Loading...
Minutes - Planning - 5/52011 CITY OF BOULDER PLANNING BOARD ACTION MINUTES May 5, 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: littp://www.bouldercolorado.gov/ PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Aaron Brockett Tim Plass Danica Powell Andrew Shoemaker, Chair Mary Young Willa Johnson PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Bill Holicky STAFF PRESENT: David Gehr, Assistant City Attorney Susan Richstone, Comprehensive Planning Manager Charles Ferro, Land Use Review Manager Jeff Arthur, Engineering Review Manager Karl Guiler, Senior Planner Chris Meschuk, Planner I Michelle Mahan, Transportation Engineer Debbie Fox, Administrative Specialist III 1. CALL TO ORDER Chair, A. Shoemaker, declared a quorum at 6:10 p.m. and the following business was conducted. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES On a motion by T. Plass, seconded by W. Johnson, the Planning Board approved 6-0, with 1 absent (B. Holickv), the April 7 Planning Board minutes, as amended On a motion by T. Plass, seconded by D. Powell, the Planning Board approved 4-0, with 2 abstentions (M. Young and A. Brockett) and 1 absent (B. Holicky), the April 13 Planning Board minutes. On a motion by T. Plass, seconded by M. Young, the Planning Board approved 5-0, with l abstain (W. Johnson) and l absent (B. Holicky), the April 21 Planning Board minutes, as amended 3. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION 1. Alan Katz, 103 Genesee - Spoke of concern of the Hogan-Pancost development due to the water issue. Provided questions for the Groundwater 101 presenter. 2. James Johnson, 130 Manhattan Drive - Spoke of concerti of the Hogan-Pancost development due to the water issue. Provided questions for the Groundwater 101 presenter. 3. Ron Craig, 260 Cimarron - Spoke of concern of the Hogan-Pancost development due to the water issue. Provided questions for the Groundwater 101 presenter. 4. Jeff Mcwhirter, 5435 Illini Way - Spoke of concern of the Hogan-Pancost development due to the water issue. Provided questions for the Groundwater 101 presenter. 4. DISCUSSION OF DISPOSITIONS, PLANNING BOARD CALL-UPS A. Use Review, LUR2011-00016, 4555 13th Street, Unit 2B. Request to locate a 291 square foot independent dental hygiene office at 4555 13th Street. B. Floodplain Variance, LUR201 1-00022, 3005 Arapahoe Ave., Conoco Gas Station C. Floodplain Development Permit, LUR2011-00025, 3005 28th St., Old Flowerama site D. Use Review, LUR2011-00006, Boulders Bilingual Childcare Ctr. The board did not call up these items. 5. INFORMATIONAL ITEM A. Groundwater 101 Staff Presentation Gary D. Witt, P.G., CPG, Sr. Hydrogeologist/Project Manager, Wright Water Engineers, Inc., provided an overview presentation on Groundwater 101 to the board. 6 PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS A. Public hearing to consider a Concept Plan entitled Waterview, LUR2010-00058, at 5801- 5847 Arapahoe Avenue to develop an existing 14.87 acre site (composed of two properties) with 288 attached rental units within three four story buildings at heights up to 55 feet (i.e., over the 40 foot limit in IG and over the 35 foot limit in RH-4). The project site is located on the north side of Arapahoe Avenue immediately adjacent to South Boulder Creek. Applicant/Property Owner: Lookout, LLC Staff Presentation K. Guiler presented the item to the board. Applicant Presentation Andy Allison presented the item to the board on behalf of the applicant. Public Hearing 1. Cynthia Anderson, 1193 Old Tale Road- She addressed the fact the potential water issues are due to shallow wells. She stated they currently have issues with getting permits to redrill wells, so the development could cause additional problems with wells. She also expressed concern about the building's high density on a street that has significant pedestrian and bike traffic, as it will increase the traffic. 2. Lou Kingdom. 1365 Old Tale Road, also spoke to the domestic well situation. He isn't opposed to the development, but wants assurances that the development won't impact the water table. He also expressed concern to the increase in traffic and that the architecture is inconsistent with the area. 3. Elizabeth Williams, 1555 Old Tale Road- She expressed concerns about the traffic that already exists and will increase due to the development. 4. Bill Williams, 1555 Old Tale Road - He spoke against the development due to the density and the traffic increase it will cause. 5. Ray Hedburg, 1310 Old Tale Road. - He provided a history of the flooding in the area, as a long term resident. He is concerned about the potential flood issue coming from a backlash of water from the new development and concerned that the County isn't aware of the project. 6. Judy Renfrew, PO Box 17100 - She found the design quality, but in the wrong place. She is concerned about the massing and visual impact on the surrounding neighborhoods. She questioned the mmniber of urban amenities for the increase number of families. She is concerned that a light would likely have to be added to address the increase in traffic. 7. Brad Peterson, 1457 Old Tale Road, pooled time with Toni Perrin, 1436 Old Tale Road. - Spoke to the fact this project is not compatible with the surrounding area. He cited specific code Section 9.2.14H, 2.F. 11, of B.R.C., as the building height, mass and scale being too large, with too much traffic, for the area; the increased traffic; and the flooding potential. 8. Porsche Young, 1548 Old Tale Road - She spoke to the concern about the flood issue and the water table. 9. Sally Kingdom, 1325 Old Tale Road - She spoke about the history of flooding and concern for the increased traffic. 10. Caroline Coggan, 1305 Old Tale Road. - She spoke to the traffic concern due to the number of kids that live in the area and how the project will increase the traffic. She also addressed the concern for the diversity in South Boulder Creek and how a project of this magnitude will affect it. Board Discussion BVCP Polices The board was in consensus that the project lacks compatibility related to the neighboring residential areas; that it doesn't seem to be the right area for infill. Specifically, the project doesn't meet the BVCP due to the lack of project compatibility with adjacent land use and the built environment. Some felt the project doesn't have the necessary amenities to support the development's residents and that it lacks the necessary walkability to create a community. Site Design/Open Space Quality The board cited positive aspects of the project being the pond and the connectivity the bike path provides. In addition, some felt there are some good geometric shapes to the building. There were concerns about the super block that presents a dead zone on Arapahoe. There was also concern that the geographic features, like the open space, should be consistent with rural character of the surroundings. It was suggested that the pond could be better incorporated and the open space adjacent to Arapahoe not good due to sound and safety. One board member didn't like outdoor pool because this climate makes them unusable most of the year. Building Design/Massing & Height The board was unanimous in their opposition to the pedestrian budge, the height increase and the proposed massing. There was concern about the flat roofs, so contours or relief will need to be added to mitigate the flatness. In addition, most stated a need to simplify the materials and colors of the facades. Density/Residential Use The board felt that a residential designation would work, but it would need to be compatible with the character and density of the surroundings. This would potentially work with a lower density or if it included a street side mixed-use that works with the industrial neighborhood while also being compatible to the neighborhoods. Flood/Traffic More technical expertise will be warranted at Site Review. Environmental In the context of groundwater, the environmental will need more review at Site Review to better understand the impacts to the neighbors. 7. MATTERS FROM THE PLANNING BOARD, PLANNING DIRECTOR, AND CITY ATTORNEY A. Planning Board comments to the City Manager on proposed changes to the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance Administrative Regulations. Andy Proctor and Michelle Allen presented the item to the board. Board Feedback W. Johnson expressed concerned that regulation 3.4.5 doesn't provide enough clarity. She would like to see the regulation deleted, or clarification on why and how it happens. A. Brockett agreed. B. AHTF - Andy Proctor gave an update on the Affordable Housing Task Force, to include the history and the upcoming meetings and milestones of the Task Force. C. Calendar - May 19th meeting has been cancelled. Move the follow-up meeting to Wednesday instead of Thursday. Reschedule follow-up meeting to Wednesday the D. Prep for May 24th - S. Riehstone provided an overview of the May 24 Joint CC/PB meeting set-up. E. A. Brockett gave an update on the Greenways Meeting. 8. DEBRIEF/AGENDA CHECK 9. ADJOURNMENT The Planning Board adjourned the meeting at 10:12 p.m. APPROVED BY Board Chair DATE