Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 2 05.28.2020 PB Summary minutes CITY OF BOULDER PLANNING BOARD ACTION MINUTES May 28, 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 Jean Gatza, Senior Planner Jim Robertson, Comprehensive Planning Manager Jay Sugnet, Senior Housing Planner Abby Shannon, Boulder County Alberto De Los Rios, Boulder County 1. CALL TO ORDER Chair, H. Zuckerman, declared a quorum at 6:17 p.m. and the following business was conducted. 2. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION a) Lynn Segal b) Steve Pagnotta 3. DISCUSSION OF DISPOSITIONS, PLANNING BOARD CALL-UPS / CONTINUATIONS A. CALL-UP ITEM: Final Plat to subdivide a 1.29-acre parcel located at 2140 Tamarack Ave. into two lots suitable for residential development (Rowan Nico Subdivision) (case no. LUR2018- 00042). A duplex and garage on the property have been demolished. This approval is subject to potential call-up on or before June 2, 2020. This item was not called up. 05.28.2020 PB Draft Minutes Page 1 of 7 4. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS A. 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. Board members were asked to reveal any ex-parte contacts they may have had on this item. • None of the board members had any ex-parte contacts to reveal. Staff Presentation: J. Gatza presented the item to the board. Board Questions: J. Gatza answered questions from the board. Applicant Presentation: The following applicants presented their items to the board: • Request #1 (Boulder East Ridge Neighborhood): Daniel Ong, Applicant • Request #2 (1590 Hillside Road): James Trewitt, Applicant • Request #3 (750 North Street / MXR / Pilot): Danica Powel, Representative for group, and David Adamson, Applicant • Request #4 (TVAP Phase 2 Area): Danica Powell, Representative for property owners • Request #5 (47th Street): Danny Abboud, Applicant and Property Owner • Request #7 (1345 S Broadway): Timmy Duggan, Applicant and Representative for Mt. Hope Lutheran Church and Ian Swallow, BHP Representative • Request #8 (Land Use Review): Donna George, Applicant • Requests #10-12 (Twin Lakes 3 applications): Dave Rechberger, with Twin Lakes Action Group and Applicant • Staff Initiated Amendments (BHP / Staff-initiated Land Use Change – Odell Drive): Jay Sugnet, Planning Staff, and Laura Sheinbaum, BHP, and Bill Holicky, Representative Board Questions: Laura Sheinbaum, Bill Holicky, Danica Powell, Dave Rechberger and Ian Swallow answered questions from the board. Public Hearing: 1) Jesus Bendezu spoke in support of Request #3. 2) Hal Hallstein spoke in support of Request #10-12. 3) David Rechberger spoke in support of Request #10-12. 4) Carmen Barron spoke in support of Request #10-12. 5) David Vollmar spoke in support of Request #3. 6) Jessica Hartung spoke in support of Request #10-12. 7) Kit Fuller spoke in support of Request #10-12. 8) Paige Dowdy spoke in support of Request #10-12. 9) Jeff Kagan spoke in support of Request #10-12. 10) Steve Pagnotta spoke in support of Request #10-12. 05.28.2020 PB Draft Minutes Page 2 of 7 11) Diana McKay spoke in support of Request #12. 12) Susan Lambert spoke in support of Request #10-12. 13) Rolph Munson spoke in support of Request #10-12. 14) Kristine Aldretti spoke in support of Request #10-12. 15) Ken Vitale spoke in support of Request #10-12. 16) Marina LaGrave spoke in support of finding a middle ground for people of color to live and work in the Gunbarrel area. 17) Patrick Madden spoke in support of Request #10-12. 18) Donna George spoke in support of Request #10-12. 19) Eli Calin spoke in support of not developing in Twin Lakes. 20) Randall Clarke spoke in support of Request #10-12. 21) Robert Ridosi spoke in support of Request #1. 22) Joel Lenorivitz spoke in opposition to Request #7. 23) Claudia Hanson-Thiem spoke in support of Request #4. 24) Lisa White spoke in support of Request #4. 25) Mike Smith spoke in support of Request #10-12. 26) Rhona Unsell spoke in support of Request #10-12. 27) Suzanne Smith spoke in support of Request #10-12. 28) Chris Goodman spoke in support of Request #10-12. 29) Gwyneth Aten spoke in support of Request #10-12. 30) Lynn Segal spoke in support of a full moratorium on development. 31) Rob O’Dea spoke in support of Request #10-12 or to consider an area plan. 32) Brian Lay spoke in support of Request #10-12. 33) Steve Whitehead spoke in support of Request #10-12. 34) Kristin Bjornsen spoke in support of Request #10-12. Board Comments: Key Issue #1: Should Requests #2, #5, and #7 move forward and considered for further analysis? • All Board members were in support. Key Issue #2: Request #1 – East Ridge Neighborhood, not recommended for further consideration. • All Board members were in support. Key Issue #3: Request #3 – 750 North St/ MXR Pilot, not recommended for further consideration. • D. Ensign said that Requests #1 and #3 go together and he would support staff’s recommendations to not make the changes at this time. Both requests have highlighted the fact that there is an unfulfilled promise within the BVCP that a community infill planning project would be commenced. A neighborhood infill project would be a good workplan item. He would like to ask City Council to review that idea. • L. Smith agreed. She would be in favor of a well-run public engagement process to move forward on a pilot projects around neighborhood infill or smaller duplexes. • S. Silver had concerns with Request #3 as it could be a policy change and would impact an entire zone across the city. She suggested that it could be a pilot project but not as a policy change because it would be too controversial. We do not have the resources for that, and it would be not in line with the criteria. 05.28.2020 PB Draft Minutes Page 3 of 7 • J. Gerstle agreed with S. Silver. • H. Zuckerman said the language proposed would be more of a land use text amendment and not a map amendment. He said it would be a worthy idea for City Council to consider and add to their workplan. He suggested adding language to the Planning Board’s motion. • D. Ensign said the language proposed in the request would not be specific enough for a pilot project and it could create a conflict. Key Issue #4: Request #4 – TVAP Phase 2, not recommended for further consideration. • P. Vitale said, due to lack of resources, this is not moving forward. TVAP has a lot of work ahead of them in transforming this large parcel which could be of great value to Boulder. He suggested that the city be ahead of the plan. It is time for creative solutions. It would not be wise for the city to not work on this area and with the applicant. He said the developer has the vision and resources to begin work and the city should allow them to get started. • L. Smith encouraged talking to City Council as it is an important parcel and has impacts on a lot of people. • S. Silver disagreed. She had concerns that the landowner would move forward when city staff does not have the resources. This would be a large potential project. There is still learning to be had from TVAP Phase 1 and we still need public feedback. She would not be in support of putting this request on the list of things to move forward. • L. Smith clarified that she would not recommend moving forward but to have public outreach ready. • D. Ensign questioned if it would be possible to get all the parties involved lined up within the mid-term update timeframe as well as what risks might be involved with the constituents that were missed. In addition, he questioned if progress can still proceed or will it need to wait until the next major update. • H. Zuckerman said, that in his opinion, it would be difficult to get a map change on the agenda. • L. Montoya verified that TVAP Phase 2A is on the workplan. • J. Gerstle would support staff’s recommendation. Key Issue #5: Requests #5 – 47th Street, recommended to move forward and considered for further analysis. • H. Zuckerman said that there could be a better mix of uses than just business at this location. He suggested that as this item be recommended to forward to City Council, it may be a good idea within the motion to expand on the uses that are available. • All Board members were in support. Key Issue #6: Request #6 – 2880 Diagonal, not recommended for further consideration. • All Board members were in support. • D. Ensign said that he was frustrated with seeing lots of buildings in that area that are empty and have been for a while. However, he will support the recommendation. • S. Silver said that the BC1 and BC2, keys to the fifteen-minute neighborhoods, it would be unfortunate to interrupt the potential for this parcel. Therefore, this would be a valid reason to accept staff’s proposal. 05.28.2020 PB Draft Minutes Page 4 of 7 Key Issue #7: Request #7 – S. Broadway, recommended to move forward and considered for further analysis. • H. Zuckerman said the uses were discussed to be expanded beyond residential for this area to some mixed-use. This could be recommended within the motion. • D. Ensign said the applicant did express concern regarding the complexity and the cost if mixed- use were introduced. He said that he might be inclined to push back if that were proposed. • L. Smith agreed however she said that having one hundred percent housing on that parcel is wrong and creates a lost opportunity. • J. Gerstle agreed with L. Smith. He said that multi-use would be nice, but he would not insist on it. • L. Montoya said this would be an opportunity to show younger groups that we care, and it would make a statement to develop something that is more than residential. • H. Zuckerman added that it is a transit rich location and there is existing residential. He would suggest exploring land use flexibility. • L. Smith said she sees this parcel as a gateway area into the city and that is why having only residential in that area feels wrong. Key Issue #8: Request #8 – Review of Public, Park, Open Space Designations, not recommended for further consideration. • All Board members were in support. Key Issue #9: Request #9 – Meadow Dr., not recommended for further consideration. • All Board members were in support. Key Issue #10: Requests #10-12 – Twin Lakes, not recommended for further consideration. • S. Silver said, based on the narrow criteria, agreed with staff that this request does not qualify for the mid-term consideration. She would like a discussion to continue and move forward between all the parties. • J. Gerstle agreed. This in located within the county as are the residents. He said the lack of voice from the county on this matter was surprising and he felt the county should be involved. • H. Zuckerman said that several county staff members are in attendance at this meeting and that the county did provide its comment, which is specifically that it is not interested in entertaining this matter at this time at a county hearing. • A. Shannon, Boulder County staff, confirmed that the county agrees with the staff recommendation not to consider these changes further in this update. • L. Montoya said it would be good for the residents from the city and county to come together. It is becoming apparent that there are needs within Gunbarrel and we need to listen to their concerns and aspirations. • S. Silver suggested encouraging City Council to prioritize area planning for Gunbarrel. • D. Ensign agreed with S. Silver. • H. Zuckerman would be comfortable voting with staff’s recommendation. He had concerns with S. Silver’s idea regarding an area plan. He recommended focusing on a plan for all Gunbarrel, not just this specific area. • S. Silver agreed. She said there concerns that TLAG has concerns with the future, and an area plan or work plan could help address those. 05.28.2020 PB Draft Minutes Page 5 of 7 • H. Zuckerman stated there has been no interest in down-zoning the area. • D. Ensign said any area plan should avoid being about this one issue. Key Issue #11: Text Amendments and Policy Direction • All Board members were in support. Key Issue #12: Request #14, Staff Initiated Amendments • S. Silver had concerns regarding the process BHP used and if there was adequate public notice. • J. Gerstle said he had concerns regarding preserving light industrial areas, however he is comfortable moving forward with the recommendation. • H. Zuckerman said that any land use map change must consider the Comp Plan policies and goals. • H. Zuckerman summarized the discussion. There was some interest in what staff recommended, regarding Requests #1 and #3, that they be considered as part of the workplan. The board agreed with staff in forwarding Request #2. Regarding Request #4, the board would like to move that up on the workplan. The board agreed to forward Request #5 with additional consideration of mixed-uses beyond just business. Request #6 had some concern surrounding the Diagonal Plaza but there was no interest in forwarding. The board agreed with staff to forward Request #7 with the additional consideration of uses beyond residential. Request #8 and #9, no interest in forwarding for further analysis. Requests #10-#12, the board is not interested in forwarding for further review, however they would like to indicate to the City Council the importance of area planning of Gunbarrel as a neighborhood. And finally, Regarding the list of staff-initiated changes, the board was in favor of those moving forward in the process. • S. Silver said she was not in support of moving Request #4 (the TVAP proposal) up on the workplan. She would be in favor of Request #3 as being placed on the workplan as a pilot project. Motion: On a motion by D. Ensign, seconded by S. Silver, the Planning Board voted 7-0 to further consider and analyze the following land use map amendments proposed by members of the public for Area I properties: • 1590 Hillside Road and adjacent properties – (request #2) • 3015-3055 47th Street (request #5) and consider a designation that would allow expansion of uses beyond existing • 1345 S. Broadway (request #7) and consider the opportunity for mixed use given the parcel’s proximity to public schools and gateway to South Boulder On a motion by D. Ensign, seconded by H. Zuckerman, the Planning Board voted 7-0 to conduct further analysis of the amendments outlined by staff in this memo that reflect recent adopted policy direction and including the Gunbarrel Odell Place proposal for affordable housing. On a motion by D. Ensign, seconded by H. Zuckerman, the Planning Board voted 7-0 to recommend that City Council prioritize the following work items on the City Planning Department work plan: 1) Implement a Neighborhood Infill Pilot Project as outlined in the 2015 Major Update to the BVCP as a near-term project, 05.28.2020 PB Draft Minutes Page 6 of 7 2) Prioritize TVAP Phase 2, 3) Prioritize Gunbarrel Subcommunity Planning, 4) Prioritize Diagonal Plaza Area Planning. 5. MATTERS FROM THE PLANNING BOARD, PLANNING DIRECTOR, AND CITY ATTORNEY A. Selection of Ex-Officios and Liaisons • The board scheduled this for the next Planning Board meeting on June 4, 2020. 6. DEBRIEF MEETING/CALENDAR CHECK 7. ADJOURNMENT The Planning Board adjourned the meeting at 11:53 p.m. APPROVED BY ___________________ Board Chair ___________________ DATE 05.28.2020 PB Draft Minutes Page 7 of 7