call-up items to discuss. s:\p lan\pb-items\mi nutes\021114min City of Boulder Planning Board Minutes ~ November 14, 2002 Page 2 5. ACTION ITEMS A. Public hearing and discussion regarding direction to staff on the process and schedule for the jobs to population project. R. McHeyser said that staff is seeking direction from the Planning Board on the process and schedule for the remainder of the Jobs to Population Project. She said that the work group that was appointed has worked out a procedure for how to incorporate other implementation tools into the project and have recommended a new name for the project. She pointed out the two tiers of the public process schedule--the first tier includes public education and feedback (in this phase staff will concentrate on getting information from property owners and from the general public by conducting meetings through civic groups and with property owners and conducting a general pubiic open house), and the second tier will include a detailed proposal for the public to consider. She stated that the schedule provides that on February I 1, and March 11, 2003 the City Council and Planning Board would jointly conduct a public hearing on this matter. Process and schedule L. Grauer said that the first public meetings will begin in December, and a second round of meetings will be held in January, if necessary. T. Nielsen asked how staff will encourage citizens to get involved in the discussions. P. Pollock said that the larger businesses are already engaged in the process, and many of the smaller business owners will be contacted. B. Pommer suggested that in the letter to business owners staff present some ideas of suggested strategies for their properties. R. McHeyser pointed out the letter Yhat will be sent to property owners that incorporates this suggestion. Other implementation tools R. McHeyser said that staff was directed to identify impact mitiga'tion tools of projected growth that might be considered in conjunction with this process. She said that staff has recommended that the following tools be considered in conjunction with the project: Transportation Demand Management (TDM); opportunities to create affardable housing density bonuses; design review as a tool to create excellent design in certain areas; and Transferable Development Rights (TDRs). She said that there is a series of financing tools around transportation that will be considered as part of the Transportation Master Plan (TMP) update which is running concunently with this process. She said that staff is recommending that the following items not be considered as part of this project: jobs/housing linkage programs, increased housing funding through tax and/or fee increases, the strengthening of concurrency requirements, and commercial growth rate management programs. M. Cowles suggested that the concurrency requirements should be strengthened. He said that the assumption is being made that we have sufficient infrastructure, except for transit, and that with any of the scenarios we will meet the level of service targets that have been set up elsewhere. He s:\plan\pb-items\m i nutes\021114mi n City of Boulder Planning Board Minutes November 14, 2002 ~ Page 3 said, however, that under the scenarios we cannot avoid degrading the level of service for parks, libraries, and water. R. McHeyser said that under the scenarios the city will either exceed or meet the level of service standards that are adopted in departmental master plans. B. Pommer said that if the Board does not think that the standards are adequate, they could be changed. P. Pollock said that if the level of service were changed, the total costs could not be placed on the new development because the entire city will benefit from new parks, libraries, etc. S. Mole asked for reassurance that the city will not deplete its water supply. P. Pollock said that City Council will hear an update from the Water Resources Advisory Board regarding the drought response plan. He said that the city is confident that enough water can be supplied to new devalopment under familiar drought events, but contingency planning is needed far the future because of possible global warming. T. Krueger suggested that rather than discussing other implementation tools, the Board should discuss additional strategies or strategies other than land use. B. Pommer said that design review should be a part of the tools because there are some land use-only tools that can drive the design of a project, and a design review can significantly improve the buildings. J. Spitzer suggested that as the process continues it would be useful to have an architectural planning firm as a consultant, both on the zoning and on the design aspects. R. McHeyser said that an urban design consultant will work with staff next year as part of development of the more detailed work. The Board and staff discussed how affordable housing densities might provide 10 percent of the housing stock as permanantly affordable and how to make that increment more significant. R. McHeyser said that the city will get closer to this goal through tha strategies presented in ali the scenarios. M. Cowles suggested that staff explore the jobs/housing linkage programs between commercial and the creation of affordable housing because the goal of having 10 percent of the housing stock as affordable is slipping from us. He said that the housing excise tax is not sufficient to offset the demand for housing thaY is created for every 300 square feet of commercial space. He also said that there will be a problem with property owners if the city first downzones commercial property and then later asks for linkage fees to pay for affordable housing. He said that some people will not be receptive to adding greatly increased numbers of housing units unless there is more diversity in the housing stock rather than more housing that is affordable by people who earn more than $70,000 per year. B. Pommer suggested that staff not study the jobs/housing linkage because it would complicate this project and present significant roadblocks for getting the rest of the project completed. She said that there are a number of other things that could be reviewed to get affordable housing rather than the linkage fee. J. Spitzer suggested that the affordable housing goal be discussed in a more global perspective rather than the 10 percent figure, such as creating market units that are simpler, more basic, and much more affordable. T. Krueger said that this process should deal with the land use issues first and then some of the other things that will address the mitigation of those impacts of the land use decisions. He said that once this work is complete, then is the time s:\plan\pb-items\m inuYes\021 I 14min City of Boulder Planning Board Minutes November 14, 2002 Page 4 to discuss other ways to reach the 10 percent goal of affordable housing. T. Nielsen said that the city has inclusionary zoning; this seems like a policy question and deserves its own special focus. J. Spitzer said that he was concemed about tfie politics of this issue, particularly in Iight of the weak economy; it might be difficult to move forward with the rest of the project when businesses might be crippled by the linkage programs. He agreed that the linkage program could be reviewed in a second phase. He asked if staff could review what other communities have done with linkage programs. M. Cowles said that the Tischler Report states that growth currently pays 21 percent of the capital costs of infrastructure to support the development. He said that linkage fees are ways that can be used to get growth to pay its own way. T. Krueger agreed that the community cannot afford to support that level of subsidy to growth, and the city should think about raising the developer's costs. How TDM and this project are linked and how it should be carried forward in the public discussion L. Grauer said that, like housing, there is a strong relationship between transportation impacts and level of growth. She explained the Land Use/TDM Linkage Model regarding a newly defined transportation goal and the amount of floor area ratio (FAR) that would fall under that goal in by-right projects. She said that with some base level of TDM measures, additional FARs could be granted, such as implementation of a Transportation Management Organization (TMO) or other TDM measures. She referred to the TDM diagram in the Board packet. T. Krueger said that it was unclear on the diagram whether the TDM applied above the by-right line would mitigate 100 percent of the increase in FAR. P. Pollock said that there is some certainty about the percentages or the level of effectiveness when enacting some TDM measures, such as parking that needs to be paid for, supply of bus passes, or a TMO that helps provide the transit. He said that the group thinks that there is additional FAR that could be mitigated with a series of TDM measures so that impacts would not exceed the line for by-right projects. He said that there needs to be a discussion regarding the acceptable level of impacts. S. Mole asked if emergency response times are factared into these numbers. P. Pollock said that emergency response times were factored in, but response times are decreased with more congestion. R. McHeyser said that a new fire station was needed in one of the scenarios for this reason. M. Cowles said that the linkage model could be applied to affordable housing; for instance, to link a building with 100 employees, determine how many of those employees would qualify for affordable housing to ensure that there is a permanently affordable place for them to live in Boulder and then charge the development for the costs. T. Krueger questioned whether the additional TDM measures would work to mitigate impacts because the existing culture does not entirely support alternate modes of transportation. He said that he cautioned staff about presenting this TDM model with a TMO as a silver bullet because it is a financial quantum leap. J. Spitzer said that the TMO is subject to manipulation of statistics and figures; for instance, s: \plan\pb-items\m inutes\021114min City of Boulder Planning Board Minutes November 14, 2002 Page 5 someone who parks in a downtown neighborhood and walks the rest of the way to work is considered as an alternate modes user. M. Cowles suggested that the TDMs be discussed by the pubiic because this is a new way of talking about transportation to and within our community, and it leads to a discussion about the trade-offs of allowing more commercial square footage if the traffic is not increased. Does the range of jobs and housing units and corresponding impacts described by the three scenarios set the parameters for the project as we move forward? The Board and staff discussed a diagram that listed the recommended parameters of future job and housing growth based on the scenarios presented at the September 24, 2002 joint study session. S. Mole said that the diagram communicates very well that in all three scenarios job growth and housing units will increase. M. Cowles suggested that the slope of increasing traffic congestion be placed on the diagram. He also suggested that everybody in the community should have an outcome that they can identify with to help them get to interest-based bargaining. He suggested that there be a lower growth scenario than that provided in Scenario 3 which allows a 34 percent increase in nonresidential growth, 60 percent increase in traffic congestion, and 16 percent increase in housing) and requires a creation of housing (22,000 units) outside of Boulder. He said that during the public discussions there will be citizens who start with zero growth and demand that staff say why the citizens should accept any more of the impacts that are related to growth unless there are some compensating trade-offs. S. Mole also suggested a substantially lower-growth scenario because otherwise there is a risk of not getting buy-in from the public for presenting too narrow a spread of points. Staff pointed out that the area around the September 24, 2002 study session materials included an analysis of what it would take to reduce growth below Scenario 3; the conclusion was that only purchasing properties could reduce growth further than Scenario 3. The majority of the Board concluded that the range between scenarios should set the parameters for the project at this point. Strategies by Building Block (are there ones that should be eliminated or ones that should be added?) M. Cowles suggested that there be a strategy in the area around the transit center which states that within a quarter mile of the transit center there will be high density, mixed use development that will be at an FAR of 1.7 because that is what it takes to make successful transit oriented development. He said that for the low FAR scenarios, particularly in the industrial zone, there should be special rules about what to do with open space (in cases with a 35 FAR there is a sea of parking and a one-story building). He said that we could use performance zoning (permit higher levels of development on pieces of ground in exchange for the meeting of certain performance criteria) to help out with a lot of the challenges that will emerge from the jobs/housing project. He suggested that the performance criteria should be pegged to I) transit, trips, and trip generation; 2) housing (that more density is permitted as a performance criteria in s: \plan\pb-itemslm inutes\021114mi n City of Boulder Planning Board Minutes - November 14, 2002 • Page 6 a zone to the extent that the workers who will have jobs on the site find that the development creates places that those workers can afford to live in Boulder); 3) linkage fees that are sufficient to pay for the marginal costs of the extra services provided by the city; and 4) that these amenities come on line at the time of development. T. Krueger said that there are only four strategies outlined: 1) converting industrial or commercial to residential; 2) adding residential where residential is not allowed; 3) increasing residential where residential is allowed; and 4) reducing commercial or industrial intensity or freezing commercial and industrial intensity. He suggested making a list of these four strategies. The Board did not suggest that any of the blocks be taken off consideration. R. McHeyser said that this is an outgrowth of the experience in the 1997 Comprehensive Rezoning where a lot of the mixed use zoning districts were created. She said that by setting good zoning district standards there might be more opportunity for by-right development. She said that staff will be trying to limit the creation of nonconforming uses that would be created by changing zoning districts, to revise existing zoning districts, and to develop new zoning districts that are more responsive to the community goals. The Board agreed with this approach. Public Information R. McHeyser asked the Board to comment on the brochure that will be used far the public process and the draft letter to property owners. She said that the neighborhood centers have been taken off the table for discussion at this time. T. Nielsen suggested that the photos in the brochure be more exciting and engaging or depict development that we are aspiring toward and not what we do not like. S. Mole suggested that the narrative be edited to provide more excitement. M. Cowles suggested that the building blocks be included in the letter to the property owners to illustrate what some of the techniques or FARs will look like. R. McHeyser said that this suggestion would be quite expensive to add to the letter; she suggested that when staff ineets with the property owners, this information can be made available. She suggested that any other comments be forwarded to her. Project Name Change R. McHeyser asked the Board to comment on the suggested name change of the project to "Jobs/Housing Project: A better balance for Boulder's future." S. Mole suggested that the name not be changed because it does not look good to the public when a name is changed in the middle of a project. He said that if it is called housing rather than population, it will be a problem for the owners of industrial and commercial property because they will know what is wanted, and the phrase "a better balance for Boulder's future" will make people think that everything is included. He added that there is nothing in any of these names that gives any clue whatsoever to the apparently agreed thought of this Board that this is just land use. T. Nielsen agreed stating that the public might prefer Jobs/Population; otherwise, the name should be changed to commercial s: \p lan\pb-item s\m inutes\021114min City of Boulder Planning Board Minutes November ]4, 2002 Page 7 square feet/housing. T. Krueger said that the ratio is commonly calculated jobs to population rather than jobs to housing, and the Jobs to Population Project is more appropriate. B. Pommer said that she thinks the phrase should be retained because it is about getting a better balance for the future, and it gives some purpose to the project. J. Spitzer said that the Jobs/Housing has a friendlier and nicer sound to it than Jobs/Population, and this is a better title for public relations. The Board was split on whether to change the name of the project. 6. MATTERS FROM THE PLANNING BOARD, PLANNING DIRECTOR, AND CITY ATTORNEY M. Cowles said that after the Board decided to hold a public hearing regarding the rezoning of the property on 4th Street, he heard that the contract with the potential buyer had fallen through; he made some phone calls to several architects to let them know that this property would go through the process of rezoning in case they were interested. P. Pollock said that since the Board will be conducting a quasi-judicial hearing on this matter, the applicant could come forward stating that a Board member was trying to get a different development team for the parcel and that the Board member would be prejudiced about the application which could compromise the member's participation. He suggested that if a Board member has any questions or issues or if a citizen asks a Board member for information, to contact Planning staf£ M. Cowles said that he hopes that the person who ultimately develops the parcel has a finely developed sensitivity for the neighborhood and the quality of the land and engage in high creativity. M. Cowles discussed a holiday dinner with Board members and Planning staff on December 12. P. Pollock discussed the process for the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP) annual update. He said that the Board's concerns (the notice of the update and the use of criteria for deciding which requests should be pursued and which ones should not) will not be resolved during this year's annual update but will be raised before the next annual update process. He said that material was included in the packet regarding the update on the process for developing an improvement plan to the floodplain areas of the far eastern reaches of Boulder Creek and South Boulder Creek (Confluence Plan Project). He said that the Planning Department will coordinate the competing department interests in this plan; participating departments include staff from the Open Space and Mountain Parks Department, Parks and Recreation Department, Pubiic Works Department (Transportation and Utilities) and Boulder County Transportation. He said that this plan will focus on transportation connections, water quality improvements, habitat protection and restoration, floodplain improvements, historic and cultural resource protection, passive recreation, and water utility protection and enhancement. He distributed a final version of the Gunbarrel Town Center residential and retail market analysis. He said that the status of the Town Center, the market analysis, and the idea of proceeding with an area plan for the commercial portion of Gunbanel based on the market analysis will be discussed on November 21. He said that the representatives of the Gunbarrel Community Association have been receptive to both the market analysis and to the idea of an area plan. He said that from the developer's perspective it is both encouraging that there is the demand for the specialty retail and residential but conceming because of the possibility of other s:\p lan\pb-items\m inutes\021 I 14min City of Boulder Planning Board Minutes - November 14, 2002 Paga g nearby property owners with better locations who might want to consider redeveloping their property. He asked the Board members to comment on the citizen guidelines that will be used for public hearings. S. Mole suggested that when this information is placed on the web site that a link be made from the sentence that discusses the Site Review criteria to the precise statute that it pertains to. J. Spitzer asked staff to make sure that the staff reports are included on the web page. P. Pollock pointed out the reception for the members of the Jobs to Population Task Force on November 18, and the update to Council on November 19 regarding the Jobs to Population project. He noted the upcoming Council and Planning Board agenda items. M. Cowles said that he was concerned about the lack of access from the Safeway store on Iris and the adjacent development and asked how the developer was able to block off this access in a by-right project. P. Pollock said that the review process that was current at the time of development did not require such an access. He said that he will send to the Board a summary that was sent to Council regarding this matter. 7. ADJOURNMENT The Planning Board adjourned the meeting at 9:40 p.m. s: \plan\pb-items\mirmtes\021 ll 4min CITY OF BOULDER PLANNING BOARD SUMMARY 14IINUTES December 21, 2002 Council Chambers Room, Municipal Building 1777 Broadway, 6:00 p.m. The following are the minutes of the December 21, 2002 city of Boulder Planning Boazd meeting. A permanent set of these minutes is kept in Cenhal 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, Manager of Land Use Review Steve Durian, Transportation Engineer David Gehr, Assistant City Attorney Elizabeth Hanson, Planner Terence Harmon, Poiice Department Mary Lovrien, Board Secretary Ruth McHeyser, Manager of Long Range Planning 1. CALL TO ORDER Chair T. Nie(sen declared a quorum at 6:05 p.m., and the following business was conducted. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES There were no minutes to approve. 3. CTPIZEN PARTICIPATION There was no citizen participation. 4. DISCUSSION OF DISPOSITIONS, PLANNTNG BOARD CALL-UPS There were no dispositions or Planning Board call-up items to discuss. s:iplan\pb-itemslminutes\021121 min City of Boulder Planning Board Minutes December 21, 2002 Page 2 5. ACTION ITEMS A. Public hearing and consideration of amendments to North Boulder Subcommunity Right-of-Way Plan regarding the elimination of proposed sections of Front Range and Lykins Avenues between the Dakota Ridge Neighborhood and Broadway. S. Durian said that the Dakota Ridge neighborhood has requested that Lykins and Front Range Avenues be removed from the North Boulder Subcommunity Pian (NBSP). He said that staff has provided an analysis of this request. He said that the issues identified from the neighborhood include crime; increased traffic from a nonresidential use to a residentiai neighborhood; land uses that are different from what was intended in the NBSP, particularly the Homeless Shelter; the unnecessary streets for neighborhood access; noise from these connected streets; increased traffic and parking demand from businesses that may not have enough parking; and a desire to decrease animosity related to the Homeless Shelter approval. He noted that staff added the concern about wildfire that was not specifically commented on by the public, and there is a need for evacuation routes and to get fire equipment in and out of the area. He said that staff received a comment from a nearby business owner opposing the removal of Lykins Street because the connection would provide better accessibility to his business. He said that staff finds that a grided street is a well-known way to distribute traffic rather than directing traffic to a few streets. He explained the present zonings in the neighborhood and the area along Broadway (Industrial Service-Established [IS-E] and Transitional Business [TB-E and TB-D]) and the safety concerns of the neighbors from the Homeless Shelter and the Bus Stop Gentleman's Club. He said that homeless shelters were allowed in the IS-E zone prior to the changes that City Council made to the TB-E and TB-D zones. He said that the Police Department recognizes that these streets are not to be built soon and supports leaving the plan unchanged at this time because the land uses along Broadway could change greatly, and there would be a better understanding of the crime patterns. John Hinkelman, 4862 Fountain Street, neighborhood representative, clarified that under the TB-E or TB-D zoning districts homeless shelters were not permitted prior to the zoning changes that were completed in 2001; without the change in regulations, homeless shelters could not have been located where the current new shelter will be placed. He pointed out a letter from the Dakota Ridge Neighborhood Association outlining the neighbors' concerns. He said th~t Planning staff would like to keep the streets open to facilitate traffic circulation; however, the only reason these streets would be used within the neighborhood would be for cut-through traffic. He pointed out the existing streets within the neighborhood that provide adequate access and connections without Front Range or Lykins and the existing school bus stops (connecting these streets through to Broadway increases the opportunity for cars to be in the area of these bus stops). He said that there is no reason to connect these streets because the neighborhood does not relate to the adjacent uses; currently, the industrial areas present problems because of noise, smoke, ~ s:\plan\pb-items\minutes\021121 min City of Boulder Planning Board Minutes December 21, 2002 Page 3 and the current uses. He added that these uses preclude development that would be neighborhood compatible. He described the current public transit service, and said that the most direct pedestrian route for public transit would not be from the connected streets. He said that he recognizes that there are no current plans to make these connections, but that the purpose of the hearing is to potentially amend the North Boulder Right-of-Way Plan and the NBSP to eliminate those connections into the neighborhood. He said that if these streets are removad from the plan, these connections can never happen. He responded to a question regarding potential uses in the IS-E zoned parcel and whether small service shops, such as cafes or dry cleaners, could be placed in the zone. He said that he was unsure what uses could be placed in this zona, but the southern portion of the zone is owned by Boulder Community Hospital, and it was his understanding that a medical building might be built on the parcel. Public Participation: Dagny Barrios, 4881 lOth Street: She said that the neighborhood is an incredible success given the adjacent uses on Broadway; the reason that it works so well is because Front Range and Lykins provide no access from Broadway. She said that the access would be provided for the benefit of the neighborhood, but the neighborhood does not want this diract access. Megen McCarthy, 4870 6th Streeh She said that she agreed with the statements made by John Hinkelman and Dagny Barrios. She said that there is no reason that in the future there will be a valid reason to connect these streets, and there is no benefit to the neighborhood. She said that the benefit for eliminating the streets now far outweighs any potential benefit in the future. Michael Peck, 4882 Fountain Street: He said that he supports the neighborhood's position. Katie MacReynolds, 594 Wingate Avenue: She said that she supports tha neighborhood's position. She said that the original NBSP called for redevelopment of the Lee Hill/Broadway corner to be light industrial and neighborhood friendly shops, but since the plan has been changed, there is no hope for this type of development. She said that there is adequate access for the neighborhood and future development, and access from an industrial area to a neighborhood is not usually considered desirable and will result in increased automobile traffic in areas with a high density of children. She said that she would like to see thesa streets eliminated now so that there would be no surprises in the future. Michael Kracauer, 4868 lOth Street: He said that connectivity from a neighborhood is important if there is one arterial, but this is not the case in this neighborhood. He said that because the Homeless Shelter has been approved in its new location in this area, there is no hope for an urban plan in this area--a restaurant owner will not build adjacent to the Homeless Shelter. Judith Davis, 4916 Dakota: She agreed strongly with the previous speakers. She said that this neighbarhood is very unique, and since further development will not occur, additional access is not needed. s: \plan\pb-items~minutes\021121 min City of Boulder Planning Board Minutes December 21, 2002 Page 4 Greg Harms, Executive Director of the Boulder Shelter for the Homeless, 924 Eldorado Lane, Louisville: He said that while he disagreed that the Homeless Shelter would spoil future development along Broadway, he supported the efforts of the neighborhood to remove the connections on Lykins and Front Range Avenues into the neighborhood. He said that these connections will only heighten concerns about unsolicited interactions between the Homeless Shelter residents and the neighborhood, and the permanent removal will be a good first step in the relationship with the neighbors as the new Homeless Shelter is built. Christina Colucci, 4905 Dakota Boulevard: She said that the changes made to the TB-E zone by City Council farever changes the future land use patterns of the area east of lOth Street, and ensures that restaurants, shops, and other neighborhood services will never be located adjacent to Dakota Ridge. She said that there is no reason for direct access from the neighborhood, and also there is no opposition to eliminating the connections. She said that planning 101 validates the necessity of a buffer between single family residentia] uses and light and heavy commercial uses. She added that the neighborhood has addressed traffic circulation, pedestrian and transit access, land use and zoning, and safety. Daniel Hirsh, 4866 Fountain Street: He said that he is concerned about the safety of children and preservation of the neighborhood, and there is no reason to connect these two streets. Stephen Nelson, 4858 Dakota Boulevard: He said that the neighbors realize that there is nothing planned currently to connect these streets, but they would like to remove these connections from the NBSP so that the streets are not connected with little review or involvement from the neighborhood. He said that he would not support a pedestrian connection into the neighborhood. Michelle Humphrey, 4903 Fountain Street: She supported the statements made by the previous speakers and the support from Greg Harms of the Homeless Shelter in attempting to create a partnership and bond with the neighborhood. She said that she does not see a need to provide a vehicular or pedestrian connection from Lykins or Front Range. She said that the neighborhood is very unique where children walk from home to home, and additional traffic would not be conducive to this kind of neighborhood. Anne West, 4979 Pierre Street: She said that she fully supports the neighborhood's position- the connection of the two streets is neither necessary nar desirable. Eric Zacharias, 602 Wingate Avenue: He said that he favors the plans of the neighborhood and the Homeless Shelter. He said that he thinks that the neighborhood can remain fabulous in spite of the location of the Homeless Shelter by having a distinction between the neighborhood and the adjacent commercial uses and removing the streets from the NBSP. s:Aplan\pb-items\minutes\021121min City of Boulder Planning Board Minutes December 21, 2002 Page 5 Heidi O'Hagan, 585 Lykins Avenue: T. Nielsen read her statement into the record: "Please respect our neighborhood. There are many children of all ages-we need a safe place to live." Melissa Elausky, 4883 Dakota Boulevard: T. Nielsen read her statement into the record: "I support my neighborhood's stance to NOT put these roads in. This is a neighborhood filled with children and i feel this will increase dangerous situations for our families." Judy Nishimoto, 4878 Dakota Boulevard: She said that she supports the neighborhood position to eliminate the two street connections. Peggy Wrenn, 3320 13th Street: She disclosed that she was a paid consultant to the Homeless Shelter during their Good Neighbar process. She said that in this process, it was agreed that the staff at the Homeless Shelter would support the neighborhood's effort to eliminate the two street connections, and there are a lot o£ good reasons to do so. She said that it is important to respect the neighborhood concerns, particularly concerning Front Range. She said, however, that she thought that the neighborhood would be safer with another egress, especially for protection from wildfires. David Chamblee, 591 Wingate Avenue: He said that he supports the neighbarhood's position. He said that to his knowledge no other homeless shelter of this size exists in the country, and other cities who have a shelter close to this size have not placed them adjacent to a neighborhood. He said that there is no security when people are turned away from the shelter; if these two streets are connected, there will be a short walk into the neighborhood for people who have been denied access to the shelter. Brant Seibert, 4966 Dakota Ridge: He demonstrated how short the distance is between the edge of lOth Street to the industrial area. He pointed out that the four-year crime statistics from the Police Department for the industrial area are much higher than that of the neighborhood. He said that because there is no traffic in the neighborhood, there is no need for additional connections. He suggested that the Board eliminate these connections; this will send a message to any future development that there is an issue of having an industrial zone adjacent to a residential neighborhood. Ryan Lewis, 4974 Dakota Boulevard: He said that he supports the neighborhood position. He said that he thought that the neighborhood got steamrolled by the city of Boulder and the Homeless Shelter, and wanted to ensure that his voice was heard going forward. Brooke Lewis, 4974 Dakota Boulevard: She said that she supports the position of the neighborhood. She extended an invitation to the Board to walk the neighborhood streets to see how wonderful the neighborhood is. s:\plan\pb-items~minutes\021121 min City of Boulder Planning Board Minutes December 21, 2002 Page 6 Tom Nasky, 596 Lykins Avenue: He said that he is in favor of the neighborhood position. He said that he cannot see any benefit to any businesses that are currently located on Broadway or established in the future by connecting these streets. Lowell Steinberg, 4868 Dakota Boulevard: He said that he agrees with the neighborhood position. He reiterated that west of the neighborhood is open space and north of Dakota Ridge Village is open space, so the connectivity issue is only on two sides. He said that the connections are not supported by the neighborhood, so it would benefit only those who want to connect into the neighborhood. He said that there is no problem getting in or out of the neighborhood now. Eric Kosser, 4884 Dakota Boulevard: He said that he supports the neighborhood position. He pointed out that there is overflow from the Homeless Shelter and the Bus Stop Gentleman's Club-such connections would open access to the neighborhood. Cathy Conden, 4874 Dakota Boulevard: She said that she supports the neighborhood position with respect to both vehicular and pedestrian traffic. Mary Louise Edwards, 4888 lOth Street: She said that there is no point in providing these connections. Leyla Day, 4H66 Dakota Boulevard: She said that she supports all the comments made with the exception of Peggy Wrenn who does not live in the neighborhood. She explained that the neighborhood feels that it is urgent that these connections be removed now because there is a concern that one day in the fixture these connections wil] be approved. Dan Venturella, 4881 North Broadway: He said that he owns a business along Broadway that borders the section of Front Range. He said that he supports the community in its efforts to vacate the connection of Front Range. He said that his business is harmed by the location of the Homeless Shelter because some people may perceive that he no longer has a secure business. Karen Dodge, 4871 l Oth Street: She said that she has strong concerns about the location of the Homeless Shelter in this neighborhood, mainly about the people who are turned away. She said that some people who are turned away have behavioral issues, primarily psychiatric issues. She said that many times people will spend the night in people's garages, under their decks, and in unlocked cars in the neighborhoods near the shelter. She supported not only a permanent plan to eliminate the connections of the two streets but a strong brick wall with no walkway to keep people from wandering through the community. Kurt Colby, 4916 Dakota Boulevard: He said that one of the things he appreciates about the neighborhood is that all the kids are able to play in the streets and parks. He said that there needs to be a line between the neighborhood and the Homeless Shelter. He said that he never has a problem driving in or out of the neighborhood. s: \plan\pb-items~minutes\021121 min City of Boulder Planning Board Minutes December 21, 2002 • Page 7 Kurt Butler, 623 Dakota Ridge: He said that he supports the neighborhood position. He said that he has not heard a strong argument why these connactions should be extended. Return to the Board: T. Nielsen asked about the requirements for public notice for site reviews and whether any fuhire development in the area of the two streets would require a site review. B. Cole said that the code for site review requires a public notice for a 600-foot radius surrounding the site. He said that often staff provides for a radius greater than 600 feet in cases where there will be substantial public interest. He said that regarding wheEher a site review is required or ]ikely, in the industrial zoning in this vicinity there are two site review thresholds-one is a minimum threshold of two acres (where a property over the minimum threshold is eligible to go through site review at the property owner's option) and a maximum threshold of five acres (if the development is over the maximum, site review is required). He added that if the site is under two acres it cannot go through site review under any circumstances. He said that the vacant parcels in this area are between two and five acres, so site review is optional, although given the dimensions of the property and types of development that would typically occur in Service Industriai developments, it seems unlikely that a by-right development could occur here without significant code variations. He said that the code lays out circumstances in which staff can reyuire dedication of right-of-way or the construction of infrastructure where it does not exist in a by- right circumstance, but it depends upon the extent of redevelopment. He said that if the redevelopment consisted only of renovation of existing buildings, it might not cross the threshold that would require construction of the infrastructure. S. Mole asked if there could be some assurance that notice would be sent to all the residences in the neighborhood should there be a redevelopment plan for the adjacent area. B. Cole said that the code does not mandate such an expanded public notice. T. Nielsen asked if these zones would be affected by the jobs/housing evaluation to determine if the areas would be suitable for housing. B. Cole said that in the Service-Industrial zone there is the possibility of a live-work option where there are residences directly associated and used by the owners of the industrial uses. He stated that the greatest residential potentia] would be in industrial zones rather than Service-Industrial; the Service-Industrial zone is being protected because such businesses have limited opportunities to occur in Boulder. J. Spitzer asked if a connection from Broadway to Front Range would complicate the other connections onto Broadway because it would be so close to the Laramie Street connection. S. Durian explained that the Laramie access on the origina] NBSP was shown as much farther south than it actually occurs. He said that Lykins Avenue ariginally was planned to connect to Laramie, but if Lykins was connected through to Broadway, it would connect Broadway about a block south of Laramie and a block north of Front Range. He addressed a concern about traffic- the traffic that was used in staffs estimation was based on a traffic study that was done for the Dakota Ridge and Dakota Ridge Village and did not include Yraffic from developments outside s: \plan\pb-items\minutes\021121 min City of Boulder Planning Board Minu[es - December 21, 2002 Page 8 of Dakota Ridge and Dakota Ridge Village that are currently underway in the area, although this devalopment is not expected to generate a lot of traffic. He said that the traffic study did not include these two streets or Sth and 6th streets, thereby creating a higher estimated impact at Lee Hill and Broadway. He said that these additional streets would be expected to decrease traffic on Lee Hill Road and other streets in the vicinity. A. O'Hashi asked if there were additional setback requirements for industrial zones that abut residential areas or buffers. B. Cole said that the code simply calls up a single set of setback requirements in all the industrial zones no matter what the adjacent land uses are. He said that screening requirements are typically provided in the code in the industrial area where there is outdoor storage and where there aze parking areas adjacent to lot ]ines without the required six- foot landscape buffer. M. Cowles asked for a report from T. Harman regarding the crime that has been observed or recorded for this area and the crime associated where the Homeless Shelter currently exists. T. Harman said that typically in this azea there would be nighttime burglaries and daytime reports of property crimes. He added that there would be a higher incidence of crime in the commercial area than in the residentiai area. He said that there is a larger amount of crime (burglaries and theft) in the area of the existing Homeless Shelter, particularly on the north-south axis of Broadway. T. Krueger asked if there is a decline in serious crime in the Boulder area. T. Harman agreed that Part I crimes (rape, murder, armed robbery, serious assault, arson, burglary, auto theft, larceny) have decreased. S. Mole added that a big concern of the neighbors is safety for their children and asked if there might be a significant increase in crimes against children just because of the Homeless Shelter and a significant increase in crime if the roads are connected. T. Harman said that most crimes against children are perpetrated by people who know them. He said that he did not believe there would be a measurable increase in crimes of any sort associated with members of the Homeless Shelter in its new location. He speculated that if the Homeless Shelter and the Bus Stop Gentleman's Club remain at its present locations when the two pedestrian and vehiculaz connections are made, there would be a measurable increase in crime and an increase in quality of life issues. T. Nielsen asked about the differences in the opinion of the Police Department in both the staff memorandum and the discussion tonight. T. Harman clarified that unless the future,uses are known in this area, the Police Department cannot make an assessment; if the roads are connected in the future and if the current uses remain, then the Police Department could give an opinion. T. Nielsen asked John Hinkelman whether the neighborhood would have a preference if the Board decided to eliminate one of the roads. Mr. Hinkelman said that the two roads cannot be separated because tha same issues remain for both of the streets. s:\plan\pb-items~minutes\021121 min City of Boulder Planning Board Minutes December 21, 2002 Page 9 T. Nielsen said that it is unknown what kinds of uses will be in the area in the future, and it is di£ficult to preclude future options. She said that she would not be in favor of Front Range being connected with the current uses adjacent to the neighborhood. She said that if there were assurances that thare would be an opportunity for neighbors to be involved in any redevelopment process, then it is reasonable to preserve these options. A. O'Hashi said that if the future is so unknown, he would be in favor of eliminating the street connections. He said that he would favor giving any future developer the flexibility to place the streets to better suit his needs rather than to use some arbitrarily placed lines on a map that may or may not make any sense 5 or 10 years from now. T. Krueger said that even though the exact alignment of these streets may not be part of a fina] plan, the thinking was that when redevelopment did happen there would be adequate connections for future development. He addressed the neighborhood's concerns about safety. He said that a community that is woven together with bridges and connections is what will make us safer. S. Mole said that if it was certain that the current uses were going to remain in perpetuity, he might think differently about keeping the street connections; however, this is not certain, and that is why there should be planning for any different future uses. D. Gehr responded to a question from the public about whether the community will have the option of eliminating or connecting the streets regardless of the status of the map. He said that if the connection is removed from the plan, it would not preclude it being added later as part of some development proposal. B. Cole said that an alternative approach through an amendment to the plan would continue to provide for a conceptual comdor requiring a reservation rather than a dedication of right-of-way requiring public hearings in the future at such time as the city would decide to put in a road. He said that the positive side to this approach is that it would preserve long-term options, and it would ensure that buildings would not be put in locations where roads might go in the future; the downside is that it would tend to disconnect construction of the street from redevelopment so that the redevelopment would not actually be paying for the construction-it would be the city's obligation. J. Spitzer said that he supports grid systems, but he favors eliminating both pedestrian and vehicular connections for the following reasons: 1) There are already plenty of access points in and out of the neighborhood; 2) there are safety concerns for the neighborhood if the streets are connected to Broadway; 3) the current uses will probably remain in this location because there are not a lot of other places where the Homeless Shelter or the Bus Stop Gentleman's Club can operate in Boulder; 4) because the policy of the Homeless Shelter is to confiscate any liquor from the person entering the facility, people might look for a connection into the neighborhood to hide their liquor; 5) many of the residents of the neighborhood and some business owners have not supported this connection, and more traffic into the neighborhood presents a safety to children who play in the streets; 6) there will no longer be a transit stop in front of the adjacent business area on Broadway; 7) because there is a need for the current zoning of Industrial- Service, there is no need to provide connections from the neighbarhood; and 8) if the streets remain unconnected, the ends of the streets in the neighborhood can be used as pocket parks. s: \plan\pb-items~minutes\021121 min City of Boulder Planning Board Minutes ~ December 21, 2002 Page ]0 M. Cowles said that he supports connectivity and the grid system, and i1 is important not just for the neighborhood but for the life of the city. He said that it is important to have the options to make these connections because the businesses along Broadway will change, but streets tend to remain for a much longer time. T. Nielsen asked if a site review can be required for any redevelopment if the streets remain on the plan. B. Cole said that respect to Lykins, the land is in the county, and nothing will happen until it is annexed. He said that at this time there is the ability to require a site review with a public hearing before the Planning Board and City Council and reservation or dedication of the right-of-way. He said that with respect to Front Range, a by-right development would require dedication of right-of-way and probably construction of the street concurrent with that development. He said that a technique that is used in some cases where the city thinks there may be a need for future infrastructure is a reservation of future right-of-way; in this case, the area is kept free of buildings but no construction is required in the short term. He said that at such time in the future that the road might be constructed, an amendment to the plan would be required to make this specific because there would not be a trigger in the land use regulations. MOTION: A. O'Hashi made a motion, seconded by J. Spitzer, that the Planning Board eliminate Front Range Avenue between the Dakota Ridge neighborhood and its existing terminus east of the neighborhood from the North Boulder Subcommunity Plan. The motion failed with a vote of 2-4; M. Cowles, T. Krueger, S. Mole, and T. Nielsen opposed, and B. Pommer absent. T. Nielsen said that she did not support the motion because she wants to explore an intermediate solution that preserves long-term options and yet addresses the protection that the motion states. J. Spitzer asked T. Harmon if there would be no more serious Part I crimes in the neighborhood when the Homeless Shelter is built and Lykins and Front Range are connected through. T. Harmon said that given that scenario, clearly we would predict an increase in crime, mostly property crime, such as theft and unintentional arson, in the neighborhood. He said that there is a great deal of research that shows that the less connectivity there is in a neighborhood, the lower the crime rate will be. A. O'Hashi suggested that the focus be on quality of life crimes and lifestyle types of crime that are more generally associated with homeless shelters and strip clubs in the neighborhood and how they could be kept from the neighborhood. He asked about the likelihood of nuisance crimes or quality of life types of crimes if Front Range is connected with the existence of the Homeless Shelter and the Bus Stop Gentleman's Club. T. Harmon said that such crimes would probably increase. MOTION: On a motion by T. Nielsen, seconded by S. Mole, the Planning Board amanded (4-2; A. O'Hashi and J. Spitzer opposed, and B. Pommer absent) the North Boulder Subcommunity Plan to require that prior to the construction of Lykins Avenue between l Oth and Laramie Street or Broadway, and Front Range Avenue between lOth and l lth Streets that the Planning Director will refer the question of whether such connections are needed to a public hearing before either the Planning Board or the City Council. Such hearings may occur concurrently with a site review application or an annexation proposal. s: \planipb-itemslminutes\021121 min City of Boulder Planning Board Minutes December 21, 2002 Page 11 At a minimum, an applicant shall be required to reserve the right-of-way area as shown on the North Boulder Subcommunity Transportation Plan unless such right-of-way has been removed from Yhe plan. D. Gehr clarified that the language means that if there was an immediate development proposal, the right-of-way would have to be reserved--it would provide an option of only requiring the reservation at that point and not going ahead with immediate construction. The public hearing and the question of construction could be deferred to a later time. He defined "reservation of right-of-way" as a regulatory requirement--it is a no-build zone; a"dedication" is actually gaining a property interest in land that allows the use of it for public street purposes. He clarified that the reservation would mean that even after a public hearing that decided that those connections would not be made, the reservation for the connection would remain and tha ]and would not be built upon. J. Spitzer said that there was a great danger in the reservation of the right-of-way; if a developer arranges buildings on either side of the right-of-way, it sets the situation so that the street could be in that location, and that is without any public hearing. D. Gehr said that this is correct, but that type of reservation does not prohibit use of the land during the reservation period; it can be used as a parking lot for example, but a structure cannot be built on it. T. Nielsen offered a friendly amendment to require that any such public hearing that would be required by the motion as stated be required to provide notice to each and every property owner of Dakota Ridge East, North and West and Dakota Ridge Village. S. Mole accepted the friendly amendment. B. Public hearing and consideration of a request far Concept Plan Review and Comment #LUR2002-00048 for the previously approved Phase 2 development for properties at the northeast corner of 33'd and Walnut Streets (1950 33~~ Street, 3333 and 3625 Walnut Street). The proposal is for a three-story, 72,467 square foot addition to the north of the existing building at 3333 Walnut (completed Phase 1). The application also adds 3625 Walnut Street to the project, including demolition of an existing building and Phase 3 construction of a two-story 16,000 square foot building . L. Hanson said that the applicant is seeking reapproval of an expired Phase II addition to the north of an existing building. She said that the application also adds the adjacent property to the east (3625 Walnut Street) to the project. She said that in Phase II the applicant is proposing to use the site for additional parking, and in Phase III the applicant shows the potentiai construction of a two-story, 16,000 square foot building near Walnut Street. She said that there are two thresholds in the Industrial General-Established (IG-E) zoning district that require concept plan and site review for this project-the five-acre threshold and the 100,000 square foot floor area. s: \plan\pb-items\minutes\02ll 21 min City of Boulder Planning Board Minutes December 21, 2002 Page 12 She added that since the original site review was approved, there have been some significant changes to the Land Use Regulations that will affect redevelopment of the property, such as new landscape standards and a new .5 to 1 floor area ratio. She said that the applicant has not identified specific uses that would be in the Phase II and III development, but staff has identified appropriate by-right land uses that would be aliowed. She pointed out the key issues~ompliance with new land use regulations approved since the original approval, compatibility of size and scale of buildings with surrounding area, and building height of 45 feet. She said that staff finds that the proposed second and third phases of the project are consistent with the exisfing structure and site plan, as well as the surrounding area, and the size and scale of the Phase II plans are consistent with the previously approved height review plans and compatible with the existing character of the area. Scott Nevin, architect for the project, described the proposed project and the site as it currently exists. He said that when the building originally went through the Planned Unit Development (PUD) process, the structure was built using replacement square footage (removing a couple of buildings on the site), and the size was reduced slightly from its original PUD height. He said that the building materials and character of the three-story structure match the original building. He stated that the adjacent property will be used to add the additional floor area ratio to build out the original designed building. He said that the adjacent site will allow a 16,000 square foot building to be added with the required parking. He added that the parking provided is more than is required so that a portion of the building could be leased out as per the original requirements. Doug MacDonald, applicant's representative, said that the parking provided is above the required amount because there is a contractua] obligation to provide adequate parking for the tenant. He discussed the landscaping of the parking azea. He noted the uses of the current buildings on the site and the area. He discussed the plans to, connect the buildings on the site and the possibility of providing a link to a possible pedestrian connection to the north to the future transit center. Vince Porreca, applicant's representative, suggested that such a pedestrian link could possibly be along the railroad right of way on the south side. S. Durian discussed the transportation plan for the area and said that a trail system is proposed in the railroad right-of- way that will connect to the transit center. R. McHeyser said that as part of the Jobs/Housing project, staff is looking at potential changes in some of the industrial areas to mixed use or high density residential, but the applicanYs site is not one of the sites considered for changes because the area surrounding the site is already established. She pointed out the sites that are being reviewed. Public Participation: There was no public participation. Return to the Board: M. Cowles asked the applicant if it was his intention to have the building Leadership Through Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) certified. S. Nevin said that the first phase of this s:AplanApb-items~tninutesA021121min ~ City of Boulder Planning Board Minutes December 21, 2002 • Page 13 development was designed with all mechanical equipment in place to run both the buildings in the first and second phase which becomes much less efficient from a power consumption standpoint. He said, however, that LEED certification is a selling point for the development, especially since two different tenants (E-Source and Financial Times Energy) are consultants on these types of projects. He estimated that this development would create an additional 210 to 250 employees. He said that this project would not include mixed use. J. Spitzer asked if a reservation of a 10-foot right-of-way along the northeast part of the parcel for a pedestrian connection to the future transit center could be a part of the project since it is not certain that the railroad will ailow such use in its right-of-way corridor. L. Hanson said that when the project is brought back for site review, staff can add this to the range of issues concerning transportation connections. S. Durian said that unless there is an existing right-of- way, the only realistic way to ensure a path is to provide it in the railroad right-of-way. S. Nevin said that he thought that it would be preferable to have the path in the setback or the right-of-way on the property intermixing sidewalks with some trees rather than adding landscaping and generating a buffer on the back side of the site. T. Krueger asked if the excess parking can be deferred until it might be needed. S. Nevin said that larger corporate tenants have a larger requirement of parking, even though the prevailing sentiment in the city is to provide less parking. M. Cowles encouraged the applicant to provide the following at site review: 1) LEED certification for the buildings at a reasonable level; 2) a path that is reserved along the setback; 3) consider that there may come a time after the transit center is built when it might make sense to redevelop the property with residential and a structured parking area, and if the zoning permits, retail as well; 4) the parking lot should have pathways throughout for employees, tenants, and people cutting through to the transit center; and 5) hold the parking to the absolute minimum and defer as much parking as possible-it is a waste of public and private resources to devote excess land to parking when the city is investing a lot of money to make transit work. J. Spitzer suggested that the applicant consider the design of the building from the viewpoint of the passenger on the commuter rail since this parcel is a gateway into Boulder. T. Nielsen asked if the applicant will provide shower facilities in the buiiding. S. Nevin said that there are already shower and bike storage facilities in the existing building, and these facilities could be introduced into the core of the addition as well. 6. MATTERS FROM THE PLANNING BOARD, PLANNING DIRECTOR, AND CITY ATTORNEY R. McHeyser said that at the October 17, 2002 Board meeting, the Board considered a list of proposed changes to be considered during the 2002-2003 Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan annual update. She said that the proposal for a parcel at 28th and Jay Road was not chosen to be considered further. She said that since that time the applicant has submitted some information that the Board did not receive, and the Board made a motion to reconsider this matter at this meeting. She said that although staff thinks that the proposal may very well have merit, it would s: \plan\pb-items\minutes\021121 min City of Boulder Planning Board Minutes December21,2002 Page14 be important to look at the entire area, especially concerning access. She noted that the applicant has shown an access that may or may not work to connect with the existing neighborhood, but staff does not have the resources to provide that kind of review at this time. T. Krueger said that he supports the staff position; further, if there is more staff or financial resources available, he would prefer to approve the discussion of "pop-ups" and "scrape-offs" rather than the 28th and Jay Road proposal. M. Cowies agreed that the staff position is the correct one because of the staff workload and other projects that will be forthcoming. The Board did not make a motion to change its earlier position regarding this parcel. Paul Saparito said that he will convey this decision to his colleague. Regarding the Board's mention of "pop-ups" and "scrape-offs," he noted that Historic Boulder is considering a study of presenting awards for a good remodel or modification of 1950s houses, particularly the criteria that would be used to judge what constitutes a good remodel or modification. M. Cowles pointed out a series of books that addresses "pop-ups" and "scrape-offs" and another book that addresses small design changes and what the problems were that led to those small design changes. He said that it is interesting to see how small changes can make a big difference in the way in which a building fits in its context. B. Coie pointed out upcoming meetings scheduled to discuss the outdoor lighting ordinance. He said that staff conducted a lighting tour with the police chief to discuss security related issues. He said that the police chief was comfortable with every aspect of the ordinance with the exception of the curfew provisions, particularly in parking areas that have dark corners that might attract illegal activity. He said that he and staff of the Homeless Shelter will meet with the Dakota Ridge neighbors on a proposed amendment of their management plan regarding the aicohol policy. The Board and staff discussed the gifrs presented to the Board by the Calvary Bible Church as a thank you for the annexation. D. Gehr said that the city of Boulder does not have any specific standards related to gifts for Boards and Commissions members, but the gifts do not constitute a concern that the Board cannot be objective in its decision making. D. Gehr presented an update of the University of Colorado 1041 permit discussion. He said that the Planning Board had recommendation that the county deny the 1041 permit. He said that City Council passed a resolution asking the county to first place a moratorium on any further 1041 applications in the South Boulder Creek floodplain area until the hydrologica] study has been completed and, second, to amend its 1041 regulations to include a full plan for the development of the site and to authorize denial of piecemeal plans. Subsequently, the county forwarded to city staff a proposal on what they thought would be a good way to impiement this direction from Council-a prohibition against submitting amendments to 1041 applications for a 10-year period unless a number of specified criteria had been met. He explained that a 1041 regulatory review process is an inter-governmental regulation-where the county is authorized to regulate other governmental entities. He said that the city utility department was concerned about its ability to amend its own 1041 permit applications given the 10-year limitations. To address this problem, he said that the city developed a proposal asking the county to allow denial for an incomplete s:\plan\pb-items~minutes\021121 min City of Boulder Planning Board Minu[es December 21, 2002 Page 15 plan on a property rather than the prohibition for 10 years. He said that because of some complaints from the public about this direction, the City Council requested that staff draft an alternative to bring back the moratorium for 10 years as the county had originally proposed and place an exemption for utilities. He said that the County Planning Commission tabled the item until next month and was asked to draft a regulation that was similar to what the city staff developed. The Board and staff inembers debriefed the discussion regarding the Lykins and Front Range connections. B. Cole said that this issue will be reviewed by Council sometime during the first of next year. 7. ADJOURNMENT The Planning Board adjourned the meeting at 11:00 p.m. s: \plan\pb-items\minutes\021121 min