Loading...
Minutes - Planning Board - 8/21/2008 CITY OF BOULDER PLANNING BOARD ACTION MINUTES August 21, 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: 303-441-3043). Minutes and streaming audio are also available on the web at: http://www.bouldercolorado.gov/ PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: KC Becker Bill Holicky Willa Johnson Elise Jones Andrew Shoemaker Phil Shull, Chair Adrian Sopher STAFF PRESENT: David Gehr, Deputy City Attorney Brian Holmes, Zoning Administrator Meghan Lawson, Assistant Zoning Administrator Julie Johnston, Senior Planner Heidi Joyce, Administration Supervisor -Operations Ruth McHeyser, Acting Planning Director Robert Ray, Land Use Review Manager Susan Richstone, Long Range Division Manager Paula Weber, Administrative Specialist 1. CALL TO ORDER Chair, P. Shu11, declared a quorum at 6:06 p.m. and the following business was conducted. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES On a motion by W. Johnson, seconded by A. Shoemaker, the Planning Board approved (6-0, E. Jones abstained) the June 26, 2008 Planning Board minutes as amended. 3. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION Elizabeth Allen, Boulder, did not support the Planning Board recommendation that allowed for a 39 foot height limit for the Eldrich Building, when a 35 foot height limit is the standard. She said Planning Board should support the interests of the community, not just the interests of the businesses, especially along Pearl Street. She supported renovations, not demolitions and not new builds for the pops and scrapes project. Lynn Segal, 538 Dewey Avenue, agreed with E. Allen. She addressed the board on agenda item 5A (see her comments under agenda item SA). 1 4. DISCUSSION OF DISPOSITIONS, PLANNING BOARD CALL-UPS No dispositions were scheduled before the board. 5. ACTION ITEMS A. Public hearing and consideration of recommendation to City Council for proposed amendments to Sections 9-7-7 B.R.C. 1981, "Building Height, Appurtenances" and 9-16-1 B.R.C. 1981, "General Definitions" Proposed changes to the Land Use Regulations will both remove the twenty-five percent roof area coverage limitation for roof top solar systems below fifty-five feet in height, and will also expand the size of efficiency living units (ECU's). Applicant/Property Owner: City of Boulder Case Manager: Brian Holmes Staff Presentation B. Holmes presented the case to the board. Public Hearing Lynn Segal, 538 Dewey Avenue, supported solar access for 55 feet and over and power purchase agreements (PPA's) for solar access. Ervin Bell, 3498 Iris Court, supported the staff recommendation to increase the maximum square footage of ECU's from 400 to 475 square feet. He also supported increasing the maximum square footage of ECU's to 500 square feet. Elizabeth Allen, Boulder, supported the staff recommendation to eliminate the 25% roof area coverage limitation for roofrop solar systems on buildings less than 55 feet. She supported ECU's to 400 square feet for the overall living area, but did not support increasing the square footage of ECU's to 475 square feet. Jonathan Hondorf, 2720 4`h Street, spoke in support of the staff recommendation. Board Discussion W. Johnson asked what are the impacts of changing the ECU's to 500 square feet. B. Holmes said the RH-2 zone district has a unit size of 800 square feet and as the numbers between the maximum floor areas for ECU's and properties in the RH-2 zone come closer and closer that could become a concern. A. Sopher asked if there is data suggesting that there is more than one person living in the efficiency units. He said if two people are occupying the efficiency units, he would not be as concerned with the additional 25 square feet. B. Holmes replied that he did not have that information. E. Jones said due to the size and lack of storage space, it would be difficult for two people to occupy an ECU. P. Shull was interested in looking at power purchase agreement (PPA) options for solar access. B. Holmes said appurtenances, by definition, serve the building or the use. He supposed that the definition could be broadened to include roofs which could be farms for adjacent properties. B. Holicky stated companies, such as Sun Power, buy long terms leases for roof panels and give money that offset the costs for providing power to buildings. B. Holicky asked if there was a way to tag site reviews so that, if a project goes through site review process without issues, the applicant will not have to go through a minor modification review. 2 B. Holmes said staff is in the process of identifying roof zones for solar collectors in the site review process. A. Shoemaker said the definition of appurtenances does not require that the appurtenance is for the benefit for that building. He asked if there was something other than necessary mechanical equipment that confines appurtenances to serve its building as opposed to someone else's building. D. Gehr referred to the definition of appurtenances under subsection 2. He said in terms of how the solar regulations are being administered now, there is anticipation that there will be buy in associated with solar. Motion On a motion by E. Jones, seconded by A. Sopher, the Planning Board recommended (7-Ol that City Council approve the proposed amendments to Sections 9-7-7 B.R.C. 198], "Building Height, Appurtenances" and 9-16-1 B.R.C. 1981, "General Definitions" (to reflect changes to both "Appurtenances" and "Efficiencv Living Units"). K. Becker noted that there was a typo on page 4, 9-7-7 (a)(4) that should be changed to read: "the height of such the...". P. Shull suggested that staff report back to the board at a later date on solar approaches and options. He added that the options and approaches should address historic preservation and environmental building concerns, recognizing the complexities of certain structures (churches, historic structures, etc.) so there are no surprises at time of application. 6. MATTERS FROM THE PLANNING BOARD, PLANNING DIRECTOR, AND CITY ATTORNEY A. Update on the process to address remodels and demolition/rebuilds that impact established neighborhoods. Case Manager: Susan Richstone Staff Presentation S. Richstone introduced Julie Johnston, the new Senior Long Range Planner to the board. She also introduced the consultants and presented the item to the board. Nore Winter and Abe Barge, Winter & Company, Boulder presented the item to the board. Board Discussion A. Sopher was interested to find out how the problem will be identified. A. Sopher said adjusting the underlying zone, in terms of adjusting building height, has a broad impact because the way building height is measured in this community. He said it is important to understand adjusting building heights in the context of how extremely it can be applied, noting that it has nothing to do with community character. A. Sopher requested that the key characteristics, on page A 10 of the staff memorandum, be further articulated. He suggested identifying the character in a manner that is not static, adjusts over time and looks into the future. A. Sopher asked for clarification on what we are referring to when discussing the goals of community character. He said it is important to accommodate change in the context of community character. 3 K. Becker supported the staff recommendation that this is about changing community character. She said when defining the problem as community character, we will need to be prepared to respond to public concerns over economic and environmental impacts. W. Johnson asked if the process will create a trend of applying for demolition permits and asked for an update on building permit activity. S Richstone distributed a permit report to the board and reviewed the report. She noted that the board will receive these reports on a monthly basis. W. Johnson suggested holding a joint public hearing with City Council at step 4 in the process, implementation and adoption. The board, staff and consultants agreed that holding a joint public hearing with council is a good option to consider. P. Shull asked if the proposed calendar is realistic and asked what typically causes the process to run off the tracks. N. Winter replied that projects that go off the tracks typically occur when the schedule is forced. He said one example is when council knows where they want the project to end up and they need more time and discussion to reach the desired outcome. P. Shu11 stated that it is important to keep the public informed. He suggested that when we reach the "tool" portion of the process it will be important to focus on the development of the tools and the public outreach. N. Winter agreed that it is very important to get people engaged in the early steps of the process. P. Shull said with the non-regulatory tools, it appears that we will end up with more regulations. He asked if there were other tools or options that would be as effective and not as quantifiable or as technically precise. N. Winter said in addition to, or in lieu of certain regulatory tools, one option is to provide a detailed voluntary design handbook that address massing, detailing proportion, etc. He said there are limits to the impacts to this option, one being voluntary compliance. He said another option is setting thresholds that are regulatory based that may or may not apply to all situations. N. Winter said changing the defined problem statement into questions for a discussion with the community is an excellent idea. He said refining the discussion of the relationship of mass and scale and the perception of impacts to actual numbers will need to be evaluated. N. Winter said whether we change or refine the way we measure building height in Boulder and how we use it for single-family infill, in a more sophisticated way, is up for further discussion. N. Winter said mass, scale and design related community character issues are a great focus of this project. However, he noted that people talk about sustainability, affordability and environmental impacts when referring to mass and scale. He said having a conversation about what is the relationship of a new larger house to affordable housing, in a general way, probably needs to be discussed at some level. K. Becker noted that you don't get good results when the steps outlined in the process arc not respected. She asked if council has agreed to the proposed scheduled. S. Richstone responded that council asked for this project to move along as quickly as possible and the consultant responded with an aggressive schedule that allows for a successful process. K. Becker said it is important to preserve a meaningful public process. A. Sopher did not necessarily agree that voluntary design guidelines are an intended solution for this project. N. Winter said design guidelines may not be a likely outcome for this community, but noted that it was an option. A. Sopher asked if the study will consider all residential areas and districts. A. Barge replied that while the residential zones districts are included as part of the evaluation, it does not necessarily mean that the there will be recommendations for significant changes in all residential zoned districts. 4 E. Jones supported an initial evaluation looking at all residential districts in hopes that it will provide valuable data to focus the problem. A. Sopher asked that Planning Board see the drafr problem statement and survey materials as soon as possible. B. Holicky asked that Planning Board see the drafr strategy before a final strategy is crafted. S. Richstone responded that Planning Board will receive regular updates on this project. B. Holicky suggested that the Landmarks Board be included in the proposed calendar. N. Winter stated that the intention is to schedule a Study Session with the Landmarks Board. B. Holicky said holding a conversation with the community early in the process that focuses on constituents such as wall lengths, coloration, front porches, etc. will help the community and the city arrive at a successful outcome. P. Shull said it is counterproductive and creates polarization to use photos of big ugly houses as examples of what not to do in certain neighborhoods. N. Winter said it may be helpful to field a conversation that asks what works well, what is successful and what is compatible. K. Becker recognized that this project started on a volatile first step and would appreciate a process that undertakes the task in a way that diffuses community tension. A. Sopher said it is important to consider how we hold this conversion with the community and said visual tools will be useful. E. Jones agreed with P. Shull's statement that vilifying certain houses and corridors is counterproductive, but also agreed that visualization is key. She said we need to think creatively of how to hone in on what we like. K. Becker suggested that one solution is looking at pictures from other communities of what is successful. S. Richstone reported to the board on the tasks and roles of previous two "pops and scrapes" subcommittees. She said the roles and tasks of the subcommittee have changed and the subcommittee will now focus on the process and will not have a substantive role in terms of steering or providing direction on what the tools will be. She said at this point in the process, the staff recommendation is that the Landmarks Board no longer serve on the subcommittee because they do not have a role in making decisions on zone district changes. She noted that the Landmarks Board did not support the staff recommendation and passed a motion at their last board meeting recommending that they remain on the subcommittee. She recognized that the Landmarks Board has a very important role in terms of the substantive part of the process and ensured that Landmarks Board will remain engaged in the process. E. Jones supported continuing the subcommittee and also supported having Landmarks Board continue to serve on the subcommittee. A. Shoemaker asked why we are changing the make-up of the subcommittee. S. Richstone said concern was expressed that the Landmarks Board is a representative group that can be seen as a stakeholder. She raised a concern that the Landmarks Board could be seen as a group representing a different interest, when the intent is to provide input on the process. A. Shoemaker asked if the subcommittee is considering process, and not substantive issues, why would the Landmarks Board be precluded from the subcommittee. S. Richstone stated that the process is geared toward regulatory changes, which can only be decided by Planning Board and City Council. A. Shoemaker asked how the regulations would affect Landmarks Board. S. Richstone replied that the Landmarks Board process is affected by changes to the underlying zoning. She did not see how the outcome of this process would directly affect the way the Landmarks Board conducts their business. B. Holicky reviewed the intent of the subcommittee and noted that Landmarks Board involvement is critical for specific portions of this process. He agreed with the staff 5 recommendation that at this point in the process it may not be appropriate for the Landmarks Board to serve on the subcommittee due to the fact that the process now is focused on regulatory changes. A. Sopher said the charge of the subcommittee appears to be narrow. B. Holicky said although the intent of the subcommittee is to focus on the process, it is necessary to recognize that process unintentionally drives policy outcomes. P. Shull said the board recommended that subcommittee continue and opened up the discussion for nominations. W. Johnson nominated E. Jones to serve on the subcommittee. P. Shull seconded the nomination. E. Jones nominated B. Holicky to serve on the subcommittee. K. Becker seconded the nomination. E. Jones and B. Holicky accepted the nominations. B. Holicky recognized and appreciated the Landmarks Board members for their contributions to the subcommittee. ADDITIONAL MATTERS R. McHeyser reviewed the Planning Board calendar. R. McHeyser gave the board an update on the Planning Director search. W. Johnson noted that she will not be able to attend the Oct. 16 Planning Board meeting. R. McHeyser gave the board an update on the Orchard Grove and Crestview East projects. W. Johnson provided information to the board members who did not attend the Boulder Housing Partners bus tour. 7. DEBRIEF/AGENDA CHECK 8. ADJOURNMENT The Planning Board adjourned the meeting at 8:54 p.m. APPROVED BY Board Chair it /~3/0~ DATE 6