Loading...
Minutes - Planning Board - 12/6/2007~~>~~zc~l~~t~.~s~.-~~vt;;±tt: tn.^_ons CTTY OF BOULDER PLANNING BOARD ACTION MINUTES December 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: httn://www.bouldercolorado.gov/ PLANNING SOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Elise Jones, Chair Willa Johnson Andrew Shoemaker Phil Shull, Vice-Chair Adrian Sopher Richard Sosa Bill Holicky STAFF PRESENT: Juliet Bonnell, Administrative Specialist David Gehr, Assistant City Attorney Karl Guiler, Planner II Ruth McHeyser, Acting Planning Director Elaine McLaughlin, Senior Planner Chris Meschuk, Planner I Robert Ray, Land Use Review Manager Susan Richstone, Acting Long Range Manager 1. CALL TO ORDER Vice-Chair, P. Shull, declared a quorum at 6:08 p.m. and the following business was conducted. E. Jones amved to the meeting late at 6:09 p.m. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES On a motion bv W. Johnson, seconded bv B. Holieky, the Planning Board approved (5- 0, R. Sosa and A. Shoemaker abstained) the October 25, 2007 Planning Board minutes. On a motion by R. Sosa, seconded bv A. Sopher, tbe Planning Board approved (6-0, B. Holickv abstained) the November ], 2007 Planning Board minutes as amended. 3. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION Macon Cowles, 1680 Wilson Court 4. DISCUSSION OF DISPOSITIONS, PLANNING BOARD CALL-UPS No items were schcduled for discussion. 5. ACTION ITEMS A. Continuation of the 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). This continuation is only for requests #1 (825-835 Walnut St. change from Transitional Business to General Business) and #5 (2637 Valmont Rd. change from Manufactured Housing to High Density Residential), from the November 15, 2007 meeting. Case Manager: Chris Meschuk B. Holicky recused for the presentation and discussion regarding request #5 at 6:16 p.m. Staff Presentation C. Meschuk presented the item to the board. Requesters who spoke to these items: Pam Gibson, Boulder Housing Partners, spoke to request #5 Ed Burn, 250 Arapahoe, spoke to request #1 Public Hearing No one spoke to this item. Board Discussion Motion On a motion by A. Sopher, seconded by A. Shoemaker, the Planning Board (6-0, B. Holicky recusedl accepted the staff recommendation to add request #5 (2637 Valmont Rdl to the compiled list of changes to be considered as part of the 2008 mid-term update to the BVCP. B. Holicky returned at 6:26 p.m. On a motion by A. Sopher, seconded by P. Shull, the Planning Board (3-4, E. Jones, W. Johnson, R. Sosa and A. Shoemaker dissented) recommended that Land Use map change #1 (825-835 Walnut St) be considered for further analysis in the 2008 Mid-term review. B. Public hearing and consideration of Concept Plan Review and Comment application #LUR2007-00059, 5675 Arapahoe Storage Facility. The proposal is for subdivision of property into two parcels and construction of a 100,000 square foot climate controlled storage warehouse and 66,000 square foot mini-storage facility on Lot 1, and a 5,000 square foot retail building on Lot 2 within the IG (Industrial General) zone district. Applicant/Owner: Jeffrey Wingert Case Manager: Elaine McLaughlin Applicant/Owner Presentation Charles Deane presented the item to the board. Jeffrey Wingert, Dave Blauch, and Jim Fitzgerald were also present to answer questions. P. Shull asked for clarification on the size of the storage units due to his concern about what they might be used for. J. Fitzgerald answered that the units would vary in size and that there are regulations/limitations included in the lease contract about what the units can be used for to prevent improper use. R. Sosa asked how many vehicles they anticipated going in and out daily. J. Fitzgerald estimated about 40 trips a day assuming full occupancy. 2 W. Johnson inquired about resolving the problem of two access points on Arapahoe. C. Deane noted that they plan to work with staff to figure this out. They have also approached neighboring property owners and proposed consolidation of the access points. Staff Presentation E. McLaughlin presented the item to the board. A. Sopher clarified that storage space requires a Use Review. E. McLaughlin replied that self-storage units do require a Use Review. E. Jones inquired about access points. E. McLaughlin responded that one access point would be a main entrance and the other would mainly be for emergency access. R. Sosa inquired if there is a turn lane available for traffic turning north. E. McLaughlin responded that there is not a turn lane for vehicular traffic here. E. McLaughlin noted that flood mitigation would have to happen on this site irrespective of how it is phased because it is in the flood conveyance zone. A. Sopher asked how buildings of this scale can be built within a flood conveyance zone. E. McLaughlin replied that if it is mitigated and the water is channeled in the proper way it is possible. R. Ray noted that these are issues that will be addressed during Site Review, pending technical analysis. A. Sopher asked if the available parking would be sufficient. E. McLaughlin believed that the parking would be sufficient. B. Holicky inquired about what non-industrial uses could be built in this location. E. McLaughlin replied that convenience retail (up to 2, 000 square feet) uses are allowed, including: home improvement type stores, laundry/cleaners/wholesale businesses, computer facilities, medical labs, vehicle sales and services, etc. Restaurant use is not allowed under this code section. E. Jones clarified that the applicant is requesting a restaurant, but because restaurants are not allowed in this zone, this would not be an option. Public Hearing Lou De la Cava, 2595 Canyon Blvd. Board Discussion Self-storage use review B. Holicky thought self-storage was an appropriate use for this site with a market which he would support. A. Sopher had a problem with self-storage units because once they are built they never seem to go away. He's loathe to accept aself-storage unit on this site. P. Shull found the storage use and some retail along Arapahoe to be acceptable. E. Jones thought there would probably be a better use for this space than aself-storage unit, although shc's not thoroughly against it. R. Sosa found the self-storage use acceptable. W. Johnson didn't think she would support the self-storage use. A. Shoemaker noted that as long as it didn't create a new retail center, he was accepting of the storage use. Summary- the board was split on storage as a use, but the majority leaned toward acceptance. 3 Retail in relation to trees W. Johnson asked for clarification regarding the trees and tree map. E. McLaughlin mentioned that staff has asked the applicant for more information on the trees and what will be done for tree protection and/or tree removal. B. Holicky asked if restaurants might be allowed on the north side of this site with the new restaurant regulations. R. Ray responded that the new regulations would need to be analyzed further in order to determine that. E. Jones brought up the wetlands buffer issue and whether it would even be possible to fit another structure on the site. With wetlands and trees in the surrounding areas, she felt it would be a shame to put aself-storage unit on this site. W. Johnson liked the idea of retail use as a front piece to the existing building extension. She was concerned about the proposed retail location in relation to the trees. R. Sosa agreed about the trees/retail location. He liked B. Holicky's idea of providing retail/food for the local area. A. Sopher would support the front portion of the building becoming similar food/retail uses. E. Jones shared her concern about the impact of the proposed building on the existing trees. Summary- the board accepted retail use on this site and expressed interest in a restaurant being built in the internal section of the site. There was general support for retail within the existing building as we[[ as concern about retail building locations on the existirg trees. Wetlands P. Shull noted that this is a man-made wetland area. He suggested the possibility of movinglchanging aportion of this man-made wetland area. W. Johnson was intrigued by P. Shull's idea, but unsure about how practical it would he. E. Jones noted that the wetlands should be an amenity to the site, but she wanted to hear more about the value of the wetland and what it has become over time and whether or not it is appropriate to move it since it was never a natural wetland. She liked the idea of moving the wetlands to help the cottonwoods on the west side of the site. Trees The board expressed general concern about preserving the existing number of trees. Access A. Sopher asked if it could be required that curb cuts betaken out of service. D. Gehr replied that this could be required. P. Shull mentioned that access to lot 2 is problematic. E. Jones noted that the southwest access point is problematic (especially if there is any intention of preserving trees). Summary -the board noted that there are issues that need to be resolved regarding access to the site. They suggested maybe changing the uses on the southwest corner or possibly arranging for shared access. Parking Reduction A. Sopher had no problem with a parking reduction. P. Shull expressed concern about the volume of people going in and out of the site on a daily basis, but generally didn't have a problem with a parking reduction. The board had no problem with a parki~:g reduction if the use is storage. 4 Flood Mitigation A. Sopher noted that the board needs more information on this issue. P. Shull mentioned that the engineering must be looked at carefully. R. Sosa noted that the high hazard zone is on the north side which may impact the location of things on this site. Summary -the board agreed with the above comments. Design architecture P. Shull thought the design was headed in the right direction. E. Jones noted that if the buildings are going to be seen from Arapahoe, they need to look good. B. Holicky mentioned that the design doesn't have to be an interpretation of a downtown building. Awnings can be solar panels and energy efficiency can be incorporated into the design. He wanted to see some type of artistic merit. He didn't think it had to be finely detailed, just interesting from afar. A. Sopher noted that he could accept a well articulated box design- especially if the first floor is retail space. A. Shoemaker would like to see some creativity in design. Summary- the board appreciated that tl¢e proposed design looks different from the average storage.fac/lily. Interesting design is more important than detailed design. C. Deane asked the board what other uses they might approve on this site and if a Kinkos or FedEx would be appropriate here. W. Johnson would support aKinkos/FedEx in the main building. R. Sosa agreed. P. Shull noted that the parking reduction probably wouldn't work with the vehicular activity associated with aKinkos/FedEx. E. Jones agreed that this might be a problematic location for aFedEx/Kiiilcos. Motion No action by Planning Board is required. The board recessed at 8:16 p.m. and reconvened at 8:23 p.m. C. Public hearing and consideration of Site Review and Height Modi£?cation #LUR2007- 00058, 3161 3~" Street to permit an existing structure (now considered a principal structure at 34 feet 6 inches) to exceed the 20-foot height limit for accessory structures on a 12,250 square feet lot located in the RL-1 (Low Density Residential) zoning district, in order to build a new principal structure on the site. Construction of a new principal structure, which could be built up to 35 feet in height, would effectively change the status of the existing structure to an accessory structure. Applicant/Owner: Nancy Stetson Case Manager: Karl Guiler E. Jones recused at 8:24 p.m. ApplicantlOwner Presentation Mike Randall presented the item to the board. Nancy Stetson was also present for any questions. 5 Staff Presentation K. Guiler presented the item to the board. D. Gehr discussed the definition of an accessory unit. If Planning Board is considering allowing this project, he recommended continuing a final decision until a future meeting allowing the staff to write up conditions of approval, etc. Public Hearing Elizabeth Allen, Boulder Lynn Segal, 538 Dewey Barry Campbell, 1526 7°i Street Board Discussion A. Shoemaker noted that despite his sympathy toward the applicant, rules are rules and he didn't think this was worthy of an exception. W. Johnson appreciated the uniqueness of the structure and would be flexible with the rules in order to preserve this and allow for the possibility of another structure. She liked the rhythm along 3` Street and would like to see this rhythm/character preserved. A. Shoemaker was concerned about the rhythm of the backs of the lots and the potential of all the owners along 3`d Street wanting second structures. R. Sosa agreed that the structure is unique, but he conjectured that this structure was not intended as the primary structure. P. Shull loved the funkiness of the neighborhood, but agreed that rules are rules and more than one structure over 35 feet is not allowed on a residential lot so he would not support it. D. Gehr mentioned that an accessory building that is larger than a principle building is not allowed. A. Sopher noted that he was torn because he thought the applicant was in good faith, but also thought that staff was accurate in their recommendation. B. Holicky agreed that the architecture is really cool, but he was concerned about the same issues that A. Shoemaker raised. He didn't feel he could support this application. He was concerned about the mass of this lot if it included two structures of this height. He could possibly support limiting the principle building to 20 feet in height. A. Shoemaker might make an exception if they could limit the size of the principle structure. W. Johnson noted that this is a unique case and she'd like to be able to discuss compelling issues for making an exception and working around the rules in this case. A. Sopher suggested limiting the second structure to 2 stories including the garage, but not allowing flat, unattractive roofs. He recommended a 25 foot height limit which would also limit the depth of the building and allow a maximum of 2500 square feet. P. Shull suggested creating some constraints on the primary residence that would help rationalize accepting the current 35 foot accessory structure. A. Sopher thought they should specify that the structure may not be used for public meditation. W. Johnson thought they should specify that the meditation studio may not be used as a residence. P. Shull felt that there are other more effective ways of preserving the current structure and allowing a second structure. He would move to relocate the accessory structure down the hill and build around it. He'd like to see the structure preserved, but he's not ready to support the item as it stands. B. Holicky also wanted to see the structure preserved, but didn't think this was a hardship case that warrants changes. The applicant hadn't previously considered moving the existing structure, but might consider it. 6 D. Gehr mentioned that if Planning Board chooses to continue the item, the board will need the applicant's approval due to the timing, since by right the applicant is entitled to an answer by Dec 13'h. A. Shoemaker is worried that a denial would result in the scraping of the existing structure, environmental impacts, and a very large new structure. Accordingly, by allowing a new unit with limitations it may do more to address neighborhood character concerns than would a denial. R. Sosa noted that if Planning Board crafts a motion, they'll send a message that they are willing to be flexible under certain circumstances. D. Gehr noted that a continuance is in order. He defined the options as follows: Planning Board could ask the applicant to bring back architecture for the principle residence or they could request that staff craft/propose conditions for approval for this item. A. Sopher recommended that staff should craft conditions. He did not want the applicant to have to bring architecture back to the board. D. Gehr recommended that the board continue this item to January. The Planning Board contemplated the following restrictions on the site and instructed staff, in the motion below, to craft conditions and findings of approval: Limitations on new principal structure: • Two-story limit; • 25-foot height maximum, per city definition of height; and; • 2,500 square foot floor area limit, including the garage. Additional limitations: • No public meditation gatherings permitted on the site, and; • Removal of kitchen facilities and any plumbing necessary to qualify the building as an accessory structure. Structure would not be permitted as a separate dwelling unit. Motion On a motion by A. Sopher, seconded by W. Johnson, the Planning Board (6-0, E. Jones recused) continued Site Review #LUR2007-00058 until January 24, 2008 directing staff to draft findings of approval and conditions of approval in a manner that is consistent with the board's discussion. E. Jones returned at 9:40 p.m. 6. MATTERS FROM THE PLANNING BOARll, PLANNING DIRECTOR, AND CITY ATTORNEY E. Jones checked in with the board about their letter to City Council. The board discussed the Pops and Scrapes Subcommittee memo that went to the old City Council. The current City Council will receive this memo as well. Most likely they will move forward with it, but that hasn't been determined yet. The board discussed ways in which they might improve their process. R. McHeyser gave an update on the Planning Director search. Frank Bruno is looking into the possibility of employing a headhunter. 7 A. Sopher recused for the update on Washington School item at 10:36 p.m. R. McHeyser gave an update on the Washington School item. The School Districts Committee is meeting tomorrow. On December 18th, City Council will discuss this item further. D. Gehr mentioned that a group of neighbors have filed a lawsuit against the city because of this item. D. Gehr and the neighbors' lawyer have agreed to postpone the lawsuit for 90 days to see what will transpire within that time. R. McHeyser noted that the Washington School item might be heard by Planning Board again sometime in March (at the earliest). A. Sopher returned at 10:42 p.m. 7. DEBRIEF/AGENDA CHECK A. Sopher and E. Jones found the 5675 Arapahoe Concept Plan item to be confusing. 8. ADJOURNMENT The Planning Board adjourned the meeting at 10:46 p.m. APPROVED BY <7~~~/ ~ Bo d C air ~ la n8 D TE 8