Loading...
Minutes - Planning Board - 1/9/2003APPROVED FEBRUARY 6, 2003 CITY OF BOULDER PLANNING BOARD SUMMARY MINUTES January 9,2003 Council Chambers Room, Municipal Building 1777 Broadway, 6:00 p.m. The following are the minutes of the January 9, 2003 city of Boulder Planning Board meeting. A permanenY set of these mimites is kapt in Central Recards, and a verbatim tape recording of the meetiing is maintained for a period of seven years in Central Records (telephone: 303-441-3043). BOARD PRESENT: Macon Cowles Thom Kruager, Vice Chair Simon Mole Tina Nielsen, Chair Alan O'Hashi Beth Pommer John Spitzer STAFF PRESENT: Brent Bean, Senior Planner Bob Cole, Land Use Review Manager David Gehr, Assistant City AtCorney Louise Grauer,Planner Mary Lovrien, Board Secretary Peter Pollock, Planning Director 1. CALL TO ORDER Chair T. Nielsen declared a quorum at 6:03 p.m., and the following business was conducted. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES November 7, 2002: M. Cowles suggested that on page 10, first paragraph, fourth sentence, change to read "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 increase required parking." On a motion by A. O'Hashi, seconded by T. Krueger, the Planning Board approved the minutes of November 7, 2002 as amended (7-0). November 14, 2002: T. Krueger suggested that on page 4, third paragraph, sixth sentence, change to read "P. Pollock said that emergency response times were factored in, but response times are increased with more congestion." B. Pommer suggested that on page 3, first s: \plan\pb-items\minutea\030109min City of Boulder Planning Board Minutes January 9,2003 Page 2 paragraph, Chird sentence, change to read "B. Pommer said that if the Board does not think that the standards are adequate, the standards could be changed." On a tnotion by T. Krueger, seconded by B. Pommer, the Planning Board approved the mimiCes of November 14, 2002 as amended (6-0; A. O'Hashi did not vote because he did not attend Chis meeting). NovemUer 21, 2002: The Board corrected the date stated on the minutes to November 21, 2002. On a motion by T. Krueger, seconded by A. O'Haslti, the Planning Board approved the minutes of November 21, 2002 as amended (6-0; B. Pommer did not vote because she did not attend this mccting). December 5, 2002: B. Pommer suggested that on page 1, last paragraph, sixth sentence, change to read "B. Pommer askad about the total square footage available for this area." She suggested that on page 5, third paragraph, last sentence, change to read °He asked staff to convey to Westcor, the shopping center developer acquired by Macerich, the owner of Crossroads, that he felt that the Board should review four or five concepts as early as possible." On a motion by T. Nielsen, seconded by T. Krueger, the Planning Board approved the minutes of December 5, 2002 as amended (7-0). 3. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION There was no citizen participation. 4. DISCUSSION OF DISPOSITIONS, PLANNING BOARD CALL-UPS The Planning Board had no comments on the wetland permits (4835 Arapahoe Avenue far the Boulder Community HospiYal and the Skunk Creek restoratiou west of 30th Street) or the Planning DepartmenY dispositions (304 Mapleton duplex and 313 Foxtail Court). 5. ACTION ITEM A. Public hearing and consideration of annexaYion and initial zoning #LUR2002-00068, and Concept Plan Review #LUR2002-00069, for a property located at 6287 Arapahoe Road comprising 5.52 acres. Requested initial zoning is "IG-E" Industrial General. The proposal is to develop an east campus for Naropa University, including consideration of dormitories. B. Bean said that Naropa University has submitted a request for annexation and concept plan review for a 5.52 acre parcel located at 6287 Arapahoe Road. He said thaY there is an existing 52,000 square foot building (which has 35,585 squara foot building coverage) on the site with 127 parking spaces. He said that the initial phase of the project would be to develop the northeast 20,000 square feet of the building for classroom space with movable walls to allow for assembly space. He said that since both uses will share the parking spaces, no additional parking will be required because the assembly space will not be usable when tha classroom spaces are in use. He said that an analysis showed that over 175 parking spaces could be developed on the existing parking lot with a reconfiguration of the lots. s: \plan\pb-items\minuces\030109min City of Boulder Planning Board Minutes January 9, 2003 Page 3 He said that staff is recommending Yhat the development of the first 22,000 square Peet of the building be allowed to proceed. He addressed the access and transit available to tihe site. He mentioned that sCaff recommends Yhat the four existing access points along 63rd Street be rednced to two and that the applicant develop an access fo 62nd Street and a future shared aceess with other properties along the north boundary of the property. He distribiited a set of revised conditions of approval which addresses the access between 62nd and 63rd streets. He said that the property meets the annexation requirements and that the Boulaer Valley Comprehensive Plan recognizes this area as appropriate for indusfrial-service use. He nofed fhat the prior Lise on the site was a computer firm and data processing off ce that would not have been permitted under the currenC recommended zone. He said that the applicant is requesting Industrial General-Established (IG-E) zoning whereas staff is requesting that a university use be approved for the site under the Industrial Service-Established (IS-E) zoning. He said that the IS- E zone acknowledges adult education and vocational schools as appropriate, not listing universities. He aclmowledged that the permitted schools do not have housing associated with them, but he felt that because the eLirrent city policies support housing in non-residantial areas Y1iat it was appropriate Yo allow housing and a"university use" on the site. He said that stat'f is recommending that this be a conditiion of the annexation agreement and no additional use review be required. He explaiaed that the IS-E zone allows for more potential for developmeat on tbis property. J. Spitzer asked if staff is suggesting any criteria to the applicant as to what the Board would be reviewing at site review. B. Bean said Yhat a section in the sYaff report speaks to the concept plan and how staff will be reviewing development of housing and pedestrianways and the use of building materials; the site plan review process also has specific criteria that addresses architacture, site development, and parking needs. He noted that the Board has an opportunity to give feedback to the applicant under the concept plan review provisions. John Cobb, President of Naropa University, explained the growth of Naropa since 1993. He said that although there is a potential for developing an additional 72,000 square feet at the existing Naropa site on Arapahoe, the main challenge is trying to find appropriate space within the city of Bouider to allow for additional growth, especialiy for its very active arts program. He noted the existing square footage at the Naropa sites on Arapahoe (60,000 square faet), Iris and 30th (20,000 square feet), and the Dairy Center for the Arts (a small amount of space). He said that the proposed property is a perfect solution because the school would not be further broken up into small parcels around the city, and it would be helpful to the growth of an integrated university. He said that this property would offer the university a medium- to long-term opportunity to consolidate, offer the potential for fiirther development, and, because of the way the building is constructed, offer a perfect soluYion for the dance and visual arts program. He said that the univarsity gains strength from being within the city of Boulder, and Boulder benefits because residents can partake of the continuing education programs and because Bouider can be proud of the development of an educational arts center. s:Aplan\pb-items\mimites\030109min City of Boulder Plnmiing Board Miimtes daimary 9, 2003 Page 4 Vince Porreca, representative for the applicant, said that the first phase of the project would include only internal changea to the building. He said that one of the issues is tlte timing of tlte Naropa development plan with the plans that the Colorado DeparCment of Transportation (CDOT) has for Arapahoe Avenue. He said that the applicant will work with CDOT and Planning staff to merge the improvements along Arapahoe. He said that the applicanY is requesting IG-E zoning becaiise offices are allowed in this zoning. He said that the applicant plans to develop the site For the long term, but the IG-E zoning would provide an exit strategy if the development does not wark. Publie Participation: There was no public participation. Return to the Board: B. Pommer asked if the perfarmance venue would be available to other groups in the community. J. Cobb said that the space would be used primarily for the confinuing education program and will be used by people who are not seeking a dagree at Naropa. He said that he could not guarantee that any of the space would be leased to other performing arts groups in the community because there is such a need for the classroom space at Naropa. He added that it would be a public venue on weekends and evenings. T. Krueger asked whether a generic university use is appropriate for the site ar whether it should be approved based upon the specific use by Naropa University. B. Bean said that the applicant is meeting the parking requirements far the axisting building and the auditorium space that will be developed on the site. He said that staff will review the parking demands for any further devclopment for either Naropa or another university. He said that this property is located on a major transit route that provides high frequency. service; this is different from a commuter school, such as Front Rai~ge College, which has more traffic impacts. He said that staff feels comfortable that the parking needs could be met by any university at this site. He described the differences between the ways that a university and college function. B. Pommer clarified that the third finding in the staff inemorandum does not preclude the use on the site by other universities. D. Gehr suggested that before a motion is made for the annexation that the Board discuss the concept plan. T. Krueger said that because the development at this time would be to the interior of the building there is not much to discuss regarding a concept plan. He added that if there are changes Yo the exYerior of tlie building or changes to the uses, it will be important to have a site review process. He did suggest that if housing is built on the site that it be for students and priced for students. He asked if inclusionary zoning would be required if Naropa soid the parcel. D. Gehr said that should housing be built and should the university use cease to exist, the housing would continue to be an allowed use, although any market-rate housing would require inchisionary zoning. s: \plati\pb-items\minutes\030109mi u City of Botildcr Planning IIoard Minu[es Januaiy 9, 2003 Page 5 J. Spitzer encouraged the applicant to study the bicycle connecCion fi~om the site to the downtown campus and how it would affect the parking requirements. He said that this site is an enCty into Boulder and suggested that the buildings should be closer to Arapahoe to screen the parking from the streeY to prevent it from looking like a subLirban office bLiilding parking lot. T. Krueger suggested that the applicant pay attention to the intersection at Arapahoc and 63rd Street--it presents a great opportunity in ternis of design as a statement for Naropa and for the community as well. He discouraged the use of parking lots within 300 feet of that intersection. B. Pommer suggested tl~at because it is a long-term project, it is premature to discuss specific design elements. M. Cowles said that he hopes that the site is developed into a more urban campus and is delighted that the university continues to be centered in Boulder--there is a synergy that develops between the city and the university. He added that the Uuildings that Naropa has built at its main campus are ones that are lovingly put together and maintained and presenYs like a gateway. T. Nielsen suggested that Eco-passes be provided to the Naropa students. J. Cobb said that every student and every employee is issued such a pass. He said that also the university charges for parking. MOTION: On a motion by T. Nielsen, seconded by B. Pommer, the Planning Board recommended (7-0) that City Council approve the annexation of the property located at 6287 Arapahoe Road with an initial zoning oF Industrial Service-EsYablished (IS-E), adopting the findings of fact as stated in Yhe staff inemorandLim daYed January 9, 2003 (preparatiov daYe December 24, 2002) and the conditions of approval as amended in the staff handout dated January 9, 2003. 6. DISCUSSION ITEMS A. Update and discussion mi the Jobs/Housing project. P. Pollock said that a series of public meetings describing the broad overview of jobs/housing was held in December. He said that individual public comments from those meetings were summarized to City Council on December 17. He said that alChough Council directed that sYaff discuss the most promising strategies at its meeting on January 21, the Council Agenda Committee was approached to reconsider that decision in order to get a fiill public discussion befare direction is given by Council. He noted that a public hearing is scheduled on February 11 before a joint meeting of City Council and Planning Board. He said that a jobs/housing work group meeting was held to discuss future steps (a desire for broader general public meetings and an open house tentatively scheduled far January 28) and the format of the joint Planning Board/City Council meetiug on February 11 (sCaff will make an initial recommendation, there will be a public hearing and a discussion between Planning Board and CiYy Council, and Yhen Council will give a specific direction). T. Krueger said that he thought that it was not appropriate that Planning Board would dismiss the issue with Cotmcil but not be involved in Council's deliberation. He said thaC the Planning s: \plan\pb-items\mimites\03 0109miu City of Boulder Planning Board Mimitcs Jnmi~ry 9, 2003 Page 6 Board could be a great resource because there has Ueen mare attendance at meetings oCthe task force, working group, and public by Planning Board members rather than City Council members. Although the other Board members were not as concerned abouY participating in the deliberations with Council, A. O'Hashi said that he would Ue happy to have T. Krueger as the representative for the Planning Board in this process. P. Pollock said that tbis would be the decision by the Council Agenda Committee and Cify Council. J. Spitzer asked if staff has conducted a public polling to get a more representative conlmunity response about this issue; the people who are atCending these meetings might not be rcpresentative of the entire community. P. Pollock said that there was a discussion about using some kind of polling technique, but there was a concern that the project was so complex Yhat it would be difficult to develop a quick brochure or quick telephone survey to get a good picture of the community's response. B. Pommer said that the mectings that will bc held this month are intended to get responses from the general public. J. Spitzer said that he would lilce to see more responses from the public because of the differing opinion between the business community and the environmenYal community. He questioned how tnuch the city would benefit from a lot of growth in office space--the city gets a little property tax and a short-teim use tax for building Che sh~uclure, but once the office is in place the city would get very little revenues. P. Pollock said that a fiscal impact study and an economic impact study were conducted for the project, but the latter study was criticized by City Council at the last study session. He then asked the Economic Sustainability Task Force to sponsor a panel to address the issuas brought up by Council, and the panel will be reporting on its findings on January 30. He said that a consultant will then perform an analysis on tihese issues so that it is ready for subsequent stages of decision making. M. Cowles suggested that staffs from the city and the Chamber of Commerce sponsor a community discussion every week between now and February 11 for people who want to talk about trade-offs and options of jobs/housing. P. Pollock said that he did not think that Planning staff would be the appropriate hosY for these meetings. J. Spitzer said that there appears to be an inconsistency between Yhe city's web page that addresses water issues and a memorandum discussing water for Boulder's fuhire--the fonner states that under all scenarios the city has enough water to accommodate all growth L~p to and including the 100-year drought, and the latter states thaY water may be eliminated entirely far landscaping during droughts that occur only once every 100 years. T. Nielsen said that at the Board meeting on February 6, there will be a presentation by Carol Ellinghouse, Public Works/Water Resources, and a Board discussion on water issues that can clarify this issue. J. Spitzer stated that ona study indicates that trying to balance jobs and housing does not resulY in significant benefits and asked if there were other studies that address the conclusions of this study. L. Grauer said that staff has put together a paper about what other communities az•e doing about this issue, including a number of other studies that give a different point of view. She said that this paper can be found on the jobs/housing web site. s:Aplan\pb-items\minutes\030109min City of I3ouldct Planning Bonrd Minntes 7anuary 9, 2003 Page 7 B. Discussion nnd direction regarding DRCOG's qucstionnaire on the Regional 2030 Urban Growth Boundary/Are~ (UGB/A). L. Grauer said that DRCOG is updating the Metro Vision 2020 Plan to the year 2030. She said that the 2030 UrUan Growth Boundary Work Group is trying to determine how much laud is needed in the urban growth boLmdary for firture growth in the region. She said that staCPs recommendation is for Scenario 1, which does not increase the current urbau growth area. She suggested that the city should include some criteria for a land bank if DRCOG adopts either Scenarios 1 or 2. M. Cowles said that the land bank would not be relevant to Boulder--this is a regional issue. He said that the question then would be if the land bank would operate as a restraint against some of the predatory annexation practices of some cities. L. Grauer said that if DRCOG adopts Scenario 2 ar 3 and ends up with more urban growth area than is needed right away, then a land bank becomes more signiPicant a~id should be more restrictive. J. Spitzer asked iT there is any threat that DRCOG or the Statie Legislature would require that land in Area III in Boulder County be developed in the future. P. Pollock said that although it is conceivable, he does not see anything on the horizon that will lead to that threat. He said that Area III is in Boulder County's jurisdiction, but Boulder has a strong home rule tradition that is opposed to the state dictating how much growth it will have to absorb or not. D. Gehr said that in the last thrae years that issue has been discussed in the State Legislature, but in the next few years growth issues will not be brought up because of the slowed economy, the state budget issues, and lack of water. L. Grauer said that one of the six-core elements of Metro Vision is free-standing communities, and Boulder is one of four such communities. She said that a free-standing community tries to balance the open space buffer around the city and absorb a certain amount of firture population growth. She said that Yhe question is whether Yhere is a value to being a free-standing community. J. Spitzer said that if the ciYy adds 150,000 jobs, our sYatus in the State Legislature of being able to protect Area IIi as it is now would be in much greater jeopardy. M. Cowles added that one of the bills in the State Legislature is a takings Uill which would require payment for any loss of value of the property greater than 20 percent or more and attorneys' fees if the matter was litigated, and many people believe that the likelihood of its passing this year is much greater than it has been for some time. He said that such a passage would make the jobe/housing project very expensive for a municipality. J. Spitzer asked if were possible that a takings argument could prevail if a rancher, who has land in Area IiI, could not develop the land into houses and office buildings even though such development exists in the area. D. Gehr said that he has not secn any bills that would call this sihiation a takings because the rancher has the reasonable use of land. M. Cowles said that it seems that the consensus of the Board would be to encourage staff to support the land bank where it would help to restrain the expanding urban growth boundary of Denver. P. Pollock suggested that instead of a land bank there should be some kind of trade-off system where if the land is not used within a certain period of time it might be reallocated to s: \plan\pb-items\minutes\030109min Ciry of Bouldcr Planuing Bou~d Minutes Januaiy 9, 2003 Pagc 8 other communities based on criteria that the community is doing best development practices. T. Krueger cautioned about doing anything that might discrirninate against communities like Boulder that are actually being more efFicient with their land use. M. Cowles suggested that municipalities might withdraw from t'he laud bank and expand tiheir urban growth boLmdary if they demonstrated that they had achieved a higher density within their municipaliCy. P. Pollock said that staff will indude the Board's comments in its report to City Council, and the comments from Council will be included in a report to DRCOG. 7. MATTERS FROM THE PLANNING BOARD, PLANNING DIRECTOR, AND CITY ATTORNEY J. Spitzer suggested Yhat sCaff discuss historic districts and designations, such as the difference between local, state and national historic designation, the difference between having a house designated and being in a general historic district, the reviewing authority Far the different Yypes of designations, whether there is data about the rise or fall of properiy values within these districCs, and what tax crcdiYs are available for each of these different designations, since the University Hill historic designation discussion will probably be brought to the Board in the future. P. Pollock suggested that this item be included as a discussion on February 6. M. Cowles said that the North Boulder Park does not seem to Tunction very well as an urban park. P. Pollock suggested that he discuss this issue with the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board. J. Spitzer asked what should be done if the proposai to redevelop Crossroads Mall does not conform to the Boulder Valley Regional Center Design Guidelines. P. Pollock said that the Boulder Urban Renewal Authority (BURA) has review authority over all site reviews in the Boulder Valley Regional Center, and their review, as well as the Board and staff, will take into account those desigu guidelines. B. Pommer pointed out the these are guidelines and not regulations. J. Spitzer suggested that the Board receive summaries from all the city boards and commissions. He also suggested that the Planning Board summaries be more informative of what happened at the meetings. P. Polloek said that the purpose of the summaries is primarily to inform City Council about what is happening with the boards and commissions and are meant to be very broad. He said that if anyone is interested further, the minutes can be provided. D. Gehr added that the summaries are prepared with a quick turnaround time that precludes more detail. M. Cowles said that he prefers to see only those summaries that staff thinks would be helpfid for the Board. B. Pommer cautioned the Board about discussing policy matters on the e-mail system and making definite stands on issues that will be reviewed by tha Board. D. Gehr added that such discussions will impinge upon the Board member's objectivity. T. Krneger suggested that if questions need to be asked, it should come up first under Mattars at a Board meeting. s: \plan\pb-items\minutes\030109mi u City of Boulder Planning Board Minutes Januaiy 9,2003 Page 9 P. Pollock pointed out the following upcoming meetings: several jobs/housing meetings that will be held in JanLiary, inclLiding an open house on Januaty 28; the Greenways Advisory Committee on ,ianuary 29; the Gunbarrel commercial area plan discussion on Januaiy 29; and the Jobs/Housing ~conomic Impact Assessment Review Panel on JanLiary 30. He pointed out the agenda items for the Februaiy Board meetings, inchiding background information on Boulder's water supplies and yields, aud some agenda item changes for the meetings in Februaty and March. He said that the Board will not discuss Uni-Hill development issues at this time; the University Hill General ImprovemenY District (UHGID) Advisory Committee is developing some ideas about the changes of tl~e vision for Uni-Hill, such as should there be a pedestrian mall, what to do with the interface area, and what to do with the development potential on the Hi1L He mentioned two conferences that will be held in Denver: Preserving Western Heritage, Febniary 6-8, and American Planning Association, March 29-Apri12. 8. ADJOURNMENT The Plaiming Board adjourned the meeting at 8:15 p.m. s:\plan\pb-iteins\minutes\030109min