Loading...
07.15.21 TAB-PB MinutesCITY OF BOULDER PLANNING BOARD & TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY BOARD JOINT-BOARD WORK SESSION ACTION MINUTES July 15, 2021 Virtual Meeting 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: Jorge Boone David Ensign, Chair John Gerstle Lupita Montoya Sarah Silver TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Tila Duhaime, Chair Robert Hutchinson Mark McIntyre Alex Weinheimer BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Lisa Smith, Planning Board Peter Vitale, Planning Board Ryan Schuchard, Transportation Advisory Board STAFF PRESENT: Jacob Lindsey, Director of Planning & Development Services Hella Pannewig, Assistant City Attorney Cindy Spence, Administrative Specialist III Holly Opansky, Administrative Specialist III Meredith Schleske, Administrative Specialist II Jean Gatza, Senior Planner Kathleen King, Senior Planner Chris Hagelin, Senior Transportation Planner Natalie Stiffler, Deputy Director of Public Works Jean Sanson, Senior Transportation Planner Erika Vandenbrande, Director of Public Works, Transportation CONSULTANTS: Jay Renkens, MIG, Inc. Mark De La Torre, MIG, Inc. Josh Mehlem, Apex Design, PC Rachel Shindman, Economic & Planning Systems 1. CALL TO ORDER Chair, D. Ensign, declared a quorum at 6:04 p.m. and the following business was conducted. 2. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION No one spoke. 3. DISCUSSION ITEMS A. AGENDA TITLE: East Boulder Subcommunity Plan Joint-Board Work Session to provide feedback on the Community Review Draft of the East Boulder Subcommunity Plan. Staff Presentation: K. King and J. Sanson presented the item to the board. Consultant Presentation: M. De La Torre and J. Renkens presented the item to the board. Board Questions: K. King, J. Sanson, R. Shindman and J. Renkens answered questions from the board. Board Comments: Key Issue #1: Do boards support the recommended Land Use Plan? • J. Boone said the proposed work looks and sounds great. He would like the definition of ‘light industrial’ to be much tighter in order for him to be supportive. He said what the market may be doing vs. what the community is actually doing may differ. Since ‘High Tech Office’ use would be a permissible use within this area, he believed that would exacerbate the jobs housing imbalance and it would continue to eliminate the light industrial use as well. The proposed increase in housing is great. However, if the doubling or more of jobs that could exist in the proposed area, then it would be taking Boulder backwards in terms of in-commuting. That would be detrimental in terms of the jobs housing imbalance. He would like to separate the ideal from what will happen and try to isolate what could happen and address it. • T. Duhaime said she found it informative and she would support the proposed plan. She did expect it to be industrial uses and to exclude office uses. There is a preference to keep some light industrial uses but to also include a lot of service industry things that are difficult to define. She would like to see the expansion of mixed use of development in general, which is missing throughout Boulder. This will increase flexibility of thinking, permitting, using spaces differently, and a step in the right direction. • D. Ensign said that from a land use perspective, he was in support. The land use is a higher level of designation and defining new categories are being done to meet new demands. The concerns expressed are valid. It will be important to get more granular as it moves forward. The ‘place types’ were more informative and with those the city can start looking at more granular percentages of different uses which the city would like to see and may have new zoning districts which would help address some of the concerns around office use and give flexibility to address those concerns. He said MUI made sense and MUTOD would be needed in this city transit- oriented zone. Its would be a positive move if Boulder takes that step. • J. Gerstle agreed with J. Boone. He had concerns with what would happen with the industrial areas that would get redeveloped. He said the use codes need to be controlled before he would support the proposed land use plan. He said it should be explicit how the residential activity takes place. He was particularly concerned about the decision of how much would be devoted to high density stacked flat developments and how much would be allocated to missing middle developments. Third, the Valmont power plant and airport areas need to be explicitly discussed in the land use plan. Regarding the airport, there should be a discussion about what would happen in the long term. The power plant discussion should be aware of clean up concerns and the water rights of the lake will be held by Xcel or public service until sold. • M. McIntyre wanted to honor the work of staff and the working group. The proposal represents a lot of hard work and he was generally in support. Regarding connections, he has concluded that a simple map showing all the non-automotive connections with the gaps highlighted and another map showing how the gaps would be treated would be very helpful. The current mapping was challenging. Regarding land use, and in light of the city’s latest climate commitment, he did not see any serious commitments, under the land use design, that change the built environment in ways that have quantifiable bike/ped trips that could be shifted from vehicles, and what that would do to our VMT. The city has aggressive goals when it comes to climate, but the current plans do not fully address climate commitment. • L. Montoya was concerned regarding the direction this project would take by looking at the land use that would allow to increase the gap between the housing needs and job creation. In addition, industrial use spaces are becoming fewer. She said there should be some restrictions or clear guidelines in place to be supportive. • S. Silver was in support J. Boone, J. Gerstle and L. Montoya. She hoped that this area would be the mixing together of light industrial, however she thought it would most likely be offices and residential. In the mixed-use industrial framing, there was the assumption that there would be permanently affordable housing in this area. She was unclear why the city would be placing low- and moderate-income residents into light industrial areas at a time when the city has been talking about racial equity and environmental justice. She added that more missing middle forms of housing should be introduced into the city and the EBSP would be an opportunity to do that. Those forms should be for middle income and low- and moderate-income families. She said there needs to be a separation of housing from what would be heavy industry., • A. Weinheimer said that he was supportive overall of the land use plan. He said that as redevelopment occurs, he would like to see access to more structured parking rather than surface lots or free on-street parking. Key Issue #2: Do boards support the recommended Connections Plan? • T. Duhaime was generally in support of the connections plan. She said that this would be a change to build a fresh plan. The enhancements shown highlight where the city has not thought about connectivity adequately in the past regarding connectivity with different modes. She would like to see more attention paid to fixing past mistakes, in particular connecting to the office parks or to the Flat Iron Business Park, more directly or welcoming. She was unclear if this plan were being treated as a twenty-year plan because the next TMP update would come along much sooner than that. She said that 55th Street is currently a huge barrier and there does not appear to be enough effort currently in this connection plan to correct that. To recommend a corridor study for it and to make it a complete street at some point in the future was unsatisfying. She would like to see the rethinking of 55th Street done sooner. It should operate as an arterial roadway. The focus on micro-mobility fleets and mini-transit hubs are interesting thoughts. She said that they tend to overlook the use of privately owned micro mobility devices which are currently on the streets. She said the focus should be on a more urgent matter on bigger changes that would lead the city to bigger impacts toward greenhouse climate initiatives as part of the connections plan. • D. Ensign agreed with T. Duhaime. He added that the city is still early in the plan. He did not want to be too conservative regarding transportation. If more vehicle circulation were implemented in the STAMP area, he would prefer they were de-emphasized. He asked to keep thinking about the circulation and emphasizing the pedestrian and bike activity within the transit core and to stay within the vision to be welcoming, exciting and to go without your single occupancy vehicle. • J. Gerstle agreed with the previous comments. He said the challenge would be to not be too conservative. He was concerned with making this area are of town feel as if it is a part of Boulder and not isolated. He asked how the city could do more to integrate this area with more bike paths and crossing the Foothills Highway. • M. McIntyre said that his previous comments regarding connections were still valid. He would like a better map to assist with planning real connections and identifying gaps. • L. Montoya wanted to make sure that any proposals would be more deliberate in how more vulnerable communities would be treated. She would like to include in this development elements that integrate communities which can usually be disconnected. She would like to see integration. • S. Silver supported the previous comments. The micro mobility ideas are not necessarily utilized by families and that should be kept in mind. She said families need to be considered. • A. Weinheimer said this plan does a good job of building a grid where one does not currently exist. That would in itself would ease pressure on the nearby arterial streets and create a more walkable area. The network as shown supports the proposed land uses and it would be doing so without any great expenditures. There are currently few north/south arterials in town and they are vital for people biking and walking. Therefore, 55th Street would be critical to take a closer look at. The current rendering for 55th Street does not appear that imaginative and the city would want to align with best practices for safety, reconstruct it with safer facilities, and back of curb for bike and pedestrians. He hoped to see low-cost opportunities called out in the ninety percent draft. An area of opportunity for coordination would be the placement of transit stops with three developments and with the upcoming east Arapahoe multi-use path project. Overall, he was supportive of this network and it could be best communicated with a single map which would show not just the projects that have come up through this effort, but overlays those on top of the already plans TMP projects perhaps that could differentiate between the two. • J. Boone said his concern was to mitigate in-commuting with land use as it currently stands. He would like to understand the data surrounding this plan and how the city would be getting people off the road, meeting the climate change goals, and making sure there would be no housing jobs imbalance. Key Issue #3: Do boards support the proposed concept for the 55th and Arapahoe Station Area? • A. Weinheimer said a motivator of decisions has been the preservation of mountain views and providing access to open space. An underutilized option that the city does not do enough of is providing public access to roof tops. He said it would be good to integrate public space access with great views and he suggested the best place to do that would be in the vicinity of the station at 55th Street. • J. Boone said that his comments to the first Key Issue were the same. • T. Duhaime said that she did like it, in general. She approved of the permeability throughout the site, the cross plazas, the places that pedestrians could access, the proposed walking paths. She added that having the four different “flavors” of streets was too much categorization and not necessary. She really approved of the activation street on Conestoga Court. She thought that the proposed two-three blocks may be too little. She suggested making it more of a district and having more than one activation street. She appreciated the integration of multi-use paths across the site in the community. She appreciated that the plan has created a grid, but in spots intersections have been offset. That would help create a sense of space for the road users and would assist with them driving slower. She also liked the planning and routing for heavy vehicles and keeping them on the perimeter. She approved of the pedestrian/bike emergency access street and would like to see more of that. • D. Ensign agreed with T. Duhaime. He approved of the concept of the plazas. He acknowledged that a challenge may be the existing restaurants and shops along Arapahoe and any change may make the public nervous about losing those businesses. A plan to support impacts to the businesses to assure a smooth evolution would be useful. He would like to see if it would be possible to make the north and south side of Arapahoe feel compatible since there is some asymmetry (lower heights on the South side). He acknowledged concerns expressed by other board members with the described mix of housing types and hoped they would be ironed out with appropriate zoning. • J. Gerstle generally agreed with the previous comments. He approved of the physical layout in terms of streets and buildings. He was concerned with the classification of mixed use, the use allowed in the buildings, and to continue service industrial found and permitted in this area. • R. Hutchinson said encouraging redevelopment in the core may exclude some key uses (services) and it would be good not to enable that. He said that when an area may become a multi modal destination in particular, people will hang around in that area and as long as there is some flexibility of spaces to be allowed to spring up, the transportation stuff will drive the organic stuff. He hoped the 55th Street area would become the core to develop the patterns of the pedestrians and bicyclists. • M. McIntyre said the idea of smaller, more frequent transit mobility hubs would work better for people. He emphasized that at 55th and Arapahoe, the key station/mobility hubs need to be fleshed out with curbside management for shared vehicle or Uber/Lyft. He said he was excited by the whole concept. • L. Montoya said that she would like to have the plan keep in mind how do we serve our families in more deliberate and explicit ways. In addition, she would like the plan to address what could be done to serve our sizable and highly esteemed nonprofit and artistic sector in this community. • S. Silver said this area would be the perfect place for public, private and an arts and culture center as a way to address some of the Community Benefits Phase 2 conversation which the Planning Board has discussed. This could become a destination point. She said she would like to see more trees within the plan. She would like to see the opportunity for green roofs. The proposed place types all looked like various iterations of the same idea. She urged the staff to be clearer about the differences and what is unique about each one. She mentioned Form Based Code, which she said would be a part of this area. She said that Form Based Code has nothing to do with affordability and affordability would be the problem, not design. She said that on-site affordability in this area would need to be encouraged and suggested that a higher level than twenty-five percent of permanently affordability in this area be considered. She recommended lowering the height near the residential. Staff Presentation regarding the Fall Engagement Window: J. Gatza and K. King presented the item to the board. Board Questions: J. Gatza and K. King answered questions from the board. Key Issue #4: Are there other elements of the plan or planning process that boards believe to be essential in order to confidently support recommendations included in the East Boulder Subcommunity Plan? • R. Hutchinson said he thought Boulder did a good job of community outreach and did not have any particular insights into mechanisms. He was pleased to see materials appearing in other languages. • M. McIntyre said he missed many of the in-person meetings but was surprised by the accessibility of virtual meetings. He felt it broadened the participation. He would advocate for the city to move to a hybrid model. He suggested adding “How does every action help us reach our climate goals” on the slide entitled “Specifics” that the public could comment on. • L. Montoya mentioned in the past as the pandemic started, there had been outreach events for communities at local churches, but they had stopped. She suggested not only getting information out to communities but also receiving information from them. Previous initiatives with the Latino community, in terms of providing information, a text messaging program was started. It did not go very far, however they discovered that Facebook worked fairly well. • S. Silver said that a definition of the place types that are very distinct would be needed as well as the granularity in zoning given the risks to the industrial zones. She said that clarity on the missing middle housing forms and on additional areas where missing middle housing would be an option are be needed. New creative home ownership opportunities as well as creative thinking about where the city can utilize existing home ownership opportunities are needed. She would like to see clarity regarding separation of housing, residential and industrial. She would like to see an engagement opportunity with artists and/or cultural organizations and open a discussion of an arts and culture space at the STAMP location. Outreach to the neighborhood to the sough of the proposed transit hub should be done. She recommended Next Door as a tool for ongoing input specifically on elements of this project. • A. Weinheimer said he has been impressed by the city’s outreach so far, especially with the working group. He suggested that the area be showcased and highlighted in the study sessions to the community as a potential destination, more than it is now. He added that he would more confidently support the transportation elements if they were all summarized on a single map. • J. Boone said he supported S. Silver’s comments regarding being as granular as possible. In- person meetings are critical to the success of a community understanding and buying into something, where online surveys do not do that. He said that people need to understand that the term “light industrial” may include “office”. He would like to see outreach around the jobs housing imbalance for people to understand that the project as proposed takes the city backwards. • T. Duhaime questioned how realist are some of the assumptions about what people want and what the demand is for the kinds of spaces. It is too early to say what the world will look like in twenty years and we will get it wrong. She questioned how successful the city has been at reaching the in-commuters for their feedback. She would feel better supporting this plan knowing that these changes and proposals were actually meeting an unmet need and want in twenty years. She has complete support for the STAMP area. • D. Ensign mentioned that the working group is how subcommunity planning is done and that is public outreach. He applauded the idea of using 3D visuals. Regarding the jobs housing imbalance mentioned by J. Boone, he did not agree that external messaging should indicate that this subcommunity plan would exacerbate the jobs/housing imbalance. He said that if the city were to build out the max development potential for site that is currently zoned, the city would horribly upset the jobs housing imbalance, which is a scenario with the current zoning. He did not know if there had been an actual acknowledgement by staff or the presenters that this would exacerbate the jobs housing imbalance. It would depend on a lot of things that still have yet to be set such as zoning and the stop gaps which might prevent various outcomes. He said that he did not believe that anyone admitted that this land use by and in of itself would lead the city in that direction. • J. Gerstle said he agreed with J. Boone and S. Silver’s comments. He said that it would be important to discuss the ultimate consequences of what a community plan could lead to. • D. Ensign added that he was not discouraging board members from talking about what could happen. He was discouraging the board from saying that something will happen that the board may or may not know. • J. Boone said that he heard, from staff, that the plan would provide up to 3500 units and that it would not be a one-to-one ratio, but that it would be potentially double what is currently there. That’s a potential result of redevelopment and this plan will exacerbate the jobs housing imbalance as presented. • D. Ensign said he wanted to find out from staff if the plan was discussing about conjecture of what could happen to max build out or if it was based on actual models that would predict an outcome. In today’s world, if it were built out to the maximum development potential for all of the zones, it would seriously increase the jobs housing imbalance. Therefore, he wanted to know if this self-contained area plan would make the situation better or worse. He added that certainly economic conditions could push us to the jobs housing imbalance, however we cannot draw some sort of hard conclusion that the subcommunity plan has done that yet without some additional data. • J. Boone said he believes that this kind of planning would push the direction to develop in this area. He did not believe it was conjecture and that the build out would accelerate. He said this plan will likely result in the increasing of the jobs housing imbalance because it will accelerate the development of the additional industrial and office space. This has an extreme potential to increase the job housing imbalance versus what is currently there because it would be putting in place a plan that would incentivize development. • J. Gerstle said that developers should be given entitlements in order to be enticed to do something different. He mentioned the three in-person public sessions proposed by staff may be inappropriate because the landowners, office owners and developers would be those who have been already the most involved in the working group and they are very aware of what has been going on. In fact, they have had a tremendous influence in the planning so far. He recommended focusing the meetings for the city at large because that is the group that has been least active so far in the public efforts. 4. DEBRIEF MEETING/CALENDAR CHECK 5.ADJOURNMENT The Planning Board and Transportation Advisory Board adjourned the meeting at 10:17 p.m. APPROVED BY ______ Planning Board Chair ___08/19/2021__________________ DATE APPROVED BY _______________________________ Transportation Advisory Board Chair ___________________ DATE Tila Duhaime per attached email 09/26/2021 From:Tila Duhaime To:Schleske, Meredith Subject:Re: For your approval: 07.15.2021_PB & TAB Minutes - signed with TAB edits Date:Sunday, September 26, 2021 3:20:07 PM External Sender Thanks very much, Meredith. The minutes are approved as amended. Tila Duhaime On Fri, Sep 24, 2021 at 3:23 PM Schleske, Meredith <SchleskeM@bouldercolorado.gov> wrote: HI Tila, The 07.15.2021_PB & TAB Minutes - signed with TAB edits per 9/13/2021 TAB meeting are attached. Edits: B.07.15.2021 Planning Board & TAB Minutes Motion: Approval of 07.15.2021 Planning Board & TAB Minutes as amended to correct spelling of “transportation” (title), correct spelling of “Duhaime”; replace “backup curve” with “back of curb” (page 4), and “flushing” with “fleshing” (page 5.) Motion: Hutchinson Second: Duhaime 4:0 Motion Passes. Schuchard abstain, not in attendance. Please reply with your corrections or approval. Thank you! Meredith Meredith Schleske Administrative Specialist O: 303.441.3204 schleskem@bouldercolorado.gov Department of Public Works Business Services Division 1739 Broadway, Boulder 80302