Minutes - Planning Board - 8/6/2009
CITY OF BOULDER
PLANNING BOARD ACTION MINUTES
August 6, 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.bouldercolorado.gov/
PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT:
Adrian Sopher
KC Becker
Bill Holicky
Andrew Shoemaker
Mary Young
PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT:
Elise Jones
Willa Johnson
STAFF PRESENT:
David Gehr, Assistant City Attorney
Ruth McHeyser, Acting Planning Director
Elaine McLaughlin, Senior Planner
Susan Richstone, Long Range Planning Manager
Susan Honse, Administrative Assistant
1. CALL TO ORDER
Chair, A. Sopher, declared a quorum at 6:05 p.m. and the following business was conducted.
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
On a motion by K. Becker, scconded by A. Shoemaker, the Planning Board approved (4-0
E. Jones, W. Johnson absent. A. Sopher recuse(l) the July 16, 2009 Planning Board minutes.
3. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
No one from the public addressed the board.
4. DISCUSSION OF DISPOSITIONS, PLANNING BOARD CALL-UPS
The board did not call up this item.
5. ACTION ITEMS
A. Public hearing and consideration of Site Review 4LUR2009-00029 for the conversion of
a fraternity/rooming house to an 11- unit apartment building, located at 985 16" St.,
Residential High Density (RH-5).
Applicant / Owner: Jim Bray / Richard Putnam
1 of')
Staff Presentation
E. McLaughlin presented the item to the board.
Applicant Presentation
David Garabid, Development Manager and Jim Bray, Architect
Public Hearing
Fred Rubin, 1329 Cedar Ave., spoke in opposition.
Jane Stoyva, 1004 Lincoln Pl., spoke in support.
Steven Walsh, 915 15`" Street, spoke in support.
Board Discussion
Su nnaary
The site review criterion 4 of parking reduction have been met based on nature of
occupancy and adequate accommodation.
Motion
On a 111onw) by K. Becker, seconded by A. Shoemaker, the I'larlning Bozird
rccorrurlcrided approval (5-0. E...lones. W'. Johnson absenl) o['sile review LUR2009-
00029 incol-)Orating the staff memorandurn dated Au'Mst ti. 2()O9 ,-IS findings of lad
including the conditions of approval listed below.
Conditions of Approval
Applicant shall be responsible for ensuring that the development shall be incompliance
with all approved site and floor plans dated June 24, 2009, provided as Attachment F, and
Applicants written statements dated April 6, 2009 as provided in Attachment E, and on
file in the City of Boulder Planning Department.
6. MATTERS FROM THE. PLANNING BOARD, PLANNING: DIRECTOR,
AND CITY ATTORNEY
A. Shoemaker recused himself from the update from Jr. Academy.
S. Richstone updated the Board on Jr. Academy and stated City Council met on July 21,
2009 but no action was taken, and the item is continued to the September 1, 2009 meeting.
Area plans are adopted by Planning Board and City Council, and therefore the plan will
return to the Board f'or consideration as an approving body following council action if
council action differs from the action taken by Planning Board_
S. Richstone updated the Board on Compatible Development.. City Council held a public
hearing and began deliberations on August 4, 2009_ W. Johnson was in attendance
representing the Planning Board. City Council continued the meeting to August 18, 2009
and identified a number of questions for staff.
A. Sopher asked what is the current process for public projects going through a design or
land use review via Capital Improvement Project (C1P) or Planning Board?
R. McHeyser stated public projects typically would be reviewed through the Cornnu.Inity
Environment Assessment Process but there is not a design review process for streets. The
CIP review by Planning Board provides the opportunity for the board to identify projects that
should go through design review. A pilot process is being implemented for the transportation
project and Euclid and Broadway, and the board will have an opportunity for input.
K. Becker stated she wanted to comment on various emails received regarding the 30`1i Street
& Pearl Street project but understood that Planning Board does not have the authority.
2 of 3
A. Sopher indicated the 30`h Street & Pearl Street is a good example of where the
Transportation Advisory Board (TAB) does not review for land use and referred to which
Board would review for that type of project.
7. DEBRIEF/AGENDA CHECK
8. ADJOURNMEN'T'
The Planning Board adjourned the meeting at 7.06 p.m.
APPROVED BY
Boar 1 Chair
DATE
3 of3