Minutes - Planning Board - 1/20/2011
CITY OF BOULDER
PLANNING BOARD ACTION MINUTES
January 20, 2011
1777 Broadway, Council Chambers
A pennanent 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: llttl:)://www.bouldereolorado.gov/
PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT:
Elise Jones
Willa Johnson, Chair
Tim Plass
Danica Powell
Andrew Shoemaker
Mary Young
PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT:
Sill Holicky
STAFF PRESENT:
David Gehr, Assistant City Attorney
Susan Richstone, Comprehensive Planning Manager
Chris Meschuk, Planner II
Jean Gatza, Sustainability Planner
Debbie Fox, Administrative Specialist III
1. CALM. TO ORDER
Chair, W. Johnson, declared a quorum at 7:06 p.m. and the following business was
conducted.
2. APPROVAI, OF MINUTES
On a nnotion by A. Shoemaker. seconded by M. Young. the Planning; Beard approved 6-
0 the January 6 Planning Board minutes, as amended.
3. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
No one front the public addressed the board.
4. DISCUSSION OF DISPOSITIONS, PLANNING BOARD CALL-UPS
A. Minor Amendment to an Approved Site Plan (1,UR2010-00063): for a rear second story
addition of 1,923 square feet and a 1,041 square foot new office/conference space to
connect the two existing but separate buildings, also at the rear of the property. The
applicant is also requesting a 25 percent parking reduction resulting from the additional
floor area.
The board did not call up this item.
I
5. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
A. The item was withdrawn. (Public hearing and consideration of Site and Use Review
applications #LUR2010-00049 at the former People's Clinic site located at 1655
Yarmouth.)
6. DISCUSSION ITEM
A. Update on the 2010 Major Update to the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan
Staff Presentation
S. Richstone and J. Gatza presented the item to the board.
Public Hearing
No one From the public addressed the board.
Board Discussion
Core Values and Sustainability
M. Yount; asked staff to clarify where the text defining sustainability was moved and what the
definition of sustainability was changed to. She asked staff to consider using the words `meeting'
and `exceeding', instead of using the word `achieving' as the word sets the bar too low (page 35 of
the packet).
E. Jones questioned the use of the word `innovation' and `effectiveness' in meeting the goals. She
expressed that the goal should be `meeting' and `exceeding' the climate action goals, not being
`effective' with the goal.
M. Young recommended defining a reasonable period of time for defining and meeting the
indicators (1.06 Indicators of Sustainability).
E. Jones emphasized that new technologies are not the goal, using effective tools should be the
stated goal. And the principles for economic and/or social sustainability should have the words
housing/home and human services included as an indicator.
D. Powell questioned staff about 1.07 Leadership and Sustainability and whether the intent is to
create a community through the actions that support sustainable policy decisions.
W. Johnson expressed the core values are wordy and hard to suinmarize_
D. Powell questioned if there could be three bullets, to help simplify the section.
T. Plass didn't agree because sustainability by itself is such a large part of the policy so it is worth
keeping separate.
W. Johnson liked the lighter wording in the `quality of public spaces' under the Core Values.
D. Powell recommended taking out the names of the federal labs under Core Values.
General Document
T. Plass expressed that the document feels very paper- based and not being designed to be web-
based, as originally defined. He would like the web to point to other elements of the document for
more details. W. Johnson and E. Jones agreed and recommended that the web paged version
having more bullets and pull-outs that provide more details, while the print version would have all
the details.
Growth Management
M. Young would like to see the document define the significant community benefit under 1.20
Growth Requirements.
Framework for Annexation for Urban Services Provisions
7
The board and statfdiscussed what the note under 1.22 Definition of Comprehensive Planning,
Areas I, 11 and 111 means in terms of 11A/11B distinctions still-being relevant.
T. Plass questioned deleting 1.23 Preclusion of New Incorporated Places in light of the super
IGA. He commented that it is not really known by the public, so deleting it would preclude the
educational opportunity for the public reading the document. P. Fogg, Boulder County Land Use,
suggested the following wording: The super IGA, which includes 9 of the 10 incorporated
communities in the County, includes all rural preservation area in the County including Area 111, is
intended to remain in the unincorporated County under County jurisdiction, and not as municipal
influence area. This would help keep the undeveloped unincorporated portions of Boulder County
from further incorporation fi-orn any kind outside of the initially planned. E. Jones recommended
keeping the wording in the BVCP to have as a model for other communities as a success for- other
communities. Staff suggested referencing the super IGA as a core value. The board agreed.
Environment
M. Young felt that keeping 4.17 Hazardous Areas was important to keep separate because it is a
stronger word than combining into 4.13 Urban Environmental Quality.
D. Powell commented on section 4.03 City Leadership in Resource Conservation should be
kept so that the city leads by example and allows it to be a guiding principle. Staff responded it
will be reflected in the introduction to the section.
T. Plass recommended paring down the introductions by eliminating the references to the Master
Plans.
T. Plass questioned if 4.26 Water and Air quality cut meant the scope of the area was being
changed and questioned why 2.213 Water Resource Planning and Acquisition was cut. The board
and staff discussed at length the issues of water resources and how to communicate the impacts of
water use and selling on agricultural lands. In conclusion, the board asked staff to reinsert the stuck
language of 2.28.
T. Plass asked the staff if the WRAB reviewed the technical water issues.
Energy and Climate Action Section
M. Young and A. Shoemaker asked for clarification as to why the following question as in the
document: Question: iv there anything important to add here about regional economic viability
of agriculture?
W. Johnson, T. Plass and A. Shoemaker agreed the introduction was too text heavy and specific
while the rest of the introductions were general.
Area Ill Planning Reserve Update
C. Meschuk gave an update on the focus group regarding the Area III Planning Rcscrve.
Staff gave an update on the Joint Meeting of the Boulder County Planning Commission/Planning
Board electing.
6. MATTERS FROM THE PLANNING BOARD, PLANNING DIRECTOR, AND CITY
ATTORNEY
A. There will not be a February 3'd meeting.
B. CU Master Plan Update at CU - January 27`h 5:30-8 with dinner first, followed by the
meeting.
C. The March 3 Planning Board meeting will be moved to March 10.
D. M. Young gave an update as to why the 1655 Yarmouth call-up was rescinded-
,
I-:. The hoard a-rccd to ]told 111c nc\l r2U-eal on a Tlturlda~ in April.
1'. -I Itc hoard c the tiliIo%\ inu, fecdI) ack on the UlLI-TAP meeting:
a, NY Johnson was cspccUng more vision.
It E. Jones agreccl and stated that the final presentation NMI ! Av any details.
C. T. I'lass liked that a Kim-, Soopcr representative wa" in ;Olcrtd;ntce and th;ll thc\ MA"',
willim- to iook at a \ ariely ol'storc Sires.
d The hoard discusstcl the \A%almart ideas that \\crc propuscd.
c. Nl. ) 0111,; I'OUnd their deliitition ot'hoX StoreS toot rt;u-ro\\.
I'. T. Plans rc`cvurtcd with the ?\Wh tilrect corridor concept
ti. I)F F"R11:l i.\(:I:\I).\ C ! II.:(,K
o. i1)11O( R\)1l-:A'!
"H IC Planmill,7 llo, kl adiuurncd the mcctin,~ at c):?U p.m.
'APPROVI-.I) 131'
y i ~ Jl,
I1•~I