Minutes - Planning Board - 08/02/2001~ ~~~
APPROVED NOVFMBER 15, 2001
CITY OF BOULDER
PLANNING BOARD SUMMARY MINUTES
August 2, 2001
Council Chambers Room, Municipal Building
1777 Broadway, 6:00 p.m.
The following are the minutes oF the August 2, 2001 City of Boulder Planning Board meeting. A
permanent set o£these minutes is kept in Central Records, and a verbatim t~ipe recording of the
meeting is maintained for a period of seven years in Central Records (telephone: 303-441-3043).
BOARD PRESENT:
Macon Cowles
A1 Gunter, Vice Chair
Thom Krueger
Tina Nielsen
Alan O'Hashi
Beth Pommer
Mark Ruzzin, Chair
STAFF PRESENT:
Bob Cole, Directar of Project Review
Steve Durian, Transportation Engineer
• David Gehr, Assistant CiYy Attorney
Mary Lovrien, Board Secretary
Peter Pollock, Planning Director
Susan Richstone, Comprehensive Planner
Alan Taylor, Development Review
Bob Whitson, Public Works/Transportation
GUEST PRESENT:
Bill Fox, Transplan
1. CALL TO ORDER
Chair M. Ruzzin declared a quarum at 6:05 p.m., and the following business was conducted.
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
There were no minutes to approve.
3. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION
Michelle Goren, 844 19th Street: She thanked the Board for reexamining the conditiona111eighY
provisions for the RB1-E and RBl-X zoning districts. She said that the public will be able to
voice their opinion on this issue before Planning Board on October 4, and that City Council will
review the matter on October 16. She said that the 120-day period expires three weeks later on
~
S:Aplan\pb-items\minntes\010802min.doc
City of I3oulder
Planning Board Minutes
~_ August 2, 2001
Page 2
November 7. She mxdc the following points from a petition from landowners, merchants, and
employaes who live and work in the west end area: 1) the zoning code that goveins this part of
town should maintain its stance of preserving the character and stability oP the neighborhood,
and the code should not only protect the interest of the landowner but also the interest of the
neighbors; 2) the proposed mixed use at 902 Pearl, with its component of residential units, is
incompatible with the existing retail and dining establishments that dominate the west end; 3) the
building's excess height will affect the view corridars for not only the businesses but all others
who visit and call Boulder home; and 4) this will set a precedent for buildings that are set close
to lhe mouth of Boulder Canyon and the foothills. P. Pollock said that a flrst reading before City
Council will be required before the expiration of the 120-day period.
4. DISCUSSION OF DISPOSITIONS, PLANNING BOARD CALL-UPS
The Board had no comments on the Planning Board dispositions (North Boulder Recreation
Center and St. John's Episcopal Church) or the Planning Department dispositions (Diane Israel
residence at 912 GranY Place, lot line elimination at 1602 Columbine Avenue, or Benjamin PUD
amendment at 1382 Kalmia Avenue).
5. MATTERS FROM THE PLANNING BOARD, PLANNING DIRECTOR, AND
CITY ATTORNEY
(The following matters were discussed at the end of the meeting.) M. Ruzzin said that on
• August 7 City Council has the potential to call up the Planning Board denial of the location of
the platform tennis courts at the North Boulder Recreation Center. He asked if tl~e Board needed
to take acCion on the letter from Heidi Fletemeyer from Johnson, Repucci & Berg regarding the
conditional heighf provisions for the RB1-E and RBl-X zoning districts. A. Gehr said that Ms.
Fletemeyer is requesting that citizens who participated at the July 11, 2001 Planning Board
ineeting regarding conditional height provisions who wish to voice their concerns regarding the
site review application for 902 Pearl Street should be required to do so at a properiy noticed
public hearing on this item. T, Krueger suggested that forms and warksheets required relative to
the new International Enetgy Conservation Code be revised to make it more tmderstandable and
to make Cl~e packet of forms more complete.
A. O'Hashi gave an update of the Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board meeting regarding
the proposed scrape-off and increase in the square footage of the house located at 419 Canyon
Street next to Fortune Park. He said that even thongh the Planning Board approved a lot line
adjListment for tl~is property that inereased Che side yard setback, the Board was concerned at thaY
time that Yhis lot line adjustment might benefit a private property owner with the donation of
public property. A. Gunter suggested that this sittitation and auy other policy issues should be
discussed at its meeting on November 15. M. Ruzzin asked why the Planning Board was not
sent a copy of a 1isY of potential Yask force members who will be discussing the management of
commercial growth given the role that Planning Board will play in that project. P. Pollock said
•
s:Aplan\pb-items\minutes\010802nvn.doc
City oCBoulder
• Planuing Board Min~ttes
August 2, 2001
Page 3
that alChough the task force will be a City Manager appointed group with recommendations from
City Council, he will indicate Yhat the Planning Board has an interest. The Board suggested ways
to better manage its agenda to address meeting efficiency.
P. Polloclc said that City Couneil will review whether to include the public site in the North
Boulder Village Center application. He said that staff impressed upon the applicant that while the
opportunity exists Por a land swap, there were still significant concerns about the quality of the
site plan and the development proposal itself. He said that Joe Perone, Transportation Director,
and Dick Brasher, Public Warks/Transportation, have resigned, and the Public Works
Department is exploring alternatives in how to supervise the transpartation function.
Election of Ch1ir and Vice Chair
MOTION: On a motion by T. Nielsen, seconded by T. Krueger, the Planning Board openad the
nominations for Chair (7-0).
MOTION: On a motion by T. Nielsen, seconded by A. O'Hashi, the Planning Board nominated
A. Gunter as Chair (7-0). The Board elosed nominations for Chair by acclamation.
MOTION: On a motion by B. Pommer, seconded by T. Krueger, the Planning Board opened
~ the nominations for Vice Chair (7-0).
MOTION: On a moYion by B. Pommer, seconded by A. Gunter, the Planning Board nominated
T. Nielsen as Vice Chair (7-0). The Board closed nominations for Vice Chair by acclamation.
6. ACTION ITEMS
A. Public hearing and consideration of the following items relating to a request
to develop a 48.6 acre site located at 4835 Arapahoe for the Boulder
Community Hospital (the nortlieast corner of Arapahoe and Foothills
Highway) :
• Annexation and Zoning LUR2001-00008, to Agriculture (AE) 31.6 acres
and Public (PE)17 Acres,
• Site Review #LUR2001-00009 including a request for buildings with
heights of up to 55 feet,
• a parking deferral for eacli phase, and
• considerafion of "Vested Rights," for up to ten (10) years for each phase
of development beyond the requirements of Section 9-4-12 B.R.C. 1981.
•
s:\plan\pb-items\minutes\010802min. doc
City of Boulder
Planning Board Minutes
~ Atagust 2, 2001
Page 4
B. Cole explained that the issues presented at the March 2, 2000 Planning Board meeting for the
Boulder Community Hospital are sLibstantially the same today. He said that Planning Board
comments tended to focus on traffic, access issues to the site, flood protection, and whether this
site was an appropriaYe location for a new hospitaL I-Ie said that the current application has two
major components--annexation and establisl~ment of zoning and the site review. Ha said that this
application does not include a use review, even though staff had previousiy given direction to the
applicant t~hat a use review would be required far the associated medical offices because there
was a mistaken assumption that those offices could be subdivided in the fuhire.
He outlined how the key issues were addressed: 1) annexation requirements (the site is an
enclave and it is a policy of the BVCP and a provision of state taw to annex such sites); 2)
benefit to the community (provision of hospital services, flood conveyance, preservation of a
14.6-acre portion of the site in a conservation easement and flood protection easement, and off-
site flood improvements; 3) appropriate zoning (the new designations of Bnvironmental
Protection and PubIic/Semi-Public have been approved by the Planning $oard, City Council, and
by the County Planning Commission, and will be reviewed by the Board of County
Commissioners, and the AE zone for the 14.6-acre portion provides an additional measure of
protecYion that is intended to be preserved from development); 4) flood protecYion (filling the
southeast corner of the site and requiring the applicanY to meeY either the 100-year ar 500-yEar
flood level); 5) traffic mitigation (signalization for the intersection at 48th and Arapahoe which
~ would provide the major access to the site, improvements along Arapahoe, changas to medians,
limitation to only one right-turn-only access point on Arapahoe farther Yo the west, and Traffic
Demand Management strategies, such as contribution to a pedestrian/bike bridge over Boulder
Creek, two transit stops on Arapahoe, provision of ecopasses for all employees, improvement of
the multi-modal path that nins along Arapahoe, provision of intemal bike and pedestrian
connecYions from the development on the site to the surrounding facilities, amount of deferred
parking, a messenger system between this site and the Broadway site, and an on-site cafeteria
that will serve to keep many employees on site during their warkday); 6) site design (a tightly
integrated campus design that will encourage pedestrian traFfic between the buildings and will
encourage employees and visitors to use alternate modes of transporCation, a plaza and open
areas for users of the site, significant landscaping and berming, tallest elements located at the
rear of the site and the building heights in context with the surrounding area, and nlitigation of
reflective noise by the siting and design of buildings); and 7) phasing and vesting proposal (the
first phase wolild be the initial hospital construction, and the second phase would include
medical offices).
He said that the applicant will need access on tha northwest side outside of the 17-acre area to
maiufain the filI slope, the dewafering system thaT will be used for fiiture construction, and other
non-development activities. He said that this araa would not be covered by the conservation
easement but by the flood easement. He said that staf£ is proposing changes to the annexaYion
•
s:AplauApb-items\minutes\010802min.doc
City of Boulder
Planning Board Minutes
~ August 2, 2001
Page 5
Condition l.c. to read "DedicaYe a conservation and flood control easemenC lo the city at no cost,
in a form and area acceptable to the City Manager...." He said that staff is suggesting that
Condition 14 of the Site Review Conditions be moved to Condition 11 tmder the Aimexation
Conditions. He suggested that under Site Review Conditions a new Condition 1 be added to read
"The Applicant shall bc responsible for ensuring that the development shall be in compliance
with the approved site plans dated July 13, 2001 and the approved traffic impact study dated
May 2001 and the staff review comments dated March 29, May 25, and July 6, 2001 on file in
the city of Boulder Planning Department except as modified by these conditions of approval."
He also suggested that the renumbared Condition 2 uuder Site Review Conditions be revised to
read "This site review approval shall be effective upon annexation of this property into the city
of Boulder."
A. Taylor said that Skunk Creek, Boulder Creek, and Bear Canyon Creelc come together on this
site and is entirely encompassed within the floodplain. He said that in order to make use of the
property, the applicant is proposing to fill the southeast corner of this site which would eliminate
ilooding on that part of the property. He explained that the reason some areas on the site are in
the floodplain but not on a regulatory map is because the existing levee built along Harrison
Avenue is achtally substandard to federal standards, and staff has to negate its perFormance
under floodplain review. He said that staff added a condition to require that the applicant meet
either the 100-year or 500-year flood level plus an additiona] two feet for protection of the fill
~ site. He pointed out the wetlands in the area and said that the applicant will constiuct a storm
sewer system in the area which will cause the wetlands to be eliminated. He said that in this case
the wetland mitigation will occur on the regr~tded site to bring groundwater closer to tbe surface.
He pointed ouf the primary prairie dog sifs on the property and said that these prairie dogs will
be relocated back to the non-developed area of the site. He discussed the improvement of the
levee to meet Federal Emergency Managament Agency (FEMA) standards, the Arapahoe
underpass at Bear Creek, upgrade of the culverts at Arapahoe, and mitigaYion that Uie University
of Colorado conducted For Skunk Creek on its property.
Joe MacDonald, Applicant and Vice President of Boulder Community Hospital, introduced the
design team from Civitas, OZ Architecture, and Boulder Associates. Todd Mead, Civitas,
described the Phase I portion regarding the placement of the buildings on the site, the height of
the buildings, access to Che site from Riverbend Road, the highly visible emergency wing of the
building, service 2nd ]oading entrance, the buildout of the site, the surCace parking and five-story
parking structure, outpatient services building, landscape concepts, including berming and
screening, the courtyard to the west, and pedestrian pathways that lead to transit stops.
Paul Trementozzi, OZ Architecture, described the model of the buildings in the built-out site;
the issues with the site (working with the natnral setting of the site, the general architecture of the
suirounding area, a clear way-fnding system on the site and within the hospital, visual and
.
s:Aplan\pb-iten~sAminutes\010802min.doe
City of Boulder
Planning Board Minutes
~ August 2, 2001
Page 6
physical access to the ouY-of-doors, inYimately scaled building, and dayligl~t for the work
environments); scale and massing oF the building; design guidelines for the expausion into Phase
II; building height; access from the hospital to the five-story structured parking garage;
floodproofing and possible design of the parking structures; landscaping and tree species along
Arapahoe and preservation of existing landscaping; emergency evacuation plan; noise issues
from emergency vehicles; Transportation Demand Management Plan, including on-site locker
rooms; the use of low-E glazing on windows to avoid getting solar gain; the mimber of jobs
generated by the site; and the kind of transportation mode split for einployees.
Kathleen Kraiger, Transportation AnalysY, Bowers and Kraiger, exptained the trips thaC would
be generated from the site. She said that for Phase I the average daily traffic that is projected is
3,244 trips, and for the total of Phases I and II, the daily h•affic projected is 7,437 trips. She said
that not all of the traffic will be considered new trips on the roadway because many employees
and patients who are currently using the downtown campus will now be using this facility.
Pablic Participation:
Ricky Weiser, 4020 North 75th Street: She said that the traffic complications which currently
exist at the intersection of Foothills Parkway and Arapahoe need to be fixed before anything else
is done. She said that once that is done, it is appropriate to go ahead with the hospital projecY. A.
~ Gunter said that this issue needs to be addressed in the Transportation Master Plan update.
John McFerran, Board of Directors, Boulder Community Hospital, 4450 Hogan Conrt: He
said that the growing need for health care facilities in Boulder cannot be done without expansion.
He said that expanding the current facility was not feasible because of parking restrictions,
Roodplain problems, neighbarhood concerns, traffic congestion, and the high cost. Ha said that
after an exhaustive search For alternative sites, the proposed site was the only acceptable one. He
said that the recommendations suggested after meeting with city staff and the numerous
compromises made are in the best interests of the community.
Marilynne Tarrall, 4656 MaeArthur Lane: She said that in tha past she has voiced her
opposition Co a hospital at this siYe, but she now thinks that the site is appropriate for a hospital.
She said that the hospital is proving to be a very good neighbor and they will make
improvements that will be helpfiil for the neighborhood. She said that she would like to see at
least three speed bumps around Eisenhower School to slow the increased traffia She said that
she was concerned with how the plans were chinged from a more open campus to a place where
the buildings close to Arapahoe will be closed in the evening; it will discourage people from
walking from the site to the transit stops.
~
s:Aplan\pb-iYems\minutes\010802min.doc
City of Boulder
Plaiming Board Minutes
. August 2, 2001
Page 7
Hony Tarrall, MacArthur Park Townhome Association, 4656 MacArthur Lane: He
suggested that the noise that will be generated from the site be mitigated. He said that the noise
abatement properties oFdeciduous trees are not effective in the winter when the leaves are gone.
He said that he thought the first design was better. He said that the neighbarhood is in favor of
the hospital and finds the hospital to be an excellent neighbor.
Michael Caplan, 1506 Harrison Avenue: He said that if the flood mitigation for Harrison
Avernie is not conducted, he would not approve the hospital in this proposed location. He was
concerned abont the emergency vehicles laCe at night and suggested seYCing some guidelines
between the hospital and the ambulances about when and how long sirens can be used and at
what decibels. He was concerned that firture uses could include a trauma center which presents a
different situation. He said that the additional access road that is west of 48th Street will create
additional impact on the neighborhood's abiliCy to move out of MacArthur onto Arapahoe,
particularly going westbound, because cars will be coming out of the access and moving across
three or four lanes to make a leFt-hand turn onto Foothills.
Andrew Bunin, 4684 MacArthur Lane: He asked the Board to mitigate the impact of the
hospital on the neighborhood, specifically the revisions to Phase II which would be far more
impactful than the original plan because of buildings right on the street (noise, traffic, and light
pollution). He said that the goal of Yhe site should be to enhance the natural setting rather than
• create an urban feel. He suggested that rapid transit have a loop to Che hospital.
Lynn Segal, 538 Dewey: She said that she likes having the Broadway campus in her
neighbarhood because of the community that is created across the street, and she likes the idea of
creating a similar setting at the proposed site. She supported the expansion of the hospital and the
wetland improvements. She suggested community amenities, such as a coffee shop, either off-
site or within the hospital, and to consider geo-thermal for a heat source and reusable materials in
the construction of the hospital.
Lou Della Cava, 2418 30th Street: He urged the Board to approve the annexation and zoning
for the hospital. He said that although there is concern for the number of jobs the hospital might
generate, the transportation problems, and flood mitigation, it is mare important to take care of
the health needs o£the people in the community.
Sally Martin 1705 14th Street: She said that the hospiYal is such an essential service to the
community, and she is heartened to hear of the efforts of the staff indic~tting support for the
hospital site. She urged the Board to support the annexation of the site for the hospital.
.
s:Aplan\pb-items\minutes\010802min.doc
City of Boulder
Planning Board Min~tYes
~ August 2, 2001
Retnrn to the Board:
Page 8
The Board and staff discussed the effectiveness of vegetation in noise mitigation; ways to solve
the transportation issue at the coiner of Foothills and Arapahoe (providing for a triple 1eft turn
lane); potential far flash flooding in the u~ea and duration of the flooding; accessibility to the site
during flooding; the likelihood of having the three drainages overflow simultaneously; the survey
conducted for endangered species on the site; an access easement for maintenance activities and
the flood easement far Parks and Recreation purposes to allow access and park activities; that the
Open Space and Mountain Parks staff and the Open Space Board of Trustees will detennine
whether grazing cattle will be compatible with the wetlands; relocation of prairie dogs to the
conseivation easement; concern that the flood mitigation will occur whether or not FEMA
approves the expanded floodpiain; erosion protection along the fill slope to ensure that carving
by flood waters will not occur; ensuring that structures on the site will be constructed as though
they were in the floodplain to add a level of protection; traffic mitigation, including traffic
volume around Eisenhower School; the possibility of using an access across the Ball Aerospace
property from 48th Street; a potential for an underpass at Arapahoe at the Foothilis intersection;
allowing flexiUility to require some other Traffic Demand Management program other than the
Ecopass that might encourage people to get to work other than by the single occupant vehicle; a
lighting plan Yhat will not be inYrusive to the neighbors; creation of an urban site design rather
than a suburban design; whether the zoning would allow mixed use to accommodate a
• community place; Leadership Through Energy and Evvironmental Design (LEED) certification
far commercial buildings to increase the energy and materials efficiency of construction and
operation of buildings; vesting and phasing of the project; emergency services to the homeless;
and consideration of replacement of residential space for office space.
MOTION: On a motion by B. Pommer, seconded by T. Krueger, the Planning Board approved
(7-0) the request for Annexation and Zoning #LUR2001-00008 and Site Review #LUR2001-
00009 as outlined in the staff inemorandum dated August 2, 2001 (preparation date July 20,
2001), including the request for buildings with heights of up to 55 feet, a parking deferral for
each phase, and consideration of VesYed Rights for up to ten years for each phase of development
beyond the requirements of Section 9-4-12 B.R.C. 1981, including Attachment C(Site Review
Criteria ChecklisY) and the following amended staff findings and conditions:
Finding 5: "The development area is proposed to be raised by site fill above 500-year flood
elevations to remove it from the floodpllin. Development of the hospital and related uses will
also be constructed in a manner to ensure flood protection to or above 500-year levels as allowed
by and exceeding locai and federal guidelines and regulations."
and further, the following amended conditions for Site Review:
• s:\plau\pb-items\minutes\010802min.doc
City of Boulder
Planning Board Mimrtes
• August 2, 2001
Page 9
CondiCion 1. "The Applicant shall be responsible for ensuring that tihe developmevt shall be in
compliance with the approved site plans dated July 13, 2001, and the approved h~affic impact
study dated May 2001, and the staff review comments dated March 29, 2001, May 25, 2001, and
July 6, 2001 on file in the city of Boulder Planning Department except as modified by these
condiYions oF approval," This change reorders the numbering of the conditions following.
Condition 7. "Prior to final inspection for each building permit, the Applicant shall submit a
financial security to guarantee the initial operation of the RTD transit pass program for the
benefit of all employees within the development. The guarantee shall be in an amount noY to
exceed $30,000 to cover program operations for no less than three consecutive years. The
Applicant shall pay any amount above the amount provided in the guarantees requirad to ensure
operation of the RTD transit pass program for the benefit oF all employees within Yhe
development for three years."
Condition 15: Move the following condition from the Site Review conditions to Condition 11
under the Annexation conditions: "The Applicant shall design, construct, and pay for (including
financial guarantees) for the upstsam reconstruction and upgrade of flood protection systems
(including the existing levee along Harrison Avenue adjacenY Yo Open Space) to mitigate and
prevent expanded flooding from Bear Canyon Creek (impacting existing residential
neighborhoods). The Department of Public Works, Utilities Division, agrees to enter into a
• reimbursement agreement with tha Applicant (over a period of time based on the City Council
appropriation of fmids) to reimburse the Applicant for the costs of design and construction
improvements that provide an overall community benefit for floodplain management in the event
that site development precedes public improvements by the city of Boulder, along Bear Canyon
Creek."
T. Krueger offered a friendly amendment to change Condition 2 under Site Review Conditions
to read "This site review approval shall be effective upon annexation of this property into tl~e city
of Boulder" and to change the second sentence in Condition 10 under Annexation Conditions
to read "Any additional floor area proposed shall be subject to review and approval through the
Site Review amendment process, and shall be subject to all regulations in place at that time." B.
Pommer accepted the friendly amendment.
B. Pommer offered a friendly amendment to add Condition 15 to the Site Review Conditions
to read "Signage shall be adequate during a flood situation for emergency egress/ingress." T.
Krueger accepted the friendly amendment.
A. Gunter offered an amendment, seconded by B. Pommer, thlt the Planning Board change (4-
3; T. Krueger, M. Cowles, and A. O'Hashi opposed) Condition l.c. under the Annex~tion
Conditiotes to read "Dedicate a conservation and/or parlc easement and a flood control easement
~ s:AplanApb-iteins\mi~mtes\OlOS02min.doc
c~ty orBoUia~~~
Planning Board Minutes
~ Augnst 2, 2001
Page 10
to the city aY no cost, in a fonn and area acceptable to the City Manager, for the 31.6 acres
identified as proposed 100-year floodplain on Map C1 of the ApplicanYs submittal documents."
T. Krueger and M. Cowles opposed the motion because they thought that the Open Space and
Mountain Parks Department should manage the entire easement and not the Parks and
Recreation Department. They said that since the land is environmentally sensitive, the land
should be viewed as urban open lands rather than recreation space. A. O'Hashi opposed the
motion because he did not think that the applicant would want to have public access adjacent to
fhe hospita] site.
M. Ruzzin offered a friendly amendment to add a last sentence to Condition 7 of the Site
Review Conditions to read "The Applicant shall provide a revised Transportation Demand
Management plan prior to the commencement of Phase II constniction." B. Pommer and T.
Krneger accepted the friendly amenclment.
T. Krueger offered a friendly amendment to change Condition 10 under Annexation
Conditions to read `Boulder Community Hospital or another non-profit arganization shall be
permittied to construct 42Q000 square feet of floor area far the hospital and related uses. Any
additional floor area proposed or the construction oF approved floor area by an entity other than
Boulder Community Hospital or such other non-proFit organization shall be subject to the review
and approval through the Site Review amendment process, and shall be subject to all regulations
• in place at that time." B. Pommer accepted the friendly amendment.
A. Gunter offered a friendly amendment to add Condition ll to the Annexation Conditiona to
read "The Applicant may modify the site plan to convert at a ratio of 1:1 up to 100,000 square
feet of floor area proposed for the construction of nonresidential floar area in Phase II of the
development plan to residential dwelling units, The maximum number of dweliing units that may
be substituted for nonresidential floor area is 100 dwelling units. The residential dwelling units
shall be limited to use for housing for employees of the hospital or for the employees of uses
located on the property. B. Pommer and T. Krueger accepted the friendly amendment.
A. Gunter offered an amendment, seconded by T. Krueger, that the Planning Board add
Condition 12 to the Annexation Conditions (5-2; B. Pommer and M. Cowles opposed) to read
"The Applicant may construct noC more than 50 residential dwelling units in addition to the
approved nonresidential floor area pursuant to a subsequent amendment to its site review
approval. The dwelling units will not require a use review. The residential dwelling units shall be
limited to use far housing for employees of the hospital ar for the employees of uses located on
the property." B. Pommer opposed the lmendment because she said that such a change for up to
50 residential uses should require a use review amendment process to ensure that any additional
impacts will be addressed.
• s:\plau\pb-items\minutes\010802min.doc
City of Boulder
Plauning Board MinuYes
~ August 2, 2001
Page 11
T. Nielsen asked staff to make an editorial change to Finding 6 on pages 12 and 16 of the staPf
inemorandum to read "Traffic impacts will be mitigated through on-site and off-site
improvements to be made by the applicant supporting development of this site." She also asked
staff to remove all references to "use review." A. Gunter suggested that spruce trees Ue used as
mitigation for noise impacts.
B. Public hearing and consideration of a recommendation to City Conncil for
the adoption of the North 28th Street Tr~nsportation Network Plan (TNP)
covering the area just south of Pearl to jnst north of Iris; just west of Folsom
to just east of 30th.
P. Pollock explained that the proposed TNP addresses the northern portion of 28th Street;
approvals have already been given for the southern portion (Baseline to Arapahoe). B. Wl~itson
presented a map that represents fuhire transportation comiections and presented an action plan
that was not included in the packet materials. B. Fox explained Yhe map that shows the access
patterns on 28th Street. He then showed the proposed plan--sharing access between parcels and
reducing access points onto 28th Street.
Pnblic Participation: There was no public participaYion.
• Return to the Board:
The Board and staff discussed how a landowner obtains a variation to the Transportation
Network Plan; the public process for this plan (meetings with the Task Farce; an open house to
describe the plan, public hearing at the Transportation Advisory Board meeting); how the plan is
coordinated with the 28th Street design committee and how it relates to the update of the
Transportation Management Plan and the managing commercial growth project; assurance oFthe
ability to change the plan; importance of a disaggregation of parking costs from the rest of the
costs of the structure to get a price for so-ca2led "free" parking in commercial projects; definition
of economic sustainability as it relates to the goal of improving economic susYainability as parC of
the transportation netwark (providing access between sites that allow people to walk to different
areas); and a suggestion that background information be provided as this plan is moved forward.
The Board suggested that on page 2, Section 2.0, 2.1, fourth bu11eY, change to read "Provide a
transportation network that improves the economic sustainability in the area by improving access
to properties."
MOTION: On a motion by B. Pommer, seconded by T. Nielsen, the Planning Board
recommended (6-0; A. O'Hashi recused) that City Council adopt the North 28th Street
Transportation Network Plan (TNP) covering the area just sonth of Pearl to just north of Iris and
•
s: \plan\pb-items\minute s\010802min.doc
City o'f Boulder
Planning Board Minutes
~ ALIgUSt 2, 2~~1
Page 12
just west of Folsom to just east of 30Ch as ouClined in the staff inemorandum dated August 2,
2001 (preparation date July 18, 2001) with the addition of an amendment process thab is internal
to the plan to allow for further amendnlents to the Transportation NeYwork Plan Map.
C. Public hearing and consideration of items relating to the Boulder Valley
Comprehensive Plan (BVCP):
a. additional changes to the land use map
b. action plan
Because of the lateness of the hour, this item was continued to a future meeting.
7. ADJOURNMENT
The Planning $oard adjourned the meeting at ll:15 p.m.
•
• s:\plan\pb-items~ninutes\010802min.doc