Loading...
Minutes - Planning Board - 1/23/2003APPROVED FEBRUARY 6, 2003 CITY OF BOULDER PLANNING BOARD SUMMARY MINUTES January 23, 2003 Council Chambers Room, Municipal Bnilding 1777 Broadway, 6:00 p.m. The Following are Yhe minutes of the January 23, 2003 city of BoLilder Planning Board meeting. A permanent set of these minutes is kept in Central Records, and a verbatim tape recording of the meeting is maintained far a period of seven years in Central Records (telephone: 303-441-3043). BOARD PRESENT: Macon Cowles Tina Nielsen, Chair Alan O'FIashi Beth Pommer John Spitzer BOARD ABS~NT: Thom Krueger, Vice Chair Simon Mole STAFF PRESENT: David Gehr, Assistant City Attorney Jean Gatza, Plauner Bev Johnson, Planner Mary Lovrien, $oard Secretary Peter Pollock, Planning Directar Susan Richstone, Comprehensive Planner GUEST PRESENT: Chris Cares, RRC Associates 1. CALL TO ORDER Chair T. Nielsen declared a quorum at 6:07 p.m., and the following business was conducted. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES There were no minutes to approve. 3. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION Steve Clason, President of the Martin Acres Neighborhood Association, 3305 Eastman Avenue: He said that the Martin Acres neighbarhood was mentioned several times in the consultant's report regarding "pop-ups" and "scrape-offs," although the neighborhood was not s:AplanApb-itcrosAminutes\030123miu City of Boulder Planuiug Board Minutes .ianuary 23, 2003 Pagc 2 represented as a participant in the focus groups. He said that there is a split of opinion iu Yhe neighborhood (some people believe that there are plenty of regulations, some people believe that we need more regulations to preseive the integrity of the neighborhoods, and many jusY want more infoimation before making an opinion). He suggested thaY representation on the advisory group should include people wl~o live in SOs era neighborhoods and people wllo will be affected by any ordinance changes indirectly, especially tenants and student tenanCs, He also urged tlie Board to take time on this issue and to keep the naine of the issue as pop-ups and scrape-offs. He said that it would take a lot of discussion to get nlany people fi•om this neighborhood to become part of the process to develop solutions because some people do not care about the issue or they do not understand how it would affect them directly. Leonard May, 3014 9th Street: He said that Denver achieved its plan in one year, and he would like to see the city adhere to this timeframe, if possible, so that it does not drag on for several years. P. Pollock responded that thera is a question whether staff can pursue this issue at this time due Lo other major projects in Che work plan. He said that anything that expedites a resolutiou one way or another is advantageous; if an overlay district would do this, he would be supportive of it. Nicky Lee, 3135 Sth Street: She said that there is an opportunity Yo do something in the community now lbout "pop-ups" and "scrape-offs." She said that Yhere was extreme representation on both sides in the focus groups; this issue requires compromise and voices that are in the middle that are able to represent the populace, and she asked that the advisory board be tempered and willing to compromise. She said that if there are timelines it will ensure that this project keeps moving forward in an expedient timeframe. She questioned how much staff time would be involved in developing an overlay district in order to find a solution. She said that because oF the redevelopment and reconstruction thaY is happening in the Newlands neighborhood, it would be appropriate to use this neighborhood as a pilot project. Cl~ristian Griffitl~, 2232 Pearl Street: He said that he thought it would be an excellent idea to have neighborhood areas to work with the pop-ups and scrape-off issues. He said that one problem to keep in mind is that this might lead to polarizing the neighborhood He also suggested that the criteria that is being implemented in the focus groups include many neighbors besides a very select group. 4. DISCUS5IOIV OF DISPOSITIONS, PLANNING BOARD CALL-UPS The Planning Board had no comments on the Planning Board Notice of Disposition far the North Boulder Subcommunity Right-of-Way Plan or the Planning Department disposition (Dakota Ridge Village Filing 2). s: \plan\pb-items\mi nutes\030123mi n City of Boulder Plaruiing Boaid Minutes January 23, 2003 Page 3 5. ACTION ITEMS A. Public I~earing and consideration of the following proposed changes to the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP) as part of the 2002-2003 annual update: L Land Use Designation Changes: a) Arapahoe Avenue and Lincoln Place from mixed density residentialto high density residential b) 5460-5490 Spine Road from performance indnstrial to mixed use industrial and high density residential c) 3035-3345 Kalmia Avenue from low density residential to medium density residential d) 0 Linden Avenue from open space-other to very low density residential e) Foothills Parkway and Diagottal Highway from transitional business to general or community business Q Changes to the Open Space designations for various properties to reflect recent purchases, map corrections and removal of the open space designation from a portion of the property ~t Hwy. 119 and North 55~~'. 2. Minor Service Area Boundary Change: 3532 Diagonal Highway 3. Policy Text and Map Changes: Economic Policies; Species of Local Concern list; Inventoried Wetlands Map; Master Plan and Program Summaries; Open Space Map; and minor Trails Map refinements and corrections. S. Richstone said that the proposed changes are part of the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP) annual review. 5he said that the BVCP allows consideration of changes at least every five years in tha major updates, and there are provisions for an annual review that provide for many different types of changes to the BVCP, particularly to provide landowners and tha public an opportunity to request changes. J. Gatza outlined the following sites that have been proposed for land use designation changes as parC of the BVCP annual review. She said that staff hosted meetings for the neighborhoods for alI the proposed land use changes, and comments and summaries oPthose meetings are included in the packet. She said that approvals by the Planning Board will be considered by City Council on February 18 and by the Boulder County Planning Commission and Boulder County Commissioners in March. She said that the analysis and recommendations were based upon key BVCP policies, and staff weighed the impacts and benefits for each potential change. 1. Arapahoe Avenue and Lincoln Place: Land use designation change from Mixed Density Residential to High DensiYy Residential. Staff siipports this change because it adds housing in a location that l~as ideal access Yo jobs, the university, services, and high- s:Aplati~pb-itemsAininutesA030123min City of Bouldcr Planning Board Minutcs Janua~y 23, 2003 Page 4 frequency transit. The neighborhood consists of high-density residential development and other types of housing. 1.1' --1~ ~1 2. 5460-5490 Spine Road: Land use designation change from Performance Industrial to Mixed Usa Industrial and High Density Residential. The partially vacant eight acres of land houses the Front Range Community College. Staf'f recommendation is no change aY this time because it would be premature given the Gunbarrel Area Planning effort, and it needs to be reviewed in the context of the larger area. The Planning effort will review housing demand in the general area as well as provide a comprehensive assessment of appropriate land uses. 3035-3345 Kalmia Avenue: Land use designation change from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential. Staff recommendation is approval of the proposed change for 11 acres of the 22-acre site. This change would ensure a mixture of housing types, provide compatibility with the adjacent neighborhood, and provide a significant amount of affordable housing. The change shows the city's intent for an average density of the lower end oFthe medium density range for 8.5 dwelling units per acre. s:Aplan\pb-itemsAminutes\030 ] 23min City of Rouldet Plam~ing Board Minutes 7anuaxy 23, 2003 Soccer Page 5 4. 0 Linden Avenue: Land use designation change from Open Space-0ther to Very Low Density ResidenCial. Staff recommendation is approval of the proposed change for the eastern portion of the parcel, and to keep the Open Space designation on the western portion of the property. Since this parcel fias development potential, the land use designation change would provide direction far future development of the property. The Open Space designatiion indicates that there are open space values on the property but is not necessarily in public ownership and may have development potential. The Open Space Board of Trustees is notiuterested iu purchasing this property because ofits high price and approves Yhe split designaYion of the parcel. This parcel has potential for one dwelling unit in Yhe county. It is important that this parcel is annexed prior to development to avoid a septic system above the Silver Lake Ditch and so that the city has more say in the location, character, and size of any potential Lmits. Allowing two units on the site would give the landowner incentive to annex to the city and would provide direction to the counCy if the parcel is developed in the county. s: \plan\pb-items\minutes\030123min City of Boiilder Planning I3oard Minutes Jauuary 23, 2003 Page 6 5. Foothills Parkway and Diagonal Highway (McKenzie Junction): Land Lise designation changc fi•om Transitional Business to General and Community Business. StafP recommends no change in the designation. The Planning Board suggested that this change occur in an attempt to address lack of vacant commercial land in the cify and lack of locations for big-box retail, and to capture sales tax revenue that retail provides. The change would decrease the uumber of pofential future jobs and could provide a large vacant site for retail that does not exist elsewhere in the city. However, staff feels that this type of change does not ft we12 in the city's patCern for retail locations, fhere is a pressing need for the city to address the problem of vacant retail space in Crossroads, and Che landowner has indicated that they will submit an applicaYion in the near future for site review that is consistent with the December 2001 concept plan. 6. 3532 Diagonal Highway. Land use minor boundary adjustment change from Area III to Area IL Staff recommendation is approval of the proposed change because it is a logical extension of the service area, does not have any major impacts. s: \plan\pb-items\minutes\030123 min City of Boulder Plazuiing Board Minntes 7anuaey 23, 2003 Page 7 The applicants discussed the ]and use designation changes for their p~rcels: Warren Rovetch, 570 Highl~nd Avenue: He endorsed staffls approval for Arapahoe Avenue and Lincoln Place. He said that in addition to the transportation coi~sideration, there is an opportunity Co put housing within waiking distance of a lot of jobs, to provide affordable housing on the site, aud to provide a good neighbor for the library. Mike Tagliola, 806 Spruce Street: He supports staff's plans for the Gunbarrel area and for 5460-5490 Spine Road. Jeff Eckert, 5353 Manhattan Circle: He said that there have been many meetings with the neighbors, and hc ]odcs Porward to preparing a site plan for 3035-3345 Kalmia Avenue that is consistent with the comments received on the concept plan. He said that the density proposed would be consistent with the concept plan. He said that the development would consist of 45 percent permanently affordable duplexes, four-plexes, eight-plexes, and single family homes. Jim Fletemeyer, Fletemeyer & Lee Associates, Representative for Jim Snyder, 2505 Walnut Street: He asked that the Board allow the applicant to address all the objectives and to provide understanding of the site constraints through the annexation process. He said that adopting staff's recommendation for 0 Linden Avenue could be detrimental because of the need to know more about the property. He recommended that the Board accept the staffls recommendation only as a starting point of the discussion during annexation. He said that two loYs is a nice gesture, but three lots would break down the scale better. Pete F'ogg, Boulder County Land Use Department: He said that he supports staffls recommendation for 3532 Diagonal Highway. He said that the building on the parcel will transfer ownership from Boulder County to the Boulder Emergency Squad. He said that he thinks that this is a mapping eiror, and it is appropriate to place the parcel into Area II given that it is two-thirds contiguous to the city. He said tl~at the comments of ouYdoor lighting and noise are minimal since there are majar highway and transportation corridors separating this facility from the nearest residences. Public Participation: Dave Walba, 5453 Mesa Top Court: He spoke about the recommendation for 5460-5490 Spine Road. He suggested that the Board take into account the height of the new construction, the traffic, increased amount of pollution, water, fire and police resources, and consistency with the new open space requirements. He asked that the neighbors be informed of the progress of the developmenY and that they be allowed to comment. Rodger Ewy, 4082 Old Westbury Court: He addressed the parcel at Foothills Parkway and Diagonal Highway (McKenzie Junction). He said that Crossroads Mall would be a better place far a big-box anchor store because it is central to Boulder, it has a long history of commercial s: \planlpb-items\minutes\030123min City of Boulder Planning Roard MinuYes .Tauuary 23, 2003 Page 8 exptoitation, and is central to Boulder's shopping population, and ot3ier appropriate sites would include rezoned industrial and commereial sitea He said that such a stora at the McKenzie site would furthar exacerbate the dwindling sales at Crossroads and likely hamper the successful redevelopment of Crossroads Mall by siphoniug off Crade that would otherwise go to a reviCalized Cirossroads Mall. IIe said that the McKenzie site is totally inappropriate for commercial exploifation beca~ise of its dangerous access, its location at a transportafion choke point, and its remotc position froin the center of Boulder's population. He added that this site is Che prime enYry into Boulder from the northeast. He supports the staff reeommendation of no change. He also recommended the staff recommendation for 3532 Diagonal Highwly. Mike Hart, 2255 Mendow Avenue: He opposed the staff recommendation For 3035-3345 Kalmia because of the inability to mitigate transportation impacts associated with this proposed change. He saw no mention of how this proposed change would fit with the transportation goals and objectives ofthe North Boulder Subcommunity Plan. Ci~ristian Griffith, 2232 Pearl Street: He said thati if the proposed change to the property at Arapahoe and Lincoln is approved, the zoning of the entire block should be amended. He also suggested that the dweIlings on Lincoln be researched for historic designation. He said that this will be an antryway iuto a historic neighborhood and Yo build high-dettsity and questionable architectural value structures is shortsighted. Premena, P.O. Box 1038: He spoke about the 0 Linden Avenue property. He said that the zoning should be discussed during an annexation hearing and an agreement should be made under this venue rather than changing the BVCP designaYion. He said that the McKenzie property should be light-industrial underground. Joe Van Andel, 2938 Kalmia Avenue: He opposed the staff recommendation for 3035-3345 Kalmia Avenue. He said that the access area is via two dead-end roads, and Kalmia cannot be widened given the configuration of the properties around it. He said that the proposal provides inadequate park space, therc is poor access to transit and walking areas, and it is in the airport influence zone. He said that one of the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board members recommended that this proposal be abandoned and a new proposal be started because of the lack of adequate park space being planned. Roland Sharette, 2962 Kalmia: He opposed the staff recommendation for 3035-3345 Kalmia Avenue because of the heavier traffic loads, loss of wildlife habitat, sound polhrtion from soccer public announcement systems, highway, and air traffic sources, aircraft crashes, emergency access limited to two main roads through and around major land use blocks, crowded and inferior housing units, lack of recreation spaces and supporting services. James Pribyl, 4664 South Hampton Circle: He supported the staff recommendation for the McKenzie Junction site. s: \platt\pb-items\minutes\030123inin City of Boulder Planning Bo1rd Miuutes January 23, 2003 Page 9 Carolyn Ramsey, 6646 Bean Mountain Lane: She supported the idea of deferring any decision to change the designation of the Spine Road site beeause there is a lack of information from the Planning staff and the homeowners in Gunbarrel. She suggested fhat during the discussion of the Gimbarrel area plan and Yhe Spine Road site to make sure that Gunbarrel North neighbors are apprised of all the meetings. Ted Habermnn, 3835 Spring Valley Road: He spoke about the 0 Linden property. He said that development on this property, regardless of how it is done, will have a huge impact because of the nature of the site. He said that the neighUors are unifoimly opposed to the development and asked the Board to reject the recommendaCion to make some compromise at this point. Jim McBride, 3365 Diagonal Highway: He spoke about McKenzie Junction. He said that this is a good site for some type of commercial application. He said that a higher zoning designation might be appropriate to help replenish the city of Boulder's lost tax revenue. He said that the people who are advoeating no developmenY on this property should recognize that the owner is paying real estate taxes on the land. Mike Cooper, 3821 Hale Court: He said that he found ihe staff recommendation for 3035-3345 Kalmia Avenue misleading-it gives the impression that development of ll acres is better than changing all 22 acres to medium density. He said that he did not approve moving the highest density units into the northeast conter of the parcel because it will concentrate the traffic onto Palo Parkway. He said that staff is hoping to mitigate traffic by increasing ridership on the Bound transit through a neighborhood Eco-pass prograin, by providing pedestrian connections along Palo Parkway to the transit stop, and by ensuring the extension of local street grids from adjacent s~ibdivisions directiy into the site. However, he said tl~aY this wil] not mitigate any traffic problems because very few people in the neighborhood take the bus-the neighborhood is too remote from commercial and retail services. Return to the Board: The Board and staFf discussed each of the proposed changes to the Land Use Map. Arapahoe Avenue and Lincoln Plnce: J. Spitzer asked if some of the more significant historic structures could be preserved if the Board approves the redesignation. P. Pollock said that there is not a development proposal before the Board; staff has encouraged the applicant to come forward with a concept plan, and this would be the time to address issues such as historic preservatiou. He said that the higher density would not automatically allow demolition of the historic houses. B. Pommer said that the proposal still needs to meet the compatibility standard with the potentiai historic district. D. Gehr said that the applicant has had conceptual discussions aUout demolitiou wikh the Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board (LPAB) Design Review Committee, but no application s:Aplau\pb-items\minutes\030123min City of Boulder Planuing Board Minutes Jauuaiy 23, 2003 Page 10 has been made. Hc added tUaY if the Design Review Committee made a probable cause determination that the structures had historic value, then iC woiild be reviewed by the LPAB. MOTION: On a motion by M. Cowles, seconded by J. Spitzer, the Planning Board approved (5-0; T. Krueger and S. Mole were absent) the land use desiguation change from Mixed Density Residential to High Density Residential for the site at Arapahoe Avenue and Lincoln Placc, adopting the analysis and recommendation as described in Attacl~ment C oF the staPf memorand~im datied Januaiy 23, 2003 (preparaCion date Jamiary 10, 2003). A. O'Hashi encouraged the neighbors to note the historic designation process Por this area. He said that even thougl~ some of Che homes might not bc historically significant, it still represents demolition of existing structures, and staff eucourages preseroatiou of existing Itousing whenever possible. 5460-5490 Spine Road: The Planning Board agread wiYh staff's recominendation of no change to the land use desiguaYion at tl~is time and that the proposed chauge should be assessed as part of the Gunbarrel Area Planning Process. 3035-3345 Kalmia Avenue: B. Pommer asked how the density would be handled on the Kahnia property. P. Pollock said that the clensity would be averaged over the entire site when a development plan is submitted. M. Cowles said that when the Board reviews the concept plan for this site, he will take a critical eye at the compliance with the Parks Department Master Plan. He also said that this land use designation would ueed to accommodate the density outlined in the concept plan. J. Spitzer said that the concept plan should reflect not only the spirit of Boulder but mauy of the values and concerns of the neighborhood; in particular, that the new neighborhood has a walkable, pedestrian friendly feeling to it and that Yhe size and mass of units are builY in such a way that they do not feel like monster homes. He said that there seems to be inadequate fire services to the site apparently tl~is site does not meet the current response times--and he will want to ensure that growCh is paying its own way in this situation. He noted that he would like to see consideration of a small coffee shop so that there is a gathering place for residents. M. Cowles said that in tl~is case the Board has reviewed a concept plan for the site. He noted that the consensus oF the Board was Yhat the density should be increased above the 132 units that would be pertnitted under the current land use designation if the parcel were to be annexed, but the Board did not want Co increase the density to ihe higher end of inedium density residential. MOTION: On a motion by M. Cowles, seconded by J. Spitzer, the Planning Board approved (4-1; A. O'Hashi opposed, and T. Krueger and S. Mole were absent) the land use designation change from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential for the 11 acres delineated on the map on the properiy at 3035-3345 Kalmia Avenue, adopting Yhe analysis and recommendation as described in Attachment E of the staff inemorandum dated January 23, 2003 s:Aplan\pb-itemsAmimites\030123min City of Boulder Planning Board Minutes January 23,2003 Page 11 (preparation date 7anuaty 10, 2003). T. Nielsen offercd a friendly amendment that the overall density on the 22 acres would noC excecd an average of 8.75 units per acre. M. Cowles and J. Spitzer accepted the friendly amendment. 0 Linden Avenne: J. Spitzer asked if there was a downside to leaving the land use designation as Open Space and if there was a benefit to ltaving a split dcsignation. J. Gatza said that splitting the designation would provide some direction for future development oP the property, and the western edge of tha property needs to be protected from grading and development. D. Geltr said that this action to redesignate thc parcel would signal an intant to annex the property; if the property is lefi with a designation of Open Space, the signal would be to the applicant to pursue development options in tUe cottnty. He said thaY sfaPf will use the split designation line as guidance to define a building envelop, and a conservation easement would be pursued over the open space area as part of the community benefit. T. Nielsen asked if there was anytl~ing in the county land use process that would prevent the development of the western half of the parcel. P. Fogg said that under the current regulations the CounYy Commissioners are authorized, through a public process, to direct how any development on any legal buildable lot in the cotmty will occur, including form, location given the constraints of the site, size, and color, and to consider the concerns of the adjacant laudowners and, in this case, comments from the city of Bouider. He added that moving more than 500 cubic yards of earth on the parcel would require a special use review involving puUlic hearings before both the Boulder County Planning Commission and the Boulder County Commissioners. He said that the county supporis a split designation on the property and development only on the eastern portion of the properfy. Chad Fletemeyer said tihat the initial applicaYion was a requesY to designate the entire parcel, and to work with staff to designate a conservation easement Yo provide a community benefit. He asked the Board to support staffls recommendation but to allow for some flexibility as to how the property could be developed when a plan is proposed. P. Pollock said that the line is not arbitrary but there will be some flexibility at annexaYion and zoning to make adjustments; staff drew the line taking into consideraYion slope and suitability concerns. He said that he wanted to signal to the landowner that there are some development and site preservation issues thati are informed by the Open Space designation and to signal that there may be potential for more than one dwelling unit. J. Spitzer asked how many units would be allowed if the property is annexed into the city. J. Gatza said that if the property had the same zoning as the areas to the east in the county, it would allow a maximum of two Linits. Chad Fletemeyer said that if an application is made through the county process, one very large house could be built toward the western property line. He said that the staff recommendation would cram two dwelling units into the flood conveyance zone whereas the value of the property is on the western piece. He said that he would like to have the opportunity to show the Board a s: \plan\pb-itams\minutes\030123 mi n City of Boulder Planning Board Minutes January 23,2003 Page 12 fhree-IoY plan which would use benning and a smarter development than one large house. B. Pommer suggested that the parcel remain designated Open Space because the line drawv would be viewed as fairly rigid, and there anay be other solutions thau the one staff has proposed. M. Cowles said that lie prefers adopting the staff recommendation as a signal to the applicant that the city is interesting in annexing the property. He said that the applicant will get two building lots rather than just one; also, the county might not pay as much atfention to some of the open space values as the city might. T. Nielsen said that she supparts tha staff recommendation for the benefit of having the development be part of the city in order to avoid a septic system in that part of town. MOTION: M. Cowles made a motion, seconded by J. Spitzer, that fhe Planning Board approve a land use designation change from Open Space-Other to Very Low Density Residential only for a portion of the parcel at 0 Linden Avenue, adopting the analysis and recoinmendation in Attachment F of the staff report dated January 23, 2003 (preparation date Jamiary 10, 2003). The vote was 3-2; B. Pommer and A. O'Hashi opposed, and T. Krueger and S. Mole were absent. The vote failed because four positive votes are required to make a change so the land use designation on this parcel remains unchanged. Foothills Parkway and Diagonal Highway (MeKenzie JunctIon): M. Cowles said that he withdrew his request to change tha land use designation from Transitional Business to General and Community Business. He said that originally he thought that changing the designation and taking advantage oPthe traffic that goes by the site might be a way to recapture some of the lost sales tax for the city. He said that he supports Mr. Ewy's comments and supports the staff recommendation to leave the current designation for the site. The Planning Board agreed with the staff recommendation of no change to the land use designation. 3532 Diagonal Highway: MOTION: On a motion by B. Pommer, seconded by T. Nielsen, the Planning Board approved (5-0; T. Krueger and S. Mole were absent) the proposed change for a minor boundary adjustment at 3532 Diagonal Highway from Area III to Area II as described in the staff memorandum dated January 23, 2003 (preparation date January 10, 2003). Land Use Designation Changes in Area III and Staff Initiated Changes The staff and Board ciiscussed each of the Land Use designation changes in Area II and the staff recommendad changes. Varions ChanQes to the BVCP Land Use Man There were no comments on this issue. s: \plan\pb-items\minutes\030123min City of Bouldcr Planni~tg Board Minutes January 23, 2003 Chan~es to the Economic Policies Page 13 B. Pommer asked who will be developing the tourism master plan and what the fiscal impacts might be. P. Pollock said that this plan is sponsared by the Convention and Visitors' Bureau. He said thaY during this year he expects Yhe masYer plan to coine Forward before the Board. B, Pommer commented that the new policy that states "Consistent witlt community gpals and character, encourage a strong sustainable economy to fund qaality city services for all citizens" is too broad. P. Pollock said that he will pass this comment on to City Council. M. Cowles asked why all 10 of the goals from the Economic Sustainability section of the Boulder Valley Compreheusive Plan were not adopCed. P. Pollock said that the existing language has already been through a four-body process and it would be difficult to try to incorparaCe the ideas of the Economic Sustainability Plan inYo tlte BVCP rather than the other way around. He also said that many of the ideas existing in the Economic Sustainability Plan were already represented in the economic section of the BVCP. M. Cowles said that the problem he has with the suggested new policy is that it adds sustainable economy to the policy section "The Economy" in the BVCP and that the study never defined what sustainable economy is; there are places in the report that get it mixed up with the sustainability concapt that one thinks of when talking about the scale of the economy in relation to the environment. P. Pollock said Yhat the BVCP has evolved as part of our understanding of environmental issues, and this addition reflects the current discussion even though the tarm is not fully defined. Trails Map Program Summary M. Cowles asked about the comments that were made by citizens regarding the removal of a conceptual trails corridor from the Trails Map of the BVCP. J. Gatza said that the Board directed staff to develop in the Action Plan some criteria and process for changes to the Trails Map. She said that these changes are the result of an inter-departmental staff effort to define the segments of the Trails Map and to define how changes would be proposed. She said that changes to the Trails Map will be forwarded to the Open Space and Mountain Parks Board of Trustees, the Greenways Advisory Committee, the Transportation Advisory Board, the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board, and the County Parks and Open Space Advisory Committee for their comments; these comments will then be forwarded to the adopting bodies-the city Planning Board, City Council, the County Planning Commission, and the County Commissioners. She said that staff recommends that as part of the Action Plan an analysis and planning effort be added around the conceptual trails, such as the Boulder Feeder Canal Trail and the Union Paciftc Rail Line. Master Plan and Pr~ram Suminaries The Board had no comments on this issue. s: \plan\pb-itams\minutes\030123 min Ci[y of IIoulder Planning Board Minutes January 23, 2003 Snecies of Local Concern List Yage 14 B.Pommer asked for a de~nition of extirp~ted species. B. Johnson explained that this term means a species that no longer exists in tbe state. M. Cowles said that he was concerned that the sources for the species of concern list are the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, the Colorado Division of Wildlife, and the Colorado Natural Heritage Program because the agencies have been defunded to a substantial extent with respect to the protection of threatened and endangered species and species of concern. He asked if there were other sources that staff could Lise to ensure that there is a complete list. B. Johnson said that staff started with the simplest list and built upon it with updates. She said that when the Open Space Department and Boulder County conducts more research and more planning of habitat protection, staff will begin identifying species that are important on the local level Yo build upon statie and federal lists. She said that staff considered other sources, such as Audubon Society and the Nature Conservancy, but wants to have a list that all the agencies could agree on. She said that this list is importanY so that staff can identify habitaY that is important far protection through site review, and it became an educational tool to help set policy, to create a sense of awareness, and to use as indicators that can Ue used in the future. Inventaried Wetlands Map Chan eg s Open Space/Mountain Parks and Parks Map Trails Mav Refinements and Corrections The Board had no comments on these issues. MOTION: On a motion by T. Nielsen, seconded by M. Cowles, the Planning Board approved (5-0; T. Krueger and S. Mole were absent) the staff recommendations regarding the Land Use DesignaYion change in Area III, and changes to the following sections of the BVCP: Economic Policies, the Trails Map Program Summary, Master Plan and Program Suminaries, the background and supporting documentation which includes Species of Local Concern list, Inventaried Wetlands Map, Open Space/Mountain Parks aud Parks Map and Trails Map as outlined in the staff inemorandum, including attachments, dated Jamiary 23, 2003 (preparation date January 10, 2003). B. Public hearing and consideration of revisions to the Boulder Valtey Comprel~ensive Plan Action Plan. J. Spitzer commented on Indicators of Sustainability. He encouraged staff to look at indicatars that may noY be able to be measured with data and statistics because these indicatars may be valuable. M. Cowles responded that the purpose of the indicators in that section of the plan is exactly to look at the numbers and develop measurements. P. Pollock said that the EnvironmenCal Sustainability Task Force has identified this as one of its priorities. He said that the issue that staff has encountered is trying to make the project sustainable--Yhe measures can be identified but then who will collect the data and how will it be recarded. He said that staff has s: \plan\pb-items\minutes\03 0123mi n Ciry of Boulder Plamiing Board Minutes _ .Tanuary 23, 2003 Page 15 been discussing identifying measures that represent data that are collected by a variety of people and to report the data. He said that he thinks that this goal should be accomplished this year. Public Participation: There was no public participation. Return to the Board: MOTION: On a motion by M. Cowles, seconded by A. O'Hashi, the Planning Board approved (5-0; T. Krueger and S. Mole were absent) the changes to the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan Action Plan as presented in the staff inemorandum dated January 23, 2003 (preparation date January 17, 2003). 6. DISCUSSION ITEM A. Discussion of RRC Associates, Inc. Report on Focus Groups on major additions and demolitions to residential properties, i.e., Pop-ups and Scrape- offs, and next steps. S. Richstone said that as part of the Pianning Department's 2002 work program, staff hired RRC Associates to conduct a series of focus groups on pop-ups and scrape-offs to help staff design a process to address this issue in the future. C. Cares presented a brief overview of the highlights and key findings from the focus groups. He said that the sessions were structured around two sets of three focus groups, and the participants included people intarested in neighborhood issues, architects, realtors, and members of organized groups. He explained that before the focus groups met they were invited to complete a survey designed to elicit opinions in advance of discussions. He highlighted some of the opinions and said that the consistent theme is that the city already has a lot of regulations, and this particular area will be difficult to deal with. He said Chat Yhere was concern about the potential for unintended consequences as a result of new regulations. Ha said that the participants discussed the problem of pop-ups and scrape-offs and what might be done about it-what are the policy choices and what are the preferences in terms of those policy choices. He said that lhe participauts cited mass and scale iu particular as the problent and supported bulk plane as a solution to mass and scale issues. He said that there were some participanYs who expressed interest in some kind of a threshold approach either that a size tl~reshold cannot be exceeded or that a threshold could be exceeded, but that certain things happen in that case. He said that even though there were some differing opinions, the consensus was around some level of design conh~ol Yhat could be triggered at a threshold level. He said that some of the participants discussed looking for an alternative name besides the terms pop-ups and scrape-offs to describe this process. He said that there was concern that there was not a way to control speculative development as opposed to paople who wanted to expand to meet their family needs. He noted that there was discussion about whether this was a city-wide issue versus a neighborhood-specific issue. He said that the survey indicated that it was more central-area specific than unifonnly distributed across the city as a whole, but there was some s: \pl~n\pb-items\minutes\03 0123 rnin City of Boulcier Planning Board Minutes J~miary 23, 2003 Page 16 discussion in the groups that whatever approach is taken it should be done city-wide with soine customization based on neighborhoods. He said that, in conchision, it was Pelt that this was a very complex issue. S. Richstone highlighted the four areas that staff felt were important in the design of the project as it moves forward, including extensive analysis of how changes to the regulations would impact a wide variety of conditions on individual lots. She said that an advisory group will need to be formed. P. Polloclz said that the concern about overlaying additional regulation opens up the opportunity to simplify the approach to some of these matters. He said that in the Denver process they looked at not just adding another layer on top of things but talked about how they fimdamentally would shift the way they Created setbacks or the way they dcalt with solar access or open space. He said that they refined existing tools but in the process ended up simplifying some of the approlches Yo regulating the scale, mass, and bulk of houses in their community. He said that tl~is process might be a way for people to reach consensus. He said that in order to find the middle ground there will need to be a signif cant communiYy discussion. He said that because there are already several contentious topics being discussed in the community, staff is concerned about opening up yet another discussion in the comnluuity that can lead to division. He said we should be very clear in our discussion about whether this is the right issue at the right time with the right approach before bringing it to the community. He said that another concern is the staff workload and when if would be feasible Yo begin this process. M. Cowles acknowledged that the issue is contentious, but this is an issue that has been identified not just by the Planning Board and City Council but by citizens in the community. He said that there is a problem with farming focus groups with people who hold extreme opinions on the subject, because achieving a solution that will satisfy both extremes would be difficult. He said that this process would abandon the majority of our citizens who think that it is reasonable far people to be aUle to redevelop their properties and to make reasonable expansions but who are saying that help is ~leeded to control these out-of-scale houses. He said that we should be inspired by the example in Deirver-that in thirty zoning districts they were able to define the problem with remarkable clarity and reach a solution within a year. He acknowledged that the character in the neighborhoods and their goals will differ from one another, and it might be beneficial to work with individual neighborhoods to help them achieve solutions that are supported by tlie neighborhood. Public Participation: Susan Balint, 760 9th Street: She said that in her work, she prefers a group that is reasonable rather than a group that is reasonably centered. She said that there can be extreme views as long as those views are not coming from extreme individuals who are not willing to listen. She added that in this way consensus is gained for the proposal that will be presented to a larger group. She said that she is impressed with the study, particularly the common themes from the focus groups. s: \plan\pb-items\minutes\03 0123min City of Boulder Planning Board Minutes Jam~aiy 23, 2003 Page 17 She said that there is uo better time than the present to bring this item forward. She said that there are many issues being discttssed that could benefit from this study. Jan Otto, 960 Lincoln Place: He said that because of a lack of process for the Uni-LTill historic district discussion, he has become extremely concerned about soine of the other city processes. He said that he would like to see a rewriting of the Historic Preservation Ordinance. He stated that he is gratified to see this study on pop-ups and scrape-offs--this study addresses thc iss~ies on Uni-Hill Far better than designating over 900 properties in a histaric district. He said Yhat he has formed a legislative advisory task farce to work with the city to write reasonable legislation in this area and in historic preservation, and this group would be willing to work as the advisory group. Eleanor DePuy, 15t1i and Cascade: She asked M. Cowles if he thought that speculators who might not live in the neighborhood were intended to be included in any neighborhood vote. M. Cowles saict that he would propose that a ballot would be sent to every property owner in the neighborhood, and some people might choose to have the interests of tenants as part of the vote. Dee Andrews, 88S 15th Street: She said that she was one of the participants in the focus groups. She agrced that it was flawed because the participants were ail pre-selected, the people selected were on extremes, and the populace as a whole was not representad. 5he said that the kinds of questions the survey asked indicated to her that the problem was defined for the participants. She urged the Board to take to heart the findings in the study to really define what the problem is before getYing too far down a solution path. She said that the number of permits issued (198) in 2001 is miniscule compared to the number of homes in the city-is it really a problem or is it a problem in certain neighborhoods? Steve Clasen, 3305 Eastman Avenue: He said that when he answered the question earlier about an overlay district, he assumed a lot of staff support. He said that there are 1,400 homes in Martin Acres (60 percent are owner occupied and 40% are rentals) and contacting all these people and engaging them enough so that they would all make an informed decision could easily take as much staff time as dealing with the issue city-wide. He said that volunteers from the neighborhood could not make this work by themselves. Leonard May, 3016 9th Street: He said that some of the people in the Newlands neighborhood feel that the process cannot be delayed too much longer. He said that because of a lack of staff resources for this issue, he recommended proceeding with neighborhoods where it is more of an issue and delaying some of the areas that are not as affected by pop-ups and scrape-offs. Return to the Board: S. Richstone said that staff has recommended some next steps and asked the Board far its ideas on how to design a process. A. O'Hashi said that he would be interested in taking a closer look at some of these historical trends and to differentiate between a family that is growing and does s:\plan\pb-items\minute s\03 0123min City of Boulder Planning Board Minutes January 23, 2003 Pagc 18 not want Co move out of Boulder and a speculator. J. Spitzer advised staff to go forward with this project and to develop an advisory grotiip. He said Chat one of the initia] meetings of the advisory g~oup would be Co take a field trip to see examples oFpop-ups and scrape-offs to define the problem. He supported stafi's recommendaYion to get assistance fi•om an urban design consultant, particLilarly in relation Co what was done in the Denver projecti. B. Pommer stated that a geographic approach is important because some neigltborhoods have differing size lots, street design, aud alleyways, and a one-size-fits-all will be harder to apply across the city. She said that the threshold question should be reviewed to detertnina if a project that exceeds a certain threshold will require additional analysis. She said that the city should review the effectiveness of existing regulations. M. Cowles said that one such geographic plan might be that if 10 percent of the neighbors petition that they want to review this problem or any other issues, then staff could move a process forward to help them figure out what they love about their neighborhood, what is having a bad result there, and what they want to protect. He said that in this scenario the extremists on either side woiild have a chance to present in a persuasive way their arguments to the rest of their neighbors about developing a solution or no solution at all. He said that then a vote of a certain percentage of the property owners could make some adjustment in their neighborhood with Planning Board and City Council support. He said that the Newlands neighborhood would be a good neighborhood to start with because there are already conversations about the problem in the neighborhood and there are good examples and poor examples of redevelopment. J. Spitzer said that he was concerned about developing regulations neighborhood by neighborhood because it is difficult to move something forward in this way. T. Nielsen suggested that something be done on a gross level tl~at would help address some of the more egregious kinds of examples of redevelopment and then get into a more detailed shidy. S. Richstone said that staff would prefer to design a process that did not create divisiveness in Che communiCy ar pit neighbor against neighbor. She said that if the project starts out with a very small area, it will be difficult to avoid this occurrence. M. Cowles said that he thought that a neighborhood approach could work, citing the successful example of Denver's project--a short statement of the problem was developed that incorporated statements about what they love about their neighborhood. P. Pollock said that he agreed that it would be worthwhile to review Denver's experience. A.O'Hashi suggested that one approach is to find two or three successful examples of processes so that people can react to it. He said that it is important not to rush the process in order to gather enough infonnation to inform at least some reasonable policy choices. He said that it might be helpfiil to find out why people build such large houses because it could be due to market forces. B. Pommer said that no matter what the market forces are, if there is a problem with the mass and scale of some of the units being built in the community, we should determine whether we want to regulate things differently and how we can get there. J. Spitzer said that even though s: \plau\pb-items\minutes\03 0123miu City of Boulder Planning Board Minutes Jamtary 23, 2003 - Pflgc 19 there are ups and downs in t$e economy, this is an important issue to Boulder in the long term and we should go ahead with it. M. Cowles suggested that the Planning Board be the advisory group--the Board can hold public hearings, and the work can be completed within a reasonable period of time. He said that the Board members come from a variety of neighborhoods and is morc familiar with the issue because of the work in planning and zoning regulations and with the mechanisms by which this problem can be addressed. A. O'Hashi agreed that the Planning Board could be the advisory group. J. Spitzer stated that he was concerned about the Board taking on the role of an advisory group for this project because of the time constraints that the Board already has. He said that this is an impartant proUlem that should be addressed, that we should look at what other coinmunities have done, such as the Denver project, we should put a timeline on the project, such as one year, we should put together an advisoiy group composed of people who want to work together, and we need to sell this project as a win-win proposition. P. Pollock said that the next step would be Co disouss this issue with City Council about Cheir priorities and ways to approach this problem. He said that it is important to have an advisary group that adequately represents all viewpointis, and there might be some segments of the community that would not be adequately represented by the Planning Board. He sLiggested that there might be a study group that informs the Planning Board. 7. MATTERS FROM THE PLANNING BOARD, PLANNING DIRECTOR, AND CITY ATTORNEY J. Spitzer pointed out the article about the Stapleton redevelopment in Denver. He said that the plans for this project were for a mixed use development with a lively pedestrian neighborhood, but what they got were a few box stores. He said that Yhis development represents an important lesson for Boulder as the Crossroads Mall is being developed--even though the large box stores will exist for 15 to 20 years, the street pattern was laid out far future planned uses. He said that by planning this way we do not prechtde something else from being developed in the future. He asked if the Planning Board was going to take any action at Yhe joint Planning Board/City Council meeting on February ll regarding jobs/housing. P. Pollock said that this will be a standard City Council meeting, and the packet materials will include a proposed resolution to be adopted by CounciL He added that there will be a staff presentation, a public hearing, a discussion between the Planning Board and City Council, and then Council will make its motion. He said that the Board has the ability to influence the Council action in the discussion. He discussed calendar issues, inchiding meetings and an open house on jobs/housing, the Greenways Advisory Committee meeting and the kick-off discussion regarding a Gunbarrel area plan both on January 29, and the jobs/housing impact review panel on January 30. He pointed out items to be reviewed by the Board in the future, including discussions on water and landmarking issues, the WasYewater Collection System Master Plan, minor code clarifications on occupancy regulations, and Phase I land use code amendments. He said that the Board reYreat s: \plan\pb-ifems\minutes\030123miu City of Boulder Planning IIoard Minutes Jannlry 23, 2003 Page 20 will be held on April 12 and the Board reception on April 18. The Board had no comments on a notice of a vacation of a sidewalk easemenY adjacent to the Holiday Neighborhood development. S. ADJOURNMENT The Planning Board adjoumed the meeting at 10:50 p.m. s:Aplan\pb-ite~ns\minutesA030123min