2 - Draft Minutes - Planning Board - 12/16/2010
Return to Agenda
CITY OF BOULDER
PLANNING BOARD ACTION MINUTES
December 16, 2010
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
Susan Richstone, Comprehensive Planning Manager
Chris Meschuk, Planner II
Jean Gatza, Community Sustainability Coordinator 011
Elaine McLaughlin, Senior Planner
Jessica Vaughn, Planner I
Debbie Fox, Administrative Specialist III
1. CALL TO ORDER
Chair, W. Johnson, declared a quorum at 6:04 p.m. and the following business was
conducted.
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
On a motion by A. Shoemaker, seconded by M. Young, the Planning Board approved 4-
0, with 2 absent (B. Holicky, E. Jones), 1 abstain (W. Johnson), the November 4
Planning Board minutes.
On a motion by T. Plass, seconded by S. Powell, the Planning Board approved 5-0, with
1 absent (E. Jones), 1 abstain (B. Holicky), the December 2 Planning Board minutes, as
amended.
3. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
4. DISCUSSION OF DISPOSITIONS, PLANNING BOARD CALL-UPS
A. Nonconforming Use Review, #LUR2010-00037: 909 14th Street. Request to reconfigure the
interior space of an existing nonconforming three-story, 28 room boarding house into a
religious assembly use (Chabad Center) with accessory residential uses to be used in
conjunction with the primary religious assembly use only.
1
Return to Agenda
B. Call Up Item: 800 Arapahoe- Final Plat Technical Document Review: Final Plat for the
subdivision of one lot into two.
The board did not call up these items.
5. ACTION ITEMS
A. Update on the 2010 Major Update to the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan
Staff Presentation
S. Richstone, J. Gatza and C. Meschuk presented the item to the board.
Public Hearing
No one from the public addressed the board.
Board Discussion I Ah"
Organization and web-based component
T. Plass asked staff to make an outline of the process to illustrate the changes to the project from
current to proposed.
In regards to the web-based component, W. Johnson asked for the pages to be printable. Staff
responded that the pages will be in the form of PDFs. M. Young requested the pages to be cross
referencing for items that fall under various categories.
E. Jones found that the relationship between biodiversity, natural ecosystems and urban
environmental quality was not intuitive and it felt like there were missing pieces defining the
difference between water quality and water quantity.
E. Jones asked for clarification on deleting things that have become state law. She felt that to
delete something because it was existing law wasn't clear and felt that by removing it, the
intention or tracking the outcomes wouldn't be possible.
A. Shoemaker had questions for staff about process for home rule for federal or county laws.
The board had an extensive discussion about simplifying the web-based template and website.
Edit Criteria
W. Johnson appreciates the initiative, especially since it is easy to add and harder to delete.
Draft of Area III-Planning Reserve Process Changes
B. Holicky asked to meet with D. Gehr to determine his need to recuse from the following topic.
W. Johnson asked to meet to make the work plan.
B. Holicky asked for an option that offers a cheap, quick study of the area to determine if the
project is worthy of an extensive study, as opposed to reviewing plans every time update.
2
Return to Agenda
A. Shoemaker has concern that doing anything in the Reserve will open the floodgates, so
recommended only a small piece should be considered at a time, instead of the whole reserve.
E. Jones agrees with various pieces of what was previous stated, but agrees with A. Shoemaker
to have a clear process so that any planning doesn't trigger any momentum for the entire
Reserve. She also has concern that the baseline study could create a process that indicates it is
time to being planning in the area.
B. Holicky felt that the baseline study would give some insight to help manage the expectations.
W. Johnson agrees with the need for the comprehensive planning, citing the example of the
Sports Center.
D. Powell didn't find either option the right option, as an area plan is important to help lay out
the potential roads and infrastructure to determine how to connect it back to the city. This will
help mitigate another Gunbarrel, determine the thresholds, as well as help anyone determine how
to apply to a project in that area.
T. Plass wants to be sure there is flexibility to proceed for the really unique or important projects
for the city.
B. Holicky supports option 2 with area plans being initiated by PB/CC, not applicant driven. (i.e.
to mitigate one property owner having one idea)
E. Jones supports a process that preserves the flexibility.
D. Powell suggested a threshold, such as 500 signatures or another trigger, to allow the PB/CC to
determine the community need, as it will change over time.
A. Shoemaker felt will be the rare project that allows the development in that area, so likes the
option of having a city council member support an idea and grow it to a referendum.
Subcommunity & Area Planning process
The board and staff reviewed the history of the process and discussed options for mitigating the
ping pong effect.
E. Jones recommended leaving the process as is, so the Planning Board reviews the project.
D. Powell recommended finding a way to make the process easier for all parties, especially staff
and the public.
In summary, it was recommended to streamline the process.
6. MATTERS FROM THE PLANNING BOARD, PLANNING DIRECTOR, AND CITY
ATTORNEY
A. S. Richstone gave an update on the University of Colorado Campus Master Plan
Summary. The board asked to have a meeting with the CU Planning Committee, asked
to see materials in advance and be invited to be part of the design charrette or
community open houses.
3
Return to Agenda
B. Status of the LUAAG - An email was sent by staff providing an update.
C. End of year metrics for our beta paperless project -The board requested a press release
to local/AP wires and to City Council, but would like to see the project quantify
financial savings. Overall, the project was well received - thumbs up on the pilot!
D. Holiday party planning - January 5th 6:30 at A. Shoemaker's, Dinner @ 7:30
E. Affordable Housing Task Force - B. Holicky gave an update the Task Force. He
updated the board on how the board has found the issue to be complex and they
discussed creating broader based financial support and prioritizing recommendations.
F. The Board discussed what questions to include in the 2011 Planning Board Recruitment
Questions and asked that CMO know that the board preferred that the applicants be
able to choose 4 out of 6 questions, rather than answer only 4 questions. CMOs
response was the following: "We are re-working the applications so that the same four
questions are being answered by all applicants and hopefully this will prove useful to
the council members (comparing apples to apples). So, only the first four questions
will be used this year. We'll assess how the process goes this year."
8. DEBRIEF/AGENDA CHECK
9. ADJOURNMENT
The Planning Board adjourned the meeting at 8:34 p.m.
APPROVED BY
Board Chair
DATE
4