Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 2 05.07.2020 PB Summary minutes CITY OF BOULDER PLANNING BOARD ACTION MINUTES May 7, 2020 VIRTUAL MEETING 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 Lisa Smith Peter Vitale Harmon Zuckerman PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: N/A STAFF PRESENT: Charles Ferro, Development Review Manager Hella Pannewig, Assistant City Attorney Cindy Spence, Administrative Specialist III Sloane Walbert, Senior Planner Phil Kleisler, Senior Planner Elaine McLaughlin, Senior Planner Shannon Moeller, Planner II – Code Amendment Specialist Karl Guiler, Senior Planner – Code Amendment Specialist Sarah Huntley, Engagement Manager Jim Robertson, Comprehensive Planning Manager Jim Taddeucci, Director of Utilities 1. CALL TO ORDER Vice Chair, H. Zuckerman, declared a quorum at 6:00 p.m. and the following business was conducted. A. Swearing in of New Planning Board Member – Lisa Smith • H. Pannewig swore in L. Smith as the new member to the Planning Board. B. Board Votes on Chair/Vice Chair • H. Zuckerman was nominated by J. Gerstle, seconded by S. Silver, for Chair. Passed unanimously. • D. Ensign was nominated by S. Silver, seconded by L. Montoya for Vice Chair. Passed unanimously. C. Consideration of Quasi-Judicial Hearing Electronic Participation Rule 05.07.2020 PB Draft Minutes Page 1 of 6 On a motion by S. Silver, seconded by L. Smith, the Planning Board voted 7-0 to adopt the Rule proposed for Special Meeting Procedures for Planning Board Hearings. D. Consideration of Rules of Decorum for Virtual Meeting On a motion by D. Ensign, seconded by H. Zuckerman, the Planning Board voted 7-0 to adopt the Rules of Decorum for Virtual Planning Board Meetings. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES On a motion by H. Zuckerman and seconded by S. Silver the Planning Board voted 7-0 to approve the February 27, 2020 minutes as amended. 3. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION a) Lynn Segal b) Peter Mayor, speaking on behalf of Plan Boulder c) Francis Draper d) Ben Binder e) Kathy Joyner f) Margaret LeCompe, representing Save South Boulder 4. DISCUSSION OF DISPOSITIONS, PLANNING BOARD CALL-UPS / CONTINUATIONS A. CALL-UP ITEM: Locust Park Replat A (LUR2019-00052): Minor Subdivision for a two-lot subdivision of the 14,727 square foot property located at 845 Union Avenue. Following subdivision, Lot 1 (west) will be 7,364 square feet and Lot 2 (east) will be 7,363 square feet. The existing residence and accessory structures have been demolished. The call-up period expires on May 15, 2020. B. CALL UP ITEM: Academy of Mapleton Hill Final Plat (TEC2019-00038): Final Plat to combine Parcel A and Parcel B located at 311 Mapleton Avenue and 2505 4th Street respectively, resulting in one 687,122 sf parcel consistent with Site Review approval LUR2016-00065. Plat includes dedication of public utility easements. The call up period expires on May 11, 2020. C. CALL UP ITEM: The Boulder Karate Use Review (LUR2020-00016): Use Review for a proposed Karate Studio located at 4735 Walnut Street in the Industrial - General (IG) zoning district. Indoor Recreational or Athletic Facility uses require a Use Review in the IG zoning district. The call-up period expires on May 14, 2020. None of the items were called up. 5. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS A. AGENDA TITLE: Public hearing and consideration of a Use Review for the expansion of an existing daycare use (“Children's Alley”) at 2222 14th Street within the Residential - Mixed 1 (RMX-1) district. The proposal is to convert office space into two additional classrooms and larger kitchen. The hours of operation will remain the same, but the number of employees and children will increase to a maximum of 23 employees and 49 children. Case no. LUR2020- 00017. 05.07.2020 PB Draft Minutes Page 2 of 6 S. Silver recused herself from this item. Board members were asked to reveal any ex-parte contacts they may have had on this item. • J. Gerstle and H. Zuckerman stated their children had attended programs at the YWCA. D. Ensign said that he had attended conferences held at that location. L. Montoya said that she does attend mass across the street from this location every week. All members said that they could be completely objective on this matter. Staff Presentation: S. Walbert presented the item to the board. Board Questions: S. Walbert answered questions from the board. Applicant Presentation: Debbie Pope, with YWCA Boulder County, and Nancy Rowe, with the Board of Directors for YWCA Boulder County, presented the item to the board. Board Questions: Debbie Pope and Nancy Rowe, representing the applicants, answered questions from the board. Public Hearing: 1) Lynn Segal spoke in opposition to the project. She questioned how social distancing could be done and said this project is not an essential service. 2) Lisa Lesniak, speaking as a board member of the YWCA, spoke in support of the project. She said the mission would be to support women, children and families during the upcoming economic struggles and this would provide affordable childcare for Boulder County. 3) Nan Joesten, speaking as a board member of the YWCA, spoke in support of the project. She said the additional and affordable childcare is needed within the community. Applicant Rebuttal: Debbie Pope stated that this proposal is urgent and needed. While they will be reopening, they are managing through the challenges of social distancing and will create a safe and healthy environment for the young children, the families and teachers. She argued that this is an essential service. Board Comments: Key Issue #1: Does this item meet the Use Review criteria 9.2.15 of the B.R.C.? • H. Zuckerman asked the board if the proposal has met the Use Review criteria. All board members agreed they have been met. Motion: On a motion by J. Gerstle, seconded by L. Smith, the Planning Board voted 6-0 (S. Silver recused) to approve Land Use Review no. LUR2020-00017 incorporating the staff memorandum as findings of fact and subject to the recommended conditions of approval. • D. Ensign stated the expansion would be a great asset to downtown Boulder. 05.07.2020 PB Draft Minutes Page 3 of 6 • L. Montoya asked the applicant to take the necessary time to do the correct amount of social distancing and to ask for support if needed. 6. MATTERS FROM THE PLANNING BOARD, PLANNING DIRECTOR, AND CITY ATTORNEY A. AGENDA TITLE: Update and board input for the CU South project Staff Presentation: P. Kleisler presented the item to the board. Board Questions: P. Kleisler and J. Taddeucci answered questions from the board. Board Comments: Key Issue #1: Does the board have input that it would like to provide to inform City Council’s upcoming deliberation on the South Boulder Creek flood mitigation project, particularly around issues that will impact future annexation agreement terms? • J. Gerstle stated the proposal to change the flood criteria would be a mistake. The benefits of the various options have not been presented or considered. The decision regarding which level of flood protection is appropriate should be dealt with before moving ahead on other issues. He said it would be important to consider a higher level of flood protection such as a 500-year level. It has been addressed in other boards and it is a key issue to be considered. • L. Smith said the city looks to FEMA to do the work in the formal flood plain areas. She suggested to keep looking into what we think could happen in that area, particularly to health, safety and welfare of the community. The city should look at the economic impacts or liability issues that might endanger people. • P. Vitale questioned if this would be a negotiation designed to fail. He noticed that housing had not been mentioned in this discussion and wanted to know what it will be done to relieve housing the demand. • D. Ensign said, that in 2018, the Planning Board did not feel they had the Guiding Principles in place to decide. The board attempted to give City Council enough flexibility to move in a direction. Now, WRAB and City Council appear to be leaning toward Option #1. Planning Board at this junction should give City Council enough leeway to make the right decision based on their interest as the Planning Board. He said the time is right to start to narrow down the focus of this effort so progress can be made on things that the board really does care about such as the outcome of the annexation agreement. He argued that Planning Board should get out of the way as much as possible unless there is a Guiding Principle that needs to be examined. • H. Zuckerman agreed with D. Ensign. He advised to City Council, that in this time of budgetary crisis, providing the absolute maximum flood protection scenario at any cost does not sound like the fiscally responsible thing to do. In addition, taking an excessive amount of time to do it, would not be responsible to the safety of the public. He would be comfortable with leaving it to the experts and having the Planning Board weigh in more on the topic of the annexation agreement. • S. Silver stated the City should separate the costs related to flood mitigation from the costs related to CU's development desires for the site - such as dirt fill, new roads, etc. The City should 05.07.2020 PB Draft Minutes Page 4 of 6 only agree to pay for the costs associated with flood mitigation related to already developed areas. • P. Vitale seconded D. Ensign’s earlier comments. • L. Montoya said she felt less comfortable being a part of the conversation as she is affiliated with the university therefore, she recused herself from the discussion. Key Issue #2: Does the Planning Board agree with initial annexation concepts? • D. Ensign said there are lots of details left to be flushed out. He agreed with the height limit and should be in the agreement. The use profiles and obtaining CU’s different usages per square foot would be good to have. He mentioned that CU may have better design guidelines in terms of look and feel of buildings. It may be beneficial to work with CU and use their guidelines. Transportation and circulation will be important. He said he would not like the idea of too many connectors. He would not like to see cut-thru traffic. He would like to see only bike traffic. • J. Gerstle said, regarding conditions of annexation, he would add the payment in lieu of taxes. He said the reason for annexation would be for Boulder to obtain something it really wants and needs and that would not happen with a 100-year flood level of protection. The city should consider a phased approach with commitments to CU with the ability to participate in decisions in the designs and plans for buildings as CU determines what it wishes to do. • L. Smith agreed with not delaying the project and the need for flood mitigation. She was not more in favor of 100-year vs. 500-year flood protection, but just that the city is doing a good job. She added that City Council should be thoughtful of what is and is not in the annexation agreement with the absence of a site plan. • P. Vitale agreed with previous comments. Safety cannot be held hostage for this process. He agreed with a phased approach. CU could do something with cutting-edge technology. • S. Silver said she would like to look at previous and other annex agreements within the city. She agreed regarding the transportation issues. She thought the 2018 Guiding Principles were thoughtful and we should continue to be building on those especially the transportation elements and not impacting the neighborhoods. There were three different areas she used to drive her review which were the guidelines, cost and potential eventuality. In terms of the guidelines, the annexation agreement must be clear on how much housing will be built. Open Space Other (OSO) must be restored and protected and not made available for additional development. Without a site design or site design process, there should not be an annexation. Costs associated with annexation needs to be clear who is paying for what. The city should not on be on the hook for runaway costs and perhaps a cap should be placed on what the city will pay. She suggested examining a bond for the costs and bonding capacity. And regarding any potential eventualities, if CU sells land after entitlement, explore what the implications might be. If CU sells the land, the new owner must go through the City's site review process. • H. Zuckerman said the key would be to go back to the Guiding Principles and embody each of them in the contractual annexation agreement. • D. Ensign agreed with H. Zuckerman regarding the Guiding Principles. He agreed with S. Silver regarding the OSO and the fill. In addition, he would like to see the existing levy be removed and used as fill. He agreed with L. Smith regarding her comments on safety. • J. Gerstle added that while he would not be living in this neighborhood, he would be willing to pay for the protection and he did not feel there would be adequate protection accomplished under the 100-year flood criteria. 05.07.2020 PB Draft Minutes Page 5 of 6 B. AGENDA TITLE: Board discussion regarding “Gender Communications Training” Board Comments: • The board discussed what they would like this training to encompass. They decided they would like to have the following:  To have at their annual retreat and feature for an hour and a half  General discussion regarding gender dynamics and communication style  Interaction and day to day meeting realities  Focus on what the challenges are in any interaction  Not so much the history but actual day to day interactions  How to communicate better and when things go bad how to resolve them  Dr. Carolyn Love could facilitate and get her background to the board members  Some members feel this has been a long-standing problem  The training does not need to be too long or too historical about gender  The training should not personally attack people. Should not be a defensive space  Should offer simple action items.  Practical tools, things to watch for or think about that causes others to dominate. C. AGENDA TITLE: Board discussion regarding public hearing on CU South Board Comments: • J. Gerstle proposed the board have a public hearing regarding CU South before the City Council meeting on June 16, 2020. He was concerned there would be no formal public hearing regarding the selection of a flood mitigation concept. 7. DEBRIEF MEETING/CALENDAR CHECK 8. ADJOURNMENT The Planning Board adjourned the meeting at 11:15 p.m. APPROVED BY ___________________ Board Chair ___________________ DATE 05.07.2020 PB Draft Minutes Page 6 of 6