Minutes - Planning Board - 8/7/2008 CITY OF BOULDER
PLANNING BOARD ACTION MINUTES
August 7, 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
Elise Jones
Andrew Shoemaker
Phil Shull, Chair
Adrian Sopher
PLANNING BOARD MEMBER ABSENT:
Willa Johnson
STAFF PRESENT:
Juliet Bonnell, Administrative Specialist
David Gehr, Deputy City Attorney
Karl Guiler, Planner
Katie Knapp, Planner
Ruth McHeyser, Acting Planning Director
Elaine McLaughlin, Senior Planner
Sandy North, Deputy City Clerk
Robert Ray, Land Use Review Manager
Susan Richstone, Long Range Division Manager
Reina Sifuentes, Administrative Specialist
Paula Weber, Administrative Specialist
1. CALL TO ORDER
Chair, P. Shull, declared a quorum at 6:04 p.m. and the following business was conducted.
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
On a motion by E. Jones, seconded by A. Sopher, the Plannine Board approved (5-0, P. Shull
abstained, W. Johnson absent) the June 19, 2008 Plannine Board minutes as amended.
On a motion by E. Jones, seconded by A. Sopher, the Planning Board approved (5-0, P. Shull
abstained, W. Johnson absent) the July ] 0, 2008 Planning Board minutes as amended.
1
3. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
Kelly Davis, 2455 10`x' St. requested that Planning Board move Item SB, 1580 Canyon, to a
future date.
On a motion by E. Jones, seconded by A. Shoemaker, the Planning Board continued (6-0, W.
Johnson absent) the public hearing and consideration of Site Review application #LUR2008-
00012, 1580 Canon to November 6, 2008.
Bruce Dierking, 2595 Canyon Blvd. Ste. 200, spoke about the relocation of the North Boulder
Armory.
4. DISCUSSION OF DISPOSITIONS, PLANNING BOARD CALL-UPS
Call-up items: 1850 30°i Street and 350 Ponca Place. The board did not call up either of these
items at this time.
5. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
A. Public hearing and consideration of a recommendation to City Council on rezoning
of the property located at 3003 Valmont, the 27-acre Orchard Grove Mobile Home
Park from Residential Medium- 1 (RM-1) to Mobile Home (MH), LUR2008-00069.
Additionally, City Council requested that the Planning Board make a
recommendation to the City Council on whether to initiate Boulder Valley
Comprehensive Plan land use change for the five-acre vacant Medium Density
Residential (MDR) parcel located immediately to the northeast of the site.
Applicant: City of Boulder
Owner: Orchard Court Development Company
Case Manager: Elaine McLaughlin
Staff Presentation
E. McLaughlin presented the item to the board.
Owner/Applicant
Scott Sinclair, 4847 Silver Sage Court, Council for Orchard Court Development Company,
presented the item to the board.
He noted that the infrastructure of Orchard needs to be redone and the costs of improving the
infrastructure are substantial. Rehabilitation of the infrastructure is necessary in the near future
and rezoning will preclude the ability to do this.He expressed concern that the City Council is
seeking to down-zone the entire series of properties they own. The city's housing department is
interested in purchasing the property for permanent affordable housing which makes the
applicant question council's agenda for rezoning the property.
A. Sopher asked D. Gehr to speak to legal issues about the timing of the rezoning.
D. Gehr responded that the housing authority and the city are separate organizations that work
independent of each other.
2
Public Hearing
The following members of the public spoke in support of recommending to City Council that
Orchard Grove be rezoned to MH zoning.
Ginger Zukowski, 3003 Valmont #120
Greta Thompson, 3003 Valmont Rd #62
Lisa Ferreria, 3003 Valmont Rd #217
Paul Segal, 3003 Valmont Rd #41 B
Mark Robbins, P.O. Box 1024 (speaker pooled time with Matthew Kurek, 3003 Valmont Rd
#]58 and Sam Alschuler, 3003 Valmont Rd #219)
Rita Bowman, 3003 Valmont #158 (speaker pooled time with Gretchen and Richard Williams,
3003 Valmont #78)
Jim Paton, 3003 Valmont #123
Elizabeth Allen, Boulder
Justin Londer, Orchard Grove resident
Miriam Parsoner, 3250 Oneal Cir
Jeffry Buechler, 3003 Valmont Rd #98
Nichole Kenneally, community member
Ann Hunter, 3035 O'Neal Parkway
Shelly Slinkard, 3003 Valmont #161
Lynn Segal, 538 Dewey
Kristen Suppan, 2575 Glenwood Drive
Mariana Ximello
Ruben Garcia
Board Discussion
Board Discussion on Item A
W Holicky stated that because this item meets all of the criteria he supported the rezoning. He
recommended that the land use code's definition of Manufactured Housing be considered further
by City Council.
A. Shoemaker agreed with W. Holicky.
E. Jones agreed with both W. Holicky and A. Shoemaker. She stated that rezoning this land is
an obvious way to protect and maintain a lifestyle and diversity with affordability.
K. Becker agreed
A. Sopher also agreed.
P. Shull questioned if it was possible for the homeowners to purchase the park and if it is
feasible to repair the infrastructure to create a resident owned mobile home park. He recognized
the need to repair the infrastructure while maintaining and enhancing the community.
Motion
On a motion by W. Holicky, seconded by E. Jones, the Planning Board recommended approval
(6-0, W. Johnson absent) of Rezoning Review #LUR2008-00069 incorporating the staff
memorandum dated August 7, 2008 and the review criteria checklist as findings of fact and
recommended that City Council direct staff to analyze the BVCP land use designation change
3
from MDR (Medium Density Residential) to Manufactured Housing (MH) for consistency with
BVCP goals, policies, and eligibility criteria.
Board Discussion on Item B
W. Holicky stated that the definition of Manufactured Housing might need to be revised to
reflect the fact that mobile homes generally are not moved. He suggested re-evaluating whether
or not residents should be allowed to take advantage of new technologies that might turn their
mobile homes into permanent housing. He noted that once you remove the Chasse, the home
becomes permanent.
A. Shoemaker wondered if mobile homes are actually more or less expensive than other
affordable housing.
P. Shull noted that mobile homes are not subject to the same regulations as permanent housing.
He emphasized the importance of understanding the kind of compliance that should be expected
from mobile homes vs. permanent housing in energy efficiency regulations. Right now these
housing developments are not subject to the same regulations due to the fact that they are on
entirely private property.
K. Becker expressed her confidence in the residents' capability to work with planning staff to
resolve/address certain issues surrounding this item. She was impressed with the residents'
ability to identify the questions, regulations, technical/legal use, financing, etc. surrounding these
issues.
A. Sopher mentioned that the property owner and his stake in this item must be taken into
consideration. He noted that if the board's decision does not please the owner, the owner will
still attempt to get what he needs. He pointed out that the owner has indicated a potential rent
increase. It is important that this be understood in terms of the board's recommendation to
council.
P. Shull suggested that Planning Board use a broad perspective and consider how mobile home
communities can be redeveloped. He recommended making sure that council's actions result in
some flexibility. The decision should be broad, and yet restrictive, to give people confidence that
their investment is protected and make sure that owners are not denied their property rights.
K. Becker asked if A. Sopher had thoughts or suggestions about how to ensure this protection
for both the owner and residents.
A. Sopher stated that if there is an interest in affordable housing the city should exercise some
responsibility in making this happen. The land in question is not city property. It is privately-
owned property, so it is not the property owner's responsibility to provide affordable housing. If
it is a cities goal then it is a cities responsibility.
E. Jones asked why the five acre parcel is treated differently than the rest of the land. She asked
for clarity as to why there was special treatment for Orchard Grove.
D. Gehr explained that in the mid 1980s the land use designation MDR was applied to some
mobile home parks but that Orchard Grove and several others objected to the new zoning and
there was a deal reached by council stipulating that the city would buy an annual option or first
right of refusal and in exchange denied the re-zoning request at that time. A decision was made
not to enter into that option.
P. Shull asked if there was any payment ever made.
D. Gehr replied that there was no evidence that a check was issued by the city for this and it is
not being paid now.
E. Jones interpreted that the city intended to maintain this area as a mobile home park.
4
D. Gehr agreed with this interpretation.
P. Shull asked how the current zoning of this parcel and the adjoining property (the area
surrounded by residential zones) became as it is. He questioned the logic and timing of this
zoning.
R. McHeyser replied that she would need to research this zoning.
P. Shull stated that it looked as if there was a pattern of residential zoning.
R. McHeyser stated that the MH zoning was established after this park was put in. There was
no MH zoning at that time, RMI was closest to the residential planning of the time.
P. Shull speculated that the owners might have fought the rezoning due to the fact that they
wanted to re-develop or have it rezoned at a later date. He requested more information on this,
specifically if the owners expected, to have it re-zoned or re-developed.
E. Jones asked what the date of purchase was for the five acre parcel.
A. Shoemaker stated that the current owner's statement date of purchase was 1963 for the 27
acres and 5 acres in 1972. Then asked when the agreement occurred.
Staff members answered that the agreement occurred in 1985.
C. Pieropan noted that the Mobile Home zone was created when Boulder Meadows was
annexed to the city and the zoning standards were largely based on the conditions of Boulder
Meadows at that time. Vista Village was the only other park that was willing to have MH zoning
since it was a condition of annexation for Boulder Meadows. Branding Iron objected to the MH
zoning but the city rezoned it to MH despite their objection.
P. Shull asked about the current condition of Branding Iron.
C. Pieropan explained that Branding Iron no longer exists. She said that it was part of the Goose
Creek Flood Control Channel that the city bought as part of an agreement with the owners. The
city zoned it as MH. A few years later, the city acquired land for the Goose Creek Flood Control
Channel project to the park. The owners sued the city for inverse a~ndemnation. A settlement
was reached and the property was subdivided. The part that was needed for the flood control
channel was zoned public zoning and the part to the east was zoned commercial.
P. Shull asked if it was by location or if it was due to the fact that the mobile home park was
going away that the city chose to upzone the property as opposed to keeping it zoned as MH.
C. Pieropan responded that according to the record, residents came to the City Council and
asked that their park be saved by zoning it MH.
P. Shull asked why the city allowed this area to become commercial since the criteria exists to
maintain mobile home parks.
C. Pieropan replied that, at that time, no policies existed to preserve mobile home parks. Shc
stated that these preservation policies resulted from the lawsuit.
W. Holicky said that the area needed for the required open space might impact the available
development area.
E. McLaughlin stated that there is a requirement for eight percent of this site to be designated
for recreation.
W. Holicky stated that it would be helpful to understand the site better and whether eight percent
of the 27 acre site must be used for recreation.
E. McLaughlin stated that the open space would net out to be 2.5 acres for actual area that could
be developed. Roadway, right of way, the eight percent recreation area requirement as well as
separation between units and 600 square feet per unit of open space would need to be removed in
order to net out developable area.
W. Holicky questioned if that would eat into the five acres by about half.
5
E. McLaughlin replied that it might, but the numbers would need to be verified.
W. Holicky asked if it would be looked at as non-conforming.
A. Shoemaker supported the staff recommendation for further review. He stated that we need
more information regarding the five acre parcel.
E. Jones felt that they were lacking some basic information that would be useful in guiding us
and giving greater understanding of the relationship of this five acre parcel to the 27 acre parcel.
P. Shull agreed that more information is needed.
E. Jones suggested making a motion to council to postpone until after the study session.
P. Shutt added that we should recommend to postpone judgement and asked if this were
investigated under a normal process from the comprehensive plan update, when would that
occur.
R. McHeyser said if it were incorporated into the next major update it would be starting next
year. It could be a concurrent request for comprehensive plan change and rezoning that could
happen at any time
A. Sopher asked P. Shull to explain to the community what the options are for the five acre
parcel and the approval process for development and what the nature of site review would be.
P. Shull stated that if there was a purchase contract and redevelopment opportunity the project
would be subject to the city's site review process.
D. Gehr confirmed that it would go through concept review and site review and would be
subject to the full zoning review. He also stated that the comprehensive plan notes that the land
use map is advisory in nature and the rules that apply to a piece of property is under zoning
W. Holicky questioned if it would have to go through concept and site review due to the size of
parcel.
W. Holicky asked if the 27 acres has additional potential or is it currently non conforming in
terms of the eight percent recreation requirement amenity.
E. McLaughlin stated that it is conforming.
C. Pieropan stated that the calculations of the 27 and five acre sites do have additional potential.
R. McHeyser added that the only caveat would be the reconfiguration that would be required.
A. Sopher added the issue of the review process would require a major public hearing process
and suggested that all of the neighboring boundaries be considered.
W. Holicky stated that right now, he would not recommend that this five acre parcel be zoned to
MH. If there is no rezoning now then it would come under further review from the Planning
Board and council call-up before anything could be done on those five acres.
Motion
On a motion by E. Jones, seconded by A. Shoemaker, (6-0, W. Johnson absent) the Planning
Board recommended to City Council that it is premature to initiate a land use designation change
until we have additional information from staff and until City Council Study Session on Au¢ust
12.
The Planning Board offered the following comments and questions:
A. Sopher said should not wait until the Comprehensive Plan due to the broad public interest
and confusion caused to owners and residents.
K. Becker asked why the history of this agreement would affect zoning
E. Jones added that she would like staff to clarify the question about zoning
6
A. Shoemaker stated that it was irrelevant that the city did not pay the fee.
A. Sopher said he felt strange about rezoning the property because of a fear of something being
built under the current zoning and said it undermines the land use code and review processes in
place. He questioned if we wanted to change this zoning.
P. Shull stated that owners most likely made improvements to their properties under the
assumption or expectation that they had an agreement in place.
A. Sopher asked for clarity on the process of zoning and zoning changes.
K. Becker stated her concern with unintended consequences.
P. Shull questioned why it was ever zoned RM 1 and what justified changing the land use.
A. Shoemaker asked what are the long term affects of mobile home housing vs. traditional
affordable housing and what will stay viable over the long term. Which one stays affordable
longer and therefore will provide the most long term affordable housing solution for the city.
A. Sopher asked to hear from the Affordable Housing Department and what the options are for a
joint partnership between the city and homeowners.
E. Jones agreed with A. Sopher in terms of a joint partnership between the city and land owners
in the area to maintain affordability in existing housing stock.
R. McHeyser restated the question to address the issues and concerns of the residents and the
long term viability of the site.
P. Shull suggested including the buyer in the process.
E. Jones asked staff to explore ways of maintaining affordability and sufficient infrastructure.
A. Sopher raised a concern of how we are connecting these neighborhoods.
W. Holicky under both scenarios asked what can happen long and short term and asked what is
allowed and what is not by right and by review.
R. McHeyser stated under mobile home zoning there would be regulations.
A. Sopher requested that the board review the draft minutes before being sent to City Council.
R. McHeyser noted that council will not get the minutes in the next packet.
6. MATTERS FROM THE PLANNING BOARD, PLANNING DIRECTOR,
AND CITY ATTORNEY
The board recessed at 8:58 p.m. and resumed at 9:03 p.m.
S. Richstone provided the board with information on the DET Study.
R. McHeyser updated the board on the City Manager search and Planning Director selection.
D. Gehr updated the board on the Thunderbird Burger case.
The board commented on the Downtown Design Advisory Board (DDAB) and Planning Board
process of review re: 1580 Canyon.
P. Shull recommended that this item should return to Planning Board for another Concept
Review prior to Site Review.
R. McHeyser did a calendar check-in to determine if board members are available for a bus tour
Sept. 18 and or Sept. 25, 2008.
7. DEBRIEF/AGENDA CHECK
7
8. ADJOURNMENT
The Planning Board adjourned the meeting at 9:42 p.m.
AP OVED BY
2?
oar Chair
DATE
8