Loading...
2 - Minutes - November 15, 2007CITY OF BOULDER PLANNING BOARD ACTION MINUTES November 15, 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.gov/ PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Elise Jones, Chair Phil Sl~ull, Vice-Chair Adrian Sopher Bill Holicky PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Willa Johnson Richard Sosa Andrew Shoemaker STAFF PRESENT: Juliet Bonnell, Administrative Specialist Louise Grauer, Long Range Planner " David Gehr, Assistant City Attomey Ruth McHeyser, Acting Planning Director Chris Meschuk, Long Range Planner Susan Richstone, Acting Long Range Manager 1. CALL TO ORDER Chair, E. Jones, declared a yuorum at 6:06 p.m. and the following business was conducted. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES On a motion by P. Shull, seconded by E. Jones, the Plannin~ Board approved (4-0, W. Johnson, R. Sosa, A. Shoemaker absent) the October 4, 2007 Planning Board minutes as amended. On a motion by P. Shull, seconded by B. Holicky, the Planning Board approved (4-0, W. Johnson, R. Sosa, A. Shoemaker absent) the October 18, 2007 PlanninQ Board minutes as amended. 3. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION 4. DISCUSSION OF DISPOSITIONS, PLANNING BOARD CALL-UPS The board did not comment on Boulder Community Hospital or Bear Canyon Creek. 5. ACTION ITEMS A. Public hearing and compilation of requests for changes to be considered further as part of the 2008 Mid-Term Review to the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP) Case Manager: Chris Meschuk On a motion by E. Jones, seconded by P. Shull, the Planning Board approved (4-0, W. Johnson, R. Sosa, A. Shoemaker absent) the continuation of the Boulder Mobile Manor (request #5)portion of the BVCP item to the December 6, 2007 Planning Board meeting because with B. Holicky's recusal there would not be a quorum. Staff Presentation C. Meschuk presented the item to the board. A. Sopher clarified that request #1 refers to a Land Use change which may eventually lead to a zoning change. C. Meschuk agreed that if the Land Use is changed it would make way for a zoning change. If a zoning change was made the biggest alteration would be in FARs and uses allowed (such as retail space). B. Holicky inquired about the discrepancy between the zoning and the Comprehensive Plan designation on the parcel to the east at the comer of 9`~' and Walnut. S. Richstone noted that the Comprehensive Plan might be changed in this update in order to match the zoning on this parcel. Requesters who spoke: Roland Hower, 711 Walnut Street, representing owners of 825-835 W gloat, spoke to request #I Bruce Tenenbaum, spoke to request #3 Charles Dean, 625 Pleasant St, spoke to request #4 Charles Dean, 625 Pleasant St, spoke to request #6 Public Hearing Jack Kirner, 1116 6`~' Street, spoke to request #1 Board Discussion Motion On a motion by A. Sopher, seconded by B. Holicky, the Planning Board recommended (4-0, W. Johnson, A. Shoemaker, R. Sosa absent) to accent the staff recommendation for consideration and further analysis in the 2008 Mid-term review for all of the Land Use and Service Area boundary changes 2-4 and 6-7, the changes to area Rlan and program summaries 9 and 10, the staff initiated land use map rectifications of I 1 and 12. Amendment: On a motion by A. Sopher, seconded by E. Jones, (4-0, W. Johnson, A. Shoemaker, R. Sosa absent) the Planning Board recommended that request #1 also be continued at the December 6, 2007 Planning Board meeting when a larger board will be present. B. Public hearing and consideration of a recommendation to City Council on an ordinance amending chapter 9-6, "Use Standards," of the Boulder Revised Code to: l . Change the regulations for restaurants and taverns in industrial zoning districts; and 2. Add standards for industrial service centers that allow certain retail, personal service, and office uses. Case Manager: Susan Richstone 2 Staff Presentation S. Richstone presented the item to the board. A. Sopher inquired about the logic of keeping the size of the spaces down. The thresholds seem really low for spaces that aren't in strip developments. S. Richstone responded that rather than strip malls, the industrial buildings might include multiple tenants. A. Sopher asked what the major roads are and why we wouldn't want restaurants along them. D. Gehr defined the major roads in industrial areas as: Pearl Parkway, 55'x' Street, Diagonal, Valmont, Arapahoe, Colorado, Baseline, Cherryvale, Spine Rd., and Lookout Rd. P. Shull asked what the parking requirements would be for this area and how they would be enforced. Would they be different from restaurant parking requirements? D. Gehr replied that they would be different from restaurant parking requirements. Parking requirements are defined in the industrial zone district. P. Shull inquired if it would matter if alcohol is served in the area. D. Gehr replied that as a land use, taverns are not allowed in industrial zones, but restaurants could apply for liquor licenses. P. Shull asked about the regulations on patio space in relation to internal restaurant space regarding restaurant parking. D. Gehr noted that verbage can be added that would exclude outdoor patio space parking requirements and more details about parking requirements and reductions. B. Holicky clarified that industrial service centers need to go through site review, but restaurants don't need to. Because of this, Planning Board needs to do something so that the parking issue is dealt with (for restaurants, coffee shops, etc.). Since restaurants are by-right and not required to go through site review, parking requirements need to be determined. Public Hearing Bruce Dierking, 2595 Canyon Blvd., representing Flatiron Industrial Park Board Discussion By-right restaurant and tavern parking D. Gehr noted that the standard for administrative parking reduction that doesn't require a board hearing (can be approved by staff) is a 25% parking reduction. B. Holicky replied that a 25% parking reduction isn't going to be enough in this instance. He suggested that they not make separate parking requirements for restaurants within the industrial zone. P. Shull suggested that Planning Board recommend that staff be able to authorize parking reductions up to 60%. D. Gehr recommended that the underlying zoning parking standard would apply regardless of the use, then no parking reduction requirements would be necessary. Applicants could always provide more parking, just not less. D. Gehr noted that drive-thrus are not allowed within industrial zones. Industrial Service Center S. Richstone clarified that there is no size limit on restaurants within industrial zones. B. Holicky would like to see higher size limits because Planning Board has the option to reduce the size during site reviews. E. Jones wanted some restriction put on size. 3 Motion On a motion by E. Jones, seconded by P. Shull, the Planning Board recommended (4-0, W. Johnson, A. Shoemaker, and R. Sosa absent) to City Council adoption of the proposed chances to the industrial zonine districts included in Attachment A of the staff memorandum dated November 15, 2007, including the following amendments. Amendment 1. Create an exception from the indoor and outdoor seating parking requirements for restaurants in industrial zones and for restaurants in industrial service centers. Amendment 2. Add a provision into the maximum size of the property that makes it clear that an industrial service center may be added to a property that is larger than 2 acres. Amendment 3. Increase the size of the following uses by 500 square feet: following use classifications: personal service, convenience retail, and retail. C. Update on the components, timeline, and responsibilities for the Transit Village Area Plan Implementation, 2007 - 2008. Case Manager: Louise Grauer Staff Presentation L. Grauer presented the schedule and description of the Implementation projects to be completed in 2008. Following B. Holicky's recusal, L. Grauer presented the work on zone testing for the Mixed Use-2, High Density and Mixed Use Industrial-1 Land Use areas in preparation for developing new revised zone districts. Public Hearing No one spoke to this item. Board Discussion P. Shull expressed concern about carefully choosing the project consultant and consulting team members for the master planning for the I 1-acre city and RTD-owned property, Boulder Transportation Village. He wanted to be sure that creativity is included in this project and that it not be purely led by lobrica] engineering. B. Holicky recused at 835 p.m. A. Sopher asked for clarification regarding parking and how things will move forward. S. Richstone noted that what L. Grauer presented is just one option for parking design and that a parking consultant will be brought in as the project evolves. E. Jones was still trying to understand what the next step in the process is and what comments from the board will be most helpful in moving toward the next steps. L. Grauer noted that this process has made staff carefully look at MU-2 base density bonuses and FARs and try to create variety in building heights. E. Jones was interested in the interplay between the FAR and the 55 foot height cap and wondered if there was a way to provide height variety outside of the FAR. R. McHeyser mentioned that a variety of building heights could be required if you're within a certain acreage (instead of going by FAR). S. Richstone talked about the density bonus to achieve more affordable housing. The numbers aren't very big. Currently they don't see this area as a large residential/housing area. E. Jones noted that variety is very important. She doesn't want to see the area being homogenous. She wanted something besides FAR that would encourage variety. A. Sopher inquired what the density bonus is and what level of affordable housing is necessary in order to qualify for it and whether or not this is economically viable. 4 B. Holicky returned from being recused at 9:04 p.m. No action is required of Planning Board on this item. 6. MATTERS FROM THE PLANNING BOARD, PLANNING DIRECTOR, AND CITY ATTORNEY E. Jones asked for comments from fellow Planning Board members to include in the board's letter to the new City Council. W. Johnson and R. Sosa submitted lists with their ideas which E. Jones read to the board and asked for feedback and further suggestions. A. Shoemaker had previously suggested a Study Session with City Council to discuss some of the more in depth issues. A. Shoemaker also suggested considering rezoning school property as public. D. Gehr noted that this zoning can't be changed according to the MOU between the city and the Boulder Valley School District. B. Holicky thought the letter to City Council would be more targeted, rather than philosophical. He suggested density as a good topic to be discussed at their joint Study Session. E. Jones suggested laying out a philosophical vision, then prioritizing how it can be approach ed/accomplished. B. Holicky thought they should include the vision for what Boulder could/should become including targeted issues. E. Jones thought there should be continued emphasis on smart growth according to the Comprehensive Plan. She thought it was important to address redevelopment in the community while creating what the community wants and also creating environmental sustainability. R. McHeyser suggested generalizing the letter and getting into specifics at the Study Session. The board discussed the possibility of publishing their letter to City Council in a guest editorial in the paper to communicate with the community as well. B Holicky questioned whether this would be appropriate. R. McHeyser mentioned that any communication from the Planning Board to the public should go through City Council. Planning Board's goal is to get the letter to City Council before the holidays. P. Shull attended yesterday's Downtown Design Advisory Board (DDAB) meeting. He would like to see the stature of DDAB raised. It is a very informal group where it is difficult to know what the summary/consensus is. He thought that Planning Board should refer certain projects to them. The board discussed what their goals should be at the joint DDAB meeting on December 13, 2007. Planning Board's holiday party was changed from December 7°i to December 8'~'. R. McHeyser gave an update on the Planning Director search and announced her plan to retire a year from now. When the new Planning Director begins R. McHeyser's role will shifr and focus on easing the transition for the new Planning Director and accomplishing work on some special projects. D. Gehr informed the board that there will be a Topaz Annexation re-hearing on February 7, 2008. 5 7. DEBRIEF/AGENDA CHECK 8. ADJOURNMENT The Planning Board adjourned the meeting at 10:06 p.m. APPROVED BY Board Chair DATE 6