Minutes - Planning Board - 11/19/2009
CITY OF BOULDER
PLANNING BOARD ACTION MINUTES
November 19, 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.bouldereolorado.gov/
PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT:
Bill Holicky
Willa Johnson
Elise Jones
Andrew Shoemaker
Adrian Sopher, Chair
Mary Young
PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT:
STAFF PRESENT:
David Driskell, Executive Director of Community Planning and Sustainability
Charles Ferro, Acting Land Use Review Manager
David Gehr, Assistant City Attorney
Susan Richstone, Long Range Planning Manager
Jessica Vaughn, Planner I
Paula Weber, Administrative Specialist III
1. CALL TO ORDER
Chair, A. Sopher, declared a quorum at 6:23 p.m. and the following business was
conducted.
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
No minutes were scheduled for approval.
3. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
No one from the public spoke to the board.
4. DISCUSSION OF DISPOSITIONS, PLANNING BOARD CALL-UPS
Call-up items:
585 Pleasant Street and 576 University Avenue Minor Subdivision was not called up by
the board.
505 27`h Street Verizon Emergency Generator, Floodplain Development Permit
(LUR2009-00054) was not called up by the board.
1300 Sumac Avenue, Land Use Review was not called up by the board.
I
5. ACTION ITEMS
A. Consideration of changes to the Junior Academy Area Plan.
A. Shoemaker recused himself from this item.
Staff Presentation
S. Richstone presented the item to the board.
Public Hearing
Stephen Sparn, 1731 15°i Street, spoke to the board in support of the Junior Academy Area
Plan.
Elizabeth Allen, spoke to the board in support of the Junior Academy Area Plan.
Catherine Schweiger, 628 Maxwell, spoke to the board in support of the Junior Academy Area
Plan.
Elizabeth Hondorf, spoke to the board in support of the Junior Academy Area Plan bringing up
an issue with FAR.
Rick Johnson, 2521 Broadway, spoke to the board in support of Junior Academy Area Plan
saying the changes made by the City Council were disappointing.
Motion
On a motion by E. Jones, seconded by B. Holicky, the Planning Board recommended (5-0 A.
Shoemaker recused) adoption of the Junior Academy Area Plan as approved by the City
Council.
B. Direction on changes to the RH-2 Zone District including:
- Parking requirements,
- Calculation of density,
- Floor area requirements, and
- Potential consideration of comprehensive plan land use designation and zoning
changes in designated areas.
Staff Presentation
J. Vaughn presented the item to the board.
Public Hearing
Kurt Nordback, 777 Dellwood Ave. spoke to the board in favor of the proposed plan and is in
favor of parking reductions.
Micheal Hannan, 16495 Grays Way, spoke to the board about his concerns about RH-2. He was
in support of the staff recommendations.
Sallie Smith, 2153 Grove Circle West spoke to the board about her concerns about the
regulations. She asked the board about why a home could be torn down and several units could
be built in its place but you cannot simply add a garage apartment.
Mary Hey, 1919 Grove Street spoke to the board about her concerns about the regulations,
mainly the parking regulations.
Ed Byrne, 250 Arapahoe #300 spoke to the board about his concerns for parking in this district.
Phil Shull, 497 Pearl Street spoke to the board about the need to take it slow. and make sure the
board gets it right with the RH-2 decision. He asked the board to dissect the information in order
to understand all aspects.
2
Board Discussion
Question #1
Does the board agree with the staff recommendations on regulatory changes?
- Parking based on number of bedrooms
- Eliminate maximum floor area requirements
- Increase by-right density to 14 DU/A
- Decrease Site Review density to 21.7 DU/A
Discussion Topics:
Parking
Density/Floor Area
Nonresidential Uses
Subareas
General Statements
Staff RH-2 Planning Board Notes and Board Discussion Points Summary
Parking:
• Problem areas (Goss Grove, University Hill) address through overlay?
• Proposed regulatory changes do not successfully address impacts
• Interrelates to subarea discussion.
• Provide more information on expansion of areas.
• Require TDM plans for all multi-family projects.
• The board asks staff to come back to the board about neighborhood parking program.
Learn a little more about how to get neighborhood parking programs in place.
Density/Floor Area:
• Why 21.7 du/acre? What is the benefit?
• Eliminating the 800 square foot maximum floor area per unit also loosens controls for
building sizes. Incentives larger units; maybe limit building sizes.
• Regulations should focus on limiting the size of the building and not limit dwelling units
per acre
• Not sure it is appropriate to decrease the maximum permitted density.
• How big could a single-family residence be if the 800 square foot requirement is
eliminated?
• Could duplexes now be allowed?
Non-residential:
• Desirable in appropriate circumstances (Arapahoe and Canyon); not necessarily a
negative
• Provides services and goods to a forward vision and looking at the future of these areas.
• This zone is still a high density zone and we are a little too tight in terms of non
residential uses in this zone. Need to be a little more broad minded with a preseravation
view of these areas.
• Exclusions/uses Dormatories?
• Look at uses allowed in general.
3
Subareas:
• Analysis seemed slanted towards preservation as opposed to future
• Landmarking should be addressed through historic preservation program
• Is it objective to match zoning with existing uses/densities?
• Broadway/Canyon areas be more aspirational (not part of project), areas near downtown.
• Consider east Goss Grove a separate area.
• Consider ''A block of each side of major corridors for higher densities (RH-5)
• Concerned about proposed change to RMX-1
• Because of its location, Goss Grove needs to be seen in context; where do we want to
take this area in the future. The richness and variety of that should be maintained.
• Consider the institutions on Arapahoe and work with them and the neighborhood to
maintain the historic qualities as well.
• We can't afford to ignore Arapahoe as a major corridor. We have to look further. We
have to look at the change to the RM-X zone. It might turn a number of things into
nonconforming and therefore difficult to improve.
General Statements:
• Are we going far enough in simplification with the staff recommendations?
• Look at allowing ADU's and OAU's
• The memo had a preservation quality that was strong in teams of looking at this zone as
opposed to looking at what the future of this area should be.
• Procedure for putting all of this in place
• Make sure it is not being too narrow in its view. You are maxing out the current zoning.
• Agree with flexibility concept and that Canyon and Arapahoe need to be looked at more
closely.
C. Public hearing and consideration of a recommendation to City Council on a Phase one
ordinance amending Titles 4, 6, 8 and 9 of the Boulder Revised Code pertaining to tree
protection through impact analysis, maintenance requirements and Arborist licensing; and,
additional discussion on proposed Phase two tree protection code changes including potential
expansion of the landmarks program, a tree removal permit and/or other recognition program and
mitigation for removal of trees o private property.
Staff Presentation
E. Lokocz presented the item to the board.
Public Hearing
Jonathan Hondorf, 2729 4°i Street spoke to the board about being cautious about the
regulations that are put into place.
Sam Alschuler, 3003 Valmont Rd. #219 spoke to the board in support of tree preservation.
Asking if these proposals will help the overall canopy. If someone wants to redevelop they might
cut down trees before the redevelopment proposal is submitted.
Elizabeth Allen, Boulder, spoke to the board in support of tree protection.
Beth Hondorf, 2729 4°i Street, spoke to the board about her concern about large existing trees
that need to be removed in order to save their home.
Board Discussion
Phase I recommendation
4
Motion
Staff recommends that Planning Board pass the following motion:
On a motion B. Holicky, seconded by E. Jones, the Planning Board recommended that
Council adopt the following ordinance amended (1) amending titles 4 and 6 establishing
requirements for certified arboist licenses and (2) an ordinance amending title 8 BRC 1981
creating an affirmative obligation of adjacent property owners to maintain street trees
incorporating the staff memorandum dated November 19, 2009 subject to the following
conditions of approval.
The original motion was withdrawn and replaced with the following motions.
On a motion by B. Holicky, seconded by E. Jones Planning Board approves (6-0) an ordinance
establishing requirements for a certified arborist license and other requirements related to the
planting, cutting, removing, or applying pesticides to any trees; amending title 4, "Licenses and
Permits," B.R.C. 1981; amending chapter 6-6, "protecting trees and plants; and setting forth
related details.
On a motion by E. Jones, seconded by M. Jones, the Planning Board recommended (6-0) that the
remainder of the Tree Protection discussion to December 3, 2009.
6. MATTERS FROM THE PLANNING BOARD, PLANNING DIRECTOR,
AND CITY ATTORNEY
K. Becker move to council, D. Driskell asked PB to assign a replacement for the Landmarks
Board liason.
M. Young agrees to attend the next LB meeting.
Joint CC Study Session January 12
W. Johnson asked if council has set the schedule for board recruitments.
A. Sopher spoke about the PB holiday gathering on January 8, 2010.
A. Sopher spoke about the traditional letter from Planning Board to City Council. Asked the
board members to consider items for the letter.
M. Young said there was discussion about changing the DDAB guidelines during the DDAB
meeting.
A. Shoemaker said he would be willing to start the first draft of the letter.
E. Jones asked that there would be a formal adoption of the letter by Planning Board before it
goes to council.
7. DEBRIEF/AGENDA CHECK
8. ADJOURNMENT
The Planning Board 'ourned the meeting at 9:43 p.m.
APPROV
Board
3 /U
DATE
5