Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 2 06.04.2020 PB Summary minutes CITY OF BOULDER PLANNING BOARD ACTION MINUTES June 4, 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 Elaine McLaughlin, Senior Planner Andrew Collins, Planner II Kurt Firnhaber, Director of Housing and Human Services Bethany Collins, Real Estate Supervisor 1. CALL TO ORDER Chair, H. Zuckerman, declared a quorum at 6:00 p.m. and the following business was conducted. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES None to approve. 3. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION a) Lynn Segal 4. DISCUSSION OF DISPOSITIONS, PLANNING BOARD CALL-UPS / CONTINUATIONS No items to call up. 5. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS A. AGENDA TITLE: CONCEPT PLAN REVIEW CONCEPT PLAN REVIEW for an approximately 5.5-acre property at 5691 South Boulder Road in advance of a future annexation 06.04.2020 PB Draft Minutes Page 1 of 6 application. The concept is illustrated with four new single-family lots and remodeling of an existing single-family home at the east end of the site. Reviewed under case no. LUR2020- 00014. Staff Presentation: E. McLaughlin presented the item to the board. Board Questions: E. McLaughlin answered questions from the board. Applicant Presentation: Liz Hanson, a planning consultant, and Joe Kent, the owner, presented the item to the board. Board Questions: Liz Hanson, representing the applicant, answered questions from the board. Public Hearing: 1) Lynn Segal spoke in opposition to the project. 2) Steven Telleen spoke in opposition to the project as presented. 3) Joanie Cardone spoke in opposition to the project. 4) Magdalena Rzyska spoke in opposition to the project. 5) Macon Cowles spoke in support of the project. 6) Catherine Sundvall spoke in opposition to the project. Board Comments: Key Issue #1: Is the proposed Concept Plan consistent with BVCP Land Use Plan & Policies? • S. Silver felt there would be two conflicting BVCP values for this project. They are the need for affordable housing and the other would be the need to protect our natural resources. The applicant has recognized that work needs to be done regarding the wetlands, the Preble Mouse and other natural resource concerns. Regarding affordable housing, she would like to see an increased number of residential units on the portion of land they can build on. She suggested looking at RL-2 zoning to develop more permanently affordable housing. • D. Ensign said this would be a rare opportunity to have something affordable that could fit within the middle range. He suggested looking at staff’s recommendation of eight to twelve units of housing. He agreed the need to review the impact on the natural habitat should be addressed. The community benefits of an open space easement is appreciated on the proposal. Open space strategy is of interest to the community at large because of how it connects to the rest of open space. He hoped the plan would be open spaced based with the dwelling units. • J. Gerstle agreed with D. Ensign and S. Silver. He said that this property should be considered an extension of the Hogan Pancost property with the same topographical constraints. He said he was surprised by the lack of concern by the neighbors. He suggested another option could be to make an agreement with the city whether it be sale of the bulk of the property or a conservation easement on a bulk of the property except for the house which would be remodeled. While that would not provide for affordable housing, it would accomplish what had been done with the Hogan Pancost property. 06.04.2020 PB Draft Minutes Page 2 of 6 • L. Smith said this proposal needs to make sure it is clear regarding flooding and the Preble Mouse. If developed, there should be a better way to obtain contiguous open space. She did not approve of the proposed large estate-style homes and suggested mixed homes, duplexes or paired housing. Either of those could meet the BVCP guidelines on annexation. • L. Montoya agreed with the previous comments. She said density should be increased. Flooding is an existing issue and the topographical mapping needs to be reviewed. Community benefit is very important • P. Vitale said this would be a nice site with the conservation easement. He agreed with staff that adding a few homes would be a benefit but to keep the sensitivity of the site in mind. The plan complies with the BVCP. • H. Zuckerman would like to see a mix of housing types (smaller, larger and attached). The proposed development along 55th Street would be correct, clear community benefit for annexation, it would supply a Jobs:Housing Balance, preserve residential neighborhoods, and have the density located along South Boulder Road. Key Issue 2: Does the proposed residential land use meet the intent of community benefits for annexation and are there alternatives? • S. Silver said the proposal for open space could become vital. It would be good for the developer to consider how they might revitalize whatever space is not developed. • H. Zuckerman added that having RL-2 as the zoning choice, the application would come under site review. This would be advantageous and require 6,000 square feet of open space per unit. Having a compact development with shared open space come through Site Review would be ideal and moving the existing house toward 55th Street would allow for a better connection of open space. • D. Ensign agreed with this project being compatible with the land use density. While there have been questions whether this is a “buildable” area, and that is not the issue for this project. When this does come for Site Review, we will need to be assured that the right studies on the water table have been done and convinced that it will not impact the adjacent neighbors. Planning Board will need to be confident. Key Issue 3: What are the options for access into the site based on the Design and Construction Standards? • D. Ensign said the existing corridor is beautiful and closer to the speed mitigation. He would be open to consider a variance. • J. Gerstle said he would also be open to consider a variance. • P. Vitale agreed. 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. The board was in support of an RL-2 for the appropriate zoning district to obtain more affordable housing and more variety housing mix. The board would like to see more than the proposed four housing units, possibly 12-16. If that density is too much, or if the applicant did not want to be a developer, then possibly make an agreement to sell or sell a conservation easement on the unburdened property and just annex the single unit. A Site Review would be an appropriate way to come forward with community benefit of restoration of the land and sensitive infill 06.04.2020 PB Draft Minutes Page 3 of 6 along 55th Street and affordable density. The board was also in favor of a variance to the DCS to preserve the existing access, especially to preserve the alley of trees. Applicant Rebuttal: Liz Hanson and Joe Kent B. AGENDA TITLE: CONCEPT PLAN REVIEW for property located at 2727 29th Street. Proposed concept plan for a new 100% on-site permanently affordable housing development, consisting of 100 attached dwelling units (mix of unit sizes will range from studio to 2- bedroom), with on-site leasing office and small community space. Reviewed under case no. LUR2020-00011. Staff Presentation: C. Ferro introduced the item. A. Collins presented the item to the board. Board Questions: A. Collins answered questions from the board. Applicant Presentation: Laura Sheinbaum, with Boulder Housing Partners, and Bill Holicky, with Coburn Partners, presented the item to the board. Board Questions: Laura Sheinbaum and Bill Holicky, representing the applicant, answered questions from the board. Public Hearing: 1) Lynn Segal provided comments on the project. Board Comments: Key Issue #1: Is the proposed Concept Plan consistent with BVCP Land Use Plan & Policies? • S. Silver expressed concern regarding the need to make the setbacks significant to allow for greenery and trees and for wide sidewalks to allow for a better pedestrian experience. She recommended undertaking to create as much green space as possible. • D. Ensign said a lot of the BVCP goals would be furthered with this proposal. This plan makes him hopeful that progress will be met toward the fifteen percent affordability goal. A lot of street activation would be gained with this project. If a look at height limitation needed to be reviewed, he did not think that would be an issue due to the amount of affordable housing that would be obtained from this site. Regarding the area of mixed-use, he wanted to note that this project would not be displacing any existing street-facing businesses. • L. Montoya would be in support of the project. • J. Gerstle agreed with the previous comments. It would be consistent with BVCP and its policies. He said his primary concern would be with the ground floor use and encouraged consideration of mixed-uses on the ground floor. He would like to see the pedestrian experience 06.04.2020 PB Draft Minutes Page 4 of 6 and residents living on the ground floor situations improved. Commercial activity on the ground floor is desirable. • P. Vitale disagreed with J. Gerstle. He said it would put a business in place that would be unable to draw foot traffic and it would take away from the existing businesses. He agreed that a pedestrian experience is key and placing residences on a street-level can be tricky with a need to separate the private space from the public space along ground floor residential uses at the street. However, people generally do not shop at places they cannot see from the street. To place commercial into this space would be at the cost of affordable housing and it would draw traffic into a place where traffic is already an issue. • L. Smith agreed with the overall comments. It is an exciting project. • H. Zuckerman said it meets the Jobs:Housing Balance and compact development pattern polices. Regarding the mixed-use of higher density development, he said that usually he would want to see mixed-use, however at this site is not an area that needs additional retail on the first floor. Regarding enhanced design for all projects policy, he said reorienting and placing the building closer to the street would be a good thing. The massing and materials are usable looking. He was not in favor of the canted outward and the impermeable balcony surrounds did not improve the architecture. They do not compliment the buildings. He would be in support of a height modification to obtain more affordable units if necessary. He suggested reinforcing the corner building design at 29th and Bluff Streets. • L. Smith said she is not concerned with having more commercial in this area since it is already surrounding it. She added that she would like to see the applicant, BHP, find other ways to bring commercial into other sites where it is needed. Key Issue #2: Is the proposed site plan consistent with Planned Transportation Connections and Parking Requirements? • S. Silver said she would like to see bike storage addressed when this project returns. The idea of a parking reduction in exchange for additional open space would be an interesting idea, especially if the open space would be truly usable. She would like to see it be green space with places to sit, not paved. • J. Gerstle said it satisfies the TMP. He suggested a future alley that would head east/west, in addition to the proposed north/south alley through the project. He said it could increase the permeability of the block. • H. Zuckerman said the proposed unit mix is designed for the need and not driven by trying to reduce the parking requirements. The space should be dedicated to good open spaces. 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. The board would like the applicant to pay attention to sidewalks, street design and green spaces. Generally, there was no objection to a height modification if it becomes necessary. Not having mixed-use or commercial on the first floor was acceptable for most board members and to make sure ground-floor residents have a good experience and have a privacy possibly through stoops, wider setbacks with landscaping, and possibly additional height as warranted to elevate the ground floor units from being flush with grade. The applicant should spend more time thinking about bike parking and the usability of the courtyard for all seasons. Finally, the applicant should consider an alley with an east/west connection. 06.04.2020 PB Draft Minutes Page 5 of 6 Applicant Rebuttal: Laura Sheinbaum and Bill Holicky 6. MATTERS FROM THE PLANNING BOARD, PLANNING DIRECTOR, AND CITY ATTORNEY A. Selection of Ex-Officios and Liaisons Board Comments: The board made the following assignments: BOARD or GROUP NAME / BACKUP Landmarks Board L. Smith / L. Montoya Housing Advisory Board S. Silver / P. Vitale Greenways Committee P. Vitale / D. Ensign Design Advisory Board J. Gerstle / D. Ensign Subcommittee – Use Table D. Ensign / S. Silver / L. Montoya Code Amendment Group L. Smith and H. Zuckerman / J. Gerstle and S. Silver East Boulder Working Group J. Gerstle / L. Montoya B. Retreat Discussion Items and Schedule Board Comments: The board decided to bring to the next Planning Board meeting, on June 18, 2020, possible topics for the retreat. The board scheduled the retreat for June 29, 2020 from 2:30-6:00 p.m. 7. DEBRIEF MEETING/CALENDAR CHECK 8. ADJOURNMENT The Planning Board adjourned the meeting at 10:32 p.m. APPROVED BY ___________________ Board Chair ___________________ DATE 06.04.2020 PB Draft Minutes Page 6 of 6