Loading...
Minutes - Planning Board - 3/15/2007Approved April 12, 2007 CITY OF BOULDER PLANNING BOARD ACTION MINUTES March 15, 2007 1777 Broadway, Council Chambers A permanent set of these minutes and a tape recording (maintained for a period of seven yeazs) are re[ained in Central Records (telephone: 303-441-3043). Minutes and streaming audio are also available on the web at: http://www.ci.boulder.co.us/planning/planningboard/agendas PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Elise Jones, Chair Simon Mole, Vice Chair John Spitzer Phil Shull Adrian Sopher Richard Sosa STAFF PRESENT: Ruth McHeyser, Acting Planning Director Susan Richstone, AcUng L.ong Range Planning Manager David Gehr, Assistant City Attorney Louise Grauer, Senior Planner Randall Rutsch, Transportation Planner Jeff Yegian, Housing Planner Marie Zuzack, Planner Dan Guimond, EPS Josh Birks, EPS Stuart Anderson, Transportation consultant Michelle Allen, Administrative Specialist 1. CALL TO ORDER Chair, E. Jones, declared a quorum at 6:05 p.m. and the following business was conducted. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES On a motion by A. Sopher, seconded by R. Sosa, the Planning Boazd Approved as amended the Feb. 15, 2007 Planning Board minutes. Vote 6-0 The Feb. 22, 2007 Planning Board minutes were not approved. Planning Board will consider these at a future meeting 3. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION None 4. DISCUSSION OF DISPOSITIONS, PLANNING BOARD CALL-UPS 2240 Bluff, Site Review amendment, no comments 5. ACTION ITEMS A. Public hearing and discussion of the Transit Village Area Plan Transportation Demand Management (TDM) & Parking, (continued from 2/22) EPS analysis of financial feasibility of proposed land uses Phasing & Financing Approaches Draft Area Plan document Phasing Public Participation Steve Pomerance, 335 17~', Boulder, CO Roy Young, 1329 5`h St., Boulder, CO Joseph Kent, 531 Columbine Ave., Broomfield CO John Pawlowski, 10649 Goose Haven Dr., Lafayette, CO Vince Porreca, P.O. 22, Boulder CO Lou Della Cava, 2595 Canyon Blvd., Ste: 230, Boulder, CO Bob Louden, PO Box 2960, Valmont, Boulder CO Board Discussion, phasing Deferred to the end of the meeting ShulL• Dces not agree with the phasing. It's really about a desirable buildout scenario. There will be a logical progression of development and the east will be last but we still want to get a better understanding of how it will happen. We need to plan for redevelopment of Ihe whole area. Mole: The board should reconsider the LU in the SE quadrant based on the EPS study. Both sides of the tracks should develop in the same general time frame. Sopher: In terms of a phase I& II we are saying we aren't going to rezone phase II right away. What will be the regulatory effect of the connections plan on phase II? We should allow for the possibility of development in phase II sooner. No phase I or II, adopt the whole thing and it all goes into play immediately. Jones: Should we be doing more to incentivize the E side? It's an equity thing. We should not change the zoning or put the connections plan in place on the E side until we are ready to invest in city improvements there. Sosa: Provide flexibility for some kind of development S of Goose Creek on the E side of the tracks. We are making the assumption that X amount of city investment will result in X amount of private development. I don't agree with the phasing - we should keep the whole plan intact as one. Spitzer: Pm ok with the phasing plan. If we get some significant development E of the tracks we might want to accelerate phase II. EPS Analysis Public Participation Lou Della Cava, 2595 Canyon Blvd., Ste: 230, Boulder, CO Harris Faberman, 1236 Chinook, Boulder Board Discussion What dces the analysis tell us to date? That residential use is the most financially viable. Spitzer: If the units are going to sell at $350 per sq ft we need the retail and street vitality so we are on the right track. 2 Mole: We may want to rethink the tracks as the divide between zones. We may want MU on the east side of the tracks. I think we should readdress this issue. If the SE quadrant doesn't get a different zoning it won't change. Jones: It's ok if some of this doesn't change for the next 25 years. What incentives might cause changeto occur? Sosa: It doesn't make sense that the west half might be set to function the way we want it when the E side of the tracks perhaps won't for a long time. We might want to rethink the zoning on the E side. Spitzer: We might get spotty development. We should try to focus on getting developmen[ near depot plaza and the bus station so that it is absorbed and viable first. Sopher. If there is no financial viability, it won't happen. So we don't need to worry too much. Shull: Provide parking in a way that activates the transit. We need an employment mass here. The likelihood of this being a viable retail center is dubious unless we can find a way to subsidize i[. I think the velocity with which this will unfold is likely to be slow if we can't prime the pump. If a lot of Ihe initial housing is affordable it will also affect the velocity of development and property appreciation negatively. We aze not doing whaYs needed to make this place a hot spot. I don't know that priming the pump is a city thing nor do I see private developers taking on this financia] responsibility. Break 9:12 - 9:22 TDM / Parking Pubiic Participation None Board Discussion 1. The range of the amount of parking needed and general location should be included in the plan. 2. Residential parking should be provided on site. The other parking needs: retail, transit, visitor pazking can be provided in another way. All parking could be unbundled and in joint management. 3. We don't know the numbers involved but we probably should have a parking structure somewhere near the train platform possibly in addition to the pazking structure associated with the BRT. This could support a variety of uses: transit, employees. 4. Put the structure such as a Parking Management Association (PMA) in place from day one - it may not initially assess proper[y owners or participation may be optional. Set it up to be iterative over time. Jones: If we think we need structured parking the logical approach is to partner with RTD from the get go. We could deal with parking centrally, through a PMA or in conjunction with RTD. The availability of parking will have an impact on how well the area is used. We need to be clear to RTD on what we want. We want to engage RTD in shared parking with employers in the area. Unbundling allows residents the option of being car free. Spitzer: Globally how many spaces will we provide in the BRThail portion of the TVA? You could fit 100 spaces under depot plaza. PMA not necessazy in the first years. 3 Sopher: I don't see how we can not have some plan for pazking related to the train stop. We have to be equally specific and realistic as we are with the connections plan as to where the parking will be located. Mole: The boazd is in total disarray on this subject so I feel the process needs to be slowed down. Sosa: Keep it flexible. Some amount of parking should be associated with the train stop. Shull: The vision for this place is denser residential, some employment in the center, urban and pedestrian oriented but won't be anything like this in the near fu[ure. How do we make the transition over time? We need to put in place a structure of what will happen with parking to make sure it serves the vision. If initially the parking is distributed on each parcel how do you reduce it in the future? Start with a PMA and if we think this place will work as a TOD then leYs start with low maximum parking requirements. Unbundling implies management and enforcement and I don't think iYs necessarily the way to go initially. Things PB would like to consider before a public hearing for adoption: Phasing Amendment process LU on E side to see if we need to make adjustments Parking options Financial plan Cost allocation Alignment of Junction place on the north end More flexibility - what might it look like and what might it achieve. If it's not flexibile enough what tools can help with that Taxing district - to prime the pump, source of revenue Impact of new pop on services Guidance to RTD on what [heir infrastructure should suppoR - be explicit about what we want from them Legalities of exactions 6. MATTERS FROM THE PLANNING BOARD, PLANNING DIRECTOR, AND CITY ATTORNEY 7. DEBRIEF/AGENDA CHECK 8. ADJOURNMENT The Planning Board adjourned the meeting at 11:54 p.m.