Loading...
Minutes - Planning Board - 9/6/2007APPROVI;JD Oti OC'P0131~,R 4, 200? CITY OF BOULDER PLANNING BOARD ACTION MINUTES September 6, 2007 1777 Broadway, Council Chambers A permanent set of these minutes and a tape recording (maintained for a period of seven years) are retained in Central Records (telephone: 303-441-3043). Minutes and streaming audio are also available on the web at: h~:/lwww.bouldercolorado.gov/ PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Elise Jones, Chair Willa Johnson Andrew Shoemaker Phil Shull, Vice-Chair Richard Sosa Bill Holicky PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Adrian Sopher STAFF PRESENT: Michelle Allen, Planner Jeff Arthur, Engineering Review Manager Cristina Martinez, Civil Engineer I Juliet Bonnell, Administrative Specialist Charles Ferro, Senior Planner David Gehr, Assistant City Attorney Ruth McHeyser, Acting Planning Director Elaine McLaughlin, Senior Planner Robert Ray, Land Use Review Manager 1. CALL TO ORDER Chair, E. Jones, declared a quorum at 6:08 p.m. and the following business was conducted. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES On a motion by W. Johnson, seconded by P. Shull, the Planning Board approved (6-0, A. Sopher absent) the August 2, 2007 Planning Board minutes as amended. On a motion by E. Jones, seconded by R. Sosa, the Planning Board approved (3-0, P. Shull, W. Johnson, A. Shoemaker abstained, A. Sopher absent) the August 16, 2007 Planning Board minutes. 3. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION 4. DISCUSSION OF DISPOSITIONS, PLANNING BOARD CALL-UPS Call Up Item: 1727 15`" Street Mixed Use Redevelopment P. Shull noted that this item originally was going to be presented to the Planning Board, but instead it was just heard by DDAB and presented to the Planning Board as a call-up item. The board thought this was acceptable and did not choose to call it up. 5. ACTION ITEMS A. Public hearing and consideration of Concept Plan Review and Comment tale #LUR2007-00029, Redstones comprising 11.08 acres zoned Industrial Genera] (IG) for consideration of 295 multifamily units and 8,000 square feet of office space located at 1685-1775 38`" Street. The proposed Concept Plan also requires rezoning from Industrial General (IG) to Residential High Density - 3 (RH-3) as well as a Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan land use designation change from Light Industrial (LI) to High Density Residential (HR). Applicant: Ton Simisky Owner: Redstones Land, LLC Case Manager: Chazles Ferro Applicant/0wner Presentation Jeff Dawson from OZ Architecture presented the item to the boazd. Bancroft Capital representatives Doug McDonald, Jon Siminsky, Joe Lampkin, Chris Tyss were also present to answer any questions. W. Johnson asked how the wrap units work with only one side of windows. J. Dawson replied that there are entry access points from the parking garage, streetscape side or pedestrian corridor. There would be one side with exterior windows. B. Holicky asked about the connection with the bike path. J• Dawson replied that the southside of neighborhood C unit connects to the Boulder bike path. B. Holicky asked where the depressed wetland area is located in relation to the project. J. Dawson replied that it's a 50 X 50 detention water quality pond in the pazking lot which would be reconstructed. R. Sosa inquired about the 24 inch sewage main by buildings D and E. J. Dawson replied that they're planning on relocating/improvingthfs main to the east side or north/south connector. P. Shull inquired how this project would relate/connect to the surrounding buildings and how it would serve its residents. J. Dawson replied that this project would provide additional diversity of product type within this area. They intend to make a strong connection back to the Peloton and are trying to create a series of blocks that relates back to historic areas of Boulder. There is a retail azea and this project is supposed to be integrated with the surrounding area. The professional office 2 component is about 8000 sq feet. They plan to minimize commercial space, making the largest use office space with perhaps a small amount of retail. W. Johnson asked about creating more opportunities for affordable housing and how these requirements would be met or exceeded. J. Dawson replied that the requirements would be met, but not necessarily all on-site. A. Shoemaker asked the applicant to address the floodplain safety issue. J. Dawson noted that the residential space would be elevated above the flood protection elevation and commercial space will be flood-proofed/protected. Studies need to be done in the conveyance zone to determine what their options are with perhaps remapping it or modifying the building structure. The model shows the elevation changes and massing. B. Holicky asked how big the lineaz park is. J. Dawson answered that it's approximately 600-700 feet long and 60 feet wide. B. Holicky clarified that the site slopes away (downhill) from the conveyance zone. W. Johnson liked how it relates to the Peloton, but was curious why the townhouses aze located where they are for this project. J. Dawson replied that they were trying to create a modest transition with low density on 38`h Street with a pause between the two higher density projects. Staff Presentation C. Ferro presented the item to the board. E. Jones asked if flood risks would carry over to the neighbors. C. Ferro replied that there is mostly concern about having a building in the conveyance zone. B. Holicky asked if the applicant is proposing to modify the grading so that the building wouldn't be located inside the conveyance zone because projects are not allowed to be built within a conveyance zone. P. Shull asked if the rooftop garden would help open space integration and if it would be located above the 55 foot height level. C. Ferro replied that the garden would be an asset, but it wouldn't be allowed above the 55 foot height. He noted that some of the green space on the eastern side of the site should be more integrated in the interior of the property. J. Dawson would be open to investigating creating a green roof. The roof garden is currently at about 30 feet, above the 2nd story of parking. P. Shull asked how the roof garden relates to the wrap residences. J. Dawson replied that it would mostly benefit the units stacked above the gazdens (so they'll get a view of the gazden below) with the Flatirons in the background. The garden would be accessible to all residents. P. Shull inquired if the gazdens would be open only to residents or also to the public J. Dawson replied that they are currently planned to be semi-private and open only to residents. The possibility of opening it to the public will be explored further down the line. B. Holicky clarified that the scale of the gardens is about 10,000 squaze feet and asked what area is designated as wetlands on the new maps. C. Martinez replied that the pond area and a 25 foot buffer adjacent to that is designated as wetlands. A. Shoemaker asked if structures would be safe in this location within the floodplain J. Arthur replied that requirements for building within the floodplain would be followed, which state that the lowest finished floor needs to be built at least two feet above the expected flood water level. Some type of venting would be provided to prevent structural damage. Since Peloton is a mixed use building it can be flood-proofed with different devices structurally and a channel that would disrupt the flow of any floods. C. Ferro informed the board that a private park would be required since a portion of this project is not part of the 0.5 mile pazk service area. P. Shull inquired what the materiality of the buildings is. J. Dawson replied that they aze trying to create residential character with various materials (masonry, meta] panel, etc.) integrated with porches and gazdens. He clarified that this site isn't completely outside the park service azea - at least 2/3 of it is within Scott Carpenter Pazk service area. Under current zoning 275 sites are already allowed only 15 additional sites aze being proposed. C. Ferro noted that since the property doesn't meet the 1.6 contiguity, it can't be developed under the code provisions that allow residential development in industrially zoned property residentially without some sort of rezoning. B. Holicky asked what the proposed setbacks are on the north and south sides of the site. J. Dawson answered that their intent is to provide a 20 foot setback from the street. On the north/south connector the setback may be a little different for some variety. A. Shoemaker asked how fast water might rise during a storm in the floodplain. J. Arthur replied that the water can rise in as little as 30 minutes. He noted that sirens are the key mode of flood warning with no other real warning systems in place currently. They've been working with residences on evacuation plans as well as making efforts towards updating their systems. 4 P. Shull inquired if a project with this density would we be stressing any city services/infrastructures such as police/fire, etc. J. Arthur replied that sewage wouldn't be an issue and that water lines have already been upsized in that area to accommodate Peloton. C. Ferro added that school, police and fire representatives haven't indicated that this would overburden services. R. Sosa inquired why staff indicated that engineering regrading the site wouldn't be preferable J. Arthur replied that there are other better options such as moving the buildings back and letting the water naturally go in the conveyance zone. It's better not to change structure. B. Holicky asked about the conveyance zone and its effect on neighbors. J. Arthur replied that the conveyance zone is the area where the depth of water will rise for someone else if you build within it. A high hazard area is where people are most at risk of being swept away. The conveyance zone is less hazardous. E. Jones asked what the phasing is of this much residential development and how this project might interact with Peloton. She inquired if this development would have any effect on TVAP. C. Ferro replied that that's probably more of a market study issue for the applicant. The timing would be important. This project is far removed from the TVAP area. Public Hearing No one spoke to this item. Board Discussion The board discussed the following key themes: floodplain, wetlands, drainage/retention, parks, height mass, neighborhood benefits, open space reduction, rezoning, connections to neighborhood. Floodplain A. Shoemaker was concerned about the safety of people with this project being in the floodplain. This is a good place for building, but wants staff and applicant to figure out a way that a warning system can be put in place that would facilitate evacuation incase of a flood. R. Sosa added that in addition to the life safety issues, he's also concerned about potential building/propertydnmage. W. Johnson wants anon-structural solution to flood control and the buildings outside of the conveyance zone. E. Jones replied that it should be required that they not build in the conveyance zone. Comp Plan policies give greater preference to non-structural solutions, so this should be a priority. B. Holicky noted that the 100 year floodplain isn't an exact science. Buildings are being built in the floodplain frequently. Despite the fact that this project will be adding more people to this area, chances are that if it follows the current floodplain building guidelines then it will be safe. E. Jones noted that the density of this project makes the floodplain more of an issue because more people than usual will be placed in the floodplain and possibly impacted. A. Shoemaker noted that the city isn't currently equipped to properly warn people about the danger of floods since a project of this density hasn't previously been built within the floodplain (and therefore effected by its dangers) yet. P. Shull said that the solution for the applicant is to stay within the pazameters that have been suggested by the board. The solution will probably impact the site design significantly. He suggested that the applicant gather as much related preliminary engineering information as possible before returning for site review. Summary: The floodplain issue is a significant one and the way this project is designed must address this issue. An effective public alert system needs to be put into place with a project of this density proposed within the floodplain. The Planning Board recommended that the applicant take a good look at the public safety implications of building in this azea. B. Holicky mentioned that the floodplain issue isn't necessarily a factor for rezoning. The boazd generally agreed. Wetlands W. Johnson asked staff what the 25 foot buffer would look like and noted that the 25 foot buffer should be respected. J. Arthur replied that this azea is not designated as a wetland on the old map. On the new map it is, but depending on timing, this property may not be effected by this ordinance. J. Dawson asked the Planning Boazd if they'll be allowed to expand and make improvements which will impact the wetlands azea. The southwest corner shows a larger retention of water azea- is this okay as long as the quality of the azea ismaintained/enhanced? If we can't touch anything, then we won't be allowed to make the improvements we want to make. E. Jones clarified that existing wetlands requirements need to be followed in this project design- which aze likely to include some sort of buffer. Would also like to see the wetlands improved and celebrated. The spirit of the wetlands ordinance should prevail in the ultimate design. Specifics would need to be looked at before expansion can be allowed/denied. B. Holicky agreed that the design needs to be in accordance with the wetland ordinance. Drainaee/retention W. Johnson was concerned that the linear park would become a drainage area given the layout of the design. The western portion of the park looks good. Interest was shown in an attractive/ not overwhelming detention area. The pond and wetlands should serve as an entry feature to the site. 6 B. Holicky showed interest in and support of naturalized open space. He is not in favor of space that looks like a golf course. A. Shoemaker thought the park should be made more attractive. E. Jones agreed that aesthetics and having anatural-looking area is important. Parks W. Johnson doesn't really like the linear park design and is concerned about the water retention issue and the fact that it's removed from the center of the project. E. Jones would like to see the park moved internally to be more accessible to the residents. The park would be more functional if it wasn't a linear design and more user-friendly if it was not on the edge of the property and so close to the road. B.Holicky agreed with W. Johnson and E. Jones that the park should be moved north and east to be closer to residences for more accessibility. J. Dawson replied that the intent of putting the park in that location was to create a buffer for residents on the east side from the industrial area on the east side. The park would help preserve the mature trees in the area. P. Shull understood the intent of the linear park as a buffer but wondered about the functionality of this as park space. He suggested that the applicant consider the quality of this pazk area for use. He felt that the pazk is awkwardly placed behind the building and would be in shadow for much of the year. He would rather see the park be more interspersed throughout the site instead of a linear design. E. Jones suggested using the mature trees as a buffer and creating the pazk more internally for residents use. Plaza space neaz proposed offices will not be very active. B. Holicky noted that Scott Carpenter provides a neighborhood pazk for this area, so the applicant wouldn't be required to have a park on the property and could treat this azea as a buffer zone instead of a park. W. Johnson replied that Scott Carpenter Pazk is somewhat removed from this project site with several obstacles inhibiting its accessibility to the pedestrian. She supported the creation of an internal pazk/play area. R. Sosa recommended keeping some of the connections, but also creating usable pazk space intemally since the focus of this project is on families. Summary: The board suggested that more thought go into this lineaz pazk idea. They recommended adding internal play/park areas and making the design less linear and more interspersed within the area as a whole. 7 Hei hg Umass P. Shull noted that the site breathes really well and liked the articulation of the buildings and the elevation. Third and fourth floors are well recessed. He is curious about how the wrap will work The height seems okay and the placement of site (despite being in the floodplain) is good. A. Shoemaker agreed with P. Shull. W. Johnson mentioned that connections might be the antidote to density. Buildings B and C are enormous, so she recommended constructing four smaller buildings instead of the two large ones that are planned. She liked that the design has so few surface pazking areas. E. Jones liked the setbacks on third and fourth floors and the garden views, but agreed that the buildings are very big. This project is the companion to Peloton which hasn't been proven successful yet, so she's scared by this project and wants to see more permeability through some of the buildings. A. Shoemaker wants to see affordable housing on this site and believes that massing like this is the way to accomplish that. This location is good and walkable and valuable on the affordable housing standpoint. R. Sosa noted that internal pazking is driving the mass which is caused by the floodplain area. He doesn't have a problem with the current design but would like to know more about how the parking wrap will work. B. Holicky didn't want to see exposed structured parking. The parking issue is tricky and needs some creative solutions. Smaller buildings may not work sue to the minimum required dimensions for units and pazking. He supported the building scale and believe that Peloton would have a greater chance of success if it had similar critical mass to what is being proposed with this project. Density is key to success for the area. E. Jones thinks this area should be densely developed, but questioned whether the density should be as high as this proposed project. She also supported having affordable housing on this site and liked the way in which parking has been arranged (not many surface pazking spots). If the project will be as dense as proposed, all required affordable housing should be accommodated on-site. W Johnson would like to see a continuum of affordable housing types and levels of affordability. Summary: The board is supportive of the way that parking has been dealt with. But their overall support of the current height/mass may be effected by how the applicants deal with the affordable housing issue, since the board is in support of adding affordable housing to this project. Neighborhood benefits R. Sosa and W. Johnson strongly supported proposed density affordable housing being added to this project on-site. E. Jones strongly supported adding green roofs to this project and noted that sustainability would be a good public benefit. Summary: The board supported adding a range of affordable housing types and levels to this site. Permeability W. Johnson liked the basic layout of the design and the connections to Peloton, but might like to see more than one street through this structure to augment its connection to the Peloton and to increase permeability into the site. E. Jones agreed that permeability is important, but thought that pedestrian permeability was more important than vehiculaz permeability. A. Shoemaker liked the pedestrian friendly aspect of this project and didn't think it really needs another street. J. Dawson noted that access for service vehicles (trash, etc.) will be explored further. Summary: The board believes that the applicant is on the right track with permeability. The boazd suggested possibly adding another street, but as long as the pedestrian bike access is as strong as the plans indicate, it's not necessary. Onen Space reduction P. Shull noted that the issues of permeability, open space, and park spaces suggest that we might want this project to spread out a little bit. He would like to see a little more open space than is currently proposed. A. Shoemaker agreed. B. Holicky questioned whether there was board support for a parking reduction to increase open space. A. Shoemaker agreed that a parking reduction could be supported to increase open space if there is no neighborhood impact. W. Johnson asked if it is okay to park on the surrounding streets. C. Ferro replied that pazking on the surrounding streets (along 38`h Street) is permitted. E. Jones supported a pazking reduction in order to create more open space on this project and reduce building sizes. Summary: Feel that rooftop open space would function well. The boazd does not support an open space reduction. The board would be willing to support a parking reduction in order to allow for more open space. B. Holicky mentioned that to create more open types of open space, the size of buildings shouldn't just be reduced. Other measures should be taken to create more functional, open, and green space to the project. Rezoning C. Ferro informed the board that industrial properties with high density can develop without rezoning if 1/6 contiguity is met w/ other high density residential properties, but in this case the area would need to be rezoned in order for it to be developed. E. Jones is in favor of allowing rezoning in order for residential development for this project although unsure if the proposed density is appropriate. B. Holicky also supported rezoning and proposed density in order to have more buildings within walking distance of the 29`h Street Mall. Area also needs more density to make Peloton successful. Summary: The board supported rezoning . Connections to neighborhood W. Johnson was curious about how pedestrians would travel to nearby sites, so she's looking forward to seeing context maps and more details to demonstrate how pedestrians will more through the area. P. Shull wants to see more connections between this project and the surrounding areas which weren't included in this presentation. Would like more context at Site Review to know more about how pedestrians will move through the area. Additional comments: B. Holicky suggested exploring architectural boundaries more and perhaps having townhomes instead of condos on the edges of the units. Experiment with different building design solutions. P. Shull is not happy with Peloton as a representation of RH-3, but has a better feeling about this project even though there are similarities in density, etc. The applicant should continue to refine the design to be even better and more innovative. J. Dawson asked if the board wanted more or less commercial space. They realize that retail space won't work well here. W. Johnson replied that she would be comfortable with 8000 sq feet of office/commercial space. The plaza azea needs to be activated. R. Sosa wants to see the commercial space tied to neighborhood use. Since the location of this project is somewhat isolated, he's not sure how viable commercial space would be, but he'd like to see some of it used to serve the residents commercially. A. Shoemaker agreed that aneighborhood-serving space would be ideal with markets, bagel shops, restaurants, etc. for the residents. He also noted that more residential use would be okay with him as well. B. Holicky would prefer to see residential space here and is opposed to office space in this location but more residential would be fine as well. 10 P. Shull agrees that retail probably wouldn't work here and he doesn't want to see office space in this location either. He suggested considering offering affordable housing space and clarified that all of this space will be for sale and not for rent. E. Jones agreed that the location is too isolated for retail to work. She was not enamored with office space in this project unless people live and work there (home office space), but was supportive of affordable housing being offered. J. Dawson clarified that the board would be okay with some setback variances on certain corners of the project in order to accommodate the green space moving away from the edges and more towards the middle of the project and allowing the shape of the green space to be irregular instead of linear. No action is required by Planning Board. The board recessed at 8:30 p.m. and reconvened at 8:36 p.m. B. Public hearing and consideration of non-conforming Use Review #LUR2007-00027, for the property -ocated at 1723 Canyon Boulevard, in the Residential High-2 (RH-2) zoning district. The proposal is a conversion from a residential use to anon-residential acupuncturist's office. Applicant: Stephen Vosper, Architecture, Inc. Owner: Ted and Livia Hall Case Manager: Elaine McLaughlin Applicant/Owner Presentation Ted Hall presented the item to the board. Staff Presentation E. McLaughlin presented the item to the boazd. A. Shoemaker inquired about what could be done with this residential site. E. McLaughlin replied that there are some creative solutions, but the distinctions between the historic portion of the house and any additions would need to be obvious. P. Shull inquired if there was any follow-up discussion with Whittier neighborhood. E. McLaughlin replied that there was no follow-up, but the project was opposed by the neighborhood originally. Public Hearing No one spoke to this item. Board Discussion P. Shull asked if the criteria could be amended. E. Jones noted that the definition of "compelling" reasons can be interpreted by Planning Board. I1 D. Gehr commented that legally Planning Board can approve this project and go against staff's recommendation for denial. E. Jones inquired about what the options are for this historic structure - what is the alternative? E. McLaughlin replied that you could create a duplex. E. Jones commented that its small square footage and proximity to the street is not ideal for residential use. P. Shull commented that it is unlikely that a demolition permit would be given on this site. W. Johnson requested clarification on the actual square footage of the site regarding the rear enclosed porch. E. McLaughlin indicated that the applicant proposed to remove the enclosed porch and establish it as an unenclosed porch consistent with the original historic configuration. R. Sosa requested clarification on the law office two doors down that had been residential, and if that change in use had gone through a similar use review process. E. McLaughlin noted that the office was established in 1978 spearheaded by Historic Boulder to landmark the property. D. Gehr added that the building was the offices for Historic Boulder for a number of years and that the law office was a continuation of the prior non-conforming use, and was established prior to the residential conversion rule being in place. E. Jones requested clarification that if the use conversion were granted, but the property sold, whether the use would continue. D. Gehr replied that staff would consider an acupuncturist to be along the lines of a medical office healing arts, where clients come in during the course of the day. R. McHeyser noted with regazd to what else could be done on the property, that residential use would be allowed, and that Planning Boazd has encouraged residential along multi-modal corridors which is not too unusual. E. Jones noted that this is a small, historic structure falling into disrepair that the city has noted it wants to protect. A. Shoemaker sympathized with [he small, acupuncturist business, but noted that this property is part of Boulder's affordable housing market -someone would have purchased this as a residence eventually. The market rate is too high or else it would have sold sooner. The previous owners were asking too much money. Somebody at some point presumably would have come along and bought it as a residence if they had lowered the price to a level that would have made it a residence, perhaps $250,000 or $275,000, which in Boulder is relatively affordable. The concern is that owners are asking too much money for property and certain things happen as a result of it. He mentioned that part of Boulder's affordable housing stock aze these little houses 12 on big corridors, and if they are all converted to businesses, then there will be other issues in the future. W. Johnson mentioned that a change from residential to non-residential has been used incredibly sparingly and that this instance may present a compelling case of when it's appropriate to use it. She supported rehabilitating the historic structure and thought that if this building was residential it would become student housing which wouldn't help the longevity of the structure and its contribution to the Chamberlain Historic District. She supported the owner- occupied, small business use of the structure. R. Sosa liked the compelling social service aspect of this being a healing art space, personalized in this historic structure. He believed that the six criteria were met and that the applicants would take good care of the structure. P. Shull agreed with R. Sosa. E. Jones supported approval because this is a historic structure that she wanted to see protected and preserved- that combined with the use proposed could provide a compelling need. Keeping affordable structures is certainly important but given the historic nature, she also supported the business providing healing arts to an underserved population. P. Shull commented that it is no different than the need to save our affordable commercial uses, cottage industries. B. Holicky believed the compelling social use isn't necessarily an acupuncturist business, but instead this would be maintaining a workable street- having a dilapidated house in the middle of a major corridor is a problem. There is a social good to maintaining a pedestrian way and a workable corridor. He agreed with A. Shoemaker about the affordable housing/conversion and was concerned that other historic houses get converted to residential. He doesn't see it as a problem here, but noted the need to be aware of the precedent that is being set. A. Shoemaker thinks the board is setting a bad precedent by approving this residential to non- residential use. He supports their business, but is worried what this decision will bring in the future. E. Jones didn't think this decision will set a precedent that can be widely used or taken advantage of down the line due to its unique factors as a small historic structure falling into disrepair, filled by a business that provides healing arts to an underserved population- this won be easy to do in many cases. Motion On a motion by W. Johnson, seconded by R. Sosa, the Planning Board approved (4-2, A. Shoemaker, B. Holickv ooyosed, A. Sopher absent) Use Review #LUR2007-00027 for the property located at 1723 Canyon Blvd., incorporating the staff memorandum dated August 21, 2007 as findinQS of fact, subiect to the following conditions of approval. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL The Applicant shall be responsible for ensuring that the development shall be in compliance with all approved plans and written statements dated June 4, 2007 on file in 13 the City of Boulder Planning Department, except as modified by these conditions of approval. 2. Per Section 9-2-11(a), B.R.C.,1981, prior to the issuance of a building permit or a certificate of completion for use review approval, the City Manager will determine the provisions of the development agreement and these conditions of approval have been met. The Applicant shall ensure that the non-residential acupuncturist use is operated in compliance with the following restrictions: a. The applicant shall not serve more than three clients at any one time. b. The applicant shall provide two pazking spaces on site, one of which is ADA accessible. A third tandem space within the garage shall not count towazd the requirement of three pazking spaces on site. 4. The applicant shall provide dedicated bicycle parking for a minimum of 2 bicycles. The applicant shall ensure that pedestrian arrivals to the site will be accommodated either from the front entrance or the rear entrance. 6. The Applicant shall not expand or modify the approved acupuncturist use except pursuant to Subsection 9-4-9(g), B.R.C. 1981. 7. Any changes in the non-residential use tenant shall be subject to the review and approval of the Planning Director. The purpose of such review shall be to inform such subsequent user of this space that it will be required to operate the non-residential use in compliance with the terms of this approval. And amending the staff finding #6 on page 12 and 13 finding that the compelling social human service need that the use provides a location for a healing arts use that provides one-on-one client services. It is also compelling that the user provides services 30-40 percent of which are students and aloes-income population. 6. MATTERS FROM THE PLANNING BOARD, PLANNING DIRECTOR, AND CITY ATTORNEY E. Jones mentioned that in future Planning Board minutes that include Concept Reviews, the Board Discussion section should include individual's comments (especially if they are minority opinions) as well as a summary indicating the overall opinion of the boazd. The board agreed that this is the way in which minutes should be done. A combination of individual comments and a summazy of the board's consensus. R. Ray noted that Planning Board was given a Tree Protection WIP as an information item. He noted the specific actions that will be required in the preserving/saving of trees. E. Jones asked if the aim is to protect historically ranked trees or to promote that trees are valuable to the city in general? Is it Native/non-native tree specific? 14 R. Ray replied that the aim is all of the above. The focus of exactly which trees are to be protected hasn't been narrowed just yet. R. Ray noted that the Planning Board was given a disposition for Crossroad Commons which can be called up until next Thursday. If called up, it would be added to a different meeting agenda. It can be called up by any individual Planning Board member at any time (not only at a meeting). R. Ray informed the Planning Board that staff hasn't received environmental data from the Hogan Pancost applicants yet. Once staff reviews the environmental information they want to bring it to Planning Board as an information item to let Planning Board know what the status is and what may/may not have to occur. This would be separate from the Concept Plan which would include a public hearing. R. McHeyser informed the board that they'll be sent an email following the September 18 City Council meeting letting Planning Board know whether or not there will be a Planning Board meeting on September 20`h for TVAP follow-up. R. McHeyser reminded the boazd that the 29`s Street Debrief is now scheduled for October 25. She inquired if the Planning Board wanted to schedule their four hour training session for the same evening. E. Jones didn't want to train on the same night and noted that training should happen on a light night when they're already in Council Chambers. P. Shull doesn't think they need four hours of training and inquired if it could be shorter. R. McHeyser will determine a different time for training. R. McHeyser inquired if December 13s' was an acceptable date for Planning Board's joint meeting with DDAB. The boazd accepted this and agreed that the December 20a' meeting be canceled. E. Jones will attend the CC meeting on September 18 re: TVAP. W. Johnson informed the Planning Board that the Landmarks Board is doing a Good, Bad, and Ugly tour on September 26N at 2pm in City Council Chambers if anyone else is interested in attending. B. Holicky asked what happens if a disposition gets called up. A full discussion of the disposition (like any other site review) will ensue. A. Shoemaker inquired about the status of Washington Village. R. McHeyser replied that Planning Board will get their Washington Village memos in packets tomorrow. She informed the boazd that Wonderland requested 30 minutes for their presentation regarding their changes to the seven items the board requested and asked the board if they thought Wonderland should be granted extra time. 15 A. Shoemaker felt that Wonderland doesn't need more time. He noted that the Planning Board is already familiar with the materials and conversation needs to be limited to new material. B. Holicky agreed that the applicant and public need to keep their comments under the current time restrictions. He didn't support allowing them more time. P. Shull noted that the presentations need to be as succinct as possible. The entire boazd agreed that the applicant should not be allowed more time. Both the applicant and public should be heard fairly, but stay within regulated time limits. If the boazd needs more information from the applicant or public, their time can be extended by questions asked by the board. 7. DEBRIEF/AGENDA CHECK S. ADJOURNMENT The Planning Boazd adjourned the meeting at 9:46 p.m. 16 APPROVED BY Bo d hair b ~~ DA E 17