2 - Draft Minutes - Planning Board - June 19, 2008 CI'T'Y OF BOULDER
PLANNING BOARll MINUTES
June 19, 2008
1777 Broadway, Council Chambers
A permanent set of these minutes and a tape recording (maintained for a period of seven years)
are retained in Central Records (telephone: 303-44] -3043}. Minutes and streaming audio are also
available on the web at: htt~//www.bouldercolorado.gov/
PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT:
K.C. Becker
Bill Holicky
Elise Jones
Andrew Shoemaker
Phil Shull, Chair
Adrian Sopher
PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT:
Willa Johnson
STAFF PRL+'SENT:
Michelle Allen, Housing Planner
Jeff Arthur, Engineering Review Manager
Juliet Bonnell, Administrative Specialist
:David Gehr, Deputy City Attorney
Katie Knapp, Planner
Elaine McT_,aughlin, Senior Planner
Robert Ray, Land Usc Review Manager
Susan Richstone, Long Range Planning Manager
1. CALL TO ORDER
A. Sopher declared a quorum at 6:04 p.m. and the following business was conducted.
2. APPROVAL OF MINU'T'ES
On a motion by P. Shull, seconded by A. Shoemaker. the I'lannui~; Board approved (4-U, B.
Holicky and 1~:. Jones abstained) the May l5, 2Ot)~i Plallllinf: BOaI'd 111i11uteS as alllellded.
3. PUBLIC PAR'I'ICIPA'1'ION
Caro11'homas, spoke on the 1lillsdale property.
4. DISCUSSION OF llISPOSITIONS, PLANNING BOARD CALL-UPS
Call-up item: Floodplain Development Permit (LUR2007-00074) 2890 Table Mesa
Call-up item: 2005 I lillsdale, Wetland Permit (LUR2008-00038)
K. Knapp answered questions regarding the fence on the 1-Iillsdale property.
Planning Board did not call up either of the above-mentioned items.
P. Shull recused himself for Item SA at 6:15 p.m.
I
A. Shoemaker noted that although he was not present during the May 1, 2008 Planning Board
meeting during which Item SA (Site and Use Review applications #LUR2008-00005, LUR2008-
00029, Eldridge Quilding) was previously discussed, he has listened to the tape of the meeting
and has been apprised of all details.
5. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
A. Continuation of the consideration of Site and Use Review applications I~LUR2008-
00005, LUR2008-00029, Eldridge Building. The proposal is to construct a new mixed use
building with fn•ound floor retail/restaurant and three residential units on the second and third
story. The subject property is a 10,800 square foot (0.25 acre) property located at 91.5 Pearl
Street within the Downtown - 2 (DT-2) zoning district. The Site Review request requires
Planning Board approval of the maximum height of 42-feet, 6-inches, over the by-right standard
of 35-feet, pursuant to Section 9-8-3(d), B.R.C. 1981. The Use Review request is to permit a first
floor, 125 seat restaurant including 30 outdoor seats.
' Applicant /Owner: Cherie Goff / 915 Pearl, LLC
Case Manager: Elaine McLaughlin
Applicant/Owner Presentation
R. Foy prescnted the item to the board.
Staff Presentation
E. McLaug}zlin presented the item to the board.
Public Hearing
Ford Brown, 922 Year1 Street spoke in opposition to the project as proposed due to its ceiling
height.
Katherine Ilorton, 838 Spruce Street also spoke in opposition to the project due to its height
and lack of compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood. She expressed concern about
parking in the area and new deznancis on parking that would result froze a restaurant as part of
this project.
Elizabeth Allen, Boulder felt this design was an improvement from the previous iteration, but
that the building height limits need to be respected and enforced- especially in locations like this
one to protect the look of Boulder.
Jack Rudd, 1010 Grant Place, member of the Downtown Ucsign Advisory Board (DDAB), but
speaking on his own behalf. He was not impressed with the architecture originally, but felt that
the latest iteration relates well to the sur7ounding areas and uses appropriate materials. He
expressed appreciation for the designer's creativity in redesigning this project for a better final
product.
Sandy .Hale, 910 Spruce Street expressed concern about the height of the proposed building,
parking availability, and size of the proposed restaurant and the added congestion it may cause.
She wanted to be sure that the public's concerns were heard.
Catherine Sehweiger, 628 Maxwell felt that the mapping for residential unit sizes in the
downtown that staff presented could he refined further. She expressed corzcezzi about the use of
stone on the corner of the building from a design standpoint. She felt that brick would be a more
appropriate material for the comer. She was also concerned about the size of the residential
units. `
2
Charles Margolf, 2140 9t~' Street expressed concern about the lack of parking available to
accommodate this proposed restaurant.
Board Discussion
B. Holicky inquired if restaurants were by-right in this area.
E. McLaughlin replied that this restaurant required a o~xditiamrl use review due to its size and
the fact that it will have outdoor seating within 500 feet of a residential zone.
1-lei~ht and Mechanical Screening
E. Jones acknowledged that this project has been improved greatly since they first saw it. She
noted that the height of this project should be reduced further to create an even better final
project.
A. Shoemaker agreed that the height should be reduced further.
E. 'VIcl,aughlin clarified that the building height is 40 feet, the 4l .C foot measurement includes
the parapet.
B. Holicky was not interested in reducing height on the first floor (i.e. restaurant size), but was
open to reducing height on the second and third floors. He was more interested in reducing
mechanical screening on the top of the building than reducing the height of the building (if the
screening was built into the design). He noted that the current proposed height follows
guidelines and is commensurate with neighboring buildings.
K. Becker was com fartable with staff s recommendation regarding the height of the building.
A. Sopher found the height of the proposed project acceptable.
E. Jones mentioned that consistency is good, but monotony is not. She didn't think the building
height needed to match the Shonkweiler building, but she did want it to transition well to the
surrounding neighborhoods. She felt that the proposed height imposed a bit on the rest of west
Pearl. She suggested reducing the second and third floors by one foot each.
A. Shoemaker concurred with E. Jones regarding monotony. TIe also would like to see the
building imposition reduced. He expressed concern about repeatedly exceeding height
limitations and suggested a 39 foot height for this building.
B. Holicky clarified that there is not a height "limit" of 35-feet but there is an allowed by-right
height of 35-feet (there is a big difference between the two). Buildings are allowed to go above
35-feet if it is determined through the site review criteria of the code that a good project has been
created. B. Holicky's primary concern lay to the north of the building rather than the south. Ile
was not against a solution including staff's recommendations. He felt that mechanical screening
was a bigger issue.
K. Becker agreed that the height is less of an issue and felt that the third floor setback made it
acceptable.
A. Sopher agreed with B. llolicky's point that the 35 foot height limitation is automatically
open to increases during site review.
A. Shoemaker felt this was an important site in the city and that a 3~)-foot height was
appropriate.
B. Holicky could accept a ceiling height of 9.6 feet on the second and third floors, but thought
there were other alternatives such as setbacks. He noted that 39 feet was the lowest height he
would be comfortable with (a foot past the staff memo recommendation).
E. Jones alneed that 39 feet was acceptable.
A. Sopher felt that 39 feet to the top of roof framing was appropriate and the applicant should be
able to determine how this will be accomplished.
3
Mechanical Screening;
B. Ilolieky noted that the proposed mechanical screening cannot he altered too much. He's
willing to live with what has been presented. He noted that there will be some financial pressure
to provide appropriate screening.
A. Sopher telt this should he left to the discretion of the Planning Director.
A. Shoemaker agreed with B. Ilolicky's point about the #inancial pressure that will promote an
appropriate mechanical screening. Ile inquired if it would be feasible for mechanicals to be
reduced in height, but spread out fuI-thcr.
Harvey Hine, architect, noted that much thought has been put into the design of the mechanicals
and of#ort has been made to keep mechanicals to a minimum and located at the back of the
building where they will be less visible and more quiet.
R. Foy expressed willingness to work with the staff to minimize the impact of the screening.
E. Jones suggested adding a condition that during tee doe review the Planning Director and staff
will work to minimize the impact of the screening to the greatest degree possible.
B. Holicky supported this suggestion.
General Architecture
L+'. Jones was curious about the idea of not using stone on the third floor at the corner of the
building. It was brought up by others but she didn't feel strongly about it.
A. Sopher thought they should address staffs request for feedback on the 15 foot setback on the
third floor, particularly the projecting stair on the third floor.
A. Shoemaker initially was surprised to see stone on the corner of the building, but was
comfortable with it to allow creativity and lessen monotony.
B. I-Ioliclcy praised the applicant for the changes they made to the design of the building. 1Ie
believes it will he a background building, not stick out, but will be a handsome building. He
didn't suggest any further architectural conditions.
K. Becker agreed that the stone on the corner of the building was acceptable.
A. Sopher understood people's interest in changing the third floor to brick since it would
somewhat mask the third floor's presence. He felt that more could be done to the third t7oor,
such as the inclusion of trellises. He also mentioned that monotony could be avoided without
more brick. But overall, he was corn#~~rtable with the direction in which the applicant's design
was headed.
B. Holicky thought the third floor staircase made sense. He liked the change to stone on the
corner and the third floor. He didn't feel the need to change the stairwell projection.
A. Shoemaker agreed with B. Iloiicky's impressions.
E. Jones felt the staff's recommendation would make the third floor less visible to the neighbors
to the north.
K. Becker agreed with B. Holicky and A. Sopher's opinion that the building looks better and
undulates more with the staircase projection.
A. Sopher also agreed with the three others on the staircase and noted that the staircase would
not necessarily change the third stony visibility as it would be hardly visible or not visible at all
fTOIn the nOIth.
A. Sopher added a comment that he would rather see a wider planter along 9t~' Street in
alignment with the planter to the south than a widened sidewalk at the dool•way to the staircase.
R. Foy noted that they would be willing to make this change to the planter and width of the
sidewalk.
Unit. Size
K..Becker was troubled by the unit size, but felt that the site review criteria didn't really allow
the board to address the unit size. She'd like to see smaller unit sizes in the project.
4
E. Jones felt this was an important issue. She saw this issue as part of the intention ofdcnsity
bonus of downtown. She would like to sec unit size below 1,500 sy. feet. represented more
clearly on the staff's data, further segregation necessary. For diversity of unit size, there may not
he huge units throughout the downtown, but there may not actually be small units downtown.
Shc agn-eed that the board dots not have the discretion to address this issue in a site review.
A. Shoemaker agreed that the board doesn't have this discretion and council would nccd to
provide direction on the density bonus and that the data appears to indicate that large units hasn't
been an issue to date, but that if the public is concerned about it, council would nccd to give
Planning Board guidance on this if unit si•rc is something that the board should be commenting
on.
A. Shoemaker noted that parking was not on the board's list of issues for discussion, but that
parking seemed to be an issue from the neighbors standpoint. He noted that it was likely that a
restaurant of this proposed size would occur in this location anyway-that is why he did not raise
parking as an issue.
D. Gehr clarified that the use review requirement was not only for an outdoor dining area but
also for the size of the restaurant (greater than 1,500 square feet).
E. McLaughlin noted that the proposed restaurant is 4,700 square feet.
A. So her questioned the sizes of other restaurants in the area.
E. McLaughlin indicated that in the previous memo, there was a detailed list of the sizes of
other nearby restaurants including Bacaro approximately 5,500 s.f.; Cafe Gondolier: 4,149 s.f.;
Brassierie Ten=1
en: 2,800 s.f:; Cafc Mediterranean: 7,980 s.f., Cheesecake factory: 7,430 s.f.
A. Shoemaker asked if there was any analysis on CAGID facilities being coaxed out at any time
or when CAGID facilities arc overtaxed, procedure to increase.
D. C:ehr notes} usually there's a perceived problem such as15°i and Pearl Parking Garage process
that was a public private partnership, and originated after the Whittier Neighborhood Parking
Plan was initiated by downtown properly owners and there was a lack of available parking.
Articulation/detai 1 i n~
E. Jones supported staff's recommendation on the building's articulation.
Q. Ilolicky thanked the public for their engagement in this project and thanked the applicant.
Motion
On a motion by Q. IIolickv. seconded by A. Shoemaker, the I'lannins~ Board at~nroved (5-0 W.
Johnson absent, and I'. Shull recuscd) Sitc Review #I,tJR2008-00005 and Lse Review
!#LUR2008-00029, incorporatinf; the staff ?nenwrandum dated June 19 2008 and the attached
Site Review Criteria Checklist as tindints of fact, subicct to the tollowin~ conditions of
rp
oval.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: SITE REVIEW
The Applicant shall be responsible for ensuring that the development shall be
in compliance with all approved plans dated May 15, 2008, and on file in
the City of Boulder Planning [)apartment, except as modified by these
conditions of approval.
2. Prior to a building permit application, the Applicant shall submit a Technical
Document Review application for the following items, subject to the review
and approval of Planning; and Development Services Division:
ti
a. Final architectural plans, including materials and calory, to insure
compliance with the intent of this approval and the architectural intent
shown on the elevation plans dated
May 15, 200$. In addition, the applicant will revise project plans in the
following manner:
i. Illustrate the third story windows with stone headers.
ii. Reduce the maximum height of the building to 39-feet to
the top of the roof structure.
iii. Provide additional fagade articulation or detailing on the
rear elevation.
iv. The mechanical equipment shall be of the minimum size
necessary to meet the requirements of the building, subject
to review and approval by the Planning Uirectar.
b. A final site plan showing the corrections and additions requested by this
approval, including building setbacks on fully dimensioned plans. A
signed survey drawing should also be submitted. In addition, the
application will revise the final site plans to increase the planter size along
the 9`t' Street property line.
c. A final utility plan meeting the City of Boulder Design and Construction
Standards.
d. A final storm water/drainage report and plan meeting the City of
Boulder Design and Construction Standards, which include information
regarding the groundwater conditions (geotechnical report, soil borings,
etc.) on the Property, and all discharge points for perimeter drainage
systems.
e. A detailed landscape plan, including size, quantity, and type of plant
material proposed; type and quality of non-living landscaping materials;
any site grading proposed; and any irrigation system proposed, to insure
compliance with this approval and the city's landscaping requirements.
f. A public access easement dedication in accordance with the City of
Boulder Design and Construction Standards for all portions of public
sidewalks located outside of the city right-of--way, shown on the site plan
dated May I5, 2008, and generally described as follows:
i. 1' beyond sidewalk limits along 9`'' Street (sidewalk width
including tree grates is 8-feet wide at the narrowest point of the
taper);
ii. 1' beyond sidewalk limits along Pearl Street (sidewalk width
including tree grates is 15 feet wide).
3. The outdoor seating area, as shown on the approved plans, that projects into
6
the public right-of-way must be approved as a revocable rig}~t-of-way permit
pursuant to Section 8-6-6, B.R.C. l 981. The planters shall be required to be
shown as easilty removable at the time of revocable right-of--way permit
applcation. This site review approval shall not be construed as an approval of
such encroachment,
CONllITIONS OF APPROVAL: USE REVIEW
1. The Applicant shall be responsible for ensuring that the development shall be
in compliance with all approved plans dated May 1 S, 2008 and the Restaurant
Management flan titled "Restaurant Use Review Good Neighbor Meeting"
dated April 10, 2008 on file in the City of Boulder Planning Department.
Further, the Applicant shall ensure that the restaurant is operated in
compliance with the :following restrictions:
a. Size of the restaurant shall be limited to a maximum
5,000 square feet. The seating area in the restaurant shall have a
maximum of 9.5 indoor seats. There shall be a maximum of 30 exterior
seats, although the number of exterior seats and total square footage of the
patio area shall be determined by the revocable right-of-way permit
required by Condition No. 3 above.
b. The hours of operation of the restaurant granted through this Use Review
shall be 5:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m., seven days per week.
c. Trash and bottles shall not be removed to outside trash containers between
the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m.
d. Food, supply, and beverage deliveries made in the alley shall not block
parking spaces of adjacent property owners and shall not be made before
8:00 a.m.
e. Noise attenuation methods shall be employed for exhaust fans.
2. The Applicant shall not expand or modify the approved restaurant use or the
approved floor plan, except pursuant to Subsection 9-2-1 S(h), B.R.C. 1981.
3. The initial tenant, and any subsequent tenant, shall be subject to the review
and approval of the Planning Director. The purpose of such review shall be to
inform such user of this space that it will be required to operate the restaurant
in compliance with the terms of this approval.
The board recessed at 8:02 p.m. and resumed at 8:10 p.m.
B. Public hearing and consideration of the Board of Zoning Adjustment (BOLA) decision on
Docket No. 2008-1: appeal of a use determination of the Zoning Administrator for the Nitro Club
operation at 1124 Pearl Street.
Applicant /Owner: Michael Gross /Michael Cobb
Case Manager: F3rian Holmes
7
1\~Totion
On a IllOt1011 by A. Shoemaker. seconded by E. Jones, the Plallillnl; BOaI'd eOntlllUed (5-U, VV.
Johnson absent. P. Shull recused) the public hcarin:; and consideration of the Bcru'd ofLoning
Adjustment (l30!_,~1) decision on Docket No. 2UU~-1: all)cal of~a use determination of the
LOI1111L', Administrator for the Nitro Caub operation at 1 124 Pearl Street to July 10, 2UU8.
P. Shull returned from recusal at 8:12 p.m.
C. Public hearing and consideration of a recomznendatian to City Council to modify the
adopted wetland maps (case number LUR2U08-00010), as set forth in Section 9-3-9 (c),
"Wetlands Mapping and F,valuation," Boulder Revised Code (B.R.C.) 1981, removing the
wetland designation along Two-mile Canyon Creek on the properties at 745, 75.5 Jonquil Pl. and
777, 780, 824, 870 Juniper Ave.
Case Manager: Katie Knapp
All speakers were sworn in. Ex parte contacts were disclosed.
A. Sopher noted that he had a chance meeting with the applicant, Mr. Blumcnheim during which
they casually discussed the broad wetlands ordinance under consideration, bz.It did not go into
detail about this specific case.
K. Becker noted an email that she sent to Planning Board, I?avid Gehr, Ruth McHeyser and
Katie Knapp asking questions about the application. D. Gehr responded and this email has been
printed and is available for perusal.
P. Shull noted that he was present for all previous wetlands discussions before Planning Board
and that Mr. Blumenheim is a partner in ownership of a building downtown, but they have not
discussed this particular case.
Staff Presentation
K. Knapp presented the item to the board.
P. Shull asked about the fact that this area was not deemed an irrigation ditch.
K. Knapp replied that despite the fact that this area may have carried irrigation water at one time
or another, its primary usage/def nition is not an irrigation ditch.
D. Gehr clarified that the methodology used to create the znap is the same methodology that is
being used to redefine it.
E. Jones asked if the city of Boulder's definition of a wetland exceeds the federal
def nition/regulations.
K. Knapp replied that the city's definition does exceed federal regulations.
K. Becker clarified the process -she questioned if they should re]y on the city's definition of
wetland or the federal. manual. She asked how the applicant knows which methodology was
used by the city.
Allen Carpenter, creator of the wetland maps, noted that on each of the maps there is an
indication of what methodology was used to create them.
K. Becker wanted to understand the basis for staff's recommendation for denial.
K. Knapp replied that the applicant used the federal definition for a wetland which does not
include ephemeral streams, but the city's interpretation does include ephemeral streams in the
definition of a wetland. Under the federal definition it needs to have hydric soils, hydrophytic
vegetation and specific hydrology.
8
A. Sopher asked if there is a definition of ephemeral streams in the code under the current
ordinance.
D. C;<ehr replied that there currently is not a definition for ephemeral streams and noted that staff
has looked to other sources (such as the LTA) for the common usage of the term. He noted that
applicants are under a regulatory structure that will affect their property. The maps may be
reanalyred and this property may not be regulated as an ephemeral stream/wetland later on.
K. Becker clarified that the new boundary map is in place, it just isn't being enforced yet.
Applicant Presentation
Joe de Raismes presented the item to the board. Craig Bundy, applicant, commented on this
process. Diclt Blumenheim concun•ed with what .1. de Itaismes and C. Bundy said.
Public Hearing
Elizabeth Allen, Boulder spoke in support of protecting wetlands and denying this application
until the wetlands protection ordinance is revised. Shc noted that staff is trying to protect
wellands and keep property owners informed.
Board Discussion
A. Sopher noted the following items as important to this project. Ile felt that teens need to be
defined clearly: federal vs. city definitions of wetlands and ephemeral streams and which
standards apply. The impact of the dam on flows of Two mile Canyon Creek channel is
impartant as well as the impact of removing these properties from the wetlands mapping.
E. Jones believed that the board did not need to consider the impact of removing these properties
from the wetlands mapping.
A. Shoemaker suggested focusing on what the statutes are and whether they arc supported with
evidence. He asked if there arc any wetlands on the property that meet the federal definition of a
wetland.
K. Knapp replied that the materials supplied to staff did not indicate that it was not a wetland
and that it could, therefore, be determined to be an ephemeral stream. This area was not mapped
as a wetland using the federal guidelines for dctennining wetlands, but using the city's definition
of wetland (including an ephemeral stream) it could be.
A. Shoemaker clarified that the sole basis for including this property as a wetland is that it
includes an ephemeral stream.
B. Holicky asked A. Carpenter for the definition of an ephemeral stream.
A. Carpenter replied by quoting from the book Riparian Landscaping by George P. Mallinson
defining an ephemeral stream as "temporally discontinuous".
B. IElolicky asked how frequently a stream would need to run in order to support vegetation.
A. Carpenter answered that he wasn't exactly sure, but that there was vegetation near the
channel in question leading to its classification on the wetlands rnap.
B. Holicky asked in what manner the site has changed since 2004 and if he would still classify it
as an ephemeral stream.
A. Carpenter noted that there was less water flow now, but more vegetation and less weed
plants.
B. Ilolicky asked what the standard deviation of flow has been and if a four year change in flow
would constitute a new pattern or if this would be part of a larger pattern.
A. Carpenter felt that the Pincbrook Hills dam has altered the flow downstream of it, but he's
unsure how that has altered flow in Two-mile Creek south of Linden.
E. Jones asked if he believed this was an ephemeral stream.
A. Carpenter said that he wasn't sure.
c~
Staff has not investigated the I'inebrook I-Iills dam because it was not included in the application
and wasn't introduced to staff until yesterday.
A. Shoemaker asked if A. Carpenter has seen any water flowing on this site that would
contradict the applicant's report.
A. Carpenter hasn't looked at it until yesterday since ?004, so he could not say. He couldn't
figure out why trees aren't growing there, but surmised that water may have scoured them out.
A. Shoemaker asked if there have been any unusual circumstances within the last 5 years.
A. Carpenter surmised that the Pinebro<.>k Hill dam has had the greatest impact of change.
K. Becker asked if the water could just be seeping into the ground.
A. Carpenter doubted that a substantial amount of water like he saw in 2004 could have just
been seeping even though he couldn't determine wlierc it. was flowing.
J. de Raismes cross-examined A. Carpenter.
.J. de Raismes asked if it is possible that the applicants removed weeds that were there.
A. Carpenter replied that it was possible.
J. de Raismes asked if it was reasonable that an ephemeral stream would have son~~e flow within
a five year period.
• A. C'a?•penter replied that it was reasonable.
D. Blumenheim noted that he did remove weeds from the creek.
C. Bundy mentioned that he cleaned the weeds out of the creek once or twice a year.
A. Shoemaker mentioned that the definition of ephemeral has a time frame reference to it.
A. Sopher mentioned that it is important to decide if the applicant must abide by the FEMA
definition or the city's definition of wetlands.
E. Jones noted that the crux of the issue is whether the board has seen evidence that this is an
ephemeral stream.
A. Sopher noted that the definition language should include the word and instead of or.
K. Knapp noted that the word and is not used because then the wetland would need to meet the
federal standards.
K. Beclccr agreed with B. Holicky that as long as the area meets at least one of the definitions it
qualifies. The definitions should be standardized. It is unfair if staff uses one definition, but the
map maker uses a di fferent definition. How can the applicant meet standards if they don't know
what those standards are`?
A. Shoemaker thought that based on the definitions provided combined with A. Carpenter's
testimony he felt that in common usage he would go with the federal definition.
E. Jones noted that she was uncomfortable reaching definitions, but she wondered about the
effect of the dam on the hydrology of the area. She felt they didn't have the necessary facts to
draw a conclusion.
K. Becker agreed that it is not their job to define ephemeral streams. She was concerned with
the fact that the definitions being used have not been consistently applied. She didn't think the
city had conclusively decided that this is an ephemeral stream.
B. Elolicky noted that by virtue of the wetlands map this area has been defined as an ephemeral
stream. 1-Te asked at what point they would have enough evidence. He asked how many years
the channel needs to be flow-free before it is reclassified.
P. Shrill felt that the nature of the stream has changed in the past few years. He thought that it
used to be ephemeral, but may not be anymore due to the presence of the new dam. He didn't
think there was evidence that the stream was ephemeral.
A. Sopher thought it was the applicant's responsibility to prove that the stream is not ephemeral.
He felt this burden of proof is unreasonable based on the lack of clarity of a wetlands definition.
10
Motion
On a motirnl by K. Becker, seconded by B. IIolickv, 1110 Plalllllll.l; 1308rd 1'000llllllell(1Cd (2-4, 1•;.
Jones, A. Shoemaker, I'. Shull, A. Sopher (fisscnte(l, W. Johnson absent) that City Council
adopt all Ol'dlnallCe 111 Sl_p~)Ot't Ot the aj~)11Caill~s 1'CClllest t0 tllld thtlt t111s 1'eaCh Of TWO-11111('
Cally011 ~'1'CCk be removed from the wetlands llla~)Illf; as a~j)I'OVCCI lIl 2007. ~l'hls I110t1011 filled.
OIl a 1110t1011 by A. SOphel', secondc(1 by E. Jones, the I'lalulinh 13oar(1 reconllnended (h-0. ~V.
Johnson abSCnt~ d COiltlllllatl011 Of C;aSe Illllllb(:r 1.1.1R2U05-00010 and the ~J)t)lication to remove
the wetlan(I dcsi~nation alone Iwo-tulle Canyon Creek on the properties at 7=15, 755 Jonquil Pl.
an(1 777. 750, 524, 870 Juniper Ave to a later dilte II1C1ud111L; t}le 1111paCtS O1 PIIICbI'OOk Dalll alld
W17elhel' It has Ch11111;CC1 fTOi11 fill el)llelllelill stream, with a clew' (fefiniti~n ol~ the word ephemeral
a_~,reecl u;;on by staff and the applicant.
b. iv1ATTERS PROM 'I'>lIE PLANNING BUARD, PLANNING DIRECTOR,
AND C1TY A'TT'ORNEY
A. Update and discussion about the RFP process for consultant selection forth(; Pops and
Scrapes process. (Susan Richstone)
B. Holiclcy suggested figuring out what appropriate check-in points might be for this process.
K. Becker asked what the consultants responsibilities will be.
S. Richstone repiicd that the consultants will do analysis, develop recommendations, and report
them to the public, but staff will be running the overall project. Sl1e noted that check-ins can be
provided whenever the board would like them. And during key phases of the project she would
like to gather board feedback. She wondered if there should be a subcommittee or steering
committee involved in this process.
ti. Jones supported regular Planning Board check-ins combined with subcOnlmittee meetings.
She recommended that Planning Board comment on the consultant's proposal (public process,
etc.), the consultant's definition of the problem, the consultant's solutions to solve the problem
and provide direction to the consultant before they write the final ordinance.
A. Sopher addressed the importance of timeliness and moving this project along.
B. Holiclcy recommended ways in which they could shorten the Planning Board check-in
timelines and minimize them.
S. Richstone clarified that subcommittees would not be holding public hearings where action is
taken.
E. Jones noted that check-ins under Matters would be appropriate for small scale issues coupled
with public hearing check-ins to handle larger issues.
B. Holicky mentioned that they should plan on having a major check-in on how to write the
ordinance.
Subcommittee members (E. Jones and B. Holicky) will remain involved in this issue at some
Level -exactly what level will be determined at a later date.
P. Shull noted that he met with Tim Plass earlier this week. T. Plass suggested a joint Plal>aling
Board/Landmarks Board meeting during which the Pops and Scrapes process, among other
things, could he discussed. The board supported a joint meeting s<)mctime in the fall
(September).
7. DEBRIEF/AGENDA CI-iE;C.K
8. ADJOURNMENT
The Planning Board adjourned the meeting at 10:41 p.m.
lI
APPROVED I3Y
Board Chair
DATE
12