Loading...
2 - Minutes, 04/06/00CITY OF BOULDER PLANNING BOARD MINUTES .- -~ April 6, Z000 --, J `-~ Council Chambers Room, Municipal Building -~ 1777 Broadway, 6:00 p.m. The following are the minutes of the April 6, 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 (telephane: 303-441-3043). BOARD PRESENT: Peter Gowen Al Gunter Andria Jacob Tina Nielsen Alan O'Hashi Beth Pommer Mark Ruzzin, Vice Chairperson STAFF PRESENT: Brent Bean, Senior Planner Bob Cole, Director of Project Review Don Durso, Associate Planner David Gehr, Assistant City Attorney Mary Lovrien, Board Secretary ~~~ 1. CALL "~=~~ER ~ ~ ~~ ~~~~_~ Vice Chair M. Rg t~~l,ared a~,~,im at 6:00 p.m. After welcoming A. O'Hashi as the new Board memb~r~ the f~~; ~~~ ,~ n:°~~siness was conducted. 2. 'APPROVAL O~'~`~~TES B.I~nmer said that the~inutes of the study session on January 27, 2000 should more accurately refl~t the specific disc~sions. M.Ruzzin suggested that on page 2, last paragraph, first sentence, a~~e to read "P.F~'presented information on potential changes to the current definition of `new L~~~t deyelopnn.e~t' in the BVCP." On a motion by P.Gowen, seconded by M.Ruzzin, the Planning Bt~~d ~~prowe~~'-(5-1; B.Pommer opposed) the minutes of January 27, 2000 as amended. On a mot~.~~':~owen, seconded by T.Nielsen, the Planning Board approved (6-0) the minutes of February 24, 2000 as presented. On a motion by T.Nielsen, seconded by P.Gowen, the Planning Boazd approved (5-0; A. Gunter did not vote on this motion because he did not attend this meeting) the minutes of March 16, 2000 as presented. (A.O'Hashi did not vote on any of these motions because he did not attend these meetings.) s: \plan\data\cur\bms\000406. min City of Boulder April 6, 2000 Planning Board Minutes 3. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION There was no citizen participation. Page 2 4. DISCUSSION OF DISPOSITIONS, PLANNING BOARD CALL-UPS M. Ruzzin noted the following Planning Department dispositions: OWL; Dawn and Busch Subdivisions; Foothills Subdivision plat approval; Pearl Street Lofts; Airport South Replat B; Lot 3, Gunbarrel Business Park; and Boulder County Recycling and Composting Authority Subdivision. He asked staff to make sure that the parking lot screening for fi.~ie Pearl Street Lofts is in compliance. He also asked if Lot 3 of the Dawn Subdivision could have been divided in haif if there was a minimum density requirement. A. Jacob suggested that all dispositions follow a sfantlard format. B. Pommer asked staff to explain the variance of zero feet for the rear yard setback fo~r:the OWL project. 5. MATTERS FROM THE PLANNING BOARD, pLAN:NING DIRECTOR, AND CITY ATTORNEY This item was discussed after the action items. A. J~cob suggested that the Board address the information sent by Mary Boisseau regarding noise from ihe Boulder Municipal Airport and proposed policy and land use changes for the airport site. P, Pollock said that the Board will review a request to remove from the Boulder Valley Compr~hensive Plan process the application to change the land use designation far the airport. Also, Ms. Boisseau's letters will be forwarded to Stephanie Grainger and to the Public Works D~p~rtment ~. Ruzzin,reminded the Board to send letters and ~~ electronic mail they receive regarding tlie home~ess shelte~~~o the Planning Department so that they ~°__ ; , can be compiled in a packet vvh~~he Boar ` ew Y" P~matter. ro~3~ ~~a ~~,~~~~~~~~~~. ~,~,~~~ MOTIO~; t)n a motion ~~~"~ ~wen, sec ~~y by A. Gunter, the Planning Board adopted a ~; resolutiori {S-~7; ~.,Pommet ~~~va~~ '~ ~esent for this item) honoring B. Cole for his many yeazs of dedicated ser~~e ~~e Planiur~~ v~~ , ent. ~ :, ~a 3 s i P. Pollock .~~ th~ ~~~~'~~owmg ms will be discussed at the Board retreat: the Planning Departm~~ work progr~, ~~~~~ouncil goals, legal and proc~dural issues, election and expectations of the ~iard Chair and V~~ ~~i~; continuation of the rotating chair and seating arrangement, and cort~ittee assignments ~. +Gvnter suggested that the Board and staff discuss the Board's role in re~"~oving applications ~m the community. P. Pollock pointed out a City Council Study Session on~l~.pri111 regarding t~e Transportation Master Plan, 28th Street project update, and the restructure a~`~~cycle Boulder ~ii~ograms. He mentioned items that the Board will discuss at future meetings, ~~#~~~ss for the update of the BVCP, and pointed out training opportunities, including a.; ~W ~~31 course for the Board, staff, and the community. He discussed a memorandum from theY~ x ~ttorney's Office regarding appoinhnent of altemate Board members to fill vacancies as a result of absence or recusal when quasi judicial matters are being addressed. s: \plan\data\cur\bms\000406.min City of Boulder Apri16, 2000 Planning Board Minutes Page 3 6. CONSENT ITEM A. Public hearing and consideration of Site Review, #SI-2000-1, an amendment to the approved site plan for the Foothills Community Park (formerly known as the North Boulder Community Park) located on Cherry Avenue, north of Locust Avenue and west of Rosewood Avenue. The proposal is to remove the requirement that secondary vehicular access be provided prior to beginning construction of Phase II (north hal~ of the Park. Public Participation: There was no public participation MOTION: On a motion by B. Pommer, seconded by P. Gowen, the Planning Board approved (7-0) the amendment to the Foothills Community Park Site Review #SI-2000-1, adopting the staff memorandum dated April 6, 2000 (preparation date March 23, 2000) and the attached Site Review Criteria Checklist as findings of the Board subject to conditions noted in the memorandum. 7. ACTION ITEMS A. Public hearing and consideratirni af an Annexation request, review #AZ-99-6, of 1.451 acres of land located at 36014th Street, with an initial zoning of RRl-E (Rural Residential 1 - Established). B. Cole said that the proposal is to at~t~ 1.451 ~res of land ~vith an initial zoning of RR 1-E which would allow two dwelling units on;.-two lots~~e said tl~~tf' the applicant is proposing to raze the existing house and construct a n~:~ouse, '" ho `'"~>~and some recreational amenities. He said that staff is re~ommending ci.i.~t,ua~di the ap =~.` ause an appropriate community benefit has not been,gx~~`id€d and th~ s~z~~r~'the propt~~~~iuctures is not consistent with the predominant character ~fth~ st~rvunding ~, ~~rputlined staff's proposal for the community benefit and the size of the structut~~~~ ~answere~ ~~; ~ h ~from the Board regarding the determination of the dollar amount for the ~,~~r bene~it;:~t~ `; cription of the site as an enclave, the square footage for the guest hous~, ~tt~ ~i~~lution ~~ie Belz annexation. Vern S~~eroe, Midyette ~eie~e ~lrchitects, 1936 Fourteenth Street, distributed alternate plans for the ~ and described the chat~tges made in the structures and the fence from the original proposal. He,~id that the Olbrigh~'°~mily wishes to retain water rights in the Silver Lake Ditch for irrigation, and l~e described the improvements that the Olbrights will make to the ditch. He noted the following p~ ~j~~ed communit~~~~benefits: removing the existing septic system, continuity of City land, ~~ ~~act of creating two residences, increasing City property taxes, undergrounding o€~~~t~ t~~~ties, paying plant investment, storm, flood, permit, and use fees, and contributing $26;" :~~to the Child and Family Advocacy Program (Blue Sky Bridge). s: \plan~data\cur\bms\000406. min City of Boulder Apri16, 2000 Planning Board Minutes Page 4 Greg Olbright, 1041 Kalmia Avenue. applicant, distributed brochures describing the Child and Family Advocacy Program. He suggested that the application process seems to be governed by arbitrary guidelines because there are no written, quantitative guidelines for house size, specification of community benefit, and fence design. He described the process that he and his family went through to find a suitable property for their needs and the process they are going through to build their home in the City or County. He noted the compromises made for the-design of the buildings and stated that the only disagreement with staff relates to the water rights in th~ Silver Lake Ditch. He answered questions from the Board regarding the value of the water rights and how it was calculated, how the Child and Family Advocacy Program benefits the.cornmunity,'and the reasons for choosing a charity for the community benefit as opposed to contributing to affardahle housing. Public Participation: Jim MacKenzie, 447 Kalmia: He said that he objected to the =large solid fence that is being proposed for the site. He said that such a fence degrades the semi-rurdl Gharacter of the neighborhood and the property rights. He said that if the City purchases water ~ rights in the area, it is counterproductive to the Green Project which ent~ian~e~,~?v~.terways, parks, and City vegetation; if the water rights are retained by the family, the lan~d can rein~in veg~tated; Randy Levitt, 405 Kalmia: He said that the masonry wa compound of which there is no prec~~ He sai~that he is out ~posed around the site will create a ;rned about the size of the buildings i the neighborhood. He was also court. He noted that the community the Sil~~ ~~h and to the septic system proposed by the ie work v~~'~~~e completed regardless if the property is in the he objects to the large solid fence which serves to iood and also can hinder access in case of fire. ide a motion, seconded by A. O'Hashi, that the Planning Board denial of the Annexation #AZ-99-6, as proposed. However, the Board ~c~recommend a~~xation based on the requirements as presented on pages 4 and 5 of the staff ~' ~~m, ,, ,," April 6, 2000 (preparation date March 21, 2000) with the following exceptions: 1~~`~~~~~`the second dwelling unit to 1,500 square feet of floor area above grade, and 2) the don~~"~~` $26,400.00 be split between the City's Housing Trust Fund as well as the nonprofit agency requested by the applicant. A. Gunter offered a friendly amendment to require the fence to be no more than 42 inches in height, that the fence provide some degree of openness, and that the s:\planklata\cur\bms\000406.min City of Boulder April 6, 2000 Planning Board Minutes Page 5 fence have a staggered alignment. P. Gowen and A. O'Hashi accepted the friendly amendment. P. Gowen made a friendly amendment to restrict the size of the main house to 8,500 square feet of total floor area above the finished grade. A. O'Hashi accepted the friendly amendment. M. Ruzzin offered a friendly amendment that the finished grade be added to the size restriction on the second dwelling unit. P. Gowen and A. O'Hashi accepted the friendly amendment. The Board did not vote on this motion but instead offered the following substitute motion. MOTION: On a motion by M. Ruzzin, seconded by A. O'Hashi; the Planning Board recommended (5-1; B. Pommer opposed, and T. Nielsen recused herself from this item because she lives in close proximity to the site) to City Council approval of Annexation AZ-99-6 with the conditions of approval as listed on pages 4 and 5 of the staff inemorandum dated Apri16, 2000 (preparation date March 21, 2000) with the following exceptions: 1) Restrict th~ size of the main house to 8,500 square feet of total floor area above finished grade; 2) restri~t the size of the second dwelling unit to 1,500 square feet above finished grade; 3) restrict the height ditlie fence to no more than 42 inches and require that the fence provide some degree of openness in a staggered alignment; 4) allow the donation of $26,400.00 to be split equally betwe~i the City's HouSing Trust Fund and the nonprofit organization (Blue Sky Bridge) as recoinmen+~ezi by the applicant; 5) retain the staff recommendation regarding water rights in the Silver Lai~e Ditch; and 6) allow staff to review the final architectural, landscaping, and grading plans for all imprc~r~ernents. B. Public hearing 1) Inclu 2) Resid C. rn of the administrative regulations for: and System ving b~t3t~lei item under Section 9.2 of the Inclusionary Zoning :"Title commitment or attorney's memorandum current to di~t." Staff addressed questions from the Board regarding lli~`wable rents, and mechanism for increasing cash-in-lieu public participation. °ION: On a motion::'~y P. Gowen, seconded by T. Nielsen, the Planning Board adopted (6-0; immer was not present for this item) administrative regulations for Inclusionary Zoning as ded in the packet, as well as the change noted above, and the Residential Growth Management ~~~~~ ~`Iations as presented. 8. °`~`~Y-~JOURNMENT The Planning Board adjourned the meeting at 9:25 p.m. s:\plan~data\cur\bms\000406. min