Loading...
Minutes - Planning Board - 4/17/2008 APPROVED OV ]L1T I5, 2008 CITY OF BOULDER PLANNING BOARD MINUTES April 17, 2008 1777 Broadway, Council Chambers 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: W illa Johnson Andrew Shoemaker Adrian Sopher KC Becker Bill Holicky, Acting Chair PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Elise Jones Phil Shull STAFF PRESENT: Michelle Allen, Housing Planner Jeff Arthur, Engineering Review Manager Charles Ferro, Senior Planner David Gehr, Assistant City Attorney Beverly Johnson, Environmental Planner Heidi Joyce, Administration Supervisor Katie Knapp, Floodplain and Wetland Administrator Ruth McHeyser, Acting Planning Director Chris Meschuk, Planner Robert Ray, Land Use Review Manager Susan Richstone, Acting Long Range Planning Manager 1. CALL TO ORDER Chair, B. Holicky, declared a quorum at 6:04 p.m. and the following business was conducted. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES On a motion by Johnson, seconded by A. Shoemaker, the Planning Board approved 4-0, K. Becker abstained, E. Jones and P. Shull absent) the March 6, 2008 Planning Board minutes as amended. 3. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION Elizabeth Allen, Boulder, 80301 requested that the Planning Board call-up the Nitro Club disposition, 1124 Pearl Street. 4. DISCUSSION OF DISPOSITIONS, PLANNING BOARD CALL-UPS 1 ~~a Call-up items: Wetland Permit (LUR2008-00030) West Nile Virus Program, 861, 869 and 873 19`h Streets Minor Subdivision, 1820 Mary Lane Site Review Amendment, 1845 18`h Street Use and Site Reviews, 1405-1435 Arapahoe Site Review, 1124 Pearl Street-Nitro Club. Nitro Club, 1124 Pearl Street The board discussed the call-up period for the Nitro Club disposition. Board members may call up this item on or before May 10, 2008. 1405-1435 Arapahoe A. Sopher called up this item. This item will be scheduled on the Planning Board calendar between 30-60 days. 5. ACTION ITEMS A. Public hearing and consideration of a land use map change for the property at 385 S. Broadway as part of the Year 2008 Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan Mid-term Review. This item is continued from the March 20, 2008 Planning Board meeting. Case Manager: Chris Meschuk Staff Presentation C. Meschuk presented the item to the board. K. Becker asked if the easement through the NIST property could be condemned. D. Gehr replied that this would be possible, but noted that the federal government has been cooperative in terms of maintaining access for the property. Applicant Presentation Bruce Tennenbaum, applicant, expressed that a good compromise has been made with the project and noted that he was available For questions. Public Hearing Patty Angerer, 2225 Bluebell Avenue, representing neighbors, thanked the board, staff and the applicant for their work on this project. The neighbors who live on Bluebell are concerned about access to the property and want to protect Bluebell Avenue from having additional traffic. Board Discussion W. Johnson asked if there is a way to flag the project in the city's records to address the neighbors' concerns about protecting access. R. McHeyser replied that she was not aware of a mechanism to flag the parcel for this purpose, so staff would need to rely on institutional memory or the minutes as the record instead. Motion On a motion by W. Johnson, seconded by A. Shoemaker, the Planning Board approved (5-0, E. Jones and P. Shull absent) the land use map change for the property at 385 Broadway as shown in Attachment A of the staff memorandum dated April 11, 2008. A. Sopher would not support a permanent easement that would preclude access from Bluebell Avenue. 2 B. Public hearing and consideration of Site Review application #LUR2007-00066, Landmark Lofts Phase II. The property consists of 2.34 net acres zoned Residential High-3 (RH-3) and proposes 129 multifamily residential units and 1,900 square feet of neighborhood retail space. The application request includes land use code modifications for building height, maximum number of stories, building setbacks, solar access, and a parking reduction. Applicant /Owner: 970 28`h Street -Phase II, LLC Case Manager: Charles Ferro Applicant/Owner Presentation Jim Chanin, 1676 Sunset Blvd., introduced the item to the board. Graham Swett, architect with Knudson Gloss Architects, presented the proposal. A. Sopher asked if the slope embankment was reduced. Curtis Stevens, Drexel Barren, Boulder, replied that the slope embankment was reduced. W. Johnson asked if you were in Phase I how you would get to Phase II. She also asked about the building on the northwest corner of Phase III. G. Swett replied that there are three staircases that connect the two projects. He noted that additional design process is necessary for Phase III as it is still in the preliminary stages. A. Sopher asked if the applicant could provide additional sections in the space between buildings three and four. J. Chanin replied that they could not provide this information at this time. A. Sopher asked how far, from the walking deck, the height of the tops of buildings three and four are. He also asked how far apart the buildings are at their narrowest and widest points. G. Swett replied that the widest point is 28 feet and the narrowest point is 20 feet. Staff Presentation C. Ferro presented the item to the board. A. Sopher asked how the total square footage of the project has changed from the second concept plan review. J. Chanin replied that the number of units has been reduced, but he did not have data on a comparison of the total square footage. B. Holicky asked if the applicant currently meets open space requirements. C. Ferro replied that the applicant meets 61.8 percent, where 60% is minimum required. W. Johnson asked staff about the types of trees that would be included on this site. 3 C. Ferro replied that ornamental trees such as pear and crabapple trees will be included over the parking deck. Larger species of trees would not be able to survive over the deck. K. Becker asked if the parking provided includes dedicated parking spaces. C. Ferro replied that the spaces are first come, first serve public parking spaces which are considered off-site. Public Hearing Elizabeth Hondorf, inquired and expressed concern about the FAR of this project. C. Ferro replied that in RH-3 zoning districts such as this one, there is not a FAR threshold, instead it is regulated by open space requirements. Staff will calculate FAR. i Board Discussion Overall proiect A. Sopher noted that this project is a much improved package from where it began to where it is today and is all together quite happy with how far the design has come. He also stated that all forthcoming comments are qualifications. W. Johnson and B. Holicky concurred. B. Holicky commented on the designed development and thanked the applicant for following the board's directives. Massing of building along 28`h Street Frontage Road A. Sopher expressed concern about the photosimulation and was not sure if his concerns were driven by the basic undetailed nature of the model and its lack of detail or the massing itself. W. Johnson agreed the scale looks large in context with the new Golden West addition to the south, however acknowledged it was partly due to perspective. K. Becker agreed that the building appeared large in context to everything else around it but the evolution of the building facades made the overall design better. B. Holicky felt the design is hampered by the sketch up model and that all of the design details, textures, materials, and how the building reads were lost to the model. He expressed that he had no issues with the overall massing. HeighUFive stories issues, along 28`h Street B. Holicky mentioned that the building is tall, but he felt that it was appropriate for the street section and scale of the area. He approved of the four story mass along 28`h Street. K. Becker felt that the building was appropriate contextually based on the street width and articulated facade. A. Shoemaker agreed. A. Sopher had no issues with the height along 28`h Street due to the speed limit along 28`h Street although he expressed some concerns regarding the fragmented nature of the western fagade. W. Johnson was okay with the height of the buildings along 28`h Street, but suggested the possibility of pushing the 4`h floor back from the street a bit on the east side of the building due to the exposure of a portion of the parking garage on building 5 on the southeast comer of the site. B. Holicky felt the 20 foot emergency access drive and the adjacent parking lot access creates a significant separation. K. Becker and A. Shoemaker agreed. 4 Setbacks The board had no issues with any of the proposed setbacks. Solar Encroachment K. Becker felt that the Bade differential between properties and the challenging nature of the site resulted in minimal solar impacts. C. Ferro noted that staff sent out a special notification to impacted property owners and that the applicant also sent out special notification with copies of the solar drawings. He also noted that staff received no opposition from the impacted property owners. The board appreciated the proactive outreach and staff's written analysis and had no issues with the proposed solar encroachments. Pedestrian and Vehicular Access A. Sopher felt that the access has been improved from previous concept plans and appreciates the new pedestrian break through building 2. He expressed some concern in the detailing of the space and how it will function. W. Johnson ageed that detailing the space will be important and noted that overall circulation has improved and appreciated the proposed connections to the south for a future phase III. Outdoor open space/useable outdoor open space - W. Johnson was concerned about the depth of the detention ponds. The board would not support detention ponds deeper than three feet. A. Sopher would like to see a section between buildings. Each open space section seems to be smaller than previous iterations. K. Becker liked the shared open space between the buildings but felt that the space maybe tight in certain areas. W. Johnson noted that the board has traded some of the larger open space areas to have better connections /circulation, but questioned whether they're creating high quality spaces in the remaining areas. A. Shoemaker reminded the board that the project meets the open space requirements and that he was more concerned about permeability of the site. B. Holicky approved of the open space on site as it is and is more concerned with how the space is designed. Closed rail balconies are indicated and spaces will feel private and the site will have good permeability. Scale Walkable Streetscape and Access drive to north and east in relation to usability and trees The board proposed increased landscaping along the north and east sides of the site. Curtis Stevens replied that fire emergency access requires a 25 foot stretch of landscaping of low Bound cover only. Parking Reduction The board supported the proposed parking reduction. Without parking garages above Bade the FAR is 1.45. With parking garages, the FAR is just over two. Motion On a motion by A. Shoemaker, seconded by W. Johnson, the Planning Board approved (5-0, E. Jones and P. Shull absent) Site Review #LUR2007-00066 incorooratin~ the staff 5 memorandum dated Mazch 21, 2008 and Site Review Criteria Checklist as findings of fact, and using the following recommended conditions of approval. New condition proposed and accepted by the board: Substantial increased landscaping along north and east side of property as practical, the height and quality shall be determined by Planning Director and Fire Marshall to comply with emergency access. 1. The Applicant shall be responsible for ensuring that the development shall be in compliance with all approved plans dated March 3, 2008 and on file in the City of Boulder Planning Department, except as modified by these conditions of approval. 2. Prior to a building permit application, the Applicant shall submit a Technical Document Review application for the following items, subject to the review and approval of Planning and Development Services Division: a. Final architectural plans, including materials and colors, to insure compliance with the intent of this approval and the architectural intent shown on the elevation plans dated March 3, 2008. b. A final site plan showing the corrections and additions requested by this approval, including building setbacks on fully dimensioned plans. A signed survey drawing should also be submitted. c. A final utility plan meeting the City of Boulder Design and Construction Standards. d. A final storm water report and plan meeting the City of Boulder Design and Construction Standards, which include information regarding the groundwater conditions (geotechnical report, soil borings, etc.) on the Property, and all discharge points for perimeter drainage systems. e. Final transportation plans in accordance with City of Boulder Design and Construction Standards and CDOT Access Code Standards, for all transportation improvements. These plans must include, but are not limited to: plan and profile drawings construction plans for the public access drive and all public sidewalks, a pavement analysis and soils report for the public access drive, and a signage and striping plan in conformance with MUTCD standards. f CDOT access permits in accordance with CDOT Access Code Standards, for al( transportation improvements within the CDOT right-of--way including the two 28`h Street Frontage Road accesses and removal of the existing accesses. g. A detailed landscape plan, including size, quantity, and type of plants existing and proposed; type and quality ofnon-living landscaping materials; any site grading proposed; and any imgation system proposed, to insure compliance with this approval and the city's landscaping requirements. Removal of trees must receive prior approval of the Planning Department. Removal of any tree in city 6 right-of--way must also receive prior approval of the City Forester. The landscape plan shall be consistent with Sheets SDS, SD5.1, and SD5.2 of the Site Review approval plan set with the following amendments: (i) The four forest pansy redbud (Cercis canadensis `forest pansy') trees shown on Sheet SDS between buildings 3 and 4 shall be replaced with Autumn brilliance serviceberry (Amelanchier x grandiflora `Autumn brilliance') or other like tree species due to limited space adjacent to buildings. (ii) The 77 daylily (Hemerocallis `Stella de Oro') plants noted at the south east garage entry sight triangle shall be augmented with perennials as listed within the plant list on sheet SD5.1. (iii) Illustrate plant materials at the northeast corner of Building 3, adjacent to deck space, where currently none are shown. (iv) Provide city's standard tree planting detail from Drawing 3.02 of the City's Design and Construction Standards on the landscape plan. h. A detailed lighting plan showing location, size, and intensity of illumination units, showing compliance with Section 9-9-16, B.R.C.,1981. 3. Prior to a building permit application, in order to relocate the emergency access easement associated with Landmark Lofts Phase I approved May 4, 2006 (Land Use review Case No. LUR2005-00056), the Applicant shall submit, for the review and approval of the Planning and Development Services Division, as part of Technical Document Review applications, subject to the approval of the City of Boulder Planning and Development Services Division: a. A lot line adjustment for the shared property line between Landmark Lofts Phase 1 and Phase 2 to address the encroaching retaining wall. b. A vacation of that portion of the 20' emergency access easement over which the retaining wall from landmark Lofts Phase 1 encroaches. 4. Prior to a building permit application, the Applicant shall dedicate to the city the following as part of Technical Document Review applications, subject to the approval of the City of Boulder Planning and Development Services Division: a. Right-of--way for 28°i Street Frontage Road in a width and location satisfactory to the Director of Public Works. b. An emergency access easement (south of the retaining wall which encroaches on the shared property line between Landmark Lofts Phase 1 and 2) in a width and location satisfactory to the Director of Public Works. 7 c. A public access and utility easement from the adjacent property owner to the south which contains the entire access drive width, the attached sidewalk, and an additional foot beyond the back of curb. d. A sidewalk easement along the 28`h street Frontage Road which contains the 8 foot wide landscape buffer, 8 foot wide sidewalk, and an additional foot beyond the back of walk. e. A sidewalk easement along the south property line which contains the 5 foot wide sidewalk and an additional foot beyond the back of walk. f. Utility easements in the widths and locations satisfactory to the Director of Public Works. g. Drainage easements for detention ponds and water quality structures in the widths and locations satisfactory to the Director of Public Works. 5. Prior to building permit application, the Applicant shall submit a financial guarantee, in a form acceptable to the Director of Public Works, in an amount equal to the cost of providing eco-passes to the residents of the development for three years after the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for each dwelling unit as proposed in the Applicant's Transportation Demand Management (TDM) plan. 6. Prior to an application for a pennit to connect to the City's water system, the Applicant shall pay to the City its pro rata share of the cost of the installation on a front foot-basis for the water main improvements on the 28th Street Frontage Road. The board recessed at 8:18 p.m. and resumed at 8:28 p.m. C. Discussion and feedback on issues, objectives and preliminary approaches to revising the Wetlands Protection Ordinance (Chapter 9-3, B.R.C.) Case Manager: Bev Johnson Staff Presentation B. Johnson presented the item to the board. She reviewed the history of the project, the process and the preliminary approaches. A. Shoemaker asked what the economic and administrative impacts are between the three approaches. B. Johnson replied that the approaches have not been evaluated in this manner yet. S. Richstone noted that by defining buffer approaches more clearly they hope to achieve more administrative ease. K. Becker inquired about the remapping that was done. 8 B. Johnson replied that, based on the city's definition of wetlands and buffer zones, the city's consultant mapped these areas in the field where access was available. The mapping may have to be refined if a different definition of streams is adopted. They aren't anticipating much new fieldwork. She noted that some information is available digitally, but some information has to be gathered from the Feld. S.12ichstone noted that they have specific information for each area already that will be useful. Public Hearing Craig Bundy, 745 Jonquil Place, Boulder, said it is critical to define "ephemeral stream." He was asked to comply with ephemeral stream standards that are not defined in the code. Professional consultants determined that his properties do not have wetlands on them. Patty Angerer, 2225 Bluebell Avenue, Boulder, said her property is in wetlands/floodplain territory and said that as a result of this process, she is losing property rights. She suggested that the regulation grandfather in existing activities. Ed Heath, 465 West Arapahoe, Boulder, said he is upset about the wetland program in general and that an additional 50 feet of buffer area is not needed. He said that property owners should be compensated for the buffer zone. Joanna Seila, 455 West Arapahoe, Boulder, distributed maps to the board. She suggested that the board walk along the bike path behind the justice center to get a sense of the area. She said that property rights are being eroded because of the strict measures that "take" property. Gail Gordon, 377 WestArapahoe, Boulder, said that she is upset about the entire process and the wetland maps. She feels that the maps are inaccurate. The money received through an EPA grant for the remapping project could not have been sufficient to adequately map properties. She suggested that the process has been designed around the city's goal and that she does not have trust in Bev Johnson as a project manager. This wetlands map provides no balance of property rights and over-regulates without consideration of public input. David Crumpacker, West Arapahoe, Boulder, prefers positive voluntary cooperation with the city to maintain Boulder Creek. He understands the intent of the regulations, but takes issue with the city's approach. He would prefer positive, voluntary cooperation to maintain good feelings with the public. Tom Van Zandt, 2255 Bluebell Avenue, Boulder, said that he is concerned about the definition of the buffer zone because his entire house is in the buffer. He prefers a more flexible approach and that Approach #3 is preferable to the current ordinance. Lovedy Barbatelli, 441 West Arapahoe Avenue, Boulder, said that she resents what the city is trying to do and feels that it will ruin the neighborhood. She said that the city is overstepping its bounds. Dick Blumenhein, PO Box 2077, Boulder, did not support the city's "agenda" in regards to this project. He questioned the meaning of what the city is essentially doing and felt that the city is overregulating through the wetlands ordinance. He stated that the city spends too much time on minuscule items. 9 Lynn Segal, 535 Dewey, spoke in support of protecting the wetlands. Board Discussion W. Johnson asked who was sent notification for public meetings. B. Johnson replied that all property owners with wetland or buffer areas shown on their property (approximately 1000 property owners) were sent postcard notification of all meetings. K. Becker asked about areas that are regulated by the city. B. Johnson replied that the city does not have jurisdiction over the school district, county or state properties. D. Gehr noted that the county has agreed to comply with the city's development regulations outlined by the BVCP. K. Knapp noted that all city departments or activities on city properties have to go through the same review process as private landowners and comply with the wetlands ordinance. A. Sopher asked how the definition of buffer zones under the current ordinance is handled. There is no mention of how existing development is treated in relation to either wetlands or buffer zones in the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan. How can one show that they have avoided to the extent possible potential impacts to a wetland in the design of a proposed development activity? B. Johnson replied that buffer zones have been in effect since early ] 993. The wetlands ordinance was passed following the adoption of the comprehensive plan wetland policy. Buffer zones were a detail of implementation of the policy. The buffer zone is 50 feet for significant wetlands and 25 feet for all others. D. Gehr noted that staff is offering a fresh look at the details in implementing the comprehensive plan. K. Knapp reviewed the process for submitting a map revision. The ordinance requires that wetlands be delineated according to the 1989 Federal Manual for Wetlands Delineation. The ordinance does not, however, define a stream. A. Sopher noted the importance of a clear definition and the processes following the definition. K. Knapp said that new development proposals can be designed to avoid a wetland, but sometimes it's difficult to avoid buffer zones and impacts on wetlands. A. Sopher suggested defining a process for showing minimization of impacts to buffer areas and asked about ways to avoid impacts. He noted that regulated activities and use requirements include the interface between wetlands, buffer zones and private properties. He referred to page 21 of the staff memo, and asked about the footnote regarding wetlands and ditches. Is the area outside of a ditch regulated, while the ditch itself is not regulated? D. Gehr replied that this is a possibility if the area outside of the ditch appears on the wetlands map. 10 K. Becker asked if the city has the authority to regulate ditches. D. Gehr said there was a decision made to not regulate ditches when the original ordinance was adopted. A. Sopher asked how a wetland is defined and how a buffer area width is designated. A. Carpenter noted that a wetland is defined according to the criteria of federal manual for wetland delineation or by identification of the bank-full channel width of a stream. A. Sopher asked how often abank-full channel is full. A. Carpenter replied that the bank-full channel is full approximately every year and a half. These definitions were applied to Two Mile Canyon Creek and Boulder Creek. A. Sopher questioned the definitions of wetlands and wetlands buffers. He referred to page 29 of the staff memo and asked if existing uses means existing structures. B. Johnson replied that existing uses could include structures as well as landscape improvements such as existing landscaping or patios. No action was required by the board. The board discussed the following questions presented by staff: 1) Does the board have any comments on the objectives for revising the ordinance? A. Shoemaker, B. Holicky and W. Johnson supported the objectives. K. Becker and A. Sopher asked for more explicit details on how wetlands are determined to be "significant." They asked for more clarification in the objectives about the need to better define "significance" relative to buffer widths. 2) Does the board have any feedback on the preliminary approaches for changing the wetlands ordinance? Are these the right approaches to further develop and analyze? K. Becker said the approaches make sense but do not address all of the objectives. The approaches need to address mitigation, the appeals process, education and outreach, etc. It is her understanding that the approaches will be refined later in the process. W. Johnson supported the staff s approaches. She suggested that less emphasis be placed on the first (or current) approach and that staff include an approach that takes slope into consideration. K. Becker suggested considering topogaphy as a fourth approach. A. Shoemaker concur-ed with W. Johnson and encouraged that a rigid fixed number of feet or topography be incorporated into the approaches. 11 B. Holicky mostly supported Approach 3 and mentioned that consideration of slope be added to Approach 3. He supported a more nuanced approach. A. Sopher agreed with B. Holicky, and supported looking at this on a reach-by-reach basis, rather than asite-by-site basis. He liked the idea of exploring neighborhood review. 3) What feedback does the board have regarding potential next steps and further analysis? A. Sopher noted that the following items should be further analyzed and defined: -Better clarification on the definition of a "significant" wetland -"Important for flood control" as a criterion in determining significance of a wetland -A more fine-grained approach to determining buffer widths -Appeals process for wetland and buffer area boundaries and the step-by-step process for making an appeal -More specific guidance for designing a project that avoids or minimizes impacts. (At the May 1 S, 2008 Planning Board meeting, A. Sopher clarified that he would like a more clear definition of the difference between a wetland and its buffer zone and a floodplain and its buffer zone.) K. Becker noted that a more nuanced buffer width approach might require more ground- truthing. A. Carpenter clarified how a stream reach is used as an organizing principal. K. Becker questioned if an appeal for a boundary change would affect an entire reach. B. Johnson replied that an appeal or application for a variance is likely to happen on an individual property basis by property. The ordinance could be structured so that property owners could either appeal a use or a boundary. The board suggested options for an appeals process should include potential for staff or board-level approval of map changes (current map changes require an ordinance). B. Holicky suggested providing multiple stream definitions. He would like to consider grandfathering as part of the appeals process. He suggested that the approaches be evaluated in terms of whether or not the city would be meeting its environmental goals. 4) Does the board have feedback on the next steps? A. Sopher supported exploring the possibility of neighborhood review in areas where buffer zone sizes are reduced. D. Gehr said the board can not delegate decision-making to a neighborhood. However, the board could encourage neighborhood feedback, notice and participation. Floodplain B. Holicky clarified that the floodplain issue is mostly informational. 12 A. Sopher mentioned that pg. 46-47 of the staff memo refers to insuring access to critical facilities during 500-year flooding which is in conflict with previous board action on the recent Crestview project. W. Johnson liked the idea of having a plan for critical facilities and resources to help mitigate flood issues. A. Shoemaker inquired about pg. 45's reference to outreach programs and the fact that certain grades were omitted from the outreach program. He felt it was critical to provide outreach to schools and grades of all levels. The board recessed at 10:36 p.m. and resumed at 10:40 p.m. 6. MATTERS FROM THE PLANNING BOARD, PLANNING DIRECTOR, AND CITY ATTORNEY A. Update on FARs/pops and scrapes Susan Richstone provided a brief update of City Council's actions on April I5, 2008. City Council referred to the subcommittee's report and kept the focus on community character. They discussed public process and supported moving forward quickly by putting together a committee including 2 City Council members, 2 Planning Board members, and 2 Landmarks Board members to develop an RFP to address this issue. An interim ordinance was not supported at this time. A. Sopher asked if City Council considered affected zones. S. Richstone replied that City Council left it broad. A. Sopher asked what the scope of what we're asking regarding the RFP. S. Richstone replied that staff will draft what they're looking for and this will be refined by the committee. A. Sopher would like to discuss the process of this item at the Planning Board retreat. A check in for Planning Board should be arranged. The scope should include project objectives and what approaches should be used. R. McHeyser infonned the Planning Board that City Council passed a motion asking Planning Board to review the FAR bonus for residential downtown. This is one of the community planning initiatives that Council identified at the March 13 joint study session with Planning Board. Staff is in the process of preparing a memo for council regarding the potential timing and scope of all the planning initiatives that discussed at the March 13 joint study session. This information will be shazed with Planning Board at the May 1, 2008 meeting, and can be discussed further at the May 3, 2008 Planning Board retreat, if desired. K. Becker asked if the minutes are available from the joint study session. Joint 3/13 study session summary will be provided to Planning Board for approval at their May 1, 2008 meeting. Email Address Change email addresses onboard pages to generic city of Boulder email addresses. Find out if IT can automatically forward boulder emails to board members' personal accounts. 13 Board Retreat R. McHeyser discussed the upcoming board retreat and asked for potential topics for the agenda. W. Johnson asked for a precursor or update information on TVAP. She thought that the work program should be discussed at their retreat along with a discussion about FAR in terms of workload and work program. A. Sopher agreed that the work program should be a topic of the Planning Board retreat. A. Shoemaker suggested the following items for the Planning Board retreat agenda: potential presentation on Robert's Rules of order, presentation on efficiency of meetings, how other boards function, other procedural issues, perception of fairness (i.e. calling developers by last name), board training P101, how things are calendared, number of meetings per month, debrief of the year. Breakfast should be provided at the Planning Board retreat. 7. DEBRIEF/AGENDA CHECK A. Sopher thought that building/site cross sections should have been included in the site review memo. 8. ADJOURNMENT The Planning Board adjourned the meeting at 11:21 p.m. APPROVED BY 2? "`L oard hair DATE 14