Loading...
2 - Minutes, 03/16/00r~~ ; n 1 .~ ~ ~ ~J ...~_i ~~..i '.~ ~ l CITY OF BOULDER PLANNING BOARD MINUTES March 16, 2000 Council Chambers Room, Municipal Building 1777 Broadway, 6:00 p.m. The following are the minutes of the March 16, 2000 City of Boulder Planning Board meeting. A permanent set of these minutes is kept in Central Records, and a tape recording of 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 Andria Jacob Tina Nielsen Beth Pommer Mark Ruzzin, Vice Chairperson BOARD ABSENT: A1 Gunter STAFF PRESENT: Bob Cole, Director of Project Review David Gehr, Assistant City Attorney John Hinkelman, Transportation;P~anner Mary Lovrien, Board Secret~y ~ ` _ Ruth McH~yser, Acting Di~'e~to~ of Long R~.t~g~ Planning Peter Po11o~k, Planning Director Susan Richstt~n~; Ct~mprehen~ive p~anner 1. CALL Td ORDER Chair T. Kt`ueger deelared ~+quorum at 6:05 p.m., and the following business was conducted. 2. APPROVAL OF' 1~~II~TTES On a motion by P. Gowen, seconded by A. Jacob, the Planning Board approved (6-0) the minutes of.~ebruary 17, 2000 as,presented. (A. Gunter was not present for this item.) M. Ruzzin suggested the following changes to the minutes of March 2, 2000: On page 2, second paragraph, last sentence, ch~ug~ tt~ read "D. Gehr said that the City was sued by some of the property owners regarding the G~andvi~vv T~rrace historical designation." On page 5 under Board comments add an additional bull+e~ai~~~`Although there are some significant site issues, in general the site would be appropriate for a hospital." On a motion by P. Gowen, seconded by B. Pommer, the Planning Board approved (6-0) the minutes of March 2, 2000 as amended. (A. Gunter was not present for this item.) s: \pl an\data\cur\bms\000316. mi n City of Boulder March 16, 2000 Planning Board Minutes Page 2 3. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION William Hamilton, P.O. Box 3499, Winter Park: He presented a letter from the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association outlining ten reasons why communities should support their local airport. John Seaborn, 5560 Boulder Hills Drive, Longmont: He said that at the study session regarding the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP), City Council overvvhelmingly supported to preserve the airport by removing the site from the list of City-owned properties to be inventoried for alternative use. He said that City Council also discussed how the proposed airport redesignation item could have made it to this level of consideration, especially by an applicant with no ownership or standing in the property under consideration. Walter Barbo, Colorado Pilots Association,12579 E. Cedar, Aurora: He said that he is delighted that City Council has eliminated the airport site for possible redesignation. He also explained that if the City closed the Boulder Airport, it would be quite costly. Nance Earley, 26805 East 68th Avenue, Denver: He presented a letter`in support of retaining the existing designation for the Boulder Airport. Linda Kuhn, President of the Board of'Directors of the Shelter for the Homeless, 760 Locust Avenue: She extended an invitation ta the Board to tour the existing site of the homeless shelter and the site proposed. ~th 28th Street: He noted comments made Michael Johan, Gateway P~urk ~n Cent~~ ~. ~ by City Co~tnct~,at its stuc~~ ~es~it~ regardii~~~~ension of services to the Gateway Park site. Mike Exner, "~ic~ ~'r~sident'uf ?~~~~-aring Society of Boulder, 3968 St. Petersburg: He asked for an investiga€~~~:~~"~o~'" ~e ~~"~~'~~~°r a redesignation of the Boulder Airport happened. He said that the FAt~~s:~ii~th.~zed the~~f quiet propellers in Boulder, and it is hoped that the first of these will ~e ope~~g ~i~in the riext 30 days. 4, a~ DISCUSSION (3~~~~~`~'OSITIONS, PLANNING BOARD CALL-UPS T. -~'ueger noted two v~~etland permits (Scott Carpenter Skate Park drainage outfall to Boulder C~~k and TCI Cablev~~ion of Colorado, Inc.) and a Planning Department disposition (Gunpark ~ta~house). ~,,,~; ~ R~;~;';~`~+ ~'tS FROM THE PLANNING BOARD, PLANNING DIRECTOR, AND ~~ y~~'~*Y ATTORNEY M. Ruzzin pointed out letters from the Whittier Neighborhood Association regarding development at 20th and Pearl, 1617 Pearl, and 1738 Pearl. T. Nielsen pointed out a letter from the Riverbend Office Park Association requesting a zoning change to reflect the current use on the site. B. Pommer s:\plan\data\cur\bms\000316.min City of Boulder March 16, 2000 Planning Board Minutes Page 3 asked that Board packet information be received by the Board in a timely manner, and M. Ruzzin suggested that this item be discussed at the Board retreat. B. Pommer mentioned that T. Krueger will be leaving the Board after having served for over five years. T. Nielsen pointed out a citizen proposal for the redesign of 28th Street and mentioned that the Board will discuss the 28th Street CEAP in April. M. Ruzzin said that the 28th Street proposal will be discussed by the Transportation Advisory Board on Monday. P. Pollock said that J. Hinkelman will be leaving the City, and J. Hinkelman thanked the Board for its support over the years. On a request by P. Pollock for Board representation on the Housing Task Force, B. Pommer said that she would attend the first meeting, and a representative will be chosen at the Board retreat. P. Pollock presented informa#ion about the arganizational structure process for the Building Services Center and asked for Board representation. He suggested that a Board tour of the homeless shelter be noticed in the newspaper and conducted as a group. He asked the Board to comment on a request for vacation of an existing 5-foot sidewalk easement along SSth Street on property located at 5485 Conestoga Court. He distributed a draft agenda for the Board retreat and asked for additional items. 6. ACTION ITEMS A. Discussion of potential amendments to the Title 9, Land Use Regulations, to be completed during thte frst half t~f 2000. Staff will provide an overview of code sections that have been identifled for "clean up" amendments, and will ask for Planning Board di~cussion ~u~ directivn to prepare specific amendments. ~ ~~~~F ~~ ~ ~ `~ ~° > B. Cole discussed the pacl~~t ci~` code an~~t~t~ that would clarify existing code language, modernize code sections th~t ~Sa~e .not been °up~ated in many years, and correct new regulations created sinee 1997. He said thata~gul~a ~eriodic amendments should occur so that the code is in line with commurii~ l~d, use neez~s :~3~ ~iuted out some of the code revisions scheduled to be completed in two ph~~~--.`.`~arl}~' at~~:rit~rnents to be completed by mid-year and "later" amendments to be completed by the +~t~i:~~~ the year. The fallowing comments w;~;made by individual Board members, not by consensus: • Consider the Ac~essory Dwelling Unit (ADU) ordinance and other housing options in the context of the `~omprehensive Housing Strategy and the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan. • Ct~nsider that certain non-conforming land uses should be allowed to remain, but other types of non-conforming uses should be eliminated over time. The code should distinguish between types rather than letting all non-conforming uses remain. s: \plan\data\c ur\bms\000316.min City of Boulder Page 4 March 16, 2000 planning Board Minutes . Revise the definition of "demolition" to include buildings that are not in historic districts and define what constitutes a demolition and what constitutes a new structure. . Discuss implementing a maximum parking space requirement. . Move the update of fence regulations from the "later" phase to the "early" phase. . Consider requiring a minimum density in only certain zanes or corridors in order to capture the benefits of inclusionary zoning on all redevelopment. g, Year 2000 major update to the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan. 'chstone summarized the City Council's discussion on the update of the B~V s derathon of the S. Ri session on March 14. Council indicated that they were not interestecl in furt er c ~Boulder Airport, land use changes for CU-South, ~~a ~~ est n hav g~staff explore the opri n parcels and for the Gateway Fun Park. Council expr of out-of-City utility service to Gateway Fun Park E~ eT~ ~rtl~~ ~he not d hat Counc 1 ind cat d to this property and not induce development of ad~ac p p that in considering options to further reduce potenti~~e ob ~'~u~'asef o portun ties~ including the incentives to encourage mixed us~, ~',well as po p ~:, ~ opportunity for the City to purchase pi~operties ~tt~.d then sell to developers. She said that Council wil provide formal direction on Marc~;~l . Items~t Cou~c~~~ndicates it is not interested in considering further will bebrought bacl~tt~~~l~n ~~"~oard indicated its support for the approach g~:~ ~ , ,.~,~ of using :t~e proposed ob~e~t~~ ~o evalu~t~ ~~~ntial land use map changes. She said that the questions submitted bY A~u~t~~" regarding impacts of the proposed changes in centers and ~`" k~ She mentioned that the timeline for the update will be corridors wi2~~~ie.ct~s~~ssed at a~~~''~~ ~~~ ~~~b' to prepare potential changes to the plan. changed in order tQ prc~u'i de a deq i~~y ~~ ~,.z <,~ ,~- The following comments w~'~ ~?ade by individual Board members, not by consensus: . ~~" ~Notice in the new~p~p~'~~e process for the update. . '.; Review the BQUIder Airport Master Plan every time it is updated t fodeatne her useit should ~ ,, , continue in its present use or if there is greater commumty bene it `,,~~~w }and already in Area I for land bankin8, such as school district properties, rather than ~ -°~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Reserve. ''~~ ~ib~Cing at the Area III Planning . Remove the Gateway Fun Park from the BVCP work program and put it on a different track to explore the possibility of out-of-City utilities. s:\plan\data\cur\bms\000316.min City of Boulder March 16, 2000 Planning Board Minutes Page 5 • Consider designating more land on the CU-South property as open space or moving the land to Area III rather than moving towards annexation and development. • Consider designating the Jay Road properties as Area III, Planning Reserve, rather than Area III, Rural Preservation. • Ensure that new development and redevelopment is located in areas where adequate public services and facilities, including schools, presently exist or are planned in the City's CIP. • Evaluate the potential for improving housing for people who work in Boulder. • Review the list of objectives to ensure completeness. C. Discussion on the City annexation policy. R. McHeyser asked the Board to comment on the current policy of annexing sparingly and with the distinctions in requirements by property type, developing options around what appropriate annexation requirements might be, and taking a more proactive stance in annexing enclaves within the City. P. Pollock suggested creating a menu of options to deal with the different kinds of annexations, such as a commercial ~r residential enclave and mountain backdrop property to determine what happens when the land is annexed (what is #he base value in the County, what could be the value in the City, and what is reason~ ~ to exa~:`~rough the annexation process). r~~~ 3~ The follovving c+~mments were.rn~de by indi~i~.ua1'Board members, not by consensus: • Clanfy ~n~nity ben~t_ ~~ ~nnexations and make sure that the benefit is equal and consistent foi' all sites even i~`t~y'are not the same. • Require a community benefit that reflects the increased value of the property that is being annexed into the:~ity: • Annex property selectively rather than sparingly to accommodate a package of parcels. • Clarify Resolution 705 to note that it does not distinguish among three different property types anci three different levels of contribution. The resolution allows for annexations of fully ~leveic~ped properties and those that are not fully developed subject to presenting a special " b+enefit or resolving an issue of the public's health and safety. Develop a policy that states that any parcel, including fully developed parcels other than those that have a public health and safety issue, would have to make a minimum baseline contribution. s: \pl an\data\cur\bms\000316. min City of Boulder Page 6 March 16, 2000 Planning Board Minutes • Increase the community benefit if the land is vacant or if there is any redevelopment potential because there is a likelihood of more impacts. • Develop a plan for exacting an affordable housing contribution that fits into the context of the neighborhood such as cash in lieu. • Work with the County so that the policy states that there are no alternatives for enclaves except annexation into the City. • Inventory the out-of-City sewer and water agreements and determine the conditions under which the City agreed to provide City utilities. • Determine which areas are receiving out-of-City utilities and ascertain which ones are appropriate for annexation and determine if the City can force annexation. • Take a more proactive stance on annexation af fully or largely developed parcels that receive out-of-City services. 7. ADJOURNMENT The Planning Board adjourned the meeting at 8:45 p.m. ~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~ H~. `~~. ~_~ ~.. s:\plan\data\cur\bms\000316. min