Minutes - Planning - 10/6/2011
CITY OF BOULDER
PLANNING BOARD ACTION MINUTES
October 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: http://www.bouldercolorado.gov/
PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT:
Aaron Brockett
Bill Holicky
Willa Johnson
Tim Plass
Danica Powell
Andrew Shoemaker, Chair
Mary Young
STAFF PRESENT:
David Gehr, Assistant City Attorney
Charles Ferro, Land Use Review Manager
Karl Guiler, Senior Planner
Jessica Vaughn, Planner I
Chandler Van Schaack, Associate Planner
Heidi Schumm, Civil Engineer I
Debbie Fox, Administrative Specialist III
1. CALL TO ORDER
Chair, A. Shoemaker, declared a quorum at 6:09 p.m. and the following business was
conducted.
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
On a motion by T. Plass, seconded by D. Powell, the Planning Board approved 5-0, with
1 absent (B. Holicky), 1 abstain (W. Johnson), the September 15 Planning Board
minutes, as amended.
3. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
1. Peter Richards, 470 University - Provided a neighborhood perspective of the University
Hill area projects, such as the Tavern and the theatre, the vacancies and the community's
responses to the projects.
4. DISCUSSION OF DISPOSITIONS, PLANNING BOARD CALL-UPS
A. Minor Amendment to an Approved Site Plan, LUR2011-00048, 2700 Pearl Street
B. Site Review for Height Modification, LUR201 1-0005 0, 2215 20th Street
C. Site Review for Poles Above the Permitted Height, LUR2011-00014, Mapleton Ball
Fields (30th and Mapleton)
D. Use Review for Manufacturing Use with Potential Off-Site Impacts, LUR2011-00055,
1898 S. Flatiron Ct.
The board did not call these items up.
5. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS.
A. Item was Postponed - Public hearing and consideration of a Use Review, #LUR2011-
00032, for the Tavern on the Hill located at 1352 College Avenue, to allow a 3,748
sq. ft. restaurant and bar to be open until 2 a.m.
B. Public hearing to consider Site Review, LUR2011-00028, for the proposed
residential redevelopment of 1.44 acres located at 955 Broadway and 1715 Aurora
Ave. zoned Residential High Density Five (RH-5). The proposal includes two, three-
story, 35-foot tall buildings with 39 attached residential units and an independent
fraternity meeting space comprised of 2,305 sq. ft. The applicant has requested
modifications to the land use code for setbacks and for a parking reduction of 27%.
Mike Boyers, the applicant, requested of the board to postpone the item.
On a motion by W. Johnson, seconded by A. Shoemaker, the Planning Board approved
7-0, to accept the postponement of the item to a future date.
C. Public hearing to consider a Concept Plan entitled Near North Apartments,
LUR2011-00049, at 1000 Alpine Avenue to consider a new residential building
(roughly 24,000 square feet of new floor area) on the site and conversion of the
existing office building (roughly 31,000 square feet) to residential with a total of 38
dwelling units on the site.
Applicant/Property Owner: Surround Architecture, Inc.
Staff Presentation
K. Guiler presented the item to the board.
Applicant Presentation
Scott Holton, Principle of Element Properties presented the item to the board.
Public Hearing
1. Tom Hand, 4869 Darwin Ct. - Architect and representative for 2600 9°i Street has
concerns about the safety of 9°i Street due misaligned streets and alleys and the extensive
use by pedestrians, bikes and cars using it as an alterative to Broadway. He noted that the
originally proposed design makes the street more hazardous. The neighbors are in
agreement that the east/west access to 9`" Street definitely should not be allowed, but the
group does support the new design submitted by the applicant.
2. Steve Lebang, 443 Alpine - Spoke in support of the project with the alternative plan that
does not include access to 9t" Street. He also suggested that there should be a 4-way stop
sign to address the intersection.
3. Mark Hunter, 2108 S. Coffman, St., Longmont - Represents the tenant of 1000 Alpine.
He has concern about the interim step due to the lack of available medical space. In
addition, the interim parking will affect the patients coming to the medical offices.
Board Discussion
BVCP Policies: General land use
The board would like to better understand the hospital's goals and plans for the existing medical
components of the building, as well as the timing for the future east campus construction. The
board requested to meet with the hospital, ideally pre-approval, to get and give input on this
project. The board also felt that this part of town is transit rich, so a residential project like this is
a good thing, but the key will be to make it work.
Access and connection
Most of the board felt that access on I0ei Street will be better, with a pedestrian link to 9t" Street.
But it was felt that the project will need a strong mid-block connection to break up the
superblock of 10`x' Street.
On a motion by T. Plass, seconded by W. Johnson, the Planning Board approved 7-0, to
reopen the public hearing to take additional comments.
Public Hearing
1. Eric Hoddes, PhD, 300 Oakwood Pl. - Manages the Sleep Center located at 1000
Alpine. His office is located within yards of the new construction project. He cited that
the lease for the building says the owner cannot disrupt business, but this project will
interfere with their business and potentially have them loose their accreditation.
2. Bridget Tawa, 1000 Alpine #260 - Office manager for Boulder Family Medicine - The
project is going to interfere with the building's businesses, to include parking. She asked
for the building to continue being a medical building and for construction begin only after
the building if vacant. She cited concerns for the noise, handicap safety due to the
construction and noted that the tenants were not informed of the project.
3. Dr George Garmamy, 1000 Alpine #180 - He is a 30 year tenant of the building and
runs the only neurological project in Colorado. He cited concerns for the parking
reduction due to the fact their patients are in high need, often wheelchair bound, and
other disabilities they need to get to the medical offices. He asked the board and the
applicant to consider the impact.
Site and building design
In summary, the board felt it was too early to talk about building design. The board cited various
concerns that will be noted at Site Review, such as the importance of paying attention to grade,
open space and the on-site detention. Most liked the green roof, but there was some concern
about its ability to function. Board comments varied from Boulder being the place to experiment
with such a concept to it could be good for marking and concern for its functionality. There were
varied reactions to the podium parking concept.
Parking Reduction/Phased-in construction
The board favored parking reductions to various degrees, but there was concern for how it may
affect the area medical offices. There were also issues with car storage during the transition.
From a transit perspective, it was felt that this project is located in a great area to support a
carless lifestyle due to the vicinity amenities. The board requested feedback about parking for
similar projects.
In regards to the phased-in construction, the board felt that if there is a phased in approach, the
applicant will need to be cognizant of temporary parking shortfalls and how to address it.
Height modifications
The board was open to height modifications under the right circumstances and consistent with
previous comments.
D. Public hearing and recommendation to City Council on an ordinance that proposes
amendments to Title 9, "Land Use Code" B.R.C. 1981 related to adding Community
Gardens as a new use and applicable performance standards applicable to the
gardens.
Staff Presentation
K. Guiler presented the item to the board.
Public Hearing
2. Catherine Long Gates - Owner of Longs Gardens and hosts the Hawthorne
Community Gardens on her property. She commented that community gardens
should be conditional use and asked for allowed use in all agricultural areas. She
recommended that water conservation be suggestion, but not tell people how to
garden. And the code already addresses noise, so this doesn't need to be more
restrictive. Overall, she asked for the board to go with minimal restrictions and
change, as needed vs. starting restrictive.
3. Mark Willard, 4586 7"' Street - He spoke to the raw manure restrictions, as it is free
and the best for organic gardens. He cited prices of all other amendments being cost
prohibitive. He suggested restricting seasonally and turned in within x number of
days, since it is appropriate to the seasonal fanning, such as October to March.
4. Cynthia Girard - She is a community gardener and asked for minimal ordinance to
sustain community gardening. She felt the trash ordinance as appropriate and asked
to remove free amendments like raw manure.
Board Discussion
A. Brockett expressed concern that adding conditional use regulations will make gardens more
restrictive than they are now and would prefer to allow the current gardens to function as they
have thus far.
A. Shoemaker likes that the code is outlined on two pages for ease of use, likes adding seasonal
restrictions for watering and manure, and feels these regulations set minimal standards for
gardens to operate in neighborhoods.
M. Young agrees with A. Brockett. She is concerned this ordinance creates double standards for
community gardeners versus private home gardeners. She supports the ordnance but wants the
performance standards left to garden managers, as they currently are.
B. Holicky felt the original wording regarding watering was correct to promote conservation and
won't support the motion if the manure aspect is left, as it isn't appropriate for urban community
gardens due to the scale. M. Young felt that is a double standard.
A. Shoemaker noted that the mechanized gardening equipment limitation is appropriate;
however A. Brockett noted that HOA landscapers using mechanized equipment are currently
allowed within the city starting at 7 a.m., so he felt that also creates a double standard for
gardeners.
A. Brockett asked for a friendly amendment for a 9 am start. W. Johnson accepted the friendly
amendment.
On a motion by W. Johnson, seconded by M. Young, the Planning Board approved 4-3
(Opposed B. Holickv, A. Shoemaker, and T. Plass) to recommend to the City Council an
ordinance that adds Connnunity Gardens as a permitted use within all zoning districts and
establishes related performance standards, with the following changes:
• Page 1, line 21, recommend to change the allowed use table to include use in an
agriculture zone;
• Page 2, paragraph 2, with regards use of to manure: no person shall use manure other
than aged manure (with actual language to be determined b staf ;
• Page 2, paragraph 4, recommend to delete paragraph on water conservation;
• Page 2, paragraph 6, recommend to delete the last sentence of regarding tools and be
silent on the issue of tool storage;
B. Holicky is not supporting the motion because it is not appropriate to subject a residential
neighborhood to the large impacts the scale community gardens creates from the use of raw
manure and noise from mechanized equipment.
A. Shoemaker isn't supporting the motion as drafted due to the water conservation being
contrary and inconsistent with what has been discussed previously by the board and the goals of
the city.
T. Plass isn't supporting the motion because he wants stricter water conservation measures.
7. MATTERS FROM THE PLANNING BOARD, PLANNING DIRECTOR, AND CITY
ATTORNEY
A. D. Driskell provided an overview of:
a. the October 20th agenda- Depot Square and Breweries Code (B. Holicky and A.
Shoemaker will recuse)
b. Chautauqua Stewardship Framework - a consulting firm has been retained for
public process to design scope and schedule.
c. October 19 - Shared Streets Workshop. M. Young 1-4:30 workshop. All board
members invited to 5:30-8:30 pm
d. BVCP - county approved all except for planning reserve policies and process.
e. 2012 Budget
8. DEBRIEF/AGENDA CHECK
9. ADJOURNMENT
The Planning Board adjourned the meeting at 9:33 p.m.
APPROVED BY
Board Chair
/1-3-1/
DATE