Loading...
Minutes - Planning Board - 12/13/2007 (Joint meeting with DDAB) (2)CITY Or BOULDER JOINT PLANNING BOARD AND DOWNTOWN DESIGN ADVISORY BOARD ACTTON MINUTES December 13, 2007 1777 Broadway, Council Chambers A pennanent seY of dtese minutes and a tape recording (maintained for a penod of seven years) are retained in Central Records (telephone: 303-4a1-3043). Minutes and streaming audio are also available on the web at http://www.bouldercoloradagov/ PLANNING BOARD MGMBERS PRESENT: Elise Jones, Cl~air Andrew Shoemaker Phil Shull, Vice-Chair Adrian Sopher Bill Holicky PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Wi(la Johnson Richard Sosa DOWNTOWN DESIGN ADVISORY BOARD MEM6~RS PRESENT: David Biek Jack Rudd Charles Peter Rogers Lisa Eggcr DOWNTOWN DESIGN ADVISORY BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Paul Saporito OTHERS PRESENT: Kelly Davis, former member of Down[own Design Advisory Soard Tim Plass, Chair of Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board STAFF PRESENT: Charles Ferro, Planner II Brian Holmes, Planner and Zoning Administrator Heidi Joyce, Administrative Supervisor- Operations Meghan Lawson, Zoning Administrator Ruth MeHeyser, Acting Planning Director Robert Ray, Land Use Review Nlanager 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 6:57 p.m. and the following business was conducted. The board members icitroduced themselvcs. 2. DISCUSSION ITEMS P. Shull suggested that their discussion focus on the review process used by Planning Board and Downtown Design Advisory Board (DDAB) and how it can be streamlined. K. Davis mentioned that the benefit of the Downtown Design Advisory Board is the non-binding nature of their recommendations and the col]aboration between the board and the applicant. Downtown Design Advisory Board is a venue for open collaborative dialogue for design professionals. There is a need for a process that takes valuable assets of Downtown Design Advisory Board, the goals of Planning Board and the Downtown Design Guidelines into consideration in order to make a project more successful. The idea is not Co have the applicant go through many hoops, but to end up with a better project. B. Holicky agreed with K Davis's thoughts. He thought that DDAB was a highly functional board and wanted to determine a more effective way for Planning Board to communicate with DDAB and vice versa. P. Shull mentioned that a post Planning Board approval DDAB review might be useful. B. Holicky was unsure what the most efficient and effective review process would be. He noted that DDAB is not involved with policy issues (such as heiglrt) and concerned mostly with design. Because of these he wanted to be sure that applicants don't thick they are being led in one direction by DDAB (design-driven) and a separate direction by Planning Board (policy-driven). A. Sopher thought that the process should ftrst include concept review with Planning Board, then be seen by Downtown Design Advisory Board. If there is no concept review, then post Planning Board approval recommendations should be given by Downtown Design Advisory Board. R. McHeyser noted that the review process typically doesn't work as smoothly when projects are seen first by DDAB. Usually they are seen by Planning Board first, then refined later with DDAB. D. Biek used Twenty Ninth Street as an example of where Downtown Design Advisory Board could have weighed in on more issues. The Home Depot design was improved greatly through the Downtown Design Advisory Board review process. Califontia Pizza Kitchen did not incorporate DDAB's suggestions as wholeheartedly. It is hard to predict what the end result will be. P. Shull clarified that most Downtown Design Advisory Board applicants listen to and act on DDAB's recommendations on some level. A. Sopher noted that if Planning Board sends something to Downtown Design Advisory Board post site review they need to be very clear and explicit about what is expected as far as modifications. In the past, Planning Board members have been surprised about some of the changes that have been made to projects by DDAB following Planning Board review. A. Shoemaker recommended that a member of DDAB be present at the Planning Board site review to make recommendations and answer questions about projects. 2 B. Holicky agreed that a DDAB member should be present at site review so that their comments and ideas are heard and can be incorporated. A. Sopher noted that the Planning Board minutes have improved tremendously at the Concept Plan level making it easier to determine what the board consensus was on each project. J. Rudd reviewed the documentation and communication methods that Downtown Design Advisory Board currently uses. One member will take notes (this responsibility rotates among members), and emails the notes to the board following the meeting. After the board weighs in on the notes, staff emails a final version to the applicant. This version is also what is included in Planning Board packets. P. Shull commented on the need to formalize the method for Downtown Design Advisory Board to communicate its comments to both Planning Board and the applicant. B. Holicky noted that formalizing the Downtown Design Advisory Board minutes may allow for Planning Board to enforce some of Downtown Design Advisory Board's concerns and comments. D. Biek questioned if there would be a way to formalize "Principals of Good Design" for the review of projects outside the downtown. R. McHeyser noted that the two fom~ally recognized city-wide principles are the site review criteria and die Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan policy adopted in the last update related to design quality of built projects. E. Jones commented that every part of Boulder is deserving of good design review. P. Shull questioned the thresholds for review by a city-wide design advisory board (DDAB). B. Holicky suggested that the thresholds for concept review could apply. R. McHeyser commented that a variation to "building size" limitations could trigger review by DDAB. K. Davis noted that Downtown Design Advisory Board is being asked to hold their opinions aside regarding grander policy questions and suggested that the Planning Board nay want to hold their opinions aside regarding design issues. He discussed a "tnast" between boards regarding their respective roles. A. Sopher discussed the "ping-pong" effect between Planning Board and Downtown Design Advisory Board and noted that Planning Board was still responsible for review of design issues. R. McHeyser noted that the roles and responsibilities of Planning Board, DDAB and Landmarks Board need to be clearly defined. Due to the structure of the process it is Plamiing Board that has the final call on design issues, but often they defer to DDAB's recommendations. T. Plass discussed the roles and jurisdiction of the Landmarks Board and the relationship between Landmarks and Downtown Design Advisory Board. 3 D. Biek asked what the role will be for the new Urban Design Specialist position. R. McHeyser said the duties will change according to the goals set by Council, but may include working on area plans, leading urban design projects (e.g. Downtown Alliance), etc. A. Sopher asked what the Urban Design Specialist will do in terms of development review. R. McHeyser said the position will be a resource to staff and will interact with boards on a project by project basis. C. Rogers liked the idea of Downtown Design Advisory Board giving an opinion on projects all around town, but wanted to make sure that downtown projects are also well thought out and effective. He wondered if the architects really listen and respond to Downtown Design Advisory Board comments and noted that it seems like downtown design is maximizing square footage based on economics. J. Rudd noted that in downtown projects the good projects outweigh the bad projects. In order for applicants to trust Downtown Design Advisory Board, the board composition is an important factor- expertise is important. Summary: • Ideal process is for items to go to Planning Board for concept review, then to Downtown Design Advisory Board, then back to Planning Board for site review. • If there is no concept review, then items should go to DDAB post-PB approval. • Reserve light to continue dialogue as necessary with Downtown Design Advisory Board -keep discretionary and open as an option following site review. • Formalize Downtown Design Advisory Board process for notes to communicate clearly to Planning Board. • Downtown Design Advisory Board representative to attend Planning Board hearing. • Interest in exploring general design guidelines for the city-at-large. • Referral threshold- this should be discretionary. • Suggestion to ask City Council to increase the current number of design professionals required on Downtown Design Advisory Board. • If Downtown Design Advisory Board roes are to change there needs to be support from council. • Plamring Board requested that the Downtown Design Advisory Board minutes be directed toward them if the item is being heard by Planning Board. DDAB can direct their opinions and summarize their recommendations for the applicant at the end of their meetings. 3. DEBRIEF MEETING(AGENDA CHECK Agenda check at 8:15 p.m. 4. ADJOURNMENT The Planning Board and Downtown Design Advisory Board adjourned the meeting at 8:35 p.m. 4 APPROVED BY 7 i B rd h,,a~if i ilX AT 5