Loading...
Minutes - BJAD Parking and Travel - 04/13/2011 CITY OF BOULDER, COLORADO BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS MEETING MINUTES FORM NAME OF BOARD/COMMISSION: BOULDER JUNCTION ACCESS DISTRICT (BJAD) - JOINT MEETING - PARKING AND TRAVEL DEMAND MANAGEMENT (TDM) COMMISSIONS NAME/TELEPHONE OF PERSON PREPARING SUMMARY Ruth Weiss-303-413-7318 NAMES OF MEMBERS, STAFF, AND INVITED GUESTS PRESENT: BOARD MEMBERS: HOLLISTER (absent), KOVAL, PAWLOWSKI, PEDERSEN, SHANAHAN, SUTHERLAND STAFF: WINTER, WEISS, HAGELIN, LLANES, HADDOCK AGENDA ITEM 1- Swearing In of Commission Member: Jahn Koval was sworn in. AGENDA ITEM 2 - Meeting called to order 9:40 am AGENDA ITEM 3 - Roll Call: All commissioners were present with the exception of Hollister. AGENDA ITEM 4 - Public Participation: None AGENDA ITEM S - Clarification of Qualifications and Conflict of Interest Issues for Commission Members: Winter offered that Pedersen and Shanahan are participating in a development that may be in a conflict of interest situation. Haddock mentioned that there is a City Code of Conduct for members of the board. Haddock continued that all interests should be divulged just to be certain and to be reclused would require Filing disclosures with the Secretary of State, All cases will be decided on an individual basis. Haddock continued that parking is property wide, property owner has different interests and it is part of the balancing. Llanes commented that it is a board issue and then determined if it is a conflict of interest. Llanes suggested contacting her in this regard to avoid any legal ramifications. Haddock mentioned that this is only an advisory board and in Boulder, Code of Conduct can be raised by the board and by others. Pawlowski questioned the individuality of the boards; Haddock responded that it will be on an individual item basis. Winter mentioned that it is dependent on the project and currently the vision is the potential involvement of the district and without action from the board at this time. Winter offered that it's a list of potential issues to gain a broader understanding. Llanes mentioned on the issue of a non property owner being on the boards. There is no need for thereto be a property owner on the board per the provisions. Winter mentioned that a property owner can appoint a representative by providing a written document testifying to same. Koval offered that if you are on a commission or board, you can present projects to said board. Winter replied that in Planning Board different actions are taken. Llanes responded that it is a quasi judicial board and that the Boulder Junction board is not judicial. Winter commented that there are statutory actions on Planning and Liquor Boards. Haddock mentioned that if she is giving advice to one board member, it applies to all board members. AGENDA ITEM 6 - Presentation of the Concept Review Proposal for the Development of the RTD Boulder Transit Village Parcel: Pedersen mentioned that Shanahan, himself and their team were awarded the project by RTD. The program entails an underground parking structure with an enclosed escalator that goes to the bus station; a hotel will be built as well as a 5 story parking structure with housing that will be ultimately presented to the Boulder Housing Authority. Boulder B-Cycle will have a place, the Depot will be restored. f71e 5 story parking structure will be divided between the residential projects, hotel, RTD and will have the ability to provide 100 spaces to the city. Carl Walker and Associates will be helping with determinations. Pedersen has submitted the drawings to the Planning Board and does not foresee any issues. Pedersen continued that April 21 is the review process date for Planning Board feedback; the feedback wili be incorporated to the site review package for submittal approximately at the end of Tune, 2011. This feedback will be used for a site review hearing in August. Pedersen continued that they are moving rather quickly and will offer parking to the district, however, if it not to be used by the district, plans will be revamped. Pawlowski asked about potential improvement to the Pearl Parkway. Sutherland asked about the buffering mechanism for the site up against the railroad tracks. Pedersen replied that a sound buffer is currently being reviewed, or moving residential closer to the hotel but it is still in exploratory mode. Pedersen mentioned the bridge over the creek. Pawlowski asked if a bridge is being considered over Pearl Parkway and the answer was no. Winter mentioned that there is an issue with funds designated for parking and management is key since the district is counting on its revenue. Haddock offered that when negotiations are with the property owner regarding parking, reclusion will be necessary. Winter mentioned that bond authorization was based on initial cost projection. Sutherland offered that some resistant points are about parking. Koval questioned the 100 spaces and would pertinent data on the parking issue be available. Pedersen commented that it is complicated since the structure sits on top of the RTD and would there be a cost saving incrementally to do more. Koval wondered if Pedersen was amiable to participate in an analytical process. Revenue to the district was part of all projections. Land value, actual construction cost, building the footprint of parking versus the rest of the site, and it not like a blank piece of property, it is all integrated. Koval questioned that whether the site will be constructed if the district denies the parking, and Pedersen responded affirmatively. Sutherland questioned if a property owner wanted early parkin.g capacity. Pedersen offered that the formation of the district was to provide parking. Winter commented that on the original assumptions of the uses of the property and the costs, then looking at additional parking and this would be shared with other projects. Koval offered that would it be more practical to buy spaces from the property owners that are closer in and mentioned that people do not want to walk. Pedersen mentioned a Participation Agreement with RTD. Haddock offered that RTD put a burden on the property owner. Winter commented that as it evolves the uses will be determined. Pedersen offered that the Boulder residential structure has 319 units and 319 parking spaces on its site and should have allorted 1.5 per unit and therefore will be looking for an additional 150 spaces. Koval continued that this is an opportunity and all factors need to be weighed in due to its amenities. Pedersen offered that after the concept reviem, next week, the site review plan will be created with the common elements and its workings. Exclusive access to parking would be project driven with an expectation such as the hotel will want to buy the parking upfront to contain exclusivity. Winter offered that there would be ongoing management costs for operation and maintenance. AGENDA ITEM 7 -Review of Master mist/SchedulN of Development Projects within Boulder Junction: Winter requested an update on what is going to be built. AGENDA ITEM 8 - 2012 Budget Process and 'I`imeline: Winter mentioned that the city will be starting the 2012 budget process, will be submitting items in June with budget acceptance in October. ,kf;ENDA ITEM 9 - Discussion of Commissioner Objectives for 2011: AGENDA ITEM 10 - Matters frow Coniurii doucrs: AGENDA ITEM 11 - Matters from Staff: Meeting adjourned at 11 am - Koval lrjononcd for ai( cle immcnt. All commissioners were in favor. ACTION ITEMS: LOTION: Pawlowski motioned to app!ove the niijwte:lz, Pedersen seconded and all commissioners approved. FT„FURE .MEETINGS: July 21, 20; l Btu ,i Lobby Joint Meeting 8700 a.m. APPROVED BY: - BOULDER JUNCTION ACCESS DISTRICT: PARKING AND TDM Attest: 3>__ _ Ruth Weiss, Secretary n awlo air, TDM 'Scott Pedersen, Chair, Parking