Minutes - Planning - 3/10/2011
CITY OF BOULDER
PLANNING BOARD ACTION MINUTES
March 10, 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: llttli://www.boul(icrcoloracio.gov/
PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT:
Bill Holicky
Elise Jones
Willa Johnson, Chair
Tim Plass
Danica Powell
Andrew Shoerrlaker
Mary Young
PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT:
STAFF PRESENT:
David Gehr, Assistant City Attorney
Charles Ferro, band Use Review Managcr
Flaine McLaughlin, Senior Planner
Karl Guiler, Planner
Jeff Arthur, I ngincering Review Manager
Katie Knapp, Civil Engineer II
Michelle Mahan, Transportation Engineer lI
Debbie Fox, Administrative Specialist I l1
1. CALL TO ORDER
Chair, W. Johnson, declared a quorum at 6:04 p.m. and the following business was
CO[1dUCtCkl
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
3. PUBLIC: PARTICIPATION
4. DISCUSSION OF DISPOSITIONS, PLANNING BOARD CALL-UPS
A. Call Up Item: Wetland Permit, LUR201 1-00005, Culvert replacement at Dry Creek
Ditch and Valmont Rd.
B. Call Up Item: 855 Juniper Avenue; Site Review, TA JR201 1-00009: Request to
allow an accessory structure to exceed the 20-foot height limit for accessory
strictures by roughly three feet pursuant to section 9-2-14(b)(E), "I leight
Modifications," B.R.C. 1981.
C. Call Up Item: 1701 Redwood Avenue, Land Use Review, LUR2010-00066, Minor
subdivision review to allow for the replat of three existing lots and a vacated portion
of right-of-way into two new lots through the transfer of 15,111 square feet to L-,ot 3
of the impossible Subdivision From I.ot 2 of the Moore's Subdivision and the
adjacent vacated 30' of Riverside Ave.
I
D. Call Up Item: 1558 Cress Court, Site Review, LUR201 1-00007: Approval of Site
Review application for a covered-porch addition and the resulting height modification
of six inches on an existing residence, due to a change in the low point. used for
calculation of building height on the property.
The board did not call up these items.
5. PUBLIC HEARING I'T'EMS
A. Public hearing to consider Concept Plan, I,1IR2010-00069, for a location within the
Gunbarrel Community Center at 6685 Gunpark Drive to develop an existing 8.7 acre
site with 250 residential attached dwelling units and 10,440 square feet of new retail
uses. An existing 28,000 square foot office building is proposed to remain.
Applicant: Peter. Wolff, The Wolff Company
Property Owncr: Gunban-el City Centre, LLC
Staff Presentation
K. Guiler presented the item to the board.
Applicant Presentation
R. Pryor and P. Wolff presented the item to the board.
Public Hearing
I . Peter Williams, 6700 Lookout Rd, Ste? Height is inappropriate. We have an excess of
low income housing in this area and there are no services including horrible police
response times and no city amenities.
2. 'T'homas Harrington, 3823 Birchwood Dr Supports development, like the open space to
play, affordable housing, parking and will improve quality of life in Gunbarrel
3. Ivy[ Boyce, 5440 Glendale Gulch Cir spoke on behalf of H OA, North of Lookout.
Spoke in opposition to the current project because it does not meet the needs of the current
conlrnunlty, not enough amenities or open pace, too many houses.
4. Rudy Wright, 9143 Pineridge Ln Spoke in support of the project, but opposed to height
of buildings. They are out of character to the area.
5. Virginia McGowan, 6698 Drew Ranch Ln, Boulder - Spoke in opposition and expressed
concerns about height above 3 stories, increased traffic on Lookout Road and Gunbarrel.
Already hard to turn onto Lookout Road from ldywild of Gunpark or from King Sooper.
6. Janet Michels, 5419 Indian Summer Ct, -Boulder Spoke in favor, but concerned about
traffic and density. It is out of alignment with what is existing in the neighborhood.
7. Michael Gross, 6698 Drew Ranch Ln, Boulder - Concerned about increased traffic and
height of buildings in development.
8. Paul Klamer, 5653 Table Top Ct. - Spoke in favor of the project, but thinks the current
site plan doesn't meet the Gunbarrel Community Center plan blend the existing
neighborhood well, segregates retail and community and missing major pedestrian
walkway to bring in the surrounding neighbors. The Williams Trust Property should be
considered simultaneously with this project.
9. James Butler, 7389 Mt. Meeker Rd - 23 year Gunbarrel Resident, 20 years on
Homeowner's Association concerns about traffic and building height, but more concerned
about impact-of 250 units on the cornnrunity.
10. Andrejs Rozitis, 4446 Clipper Ct, Boulder Supports the project, but has concerns about
the `Main Street', the `Gunbarrel Ave.' is already in use, doesn't agree that it breaks up a
super-block, supports a grid pattern over a curved block building.
11. David'Trollinger, 5375 Desert Mountain Ct. Expressed concerns about the confusion
of city police or county sheriff, concerned about density and height.
12. Jessica Hartung, 6868 "Twin Lakes Road- hives and owns a business in Gunbarrel.
Spoke about the Integration with existing businesses, pedestrian walkways, bigger picture
of character of Gunbarrel. Want to see a neat development. Want to see it work, but the
layout doesn't support an urban, connected center.
13. Rowan Truesdale, 4665 Kirkwood Ct- Spoke as a property inanager about the lack of
amenities in Gunbarrel that keep people and businesses from renting in Gunbarrel and
thinks that the project should go through to allow more property rentals.
14. Hunter Glasscock, 5534 Homestead Way I own 6654 Gunpark Drive. Spoke about the
lack of good set-backs, which give the street a better presentation- Spoke to the lack of
parking in the area and how this will increase the parking.
15. Corinne Holmbert, 6982 Firerock Ct - inappropriate plan for K acres. Spoke to the
congestion and to the density that is too much in too small of an area. Spoke to the left
hand turn into King Sooper as being horrible to turn into.
16. Ilon Theys Williams - 7418 Indian Peaks, Boulder - Spoke in opposition to the project.
The buildings are too high and there is no service in the area to support the additional writs.
Concerned that it doesn't have bike paths or extend into the community.
17. Michelle Boyd, 7368 Glacier View Rd, Lon-mont- spoke in opposition to the project
because the roads are already deteriorated, so traffic from more units will make them
worse.
18- Steve Albers, 5116 Williams Fork Trial #105 - Prefers no development. Also should
recess buildings from road on S side and miniature tress to improve pedestrian visibility
and make it more pedestrian friendly. (crossing Gun Park Drive)
19. Carol Jopin-Jack concerned about traffic, the development will make it worse, height of'
the buildings.
20. Dick llolmbert, 6982 Firerock Ct - questioned ]fit is possible to mitigate the traffic
situation with a traffic light. Need to mitigate before the development stalls.
21. Nigel Zeed, Gunbarrel - Moved to Gunbarrel because there isn't a lot out there.
Suggested a roundabout at Lookout and Gunpark Dr.
22. Kathy Towns, 6658 Gunpark Dr. - expressed concerns about the entrance and exit to this
project at lookout and spine. They are major thoroughfares with a lot of foot and bike
traffic. Concern about pedestrian access.
Board Discussion
Consistency with BVCP and GCCP
The board unanimously agreed that the main street' atmosphere is missing since there isn't a
critical mass of retail, the proposed main street aspect is awkward, overall project does not meet
the needs of the GCCP and the project is missing a community gathering place. T. Plass would
like to see a more of a secondary main street. A. Shoemaker felt the office building on the corner
is the main problem causing the concern, could be integrated in better to create a better main street.
W. Johnson cited the Yellow Pine in North Boulder is a good example of what a secondary main
street can be. In summary, the main street needs to be strengthened, there was concern for lack of'
pedestrian oriented design and community space and concern for how the building on corner will
function in the long term function ofthe plan.
3
General design approach
B. Holicky commented that the problem is the project is being done on buildings, as opposed to
streets, as a result the pro.jcet has inadvertently created a super block on the west side of tllc
project. In addition, the project lacks a street grid to have a main street to create a sense of place;
the east-west connectors need to be added to access dining places during the day and night;
pedestrian walkways need to be included; the grid needs to be redesigned to be bike and pedestrian
friendly; the residential and retail needs to be broken down more to bring in the surrounding
community, the smaller scale development is backing to King Sooper, as opposed to the
neighborhood; the open space is segregated from the development; and this project doesn't
currently create a quaint space that integrates into the community.
M. Young agreed with B. Holicky. Plus, the GCCP calls for more civic spaces, which isn't in (lie
project.; the pool that creates a housing pocket, and she would rather sec the project cause people to
interact more, rather than a car centric development.
D. Powell agreed and added that the parking garage is stuck between two small retail spaces,
creating too many cars and too little pedestrian environment. The parking lot should be accessed
from a major road instead of the development to mitigate this. She likes the pop jet fountain, but
has concerns that it is on Main Street due to kids playing near traffic from the main road and
parking. The agreed about the grid, there are too many t-intersections and dead-ends; access to
their units needs to be rethought in a dense community and wants more connections to the multi-
use trails and urban parks.
A. Shoemaker agreed with everything said thus far and added that the pool, while a slice amenity,
will only be open three months out of the year, so it will loose that open space the other nine
months of the year. E. Jones agreed.
W. Johnson commented that the angled in parking has been a concern, as it makes the streets too
wide and found the parking to exacerbating the super block. She suggested wrapping Gunpark to
exit from the south to help break it up.
In summary, the board would like more emphasis on true street ~plcl, integrate the uses, amenities
and Main Street park space better, there is concern about parking structure access, the applicant
should consider flipping the density to cast- to west-side, and there was concern about pool being a
community Centel'.
Building 11eight
The board unanimously agreed that three stories should be the maximum for integration. The board
agreed more information in needed to understand how the sight lines will impact neighbors and to
offer perspective. The applicant was encouraged to work with staff and the neighborhood. 1).
Powell suggested creating a rooftop restaurant to take in the views and will be utilized as a lunch
spot for the neighboring businesses, while also creating additional amenities. W. Johnson
expressed concern with the parking structure being higher than everything else. In summary, the
board agreed that 3 stories, more info to understand perspective and sight lines, hot button for site
review.
4
Traffic
The board will need more information from transportation to fully understand the issue.
Parking
M. Young and A. Shoemaker agreed the project lacks a plan for bike storage.
In regards to the amount of parking, the board felt it would be challenging to create a high quality
street while addressing the parking. U. Powell felt it would help to connect to the exterior roads to
give quick access road parking and open more parallel parking within the complex, while M.
Young felt the angle and head in parking can be dangerous for bikes. W. Johnson does not
support the angled parking; but likes that you don't see a lot oFthe parking with the current
dispersed parking and the structure. B. Holicky noted that there isn't enough parking in this
Current design and would like more information about the number of parking spots available. A.
Shoemaker noted that the board might need to be more accommodating to the parking than a
project in downtown boulder.
Appropriateness of Housing
A. Shoemaker commented that this is a suburban community, but as the center of town it will
have a more urban feel allowing for more density to support the retail. Plus, it creates housing for
people working in the business parks and should help mitigate existing traffic and parking
problems.
T. Plass noted that the housing needs to be integrated better into the retail area for the mixed use to
work. E. Jones and B. Holicky agreed. E. Jones recommended talking to the local employers to
make sure the housing meets the needs of the businesses to help reduce the parking.
W. Johnson noted that rental units are needed in Boulder and can provide appropriate synergy if
the design is right.
Open Space
The board agreed the wetlands and open space areas aren't being taken advantage of well. E.
Jones commented that the wetlands could be better used as an amenity with walkways or
interpretation and could also be used as a community gathering place. D. Powell wants the
detention pond to be an amenity and can be better- integrated with connection for pedestrians. She
will be looking for a more innovative design that has the detention ponds integrated back into the
project during site review.
B. Holicky commented that open space needs to be designed into the project to create a sense of
place at the center of the project. Ile highlighted the east/west street that hits in the middle of'
Giurbai-rel Avenue that stops, it needs to be continued to create a grid. To the south of the existing
open space, there is a pedestrian path that cuts cast and west, that needs to be added to the existing
open space to make it better for the community and create an amenity.
T. Plass agreed with B. Holicky's comment as an option, but noted an alternative is definitely
needed to what is currently shown. W. Johnson agreed.
W. Johnson suggested that the applicant look at off-site wetlands mitigation. E. Jones disagreed
because the open space is necessary for the size of the development.
5
In summary, the board was not clear what the open space connections are within the site or off site
and needs more bike and pedestrian connections.
General Comments
B. Holicky expressed concern about the :Fact that the applicant expressed a lot of what isn't
feasible for the site and cautioned the applicant to try to better meet the staff and board's
recommendations.
T. Plass thanked the public for constructive eniail and oral testimony.
B. Public hearing and recommendation to City Council of an ordinance that proposes
amendments to Title 4, "Licenses and Permits" B.R.C. 1981 and Title 9, "Land Use
Code" B.R.C. 1981 regarding mobile food vehicle sales.
Staff Presentation
M. Winters presented the item to the board.
Public Hearing
1. Rayme Rossello, 1221 Linden Ave, Boulder - Owns Comida Food "[ruck, wants a late
night componet, wants the regulations to help keep business fair,
2. Dana Dericllsweker, 4894 King Ridge Blvd. (pooled time)- Not competition, actually
brings people to central locations, wants hours extended to 7am-2 am, food truck events,
Board Discussion
T. Plass commented that the memo reflects a lot of negotiation thus far and suggested letting the
process evolve to address extending; hours at a later time, but to help the project move forward,
stick to extending the early start time, but not extending to late night hours.
M. Young asked for an amendment to allow alnplificcl music, but with a decibel limit. B.
Holicky commented that since patio restaurants can't, this seems fair to not to allow music for
the food trucks. The board agreed not to address this at this point.
B. Holicky expressed concern that the trucks have a greater impact in areas with fewer
restaurants than in downtown, so should allow in downtown.
A. Shoemaker commented as a first step we should consider the staff proposal, as there were
negotiations required to get to that point, and then later consider whether to consider to move
food trucks on east and west Pearl.
B. Holicky disagreed and feels an error is being made by keeping that restriction on downtown
since areas with fewer restaurants have greater risk of competition versus downtown that has
more choices. But. he is willing to withdrawal his request.
Motion
On a motion by T. Plass, seconded by E. Jones, the 1'I1-tnuing, Hoard apt roved U-0) to recommend
amendments to Titic 4, Section 4-18-2, ant_Tille 9J Section 9-17-5 and addinga l7ew section 4-20-
-6-5 to allow mobile f{god vehicles to operate in specific areas and under specific condilions cowered
in (his menloranduill, with a friendly alnenrlin_ent ofterecl by L. Jones extend flours ofoperalion to
start at 7 aln and explore adthng all extension o fa late Il]ght Component.
6
C. Public hearing and recommendation to City Council of an ordinance that proposes
amendments to Title 8, "Parks, Open Space, Streets, and Public Ways" B.R.C. 1981
allowing Temporary Street Furniture (a.k.a. Cafe Seating) to be placed in the public
right of way subject to conditions and setting forth related details.
Staff Presentation
M. Winters presented the item to the board.
Public Hearing
No one presented to the board.
Board Discussion
B. Holicky would like to extend this to everywhere to help make streets more walkable.
Motion
On sa motion by 11. Young, seconded by D. Powell, the flannin!, Board approved (7-0) to
recommend amending C'hapter 8-6 to allow cafe seating in the areas named under the: conditions
listed in this memo, with a friendly amcn(lmcnt from 13. lloliclcy to exicnt to everywhere in the
city.
6. MATTERS FROM THE PLANNING BOARD, PLANNING DIRECTOR, AND CITY
ATTORNEY
1. Dinner next week 5 pm Dushanbe Teahouse
2. Board Retreat, Thursday, April 28`x' at Andrew's Office
a. Board should send topics to W. Johnson.
8. DEBRIEF/AGENDA CHECK
9. ADJOURNMENT
The Planning Board adjourned the meeting at 10:04 p.m.
APPROVE,,D T3
BoChM
DATE v
7