Loading...
2 - Minutes - November 1, 2007CITY OF BOULDER PLANNING BOARD ACTION MINUTES November 1, 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: http://www.bouldercolorado.QOV/ PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Elise Jones, Chair Willa Johnson Andrew Shoemaker Phil Shull, Vice-Chair Adrian Sopher Richard Sosa PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Bill Holicky STAFF PRESENT: David Gelu-, Assistant City Attorney Elaine McLaughlin, Senior Planner Robert Ray, Land Use Review Manager Mary Ann Weideman, Administrative Services Manager 1. CALL TO ORDER Chair, E. Jones, declared a quorum at 6:05 p.m. and the following business was conducted. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES No minutes were scheduled for approval. 3. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION No one spoke to this item. 4. DISCUSSION OF DISPOSITIONS, PLANNING BOARD CALL-UPS The board did not comment on 2118 13`h Street or 1901 63`d Street. 5. ACTION ITEMS A. Public hearing and consideration of Annexation and Initial Zoning along with a change to the North Boulder Subcommunity Plan future growth map and Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan Plan (#LUR2004-00086) for the property located at 2475 Topaz Drive. The proposal includes four concurrent requests: 1. Amend the North Boulder Subcommunity Plan future growth map for the property from Rural Residential (RR) to Residentia] Estate (ER); 2. Amend the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan Planning Area designation from Planning Area IIB to Planning Area IIA; 3. Initial Zoning established as Residential Estate (RE); and 4. Annexation of subject property Applicant: Robert Netterstrom Owner: John Curlander Case Manager: Elaine McLaughlin ApplicantlOwner Presentation Robert Netterstrom presented the item to the board. Staff Presentation E. McLaughlin presented the item to the board. Public Hearing Howard Bittman, 2582 Sumac Drew Simon, 2557 Sumac Kathy Snow, 2305 Topaz Olivier Brousse, 4450 Ruby (Pooled Time with Roger Pioszak, 4495 Ruby) Board Discussion The board discussed whether there is any greater community benefit from revising the North Boulder Subcommunity Plan. The board discussed the issues of tree protection and zoning. E. Jones understood staff's rationale in matching the Comprehensive Plan, but felt it was important to support a subcommunity plan with great community benefit and rationale for changing it. She didn't feel she had enough reason to make that change. She could see the benefit to the applicant, but not necessarily the benefit to the community. A. Sopher agreed that there wasn't a great deal of community benefit. E. Jones noted that this is not a typical annexation. Since this would be a change to a subcommunity plan it ups the ante due to the effect on the community. R. Sosa suggested that the subcommunity plan might have been different with a different floodplain map. E. Jones inquired when the mature trees would be protected from being cut down. D. Gehr replied that tree protection would begin when the annexation agreement is signed. E. Jones encouraged looking at different wording in relation to preserving trees so that the protection would be effective immediately. P. Shull was interested in recommending to council approval of annexation at Rural Residential zoning. E. Jones queried about making changes to the staff recommendation and W. Johnson inquired about the impact that it would have on fees. A. Shoemaker inquired about the subdivision process. D. Gehr replied that if you meet the technical and zoning requirements you are entitled to divide your land. A. Shoemaker inquired what the impacts of rezoning now versus later would be. D. Gehr thought it would be helpful to condition what would be appropriate for rezoning. The applicant would be eligible to request a rezoning. The BVCP includes a criterion that would 2 allow the boazd to consider the request unless the board was to alter the zoning from Low Density Residential to Rural Residential. E. Jones suggested a modification on #7 to trigger preservation of trees. W. Johnson wasn't too supportive of changing the zoning. E. Jones inquired if they wanted to put further constraints on the FAR. D. Gehr noted that if Planning Board accepts Estate Residential zoning (which is the applicant's request) and building limitations, then there is great flexibility. If Planning Board changes the zoning to Rural Residential, then there is less flexibility because the property is within an enclave and enclaves are entitled to be annexed. With Rural Residential zoning he recommended allowing the standard Rural Residential zoning regulations to apply to the property. P. Shull thought that if this property had Rural Residential zoning it wouldn't require a restriction in size. He supported lesser density on this property to respect patterns in the neighborhood. Motion On a motion by P. Shull, seconded by E. Jones, the Planning Board recommended (3-3; W. Johnson, A. Sopher and A. Shoemaker dissenting, B. Holickv absent) that City Council annrove the annexation and initial zoning of Rural Residential (R-R) on the property, and Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan Plannin¢ Area designation (from Planning Area IIB to Planning Area IIA) all pertaining to request #LUR2004-00086, incomorating this revised staff memorandum as findings of fact, subject to the following recommended conditions of aynroval: 1. Requirements. Prior to first reading of the annexation ordinance before City Council, the Applicant shall: a. Pay the Storm Water and Flood Management Plant Investment Fee of $2,597.14; b. Pay the outstanding assessment of $3,273.60 for the 8-inch water main in Sumac Avenue; c. Pay the outstanding assessment of $1,235.52 for the 8-inch wastewater main in Sumac Avenue; d. Sign and file an application, and pay the applicable fees, for inclusion in the Boulder Municipal Subdistrict of the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District; e. Sell and convey, or execute an agreement to sell and convey, to the City any interest in water or water rights associated with, or appurtenant to the Property, including a one-acre right of Silver Lake Ditch water for $25.00. 2. Connection to Citv Utilities. Within 180 days of the effective date of the annexation ordinance, the Applicant shall connect to City water and sewer. 3. Plant Investment Fees. Prior to connecting to City water or sewer services, the Applicant shall pay the applicable Water and Wastewater Plant Investment Fees and utility connection fees. 3 4. Disconnection of Septic System. Within ] 80 days of a wastewater service line connection on the Property, the Applicant shall abandon the existing septic system in accordance with Boulder County Health Department and State of Colorado regulations. 5. New Construction. The Applicant shall ensure that all new construction commenced on the Property after annexation, shall comply with all City of Boulder laws, taxes, and fees, except as modified by this Agreement. 6. Address Change. Prior to subdivision or prior to the application of a building permit, the Applicant shall coordinate with the City to change the property access and address from Topaz Drive to Sumac Avenue. 7. Tree Protection. Prior to the removal of any trees, the Applicant shall submit to the City for review and approval, a Tree Preservation Plan prepared by a certified arborist that provides for the preservation of healthy and long-lived trees over six inches in caliper ("Healthy Long-Lived Trees") within the area 15' around the perimeter of the Property ("Tree Preservation Area"). The Applicant agrees that it will maintain such trees in a manner in compliance with said Tree Preservation Plan and it will not remove any protected trees within the Tree Preservation Area without the prior approval of the City. A Healthy Long-Lived Tree will only be permitted to be removed in the following instances: a. The site cannot feasibly be developed, through design or construction alternatives, without removing or relocating the tree. b. The City is requiring the removal of a tree as part of the construction approval. c. A tree is dead, has an overhanging limb that poses a danger to persons or property, or is afflicted with any dangerous or infectious insect infestation or disease. 8. Property Clean-up. The Applicant agrees to remove discarded building materials located primarily on the eastern portion of the parcel and downed trees and dead wood throughout the parcel within the earlier of the following: 180 days after the effective date of the annexation ordinance, prior to an application for subdivision, or prior to application for a building permit for a dwelling unit. 9. Drainage. The Applicant shall convey drainage from the Property in a historic manner that does not materially and adversely affect abutting property owners. 10. Waiver of Vested Rights. The Applicant waives any vested property rights that may have arisen under Boulder County jurisdiction. The Applicant acknowledges that nothing contained herein maybe construed as a waiver of the City's police powers or the power to zone and regulate land uses for the benefit of the general public. 11. Zoning. The Property shall be annexed to the City with an initial zoning classification of Rural Residential (RR), and except as set forth herein, shall be subject to all of the rights and restrictions associated with that zoning. Each newly constructed residential unit on the subject property shall pay twice the applicable cash-in-lieu amount for a single family detached unit per 9-13 B.R.C., 1981, "Inclusionary Zoning." This amount is payable prior to receipt of a residential building permit. 4 Due to the vote on the first motion, no recommendation was made from Planning Boazd to the City Council. On a motion by A. Sopher, seconded by W. Johnson (6-0, B. Holickv absent) the Board recommended to change the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan service area from Planning Area IIB to Plannine Area IIA. The board recessed at 7:45 p.m. and resumed at 7:55 p.m. B. Public hearing and consideration of Concept Plan Review and Comment application #LUR2007-00052, Gunbarrel Gateway. The proposal is for the redevelopment of the former Hugh M. Woods site located at 63`d Street and Lookout Road in Gunbarrel for approximately 83,000 square feet of commercial floor area. The site is approximately 5.9 acres and is zoned BC-2 (Business -Community 2). Applicant/Property Owner: William McDermid, Boulder Hospitality, LLC Case Manager: Elaine McLaughlin Applicant/Owner Presentation Dave Leed presented the item to the board. Bill McDermid presented additional aspects of this item to the board. Staff Presentation E. McLaughlin presented the item to the board. Public Hearing No one spoke to this item. Board Discussion Relationship of Development to Street P. Shull suggested breaking up the mass a bit more. He would like to see some true permeability -the hotel building design is currently very long. W. Johnson accepted the height and use of the hotel, but would like to see more permeability. She would like the building to be less massive/long, but found the basic layout of the hotel to be acceptable. R. Sosa accepted the height exception of the hotel, but noted that the north side of the hotel is not pedestrian friendly. The hotel might be too far east and he noted that the length of the building could be shortened. A. Sopher wondered if the hotel could be put on the corner at 63'~ and Lookout. W. Johnson thought the plan was responsive and could be helpful to the Gunbarrel community. 5 P. Shull thought that the pool building could be used to address the problems of 63rd Street and provide an attractive corner. He liked the architecture of the hotel and the fact that the roof was not flat. A Shoemaker agreed that the architecture of the hotel was good- especially the roof. He questioned whether anyone will actually use the pazking on the east side. E. Jones mentioned that the back of the hotel should be more responsive to the future transit stop. She thought the design included too much parking lot and that the hotel's relationship in the front feels incomplete. Summary -The board felt the hotel use and architecture was acceptable. The board also accepted the location and orientation of the hotel building, but thought that permeability on the site should be increased. The board suggested the possibility of moving the pool building around to create a better relationship to the street The height exception was acceptabley, but anything higher would not be considered. Corner of 63`d and Lookout W. Johnson thought that the drive-thru/loading dock/trash bins are not an attractive corner (she would not support this project because of this corner design). She suggested no drive-thru and moving the loading dock. P. Shull thought that the notion of a campus (south of the front door of the hotel) was lost due to the chazacter and placement of buildings. He is not in favor ofdrive-thrus right on the street and is not ready to support the drive-thru pharmacy. R. Sosa recommended taking this opportunity to make the corner better and make it stand out. This is a chance to make this corner a "flagship". He recommended eliminating the drive-thru entirely. R. Sosa suggested having a restaurant and coffee shop on the corner and moving the pharmacy to where the restaurant is currently located. P. Shull thought that the pharmacy use was okay, but he didn't support the location. A. Sopher didn't like the loading dock or the drive thru. A. Shoemaker recommended replacing the pharmacy (with something besides a bank) that adds to the pedestrian corner. Summary -The Planning Board did not support the current configuration on the corner (especially the drive thru and the loading dock). Coffee Shon W. Johnson and E. Jones liked the coffee shop, but didn't like the drive-thru aspect. R. Soso thought that people should be encouraged to come to the center and park rather than being given the option of drive-thrus. 6 E. Jones thought there should be a stronger connection between the hotel and the coffee shop. A. Sopher noted that the coffee shop drive-thrn does not help make a good "campus" atmosphere Summary -The Planning Board likes the idea of a coffee shop but not adrive-thru. They don't support any drive-thrus on this site. Campus/Pedestrian Connection W. Johnson noted that generally good pedestrian connections are shown, but most are oriented horizontally. She'd like the hotel broken up a little with some northJsouth connections. A. Shoemaker noted that the pharmacy is disconnected from the rest of the site. E. Jones felt there was too much asphalt on the site. To complete the "campus" feel she'd like to see friendlier access across the parking lot. P. Shull thought that to enhance the "campus" feel he'd like to see some "places of respite". The landscaping is loaded around the transportation corridors, but should be dispersed so that there is more green space for relaxing on the "campus". Summary -The Planning Board would like fasee increased access across the parking lot, less asphalt, and more green spaces to enhance the feeling of a connected "campus': Transit Connection Summary -The Planning Board thought that if the hotel remains in this location, a future pedestrian connection between the lobby and the transit center should be planned for because the current connection to the transit center is not clear. Parking Reduction (not requested by apylicant at this stag, Summary -The Planning Board was willing to support a parking reduction. Inward Focus of Buildines Summary -The Planning Board suggested exploring the possibility of more outward facing windows. The applicant responded that they will eliminate the pharmacy and the drive-thru coffee shop. He inquired which options the Planning Board would prefer for replacing the pharmacy and suggested a bank (not on the corner, but it would have adrive-thru), an Urgent Care Center, or a combination of places such as clusters of restaurants. The Planning Board would prefer something more retail oriented, but these options are not out of the realm of possibility. The board recommended either a bank or urgent care, but not both and emphasized the importance of a lively corner. 7 Motion No action is required by the board at this time. 6. MATTERS FROM THE PLANNING BOARD, PLANNING DIRECTOR, AND CITY ATTORNEY E. Jones asked Planning Board members to send her their ideas for putting together a letter regarding Planning Board priorities for City Council. R. Ray gave the Planning Board an update on the Planning Director search. There are two in- house interviews scheduled for November 15 and 16. One or both applicants maybe asked back to meet the members of Planning Boazd and City Council. R. Ray informed Planning Board that the draft of the P&DS Strategic Plan will be available the week of November 13`h. D. Gehr gave the Planning Board an update on the Green Points issue. W. Johnson noted that she will be unable to attend the December 13 Planning Board meeting. E. Jones gave a report on the Pops & Scrapes subcommittee. She suggested that Planning Board meet with BOZA to discuss appazent coriflicts among codes and the desire to not promote pops and scrapes. Planning Board requested the Pops and Scrapes WIP that goes to the City Council. 7. DEBRIEF/AGENDA CHECK The Planning Board thought the discussion on the Topaz annexation was interesting and that E. McLaughlin did a good job and her analysis was right on. 8. ADJOURNMENT The Planning Board adjourned the meeting at 10:13 p.m. 8 APPROVED BY Board Chair DATE 9