2 - Draft Minutes - Planning Board - February 5, 2009
CITY OF BOULDER
PLANNING BOARD ACTION MINUTES
February 5, 2049
1777 Broadway, Council Chambers
Draft Minutes
A pennanent set of these minutes and a tape recording (maintained for a period of seven years)
are retained in Ccntral Records (telephonc: 303-441-3043). Minutes and streaming audio are also
available on the web at: http://www.bouldercolorado.gov/
PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT
KC Becker
Elise Jones
Willa Johnson, Chair
Rill Holicky
Adrian Sopher
PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT
Phil Shull
Andrew Shoemaker
STAFF PRESENT:
Jeff Arthur, Engineering Rcview Manager
David Gehr, Assistant City Attorney
Katie Knapp, Civil Engineer 11
Robert Ray, Land Use Review Manager
Chris Mcschuk, Planner T
Susan Honse, Administrative Specialist
Elaine McLaughlin, Senior Planner
1. CALL TO ORDER
Chair, W. Johnson, declared a quorum at 6:06 p_m. and the following business was
conducted.
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
On a motion by A. Sopher, seconded by K. Beeler. the Planning Board approved ( 3- 0. A.
Shoemaker. P. Shull, and E. Janes absent W. Johnson abstainc(l) the Oct. 16, 2009
,
Planning Board minutes as amended.
On a motion by A. Sopher, seconded by K. Becker, the Nanning Board approved ( 4-0, A.
Shoemaker, P. Sliull, and E. Jones absent) the Nov. 6. 2008. Planning Board minutes as
amended..
3. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
None.
4. DISCUSSION OF DISPOSITIONS, PLANNING BOARD CALL-UPS
None.
l
5. ACTION ITEMS
A. Public hearing and consideration Public hearing and consideration of a floodplain
development permit to construct a fence within the flood conveyance zone of Bluebell
Canyon Creek at 1235 Mariposa Ave.(case number LUR2008-00103), as set forth in
Section 9-3-4, "Regulations Governing the Conveyance Zone" and Section 9-3-6,
"Floodplain Development Permits," Boulder Revised Code (B.R.C.) 1981.
Case Manager: Katie Knapp
Applicant/Owner: Beth Pommer/ Richard Gcesaman
Staff Presentation
K. Knapp presented the item to the board-
Appellant
.Joseph N. do Raismes, Atty. Reg. No. 2812, Caplan and Earnest LLC, 1800 Broadway,
Boulder, CO 80302
Applicant
David.J. Love, P.E., 800 Jefferson Ave Ste B, Louisville, 80027 spoke on behalf'of Beth
Pommcr.
Beth Pommer, 750 Lincoln Place, Boulder 80302
Public Hearing
Tom Winter, 501 13"' St, Boulder, 80302
Board Discussion
A. Sopher asked if the two foot height, as the increase in the flood level for a 100 year
event corresponds to the width of that hatched area.
K. Knapp clarified that it was not a two foot increase in the flood height. She said the
depth of the water and the location of the fence are roughly about two feet.
E. Jones stated that an earlier comment was made that this is a precedent setting decision
and asked for staff's perspective on the comment if this was an unusual or rare decision.
K. Knapp stated this is standard decision on this type of project in order to obtain
approval for a floodplain development pernnit. The applicant is asked to present findings
from a professional engineer, who renders a decision about the impacts in the floodplain.
If the decision is in favor, staff will review the data presented and may or may not draw
the same conclusion of compliance.
E. Jones asked if staff has made similar decisions on similar requests.
K. Knapp replied, yes.
W. Johnson asked if there is an issue with a moving a fence so the property owners do
not have access to their property.
D. Gehr stated that it is not a criterion that is addressed in the floodplain regulations and
further stated that property owners at times will use a fence to delineate property lines. In
this particular case the owners are requesting to delineate a property line.
K. Knapp said the applicants have met the requirements set forth in the code and further
stated that not enough evidence has been presented by the appellant to refute staff's
decision.
A. Sopher questioned the interpretation of B.K.C. 1981, Chapter 9-16.
K. Knapp explained the fence does not increase the flood hazard and therefore, is not an
"obstruction."
A. Sopher questioned whether or not the fence with debris was considered an
"obstruction". Ilowever, he could support the motion on the basis of the fence not
increasing a flood hazard. He further stated that the Iloodplain regulations were
developed to protect property and property owners. He said if there was sufficient
evidence presented indicating this was in fact an obstruction he would have voted in
support of the appellant. 1 le stated the applicant has met the burden of proof.
Motion
1-C. Becker moved and A. Sopher second the motion to approve; that Planning Board
approve the floocIn ain development permit attached to the memorandum as Attachment
C, and adopt 111c mcrnoranduni w, the Findings of fact, (5-0 A. Shoemaker and P. Shull
absent .
B. Public hearing and consideration of a recommendation to City Council on an
ordinance amending Title 9, "Land Use Code," B.R.C. 1981 to permit the City
Manager to modify the rear yard setback for a principal building from 25 feet to eight
feet along the alley of a property proposed for a subdivision into two lots at 800
Arapahoe, if the house commonly called the "Hannah Barker House" is designated as
an individual land mark, and setting forth related details within.
Case Manager: Elaine McLaughlin
Applicant/Property Owner: West Arapahoe. LLC; and Chris C. Maurer
Staff Presentation
E. McLaughlin presented the item to the board.
Public Hearing
None.
Disclosure to Board and Public
E. Jones disclosed to the board and the public that although her residence is located at
716 Marine St., Boulder, which is within 600 ft. of the property that is being discussed,
that she would be objective in her deliberation.
W. Johnson was recused from this item.
Motion
B. Holieky moved that the Planning Board recommend that City Council approve the
special ordinance.
K. Becker seconded the motion.
A. Sopher offered a friendly amendment to the motion referring to Lot 2B of the staff
memo item 5B, Page 18, Section 2, which shall read "The City Council authorized the
city manger to permit the modification to the rear yard setback requirement for Lot 2B
for principal buildings to be decreased from 25 feet to eight feet if."
B. Holicky and K. Becker accepted the friendly amendment.
Final Motion
011.a motion by B. lloliel.y, seconded by K. Becker, the Planning Board rccomniendcd
(4-0. A. Shoemaker and P. Shull absent. W. Johnson recused) that City Council
_lpprovc the s iccial ordinance ainell(1C11' Title 9 "Land Use Code," B.R.C. 1981 to ermit
the City Manager to inodif'y'thc rear yard setback for a principal bUildill.111 from 25 feet to
eight feet along the alley of a property propo cd for it :subelivision into two lots at 800
.Arapahoe, if lllc house colllmonly called the "I larinah [darker Ho use" is designaled as an
individual landmark with the 1`6llowinti condition ol'a pproval: modify Attachment I on
Page l S. Section 2 of`the staff memorandow item 513 to refer to Lot 2B to read "Thc City
Council authorised the city i-nanger to pcrnlit the nlodification to the rear yard setback
requirelne:nt for Lot 213 for principal buildi3igs to be decreased froin 25 feet to ci =h~, t feet
6. MATTERS FROM THE PLANNING BOARD, PLANNING DIRECTOR, AND CITY
ATTORNEY
R. Ray gave the board an update on the status of his position and said lie will be working for
Housing and Human Services for the next six months.
7. DEBRIEF/AGENDA CHECK
None.
8. ADJOURNMENT
The Planning Board adjourned the meeting at 8:24 p.m.
APPROVED BY
Board Chair
DATE
4