Loading...
2 - Summary Minutes of 02/27/03CITY OF BOULDER PLANNING BOARD SUMMARY MINUTES February 27, 2003 Council Chambers Room, Municipal Building 1777 Broadway, 6:00 p.m. The following are the mmutes of the February 27, 2003 c~ty of Boulder Planrung Board meeting A permanent set of these mmutes is kept m Central Records, and a verbahm tape recording of the meetmg is mamtamed for a penod of seven years m Central Records (telephone. 303-441-3043). BOARll PRESENT: Macon Cowles Thom Krueger, Vice Chair Simon Mole Tma Nielsen, Chair Alan O'Hashi Beth Pommer John Spitzer STAFF PRESENT: Bob Cole, Land Use Review Manager Jay Dunlap, Inspecrion and Enforcement Steve Dunan, Transportahon Engineer David Gehr, Assistant City Attorney Gary Kretschmer, Plamm~g and Zomng Mary Lovnen, Board Secretary Peter Pollock, Planning Director 1. CALL TO ORDER Chair T. Nielsen declared a quorum at 6:20 p.m., and the followmg business was conducted. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES There were no mmutes to approve. 3. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION Steve Clasan, 3305 Eastman Avenue: He discussed the definrtion of family as rt relates to rental occupancy He raised three pomts: 1) change the definrtion of family to mclude people who are on the hst of the domeshc partner registry; 2) consider the umntended consequences of increased housing prices on the lower end of the housing scale hecause collecrions of roommates compete with families for availabla housmg; and 3) consider that the targeted beneficiaries of these changes have been absent from every meetmg that he has attended on this issue, and thare is no pubhc clamor about changmg the definition about occupancy. He suggested that if the Board elected to change the defimtron, choose Opt~ons 1 or 3 because these options have the least potentia] for harm. s \plan\pb-items~nunutes\030227xrun C~ty of Boulder Plannmg Board Mmutes February 27, 2003 ~ Page 2 4. DISCUSSION OF DISPOSITIONS, PLANNING BOARD CALL-UPS There were no dispos~hons ar Plannmg Board call-ups to discuss. 5. ACTION ITEMS A. Study session to discuss the proposed 2002/2003 Phase I Land Use Regulation Amendments. Topic areas to be discussed include, but are not limited to, requiring xeriscape landscape practices, allowing owners accessory units (OAU'S) in the ER and RR zoning districts by conditional use, deletion of outmoded language regarding development review expirations, allowances for larger administrative parking reductions, modification of the definition of `~Consanguinity" °°single unit dwellings" and f°multi unit dwellings" to accommodate joint heads of households as a form of occupancy, clari~cation of some parking design and parking access standards, allowing residential units in industrial zones, revisions to the definition of "floor area", revisions to residential open space requirements, and revisions to the non-conForming review regulations. B. Cole said that the Phase I code amendments represent part of a work program developed m discussions with Crty Council and Plannmg Board. The actual heanng on the code language will be brought to the Board next month Staff discussed these amendments with Architects and Planners of Boulder (APOB), mcludmg a request for changes that would improve usability and clanty. He asked the Board to provide direction on each of the proposed code changes. Nancy Blackwood, liaison between APOB and staff, said that this collaborat~ve process worked well, and she is happy with the resulhng document. Through the process of exammmg these Phase I code amendments, APOB has identified some items far a broader and more comprehensive review m the future, mcludmg the unmtended impacts of the solar access ordinance on buildmg design, and specific code requirements for Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) and Owner Accessory Umts (OAUs). She responded to a question by M. Cowles regardmg the ADUs and OAUs She said that there is a great opportumty for changmg some of the requ~rements for ADUs and OAUs to make them more user fnendly and to make rt easier to create th~s type of umt B. Cole sa~d that this aspect of the code is not proposed for change at this time but suggested that the Board identify any other code problems so that they can be ass~gned to later phases of the code changes. G. Kretchmer outhned each of the proposed code changes: • Required xeriscape improvements for non-residential property and tree protection on private property for all zoning districts. He said that currently xenscapmg ~s a recommended pract~ce m the code, but staff has recommended some addihonal xenscape reqmrements. The second part of the proposed change s \plan\pb-~tems~tvnutes\030227trun Crty of Soulder Plamm~g Board Mmutes February 27, 2003 Page 3 ~s the preservatron of trees (there have been some mstances where large, mature trees have been cut down where there was some uncertamty of whether they had to be cut down). B. Cole noted m particular that Parks and Recrearion facilrties are somewhat different m their needs, especially as rt relates to ~rngahon. Staff is attemptmg to analyze what those differences are, not only when plant matenal is estabhshed and their root system is small but m later years when their root system may expand beyond the canopy or dnp lme of the tree (in this case the imgahon is not really related to the existmg needs of the tree) G. Kretchmer added that last year the Parks and Recreation Department stopped watenng the grass m the parks, but th~s caused substantial damage to the trees so supplemental irngation of the trees was needed This razsed an issue of whether there is a need to design axpensive, duplicate tmgation systems-one to water the grass and one to water the trees B. Cole commented on another concern about development that ~mpacts trees on an ad~acent property, such as development that cuts mto a tree root system when basements are excavated. Public Participation: Ken Wilson, Water Resources Advisory Board (WRAB), 970 llth Street He said that WRAB suggested that there be a ~omt meehng wrth the Plannmg Board to discuss issues of mutual mterest, such as water conservation and xenscapmg WRAB, m con~unctton with Uhht~es, is producmg a Drought Management Plan that outlmes steps that the city might take m the different stages of drought, such as permits for new landscapmg. S. Mole asked what kmd of impact these regulations would have on water savings and use of water resources K. Wilson sa~d that anything that is done to promote xenscaping is an excellent idea and suggested that the Planmng Board and WRAB work together to blend the expertise of each Board WRAB ~s suggestmg that different size properties would receive a water budget, and if water use exceeded the budgat m a drought, water rates would increase This would allow proparty owners to manage their own water use. Jerry Wyss, 302 27th Street; He said that he would be hes~tant to require the cunent state-of- the-art of xenscape because the art of xenscapmg will be different m 10 years The requirements should state best practrces and a stronger review of site plans becausa there will be new plants and new techmques m the future. He quesrioned the regulahon on tree protection He crted an example of large non-natrve trees, such as Russ~an ohve, that probably should be cut down and suggested that the ragulations mclude not only the size but the type of tree. Return to the Board: J. Spitzer said that he was concerned about the impact that xenscapmg might have on trees-tha trees might not die but become stunted. Trees create a pedestnan-friendly city as well as create a certazn mtcro-climate in certam azeas. B. Cole said that this is exactly the approach that wiIl be taken through these changes. Staff is trymg to be clear about the objechves For xenscapmg and to avoid specific standards that do not allow for flexibility. A hst of undesirable tree species will ba s •\plan\pb-~tems\mmutes\030227mm City of Boulder Plannmg Boazd Mmutes February 27,2003 Page 4 referenced so that these trees will be exempt. B. Pommer suggested that cnteria be provided that would allow tree cuttmg for landscapmg purposes. Also, the pnmary interest in the tree protechon ordmance is protechon of border trees that have shared benefits between properties Staff should encourage neighbors to talk wrth each other m these cases before a tree ~s cut down. S. Mole agreed that there should not be overly restnct~ve regulations that will be a burden to enforce and develop B. Cole responded to T. Nielsen's question that there is nothing m the code that addresses the plantmg of trees that might block a view or solar access. T. Krueger asked about the ]evel that would tngger the requirements and if there would be a distmchon between commerc~al/mdustnal (where there might be more benefit) and residential. B. Cole explamed that when a property improvement exceeds 25 percent of the assessed valuation of the ~mprovements, the entire property has to be m conformance with the current landscape regulations Staff is trymg to find a threshold that puts the value of the srte improvements m better proportion wrth the value of the building improvements For instance, requinng conformance with the current landscaping requirements for parkmg lot improvements is different from reqwnng conformance for intenor buildmg improvements (sometimes the landscapmg improvements cost more than the buildmg ~mprovements). G. Kretschmer said that some ad~ustments need to be made to those tngger pomts-a tngger for partial comphance and another for full comphance. Also, the landscapmg standards are not apphcable to smgle family residential development B. Cole said that staff is attemphng to address the smgle family residenhal landscapmg through education. M. Cowles suggested that staff review l~mitmg the amount of bluegrass m single fam~ly umts because this is where more water use reduchon can occur Also, the xenscapmg pnnc~ples set forth m the code are different m~mportant aspects from the xenscaping pnnciples set forth m the matenal from the Denver Water Board. The landscapmg requirements should be grounded m the Denver Water Board's statement of what consUtutes xenscaping-it leaves it up to plamm~g ~unsdichons to determme the extent to wh~ch they will discourage bluegrass For mstance, a portion of pnvate property that uses bluegrass that invites the pubhc to see rt or prov~des a view corndor ~s m a d~fferent category from someone who plants bluegrass m an area that has no public benefit Staff should require a combmahon of Opt~ons 1 and 2 regardmg tree protection, recognizing that the placement of some trees is accidental and some trees are a nuisance because they are suscept~ble to disease or they are exotics with a prodigious reproduchve rate. Also, ~f people propose to cut down non-nuisance trees m order to make a larger building envelop, they should be requ~red to replant trees that will benefit the neighborhood in the near term. . Allow for more Owner Accessory Unit (OAU) flexibility G. Kretschmer said that presently OAUs are allowed in Estate-Residential (E-R) and Rura]- Residenhal (R-R) zones by condihonal use w~thm the principal buildmg. The standards for the OAUs aze the same as for ADUs with the excephon of separat~on between units and maximum dens~ty percentage wrthin a certain spec~fied area Allowmg OAUs on large lots that meet the s \plan\pb-~tems~runutes\030227m~n City of Boulder Plannmg Board Mmutes February 27, 2003 Page 5 mmimum zomng requirements located m E-R and R-R zones would have mimmal impact on ad~acent lots or to the neighborhood m general M. Cowles asked for clanfication on the maximum square footage for an OAU G. Kretschmer responded that the square footage requirement of an OAU cannot exceed 450 square feet in size and includes a 50 square foot open space requirement M. Cowles asked about the rat~onale for limitmg OAUs to 450 square feet or less and permithng ADUs to be 1,000 square feet or less Does it make sense to contmue thts limitarion m the E-R and R-R distncts~ G. Kretschmer said that an ADU is withm the pnncipal buildmg so that no sigruficant bulk is added to the lot; the OAU size hmrtation assumes that such a untt wtll be added over a garage which is typically this size B. Cole said that the OAUs created so far seem to wark reasonably well, and the mtent was to adhere to the relattvely small scale over a two-car garage to mm~mize the impact to ad~acent neighbors Pub-ic Participation: Thera was no pubhc participation Return to the Board: B. Pommer asked why the densrty reqwrement is not consistent betwaen OAUs and ADUs because thera could be some umntended consequences. G. Kretschmer said that there are very few ADU apphcahons m the E-R and R-R zones, and the separation and densrty requirements are not necessary m these zones for OAUs. B. Pommer suggested that there should be discussion about allo~vmg OAUs m smaller zomng distncts because there will not be a lot of difference in impacts to the neighborhood whether or not they are in camage houses above garages or mside the houses. T. Krueger suggested that staff conduct an analysis that would compare what might happen wrthout density requirements and what might happen with such requirements B. Pommer added that it would be helpful to have an analysis of ~mpacts when the E-R zone abuts other zonmg distncts. T. Krueger suggested limitmg the s~ze of an OAU that is a detached unrt over a two-caz garage M. Cowles asked why there ~s a requ~rement that the owner lives m the house tf an OAU is approved on the lot B. Cole clanfied that the owner would be reyu~red to live only on the property. J. Spitzer suggested that the parking remain m front of the lot rather than on tha alleys. B. Cole said that staff will provtde illustrations of the vanous potenttal layouts when addressing alleys versus no alleys so that a better evaluation can occur regardmg techruques that should be used . Allow larger administrative parking reductions. G. Kretschmer said that the number of requests for the full 20 percent parkmg reductton were relatively low, and the ma~ority of those that sought tha full 20 percent were relatively small reductions The ma~onty of the pazkmg reduchons that were a part of land use reviews were also sigmficantly less than 20 percent Staff concluded that there may not be a need to mcrease the parking reducUon S. Durian explamed that some of the challenges wrth parkmg reductions is that the cntena are not very clear and somewhat arbrtrary between one srte to another Another s \plan\pb-rtems~mmutes\030227m~n C~ty of Soulder Planrung Board Mmutes February 27, 2003 Page 6 challenge was providmg incenhves for developers to make sure that their Transportahon Demand Management (TDM) works to complement their parkmg reduct~on. Public Participation: Jerry Wyss, Transportation Advisory Board, 302 27th Street. He suggested that this ~s a TDM issue that should not be separated. He encouraged techniques, mcludmg TDM measures, that would make it easier far parking reduchons in new developments, especially ones that require expensive parkmg such as covered spaces or parkmg garages underneath buildmgs In addrtion to apphcants seekmg parkmg reductions that are ad~acent to existmg mass transrt, expand the requirement to include a 20 percent parkmg reduchon if it is located withm a certam d~stance of an improved transit stop. Th~s would encourage the building of a transit stop m front of the building, which is less expensive than buildmg the parkmg, and would encourage employees to use pubhc transit He suggested that when this issue ~s presented by staff that the Plannmg Board refer its recommendations to the Transportation Advisory Board (TAB). Return to the Board: M. Cowles sa~d that although he hkes the staff recommendation of addihonal cnteria for consideration of a parking reduction, he recommended Options b through d outhned in the staff memorandum This w~ll ensure gettmg pazkmg reduchons for good reasons in some areas of town where the parkmg reductions are quite high (parkmg deferrals in exchange for performance-based TDM measures). A. O'Hashi suggested that this item be referred to TAB as the discussion moves forward. T. Krueger suggested addmg TDM measures of some meanmgful level to the cntena. J. Spitzer asked how parkmg reduchons are handled m a mixed use srte where offices are located on the first floor and residences are located above the offices. B. Cole sa~d that there have been some mstances where those parkmg reduchons are already built mto the parkmg requirements m the code for mixed use zones. A different parkmg requirement is already m place which assumes a specific level of parkmg reduchon for mixed use situations S. Durian added that if mixed use is allowed m a zone other than mixed use, that a program be m place to ensure that those parkmg spaces do turn over every day. . Allow residential uses in industrial zones by use review. G. Kretchmer sazd that when the residential use is allowed m the mdustnal zone, ~t is important that rt not be adversely ~mpacted by ad~acent industnal uses and at the same t~me it is ~mportant not to proh~brt mdustnal zones on lots because there ~s resident~al next door. There is always the issue about incompatibility (noise, trash, light, and odor). Staff addressed this issue by identifymg some parcels that are on the penphery of mdustnal zones that would be conducrve to residenhal housmg because of reduced impacts and allowmg such use by special review with some reasonably broad cntena to allow flexibility to analyze a broader range of ~mpacts. s \plan\pb-rtems~nunutes\030227rrvn Ctty of Boulder Plamm~g Board Mmutes February 27,2003 Public Participation: Page 7 Vince Porecca, P.O. Box 22• He said that the housmg component of the Jobs/Housmg maetmgs did not get the attenrion it needed m this process There are some commercial/mdustnal areas where housmg will not work, and he suggested identiFymg areas that would be conducive to residenhal use before simply allowmg residential uses in mdustnal zonas Some of the proposals for increased densrty in some areas m the 5-year update of the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan were adjacent to residenhal areas and even this was met with a tremendous amount of resistance An impact study should be conducted for the sunoundmg area and a study regardmg the impact of the surrounding uses on the proposed project Some of the Parks and Recreahon land on Valmont should be reviewed for housing; the money from the sale of some land could be used to develop the park. Ha addressed Ophon 1(a) that states that the first story of the buildmg would be preserved for mdustnal service uses. One of the difficulties ~s the conflict between residential and industnal or commercial uses, and the vertical mixed use could be a problem. It is important to recogntze that many of the cntena cannot be met because amemties, such as school bus routes and parks, will not be m place. Much of the industnally zoned srtes are not ad~acent to residential zones Return to the Board: T. Krueger said that he supports preservmg all the acreage that exists m Sarvice-Industrial and was concerned that ~f a variety of othar uses aze allowed m this zone, the industnal use will eventually go away. He queshoned how well residenhal and mdustnal uses can funcrion together Ha agreed that Ophon 2 should be the start of the process rather than Ophon 1. B. Pommer suggested that the property owners might begn to thmk posihvely about whether their property m~ght be a candidate for a zoning change. M. Cowles cautioned about usmg Ophon 1 because it might create a new level of expectations among property owners that they can bu~ld residential umts m industnal zones by nght, and if the owners cannot build ras~denhal on their land, they m~ght feel that somethmg is taken away from them. The parcel by parcel approach makes more sanse, and Option 2 should begm the process. 5. Mole agreed that preservmg the Serv~ce-Industrial zone and begmmng wrth Option 2 are tmportant. M. Cowles suggested that the status of retail be considered m thesa zomng districts. He also asked staff about the distmctron betwean Industnal-Manufacturmg (I-M) and (Tndustnal-General (IG) zoning dismcts. B. Cole explamed that I-G permits a broad array of uses, and I-M focuses on heavier impact uses. D. Gehr added that the T-M zone has a large mirumum lot size and the I- G has a much smaller lot size and is more flexible in the way land can be used B. Cole said that retail uses are not allowed m mdustnal zones, although there are some today that are non- conformmg and some that were permitted under discretionary reviews of accessory achvtttes to a pnncipal mdusmal use S. Mole agreed with M. Cowles that retail should be explored on these sttes, especially places to eat at lunchtime which might reduce the amount of traffic generated from employees on the srte. s \plan\pb-items\mmutes\030227mm City of Boulder Plannmg Board Mmutes February 27, 2003 Page 8 . Ciarify the definition of `~ttoor area" and "uninhabitable space." G. Kretschmer outlined the rtems that would provide clanty and consistency to the above definitions 1) the green pomYs defimrion should be consistent with the land use regulation defimtion, 2) measure a buildmg to the extenor of the framed walls to encourage the use of quahty extenor matenals, 3) the stairway opemng at the uppermost floor should be exempted from floor area calculation; 4) mclude in the code language that extenor access walkways aze included as floor azea, and 5) cons~der exemphng extenor stairways from floor area calculahons if they are completely open. Public Participation: There was no pubhc participahon. Return to the Board: T. I{rueger agreed wrth staff's recommendahon to adopt the first four modifications but not the last modification M. Cowles suggested that staff mclude some of the purposes for measunng floor area and unmhabrtable space m order to get valuable mformation from the Plannmg Board • Change the definition of a family to be more inclusive of extended family members. G. Kretschmer explamed that staff is trymg to mclude the more atypical relationships that have been seen. He said that the proposed change allows for two heads of household but allows only one other mdiv~dual to live m the house. Public Participation: Ken Wilson, University Hill Neighborhood Association, 970 llth Street• He sa~d that the Assoc~ation has misgivmgs and concerns regardmg any changes in the occupancy ordmances or definitions. There have been proposals over the last couple of years to make mmor changes to the occupancy definrtions that would in effect upzone Low Residential-Establ~shed (LR-E)-type neighborhoods Many landlords would like to change these defimt~ons so that they can put add~t~onal people ~nto houses that are already non-conforming m these neighborhoods Unroersity Hill already houses mare people than it was ongmally designed for, and there is a large potential for abuse in changmg definit~ons of occupancy. The proposed changes would not allow a couple to have two roomers which would represent a downzomng. He cautioned about the followmg umntended consequences of increasmg density 1) when a studenYs parents purchase a property and put the studenYs name on the htle (it would appear that the umt is owner occup~ed, but the student rents out rooms m the house); and 2) reduction of parkmg reqwrements m some types of housmg even if it ~s not located on the Hill (some people might wazehouse their car on the Hill because it ~s convenient to campus if they do not have adequate parkmg where they live). s \plan\pb-itemsUnmutes\030227mn City of Bouldar Plamm~g Board Mmutes February 27,2003 Page 9 Jerry Wyss, Martin Acres Neighborhood Association, 302 27th Street• He said that he agrees with what Ken Wilson stated He said that unless there is a problem demonstrated w~th the present code, there should be no changes. Steve Clasan, 3305 Eastman Avenue: He said that he would prefer to use the domestic partner registry, Rasidents would support recogmzing any commrtted relationship as haumg the same nghts as a trad~honal marriage for the purpose of occupancy. He suggested domg nothmg presantly and findmg a way to recogmze commuted relationships of whatever nature. Return to the Board: T. Nielsen asked how an unmamed couple hvmg ~n a household is treated for the purpose of occupancy. J. Dunlap said that if a complamt is made and two ~ndividuals state that they are a couple, mamed or not or gay or lesbian, they are asked to stgn an affidavit that they are mamed as a common law couple, and this is recorded wrth the County Clerk If the two people elect not to sign the affidavrt, they are treated as unrelated and must meet the occupancy hmitarions of the zonmg dismct Tf the household does not meet the occupancy reqwrements, they are given a chance to comply or a summons is issued to the ]andlord, the tenants, or both Staff mveshgates between 80 and 200 valid complamts per year regardmg over-occupancy A. O'Hashi thought that the requast by tha Human Relahons Commission to change the defimhon has less to do with neighborhood impacts and problems with over-occupancy as rt does with cultural cons~derarions when deahng with households, such as large extended famihes This should be considered as a separate issue Ey allowing the head of household to have only one roomer sends an umntended massage that for a smgle woman who is the head of household to be whole that she needs to have a second head of household. D. Gehr said that the draft language states that one or two adults can be the head of housahold He discussed the domeshc registry and the process for erther recordmg or simply recervmg a wntten copy of the declaration of a commrtted relationship This registry was passed by motion but has no regulatory effect S. Mole said that he was not m favor of usmg the domeshc registry as a way to define occupancy because some people might sign the affidavit m order to have more roommates and then dissoive the affidavit when they ]eave the premises The existmg crty ordmance does discnmmate on the basis of gender preference and v~olates our own non- dtscnmmat~on poltcies as a city. The two heads of household suggestion is a gender neutral way to correct this problem. T. Krueger asked how cousms l~vmg together wouid be handied for occupancy purposes. D. Gehr said that the cousms would have to be related to the head of household, if there were five cousms livmg together, there would need to be a parental figure hvmg there as well or otherwise they would be considered as unrelated. Currently the family is considered as one umt, and the proposed change would allow two heads of householcl whether or not they are married. In the higher density zones two heads of household could have two roomers, and in the lower density s \plan\pb-items\mmutes\030227mm Crty of Boulder Plamm~g Board Minutes February 27,2003 Page 10 zones two heads of household could have one roomer which corresponds to the current occupancy requirements for each zone. In this case the mamed couple would be allowed to have only one roomer. S. Mole asked staff to conhnue reviewmg Oprion 2 because rt does not reduce the number of roomers allowed for a mamed couple T. Krueger did not agree because the proposal would simply treat all people fairly and not penal~ze a mam~d couple. . Clarify the maximum number of permitted driveways, size requirements for drives, and under what conditions driveways must be removed or when they can be retained. (This item was reviewed after the discussion regarding de~nition of family.) G. Kretschmer sa~d that dnveways have to be taken from the least hierarchy street (if there is a house with frontage on an alley and a street, the dnveway should come from the alley). He listed three scenarios that are difficult when discuss~ng under what conditions an exishng dnveway can be kept even though m these mstances the access would not have to be relocated. 1) a dnveway commg from the street that leads to a garage that has been converted to a living area, 2) whether a dnveway has to be closed when an addihon is built at the alley; and 3) where a garage does not exist but a legal parkmg space exists next to the princ~pal structure Another issue is a need far a mmimum dnveway width, particularly for a single family structure. Staff suggests that the drtveway should be the same w~dth as the off-street parkmg space or not less than mne feet There is an exception section m the code m which to allow the standards of the Site Access section to be vaned, but there are no critena for consideration for those exceprions Staff is recommendmg addrt~onal critena for these exceptions to the standards. S. Durian suggested addressmg this issue by addmg the following cntena: 1) the length of the lot frontage, 2) considerahon of off-street parkmg; 3) considerat~on of zonmg; 4) whether there is an existence of an alley, and 5) ex~stence of detached sidewalks (far attached sidewalks there are more curb cuts and the more awkward rt~s for pedestrians whereas a detached sidewalk stays at the same elevation). He sa~d that Nancy Blackwood asked the Board to consider that access should be taken from the alley and not from the street for any change to the parkmg or garage, whether rt is enclosmg the space ar changmg the space m some way. Public Participation: There was no public parttcipation Return to the Board: J. Spitzer agreed that as houses get larger and redeveloped street access should be closed and alley access provided because 1) every time there ~s street access the curb cuts ehmmate about two parkmg spaces on the street; 2) the front driveway does not fit well m the context of historic neighborhoods, and 3) whether it is an attached or detached sidewalk there is a pedestnan safety ~ssue because of the fear of vehicles crossmg the sidewalk. B. Pommer said that she was not convmced that m an estabhshed neighbarhood there is a reason to remove an ex~stmg curb cut if rt serves a purpose. M. Cowles said that he supports these proposed changes because peogle s \plan\pb-items\mmutes\030227irun , Ciry of Boulder Plamm~g Board Mmutes February 27, 2003 Page 11 should be encouraged to use the alleys and not degrade the street. B. Pommer countered th~s remark by statmg that if everyone built a garage off the allay, the alley would become a tunnel and neighbors would not see each other. She said that access off an alley works well m newer developments where a porch might be built B. Cole said that the existing code is the one-size- fits-all, and the proposed changes would provide more options Expiration of development approvals. B. Cole said that when the part of the code was changed that addresses expiration of development approvals, such as for use reviews and site reviews, staff did not deleta an old code section The new code section states that if a plan approval expires after three years, it is an automahc expiration unless the property owner takes steps to request extension of that approval, and the old code sechon states that at the end of the three-year penod, the city is supposed to hear the issue to determme whether it should expire or whether the crty should amend rt Public Participation: There was no public participation Return to Yhe Board: The Board had no comments on this issue. . Create a new land use category for "Large Family Child Care Home" per new state licensing provisions. G. Kretschmer said that the sfate has approved a new category of large home day care centers (up to 12 children) that are located m residences. The pnmary condition that the state imposes is that rt has to have one addrtional caregrver at that locatron. He said that staff ts recommendmg that th~s be allowed through Conditional Use Review m residential zones. He sazd that thts is one way to offset the decline of day care centers in Boulder Publie Participation: There was no public participation. Return to the Board: The Board had no comments on this issue. . Clarify what counts as residential open space. G. I{retschmer said that an oversight occurred dunng the last round of amendments which m~stakenly omitted proposed open space cnteria from residential open space For non-residenhal uses staff described mmimal widths of intanar accessways in order to yual~fy as open space and clanfied that large slabs of concrete do not qualrty as open space (there has to be some design treatment assoc~ated with rt) Staff acknowledged some other issues that should be idenrified m s \plan\pb-items~nunutes\030227tcun City of Boulder Plammmg Board Mmutes February 27, 2003 Page 12 residential open space, includmg the reason balcomes and decks only qualify for 15 percent of the open space (staff is recommendmg 15 percent to 25 percent), allowance of patios and decks attached to single family detached dwelhngs which are less than 72 mches above grade to quahfy as open space; definrtion of "unenclosed space" as rt relates to open space; and clanficat~on that the ~mprovements referenced m sechon 9-3.2-6(a)(2) are recreational elements which are constructed substanhally at ground level. J. Spitzer asked if this proposal would affect the buildmg of a deck immediately on the property lme, or if the deck could be built up to 30 mches and to the property lme, and if setback reqwrements would need to be met if the deck ~s built higher. G. Kretschmer said that this proposed regulatron would reqmre that the deck meet the setback regulahons. M. Cowles said that this regulahon would apply to only a few residential d~stncts that have th~s open space requirement. Every time a development is reviewed by the Board, this requirement has to be learned anew because we do not state what the purposes are for open space. The reason the use of open space is important is because this ~s the space that links the pnvate realm with the pubhc. He urged staff to consider rewritmg the entire sechon that addresses the concept of open space and how it kmts together the private and pubhc spaces. T. Krueger said that he did not think that the purpose of open space was to prov~de a connection to all the public, some of the required open space should be pnvate He suggested that M. Cowles provide the ~tems referenced m pattern language which would be more helpful rather than suggestmg that the section be rewntten. Public Participation: There was no public parucipaUon. Return to the Board: T. Krueger commented on the requirement that pahos and decks be 32 mches to quahfy for open space. The requ~rement should be lower because the higher the pario is off the ground the more rt becomes more hke a balcony and should be sub~ect to the same kmd of resmchons. B. Cole clanfied that the kmds of decks descnbed are at grade as they come off the house but are off the ground as the back yard slopes as it approaches the rear of the lot • Rewrite non-conforming regulations and develop review process for use changes. G. Kretschmer said that the non-conformmg regulations have been amended numerous times over the years and have only contnbuted confusion Staff is proposing to rewnte th~s section such that when a person comes m wrth mulUple forms of non-conformrty, the rewritten secUon should clearly guide the applicant with every step of the process. Public Participation: There was no public participahon. s \pian\pb-items~rrunutes\030227rrvn C~ty of Boulder Plamm~g Board Mmutes February 27, 2003 Return to the Board: Page 13 B. Pommer cautioned staff about mak~ng sure that the intent of the word changes from "mcreased impacY'to "expans~on of use" is well understood in sechon 9-3 5-3 (a)(5)(c)(2) B. Cole said this is an example of trymg to find a bnghter hne standard that makes it ciearer when somethmg is okay and whan rt is not. . Rewrite solar access brochure to improve clarity and amend regu-ations if necessary. G. Kretschmer satd that the Planning Board and City Council agread that staff could arnend the solar access brochure to provide a better explanation of what a solar access analysis is and what is naeded at the t~me of bu~ldmg permit and a land use review applicarion The cument brochure does not address slopmg grades, attd staff has written language that provides clanty B. Cole sa~d that this change ~s not a code amendment, and staff will provide the Board w~th informat~on about how it is changed Public Participation: There was no pubhc participahon Return to the Board: B. Pommer suggested that staff ensixre that people who might be impacted by the development can understand the brochure. 6. MATTERS FROM THE PLANNING BOARD, PLANNING DIRECTOR, AND CTTY ATTORNEY M. Cowles asked about the vacahon of the nght of way along Lee Hill Road. He said that Crty Council recerved a different plan than what Plannmg Board recaivad, and City Council was told that the Board approved the attached sidewalk which it had not. City Council was concerned about the attached s~dewalk because rt v~olated the North Boulder Subcommumty Plan. B. Cole said that there was some confusion about what the exisring nght-of-way circumstances were on Lee Hill Road. The solution is that there will be a standard detached sidewalk along Lee Hill Road located outs~de the nght-of-way withm tha sidewalk easement The plans that were drawn and approved by Plamm~g Board did show a detached sidewalk Howevar, when the final plans came m for techmcal document review, those plans did not show that circumstance but rather an attached sidewalk and a need to vacate the easement because the buildmgs were in the easement. He said that the architects far the developer assumed mcorrectly that they did not have the standard nght-of-way. Because there is a standard nght-of-way, there ~s more than enough room for all the reqwred elements to fit wrthm that nght-of-way City Council approved exactly what was on the approved plans. This error occurred because there were documentat~on enors in every step of the process. Crty Council will be informed of thts error. s \plan\pb-~tems~xunutes\030227mm C~ty of Boulder Plannmg Board Mmu[es February 27, 2003 Page 14 B. Cole presented a status report on 1601 Pearl Street Use Review The final dispos~hon from Planrung Board was a reduchon and limitahon on restaurant size and a limitahon on outdoor seating. When the final plans came m to the Plamm~g Deparhnent for rev~ew, the restaurant was reduced to the required size, but an addihonal permrt came m for a second restaurant in the building with a request for outdoor seatmg Staff determined that the second restaurant ~s allowed by nght and that Plamm~g Board approval did not specifically prohibit that use The outdoor seahng requires a revocable permit to be approved by the city. After rev~ew of the disposit~on, rt was determmed that the mtention of the hmrtahon of outdoor seatmg was to hmit all the outdoor seatmg related to this particulaz address and thereby reduce the impacts on the ad~acent neighborhood Because of this mtent, staff will deny the request for outdoor seatmg for this second restaurant. P. Pollock distnbuted a copy of the resolution that was approved by City Counc~l regardmg the Jobs/Housmg pro~ect that shows what was deleted from the staff recommended vers~on and the additions made by City Council. On March 20, the Board will discuss a proposed implementahon plan, and then it will be reviewed by the Boulder Urban Renewal Authonty before going on to City Council He distnbuted a copy of a memorandum concernmg the posrtion of the city of Boulder on the Boulder Valley School Distnct (BVSD) school closures and consolidahons The memorandum discusses the critena that the BVSD should consider, applies that cnteria to the scenanos developed by the BVSD, and reaches some conclusions by staff Staff states that any school closure will have some negahve impacts to the community, and recommended that the BVSD should at least keep one elementary school open m central Boulder, preferably Whrther Elementary School, and that consohdatmg Burbank into Baselme makes more sense. A. O'Hashi sa~d that if the pnonty is to keep schools open, we need to attract families with children to Boulder. P. Pollock said that during the Jobs/Housmg study, there was a discussion wrth the BVSD about adequacy of schools for the vanous scenanos that were developed. Even though the type of housmg that is bemg developed is perhaps less fam~ly fnendly than other locations with~n the school distnct, the ob~ect of the housmg policy should not be to generate children to fill schools. He presented a draft descnbmg the scope of work on the Gunbarrel Commercial area plan. DTJ Design was hired as the urban des~gn consultant on the pro~ect, Manlee Utter will conhnue to work on the market aspects of the plan, and a consultant may be brought in later regardmg traffic impacts The first communrty meehng was held, and ~deas were brought up regarding the kmds of services the commumty would hke to see and what m~ght be needed to attract those services. A working group is m place which includes most of the ma~or property owners, along with representahves from the Gunbarrel Community Assoc~ahon. This group will generate options and alternahves that wil] be presented at a communtty meeting on Apnl 9 He outlmed the areas wrthm the commercial area plan s \plan\pb-items~nunutes\030227rrvn Ctty of Boulder Plannmg Board Mmutes February 27, 2003 Page 15 He discussed calendar issues, mcludmg the Golden West Concept Plan, contmuation of a discussion on pop-ups and scrape-offs, bnefing on the Transportation Master Plan Update, Jobs/Housmg implementahon, Uptown Broadway development allocations, the outdoor illuminat~on ordmance, the super IGA which would fold together all the mter-governmental agreements throughout the county, Phase II Land Use Regulations, and an update on Crestview East. The meehng scheduled on Apnl 17 will be held on Apnl 24 mstead, and the Plannmg Board retreat w~ll be held on Apnl 27 T. Krueger suggested that there be a conversation about what the Board would hke to accomplish at its retreat, mcludmg when the chair and v~ce chazr will be elected The Board will discuss at a future meehng whether to take a recess sometime m the summer P. Pollock distnbuted the appl~cahons that were submrtted for the Plamm~g Board vacancy. 7. ADJOURNMENT The Plannmg Board ad~ourned the meetmg at 10:35 p m. s \plan\pb-rtems\rrunutes\030227mm