Loading...
Minutes - Planning Board - 04/06/2000/ APPROVED APRIL 20, 2000 ~ CITY OT+ BOUGDER PLANNING BOARD MINUTES Apri16, 2000 Council Chambers Room, Municipal Building 1777 Broadway, 6:00 p.m. The followiug <<re Che minutes of tile Apiil 6, 2000 City of Botdder Planning Board meeting. A parmanent seY of these minutes is kept in Central Records, and a tape recording of the meeting is maintained for a period of seven years in CenYral Records (telephone: 303-441-3043). BOARD PRESENT: Petar Gowen A1 Gunter Andria Jacob Tina Nielsen Alan O'Hashi Beth Pommer M1rk Ruzzin, Vice Chairperson STAFF PRESENT: • Brent Bean, Senior Planner Bob Cole, Director ofProject Review Don Durso, Associate Plaimer David Gehr, Assistant City Attorney Mary Lovrien, Board Secretary Cindy Pieropan, Housing Pianner 7ohn Pollak, Director of the Division of Housing Peter Pollock, Planning Director Maureen Spitzer, Parks and Recreation 1. CALL TO ORDER Vice Chair M. Rnzzin declared a quorum at 6:00 p.m. After welcoming A. O'Hashi as the new Board member, the following Uusiness was conducted. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES B.Pommer said that the minutes of the study session on Jantiary 27, 2000 sl~ould more accurately reflect the specifc discussions. M.Ruzzin suggested that on page 2, last paragraph, first sentence, change to read "P.Fogg presented infonnation on potential changes to the current definition of `new Urban developmenY in Nie BVCP." On a motion by P.Gowen, seconded by M.Ruzzin, the Planning Board approved (5-1; B.Pommer opposed) the minutes of January 27, 2000 as amended. On a motion by P.Gowen, 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 • Board approved (5-0; A. Gunter did not vote on tl~is motion because he did not attend this meeting) s: \plan\data\cur\bms\OOD406. m i n City of Boulder April 6, 2000 ~ Planning Board Minutes Page 2 the minutes of March 16, 2000 as presented. (A.O'Elashi did not vote on any of these motions because he did not attend these meetings.) 3. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION There was no citizen participation. 4. DISCUSSION OP DISPOSITIOI~S, PLANNING BOARD CALL-UPS M. Rnzzin noted the following Planuing Department dispositions: OWL; Dawn and Busch Subdivisions; Foothills Subdivision plat approval; Pearl StreeY Lofts; Airport SotilYh Replat B; LoY 3, Gunbarrel Business Park; and Boulder Cotmty Recycling and Composting Authority Subdivision. He asked staff to make sure that the parking lot screening for the Pearl Street Lofts is in compliance. He also asked if Lot 3 of the Dawn Subdivision coLild have been divided in half if there was a minimum density requirement and suggested that this question be addressed when changes are considered for the Land Use Regulations. A. Jacob suggested that all dispositions follow a standard format. B. Pommer asked staff to explain the variance of zero feet for the rear yard setback for the OWL project. B. Cole said that there were variances on the lot in part because of the proportions oF thc loC, especially with respect to fixed standard dimensions Yhat are required for such things as parking stalls and drive aisles. • 5. MATTERS FROM THE PLANNING BOARD, PLANNING DIRECTOR, AND CITY ATTORNEY This item was discussed after the action items. A. Jacob suggested that the Board address the information sent by Mary Boisse~u regarding noise from the Boulder Mimicipal Aiiport and proposed policy and land use changes for the aiiport site. P. Pollock said that the Board will review a request to remove from the Bolilder Valley Comprehensive Plan process the application to change the land use designation for the airport. Also, Ms. Boisseau's letters will Ue forwarded to Stephanie Grainger, Supervisor For the Boulder Airport, and to the Public Works Department. M. Ruzzin reminded the Board to send letters and electronic mail they receive regarding the homeless shelter to the Planning Department so that they can be compiled in a packet when the Board reviews this matter. MOTION: On a motion by P. Gowen, seconded by A. Gunter, the Planning Board adopted a resolution (6-0; B. Pommer was not present For this item) honoring B. Cole for his many years of dedicated service to the Planning Depart~nent. P. Pollock said tl~at the Folfowing items will be discussed at the Board retreat: the Planning Department work program, City Couucil goals, legal and procedural issues, election and expectations of the Board Chair and Vice Chair, contimiation of the rotating chair and seating arrangement, and committee assignments. A. Ganter suggested that the Board and staff discuss the Board's role in reviewing applications from the community. P. Pollock pointed out a City Council Study Session on April ll regarding the Transportation Master Plan, 28th Street project update, and the restnicture • s:\plan\data\cur\bms\000406, min City of Boulder April 6, 2000 ~ Planning Board Mimites Page 3 of Recycle Boulder programs. He mentioned items that the Board will discuss at future meetings, described the process for fhe update of the BVCP, and pointed out training opportunities, including a Planuing 101 course for the Board, staff, and the community. He discussed a memorandum from tl~e City Attorney's Office regarding appointment of altemate Board members to fill vacancies as a rasult of absence or recusal when quasi-j~idicial matters are being addressed. 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 reqnirement that secondary vehicular access be provided prior to beginning construction of Phase II (north halt~ of the Park. Public Participation: There was no public participation. MOTION: On a motion by B. Pommer, seconded by P. Gowen, the Plamiing 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. Pnblic hearing and consideration of an Annexation request, review #AZ-99-6, of 1.451 acres of land located at 3601 4th Street, with an initial zoning of RRI-E (Rural Res-dential 1 - Establisl~ed). B. Cole said that the proposal is to annex 1.451 acres of land with an iniYial zoning of RRl -E which would allow two dwelling units on two lots. He said that the applicant is proposing to raze the existing house and constnict a new house, a guest house, and some recreational amenities. He said that staff is recommending denial of the application because an appropriate community benefit has not been provided and the size o£the proposed stnictures is not consistent with the predominant character of the surrounding area. He ouUined stafPs proposal for the community benefit and the size of the structures. Staff answered questions from the Board regardiug the deteimination of the dollar amount for the community benefit, the description of the site as an enclave, the square footage for the guest house, and the resolution of recent atmexation applications, such as Che Belz amlexation. Vern Seieroe, MidyeCte-Seieroe Arcl~itects, 1936 Fourteenth Street, disCribLrted alternate plans for the site and described the changes made in the structures and the fence from the original proposal. He said that the Olbright family wishes to retain water rigl~ts in the Silver Lake Ditch for irrigation, and he desctibed the improvements fliat the Olbrights will make to the ditch. He noted the following proposed community benefits: removing the existing septic system, contimiity of City land, • s:\plan\data\cur\bms\000406.mi n Ciry of Bo~ilder Apri16, 2000 ~ Planning Board Minutes Page 4 eliminating the impact of creaCing two residences, increasing City properry taxes, undergrounding of overl~ead utilities, plying plant inveshnent, storm, flood, permit, and use fees, and contributing $26,400.00 to the Child and Family Advocacy Program (Blue Sky Bridge). Greg Olbright, ]041 Kalmia Avemie, applicant, distributed brochures describing the Child and Family Advocacy Program. He suggested that the applicaYion process seems to be governed by arbitrary guidelines beca~ise there are no written, quanYitative guidelines for house size, speci6cation 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 far the design of the buitdings and stated that the only disagreement with staff relates to the water rights in the 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 community, and the reasons for choosing a chariCy for the community benefit as opposed to contributing to affordable housing. Pnblic Participatim~: 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-rural character of the neighborhood and the property rigUCs. He said that if the City purchases water rights in the area, it is • cotmterproductive to the Green Project which enhances waterways, parks, and City vegetation; if the water rights are retained by the family, the land can remain vegetated. Randy Levitt, 405 Kalmia: He said that the masonry wall proposed aroLind the site will create a compotmd of which there is no precedent. He said that he is concerned about the size of the buildings and recreational amenities which are out of proportion with the neighborhood. He was also concerned about the proposed outdoor lighting around the tennis court. He noted that the community benefit of making improvements to the Silver Lake Ditch and to the septic system proposed by the Oibrights are not benefits because the work would be completed regardless if the property is in the City or Cotmty. Kurt Gerstle, 3650 4th Street: He said that he objects to the large solid fence which serves to segregate rather than to integrate the neighborhood and also can hinder access in case of fire. Rehirn to the Board: MOTION: P. Gowen made a motion, seconded by A. O'FIashi, that the Planning Board recommend to City Council denial of the Annexation #AZ-99-6, as proposed. However, the Board wotild recommend annexation based on the requirements as presented on pages 4 and 5 of the staff memorandum dated Apri16, 2000 (preparation date March 21, 2000) with the following excepYions: 1) Size restrict the second dwelling unit to 1,500 square feet of floor area above grade, and 2) the • donatiov of $26,400.00 be split between the City's Housing Trust Fund as well as the nonprofit s: \pl an\datn\cur\bms\000406. m i n City of Boulder April 6, 2000 ~ Planning Board Minutes Page 5 agency requested by the applicant. A. Gunter offered a friendly amendmenf to require that the fence provide some degree of openness in a staggered alignment and that staff work with the applicant to get a satisfactory fence." P. Gowen and A. O'Hashi accepted the friendly amendment. P. Gowen made a fi-iendly amendment to restrict the size of the main house Co 8,500 sqnare feet of total floor area above the 6nished grade. A. O'FIashi accepted the friendly amendment. M. Ruzzin offered a friendly amendment that the finished grade be added Yo the size restriction on the secoud dwelling unit. P. Gowen and A. O'Hasl~i accepted the friendly amendment. M. Ruzzin instead offerad the following substilute motiou. MOTION: On a motion by M. Razzin, 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 the size of the main house to 8,500 square feet of total floor area above finished grade, 2) restrict the size of the second dwelling unit to 1,500 square feet above finished grade; 3) restrict the height of the 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 between the City's Housing Trust Fund and the nonprofit organization (Blue Sky Bridge) as recommended by the applicant; 5) retain the staff ~ recommendation regarding water rights in the Silver Lake Ditch; and 6) allow staff to review the final architectural, landscaping, and grading plans for all improvements. B. Pnblic helring and consideration of the administr~tive regulations for: 1) Inclusionary Zoning; and 2) Residential GrowYl~ Management System C. Pieropan suggested adding the following bullet item under Section 9.2 of the Inchisionary Zoning Ordinance Administrative Regulations: "Title commitment or attorney's memorandum current to within 30 days of the date of the covenant." Staff addressed questions from the Board regarding simplicity of compliance, maximum allowable rents, and mechanism for increasing cash-in-lieu contribution over time. Public Plrticipation: There was no public participation. M01TON: On a motiou by P. Gowen, seconded by T. Nielsen, the Planning Board adopted (6-0; B. Pommer was not present for this item) administrative regulaYions for Inclusionary Zoning as amended in the packet, as we11 as the change noYed above, and the Residential Growth Management administrative regulations as presenCed. 8. ADJOURNMENT The Planving Board adjoumed the meeting at 9:25 p.m. . s: \pl an\data\c ur\bms\000406. m i n