Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 2 05.21.2020 PB Summary minutes CITY OF BOULDER PLANNING BOARD ACTION MINUTES May 21, 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, Chair 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 Jean Gatza, Senior Planner Kurt Firnhaber, Director of Housing and Human Services Jay Sugnet, Senior Housing Planner Val Matheson, Senior Urban Wildlife Coordinator 1. CALL TO ORDER Chair, H. Zuckerman, declared a quorum at 6:12 p.m. and the following business was conducted. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES None to Approve 3. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION a) Lynn Segal b) Yuanfang Gao c) Michael Day d) Adam Lee e) Steve Pagnotta f) Rose Goodman 05.21.2020 PB Draft Minutes Page 1 of 6 4. DISCUSSION OF DISPOSITIONS, PLANNING BOARD CALL-UPS / CONTINUATIONS A. CALL-UP ITEM: Final Plat to subdivide an existing 39,501-square foot lot located at 2005 Upland Ave. into three lots suitable for residential development (2005 Upland Avenue Subdivision) (case no. TEC2018-00030). The existing home is proposed to remain on Lot 1. This approval is subject to potential call-up on or before May 26, 2020. Preliminary Plat was approved through case no. LUR2018-00042. This item was not called up. 5. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS A. AGENDA TITLE: CONCEPT PLAN REVIEW AND COMMENT: Request for citizen, staff, and Planning Board input on a proposal to develop three vacant lots at 4775 and 4649 Spine Road totaling 9.8 acres with a new residential development with 268 residential units in ten buildings. The development is proposed to include 25 percent permanently affordable housing (68 units) on the southernmost lot. Proposed residential units consist of studio, one-bedroom, two-bedroom, and three-bedroom apartments. Case number LUR2020-00003. Board members were asked to reveal any ex-parte contacts they may have had on this item. • J. Gerstle stated that he had been to this location many times and spoke to people while there, however he could remain objective during the discussion. H. Zuckerman disclosed that he represents an applicant as its attorney on a project in another county, and Coburn represents the same applicant as its architect/planner, with Peter Weber acting as principal for Coburn. Pete Weber is presenting this matter. Because the relationship with Coburn/Weber is not a contractual, financial relationship, or involving the sharing of confidential information, he could remain objective and impartial. Staff Presentation: C. Ferro introduced the item and addressed the issue regarding the defect in the public notification and the city’s posting requirements. Board Discussion Regarding the Defect in the Public Notification: • D. Ensign said this topic had come up before and the board had voted that the impact had not significantly impacted the public in any way. He reminded the board that notification procedures should be updated to include renters as well as property owners. • S. Silver agreed with D. Ensign and would like the ordinance to be changed to have renters notified along with property owners. • H. Zuckerman agreed that renters should be notified. He offered that since often the city has their information through utility services, the city could notify through email. • L. Smith suggested notifying residents by going directly to the Post Office, drawing a geographical boundary, and asking to have a piece of mail delivered to every address in that area. She agreed that renters should be notified. • H. Zuckerman stated that it was unclear how long the original sign was up until it went missing; however, the new sign has been up for the past five (it was reinstalled on May 16, 2020). There has been no inability for public to give input on this item. 05.21.2020 PB Draft Minutes Page 2 of 6 Motion regarding the Public Notification: On a motion by D. Ensign, seconded by S. Silver, the Planning Board voted 7-0 that the notice defect does not impair the surrounding property owners’ ability to participate in the public review process. Staff Presentation: S. Walbert presented the item to the board. Board Questions: S. Walbert answered questions from the board. Applicant Presentation: Andy Allison, with Allison Management LLC, Matthew Schildt, with Trammell Crow Residential, and Peter Weber, with Coburn Development, representing the applicant, presented the item to the board. Board Questions: Peter Weber and Matthew Schildt answered questions from the board. Public Hearing: 1) Alanna Irving spoke in opposition to the project. 2) Michael Day spoke in opposition to the project. 3) Rob O’Dea spoke in opposition to the project. 4) Adam Lee spoke in opposition to the project. 5) Sherri DePauw spoke in opposition to the project. 6) Rebecca Morse spoke in support of the project. 7) Mark Ricketson spoke in opposition to the project. 8) Julie Dye spoke in opposition to the project. 9) David Dye spoke in opposition to the project. 10) Kurt Nordback spoke in support of the project. 11) Diane Inglis spoke in opposition to the project. 12) Katie Farnan spoke in support of the project. 13) Carmen Baran spoke in opposition to the project. 14) Ora Goldman spoke in opposition to the project. 15) Aaron Smolley spoke in opposition to the project. 16) Gabe Dayley spoke in opposition to the project. 17) Jessica Stern spoke in opposition to the project. 18) Debbie Richards spoke in opposition to the project. 19) Calan Anderson spoke in opposition to the project. 20) Beth Quist spoke in opposition to the project. 21) Kristine Johnson spoke in support of the project. 22) Nicki Dayley spoke in opposition to the project. 23) Eugene Wahl spoke in opposition to the project. 24) Nora Swan-Foster spoke in opposition to the project. 25) Rose Goodman spoke in opposition to the project. 26) Hilary Boslet spoke in opposition to the project. 27) Holly Sanders spoke in opposition to the project. 28) Susan Sommers spoke in opposition to the project. 29) Craig Millus spoke in opposition to the project. 30) Suzanne Smith spoke in opposition to the project. 05.21.2020 PB Draft Minutes Page 3 of 6 31) Kit Fuller spoke in opposition to the project. 32) Lynn Segal spoke in opposition to the project. 33) Victoria Harvey spoke in opposition to the project. 34) Randall Clarke spoke in opposition to the project. 35) Betsy Guams spoke in opposition to the project. 36) Monica Pagnotta spoke in opposition to the project. 37) Alexandra Pagnotta spoke in opposition to the project. 38) Donna George spoke in opposition to the project. 39) Lisa White spoke in support of the project. 40) Alyssa Soares spoke in support of the project. 41) Eileen Joseph spoke in opposition to the project. 42) Stephen Foster spoke in opposition to the project. 43) Jan Rasmussen spoke in opposition to the project. 44) Claudia Hanson-Thiem spoke in support of the project. 45) Margaret Hoeppner spoke in opposition to the project. 46) Chris Goodman spoke in opposition to the project. 47) Steven Zawaski spoke in opposition to the project. 48) Lisa Haney spoke in opposition to the project. 49) Michael Joseph spoke in opposition to the project. 50) Dorothy Donahue spoke in opposition to the project. 51) Brett Ochs spoke in opposition to the project. 52) David Rechberger spoke in opposition to the project. 53) Sarah Dawn Haynes spoke in opposition to the project. 54) Yuanfang Gao spoke in opposition to the project. 55) Steve Pagnotta spoke in opposition to the project. 56) Eli Calin spoke in opposition to the project. 57) Barry McCockener spoke in opposition to the project. 58) Devin Rourke spoke in opposition to the project. 59) Laurie Branch spoke in opposition to the project. 60) Rhona Unsell spoke in opposition to the project. 61) Eric Budd spoke in opposition to the project. 62) Angie Mashaw spoke in opposition to the project. 63) Shelia Cooper spoke in opposition to the project. 64) Susan Einberger spoke in opposition to the project. 65) Lisa Spalding questioned the city code of conduct. Board Comments: Key Issue #1: Is the proposed concept plan compatible with the goals, objectives, and recommendations of the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP)? • S. Silver said it would be essential for the applicant to resolve the internal and external open space issues before moving forward. Since there was an agreement between the community and the company, Celestial Seasonings, and the city seems to be abdicating responsibility around this agreement, it will still need to be rectified. In addition, based on 9-2-14(h)(2)(a) and 9-2- 14(h)(2)(b), the prairie dog issue is not a small issue. Nothing should move forward until the necessary research surveys have been done with how to manage and how to respond. This is an eco-system issue. 05.21.2020 PB Draft Minutes Page 4 of 6 • J. Gerstle agreed. He said it would be inappropriate to diminish light industrial areas within town as they are valuable for the city to have. The classification of this land should not change to strictly residential. He would support a split usage of residential and light industrial. • D. Ensign agreed with staff’s analysis regarding the proposed BVCP categories. He suggested reviewing the clustering of the affordable units as it raises questions surrounding segregation. He said that a more mixed-use would be more compelling. While he can understand the proposed dominant parking, he would like to see some improvements to its dominance through the use of what the applicant called “design magic”. Regarding traffic, the public comments were very useful. A transit stop along Spine Road would be beneficial for this project and existing neighborhood. Bicycle continuity need improvements. He would like to see a good master plan of the bike path. He suggested the city begin to prioritize a Gunbarrel area or subcommunity plan. The open space continuity issues need to be resolved. The prairie dogs issue needs to be looked at due to the history and importance of their habitat. • L. Smith said that surface parking feeds into the lack of open space and needs improvement. She said that connectivity improvements are needed. She said that a mixed-use development and walkable neighborhood would be more compelling. She had concerns regarding the afford units being clustered. She also had concerns around the prairie dogs and the history of the relationship with Celestial Seasonings. She would encourage spending more time on those issues. • L. Montoya said her biggest concern was that the project is trying to increase affordable housing and make this a walkable neighborhood which is a difficult job. She would like to see more mixed-use in that area. The traffic and safety would need to be clarified, including the increased or decreased number of trips in this area. • P. Vitale said that on balance, the project does meet the BVCP policies. The loss of habitat and open space, however, are real issues, and so is meeting the needs of people who need housing. It becomes a balancing act on the BVCP. He agreed with having a true mixed-income community and not a segregated community. He would like to see more environmental plans put into the project. He would like to see more permeable pavers throughout the parking. Gunbarrel needs resources and amenities which requires more rooftops and consumers. • H. Zuckerman said staff did a good job in finding the areas of the BVCP that this project meets. Regarding the prominent location, this project ought to take the opportunity to be more than just handsome, and rather to make a statement. Regarding parking and circulation, it could be handled better than a lot of surface parking in courtyards. The connection to the LoBo path will be very important. He suggested focusing on the need for a mixed land use pattern and giving the residents amenities. There is a significant need for housing especially in Gunbarrel, but just adding housing without providing existing residents with new amenities is a missed opportunity and is reflected in all of the public comment against this concept plan. • S. Silver agreed with D. Ensign regarding the developers considering a lower level of intensity and density. It is not required to max out the land. In addition, with the lack of infrastructure in Gunbarrel, each new development can be problematic. This development should not move forward until the developers bring forward something to the community. Absence of adequate transit exists in Gunbarrel and a concern. • D. Ensign suggested RTD or ECO passes for residents, EV stations, and PV wiring. • J. Gerstle said the impact on the existing neighborhood’s park is a concern as the new residents would not be adding to the maintenance. He said the impact and what the new neighborhood could contribute should be considered. The community benefit of open space should not be limited to the residents but should benefit the neighborhood in general. 05.21.2020 PB Draft Minutes Page 5 of 6 Board Summary: Since this is a Concept Review, no action is required on behalf of the Planning Board. H. Zuckerman provided a summary of the board’s discussion. They suggested looking into the intensity and the mix of uses to ensure appropriate development. They suggested the applicant consider being more neighborhood compatible and looking at more open space considerations. The applicant will need to resolve the issue of the commitment surrounding the prairie dogs. More amenities within walking distance, connectivity with Boulder and study of traffic should be done to add to the neighborhood and meet its needs. Bike connectivity to the LoBo Path. Integrate the affordable units throughout the development. Applicant Rebuttal: Andy Allison, with Allison Management LLC, commented on the Celestial Seasoning’s agreement regarding prairie dogs. B. AGENDA TITLE: Public Hearing and motion on the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP) Mid-Term Update screening process for amendments to the plan from members of the community and staff-initiated amendments to receive further consideration. Motion: On a motion by H. Zuckerman, seconded by J. Gerstle, the Planning Board voted 7-0 to continue Item 5B until the next Planning Board meeting on May 28, 2020. 6. MATTERS FROM THE PLANNING BOARD, PLANNING DIRECTOR, AND CITY ATTORNEY 7. DEBRIEF MEETING/CALENDAR CHECK 8. ADJOURNMENT The Planning Board adjourned the meeting at 11:25 p.m. APPROVED BY ___________________ Board Chair ___________________ DATE 05.21.2020 PB Draft Minutes Page 6 of 6