Minutes - Planning Board - 1/6/2011
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: llttp://www.bouldcreolorado.gov/
PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT:
Bill IIolicky
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, Fngineering Review Manager
Katie Knapp, Civil Engineer lI
Michelle Malian, `T'ransportation Engineer II
Brian Campbell, Civil Engineer 11
Bev Johnson, Planning It
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
Oil a motion by E. Juries, Seconded by A. Shoemaker, the Plannin<-, Board approved 640
the January 6 Planning Board minutes, as amended.
3. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
4. DISCUSSION Oh' DISPOSITIONS, PLANNING BOARD CALL-UPS
A. Use Review Amendment (I,UR2010-00062): Proposal to amend the previous Use
Review approval (LLIR2005-00065) 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 pin, 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
square toot kitchen and office shared with adjacent restaurant, and a 582 square loot
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
aitbrdable 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" R.R.C. 1981 related to section 11-1-
15, "Out-of-City Water Service," B.R.C. 1981 and section l 1-2-10, "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. (lie Planning Board aooroved (7-0) the
proposed C111111 Iles to sections 1 I - I - 15 "Out-ul=City Water Service." B.R.C. 1981 and 1 1-2-10.
"Out-of-City Sewer Services." 13.R.C. 1981 to the City Council.
R. Public hearing and consideration oi'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: 13CC, LLC
Staff Presentation
X. 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 behali'oIthe 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
5449 Omaha Place. - spoke in opposition to the project, citing lack of long term study
on the property, the flooding issue, the Prcblc'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 f()r more development.
5. Janice Jennings, 640 55"' 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.
S. 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 #L+'104-390 - spoke in opposition regarding the
consultants' study oil 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 55"' being completed.
15. Ruth Blackmore, 705 S. 415' Street - spoke in opposition due to the greater flood
plain issue that exists on South Boulder Creek.
16. Gene Treppeda, 265 Cimmaron Way- asked the 1`13 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.
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.
1). Powell agreed and also brought up the traffic signal at 55`h. The city is trying to get a grant
fi-om 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 and the concept review can
address mitigation issues including the history on the Kawanee 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
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. Ile encouraged the residents to share their information about the amount of
water coming out of their homes.
A. Shoemaker spoke to the fact that a reputable company did the work on the groundwater, but it
seems problematic that the studies do not seem to address the issues being raised by the public
testimony. Ile questioned the consultant as to whether the groundwater problem was considered in
the study. The consultant responded that the goundwatcr 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 fixture and what is happening now and will it change the neighbor's
impacts.
4
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 if there is an underground reservoir/aquifer and how big it is.
W. Johnson summarized the board responses to: we need more 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 cast 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.
F. 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 prin3e 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
T. Plass expressed concerns about the building's massing, the change to single building,
the uninspired architecture, and the fact the north facade 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. L. 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 l0A to create one lot at 5920
Longbow Dr.
B. Informational Item: Greenways Advisory Committee Memo and Comments for
Founnile Canyon Creek 26th to 28th Street CEAP
C. UI.I- tech advisory panel presentation -The Planning Board meeting will start at
6:30, January 20°i so that the board can attend the U LI meeting.
D. CU Master Plan Update at CU - January 27`x' 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 healing for call-ups that go out late.
8. DEBRIEF/AGENDA CHECK
9. ADJOURNMENT
The Planning.13c Ord adjourned the meeting at 10:55 p.m.
APPR~ _D Y
f"
Boa --d C )l 1r
6