Loading...
Minutes - Planning Board - 5/1/2003APPROVED JUNE 5, 2003 CITY OF BOULDER PLANNING BOARD SUMMARY MINUTES May 1, 2003 Council Chambers Room, Municipal Building 1777 Broadway, 6:00 p.m. The following are the minutes of the May 1, 2003 city of Boulder Planning Board meeting. A permanent set of these minutes is kept in Central Records, and a verbatim tape recording of the meeting is maintained far a period of seven years in Central Records (telephone: 303-441-3043). BOARD PRESENT: Macon Cowles, Vice Chair Thom Krueger, Chair Simon Mole Alan O'Hashi Beth Pommer John Spitzer BOARD ABSENT: Elise Jones STAFF PRESENT: Brent Bean, Senior Planner Bob Cole, Land Use Review Manager Don Durso, Associate Planner David Gehr, Assistant City AtYorney Doug Hawthorne, Superintendent of Parks Mary Lovrien, Board Secretary Peter Pollock, Planning Director 1. CALL TO ORDER Chair T. Krueger declared a quorum at 6:05 p.m., and the following business was conducted. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES February 27, 2003: M. Cowles suggested that on page 5, second paragraph, ninth sentence, change to read "J. Spitzer suggested that the parking not remain in front of the lot rather than on the alleys." On a motion by B. Pommer, seconded by A. O'Hashi, the Planning Board approved the minutes of February 27, 2003 as amended (5-0; S. Mole was not present far this item, and E. Jones was absent). s:\plan\pb-items\minutesUvlay 1, 2003 minutes City of Boulder Planning Board Minutes May 1, 2003 Page 2 3. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION Judith Cardell, 919 Pine Street: She spoke in favor of the START program. She has had personal experience in running a program that provides assistance for people who are not as motivated as the clients who will be participating in the START program. It is expected that embracing a broader perspective of community will help the community, the clients of the START program, and the First Congregational Church. The neighborhood itself will have a real sense of appreciation for the community that supports it. This service will be a good thing and will not be a detriment to the neighborhood. 4. DISCUSSION OF DISPOSITIONS, PLANNING BOARD CALL-UPS There were no dispositions or Planning Board call-ups to discuss. 5. ACTION ITEMS A. Public hearing and consideration of a two year extension to the approval of Use Review #UR-95-5, known as the "Inn at Gunbarrel" located at 6301 Diagonal Highway. D. Durso said that he was available to answer questions. M. Cowles asked if the applicant would be required to follow the new illumination and landscaping ordinances that will be approved this year if the Board approved the extension without changing any of the conditions. D. Gehr said that the applicant would be required to comply with the landscaping and illumination ordinances in effect at the time of building permit application. Public Participation: There was no public participation. Return to the Board: J. Spitzer asked if the applicant will apply far another extension in 2005. D. Durso said that the timeline that the applicant has proposed seems workable. B. Cole added that the applicant seems to be making diligent progress in working through the technical documents. T. Krueger asked if it was possible for the Board to grant an additional extension in 2005. D. Gehr said that the Board could grant an additional extension at that time. S. Mole asked if the Board could approve the extension on the condition that it shall not be further extended. D. Gehr said that the Board could not do this. MOTION: On a motion by A. O'Hashi, seconded by B. Pommer, the Planning Board approved (6-0; E. Jones was absent) a two-year time extension for completion of Use Review UR98-5 to March 26, 2005. M. Cowles offered a friendly amendment that tha motion incorporate the staff inemorandum dated May 1, 2003 (preparation date April 16, 2003) as findings of fact and the recommended conditions of approval. A. O'Hashi and B. Pommer accepted the friendly amendment. s:Aplan\pb-items\minutes\May 1, 2003 minutes City of Boulder Planning Board Minutes May 1, 2003 Page 3 B. Public hearing and consideration of Use Review #LUR2003-00016 for a Day 5helter for the START program, located at 1128 Pine, The Pirst Congregational Church, zoned Transitional Business (TB-E) and High Density Residential (HZ-E), comprising 0.95 acres. B. Bean said that this is a request for a day shelter at 1128 Pine Street. The property is split zoned-the eastern 50 feet of the property where the church is sited has a Transitional Business zone, and the remainder of the property to the west to l lth Street is zoned HZ-E and contains the two-story carriage house where the START program would be housed. The primary issue for the Board to review is the day shelter use of the property under the Use Review criteria. Staff already finds that the site conforms to the Conditional Use criteria. Access to the site will be from either the alley or from Pine Street and Broadway, and the entrance to the carriage house will be internal to the site. The clientele will primarily be walking or taking transit to the facility. There will be no more than 25 clients at the site at any one time, and between two and five staff inembers will be at the site. The facility will be open from 8 a.m. until 5 p.m., Monday through Saturday. Two neighborhood meetings were held to review the management plan, and several revisions were made based on the comments. One of the revisions is that the START staff agreed to meet with the neighbors on a six-month basis to resolve any issues. The Use Review criteria and staff recommended findings thereon include 1) whether the use is consistent with the purpose of the zone distriet (the zone is primarily residantial with limited non-residential uses--this is a day-time activity that fits well for serving residents of the community and the criteria); 2) tl~e use is necessary to foster a specific city policy (the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan policies 8.01, 8.03, 8.04, and 8.11 speak to the need to serve the residents of the community and provide far their needs on an ongoing basis); 3) whether the location, size, design, and operating characteristics of the proposed development will result in a use reasonably compatible with the neighborhood (clients should not create an impact to the surrounding neighbarhood); 4) whether the use would adversely affect the infrastructure of the surrounding area (current public inFrastructure will not be impacted by adding this use); and 5) whether the use would change the predominant character of the surrounding area (this is an existing structure, and improvements made to this building will improve the physical character of the area). B. Pommer asked for clarification on how the three-year review for the Management Plan will work. B. Cole said that the Conditional Use criteria of the code specify submission of management plans for these types of facilities, and every three years the management plans need to be resubmitted to staff and reapproved. Staff reviews the comments and issues that have been identified from the neighborhood based on the meetings that have occurred during that time period and determines whether the issues have been resolved. The purpose of the management s:\plan\pb-items\mimitesUvlay 1, 2003 minuCes City of Boulder Planning IIoard Minutes May 1, 2003 Page 4 plan is to maintain dialogue between the neighbors and the managers of the facilities so that problems might be resolved at this level and advise staff when these issues arise. M. Cowles asked if the hours of operation proposed far this facility are consistent with the hours of operation at iCs existing building. B. Bean said that with this new location the hours of operation will be expanded from 2:30 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. to 8:30 a.m. to 430 p.m.. Colleen Napinski, President of the START Board: She said that the START Board has made some assessments of the condition of the carriage house and found that the building is in poor condition. The First Congregational Church does not have the funds to restore the carriage house. Benefits to the church include a unique opportunity to partner with START in order to get the building restored, availability of the carriage house in the evenings for other community groups and on Sundays, and continued ongoing assistance to the homeless. Benefits to the city include landmark preservation, human services, and provision of an alternative to the places where homeless individuals would be staying during the day in the downtown area. Clients know that the START program is a sober facility where life changes might be made, and START has a history of successfully providing this service. The parking lot is a buffer zone to the residential uses to the north, and the alley is a buffer zone to the offces to the south. The nearby churches are in favor of this facility as an alternative so that their staff does not haue to address this problem. Michael Warren, Architect for the START project: He provided some sketches of the building renovation and showed how the building relates to the entire church site. The smoking area will be across the parking lot, and access to the building will be from a walkway to a doorway on the north side of the building. Judy Greenan, START Board, 1600 Blue Sage Court: She said that the program has evolved from being an enabling program to being a solution to the problem. The existing program shares a space with another program, and START can only use the space from 2:30 until 5:30 in the evening from October through May. This has limited the ability to assist the overall population. START is also stiffening up its requirements for what a client needs to commit to in order to participate in the program. Public Participation: Karen Hoover, 1497 Lodge Lane: She said that many members of the First Congregational Church have worked actively with the leadership of START to develop this proposal. The church has a long relationship with START and the homeless in Boulder, including hosting their summer program in the past and serving winter breakfasts and lunch one Sunday a month. People have not even bean aware of this activity. The church is very comPortable sharing the property with the homeless. START is an outstanding program, and it eFPectively serves the s:Aplan\pb-items\minutes\May 1, 2003 ininutes City of Boulder Planning Board Minutes May I, 2003 Page 5 motivated members of the homeless population. Part of the church's mission is to help meet the needs of this population. Peggy Wrenn, 3320 13th Street: She said that she has worked with the people at START as a facilitator for their neighborhood meetings. The START program is about creating a community for people who do not necessarily have a community and providing an alternative space for the homeless within the wider community. Bruce Enstad, Board member for START, 5390 Manhattan Circle: He supports the START program. This program is truly a resource center for the homeless population. Judy Reid, 604 Mapleton: She said that she is an active member of St. John's Church, and said that she has had nothing but very pleasant relationships with the homeless people who have come to the church. She said that she is very much in support of the START program. Bob Gurtler, 5124 Williams Fork Trail: He said that the First Congregational Church has been in its present location since 1906, and in that time the church has developed a good relationship with the downtown area and Feels a strong commitment to the people in the downtown area. He urged the Planning Board to help the church extend its commitment. Gene Culbertson, Executive Director of the START Program, 1921 Goss Street: He said that the root of homelessness is a lack of connection and community. The mission of START is to get homeless people to become a part of our community, and this new location will allow such connection because it is surrounded by caring institutions. Beth Wettergren, 1955 Tincup Court: She said that she facilitates a program called "Lamb's Lunch" for the homeless at First Presbyterian Church. There are 14 other nearby churches that support this program in various ways. The main thing that happens during this time is relationship building with the homeless. Martie McMane, Senior Minister at First Congregational Church, 495 Oneida Street: She spoke about the commitment, dedication, and professionalism that the church has experienced with the START staff, Board, and their volunteers. The church would not be in partnership with START if it did not have confidence in the program. Without the START program, the homeless are still there. This is an opportunity that might improve out neighborhood and our downtown. Lynn Ross-Bryant, 3862 Wonderland: She said that the people who would be served is us- there is not some category of homeless people that is different from who we are. Anything we can do to break down the barrier between them and us seems to be very important. Return to the Board: s:\plan\pb-items\minutes\May I, 2003 minutes City of Eoulder Planning Board Minutes May 1, 2003 Page 6 J. Spitzer asked about available resources in the city far an alcoholic homeless person who cannot use the START program. B. Bean said that the city might refer the person to the Alcohol Recovery Center. A. O'Hashi noted that in the Management Plan the START staff will notify the police if any person known to the staff to be a sex offender registered with the city of Boulder Police Department is turned away from the facility. He asked if START uses sex offendar lists from any other jurisdictions. G. Culbertson said that staff will address this issue later in the year. Also, at the present location, only a few people have to be turned away because of alcohol; the character of the program is such that the people we might turn away do not come. M. Cowles asked how the requirement to notify neighbors within 600 feet of the facility might impact the START program. G. Culbertson said that the only impact would be the cost of mailing, but this is a requirement that staff is willing to undertake. B. Pommer asked how staff will handle any overflow situation. C. Napinski said that this has not occurred at the present facility, and the plan would be to have set periods for individual stay at the facility. MOTION: On a motion by J. Spitzer, seconded by B. Pommer, the Planning Board approved (6-0; E. Jones was absent) Use Review LUR2003-00016 for a Day Shelter at 1128 Pine finding that the Day Shelter meets the criteria of Section 9-4-9(d) and incorporating this memorandum and the attached Conditional Review standard (Attachment A) as findings of fact, subject to the recommended conditions of approval as outlined in the staff inemorandum dated May 1, 2003 (preparation daYe Apri] 18, 2003). C. Consideration of a motion to make an advisory recommendation to City Council to dispose the following park lancis in Linden Park ("Park Property"), also known as Maxwell Lake Park, pursuant to Charter Section 162: 1) An easement over the easterly five feet of Park Property and certain restrictions on the use of an approximately 8,000 square foot portion of Park Property located southwest of Lot 10, Linden Park, City of Boulder, Colorado, also known as 3732 Wonderland Hill Avenue, Boulder, Colorado 80302; and (a) A 3,400 square foot portion of Park Property in fee surrounding property owned by Robert and Andrea Feder located at Lot 19, Linden Park, City of Boulder, Colorado, also known as 543 Linden Park Drive, Boulder, Colorado 80303; (b) a 310 square foot maintenance easement on the east side of Lot 20 of Linden Park; and (c) a tree maintenance easement consisting of a 12 foot buffer area surrounding Lot 19 of Linden Park. D. Hawthorne said that staff is requesting that the Planning Board recommend to City Council the disposal of two properties (8,000 square feet located at 3732 Wonderland Hill Avenue and 4,132 square Feet located at 543 Linden Park Drive). A third parcel has not been resolved 1nd s:\plan\pb-items\minuYesVViay 1, 2003 minutes City of Boulder Planning Board Minutes Page ~ May 1, 2003 will be litigated in court. The first two parcels would settle a long-standing issue with some encroachments around Maxwell Lake Park. Both property owners were able to obtain Quit Claim deeds for the properties even though the city believes that it clearly owns the properties. The property at 3732 Wonderland Hill Avenue abuts the private property on the side. Irrigated bluegrass turf and shrubs have been planted on the parceL Not only was the owner able to obtain a quit claim deed but was able to get title insurance for the lot. A few years ago fhe property owner asked to purchase the lot Prom the Parks and Recreation Department, but the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board (PRAB) did not approve the purchase. PRAB felt that this parcel was important for the configuration of the park. Instead, the department will give up a five-foot easemenY and will agree thaY tha lot will not be developed into active recreational facilities. The lot wiil be turned back into native grass. The easement constitutes a disposal because the city is restricting future uses of that lot. In the early 1990s the city had settled with the property owner for the second lot at 543 Linden Park Drive (there was going to be an exchange of land). This deal fell through because the property owner could not get title insurance. In order to settle, staff is proposing that the property owners convey their interest through a quit claim deed and pay in fee to purchase the lot. In return, the city will convey to the owners a 304 square foot maintenance easement on the east side of Lot 20 that adjoins a neighbor, and a tree maintenance easement consisting of a 12-foot buffer area surrounding Lot 19 of Linden Park. The maintenance agreement states that any application of pesticides or other agricultural chemicals should be consistent with the city's policy for park land and in consultation with city forestry staff. Also, there is a row of crab apple trees that are on park property that the property owner wants to keep and maintain. The city decided that disposal of this lot wouid not take away any enjoyment and felt comfortable with the disposal of the property. T. Krueger asked what legal issues might be tied up with this recommendation. D. Gehr said that the most important issue is timing; the matter of the third parcel is set for trial in June. IP the first two cases are not settled, these will also go to triaL The city's theory is that there is an implied dedication. Under an implied dedication the city has to show that the person was to convey and that there was acceptance by the city; the city believes it has a strong case as to the title to the land. The issue YhaY would be litigated would be who has the best title. Given Yhe above arguments, this settlement is a positive resolution for everyone involved. Public Participation: There was no public participation Return to the $oard: MOTION: On a motion by S. Mole, seconded by A. O'Hnshi, the Planning Board recommended (6-0; E. Jones was absent) that City Council approve a motion to dispose of the property as outlined in the staff inemorandum dated May 1, 2003 (preparation date April 24, 2003). s:\plan\pb-ite~ns\mimites\May 1, 2003 minutes City of Boulder Planning Board Minutes May 1, 2003 Page 8 D. Public Hearing and consideration of a recommendation to City Council on the Boulder County Countywide Coordinated Comprehensive Development Plan Intergovernmental Agreement. P. Pollock said that this super Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) coordinates the multiple IGAs that currently exist between the county and various communities already and includes communities that are not party to an existing IGA. The key provisions of the IGA recognize existing annexed areas and development approved by each community and include commitments to preserve the rural areas identified on the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP) development plan map. Under this agreement, none of the parties will annex land or provide water or sewer service to lands in another jurisdiction's designated municipal influence area. A municipal party to the agreement may provide water service in the Rural Preservation area and in an unincorporated rural area within a certain distance of an existing water main. This particular provision is directed at a water line that Lafayette has that runs from South Boulder Creek and Highway 93 toward Baseline Road and the edge of Lafayette. The important element is that provision of services has to be to an existing use or to an improved single family development under county jurisdiction within a half-mile of a water line but not to new urban development that might occur there. The benefits to the city include proteetion of the rural character of lands in Area III and protection of lands in Area II from annexation or provision of utility service by another party to the agreement. He distributed revised language (Section 2.4 which addresses the Planning Reserve and changes to Section 3.2 that address the municipal influence area parcels). Section 2.4 states that the portion of Area III shown as Planning Reserve on the BVCP Area I, Area II, Area III Map adopted November 2001 shall for purposes of the agreement be treated as a Municipal Influence Area (the policies given to the Municipal Influence Area would be applied to the Planning Reserve-this means that no one can prematurely provide water service to that area. It then addresses the standards for changing the Planning Reserve. M. Cowles asked how this agreement would address the possibility that Lafayette might supply utility services Co the Flatiron property. P. Pollock said that Lafayette cannot do this; the agreement states that water cannot be supplied Yo another jurisdiction's municipal influence area. P--blie Participation: There was no public participation. Return to the Board: M. Cowles asked for clarification of the references to "Underlying Plans" and "Underlying Plan." P. Pollock said that one refers to the cornprehensive development plan that is the exhibit s:\plan\pb-items\minutes\May 1, 2003 mimrtes City of Boulder Planning Board Minutes May 1, 2003 Page 9 to the IGA, and the other refers to things that the city adopts such as the BVCP Land Use Map. D. Gel~r added that "Underlying Plans" is defined under Section 1.3 and lists all the plans that apply to the various planning jurisdictions that have been adopted in the Boulder Valley. B. Pommer suggested that the map be labeled as Exhibit A, and that any disclaimers be printed in larger type. J. Spitzer Yhought that the super IGA is an exciting concepC and is sarry that it will expire in 20 years. MOTION: On a motion by J. Spitzer, seconded by A. O'Hashi, the Planning Board recommended (6-0; E. Jones was absent) that City Council approve the Boulder County Countywide Coordinated Comprehensive Development Plan Intergovernmental Agreement as outlined in the staff memorandum dated May 1, 2003 (preparation date April 24, 2003). A. O'Hashi offered a friendly amendment to include the additional language in Sections 2.4 and 3.2. J. Spitzer accepted the friendly amendment. M. Cowles offered a friendly amendment: "We recommend to the CiYy Council that the Council convey Yo the city's atCorneys and to the county that contracts to which the city is a party should be written in language that is concise, clear, and readily understood by people motivated to read the document." D. Gehr asked that this comment be directed to the City Attorney's Office rather than City Council. M. Cowles withdrew the friendly amendment. 6. MATTERS FROM THE PLANNING BOARD, PLANNING DIRECTOR, AND CITY ATTORNEY P. Pollock said thaY material was distributed to the Board regarding the Economic Vitality Action Group (EVAG), a City Manager appointed group, and some of the minutes of Cheir meetings. M. Cowles distributed a proposed motion to try to express the sense of the Planning Board with respect to the importance of taking a look at xeriscaping in the context of single family, residential units. B. Pommer said that she would be uncomfarfable saying that it is important for the Board to hold hearings in 2003; it is more appropriate to say that it is important for the city to analyze this issue as soon as possible in a more comprehensive manner. There was discussion among the Board members that they had already made such a resolution at an earlier meeting. RESOLUTION: On a motion by M. Cowles, seconded by T. Krueger, the Planning Board approved (6-0; E. Jones was absent) the following addition to Che Phase II Land Use Regulations that will be sent to City Councii. "The Planning Board believes that it is important for the city to analyze as soon as possible whether or not similar measures in the Land Use Regulations requiring xeriscaping and limiting the amount of tarf should be adopted with respect to new and redeveloping single family residences.° We ask staff to convey this resolution to the City Council and request the Council's direction or reaction to this. s:\plan\pb-items\minutes~Ivlay ], 2003 minutes City of Boulder Planning IIoard Minutes May 1, 2003 Page ]0 M. Cowles notified the Board about the Annual Landmarks of the Future Tour on May 3, 2003. P. Pollock provided the wetland permit application to address the West Nile virus. Staff intends to issue a permit on Friday which means that this iYem would be subject to Planning Board call- up review on May 15. He asked if there were issues or questions about this permit that staff can address at the next meeting. M. Cowles suggested that the threat of the West Nile virus be placed in context. The scare of this virus seems to be hyped by the media to the point where people are taking actions. D. Gehr directed the Board members to view the City Council discussion on the West Nile virus for additional information. A. O'Hashi said that this virus seems to be the "disease of the day" in which case it is more important to control mosquitoes rather than destroy the West Nile virus. The component that is missing is the community education, such as educating about places that breed mosquitoas. S. Mole said that staff recommends the introduction of the larvicide Bti which actually may destroy other insect species. The city of Boulder has historically not accepted spraying of mosquitoes. T. Krueger said that there will be two items that will be added to the agenda: 1) an agenda check at the beginning of the action items on the second and third meetings so that the Board members can decide how long each item might take; and 2) a debrief of that night's meeting. He outlined some of the future agenda items, including the Culver Court Site Review which was called up by a neighbar and the education excise tax. P. Pollock said that the education excise tax discussion will include process and criteria for its allocation. The Board conducted a short debrief of the meeting. 7. ADJOURNMENT The Planning Board adjourned the meeting at 8:45 p.m. s:\plan\pb-items\minutes\May 1, 2003 minutes