Loading...
Minutes - Planning Board - 5/21/2009 CITY OF BOULDER PLANNING BOARD MINUTES May 21, 2009 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.bouldercoloraclo.gov/ PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: KC Becker Bill Holicky Elise Jones Adrian Sopher, Chair Mary Young Andrew Shoemaker PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Willa Johnson STAFF PRESENT: Michelle Allen, Housing Planner Charles l,erro, Planner II David Gehr, Assistant City Attorney Michelle Mahan, Transportation Engineer 1 Ruth McHeyser, Acting Planning Director Cindy Pieropan, Housing Planner Robert Ray, Land Use Review Manager Susan Richstone, Long Range Planning Manager Paula Weber, Administrative Specialist III 1. CALL TO ORDER Chair, A. Sopher, declared a quorum at 6:04 p.m. and the following business was conducted. A. Shoemaker recused until item 6A. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES No minutes were scheduled for approval. 3. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION No one from the public addressed the board. 4. DISCUSSION OF DISPOSITIONS, PLANNING BOARD CALL-UPS Call-up items: Thunderbird Lake Wetland Permit (LtJR2009-00034) the board did not call up this item. 5. ACTION ITEMS A. Consideration of adoption of the Junior Academy Area Plan 1 Staff Presentation S. Richstone presented the item to the board. Public Hearing Randy Strogh (spoke with pooled time with Annie Clarke, Tony Stroh, Catherine Barnes, Liz Payton, Nancy Doty, - 15 minutes) spoke in opposition to rezoning. Annie Clarke, 2621 5`h Street (time pooled with Randy Strogh) Tony Strogh, 821 Mapleton Avenue, (time pooled with Randy Strogh) Catherine Barnes, 526 Concord Avenue, (time pooled with Randy Strogh) Liz Payton, 2605 5`h Street, (time pooled with Randy Strogh) Nancy Doty, 529 Concord Ave. (time pooled with Randy Strogh) Bev Robinson, 2137 Fourth Street, spoke in opposition to rezoning. Kim Keech, 2656 4`h Street, spoke in opposition to rezoning. Bruce Oreck, P.O. Box 1350, (pooled time with Cody Oreck) spoke in opposition to rezoning. Cody Oreck, 203 Monningside, (pooled time with Bruce Oreck) Carl Stewart, 2530 5"' Street, spoke in opposition to the site plan. Elizabeth Gordon spoke in support of option two in the plan and in support of good housing locations for senior citizens. Stephen Sparn, 1731 15th Street, (spoke with pooled time with Jose Varga, Ashley Pitts, David Johnson - 10 minutes) in support of the area plan. Jose Varga, P. O. Box 7300, (pooled time with Stephen Spam) Ashley Pitts, 1458 Kennedy Avenue, (pooled time with Stephen Spam) David Johnson, 711 Walnut Street, (pooled time with Stephen Spann) Jaquelyn Wurn, 82 Alpine Way, spoke in support of the area plan. David Sarson, 428 Concord Avenue, spoke in opposition to rezoning without a specific plan for the site. Margaret Arnett, 4670 White Rock circle, spoke in support of the project as a congregate living project. Pauline Annie Russell, Silver Sage Village resident, spoke in support of the project as a congregate living project. Lisa Harrington, 428 Concord /Avenue, spoke about the traffic concerns saying that she is in support of congregate care facilities if there could be a limit to the number of cars. Howard Movshovitz, 519 Concord Avenue, spoke in opposition to the project. Janice Hallowell, 519 Concord Avenue, spoke in opposition of the project without having more information. She asked the board not to rezone. Philip Shapiro, 3350 Quilici Road, (pooled time with Rick Johnson, John Wilson,) spoke in support of the project. Rick Johnson, 2521 Broadway, Suite A, (pooled time with Phil Shapiro) John Wilson, 653 Sea Breeze Drive, (pooled time with Phil Shapiro) Arnold Barns, 526 Concord Avenue, spoke in opposition to the project because there are too many options, saying that there is a need for detailed plans. Henry Ademski, 504 Valley View drive, spoke in opposition to this project. Ben Collett, 2566 6th Street, spoke in opposition to the project because of traffic concerns. Patrick Kadel, 424 Concord, spoke in opposition to rezoning. Tim Plass, 655 Maxwell, spoke in opposition to this project. Lynn Segal, 538 Dewey, spoke in opposition to zoning change. Beth Hondorf, 2720 4"', spoke in opposition to this project. Board Discussion K. Becker asked the friends of Mount Sanita to explain what their vision for the site is_ Their public testimony addressed what they did not want to see . Since the area plan is intended to address the vision for the site, K. Becker wanted to know what they did want to see. A. Sopher addressed that when City Council at staff's suggestion decided that we would do a form of area plan here, as small and light of area plan as possible, his understanding was that the intention was to avoid the problem of the cart being before the horse. We had concept plans and requests for rezoning that were contingent one upon the other. All of that based on maps that were in conflict with one another. It became very difficult to assess a rezoning proposal along with a concept plan given that the zoning and land uses didn't match. The thought was that we need to clean up our housekeeping aspects of things before we can reasonably ask an applicant to come in with a concept plan that can then be supported by our zoning code. E. Jones said she supported giving this area plan idea a try because the other way has failed several times. In the past it felt like there was a developer- coming in without finding out what the neighborhood wanted. In contrast if you did an area plan first, the area plan process is about talking to the neighbors about what their vision for this area is and what constraints would need to be put on development. The next development proposal would then have to reflect what was in the plan and what the neighborhood wants. Judging from tonight's public hearing it didn't work very well but that was the intention. A. Sopher said members of this board were concerned that it wouldn't work because we were looking at too small of a property and we were trying to do it in a shorthand version and limit the amount of things we would take on in the discussion in order- to keep it practical and achievable. Because of that, we limited the details of what we would be looking at in order- to accomplish it in a relatively concise manner given that the application had already been discussed by the property owner. Plan Objectives E. Jones said she is not against congregate care but she thinks that the density being proposed here is too high due to the fact that we have access against a mountain and it is incompatible with the existing neighborhood which has pretty low density. We can either lower the density or if possible put constraints on limiting car travel if this site is used for congregate care. This would reduce the impacts associated with congregate care. B. Holicky said he agrees with what E. Jones said but wanted to add that lie feels there is a need to allow for senior living on site. We have a population that is aging rapidly. It is a moral imperative to take care of all aspects of our community. He does not really have a problem with moving the lines around however we decide to do it tonight. He does riot think that the square footages allowed by the zoning have anything to do with what we might allow through a site review. Until we have a project, we can't know. M. Young said she would like to see a real area plan here that incorporates all of the buildings to the south because it is all in flux and there is already a discrepancy. If you look at it all together, it would be nice to consider- it in the face of a complete area plan. In the objectives, she would like to see it more feathered kind of situation given that the area just west of it is open space. Given the objectives she would like to consider this community edge, given that it is up against community open space and that hillside is going to be protected. E. Jones said it seems like most of that is in the environmental protection bullet. Asking M. Young if she sees ways to change that bullet. M. Young read that section of the bullet from the memo and changed it to add the word edges. 3 E. Jones said she would add that the development must respect the parcel's importance as a natural edge to the city. It is a prominent edge on the western side that is important to the city and the development needs to be sensitive to that. B. Ilolicky said lie understands where M. Young is going and he is willing to add "edge" there. He thinks that environmental protection gets to that point and in any site review is spoken to in the Comprehensive Plan so unless you were to say that you specifically want to see the development taper as you head west, that would be something that we should consider. I le is not willing to go there without seeing a concept plan. A. Sopher said lie would not support it tapering to the hillside. From his perspective this is a damaged site. It is not a hillside in its natural state. Ile would support tapering it down towards the slope as it goes up_ He agrees with B. Holicky that tapering it as it goes to the neighborhood and the context and fabric of the neighborhood to the east is critical. A. Sophcr said that part of what we will be addressing in the concept and site review hearings will be density, scale, mass, access, internal circulation, open space, traffic mitigation, etc. There is no guarantee of any square footage on this site. We are just taking the first steps right now and we are trying to come to conclusions that are reasonable that help us guide that future discussion. He does not have a problem in adding the word edge. Land Use A. Sopher said land, use and zoning combined is the most confusing aspect of this discussion in relation to the area plan. The land use is wrong in tenns of its lay out_ There is a case to be made for maintaining sorne form of public use on this land in the context of discussions that have been held, though to no conclusion, that the value of public land in this community is at a prerniurn. This site has gone through at least two concept reviews that have been rejected and property owners that have changed hands in the process. He is not in any great hurry to say that we should take the land out of some from of public land use and zoning; that being said, it does not preclude the possibility of congregate care on this site. Congregate care is a use that is allowed through use review. He is suggesting that we maintain some form of public land use and some form of public zoning but on a north south axis as it is in the zoning map, with the adjustment to the location of where that line is on that site in conjunction with a rezoning application and a concept plan. E. Jones said there are a lot of public uses that can happen there that may not be appropriate due to its location. A. Sopher said that the site has a hospital for a neighbor. E. Jones said that one would question whether given access if you would want to continue institutional uses down Fourth Street given traffic constrains already there. A. Sopher said we were too quick with staff recommendation to get rid of the public zoning. E. Jones asked if low density residential is allowed in a public zone. C. Ferro said you can have low density residential through use review. B. tlolieky said you have to go through use review for anything except a hospital or cenrretery. E. Jones asked about the idea that the land use is not a limiting factor on most of the suggested uses. A. Sopher said that is correct, it is all tied to the submittal. But lets clean up the land use map that says where we are heading is some form of public use and some form of residential low density use and particularly along the Fourth Street side, definitely single family residential. E. Jones said we are not saying the use has to be public but that the designation has to be public. You could still do a private single family development with a use review. Also saying that the rational for doing that is to preserve the public zone for some future public benefit. K. Becker- clarified that almost anything that could happen on this property will have to come back to the board for review. We are right now trying to create a vision for the property. What A. 4 Sopher is doing is making the maps match but she does not feel that it addresses the vision for the site. A. Sopher said the vision that he is trying to support is maintaining residential along Fourth Street. He showed that on page five of the area plan, where it says option 2, take out the word flex and make it public then take that line that separates flex from RL-1 and make it a dashed line because we do not know exactly where it will be. F. Jones said that K. Becker is right that this does not create a vision and that to the degree that this plan is supposed to give clarity to what is going to be on that property, we are not headed in that direction either with the staff recommendation or with what A. Sopher says. This is an area plan "light" or different. Maybe what we should figure out is what part of this do we have a vision for that is very clear and what part do we want to leave flexible. She wondered if there is consensus in replicating low density on Fourth Street. A. Sopher said we are talking about replicating RL-1 zoning and scale of housing along Fourth Street. F. Jones said these are the things that we do not want to be flexible on, that are not in question and we would want to be clear. K. Becker asked about community engagement in the area planning process after this new proposal. A. Sopher said the public hearing is over and with the new proposal this is not a done deal by any means. This is a draft area plan that has been put forward by staff. We have the opportunity to accept it, reject it, modify it and move it forward to council. L. Jones said this is not a radical departure from what was presented to the board- It is a different way of drawing the lines but doesn't change the options that are available. Asking are there any other pieces of this that we have clarity and agreement on. B. liolicky said the flex idea is interesting but the name is misleading. Saying that it really is RI. -I allowing attached units and congregate care. RL-1 is an appropriate zoning district for ajacency to this neighborhood. He does not have a problem with the stuff behind Fourth Street as attached or congregate care depending on how it is done. He said if we can say, it needs to be RL-1 along Fourth Street, it needs to be RL-1 along the back too but we are also interested in how we can get congregate care back there, that is fine. If the best way to do that is this new zone, that is fine. If the best way to do that is to leave it public so that whatever proposal comes forward has to go through us_ The only thing the public designation does that may be valuable is that leaving it public takes nothing off the table. He is not against it, there is not much difference in results. There is a difference in the message. D. Gehr said to some extent, in terms of the message and how the land use regulations have been changed over time, they have actually been changed over time to discourage residential because residential is kind of a highest and best use in a public zone and making housing an easy thing to do in a public zones threatened public zones because they would just convert to residential. If you want residential you should say residential plus what you would like to see on that site. That is a better message than just keeping it public unless you truly want institutional uses or public uses. A. Sopher said that does not necessarily apply to congregate care. D. Gehr said that is why all of those uses are use review. When you get into a use review process, you have a different set of standards you are applying to that use as opposed to site review. He said the things that he is hearing the board talk about is less about the use and more about design. Design issues seem to be more appropriately addressed using site review as your tool as opposed to the use review. M. Young said another difference is that if you overlay the R-4 and RL-f, public keeps congregate care as use review whereas with R-4 it is allowed without use review. 5 D. Gehr said that based on our site review thresholds it is going to be required. Not going through site review will not be an option. It will require concept review and site review. B. IIolicky said it seems that if we choose the public zone we are saying that our vision is for something residential but also perhaps for something else. If we choose sonic version of a residential zone, we are saying we think it is residential plus something else- So it might be useful for us to talk about which of those avenues we want to pursue. A. Sopher said lie thinks we are looking for more community benefit beyond single family houses. That community benefit might be congregate care on this site. Ile does not particularly supportjust turning this into residential use. Ile said if we just say that this is all residential use on this site then we are losing the potential if the property owner should change again to ask for that community benefit in quite the same way by rezoning to all residential. E. Jones said she does not disagree with A. Sopher's point about community benefit because once you give away public, it is gone. I lowever what she is hearing from the neighborhood is the benefit is to minimize density. It seems unlikely with where we are currently going with this that it will return to a school use or educational use. It is disturbing that we are losing those options throughout our city and eventually our demographics will change and we will need sites like that. It is not a bad use of this site. She is intrigued by the notion of retaining the public designation. K. Becker said she thinks staff got it right. There is a lot of strain on single family neighborhoods night now, there are not a lot of them. There is community benefit to providing more single family homes. We do not have the opportunity to add single family homes in the city very much- She also thinks that senior housing is something the city has to address. Some of the things the public is concerned about are incredibly important but we do not know how this will be addressed until we see a plan at site review. A lot of their concerns will be addressed at that point. What we are really talking about now is changing map tines and creating a vision. She likes that this leaves those opportunities open. This site is a huge opportunity to add something great to the community. Single family home option could be great but added that congregate care if it is done right and not at too high of a density, if the design is correct and if the traffic is not too intense, it could be a really great thing too. Saying that staff got it right but she has riot had the time to evaluate what A. Sopher is suggesting. In listening to E. Jones, she makes a good point but whatever is allowed on that site, she does not see it reverting to something else down the road. She said the neighborhood and public will be most concerned when the concept plan comes forward. M. Young said she thinks we are coming up with a vision here although it is a myopic vision. She still thinks that we need to address it as an area. She does not like this parcel area plan. The way that it has happened so far is disconcerting given that an area plan is supposed to be done by staff, Planning Board and City Council. She is bothered by the fact that a financial stake holder in this parcel was included in the creation of an area plan. E. Jones addressed M. Young's comments, she said she understands where she is corning from but she is approaching it from the opposite stand point because we are trying out a new process specifically for a parcel that is moving from public to private use. Noting that this is special and the last time we went through this was Washington School and that process was pretty bumpy. The developer was brought into the process because they were ready to come in with a concept plan. The intentions were pure which is we are trying to create a neighborhood vision on a parcel that is unique and different and really important. Not trying to make it easy for the developer to have their way one way or the other. It was really about trying to inject community first. It. came from a place where you might agree with the intention. B. Holicky said in the past we have only gotten developer input. It is normal and reasonable for a property owner to advocate a position for their property. The balance point is that we need to understand what the community vision for this property is. There are two sides to this and they both need to be involved. 6 K. Becker said with any area plan the financial stakeholders are always involved and that is usually the property owners that live in that area. The financial interests are and should be represented. A. Sopher said going back to the question of land uses, he said he still had a proposal on the table for two options in the land use, one as drawn with low density residential; the other as some form of public to the wester side of the site, and the modification of the snap to reflect that but maintaining low density residential on the eastern portion of the site. D. Gehr asked A. Sopher if his proposal was to have two options in the plan. A. Sopher said it was his proposal to have two options in the land use and would reflect two options to the zoning. B. IIolicky asked A. Sopher if since he is advocating this would he mind if B. Holicky leads the discussion for this part. B. Holicky said the idea is that we have a split zone with two choices for both the land use and the zoning, option one and option two. We wouldn't have option one currently listed in staff proposal which is the residential throughout. So in A. Sopher's last option we would have a split in land use with LR against Fourth Street and Public to the west. In the zoning we would have RL-1 against Fourth Street and Public in the back. The second option is L.R everywhere as staff has shown under the land use and flex and R1..-1 zoning as staff has shown as option two- We are looking for a straw poll to see if you can support those options. K. Becker said she is uncomfortable with that because option one that zones it as RL-1 is eliminated. B. Holicky said flex is essentially RL-1 with a couple of twists. RL-1 with congregate care and attached dwelling units. You could build it as RL-1 and it would all be dependant on site review approval- S. Richstone said the reason she suggested the board do the land use first is to talk a little bit more about the vision of what would happen in each of those. For instance under the low density residential option it sounds like there is some struggling with this flex zone because of some of the things it does and some of the things it doesn't do. The board is not limited to this zoning option. E. Tones asked if the board could give their vision for what they think would be appropriate for what should be built here. Saying that her vision for this area is that she is Fine with low density single family residential, she is not against congregate care as well. She is concerned about the density. Either of those or a mixture of them is fine at the right density. B. Holicky said he agrees with that but added that if this site does not get developed in the next ten years, it would be interesting to still preserve a future possibility of a public use here. The only thing he could envision on this site as public use would be open space or a school. E. Jones agreed with B. Holicky. A. Sopher said he agrees with what was said although he is less inclined to have single family residential. He does like the potential for congregate care on this site. It is buffered by the single family residential on the eastern portion of this site. He is not as concerned about the traffic generated. He said he feels that the traffic numbers will be less with congregate care than with single family residential- He is more inclined to see this as congregate care than single family. K. Becker said she is comfortable with RL-1. She wouldn't mind seeing the site as all residential. She is not opposed to congregate care but she knows there is concern in the community about congregate care. She thinks 130,000 square feet is too much but she would need to see some massing studies. She thinks there would be less impact from traffic from the congregate care than from the single family residential- M. Young said she could support public. What concerns her about congregate care is the definition. If we could address that definition and fix that loophole then she could support the zone that has attached housing / dwellings with congregate care- 7 A. Sopher said the board sees all of that in site review. This is not a by right project. K. Becker asked if Howe Mortuary was by right. M. Young said the other thing she likes about the public zoning is that you can have efficiency living units with use review. E. Jones said it feels as if there is a lot of overlap in what we are all thinking. There is a slight difference of preference towards single family vs_ congregate care and the question is then what land use and associated zoning best provides that vision. A. Sopher said from his perspective his proposal is a reasonable one to allow either possibility to move forward to council in terms of in the split in both the land use and zoning maps reflecting some sort of public to the west and single family residential to the east on the one hand and the flex designation as the other option to the west. K. Becker and B. Ilolicky said they could support A. Soper's proposal. S. Richstone said it sounds like where the board is going is two options on land use and zoning. What she did not hear on the public option is where the line goes. A. Sopher asked what S. Richstone recommends in terms of drawing a line. S. Richstone said it depends on the board's intent and vision. If they would like single family homes along Fourth Street, you could give approximately 100' of depth. A. Sopher said that we would want the west side of Fourth street to be single family and beyond that there is some flexibility with the development proposal. S. Richstone said you have a very clear benched portion of this site. You might want to put the public portion on the benched portion if you are going to divide the site. E. Jones said it is better to look at whether or not you want to align with the road to the north. S. Richstone said what she is hearing is to have that line between a quarter and a third of the depth of the site. A. Sopher asked for a straw poll on whether this board supports those two options for land use and zoning being forwarded as a part of the area plan and removal of option one as drawn as RL- 1 throughout. E. Jones asked if A. Sopher was saying that City Council choose or was he suggesting that the developer choose. A. Sopher said he is not sure if the developer chooses, asking S. Richstone what she was suggesting. S. Richstone said staff had only one land use option. Where the board is going is a little different because you are suggesting two different comprehensive plan land use designations. D. Gehr said at some point as part of the comprehensive plan process, if a property owner were to bring in a rezoning application, the comp plan says that you can also bring in a comp plan map change. It would be based on one of the two options. If the board is leaning toward congregate care, it makes more sense for a residential land use map designation because congregate care is a residential use. The regulatory evolution of our public zoning district is that we have continued to clamp down on uses that are pennitted, excluding more and more uses as time has gone on and making many of the uses that are allowed, use review. The intent with that was to preserve public uses or the public zone for traditional institutional uses to try to avoid them being used for residential which tend to cause public zoned land to have a higher land value. A. Sopher said if we do what D. Gehr is suggesting we get no guarantee that we get congregate care because it could still be single family residential under a different applicant. D. Gehr said you would have a similar kind of uncertainty with any kind of zoning. E. Jones said the value is to preserve for the future potentially beyond this land owner, the public zone options in writing the area plan. You can do single family as an option or congregate care and it may revert back to a more traditional public use in the future. Keeping that option open is what most of us would like. D. Cehr said if that is the direction the board wants to go, it is an issue of implementation and we may just have a good strong intention that for this publicly zoned piece of land that residential is among the preferred uses that could be used and we could also look at the use review criteria to make sure that our use review criteria could effectuate that intent. That is a relatively simple task. B. Holicky said if we send both of the [and uses ahead, a developer would have to be crazy to pick the public use. There is no point in sending both if we want it to be public. If we think the best use of this land is residential then we should zone it residential. If we think the best use of this land is some public use like a school but we can't get that, so a really good use is residential with congregate care we could go public. If we send two options forward, we have to assn ne that Council will pick one. If we send one of the two options forward we should send the one that best matches what our concept of the best use of the land should be. E. Jones said we should decide on one option and send it to Council and that we should do the one that is part public. We can be clear about our intentions in the language. A. Sopher said that leads us back to the comments on page four in terms of housing. S. Riehstone said that she heard the desire for schools. Schools are allowed in residential zones. She would suggest that the board think carefully about public as a zone because the public zone has a wide range of options. K. Becker said she is uncomfortable with public because of the options available and the fact that the public has not had the option to give their input on this new option. M. Young said she is coming back around to the flex zone asking if in the flex zone can the board say that they want to make it flex zone but only make it specific uses. S. Richstone said the board should took at the uses the board would like to see. You are not stuck with the flex zone option. M. Young asked if the board can narrow the uses down on that zoning for the site. S. Richstone said the board could recommend a new zone. B. Holicky said he is frustrated because on one hand we talk about our public zone and our schools, that they are a more restrictive way to deal with schools turning over. Here in this discussion we are referring to public zones being less restrictive than residential. It can't be both. IIerc is a school with a public zone on it and the conversation has switched so that if we leave it as public, it is too permissive. It is not more permissive than a residential zone. If we want it to be more restrictive it should be public. If we want to say we are fine with it being residential with some twists then it should be residential. A. Sopher asked the board if they are ready to say that we have some kind of shared view on this. He agrees that a use review is required on just about anything in this zone except a vocational school or a hospital. Ile does not see anyone being able to put a vocational school here with the price of land. Everything else is by use review unless we are doing a cemetery. lie agrees with B. Holicky that this is a more restrictive zone- E. Jones said she suggests public. A. Sopher is in support of public as well. He asked for a straw poll on supporting a split land use on the north / south access that is public to the west and low density residential to the east. E. Jones suggested having the zoning reflect that it is fine for some mixture of single family or congregate care as options. A. Sopher asked for a straw poll on whether or not the zoning maps are then to the west side public and to the east side single family residential RI. I zone. K. Becker said it is important that the public has a chance to look at what this does and means to them. B. Holicky said he supports that and at the very least the packet that is sent to City Council is noticed to the public so they have the opportunity to review and digest the information. 9 E. Jones said she is just wondering whether or not since we are a little more enthusiastic about the notion of mixing single family with congregate care as an option with a caveat with density, can we reflect that in the area plan adequately even though you would not necessarily get that explicitly from the zone and land use designation. S. Richstone said that is possible, whatever the board would like can be included in the language in the plan. A. Sopher asked for a straw poll on the zoning map that was just described with public to the west and RL-l to the east. E. Jones said that at some point she would like to talk about other limits on the development, in particular limiting the density. She feels that the square footage that is being discussed is too high and it would be her preference to have the area plan reflect a desire for lower square footage. A. Sopher said the board should talk about that under redevelopment principals. Ile then asked the board to discuss access. K. Becker asked for clarification on access points. M. Mahan said that in the area plan it states that there are two options, one with two access points in alignment with the alleys, the other option is one primary access in alignment with Dewey and then a secondary emergency only access. K. Becker asked if those are the only two options. M. Mahan said those are the only options. The grade differences to the north prohibits other options. A. Sopher said he would like to do away with option one with the single access onto Dewey. He does not see a reason to continue to further load Dewey which is a very narrow street which really doesn't support being the principal access point to the site. E. Jones said she has the same opinion. M. Mahan said both options have pros and cons. The cons to Dewey are that a slight percentage increase of trips could be routed down Dewey. The pro for Dewey is that generally the street grids are in alignment with another street so that the driver eye is drawn there. A. Sopher said the only problem with that is the narrowness of Dewey and the fact that Dewey exists at the bottom of that slope where bikes are going the fastest and trying to go the fastest and then come up the hill on the other side. Ile said he would still propose that the board do away with option one and ask for a straw poll from the board unless there is a reason not to. E. Jones said she shares A. Sopher's concerns about Dewey and she would be inclined to get rid of option one and also to have the two access points out onto Fourth have stop signs so that they minimize their impacts to pedestrians and bikes since Fourth Street is a major thoroughfare for that. Redevelopment Principles A. Sopher asked if anyone on the board would like to address anything in here that they think is lacking. B. Holicky said he would like to talk about page seven and the intention of trying to create architectural guidelines that make the buildings blend with the neighborhood. Ile said he would leave everything in here that has to do with massing, front porches, dormers, breaking roof up. Anything that has to do with specific architectural design like trim, paint, detailing should be taken out. We should see what it is before we judge whether or not it is compatible. K. Becker said she agrees with what B. Holicky said however she would like to keep in the section that says materials such as brick, stone, siding, and wood shingles. That eliminates stucco and she does not think stucco is a traditional building material in the neighborhood. B. I1olicky said maybe it should read a diversity of materials is encouraged. It should not look like someone did it all at once. It should be a diversity of design and materials. 10 B. Holicky said he would delete the reference to railing and would strike fenestration. K. Becker said someone from the public had mentioned making a reference to Mapleton-Hill Design Guidelines. S. Richstone said Mapleton Hill is an historic district; to take guidelines from an historic district would not work for an undeveloped property. She said what staff was trying to do is to take some the elements from a traditional neighborhood. B. Holicky asked if it could be simplified to say that detailed design guidelines will be developed as part of any site review for this site. That is what they did at Holiday and it worked really well. E. Jones said she thinks 120,000-130,000 square feet as potential square footage on this site is too high to be in keeping with the character of this neighborhood. M. Young asked if that could be done with some sort of square footage limitation. B. llolicky said one of the things that staff was proposing in the flex zone is a FAR limit so we could do the same thing with this proposal. A. Sopher said the only problem is that we have two different zones here and the zones have their own implications and he is wondering if in the RL-I zone if wc are identifying a problem with whatever comes out of the compatible development project. M. Young said that would not be in keeping with the current character of the neighborhood. A. Sopher said he is not sure he would agree with that. In other words the current character of the neighborhood could also build to that level of development of whatever comes out of the compatible development project. There are no limitations on that neighborhood. M. Young said it is a historical neighborhood. A. Sopher said not all of that neighborhood is historical. Ile said if there is a guideline for the city for the RL-1 zone, why would we expect this Rl I zone to be at a lesser square footage allowance. E. Jones said a case could be made that this is a large RL, 1 development that is occurring in mass that there may be specifics to this area that may trump that. This is why we have site review but the majority of the site is not going to be zoned RL-1. A. Sopher said lie is just trying to break down the parts right now because if the R1. 1 zone is going to be controlled via the guidelines that will be corning out before this project gets a building pennit, he is not sure he sees a need to make further restrictions on the RL-1 portion of this site. B. Holicky said let's say the Rl-1 zone proposed here follows RL-1 guidelines with that in mind lets talk about the public and when we are done with the public, we can come back to RL-1. Right now, public has no FAR limitations to it. E. Jones said the public has no FAR limit. You could try to craft: something that limits overall square footage. or you could make a requirement that is more subjective. A. Sopher said the problem with all of this is that we are winging it, we do not have a concept plan in front of us, we do not have any idea of what 120,000 square feet or 60,000 square feet looks like on this site. We don't know. F. Jones said the whole purpose of an area plan is to provide an opportunity for the community to have a vision for this area which includes both the positive of what we want and the constraints of what we don't want. If there is one thing that we have heard from this community and what previous Planning Boards have said through the last two concept reviews is the level of density is too intense for this site. This is a unique and important site. If there is one thing the area plan can deliver to this neighborhood it would be saying yes we agree, lets limit the density. B. Holicky said in the original proposal staff suggested a .5 or.55 in the flex zone and the applicant supported staffs recommendation. Why would we not at least start with that. E. Jones said this is an area plan. We set density limits for TVAP, for North Boulder that we were creating a vision. She agreed that there are different ways to set numbers and maybe we 11 shouldn't be exact, maybe it should be a range but the area plan as a whole needs to speak to that point. This is an area plan and it creates a vision and that is what an area plan is supposed to do. If we are silent on this the developer will come in with his best guess as to what he can get us to agree to and the community will come to the Planning Board and say that it is too much. A. Sopher said if they can't show us that it is a valid and valuable way to develop the site it will not happen. M. Young said what we do know is from the previous concept plans, one was rejected because it was too suburban. The other plan was 42 units that were rejected because it was too dense. B. Ilolicky said he does not mind putting a FAR on this but we should not extract anything from those proposals because they were ten-ible. The issues with those proposals had nothing to do with the density. He said we should not use those two proposals as data points. A. Sopher said the problem with trying to assess.what the numbers should be is that we are just making it up until we have a concrete proposal in front of us. K. Becker said she is comfortable with where B. llolicky was with creating a maximum because it gives some direction to the developer that this is the max and it gives some assurance to the public that it will not be higher than that. The range does not achieve a lot but the maximum does. A. Sopher asked if the board would like to take a straw poll. E. Jones said she is curious if there are better ways to get at the intention. K. Becker said she thinks doing a FAR is difficult because we do not know if they are going to come forward with a congregate care proposal or single family homes. Because single family homes are going to be divided into individual lots and congregate care could be condominiumized or it might not be so you can not make an adequate FAR for something like that. It really depends on how it is lotted. She said she is more comfortable with setting a maximum square footage. M. Young asked if we could do it with words that say something with a square footage that is in appearance with compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood. B. Holicky said we could try to say something like the maximum amount of traffic that should be on the site could be relatively similar to the amount of traffic that was there when there was a school there. We could say that the traffic should not exceed that or the FAR be in a certain range. We could focus on the traffic if we are interested in the number of people or we could focus on the number of dwelling units. E. Jones said she thinks we should focus on the traffic. She said it should be in the range of but it should not exceed what was historically there when the Boulder Junior Academy was there. M. Young said she had a problem with the traffic part of it because you could have a lot of square footage with usage that has very little traffic. B. Holicky said another way to do it is to forget about the numbers and use word and try to describe what we want to see. M. Young said that brings us back to the development principles. B. llolicky said maybe there should be different kinds of things in there that speak to this. He gave examples of on page 6 under the redevelopment principals it says the hillside area on the northwest portion of the site should be preserved and restored. Single family detached houses should be on the west side of Fourth street and should be compatible and consistent with the surrounding neighborhood and reflect a continuity with the existing neighborhood character. 'T'hen it talks about larger buildings located at the southwest portion of the site consistent with the buildings the buildings to the south, no more than three stories above finished grade. Those three things alone would cause the square footage to be well under- 100,000 square feet- E. Jones said on page six it talks about the single family detached houses and the height of larger buildings but it does not speak to the massing of congregate care. She would like to add that the overall square footage on the site for congregate care should not exceed 75,000 square feet. She 12 said we keep bouncing back and forth between square footage and traffic but if you are going to do something like congregate care you have to achieve low traffic results. K. Becker said she would like to end this part of the discussion and she agrees with A. Sopher that the board should not go with a number but just send a message verbally that if it doesn't work on this site it will not pass. M. Young said she could support E. Jones' number. E. Jones asked if there are four people willing to talk numbers and asked what kind of numbers the board is comfortable with. A. Sopher asked if we are talking about 75,000 for the entire portion of the site or if we are talking for public only. K. Becker said RL-1 is going to be dictated by the compatible development so she thinks the board is talking about public. E. Jones said then we need to come up with a different number- She said she is fine with separating the two. The number staff quoted for the potential square footage was in the neighborhood of 105,000 on the flex portion. In light of the difficulty in coming up with a specific number on the spot, E. Jones suggested an overall principle that the overall density of the site will be compatible with the density of the neighborhood, and asked staff to say something about TDM_ S. Riehstone said the board was going to come back to the intent language on the land uses about the type of use the board would like to sec. E. Jones said this was to explain the land use and zoning which now reflects public that single family development and congregate care and attached housing is an acceptable use of the public zone on this site and that we retain public zoning to preserve future options for public uses. The point is the board is not trying to discourage single family or congregate care uses on this site via use review. A. Sopher said we have modifications proposed to the staff recommendation. On a motion b)- h;..lones seconded by K. Becker (5-0, A. Shoemaker rccuscd. NN'. Johnson absent) the planning board reconnmend to City Council adoption of the Junior Academy Area Plan with the following 111odifications 1i-0111 the staff proposal: for the land use pnhlic land use to the west and low density residential to the east on 25-30 percent of the width of the lot and for zoning a single option that lollotivs the land use with public on the west and RL-1 on the east, under access we have chininated option one so option two is the only option, lanwnai~,c vas added to culain the intent of the land use and zoning and ridded reclevelopment principles such that the overall density must be compatlble with the overall neighborhood character and a staff TDM principal. B. Holicky thanked the neighborhood for staying involved. (A copy of the plan as approved by the board is attached to these minutes) 6. DISCUSSION ITEMS A. Update on the Affordable Housing Review Staff Presentation R. Ray presented the item to the board. 7. MATTERS FROM THE PLANNING BOARD, PLANNING DIRECTOR, AND CITY ATTORNEY 13 M. Young requested models that reflect context, orientation designations, solids represented by solids not solids and voids, and surfaces to depict bulk planes not solid blocks for the Compatible Development Ordinance Planning Board meeting on June 18. 8. DEBRIEF/AGENDA CHECK E. Jones requested a debrief about Junior Academy. 9. ADJOURNMENT The Planning Board adjourned the meeting at 12:10 p.m. APPROVED Y Board Chair DATE 14