Loading...
2 - Minutes, 02/24/00~~ ~;~ ~~~~~n~~ C~ ~ CITY OF BOULDER PLANNING BOARD MINUTES February 24, 2000 Council Chambers Room, Municipal Building 1777 Broadway, 6:00 p.m. The following are the minutes of the February 24, 2000 City of Boulder Planning Board meeting. A permanent set of these minutes is kept in Central Records, and a tape re~ording vf the meeting is maintained for a period of five to seven years in Central Records (telephone: 303-441-3043). BOARD PRESENT: Thomas Krueger, Chairperson Peter Gowen A1 Gunter Andria Jacob Tina Nielsen Beth Pommer Mark Ruzzin, Vice Chairperson 3.; CITIZEN PARTICIPATION The~e was no citizen p~rticipation. 4.' DISCU~SION OF DISPOSITIONS, PLANNING BOARD CALL-UPS T. T£~~er noted a Planning Department disposition (Benchmark). s:\plan\data\cur\bms\000224. min City of Boulder February 24, 2000 Planning Board Minutes Page 2 5. MATTERS FROM THE PLANNING BOARD, PLANNING DIRECTOR, AND CITY ATTORNEY This item was discussed after the action item. T. Krueger said that two Planning Board representatives are requested to serve on the City Council Housing Subcommittee. P. Gowen suggested that the representatives serve on an interim basis until appointments are made at the Board retreat. B. Pommer said that the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan Subcommittee meeting is scheduled for March 1. M. Ruzzin said that the Village Arts Coalition is seeking guidance and direction on how to move forward with their project, and P. Pollock said that the applicant has the option of addressing the Board on March 16 to receive fuller comments and have the Downtown Design Advisory Board offer comments before formalizing a final proposal. He noted the following meetings next week: University of Colorado/City meeting;'City Council meeting with the Boulder Valley School District, and a City Council study session on-fees and fiscal management options related to building services. 6. ACTION ITEMS A. Public hearing and consideration. of motions to direct and authorize staff to consider and pursue additional study of proposed amendments to the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan. S. Richstone asked the Board to provide direction to staff as to those items which should be considered and further analyzed as part of the update to the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP). She explained staff's recommendations for Areas I(promote additional affordable housing, encourage mixed use development; and preserv~~existing ~esidential areas), II (changes to promote ~~..... additional hausing and chan~~ ~i~gested b~ ~w ~, III (changes in Rural Preserve and Planning Reserve), text and policy ~h~ige~:and a discuss~i~°~t regarding reducing jobs in the City. She said that City Council wi~i ~duct a s~.itcl~+:session on March 14 regarding the update of the BVCP and will provide direction to staff on March 21. After City Council and the Planning Board provide direction, the Boulder Cou~9tt~ ~~i~'unission ~d C~'t~ty Commissioners will discuss the update. Public Participation: ~.~ ~ r~ ~~. ,; ~. Dic1~,Blumenheim, XBI ~u~poration, 1445 Pearl Street: He spoke in support of the expansion of t~e service area for 5439 North Foothills Highway to allow an artist community. $"i~i~ Dierking, 47~5 Sunshine Canyon: He reviewed the goals for the Housing Implementation and Funding Task Force and said that he is concerned how the BVCP proposals might impact the rec;t~mm:enda~ions made by the Task Force. Ardith Sehulster, 4795 Sunshine Canyon: She said that the Housing Implementation and Funding Task Force believes that only with a combination of land use actions and a secure funding source can the affordable housing goals be reached. She indicated that the Housing Task Force encourages increasing buildout in the community by 3,000 dwelling units, annexing Area II parcels, increasing s:\plan\data\cur\bms\000224.min City of Boulder February 24, 2000 Planning Board Minutes Page 3 housing density than what is currently projected, and achieving a higher percentage of affordable housing. She said that it is likely that the housing developed under these options will be affordable to middle-income households. Susanna Remington, 90 West Arapahoe Avenue: She asked the Board to consider changing the land designation on the property located at 5000 28th Street from Area IIi to Area II with future annexation. Michael Johan, Gateway Park Fun Center, 4800 North 28th Street: He supported the expansion of the service area to accommodate expansion of the Gateway Center. He said that the Center provides recreational activities for children and families where there are few otl3er organized alternatives. He said that bringing Gateway Park into the City u+%11 expand the City's tax base helping to foster a sustainable economic base. Mary Boisseau: She asked the Board to consider changing the land use designation at 5980 Arapahoe to accommodate manufactured housing. Aaron Miripol, 1339 North Street: He suggested that the service area expand to the Jay RoadlSpine Road area to accommodate affordable housing. Sara Michl, League of Women ~oters, P.~. Box 1534: She said that the League supports affordable housing and a compact city, with dertsity and infill as opposed to sprawl. She suggested that affordable housing occur on~~+~~Vithin ex~t~ng City lunits or in selected parts of Area II, and to include in t~e BVCP more.sp~c~~c commih~.~~~regional cooperation in housing planning and integration ~fhc~using and tt'attspt~rtation planuing; locally and regionally. Marilyn Jorrie, 2350 Norwood: She asked the Board to consider creating a conservation area north of Iris, bounded b~.~~~fc~~thills o~rth~ ~st, the junction north of town, and 28th Street to the east to restrict devel~-pment~:fr€~m lowerin~ the water table. Tanne~' ~Iainero,1326 ~~ ~~~arbrook Road: He asked the Board not to consider redeveloping the a,irport. He said that h~~i~-and continues to learn about responsibility and honesty while learning to:fly an airplane. Davi~d Paule, 350Q Berkley Avenue: He asked the Board to keep the Boulder Airport because he lc~~e~,t~.~.X;ia~ian ~ield. Rich~rd `Luna, 4023 Old Westbury Court: He said that He and two other applicants would like their land at Jay and Spine Roads to be annexed. They would then sell 28 acres to an entity that would create affordable housing and possibly provide other community uses such as a pre-school or library. s:\plan\data\cur\bms\000224.min City of Boulder February 24, 2000 Planning Board Minutes Page 4 Gerald Jacob, Sale Lake Homeowners Association, 2875 Island Drive: He said that the Association voted against increasing the residential density at the Kalmia Avenue properties. Marilynne Tarrall, 4656 MacArthur Lane: She said that the neighborhood objects to rezoning the parcel at Arapahoe and Foothills to accommodate the location of the Boulder Community Hospital for the following reasons: traffic teeters on the edge of gridlock dwing rush hour, the site is an ecologically sensitive area and provides storm drainage for all the neighborhoods south of Arapahoe, and the use will create traffic around Eisenhower Elementary School. John Seaborn, Soaring Society of Boulder, 5560 Boulder Hills Drive: He said that he does not support the rezoning of the Boulder Airport for the following reasons: The airport brings in over $13 million annually in economic activity to the area, and it wauld cost the City approximately $25 million to close the airport. He said that the proposal is about airport noise rather than affordable housing and mentioned that the Soaring Society has made noise a top priority for many years by developing detailed noise abatement procedures, investing in quiet gropeller technology, and working with the community to minimize noise irn.paets. He said that:the applicant does not have any ownership in the property which might be required in the BVCP administrative guidelines. Will Barclay, Colorado Pilots Association, 5808 Knollcrest Gourt: He asked that the airport proposal not be considered further because the BVCP administrative guidelines state that an applicant for an amendment must have an existing ownership interest. The airport generates a lot of money for the local economy, ct'eates jobs ~ the community, provides for businesses that rely heavily on aircraft, and provides t~ther ben i~or th~ eommunity. ~~~ ~~~ : g. Colin J. Baarry, 6S7 Para~on ~ri~e: He said.t~# he objects to the proposed revision to the BVCP regarding th~ Baulder Airport, He said that pilots from around the world come to the Boulder Airport to experience the unique soaring envirvnment. ~;, Leo Hollberg, 5~1~,1MT~rth~Foothil~s Highway: He supported expanding the service area to 5052 North Foothills Highw~~, tt~ give the area a more cohesive, uniform direction rather than continue with pi~cemeal developr~~ift:~t'allows different uses. Vic Haynes: He said that the Boulder Airport redesignation request should be rejected because the applicant is suggesting;-that growing businesses be located on the site which would be in conflict with`other things praposed, such as affordable housing. Rasemary,lk'IcBride, 3672 Chase Court: She supported the service area expansion for the three propertiie~ on Jay Road in order to provide affordable housing. David Campbell, 2866 Maya Place: He objected to the request to change the designation of the Boulder Airport. He said that he is researching ways to decrease noise from airplanes. s:\plan\data\cur\bms\000224.min City of Boulder February 24, 2000 Planning Board Minutes Page 5 Mike Higgins, 321 Peakview Road: He asked the Board not to redesignate the Boulder Airport because it is a precious asset to the community. Paul Stoltz, 595 Utica Avenue: He asked that the land at the Boulder Airport not be redesignated because he depends on the airport to conduct flight testing on the systems that he is developing. John McFarron, Chairman of the Board of Directors at Boulder Community Hospital, 4450 Hogan Court, Longmont: He supported the land redesignation at Foothills and Arapahoe to accommodate the Boulder Community Hospital. He said that expansion of the Broadway campus is not practical or economically viable, and that the site at Arapahoe and Foothills is the only feasible site identified within the City of Boulder or adjacent to the City. Joe McDonald, 800 McIntire Street: He said that after surveying all available sites for the expansion of the Boulder Community Hospital, it was determined that the Arapahoe/Foothills site is the most appropriate. Jerry Lee, 1283 Blackbird Court: He said that he supports the proposed hospital site at Arapahoe and Foothills in order to get the best health Gare available in Boulder. Judith Renfroe, 1460 Wonderview Court: She said that she supports the Boulder Airport in its present location. She said that a medium-density residential designation for the area at Arapahoe and Cherryvale is inappropriate. She said that she vvould support the clustering of different housing types for the area along Arapahoe but h~ped this cou1;~ be acct3mplished under the low-density residential designation car LR-D zoning<~heF~so said t.~ ~~.~~risity residential for the trailer park would be more approgriate becaus~;it;~li~~s trailer parks ~nd creates less of an incentive to redevelop. Michael L. E~er, 3968 St. Fetersbu~rg Street: He urged the Board to dismiss the proposal to redesignate the I~d ~t ~t~ Bould~' ~+~~'E. ~ Paul Tabolt, Campus ~~t~c 24, Llniversity of Colorado: He supported the land use redesignation of Will~sm's Village anc~x~~~~3~South campus to enable better planning by the City, the County, and ~~ University. He sa~~ th~'t~ the CU-South property has been degraded through mining, adj oins exi~ti~g urban developm~t to the north and to the west, and has other development on the property. He ~id that appropriat~ ~evelopment planning, including transportation, access, and uses for the site, have:~lready begun. He mentioned that environmental, flood, wetland, and species mitigation studies aze und~rway to help identify the development potential of the property, along with any limitations that ~€~ed tc~ b~ addressed or mitigated. He said that access to utilities, wastewater facilities, telecoinmunications, and water may depend upon annexation to a municipality or agreements with other utility and service providers. Kevin Bontemps,171 Sky Trail Road: He asked the Board to deny the application to redesignate the Boulder Airport. s:\plan\data\cur\bms\000224.min City of Boulder February 24, 2Q00 Planning Board Minutes Page 6 Rob Patterson, 546 Flint Gulch, Lyons: He opposed the application to redesignate the Boulder Airport. He said that while aviation is often regarded as an activity for the privileged, the Soaring Society of Boulder strives to make this activity available to everyone. Mary Boisseau, 6292 Arapahoe #25: She commented on the way airport noise regulations are enforced and the noise generated by the airplanes. She spoke in support of the redesignation of the Boulder Airport because the land is already in the City, has full services; pilots can go to other airports, the airport use represents little general public use; and the land could be developed for affordable housing. Jonathan Sawyer, 7210 Empire Drive: He said that his company relies on general aviation to service the many customers who reside in small communities outside Colorado. He mentioned that while the approximately two flights per week represent negligible nc~ise impacts, they produce tax revenue for the City and provide jobs for residents. Jan McRoberts, 700 Lion Point: She opposed the application to redesignate the land at the Boulder Airport because it represents a first step in closing°itie.airport, She said:tfiat the close proximity of the airport to the foothills makes soaring a national highlight> She noted that the real issue is noise rather than affordable housing and suggested that infill for affordable housing makes more sense. Mahone Terrall, 4656 MacArthur=~,,~ne: He pzesented pe~tions with 150 signatures in opposition to the redesignation and location of B~iiulder C~i~munity T~~spital at Foothills and Arapahoe. He was concerned that future expansion c±a~tld not b~~mmc~d~~ed because of the wetlands and that a large S, ¢ ~~ ~., .-'S parcel with rtiom to grow vvt~#~d~e more ,~f-Ie said that a high use facility at one of the busiest inter-sections in the ~i~Ey~~r~ot good fi~~~,th+~ community, and he objected to how the hospital handled nQtification to adjac~n# pr~perty owners. Bruce Hodgkin~s, l#~i;~ Grape A~~~s.~Te asked that the airport property not be redesignated. J. Flodst~rom, 1581 48th Strect: She asked the Board to address the fact that the hospital is requesi~g a 94 percent incr~e ~ square footage. She said that the new recycling center will add traffi~s-~o this area. ;~ B~ttita Wulchin,1336 North Teal Court: She said that she supports the airport remaining where it is,`;5he said that s~e lives 3 1/2 miles from the airport but never hears the airplanes. She was cosi~ed that ~ti~~ airport will be pushed out as areas around the airport are developed. Wes~~~~`ibbons, 76515th Street: He said that he did not support the redesignation of the Boulder Airport. He said that the location is ideal because the tow planes do not have to fly as faz to get to the foothills and that money is being spent to try to reduce noise from airplanes. He suggested that more affordable housing could be made available by changing the law that restricts the number of unrelated people living in a house. s:\plan\data\cur\bms\000224. min City of Boulder February 24, 2000 Planning Board Minutes Page 7 Ben Binder, 720 South 41st Street: He asked that the University of Colorado South Campus not be redesignated because prior mining has made it more flood prone. He described the development proposal of Flatirons in 1995. He presented information regarding acquisition strategies by the University and a letter from Robert Sievers to the University in which he opposes any building on the site for at least 30 years. Stuart Grogan, City of Boulder Housing Authority, 3120 Broadway: He said that the Housing Authority supports the efforts to provide affordable housing by creating opportunities for redevelopment on sites across the community. Mary Patzer, 5801 Jay Road: She asked that the Board support tt~e service area expansion for Jay Road properties in order to build affordable housing, including senior housing. She also supported the Boulder Airport in its present location. David McRoberts, 700 Lion Point: He said that the rule which restricts the number of unrelated people in one home is unrealistic; repeal of the law would provide affordable housing, especially for students. Return to the Board: The Planning Board approved the further consideration and evaluation of the following items: Area I Sites 1. Corticlors Option (6-1; A: Gunter ~~t~~ ,<°_ . 2. Centers Option (6-l; A. Gunter oppos~cl) 3. Industrial (~ption (7-U) 4. Existing areas ~vith business I~nd use designations and existing residential use (7-0) 5. CB-D zon~ sc~uth of Bould~t ~~nunity Hospital, Balsam and Broadway (7-0) 6. IBM ~ast {9-t~} ~ ~ (6.2) Inventory of City-owned properties (eliminate Open Space and parks land) (6-1; B. Pommer t~pposed) 7. ~~~~ William's Village (7~~) 8. Include Boulder Municipal Airport in inventory of City-owned property (5-2; B. Pommer and P. Gowen opposed) 10: Evaluate Arterial Business Land Use Designation (7-0) 12. xalmia {,analyze other uses in addition to housing) (6-1; M. Ruzzin opposed) 13. SSth and Baseline (6-0; P.Gowen abstained} 14. ` I-~~gan/Pancost Street (7-0) _ 15. Cherryvale and Arapahoe (7-0) 16. Foothills and Arapahoe (look at MR,HR, and combining housing with Public) (7-0) 17. CU-South (review all options, including returning to Area III) (7-0) s:\pl an\data\cur\bms\000224. m in City of Boulder February 24, 2000 Planning Board Minutes Page 8 18. Area II to III change for Open Space (7-0) 19. Mobile home parks in Area II (7-0) 20. Planning Reserve a) Potential boundary change to expand Rural Preserve, and b) Further analysis of Planning Reserve (7-0); The Board asked staff for further information and analysis on the following ~ites: 22. 4800 North 28th Street (pursue out-of-City water) (5-2; A.Gunter and M. Ruzzin opposed) 25. 5775 Jay Road, 5801 Jay Road, 5885 Jay Road (4-3; M. Ruzzin, A. Gunter, and T. Nielsen opposed) The Board approved the staff recommendation not to further consider and evaluate the following items: (6.1) Public Land Use Designation (7-0) 9. 5980 Arapahoe (5-2; B. Pommer and P. Gawen opposed) 11. 47th and Jay (7-0) 20.(c) Initiate service area expansion plan (5-2; P.Gowen and T.Nielsen opposed) 21. Service area expansion, 5439 North Foothills Highway (5-2; A. Jacob and P. Gowen opposed) 23. Service area expansion, SQ52 North Foothills Highway (4-3; T. Nielsen, A. Jacob, and P.Gowen opposed) ~~ 24. Service area expansi~minor adjustr~t~v~.~'~g~ Street (4-3; A. Jacob, T. Nielsen, and P.Gowen opposed~ ~ The Board agreed {'7-fl) to suppcirt the staff recommendation on potential policy and text changes and asked staff to rev~~~'.~~~eral sechcata~ t~~~lect current policy. MOTION: On a mofio~ l~~ 1!'1~Ruzzin, seconded by P. Gowen, the Planning Board approved staff ,.~.t review o~°~he following c~t~t~~~~duce further job growth: 1) purchase commerciaUindustrial an, 2) emphasize different (1es~ ~.fiense) non-residential uses in the business and industrial zones, 3) low~~' building intensity, ~t the business and industrial zones, and 4) substitute residential uses for cciriimercial/industrial uses. No vote was taken, and the following motion was substituted. l~i(.1TI~N: On a rnotion by P. Gowen, seconded by B. Pommer, the Planning Board approved (7-0) the $~ditio~ ~tudy of the proposed amendments to the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan as noted.~~~~v~. ~ _ 7. ADJOURNMENT The Planning Board adjourned the meeting at 11:20 p.m. s:\plan\data\cur\bms\000224. min