Loading...
2 - Draft Minutes - Planning Board - 1/6/2011 Return to Agenda CITY OF BOULDER PLANNING BOARD ACTION MINUTES January 6, 2011 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:/hvww.bouldercolorado.gov/ PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Bill Holicky Elise Jones Willa Johnson, Chair Tim Plass Danica Powell Andrew Shoemaker Mary Young PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: David Gehr, Assistant City Attorney Charles Ferro, Land Use Review Manager Elaine McLaughlin, Senior Planner ' Karl Guiler, Planner Jeff Arthur, Engineering Review Manager Katie Knapp, Civil Engineer II Michelle Mahan, Transportation Engineer II Brian Campbell, Civil Engineer II Bev Johnson, Planning II Debbie Fox, Administrative Specialist III 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 E. Jones, seconded by A. Shoemaker, the Planning; Board approved 7-0 the December 16 Planning Board minutes, as amended. 3. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION 4. DISCUSSION OF DISPOSITIONS, PLANNING BOARD CALL-UPS A. Use Review Amendment (LUR2010-00062): Proposal to amend the previous Use Review approval (LUR2005-00065) to allow for the expansion of the approved 3,200 square foot restaurant space in Suite 100 of the West End Plaza by 409 square feet. The new 3,609 square foot "Kitchen Cafe" restaurant space will seat 137 people and will be open from 11:00 am to 11:00 pm, seven days per week. B. Use Review Amendments (LUR2010-00065): proposal to amend a previously approved use review and allow for a restaurant of 1,748 square feet that includes 1,086 1 Return to Agenda square foot kitchen and office shared with adjacent restaurant, and a 582 square foot dining room, and an 80 square foot restroom. Total number of seats will be for 35 patrons (30 in dining area and five in the bar) with the hours of operation from 8:00 a.m. to 1:00 a.m. seven days per week. The board did not call up these items. C. Call Up Item LUR2010-00055: Located at 4990 Moorhead Ave. near Table Mesa Drive and US 36. Redevelopment of former High Mar swim and tennis club to an affordable senior residential development. Discussion on this item was tabled to the end of the night. 5. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS A. Public hearing and recommendation to City Council of an ordinance that proposes amendments to Title 11, "Utilities and Airport" B.R.C. 1981 related to section 11-1- 15, "Out-of-City Water Service," B.R.C. 1981 and section 11-2-10, "Out-of-City Sewer Service," B.R.C. 1981. Staff Presentation K. Guiler presented the item to the board. Public Hearing No one from the public addressed the board. Board Discussion There was no discussion by the board. Motion On a motion by E. Jones, seconded by A. Shoemaker, the Planning Board approved (7-0) the proposed changes to sections 11-1-15 "Out-of-City Water Service," B.R.C. 1981 and 11-2-10, "Out-of-City Sewer Services." B.R.C. 1981 to the City Council. B. Public hearing and consideration of Environmental and Engineering Assessment and Feasibility Study #LUR2010-00036, Hogan-Pancost Property (also known as Boulder Creek Commons), comprising approximately 22 acres located at 5399 Kewanee and 5697 South Boulder Road. Applicant / Owner: BCC, LLC Staff Presentation K. Guiler and K. Knapp presented the item to the board. Applicant/Owner Presentation Leslie Ewy of the Sanitas Group presented the item to the board on behalf of the applicant. Public Hearing 1. Jeff McWhittier, 5435 Illini Way, pooled time with Bill Eckert, 5431 Omaha PI; Eric Walls, 73 Genesee Ct.; Mary Anne Eckert, 5431 Omaha PI; Joyce Takmine, 2 Return to Agenda 5449 Omaha Place. - spoke in opposition to the project, citing lack of long term study on the property, the flooding issue, the Preble's Mouse and traffic increase. 2. Alan D. Katz, 103 Genesee Ct, pooled time with Barry Weiss, 5442 Illini Way - spoke in opposition to the project. 3. Katheryn Lewis, 155 Manhattan Dr. - spoke in opposition and recommended talking to the people working the area to see what is really going on in terms of flooding during the construction of the soccer fields. 4. Suzanne deLucia, 86 Mineola - spoke in opposition due to the flooding and the fact that there isn't a need for more development. 5. Janice Jennings, 640 55th St - spoke in opposition due to the traffic issues 6. Sylvia Rognstad, 515 Manhattan Dr #203 - spoke in opposition 7. Ron Craig, 260 Cimmaron Way, pooled time with Jean Craig, 260 Cimmaron Way- spoke in opposition to the project due to the increase in flooding that has begun since the construction of the soccer fields - 28,000 gallons of water a day during spring and summer. The did not happen prior to those soccer fields. 8. Ramon Jesch, 250 Cimmaron Way - spoke to opposition and talked about the history of the area before the soccer fields. Pumping 15,000/gallons a day 9. Jessica Sandler, 4800 Baseline Rd #E104-390 - spoke in opposition regarding the consultants' study on traffic and improving habitat. Outlined what happens to the prairie dogs and other animals that share the fields during exterminations. 10. Steve Meyer, 5482 Pueblo - spoke in opposition of the project and outlined that the artificial turf is causing the changes in the surface water. 11. Debra Flora, 5492 Pueblo Place. Spoke in opposition and concerned about the rec center changes to water level changing the studies entirely now and the traffic issues. 12. Jeff Rifkin, 210 Cimmaron, pooled time with Vincent Wayland, 215 Cimmaron Way - spoke in opposition due to the traffic study being incorrect. Found the contradiction in the study and not qualitative. 13. James Johnson, 130 Manhattan Dr. - spoke in opposition due to the ditch being enclosed and causing the school to be the main flood mitigation instead of the field and recommended the city purchase the property for open space 14. Debbie Hopkins, Minola Court, pooled time with Mary Treppeda - spoke in opposition due to traffic concerns and mosquito problems. She stated the traffic report is adequate since the development of the rec center soccer fields has occurred and the cut through on 55th being completed. 15. Ruth Blackmore, 705 S. 41st Street - spoke in opposition due to the greater flood plain issue that exists on South Boulder Creek. 16. Gene Treppeda, 265 Cimmoron Way- asked the PB to look at previous decision in 1992 stating why this project should not be developed. 17. David Gerlitz, 465 Oneida St. - Spoke in opposition to the project Omission of flood plain and ground water on surrounding properties and specifically their proposal to push water to the NW of the property. 18. George Svec, 370 Oneida St. - Spoke in opposition due to the fact there is major flood study being conducted. 19. Steve Telleen, 225 Cimmaron Way - spoke in opposition and asked the board to reasonably test the findings and asked the board if it is ethical to support a project that give profits to one party and costs to another. 20. Carpenter Tobie - 255 Kawannee - spoke in opposition to the project. The board too a break and returned at 9:30 p.m. 3 Return to Agenda Board Discussion Transportation B. Holicky felt that it isn't the board's place to determine the traffic impact on the roads, but it is the Board's role during concept plan or site review to determine the development's impact on the neighborhoods and road safety. D. Powell agreed and also brought up the traffic signal at 55th. The city is trying to get a grant from the safe to school program. If the grant isn't received, she would be interested in mitigation or determining another option for a signal to make the neighborhood as safe as possible. W. Johnson stated if this goes to concept plan, she would want to see simple diagram on emergency services and understand the history on the Kawanee connection. A. Shoemaker agreed. The transportation plan is acceptable as is, but at concept review has mitigating issues such as Kawanee historical issue. E. Jones also agreed and expressed concerns that the numbers in the current study may be off, but doesn't need to see another traffic study. Storm Water Management/Groundwater OF T. Plass is concerned about the undergrounding of Dry Creek Ditch No. 2 and as a result, will have a hard time supporting undergrounding. He will need more information about stormwater management if the pipe is undergrounded. E. Jones doesn't feel the connections between the current developments and the amount of water the neighbors are experiencing (with the addition to the sump pumps per each development of soccer fields) are being made with the current studies. T. Plass agreed that there is a disconnect between the models and the neighbors experiences with water. More information will be needed to understand what is happening with the current development and the Hogan-Pancost and how that will impact the neighbors. B. Holicky agreed. He would like more information since the amount of water means there is a need for further study. He encouraged the residents to share their information about the amount of water coming out of their homes. A. Shoemaker spoke to the fact a reputable company did the work on the groundwater, but the studies don't match the statements. He questioned the consultant as to whether the groundwater problem considered in the study. The consultant responded that the groundwater was not considered. D. Powell stated that there needs to be broader study that looks at the area beyond the normal perimeter to make sense of the issues at hand. B. Holicky asked if we have the right data and wants to know what the difference will be between the development of the future and what is happening now and will it change the neighbor's impacts. 4 Return to Agenda T. Plass discussed the slug of water coming out of the pipe and wants to know what the impact will be on the neighborhood when it is undergrounded. M. Young wants to know how big the underground reservoir is and how many there are. W. Johnson summarized the board responses to: Do we have the right data; the delta between today's condition and developed conditions; impact of water coming out of the piped ditch; undergrounding of the ditch; what was the change to cause the need to start pumping and the need to expand the analysis area. Floodplain Mitigation T. Plass wants to know the implications the floodplain mitigation study will inform the development of the Hogan-Pancost property. Wetlands M. Young asked to better understand the capacity of the east side of the property to handle the wetlands being redeveloped from the west side. D. Powell does not need to see additional study, as it will come up under the site plan mitigation. E. Jones and B. Holicky agreed with D. Powell. Wildlife Habitat and Species of Concerns T. Plass has concerns about the Preble's Mouse and the fact the prime habitat is very close to the development. It might need more investigation due the proximity. E. Jones agreed that the mitigation does deserve additional study due to the dense population and the major disturbance that will come with the development. A. Shoemaker complimented staff and consultants on the work and was convinced by the explanation provided by the consultant and didn't feel the topic was worthy of additional study. B. Holicky agreed. E. Jones felt that the applicant should consider a strong mitigation plan for east parcel for the mouse and that it should be flagged for concept plan. Other M. Young asked that the congregate care loophole be addressed. The congregate care is related the 3x density multiplier and wants to be sure the ordinance is not being abused. W. Johnson summarized the outcomes of the board that there is a need for more study regarding the groundwater. The scope should include interviewing the neighbors and attempt to test on their property, try to determine what the issue is and look into the impacts of the development from the Rec Center. In addition, the following items will be flagged during concept plan review - a plan related to transportation; the impact of south boulder floodplain; wildlife mitigation; and congregate care. DISCUSSION OF DISPOSITIONS, PLANNING BOARD CALL-UPS (CONT.) 4C. Call Up Item (Cont.): Redevelopment of former High Mar swim and tennis club to an affordable senior residential development; application no. LUR2010-00055, located at 4990 Moorhead Ave. near Table Mesa Drive and US 36. W. Johnson recused herself from the discussion. 5 Return to Agenda T. Plass expressed concerns about the building's massing, the change to single building, the uninspired architecture, and the fact the north fayade building doesn't address Moorhead well. B. Holicky felt the project was a public benefit, a good project so it should not be called up. E. Jones agreed that she doesn't want to place a burden on an affordable housing project. D. Powell agreed. The board did not call up this item. 6. MATTERS FROM THE PLANNING BOARD, PLANNING DIRECTOR, AND CITY ATTORNEY A. Informational Item: Technical Document Review (TEC2010-00040): Final Plat for the elimination of the lot line between Lot 7 and Lot 10A to create one lot at 5920 Longbow Dr. B. Informational Item: Greenways Advisory Committee Memo and Comments for Fourmile Canyon Creek 26th to 28th Street CEAP C. ULI- tech advisory panel presentation - The Planning Board meeting will start at 6:30, January 20th so that the board can attend the ULI meeting. D. CU Master Plan Update at CU - January 27th 5:30-8 dinner first, then meeting E. February 17 - Joint County Planning Meeting, 5-7 Muni Lobby F. Eco-passes were distributed. G. B. Holicky gave an update on the affordable housing task force. H. The board asked for paper copies at the hearing for call-ups that go out late. 7. DEBRIEF/AGENDA CHECK 8. ADJOURNMENT The Planning Board adjourned the meeting at 10:55 p.m. APPROVED BY Board Chair DATE 6