Minutes - Planning Board - 10/11/2001APPROVED ON JANUARY 10, 2002
• CITY OF BOULDER
PLANNING BOARD SUMMARY MINUTES
October 11, 2001
Council Chambers Room, Municipai Building
1777 Broadway, 6:00 p.m.
The following are the minutes of the October 11, 2001 City of Boulder Planning Board meeting. A
permanent set of these mimrtes is kept in Central Records, and a verbatim tape recording of the
meeting is maintained far a period of seven years in Central Records (telephone: 303-441-3043).
BOARD PRESENT:
Macon Cowles
A1 GLmter, Chair
Thom Krueger
Tina Nietsen, Vice Chair
Alan O'Hashi
Beth Pommer
Mark Ruzzin
• STAFF PRESENT:
Cate Bradley, Parks and Recreation
Cindy Brown, Housing Authority
Bob Cole, Director of Land Use Review
Steve Durian, Transportation $ngineer
David Gehr, Assistant City Attorney
Elizabeth Hanson, Plamier
Mary Lovrien, Board Secretary
John Pollak, Director of the Division oFHousing
Mike Randall, Planner
Molly Winter, Downtown Management Commission
1. CALL TO ORDER
Chair A. Gunter declared a quorum at 6:05 pm., and the following business was conducted.
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The Planning Board deferred approval of the minutes to October 18.
3. CITTZEN PARTICIPATION
There was no citizen participation.
.
s:\plan\pb-items~minutes\O 11011 min
City of Boulder
~ Planning Board Minutes
October 11, 2001
Page 2
4. DISCUSSION OF DISPOSITIONS, PLANNING BOARD CALL-UPS
T. Nielsen suggested that solar power might be preferable to electrical panels for the wefland pertnit
(Municipal Campus Special Events Electrical Panels) for the few events per year that it would be
needed. A. Gunter responded that if the panels are used only a couple of times a year, solar power
would be too expensive and would not provide enough power far ali fhe different events. T.
Krueger asked for a better explanation of the plans for the Planning Department disposition
(Gunbarrel Shopping Center Remodel). B. Cole said that the plans call for changing the building
elevations, updating the appearance ofthe store, enlarging existing landscaped areas, and increasing
the square footage to a portion of the building. The Board had no comments on the other two wetland
permits (2446 Sumac Utility Services and Sunrise Cottagas of Boulder).
5. MATTERS FROM THE PLANNING BOARD, PLANNING DIRECTOR, AND CITY
ATTORNEY
(Tliis item was discussed at the end of the meeting.) M. Ruzzin asked forclarification of the code
regarding curb cuts in residential areas with alley access when a house is redeveloped. B. Cole said
that the code sYates that typically if a house abuts an alley, the access will be taken off the alley; if
there is an existing curb cut on the street, then the code would require that tha curb cut on the street
be closed. B. Cole mentioned the following events: October 23, Development 101 staff training
course and November 7, the Planning Department SOth anniversary celebration.
• 6. ACTION ITEMS
A. Public hearing and consideration of Land Use Review #LUR2001-00017, Site
Review Amendment, for Phase 2 of the 9"' and Canyon Civic Building Site
Review on a 2.7 acre site at the northeast corner of 9th Street and Canyon
Boulevard . The Phase 2 plans include site and architectural plans for a 55 foot
tall, 38,068 square foot civic use building. The applicants are seeking creation
of vested property rights in accordance with Section 9-4-12 "Creation of Vested
Rights," B.R.C. 198L (Ph~se 1 plans for a 200 room, 55 foot tall hotel, a 656
space underground public and hotel parking garage, nnd the civic use building
footprint were approved on February 17, 2000.)
L. Hanson said that this site review would amend the 9th and Canyon Phase I site review that was
approved by the Planning Board on February 17, 2000, which included a 200-room hotel, a 656
space underground hotel and public parking garage, and a civic use building footprint. She said that
Phase II for the civic use building includes a height modification request. She said that the design
of the civic use building has been reviewed for compliance with the site raview criteria, 9th and
Canyon Urban Renewal Plan, and with the Downtown Urban Design Guidelines. She explained the
key issues (compatibility of the height, mass, scale, and orientation with the existing character of the
area, presentation of an attractive streetscape, and incorporation of design elemenfs appropriate to
•
s:\plan\pb-items~ninutes\O 1 I O l l min
City of Boulder
• Planning Board Minutes
October 11, 2001
Page 3
a pedestrian scale). She said that while the design is more wl~imsical than the existing building
designs downtown, staff feels that the location on Canyon Boulevard, as well as the uses that would
be included in the building, make a more modern design appropriate.
She said that sYaff finds that a 55 foot building height is acceptable for the project to define a more
urban experience along the l Oth Street corridor. She said that the building design was constrained
by floodplain regulations and security concerns for the outdoor exhibit area. She said that the
Boulder Urban Renewal Authority (BURA} found the proj ect in compliance with the 9th and Canyon
Urban Renewal Plan, and the Downtown Design Advisory Board (DDAB) focused on breaking up
the massing of the east wall with design features.
She explained that the Central Area General Improvement District (CAGTD) owns the existing
parking lot, and St. 7ulien Partners owns a portion of the land, including the land under the proposed
civic use building; the civic use building would be owned by the civic users, and the users would
lease the land from the city. She said that the project itself will be under a variety of different
agreements that would implement the development of the project.
M. Winter said that the civic users are raising money for the civic building, and a condominium
declaration will be implemented once the project is completed. Bruce Porcelli, St. Julien Partners,
• clarified that the Collage Children's Museum and the Village Arts Coalition are raising the money
to build the structure. He said that upon complation of the project there will be separate
condominium associations for the garage, hotel, and civic users, and at some point when St. Julien
and CAGID form such an association, that condominium association will take over themanagement
of the civic use lease. He said that if the building reverts to a commercial use or non-civic use, then
St. Julian has the right of first refusal to use the buiiding for commercial use.
David Barrett, Ban~ett Studio Ai~chitects, explained the reasons Uehind the desigu of the civic nse
building and presented slides of how the proj ect will look along Canyon Boulevard. He said that the
inspiration Por the design evolved from the uses in the building that suggest playfulness, exuberance,
and light. He explained how the building will be viewed from all sides and how it will connect to
the creek and cultural corridor on the south side of Canyon. He axplained the proposed height and
design of the roof of the building, the exhibits and design features within and outside the building,
including plans for the east wall, the kiva, the wall along Canyon to ensure security £or the exhibits
and the children, and the dance space on the third floor. He said that DDAB encouraged the design
of the building to go further beyond the traditional and suggested alternating the colors or stratifying
the blocks to address the mass of the east wall.
Leslie Durgin, 2065 30th Street, explained that every potential donor is attracted to the building
partly because of the design. She said that she is confident that the Collage Children's Museum will
.
s:\plan\pb-itemsUninutes\011011 xnin
City of Boulder
~ Planning Board Minutes
~ctober 11, 2001
Page 4
ba able to raise its needad funds within two years. She said that the Museum is looking at creating
a program and exhibits endowment that will support changing exhibits antl community and
educational partnars to bring other chiidrens' groups into the space.
Public Parficipation:
Nick Jaeie, P.O, Box 1335, Nederland: He said that ha liked the views that the children and
dancers will hava from within the building, but the existing views of tha foothills will be eliminated.
Bruce Porcelli, St Julien ParCners,1401 Walnut: He said that he is concarned that the civic use
building spaca wi]] not look good if tha stnictLire is not built soon after the hotel starta to build. He
said that the funding For oonsiruction of the hotei is in place and the hotel plans to break ground this
winter. He said that he does not like modern looking buildings and that such buildings may become
yuickly dated. He addressed a question regarding the potential icing along the l Oth Street corridor
bacause of shading from the sun. He said that the IOth Street corridor is a north-south route and gets
plenYy of sun in the winYex and will be over a garage that will provide soma heat. He said that he will
ask the engineers for Ehe civic building to address alternatives to prevent ice buitdup.
Jim Borzym, Representative for the Village Arts Coalition, 2221 Columbine: He said that the
~ design of the buiYding, inctnding Yhe increase in heighe and mass, was constrained by the smal]
allocation of land for the civie building, and that the design is functional, accommodates the
programs, and creates avery livelypresence on sita. He said that I~e is confident that tha Coalition
can raise the addi4ional funding needed. He said that the Village Arts Coalition will renC spaca to
appropriate users, such as weddings and social gatherings, a small pexcencage of the time.
Mol{y Winter, Aowntawn Management Commission: She said that the CAGID parking lot and
hotel include a ntaintsnance agreement which will include tha l Oth Streat corridor. She addreased
the IusYory of collaboration on the site, includzng Yhe redesign of the southeast comer to make it an
entryway and plaza, the relocation ofthe ventilation systems to help accommodate the civic building,
and the usa of some space in the garage for the civic users for their meci~anical systems so that they
can better use the space above graund. She said that should there he a delay between the completion
of the garage and hotel and the civic building, there are funds to provide some finish to the site.
Tngvar Sodal, Village Arts Coalition, IS50 Moss Rock Place: He responded to a question from
the Board about fhe use of tha kitchen on the third floor. He saifl that the kitchen is not a commercial
kitchen and is intended for catering only.
.
s;\plan\pb-itamsUninutes\O 110I I min
City° af Baulder
~ Pl~nning Boarc9 Minutes
{~ctobar 2I, 2Q01
Ratm•n to the ~aard:
I'a~e 5
S. lluria~s addresseci th~ propased I Oth ~treet erossi~~g at Cany~an Boulevard, the possible r~location
of the 1 lth 5treet crossin~ ta 10#h Street, ant3 ttte possibiliYy of an underpass at t;uiyon Bou~evard.
The ~3c,ard discussed the pracess fnr soliciting unother similar c-ivic use or other types af usES for the
bixildixig ahoutcl une ar both af the cumenk uses no# i~e able ta raisa the needad itwds td l~uild the
struchire ar if they sk~nuld later lnc~ve froan t1~e s~rructure; the number of ~nployees that wnulc~ be on
th~ sitie; a future requiremant. alipwing zi p~reent range of tand devated to a civi~ use ta provide
desi~;n flexibility; tha criteria th~t was used to ciet~rniine the civic uaes that cou7d gualify ta apply
for space in the civie eenter; the ralevanae of the rental eomponent to the site review; the ~a of the
hotel for pubtio E~ses, such as wedcfings; ~nd acknowledgittg th~tt the bnilding is nol for ci~ri~ ar
public uses but far wo~thy nanprofit $raups.
While thc: n~ajority of tha Baard agreed that th~ build"u~g heiglit, design of tl~e t5uilding, streetscape,
and pe~lastrian-scala treatment wer~ appropriaCe, inctivfdual &oatci memhers were concerned ahout
ehe follawing: the praposed at-grad~ crassing of L"anyon Bauleva~'d along the I Oth Str~et ali$nmant
sinca there is already a crossi~ag at 11 th Street and concern for th~ eafety of tt;e Ghitdran; the use af
~ th~ kiva tha~ doas nnt r~~leat or respect the hiatarical usa Qf such a struatnre; the ~rlrimsicai design
1 of the builc3ing that mi~l~f he h~rd ta retrofit for anrathar type of use; appirpriateness of the winged
roof and the haight of the buildin~, tt~e view corridor going w~,st on ~anyon becausa of fhe haighE
o€t~e eaat walland its closeness ta Cha sidew~llt; ~rhether tl~ara ~re an-sit~ facilities for showers and
sufficient biaycle lockers; whetbsr sueh a modern buiiding wiA present prnklems for the streetscap~
cfver the lotig kerm; a provisian f~r a post-oceupanc}> avalu~tion at six manth~ ar two years ta find
out rf ~~p~ticant needs haue becn met and whether the ~roject rnet the objectives of the Urban
Renewal Plan; that any ari wark on Yh~ o~st wall be tefnporary sa ar: tr, preelucIe aF}ubtio oi~tery ahout
ciestroying publie ark u~i~an tha adjacent praperCyis redavalap~d; the use ofcoEors for Che ~ost ~n tl~a
east w~11 tbat matches ttt~ colors of the natural anvironment, the buildin~ bes;otnixig mor~ of a rental
faaility; ~rid the amounk af tixT~~: thaf the public will he able tc~ use tk~e space. 5ome of the Board
membars lik~cl the playfulnes.s, c~p~nness, and unusua}ness of the design of th~ t~uilding; that the
adaptive rcase of tlie Uuiidin~ will tlot ha dif£icult; tha.t th~ rnaf line su~~ests ligt~tness rather than
a large bw7din~;; aad that tt~e'building wi11 be a nice atiditian tQ this are~ of town.
MOTTON: C1n a tnatic~n by A. O'Iiashi, s~canded by T, Krneger, the Planzling $oard ap}~rpved
{5-1; 14I. Cowles opposed} Site Review amendment #LiJR2001-Ot}OI7, incasparating the staff
memorandun~ daCed ~etober ~ l, 2~4ni (prep~ratic~n data Qetc~b~r 3, Z041~ and tije attach~d Site
Iteview Crit~ria C"-hecklist as findings of fact, and using Che recommended conditioz~s of approval
iu Attachment A. M. Cowles opposed the motion because Iie ~iid not thitik that such a mod~rn
bu9lding will wear well over time and for thak raasr~rr it dc+~s not meet either c~f the key issu~s.
s:lplanipb-itEme~minptes\011C}i Isnin
City of Boulder
• Planning Board Minutes
October 11, 2001
Page 6
M. Cowles offered a friendly amendment that the applicant conduct a post-occupancy evaluation at
one year and three years to assess how well this building meets the needs of the current occupants.
T. Krueger did not accept the friendly amendment.
B. Pomtuer offered a friendly amendment to change the &rst sentence in Condition 3. a. to read
"Final architectural plans, including materiais and colars, to ensure compliance with the intent of this
approval, compatibility with the surrounding area, and the adopted plans far the surrounding area.
T. Krueger and A. O'Hashi accepted the friendly amendment.
A. Gunter offered a friendly amendment to require that the project be sent to the Downtown Design
Advisory Board (DDAB) to find a way, if possible, to move the building eight to ten feet from the
sidewalk. A. O'Hashi and T. Krueger did not accapt the friendly amendment.
A. Gunter then offered an amendment to the motion to require that the project be sent to the
Downtown Design Advisory Board (DDAB) to find a way, if possible, to move the building eight
to ten feet from the sidewalk. The motion failed for lack of a second.
M. Ruzzin offered a friendly amendment to add Condition 5 to read "The Applicant shall submit
. and implement, subject to the review and approval of tha Director of Public Works as part of a
technical documenC review, a Trausportation Demand Management Plan thaY demonstrates a
significant shift away from single occupant vehicle use by employees to alternate modes through the
use ofpractical and baneficial transportation demand management techniques." A. O'Hashi and T.
Krueger accepted the friendly amendment.
B. Pubiic hearing and consideration of a request for Site Review LUR2001-00030
to develop 324 dwelling units and 55,164 square feet of non-residential uses at
the vacant Holid~y Drive-In Theater site, located at 4650 North Broadway; and
Use Review LUR2001-00051 for art or craft studio space, professional and
technical offices, in the Studio Mews project area; and Use Review LUR2001-
00057 for adult education facilities and vocational scLools, art or craft studio
space, governmental facilities and broadcasting and recording facilities, in the
Naropa University project area. This application requires amendment of the
North Boulder Subcommunity Plan with regard to the alignment of certain
streets.
M. Randall axplained the history of the Holiday Drive-in site, including the goals and objectives
of the North Boulder Subcommunity Plan (NBSP) for that area, the Boulder V allay Comprehensive
Plan, and the zoning standards. He explained that the applicant will qualify for an additional density
bonus o£up to 10 units per acre for a total of 20 units per acre because the development will provide
~
s:\plan\pb-items~ninutes\0] 1011min
City of Boulder
~ Planning Board Minutes
October 11, 2001
Page 7
a high proportion of affordability. He explained the key issues (conformance to the objectives of the
NBSP, design conformance to the site review criteria, and conPormance of the proposed non-
residential uses to the use review criteria). He said that 42 percent of the residential units are
proposed to be affordable.
He said that unique features of the plan include community gardens, a 1.74 acre public park,
connections through the Studio Mews area, a linear greenway, buildings oriented toward the street,
liva-work units that are vertically and horizontally mixed, mixed-density residential units, co-
housing units, single-family detached units, and a commercial component along Broadway all linked
by tree-lined streets and walkways and bikeways throughout the development. He said that the
nonresidential component ofthe proj ect includes work studios in the Shidio Mews and the classroom
component of the Naropa University project. He explained the parking that would be provided on
the site, including the distribution to include fewer spaces in the co-housing area and more spaces
in the commercial areas. He explained the density allowed in the different zoning districts. He
explained the need far stormwater detention on the site and the desire to use parts of the park for this
purpose without interfering with the actual utility of the park.
He said that the applicant has requested a setback reduction along the commercial frontages and
. along the residential streets to create a very walkahle environment. He said that the site is currently
served by local buses, and the intent is to expand on the existing service. He said that the applicant
would be required to construct two bus stops at the edge of the development and to provide a
Transportation Demand Management Plan for tha entire site. He said that bicycle and pedestrian
linkages to the rest of the community will be provided. He said tbat the street alignments are not
strictly adhering to the NBSP, but the intent of tha streeY network to provide connectivity between
biocks and with the adjacent neighborhoods is still maintained.
B. Cole said that staPf is recommending some minor changes to the conditions of approval. He said
that staff made sure that utility lines were noted throughout the site to make sure that there would
be enough space oufside the utility easemenfs to provide sLifficient sfreet trees.
C. Brown, Applicant, outlined what could have been developed on this 27-acre site up until I995,
including 112,000 square feet oP "big box" warehouse and retail use and 500 to 600 units in the
transitional business zone. She said that if a private developer were involved in this site, they might
ba developing at lower densities. She said that this proposal includes 324 residential units of which
137 and possibly 162 imits will be permanently af£ordable. She said that this proposai includes all
the suggestions made by Planning staff in 1999 (that the applicant provide a mix of housing types,
including townhomes, aparfinents, live-work units, neighborhood-scale offices and commercial
spaces to create a truly mixed-use community). She said that the project addresses livability (a
walkable neighborhood, pocket parks, pedestrian walkways, linear greenways, small neighborhood
•
s:\plan\pb-itemslminutes\O110ll min
City of Boulder
• Planning Board Minutes
October 11, 2001
Page 8
shops, and a vital urban rather than an suburban development), affordability (a high level of
affordability that means rents as low as $200 per month and sales prices as low as $117,000), and
sustainability (using water quality techniques, car sharing and other innovative approaches that help
the environxnent). She said that this plan represents community-based wishes developed over the
course of three years and more than ten public meetings, as well as open houses and a neighborhood
advisory group, mobile home advisory group, and a live-work workshop. She said that she is seeking
funds to landmark and restore the Holiday Drive-in Theater sign to recognize the history of the site.
She clarified the nature and goals of the Housing Partners.
John Wolff, Architect, 490 Marine Street, said that the space for Naropa is not an intensive use
and consists of 6,000 square feet of small studios, single office spaces, and a nighttime seminar
room. He explained that the rental and for-sale portion of the residential units will be open to both
Naropa faculty and students and other people in the community. M. Randall explained that more
detailed information is needed before a decision is made on this portion of the development and is
recommending that the use review be continued to a date certain.
George Watt, Barrett Studios, presented some slides to give the Board an overview of the
neighbarhood and some of the diverse elements that have been incorporated in the plan, such as
• mixed use, affardable and market-rate housing, shops, studios, and offices. He explained that the
main arganizing principle is the series of green linkages, gardens, open play and gathering areas,
pedestrian-ways, pocket parks that connect all elements of the neighborhood to the city of Boulder.
He said that the interconnected grid of walkable, tree-lined streets will provide connectivity far
automobiles, buses, bicycles, and pedestrians, bring porches to the streets, and allocate garages and
parking spaces behind the buildings. He showed where ofFice and commercial uses, the community
center and the community gardens, Studio Mews, park, co-housing, mixed uses, attached housing,
and detached housing will be located. He said tliat the applicant has worked with the staff of Parks
and Recreation Department to create a multi-use park, including providing innovative stormwater
and water quality techniques. He addressed the requested setbacks to aliow porches to be closer to
the streets and to create a great streetscape that enhances the pedestrian experience.
Public Participation:
Rick Romeo, Commissioner with the Housing Partners,1510 Bluebell Avenue: He said that he
is impressed with the amount of input that has gone into the project from a wide array of citizens and
boards. He said that it meets the goal of providing more affordable housing in a livable manner.
Lynn Segal, 538 Dewey: She said that she has been a supporter of co-housing for 25 years and is
enthusiastic about this project. She said that there is a missing element in the project--a small,
affordable grocery store or farmer's market.
•
s: \plan\pb-items\minutes\O 11011 min
City of Boulder
• Planning Board Minutes
October 11, 2001
Return to the Board:
Page 9
The Board and staff discussed the evolution of the development of the commercial space
(development of more housing and less commercial, not-for-profit office space, and smatl
neighborhood bakery, restaurant, etc., and a community center); the pedestrian walkway through the
northeast part of the site and through the park site; the fact that there is not a day-care centar
proposed on the site; expectation from the citizens of Boulder that affordable housing be provided
to those people who already work in Boulder since the affordable units are subsidized; a deed
restriction to guarantee that the housing will remain affordable over time; whether new schools will
be built in the area to accommodate this and other housing proj ects that hava been approved in north
Boulder; amenities that will be provided in the park; how the park is being subsidized by
development excise tax fee waivers and why the park size is being reduced from two acres; and the
differences between this project and Dakota Ridge regarding park fee waivers.
Further discussion included the techniques that will be used to increase water quality of the surfaee
runoff from the site; the amount and type of lighting on the site to eliminate unnecessary and
spillover lighting; methods of noise controi, especially with the units along U.S. 36, to make the
units comfortable and livable; the requirament that the project wouid need to comply with the new
lighting standards for the city; the fact that there are no size standards for porches to ensure that they
• have fimction and are more than an architectural feature; the amount of livable open space for people
to use; the reason for the parking reduction for the co-housing portion and assurauce that the spaces
will not be needed; the Naropa University use review; assurance that if the commLmity center is not
buiIY fhat residential units will be built instead of cominercial uses; allowed uses and use review uses
in the MXR-D zone; berier design standards far bus shelters; and the reduction in the amount of
commercial square footage to prevent the creation of a significant number of new jobs.
MOTION: On a motion by A. Gunter, seconded by B. Pommer, the Planning Board approved
(6-1; A. Gunter opposed) Site Review #LUR2001-00030 wiYh the requested setback reductions,
distribution of parking, density bonus of 10 dwelling units per acre in the MXR-D and Use Review
#LUR2001-00051, and right-of-way alignments as indicated on the site plan, in accordance with the
recommended conditions of approval indicated in Attachment A, as noted in the staff inemorandum
dated October 11, 2001 (preparation date October 3, 2001). He suggested removing the MU-D
zoning district from this motion. B. Cole explained that the site was evaluated as one project and
condiCions of approval are written for the entire project; if the site is split into two pieces it might
be a challenge to match up the conditions with the different pieces. B. Pommer said that sha would
withdraw her second to the motion.
MOTTON: On a motion by T. Krueger, seconded by M. Cowles, the Planning Board finds that the
following proposals are consistent with the obj ectivas of the North Boulder Subcommunity Plan and
•
s: \plan\pb-items~minutes\O 11011 min
City of Boulder
• Planning Board Minutes
October 11, 2001
Page 10
conforms to the Site and Use Review Criteria, and that the Planning Board adopts the staff
memorandnm dated October 11, 2001 (preparation date October 3, 2001) as findings of fact and
approves Site Review #LUR2001-0030 with the reyuested setback reductions, distribution of
parking, 0.07 FAR bonus in the MU-D, density bonus of 10 dwelling units per acre in the MXR-D,
and Use Review #LUR2001-00051, and righY-of-way alignments as indicated on the site pian, in
accordance with the recommended conditions of approval indicated in Attachment A and as
amended below; and, further, that the Board postpone until a date certain the Use Review
#LUR2001-00057 far the Naropa University component of this project (6-1; A. Gunter opposed).
A. Gunter opposed the motion because he thought that the commercial development in the MU-D
zoning district on Lots 1, 2, 3, and 4 behind the commercial uses along Broadway in Diagram A-3
should be built as housing in order to balance the jobs to population ratio.
Staff noted the following changes in the conditions of approval:
Condition 8.b: A financial securiYy to guarantee the initial operation of the RTD transit pass
program far the beneft of all employees within the development. The guarantee shall be in an
amount not to exceed $8,000 to cover program operations for no less than three years for each unit
or building constructed. The Applicant shall pay any amount above the amount provided in the
• guarantees required to ensure operation of the RTD transit pass program for the benefit of all
employees within the development for three years.
Condition 9: Prior to requesting a finai inspection on any building permit, the Applicant shall
consCruct a bus sheiter on Broadway consisting of a concrete pad, shelter, trash can, bike rack, and
bench. The location of this shelter and maintenance arrangements shall be subj ect to the review and
approval of the Directar of Public Works.
Condition 10 (adding Condition 10 will reorder the numbering of the two conditions thaC follow):
Prior to or concurrent with subdivision approval the Applicant shall provide a plan to construct an
additional bus shelter consisting of a concrete pad, shelter, trash can, bike rack, and bench. The
location of the shelter and maintenance arrangement shall be subject to the review and approval of
the Director of Public Works.
T. Nielsen offered a friendly amendment to add Condition 13 to read "The Applicant shall develop
a preference program for the sale of any permanently affordable units constructed on the site in a
form that is acceptable to the CityManager. Preferences may include preferences for households that
may have members who work within the city of Boulder or that prior to the purchase of such unit
reside within the city of Boulder." T. Krueger and M. Cowles accepted the friendly amendment.
•
s:\plan\pb-items~ninutes\01 ] O 11 min
City of Boulder
• Pllnning Board Minutes
October ll, 2001
Page 11
M. Cowles offered a friendly amendment to add Condition 14 to read "Where a dwelling unit is
designed with a front porch, the porch shall be sized so that it funetions as a place where people will
likely want to gather and comfortably do so." T. Krneger and M. Cowles accepted the friendly
amendment.
MOTION: On a motion by B. Pommer, seconded by T. Krueger, the Planning Board postponed
Use Review #LUR2001-00057 for Naropa University to November 1, 2001 (7-0).
7. ADJOURNMENT:
The Planning Board adjoumed the meeting at 11:15 p.m.
•
•
s:\plan\pb-items~minutes\O l] O l l min