Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09.05.19 PB Minutes CITY OF BOULDER PLANNING BOARD ACTION MINUTES September 5,2019 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: David Ensign John Gerstle Lupita Montoya Sarah Silver Peter Vitale Harmon Zuckerman, Vice Chair PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Bryan Bowen, Chair STAFF PRESENT: Charles Ferro, Development Review Manager Hella Pannewig, Assistant City Attorney Cindy Spence, Administrative Specialist III Sloane Walbert, Senior Planner David Thompson, Civil Engineer II /Transportation Kurt Firnhaber, Director of Housing& Human Services Crystal Launder, Housing Planner II Christin Shepherd, Senior Civil Engineer Katie Knapp, Engineering Project Manager Gerrit Slatter, Principal Transportation Projects Engineer Marina Lagrave, CEO of CLACE 1.CALL TO ORDER Vice Chair, H. Zuckerman, declared a quorum at 6:04 p.m. and the following business was conducted. 2.APPROVAL OF MINUTES None to Approve. 3.PUBLIC PARTICIPATION No one spoke. 4.DISCUSSION OF DISPOSITIONS,PLANNING BOARD CALL-UPS/CONTINUATIONS A. CALL UP ITEM: 950 Regent Dr.; Floodplain Development Permit (FLD2019-00088); Replacement of 19th Street Pedestrian Bridge over Boulder Creek. This decision may be called up before Planning Board on or before September 11, 2019. B. CALL UP ITEM: 1855 Folsom St.; Floodplain Development Permit (FLD2018-00039); Channel Work in the North Boulder Farmers Ditch. This decision may be called up before Planning Board on or before September 5, 2019. C. CALL UP ITEM: 1953 Poplar Lane; Floodplain Development Permit (FLD2019-00129); New wood fence in the High Hazard zone of Wonderland Creek. This decision may be called up before Planning Board on or before September 11th, 2019. D. CALL-UP ITEM: Minor Subdivision of an existing lot at 2130 Upland Avenue in the RE (Residential Estate) zoning district to create one additional lot with frontage on Tamarack Avenue. The subdivision will result in one northerly 16,648 square foot lot (Lot 1) and one southerly 19,472 square foot lot (Lot 2). Case no. LUR2019-00001. The call-up period expires on September 5, 2019. E. CALL UP ITEM: Boulder Transit Village Subdivision Replat `B' (TEC2019-00012): Final Plat for a five-lot subdivision associated with the property commonly referred to as 30Pearl, located at 2360 30th Street, 3001 Spruce Street, 3101 Spruce Street and 2261 Junction Place. The subdivision includes a 0.57-acre property for use as a city-owned pocket park serving the area. The call up period expires on September 10, 2019. None of the items were called up. 5. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS A. AGENDA ITEM: Public hearing and consideration of the following requests related to a 6.3-acre property at 4475 Broadway(Ponderosa Mobile Home Park): 1. Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan(BVCP)land use map designation change from Manufactured Housing and Open Space,Other to Medium Density Residential (#LUR2019-00014); 2. Recommendation on an application for Annexation of the property with an initial zoning of Residential Medium—2 (RM-2)(#LUR2019-00016); and 3. Site Review for the phased installation of utility and transportation infrastructure and construction of 12 new residential units along the western edge of the property(currently vacant). The site review would allow existing mobile homes to remain but would permit the replacement of mobile homes with fixed foundation homes. The long-term concept(10+years)includes 73 permanently affordable residential units on fixed foundations.New homes are proposed as primarily single-family and duplex homes,with some carriage houses,triplexes, fourplexes, and townhomes(#LUR2019-00015). B. Bowen recused himself Staff Presentation: C. Ferro introduced the item. S. Walbert presented the item to the board. Board Questions: S. Walbert answered questions from the board. Applicant Presentation: Danica Powell,with Trestle Strategy Group, and K. Firnhaber,presented the item to the board. Board Questions: Danica Powell and K. Firnhaber, representing the applicant, answered questions from the board. Public Hearing: 1) Ed Zick spoke in opposition to the proposed Cherry Avenue access point. He said it would be too dangerous due to the presence of children. He stated that he is against closing the Broadway access. He asked the city to not build detention ponds in the location of existing homes, which would cause his sister Karen Cambell to relocate. He said that the development is currently unsubsidized affordable housing and that he would not be able to afford a Habitat for Humanity home. 2) Thomas Pickett thanked the board for working with the community and for allowing the existing residents to stay. He expressed appreciation for the public process. 3) Charissa Poteet (pooling time with Karen Cambell) spoke in opposition of the project. She stated that the proposal results in gentrification and displacement. She expressed concern that the owners of existing mobile homes would not get the proper evaluation for their homes. She requested a buffer from the Rosewood neighborhood and stated that the proposal for eleven homes on the west side of the park would be too excessive. She handed out a petition signed by neighbors in opposition to the annexation. She stated that she could not afford a Habitat home. 4) Michael Gluck spoke in opposition to the project. He said that since few residents could qualify for the Habitat for Humanity homes, the proposal should have been shelved and deemed unworkable and concentrate on improving the quality of life for the existing homeowners. He said the west side of the property should be landscaped with trees to create a buffer zone between the park and the Rosewood neighborhood. He stated that traffic would be an issue. 5) Kathy Schlereth spoke in opposition to the project. She claimed that the original plan with resident support was for exclusively detached single-family homes and that she does not support the new plan for a variety of housing types. People can't qualify for new homes and are leaving the park. The closing of the Broadway entrance would create a bottleneck for the Foothills Community at Violet and Broadway. She questioned if whether their homes would increase in value once the park was annexed into the city. 6) Bernarda Ramirez (Victor Manuel Lemos Vargas spoke for her) spoke in support of the project and the public process. She wanted to thank everyone for participating in the project. 7) Carlos Valdez spoke in support of the project. He asked all that are participating in the project to provide support to the Latino community living in Ponderosa. The project will be a positive change. 8) Victor Manuel Lemos Vargas (pooling time with Jose Contreras) spoke in support of the project. He is one of the designated resident leaders and families are very positive regarding the project. He asks City Council and other governing bodies to assist the existing residents in being able to purchase the new homes being offered. He asks that the city not give priority to people that are not a part of the Ponderosa community until they explore all possibilities for all existing Ponderosa members to purchase homes inside the community. The Latino families are not against the city project but he would like to keep the residents well-informed throughout the project since misinformation has caused people to leave the park. The city and the rest of the team have done a great job so far. 9) Estebah Alohso spoke in support of the project. He asked that he be allowed to stay in the community and in the home they love. 10)Tina Boguhn stated that she was relieved to find out that pre-existing homes could remain in the park and the terms are written into the annexation. She appreciates the hard work that has been done but thinks additional scrutiny should be given to the proposal. She mentioned that some homes are pre-HUD, therefore they are not up to code and could be an issue when trying to get a permit for future work. She asked that this be looked at and reviewed. In addition, she is opposed to any detention ponds that displace residents and asked that this part of the proposal be reviewed. 11)Susan Lythgoe, Executive Director for Flatirons Habitat of Humanity, spoke in support of the project. She has been impressed by the city and the inclusive public process. She explained the application process for a new home on the property through Habitat for Humanity. All residents Habitat has talked to would qualify for a fixed foundation home, with the exception. The one exception was an undocumented resident and they have come up with a solution to allow that resident to remain in a rental unit. Habitat is committed to the project. Board Comments: Key Issue#1: Does the project, on balance, meet the relevant goals and policies of the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan? • All board members agreed the project meets the relevant goals and policies of the BVCP. • L. Montoya stated that the project is a prime opportunity to show our values for maintaining diversity in the city and to serve the most vulnerable, who are well-served by spirit the BVCP. • S. Silver asked questions of staff and expressed concerns about maintaining housing affordability, especially for older residents. • J. Gerstle asked staff about the estimated costs for residents who stay in the park and whether building permits would be necessary for existing mobile homes. Key Issues#2: Is the proposed annexation consistent with State statutes and BVCP policies, including BVCP Policy 1.16, Annexation? • All board members agreed the proposed annexation would be consistent with the state statues and BVCP policies. • D. Ensign appreciated the residents that came and spoke to the board. He reminded the residents that the city is doing the best they can to meets the needs of the residents. The property has to annex based on the failing utilities. • H. Zuckerman stated that the property meets the definition of a county enclave and should be aggressively pursued for annexation. He is in full support. Key Issue#3: Does the proposed change to the BVCP land use map to Medium Density Residential(MR) meet the applicable criteria? • J. Gerstle said the request satisfies the criteria but the request was processed without the input of the Open Space Board. This process should be changed for lands designated OS-0 in the future. He said any change regarding an OS-0 designation should be done by the Open Space Board. • S. Silver agreed with J. Gerstle because we should be protecting the wetlands and no structures should be located in the wetland buffers. The request was not approved by the appropriate board. • H. Zuckerman stated that he felt the review process was adequate. The OS-0 designation has a history of being placed in odd areas. It would be a waste of the Open Space Board's time given there is no value or park placed at this location. He concurs with the staff s analysis in the memo. • All board members agreed that the proposed change to the BVCP land use map to MR meets applicable criteria. In addition, the board agreed that this project would not have significant cross jurisdictional impacts that may affect residents properties outside the city; would not materially affect the land use and growth projections that were the basis of the BVCP; does not affect the urban facilities in the area; does not affect the CIP program; and does not affect Area II or Area III boundaries of the BVCP. Key Issue#4: Is the proposed zoning of RM-2 appropriate for the site considering the context of the surrounding area? • L. Montoya expressed concerns about the recommended zoning and if the housing choices included were appropriate. • D. Ensign stated the RM-2 zoning would be acceptable. At Concept Plan Review the Planning Board directed the applicant and city staff to choose the RM zone that best meet the needs of the project. The proposed zoning meets this directive. • S. Silver said the proposed design was lovely and would fit with the surrounding neighborhoods. • H. Zuckerman said that he RM-2 zone would be a flexible district that allows the project to meet the stated policies and goals for the property, including a diversity of housing types. Key Issue#5: Is the project consistent with the North Boulder Subcommunity Plan (NBSP)? • J. Gerstle said that, in general, the project would be consistent with the NBSP; however he pointed out that the NBSP did not envision the flood issues and access constraints that affect this project. Key Issue#6: Does the project meet the applicable Site Review criteria in Section 9-2-14(h), B.R.C. 1981? • S. Silver expressed concern with the reduced setbacks on the western property line. She said that allowing fewer trees than is required is a concern as well. She suggested increasing the amount of foliage that is not lawn, in lieu of the loss of tree coverage. • J. Gerstle had concerns regarding amount of proposed parking. He said he did not see the need for the excess parking and stated that this project should be treated like any other coming before the board. He suggested unbundling the parking and charging for the spaces. • D. Ensign disagreed and said that the residents in this neighborhood are more car-dependent than the average resident in Boulder. He was impressed by how the proposal addressed the resident's needs. • S. Silver mentioned that this situation points to inconsistencies surrounding the how much parking is necessary for projects within the city. This project should bring into focus how this issue is discussed moving forward. S. Silver asked staff whether there was interest in the types of homes on the western edge and voiced concerns about resident support for the housing types. • L. Montoya stated that families in the community often work service jobs and are dependent on their cars to make a living. She had concerns regarding the closure of the Broadway entrance and the safety of the children. • D. Ensign said,regarding the Broadway access, that city code states that access be from the lowest category street even though it is less convenient for the residents. The information provided by staff has helped him to accept the closure of the access. He suggested a pedestrian overpass over Cherry Street to the Waldorf School. Regarding parking, he stated that there are multi-generational families in the community and the parking provided was an appropriate compromise. • H. Zuckerman said, regarding the setbacks along the western side of the project, the existing condition is a small alleyway. This could be argued is a classic hardship. He supports the limited setbacks as they are a part of the Site Review criteria. He had no issue with the trees. He said the design of the project seems to meet the Site Review criteria. Regarding parking, he said, due to the narrow streets and lack of on-street parking, the number of spaces does not seem excessive and the count itself is deceptive. Motions: On a motion by S. Silver seconded by L. Montoya the Planning Board voted 6-0 (B. Bowen recused) to approve case no. LUR2019-00014, a Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan(BVCP) land use map designation change for the property at 4475 Broadway from Manufactured Housing and Open Space, Other to Medium Density Residential. On a motion by L. Montoya seconded by S. Silver the Planning Board voted 6-0 (B. Bowen recused) to recommend to City Council approval of the proposed annexation with initial zoning of Residential- Medium 2 (RL-2) for 4475 Broadway pertaining to case number LUR2019-00016, incorporating,this staff memorandum as findings of fact, subject to the recommended conditions of approval for the annexation as provided for in the memorandum of understanding in Attachment C. On a motion by P. Vitale seconded by D. Ensign the Planning Board voted 6-0 (B. Bowen recused) to Uprove Site Review case no. LUR2019-00015 incorporating the staff memorandum and the attached Site Review Criteria Checklist as findings of fact, and subject to the conditions of approval recommended in the staff memorandum. • J. Gerstle stated that he would like to approve the project but he has concerns regarding the proposed parking. He said it is easy to give additional spaces and difficult to take them away. This proposal would not be consistent with other efforts within the city. • H. Zuckerman agreed; however, this project is different from others in the city because other policies are involved, and the residents already live in the community. 6. MATTERS FROM THE PLANNING BOARD, PLANNING DIRECTOR,AND CITY ATTORNEY 7. DEBRIEF MEETING/CALENDAR CHECK 8. ADJOURNMENT The PI ing Board adjourned the meeting at 9:33 p.m. APP O ED BY Board air DATE