Loading...
2 - Draft Minutes - Planning Board - November 20, 2008 CITY OF BOULDER PLANNING BOARD ACTION MINUTES November 20, 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 BOARll MEMBERS PRESENT: KC Becker Willa Johnson Andrew Shoemaker Phil Shull, Chair Adrian Sopher PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Bill I colicky Elise Jones STAFF PRESENT: Stacy Cole, Acting Reservoir and Aquatics Coordinator David Gchr, .Assistant City Attorney Susan Ilonse, Administrative Specialist II Beverly Johnson, Senior Planner Katie Knapp, Civil Engineer I1 Glenn Magee, Facilities Design and Construction Manager Ruth McHeyser, Executive Director of Community Planning Elaine McLaughlin, Senior Planner Susan Riehstonc, Long Range Planning Manager Drank Young, Deputy Fire Chief Susan Honse, Administrative Specialist II 1. CALL TO ORDk.R Chair, P. Shull declared a quorum at 6:09 PM and the following business was conducted. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES No minutes were scheduled for approval. 3. Pt1BL1C PAR'TICIPATiON 'T'here was no public participation, 4. DISCUSSION OF DISPOSITIONS, PLANNING BOARD CALL-UPS There was no discussion. I s. Ar.Tloly ITEMS A. Public hearing and consideration of Site Review application LUIt2008-00098, Boulder Regional Fire Training Center (FTC), for afive-acre fire training facility east of the Boulder Reservoir, on public land located at 0 Diagonal highway east of Boulder Reservoir. Case Manager: Elaine McLaughlin Staff Presentation F,. McLaughlin presented the item to the board. Public Hearing No one from the public addressed the board. Board lliscussion K. Becker asked for staff to elaborate on the coordination between the Fire Department and the Parks and Recreation Department. E. McLaughlin said #ire trainings would nut be scheduled during large events at the reservoir in order to accommodate for traf#ic. F. Young said there is an ability to block out certain events using an electronic calendar, which would prohibit facility training on those days. He further stated that the Fire Training Center will have an ongoing line of communication with Parks and Recreation for scheduling. A. Soper asked during a #ire emergency how difficult would it be fur a fire truck to access I-Iwy. l 19 and make a sharp turn onto the highway at such a fast speed. F. Young said in an emergency, #ire trucks would have indicators such as flashing lights and sirens blaring. He further indicated that the trucks would have to come to a complete stop prior to accessing Hwy. I l 9. He added that the fire trucks would have access to the closest lane on Hwy.l 19, if not both Ianes, to make the turn. and accelerate. P. Shull asked if'the height for the tower is necessary for the training. F. Young said the height of the tower is necessary because there are buildings of that height, and taller, in the community such as Williams Village at CL'. He further stated the height assists with training on 100 ft. ladder trucks and training where firemen carry hoses up flights of stairs and carry a J 50 lb. dummy down flights of stairs higher than a few stories tall. P. Shull asked about the landscaping. B. Eck stated that the landscape is similar to the existing landscape, utilises native materials and is a xeric Iandscape. P. Shull asked if any of the fire materials that will be used on this site will environmentally impact the land or plants. F. Young stated that burn materials, smoke, etc. will be contained within the facility and further stated that on occasion fire trucks may drive over the Iandscape. G. Magee added that this is a utilitarian site and the landscape added will soften that utilitarian feel. A. Sopher said there is a point where you can sec the site from the highway and said more screening would assist with overcoming the utilitarian feel of the facility. B. Eck stated that additional cottonwood trees could tc planted along the storm water flows and that additional screening could occur with additional terming. A. Sopher supported planting cottonwood trees where they will receive water naturally • and mentioned that too much berning may not look natural. K. Becker asked if there arc environmental concerns of the fire retardant potentially entering into a water source. F. Young stated that fire extinguishing strictly will be used with water. He said occasionally trainings may include the use of fire fghting foams for flammable liquid type fires and forest fires. He has been in contact with Water Quality and has met with a consultant to address such environmental concerns. K. Iieeker asked how events, such as a race, may impact the new facility. S. Cole stated typically those events draw roughly less than S00 people, begin after 6:00 PM and typically fall on Sundays. G. Magee said the reservoir's event usage is seasonal and further stated that the training facility will be conducting most of its training activities during tl)e lowest points of usage. K. Becker asked if parking during the events might interfere with the training facility. S. Cole stated that there is no parking permitted on the roadways during events and added that there are overflow parking lots. P: Shull asked if trainings will be held after 6:00 PM and on weekends. F. Young stated there is the potential for training activities to occur during those times but that it would be infrequent. Public Hearing No one from the public addressed the board. Board Discussion P. Shull stated he was not present at the concept hearing but read the meeting minutes. Motion On a nlotlOn b~SOj)I1Cr, seconded by P. Shull, the PlallI1111Q 130i1fd approved (5-0, B. H(,licl(y and C. Jones absent) Sitc P~cview, LUR2008-OUO(~8, incorl)oratin~ the staff memorandum and attached site review criteria dated November 20, 2008 as findin s of fact, subject to the conditions of approval with an additional condition to item 2.e. that the (letail lan(Iscape plans shall include additional provisions for screcnin~ and potential hcrmin~; and additional lan(Iscape larac L£1nt1nL's Ot eOt1o11WOOd tl'ees 1'eV1eW5 t0 tl)C south and northbound views from I lwy. l 19 to be reviewed at the discretion of the Planning Director. K. Becker asked about the concerns with potential user conflicts. She further asked to have an assessment as to what the potential impacts might be, whether it be impact to user experience, traffic concerns, etc. D. Gehr stated that ultimately the Fire and Parks and Recreation departments come under the City Manager's office and therefore it is within the city's organization and the City Manager's office to resolve conflicts between two the departments. The depar-trnents would have to demonstrate that they are mitigating the impacts that are being created by the use on the surrounding areas. P. Shull suggested that an annual monitoring practice could be required to evaluate user complaints. K. Recker agreed and stated that an annual review is a good idea. She did not want the Fire Training Center to compromise or modify Parks and Recreation events. A. Shoemaker stated that the Fire Training Center addresses health, safety and welfare issues for the city of Boulder. He did not want to give the impression that the board views that the Parks and Recreation department somehow overrides the fire service. P. Shull said there is the potential for the building to look brutal overtime due to the constant burning. He strongly advised that, in the technical document phase, the building be made as attractive as possible. W. Johnson agreed. She cautioned, due to the visibility from the reservoir and the highway, to plan landscape accordingly. B. Public hearing and recommendation to City Council on proposed policy options for changing the Wetlands Protection Ordinance {Chapter 9-3, B.R.C.) including: 1) definitions for wetlands, streams, and water bodies; 2) a methodology for categorizing wetlands and determining buffer v?~idths; and 3) a ne~~~ buffer cone approach. Case Manager: Beverly Johnson Staff Presentation S. Richstone, B. Johnson and K. Knapp presented the item to the board. Public Hearing Patty Angerer, 2225 Bluebell Avenue, Skunk Creek, Boulder spoke in support of the proposed three-cone system and expressed concerns over enforcement. Barb Kostanick, 355 W Arapahoe Lane, Boulder spoke in support of the proposed three-zone system and asked clarification as to rebuilding homes in the buffer if a catastrophic loss occurs. Alan Olson, 497 Arapahoe, Boulder spoke in support of the proposed three-zone system. Tom Blumenthal, 351 W Arapahoe Lane, Boulder, spoke in support of the proposed three-zone system and asked clarification as to rebuilding homes in the buffer if a catastrophic loss occurs. Chris Vincent, 1213 17t~' Street, Boulder spoke in support of the proposed three-zone system and asked about specific timelines. B. Johnson replied that tl~e city will end phase two by end of February 2009 and further stated that the city would like to finalize an ordinance and have it adopted by June 2009. Craig Bruiciy, 745 Jonquil Place, Boulder spoke in support of the proposed three-zone system and preferred a setback from the wetland being no greater than the property line. Board Discussion A. Sopher asked staff to address enforcement issues that Patty Angerer raised. K. Knapp stated that the neighbor took a fence down and provided a survey to staff that indicated the fence was six inches within their property line. P. Angerer applied for a permit to repair the fence Ilowcver, the fence was to be rebuilt in another location and therefore was not deemed a "repair." P. Angerer has since gone through an adverse possession case and won. 'Therefore, she was able to show ownership of the property and has since been granted the permit. W. Johnson asked if there is a map, or overlay, within the city's system to use as a guide for any kind of property changes. She also asked if enforcement occurs on a consistent basis. 4 K. Knapp stated that the wetlands and flood maps are used to check every application, consistently. . W. Johnson stated that there seems to be conflicts within the char-f. B. Johnson acknowledged the conflicts and indicated tl-rat staff'is working on resolving those conflicts. W. Johnson asked if there is a limit to only wind, fire or flood as stated in the memorandum, page 9. D. Gehr stated that terminology is used by way of example and said the provision in the nonconformance regulation has a list that states "in another calamity or act of God". P. Shull asked about damage due to age such as collapse or deterioration. D. Gehr said the code states that one can take a building that is unsafe and put it back to a safe state. A. Shoemaker asked about the additions that do not enlarge the existing footprint. B. Johnson stated that a wetland perrrrit isn't required if the addition isn't enlarging the existing footprint. W. Johzzson supported the three-zone system. P. Shull a~need and further suggested that use restrictions be defined. A. Sopher asked if Mr. Olson was concer7ied with the added sentence in statement 4, which states in part; activities that destroy or dirrrinish the quantity, quality aad biological diversity of wetlands, streams, water bodies and adjcacefzt lruf/er-s because that would include preexisting homes ol~things that would destroy and diminish. Mr. Olson felt that the overall tone of the legislative intent is prejudicial against single- familyhomes although it was designed to reign in developers. He further stated that the property owners are stewards of their land and felt there should be more balance to the private property owners in the ordinance. P. Shull asked Mr. Olson to give his opinion as to why the residences of West Arapahoe neighborhood have taken on the wetlands management issues more dramatically than other neighborhoods that are also tied to Boulder Creek. He appreciated that the residents of West Arapahoe have been positive and civil in their discords and said the outcome of the ordinance will be better because of that. Mr. Olson stated that the West Arapahoe area is one of the oldest neighborhoods in Boulder and has a very unique topography. Nineteen out of the 33 homes are in the buffer zone. He further stated that even if their area was grandfathered he didn't feel a strong sense that the property owners would not, at some point, be; in violation of the usage of the properties. P. Shull asked staff to confiz-rn if this area is a unique condition and questioned if a subset of regulations should be applied to West Arapahoe. K. Knapp stated that because of the slope there are some unique features. She added that this area is more vegetated than others and there are a lol of discussions about exempting private pathways to the creek on their properties. She said research doesn't support ending the buffer at the top of the steep slope. Joanna Seiler, 455 Arapahoe, Boulder, responded to the earlier question from P. Shull of why West Arapahoe is unique. She provided a photo of the property taken in 1894 after the flood. Shc explained that the photo shows the elevation and unique features of the property. She added that the 50 ft. buffer zone will take away her property rights. VV. Johnson stated that the discussions on legislative intent have been instructive and helpful. She suggested a fifth category acknowledging the balance of property rights, because otherwise we wouldn't be providing exceptions in the third zone. She stated that most of the city was built before the buffer zones were contemplated and said there may be an intrinsic conflict. 5 A. Sopher supported W. Johnson's suggestion and did not believe that the ordinance addresses the property owners concerns over use of their existing residences. He said the issue of balance should be addressed. D. Lehr said the suggestion was consistent in the intent. l'. Shull asked if the board had suggestions on definitions, legislative intent, or items listed under the staff recommendation. W. Johnson recommended adding in the earlier discussion of balance. A. Sopher questioned whether item 2 was previously done in the mapping and asked if it was now being rolled into the ordinance. B. Johnson stated that the ordinance describes a new method of categorizing wetlands anal said staff would come back with new maps and new buffer areas. She said there are currently 25 ft. and 50 ft. buffer areas on the adopted maps. She said based on the significance of the wetland, very few buffer areas arc 25 ft. She added that several buffer areas would be reduced to 25 ft. since snore wetlands will fall into category B. P. Shull asked for clarification on whose charge it would be to change from category A to B and vise-versa. lie presumed if it is the charge of the municipality it would be over the objections of the property owner adjacent to that group. B. Johnson stated the city would only be inclined to do so under a request by a group of land owners or with a major rcmapping of the whole system. She did not anticipate the city initiating fiinctional re-evaluation of an individual wetland or stream without a request from the landowners. P. Shull concurred with the overall objective to protect a resource and said there is a need to balance property owner's rights and usage. B. Johnson asked if the board is recommending that staff review and refine the three- one system. W. Johnson stated that the three-zone system better addresses the objectives with less digression and less cost and would be more clear. K. Becker asked if there was an appeals process or variance. S. Richstone acknowledged there would be an appeals process. P. Shull suggested that the hoard work out the nuances by reviewing the ordinance line byline and work toward a standard. K. Becker asked if it would be possible to place a cap on mounting permit fees. A. Sopher stated that the ordinance should be clear and concise to inform the property owner of what is approvable and what is not. He added that the ordinance should state the appeals and variance process clearly. I'. Shull stated that the fees have not been established. B..Johnson said once the process is in place, staff will be able to determine the cost recovery. Shc said the fees will then be recalculated. P. Shull stated that the board is very sensitive to keeping the costs affordable. A. Sopher stated that the ordinance should he general enough where it can be reasonably interpreted . C. Public hearing and consideration of Site Review application LUR2008-00047, Use Review application LUR2008-00049 and Preliminary Plat for the demolition of three existing structures and construction of a new Walgreens drug store with drive-thru pharmacy, and a separate retail/office building at 2870 28th Street. Case Manager: Elaine McLaughlin 6 Applicant's Presentation Scott Pedersen, Applicant, 411 Camino Bosque, Boulder presented the item to the board. Staff Presentation Elaine McLaughlin presented the item to the board. Public hearing Virginia llermsmeyer, 1850 Folsom #1106, Boulder, spoke in support. Madge Wright, 1850 Folsom #1102, Boulder, spoke in support. Motion On a motion by A. Sopher. seconded by A. Shoemaker. the I'lannuz~; Board apt roved ~4-l,W. Johnson oht~oscd. B. lloliclcy and E. Jones absent) Silc Rcvicw LU1Z2008- 00047, uzan-porahn~ the stall memorandum dated November 20. 2005 and attached Site Review Criteria Checklist as tindin~s of• fact, subject to the conditii>ns of approval. W. Johnson was not in support of the site review because she did not find that the site met the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan criteria sections 2.31 and 2.39 due to the parking lot in front of the building. However, she would support the site review if the parking lot and building were flipped. A. Sopher stated that he was not in favor of the strip mall approach. He did however appreciate the improvements to the site. K. Becker asked if W. Johnson's suggestion to move the parking would wan-ant a redesign of the building. A. Sopher replied that the plan would have to be redesigned in order to shift the parking lot due to the building layout of the check stands, fixtures, drive-thru and entry access to the current placement of the parking lot. P. Shull recognized that this particular zone may not be a heavily pedestrian orientated zone. He further stated that the developer does not have ownership to develop the entire corner. A. Sopher stated that there could be more improvements with this development and suggested that a mini area plan may be wan-anted to determine what that would look like. W. Johnson said this site is a lost opportunity to redevelop the corner in a more reasonable way and would be in support of~an area plan. S. Pedersen stated various reasons for having the parking lot in the front of the building; safety of the patrons and moving 65 ft. service trucks safely were mentioned as a few. 6. MAT"I'ERS FROM THN: PLANNING BOARD, PLANNING DIRECTOR, ANll CITY A"i°1'URNEY P. Shull discussed Planning Board's letter to City Council. 7. DEBRIEF/ AGENDA CHECK P. Shull discussed the communication of board members enforcing an auditory affirmation as opposed to having to view for a physical vote such as a nod or hand sigzyal. 8. ADJOURNMF.N'I' The Planning Board adjourned the meeting at I U:45 PM. APPROVED BY 7 Board Chair DATE 8