Loading...
12.03.20 PB MinutesCITY OF BOULDER PLANNING BOARD ACTION MINUTES December 3, 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: STAFF PRESENT: Charles Ferro, Development Review Manager Hella Pannewig, Assistant City Attorney Cindy Spence, Administrative Specialist III Brenda Ritenour, Meeting Moderator Jean Gatza, Senior Planner Phil Kleisler, Senior Planner Brandon Coleman, Engineering Project Manager Joe Taddeucci, Director of Public Works for Utilities Jay Sugnet, Senior Housing Planner Joanna Bloom, Utilities Business Relations Manager Hanna Hippely, Boulder County, Community Planning and Permitting 1. CALL TO ORDER Chair, H. Zuckerman, declared a quorum at 6:01 p.m. and the following business was conducted. 2. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION a) Kurt Nordback spoke on behalf of Community Cycles. He spoke regarding the updated Design and Construction Standards, specifically sections 2.07 and 2.08. He said that they are requesting that the “Other Items” be wrapped into sections 2.06 and 2.09 as they belong together. b) David Takahashi spoke on the lack of affordable and workforce housing. He said that improvements could be made on behalf of the Boulder Climate Action Plan. He said the city must find ways to incentivize the beneficial projects and penalize the ones that take us in the wrong direction on climate. The single use zoning is no longer working. He urged the board to find better ways to supply housing while thinking about the environment in Boulder. c) Tom Volckhausen spoke regarding the letter from the Indian Peaks Group of the Sierra Club. They are in support of compact urban development in opposition to sprawl in addition to low- carbon land use. He asked the board to put in place a work plan for 2021 addressing the housing crisis in Boulder. According to the census, Boulder has no growth, and the population has shrunk and losing affordable workforce housing. He suggested moving away from the single-family housing zoning and building more workforce housing. d) Donna George spoke regarding the noticing of meetings. e) Lisa Spalding, speaking on behalf of the Plan Boulder County Board, said they appreciate the first draft of the Planning Board’s letter to Council and the thought that has gone into the topics. f) Michael Williamson spoke regarding changing the land use code 9-10-2(a) concerning licensed cannabis businesses. He informed the board that if this code does not change, he will be forced to bankrupt the business and let his entire staff go. He urged the board to review this. g) Macon Cowles urged the board to call out workforce and affordable housing in their letter to Council. This must be said clearly. h) Lynn Segal spoke regarding the Board of Assessment Appeals and demolition after sale. i) David Adamson spoke regarding combining doing home piolets. He suggested changing the model at Alpine-Balsam and having it be 85 percent middle-income, for sale housing. j) Alex Hyde-Wright encouraged the board to go bold on housing and encourage density. He would like to see ADUs made easy and eliminate the requirements (i.e., parking, fees, setbacks, etc.). He would like the city to allow duplexes and triplexes in all single-family zoning across the city. He would like the city to reduce or eliminate parking minimums. k) Carol Dreselly said her home came with an ADU and they would not have been able to afford living in Boulder without the legal ADU. Recently she and her family have experienced fines from the city for the renting out of the empty bedrooms in the home while she and her husband are in transition of moving to the mountains. However, all around her, she has seen other homes scraped and massive housed erected and large amounts of vehicles parked from construction workers in her neighborhood. 3. DISCUSSION OF DISPOSITIONS, PLANNING BOARD CALL-UPS / CONTINUATIONS There were no items to review. 4. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS A. AGENDA TITLE: Public Hearing and Planning Board consideration of Land Use Map, Planning Areas Map, policy, and text changes as part of the 2020 Mid-Term Update to the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan. Maps indicating where the proposed changes the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan are located and a description of each change can be found on the project website at https://bouldercolorado.gov/pages/2020-mid-term-update. Staff Presentation: C. Ferro introduced the item. J. Gatza presented the item to the board. Board Questions: J. Gaza answered questions from the board. Public Hearing: 1) Alexia Parks spoke regarding Attachment G. The area is historically referred to as “Snowbound”. She said that billionaires are entering that area, where she lives and offering five million dollars for the houses in the area. This could become an area of large homes lighting up the sky. She would like to keep this as open space. 2) Donna George spoke regarding the change for request plan for Odell Place. She claimed this change would need a Use Review, not a Site Review. She said the Gunbarrel Center Community Plan should be followed and it could not be changed to High Density – Residential. 3) Laura Sheinbaum, representing Boulder Housing Partners, said that 36 percent or higher of the Boulder workforce qualifies for affordable housing. The BHP’s product is priced according to Area Median Income (AMI). She said that she is in support of the land use at Odell Place. While they do not have a project planned yet, BHP would do extensive neighborhood engagement to see what would be needed and to help with the jobs-housing imbalance. 4) David Adamson said he had been a participant during the 2015 BVCP update. He was disappointed to learn that he could not do anything substantial regarding the mid-term update. He asked the board and staff to reconsider what is done during this interim period and moving forward. In addition, he would be in support of Odell Place proposal. 5) Lynn Segal said growth is not sustainable and should not be done. Board Comments: Key Issue #1: Area I properties - Attachments A-G • S. Silver shared L. Smith’s concerns regarding industrial land and the notion of “death by a thousand cuts”. In addition, regarding Attachment G, the concern raised by the public of moving the properties from Area III to Area II, the city might be enabling development of large homes due to market forces. She questioned if that would go against the 2016 Blue Line ballot measure articulated to not increase opportunities for expanded development. • H. Hippely addressed S. Silver’s questions and explained Boulder County’s current regulations. The properties are in the forestry zone district and currently developed. They also have a view overlay protection which would limit the heights of structures on these properties. However, any of the current properties could be purchased at any time, scraped, and redeveloped. If the properties do not have city services currently, they likely would have a well and septic system which is not uncommon or a limitation. • H. Zuckerman clarified the request to change from Area III to Area II would not be bringing those parcels into the city. That would require an annexation. In addition, he said that the board does not know at this time if county Site Plan Review would allow for larger houses than the city’s compatibility standards. He was not sure if we could make any assumptions as to which jurisdiction would allow more massive houses to be built. • H. Hippely concurred and said that is why the county does not object to this change as proposed. • H. Zuckerman said generally the proposed changes were acceptable. The change regarding TVAP Phase 2A was wanted back at the May 28, 2020 Planning Board hearing but the staff resources were not available at the time. He was pleased to see it had returned. He was disappointed that Mt. Hope Church would not be moving forward based on community input because higher density residential would suit such a transit location, and good design would be welcome at this gateway to Boulder. Regarding the Odell Place request, he worried about the change from Industrial to Non-Industrial zoning and Non-Industrial land use. The creation of Policy 2.21 in the recent BVCP update was written for “light industrial”. However, there are many other districts that are labeled as “industrial” but are not getting captured. He suggested updating Policy 2.21 to increase the scope of the kinds of industrial uses to be covered. However, as it is, the use at Odell Place as proposed is compliant with the intent of that area currently and he supports that change. The requests at 47th Street, Hillside Road, and the minor adjustments to the service area to the Blue Line to take it into Area II would all make sense. • D. Ensign agreed with H. Zuckerman’s comments. He added, regarding the Greenbriar and Broadway proposal, it would be curious to see what might unfold as far as alternative by-right proposals. He shared disappointment regarding the Mt. Hope Church proposal. He would support all the proposals. • J. Gerstle agreed with the proposal regarding Greenbriar and Broadway. He had concern regarding Odell Place and wondered what the significance of an Area Plan is if it were to be changed in substantial way. In addition, he was concerned with the loss of industrial space especially in Gunbarrel. Therefore, with respect to Odell Place, he said it is not clear that this would be the way to proceed. • H. Zuckerman said he could support Odell Place because the Gunbarrel Community Center Plan identifies that this area will be supported by residential and compatible light industrial uses so this would provide the residential portion of what would be called for in that plan and allow for more affordable housing. He said it would be important to retain light industrial. • S. Silver concerned with industrial land loss along with a few board members. She asked if she could propose language to protect land surrounding Odell or at 30th and Valmont to put in some stop-gap measures. • D. Ensign would like to have data to indicate that the light industrial needs outweigh the affordable housing goals. If there was a study showing we were in a red zone in terms of industrial space, that would be compelling. He said it would be nice to see an analysis showing the economic challenges vs. industrial spaces. • P. Vitale was concerned that if we do not address the affordable housing issue, none of the industrial areas will exist anyway. The people who work in the shops in the industrial areas already cannot afford to live in Boulder. If the housing is not solved, the problem will accelerate. He agreed with D. Ensign that we need the data. • L. Smith agreed. She would like to see data regarding light industrial areas as well. • L. Montoya said we need to be aware of the topic surrounding light industrial and perhaps making it a priority. She agreed with getting data. She would support the suggested changes. • H. Zuckerman suggested removing the word “light” from Policy 2.21 now in the third motion tonight regarding Attachment J. • J. Gerstle requested to have the proposal for Odell Place (Attachment D) in a separate motion as he would support all the other Attachments, however he would not support Attachment D. In addition, he felt the area plan for Gunbarrel had not been considered adequately. Motion: On a motion by D. Ensign seconded by J. Gerstle the Planning Board voted 7-0 to approve the Land Use Map and Planning Areas Map changes to the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan as shown and described in the staff memo and in Attachments A – C and E – G. On a motion by H. Zuckerman seconded by D. Ensign the Planning Board voted 6-1 (J. Gerstle opposed) to approve the Land Use Map and Planning Areas Map changes to the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan as shown and described in the staff memo and in Attachment D. Key Issue #2: Area II and III properties - Attachments H and I J. Gerstle recused himself from discussions regarding Attachment H(4). • D. Ensign said he supported this section almost completely. He questioned what kind of outreach had been done regarding the Hogan-Pancost property. While that property had been acquired by the City of Boulder due to public outcry to prevent financial development. Now the designation has been proposed as Open Space-Acquired which is a permanent designation. He found that he found the designation odd. Motion: On a motion by S. Silver seconded by L. Montoya the Planning Board voted 7-0 to approve the Land Use Map and Planning Areas Map changes to the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan as shown and described in the staff memo and in Attachments H and I, excepting H(4). On a motion by D. Ensign seconded by S. Silver the Planning Board voted 6-0 (J. Gerstle recused) to approve the Land Use Map and Planning Areas Map changes to the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan as shown and described in the staff memo and in Attachments H(4). Key Issues #3: Policy and Text changes - Attachment J • S. Silver suggested a recommendation to Council regarding the revision of Policy 2.21, regarding light industrial and the removal of the word “light”, so that staff would be able to review any potential impacts. • H. Zuckerman said there would be two other positive points with recommending this revision now. This policy was not studied quantitatively the first time around. In addition, Policy 2.21 discusses many kinds of industrial and the preservation of our industrial uses. Therefore, the intent is to preserve industrial in Boulder, not just light industrial. He added that by removing the “light”, the board would like to preserve all types of industrial. • D. Ensign said the removal of the word “light” does not do much for him. He proposed a separate motion recommending the city prioritize a study of recent and future trends in city-wide industrial zoning inventory, potentially informed by the East Boulder Subcommunity Plan, to assure that we can better understand the ramifications of such land-use changes. • S. Silver said she would be comfortable adding something to the motion that would address that. She suggested supporting both, the removal of the “light” from industrial and doing data gathering and analysis proposed by D. Ensign. They would be mutually reinforcing. • The board supported that. Motion: On a motion by H. Zuckerman seconded by P. Vitale the Planning Board voted 7-0 to approve the policy and text changes to the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan as shown and described in Attachment J. In addition, to preserve Boulder’s industrial land use and industrial areas for the sake of the city’s diversity, sustainability, and resilience as a community, Planning Board approves a policy change whereby the word “light” is deleted in Policy 2.21 where it appears before the word “industrial.” On a motion by D. Ensign seconded by S. Silver the Planning Board voted 7-0 that Planning Board recognizes that several of the proposed mid-term BVCP changes positively address the jobs/housing imbalance and affordability, however they may have the side-effect of reducing the development opportunity for industrial uses. Planning Board recommends that the city prioritize a study of recent and future status and trends in city-wide industrial zoning inventory, potentially informed by the East Boulder Subcommunity Plan, to assure that we can better understand the ramifications of such land-use changes. 5. MATTERS FROM THE PLANNING BOARD, PLANNING DIRECTOR, AND CITY ATTORNEY A. AGENDA TITLE: South Boulder Creek Upstream Analysis Update H. Zuckerman, L. Montoya and L. Smith recused themselves. Staff Presentation: C. Ferro introduced the item. J. Taddeucci and B. Coleman presented the item to the board. Board Comments: • J. Gerstle appreciated the work done. • P. Vitale and D. Ensign agreed. B. AGENDA TITLE: Update on the scope for phase 2 of the Design and Construction Standards (DCS) for Transportation H. Zuckerman, L. Montoya and L. Smith rejoined the meeting. Board Comments: • S. Silver said it would be wonderful if the sidewalk issue could be a part of this year’s discussion. • H. Zuckerman agreed. • D. Ensign thanked Community Cycles for their review of the DCS and their suggestions. C. AGENDA TITLE: 2021 Letter to City Council Board Comments: • The board discussed and reviewed the first draft of the Planning Board’s 2021 letter to City Council. L. Smith and P. Vitale were assigned as editors for the second draft. The board will resume their discussion at the December 17, 2020 Planning Board meeting. 6. DEBRIEF MEETING/CALENDAR CHECK 7. ADJOURNMENT The Planning Board adjourned the meeting at 10:35 p.m. APPROVED BY ___ _______ Board Chair _____01/21/2021___________________ DATE