2 - Draft Minutes - Planning Board - June 26, 2008 ('1'Th' OF BOULUI+'.R
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
June 26, 2008
1777 Broadway, Council Chambers
A permanent set of these minutes and a tape recording (maintained for a period of seven years)
arc retained in Central Records (telephone: 303-441-3043). Minutes and streaming audio arc also
available on the web at: http://www.bouldercalorado.gov/
PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT:
K.C. Becker
Bill Holicky
Willa Johnson
Andrew Shoemaker
Phil Shull, Chair
Adrian Sopher
PLANNING BOARD MEMBI':RS ABSF,NT:
Elise Jones
STAFF I'RESEN"f:
Perry Brooks, Park Planner
David Gchr, Deputy City Attorney
Alice Gutlu-ic, Parks & Recreation
Heidi Joyce, Administrative Supervisor
Katie Knapp, Wetland and Floodplain Administrator
Eliiabcth 1_okoci, Landscape Architect Planner
Elaine McLaughlin, Senior Planner
Robert IZay, Land Use Review Vlana~er
P. Shull declared a quorum at 6:05 p.iti. and the following business was conducted.
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTIH;S
On a motion by W. Johnson, seconded by A. Sopher, the Plannins Board approved (6-U, E.
Jones absent) the June 5, 2008 Planning; Boarci minutes as amended.
3. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
IV~o one fi•c~m the public addressccl the hoard.
4. DIS('IiSSION OF llISPOSI"PIONS, PLANNING BOARD CALI.-TIPS
Call-up item: hloodplain Development Pcimit, LUR2008-00054 and Wetland Permit LUR2008-
00027, 4400 N. Broadway.
W. Johnson asked why the permit was being sought and what the impacts of the work being done
would have on any future uses of the site.
K. Knapp replied that the channel improvement work would remove the lot adjacent to the creek
from the floodplain and remove some oFthc restrictions for development on the site. The city is
fi~ndin~, 50`%, c~Fthe pro.jcct.
I
1"he board did not call-up this item at this time.
5. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
A. Valmont City Park Concept Review Valmont Road; the intersection of Valmont
and Airport roads). Concept flan Review and comment for consideration of a I32-
acre community park with a proposed three phase development plan.
Applicant: City of Boulder Parks and Recreation Department; Perry
Brooks, Park Planner
Case 1Vlanager: Elizabeth Lokocz
Staff Presentation
E. Lokocz presented the item t0 the board.
A. Guthrie and P. Brooks, Parks and Recreation Department, presented the item to the
board.
A. Sopher asked what was being considered for the public-private partnerships.
P. Brooks replied that the uses would have to be compatible with the park, e.g. an ice arena,
swimming pool, skate park; etc.
K. Becker asked if the land being considered for partnerships would be sold Or leased.
P. Brooks replied that the land would be leased.
W. Johnson asked if there will be impacts t0 the wetlands.
P. Brooks said that there are n0 identified wetlanc}s On the south side of the site. "I'he north side
of the site has a raw water irrigation pond built in }999 which is now classified as a wetland.
There are also two ditches running through the north side of the site.
P. Shull asked if the existing structures are deemed historic.
P. Brooks replied that they are landznarked.
W. Johnson asked about the paths on the site.
P. Brooks responded that there will be a regional trail connection On the north side Of the park.
P. Shull asked what will happen t0 the prairie dogs on the site.
A. Guthrie answered that the prairie dogs will either be relocated ar euthanized anaphase by
phase basis.
A. Sopher asked how long the park is expected to satisfy the needs of the community.
A. Guthrie responded that the bike park will serve the community far quite a long time. The
design of the park is meant to be adaptable to adjust to needs as they change.
B. Holicky asked why the disc golf course is taking up so much land since it is ranked as a low
priority.
A. Guthrie replied that this was based On direction from council. The use Of disc golf courses
has increased recently.
B. Holicky asked if there were any plans to provide rock climbing Opportunities within the park.
A. Guthrie replied that rock climbing was not included in the plan to date.
B. Holicky asked what the wintertime uses Of the park would be.
A. Guthrie replied that the trails would become Nordic ski trails provided there was enough
SIlO W .
A. Shoemaker asked about the cost of the disc gal f' course.
A. Guthrie replied that construction of the disc golf course would be approximately $50,000 -
$60,000 plus the cost of prairie dog removal and installation of a metal barrier.
A. Shoemaker asked what the cost of prairie dog removal is.
P. Brooks replied that it costs $200 per prairie dog.
2
Public Hearing
Elizabeth Allen, Boulder, 80301, spoke in support of the project. She suggested that the board
consider the Location of the amphitheater and suggested that it may be better placed at the knoll.
She supported keeping the buildings conducive to the park and its character.
Jerry Allen, Boulder, 80301, suggested improving access to the park, specifically from
Valmont Koad to the northwest quadrant of the park. He was concerned about safety access
along Valmont.
Board Discussion
Kole of the park in the city's future in the context of land usej
A. Sopher was concerned about the larger vision of the park in relationship to the city's future.
lle commented that the current plan appears to be the result of the park satisfying all the
constituents and may or may not be addressing the future needs of a community wide park as
identified in the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan. He suggested looking at reducing the
density and intensity of the park.
Connections
A. Shoemaker suggested focusing on ways to reduce the volume of cars and traffic trips this
plan would generate. Ile also supported improving access to the park that encourages alternative
modes of transportation and reduces fossil fuel vehicle use.
A. Sopher mentioned that Goose Creek connections to the park are very important.
B. Holicky was concerned about the connections from the park to the Transit Village Area Plan
(TVAP) and to the existing bike paths. He said it is extremely important to encourage the use of
alten~ative modes of transportation. 1-Ie suggested that an undezpass or vehicle differentiated
travel path connect between the potential major bike arterial of Goose Creek and the bike paths
to the north. He supported enhancing the bike connections in general. He said adding a dog park,
a children's play area, or a community outdoor activity area to the far western side of the park
would decrease the walking distance from the TVAP to the park.
A. Sopher said pedestrian access needs to be improved in Phase 1.
B. Icolicky said adding a secondary pedestrian path on the northez-n side of the site would
improve pedestrian access.
Buildin j Uses
A. Sopher said if this park is to be considered a central park for the city of Boulder then the ball
fields appear to be over weighted for the scale of the park. Ile questioned if it was necessary to
make a dedicated zone specifically for the disc golf area. He suggested wrapping the disc golf
area around the park.
W. Johnson said the site is jammed packed with active uses. She said the beautiful and enduring
parks of the world have a lot mare nature. She thought that the three large building pads
appeaz•ed to be too large and that the overall plan felt suburban or overly coned and overly active.
K. Beeicer said the disc golf area may have been intended to preserve more of a natural area to
the park. She said that it is important to have a low impact zone for the park. She supported
improving the connections to the TVAP by adding a children's play area, but also supported
locating the kid's splash area next to a parking lot.
P. Shull said it makes sense to stage the adventure playground and other children and family
related activities on the west side of the park. He suggested that staff address safety issues in the
final site plan avid include inloz~nation on the topographical gradients across the 40 acres of~t.he
site. He was also surprised that there are no wetlands on the site. He added that the disc golf
course seems to be an odd prioritisation on an important piece of land.
Parkin
W. Johnson mentioned that because our park land is precious, the three acres of parking
dedicated just to the ball fields seemed excessive. She supported considering recalculating the
parking formula for this site or reducing the number of ball fields in order to reduce the parking.
She also recommended reconfiguring the layout of the parking lot on the far eastern side of the
site to incorporate more green space.
K. Becker recognized that the opportunities for families with children to use alternative modes
arc more limited.
B. >F~olicky felt that since this park is one of two major community parks, (as outlined iz~ the
BVCP), the ball fields could be relocated and/or replaced with a use that would reduce car
loaded impacts and encourage alternative modes of transportation. He said the parking demand
may not have to be so high for some of the fields. He suggested that staff do a parking analysis to
determine what parking is necessary and to find ways to reduce parking loads with the existing
uses in place. I-Ie supported encouraging alternative modes of transit by suggesting running a bus
from the TVAP to the park, providing better connections, relocating some of the ball fields or
reducing the number of ball fields.
A. Shoemaker proposed that parking spaces could be dedicated to family oriented parking
through signage which might encourage people to use alternative modes of transportation.
Overall phasing
A. Sopher said it seems logical to develop the connections from the park to Goose Creek and to
the TVAP in Phase I.
A. Shoemaker suggested that City Council request a cost benefit analysis of any partial use of
land in Phase II that would harass prairie dogs, such that the city will have to undergo the cost of
removing the prairie dogs from the entire portion of the site when the entire portion of the site is
not being used.
Safety
P. Shull was concerned with the overall safety in regards to accessing the site. He said the
current activities on the northern side of the site could result in a high probability of injury and
interface. I-Ie suggested that safety measures such as side lines, refuge and some Icvcl of night
lighting be included in the plans for site review. He also suggested looking at incor}x~rating a
grade separation or underpass to improve safety to the crossing from Vista Village to the bike
park.
Summary
• The vision for the park is not gz•and enough for a city central park, given that only two
community wide parks arc outlined in the BVCI'.
• There appears to be a lot of active impacts on the site.
• The plan should include more and better connections, including a connection to the
TVAI
• Phase I uses, while intense, may be appropriate for the northern side of the site. The
location of uses elsewhere on the site need to be reconsidered and the activities should be
prioritized. The board was also concerned that the ball fields may be inviting increased
auto use on the site and questioned the location of the disc golf course.
4
• The current activities arc inviti~ig auto use rather than providing incentives to use
alternative transportation modes.
• "fhc board would like to see a safety plan at the time of Sitc ltevicw
B. Consideration of Site Review and Preliminary Plat application No. LUR20U8-
00022, (Tunbarrcl Gateway. `i'he proposal is for redevelopment of the former
Hugh M. Woods site located at 63r~ Street and Lookout Road in Gunbarrel for
approximatelyy K3,000 square feet of commercial floor area. The site is
approximately S.9 acres in size and zoned BC-2 (Business -Community 2). The
applicant is pursuing creation of Vested Rights for the uses on the property.
Applicant/Property Owner: William ~~IcDermid, Boulder hospitality, LLC
Case Manager: F,laine McLaughlin
Applicant/Owner Presentation
Bruce Curr, Flctemeycr and Associates presented the item to the board.
Staff Presentation
E. McLaughlin presented the item to the board.
D. Gehr explained vested rights.
Public I-Icaring
No one from the public addressed the board.
Board Discussion
A. Sopher complimented the applicant's efforts to address the board's concerns from Concept
Review.
B. Holicky was concerned over the architectural style and suggested more coloration differences
or style variations on the site.
P. Shull initiated a brief discussion about the future RTD/Fastracks location and connectivity on
the site.
"I'he board asked for clarification from staff on the FasTracks Working Group.
Motion
On a motion by A. Sopher, seconded by W. Johnson. the Planning E3oard approved (5-l, B.
holickv opposed, F.. Jones absent) Site Review iil.UR20US-OU022, incorporatint~ the staff
memorandum and the attached Site Review Criteria Checklist elated June 26,_2008 as findings of
tact, su~ect to the following; conditions of ap
rp oval:
CONDI"LIONS Of APPKOVAL
1. "fhe Applicant shall be responsible for ensuring that the development shall be in
compliance with all approved plans dated June 2, 2UU8, and on file in the City of
Boulder Planning Department, except as moditied by this 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 the City Manager:
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 June 2, 2008.
b. Final transportation enl;ineering plans in accordance with the City of Boulder
Design and Construction Standards for emergency access lanes, public street,
transit stop and sidewalk constructive. The final transportation plans also must
incorporate the following changes:
i. The fi3"' Street proposed curb flowline must be revised to he 47.80 feet east of
the section line, with the back of curb 3.30 feet behind the existing 45-foot
right of way;
ii. All portions of the emergency access lane/easement must be shown to
' accommodate a SU-30 turning template; and
c. A final pavement design report and associated geotechnical soils report meeting
• the City of Boulder Design and Construction Standards, for the secondary street
connection and emergency access.
d. A final utility plan in accordance with the City of Boulder Design and
Construction Standards and also include fire hydrant locations.
e. A final storm water/drainage report and plan in accordance with 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 pezimeter drainage systems.
f. A detailed landscape plan in accordance with the City of Boulder Design and
Construction Standards, including size, quantity, and type of plant material
proposed; type and quality of non-living landscaping zxzaterials; any site grading
proposed; and any irrigation system proposed, to insure compliance with this
approval and the City's landscaping requirements. The landscape plans must be
revised to accommodate the emergency access lane turning radii and the new 63`~
Street curb flowline location. Removal of trees must receive prior approval of the
Planning Department. Removal of any tree in City right-of--way must also receive
prior approval of the City Forester.
g. A revised traffic impact study in accordance with the City of Boulder Design
and Construction Standards. The revisions shall include the following:
i. Figures 2-9 must show coz-rect traffic volume and percentile distribution information;
and
ii. The study must specify the proposed 63"~/Lookout southbound left turning movement
signal timing changes and must have any recommendations approved through the
City of Boulder. If the study recozxzrnencis additional public improvements to
accommodate the site generated traffic, the plans must be revised accordingly.
6
h. Tl~c preliminary plat dated fc~iruary 2Q 2008 is not approved. i~ revised
preliminary plat in accordance with Chapter 9-12, B.R.C. 1981 which
incorporate the changes described below, subject to City review and approval:
i. Increase the right-of.--way for the proposed secondary street width (across the
northeast corner of the property) to 65 feet. An additional foot beyond the back of the
sidewalk must be shown as "to be dedicated" as a public access easement;
ii. Create an outlot on the last 1 foot of the b5-toot secondary slrect (on the northeast
corner of the property) on the outside border of the plat; and
iii. Revise the right-ofi=way dedication for 63rd Street to become 4 feet in width. The
associated right-of--way radius at the cot7ier of 63r1 Street and Lookout Road must
also be adjusted accordingly to be equidistant behind the bank of the curb.
iv. The public access easements must be revised to entirely contain the emergency access
' lanes as shown on the final transportation plans.
i. A final plat for Gunbarrel Business Park Replat B in accordance with Section 9-
12-8, B.R.C. 1981.
j. A financial guarantee for the initial operation of the RTD EcoPass Program for
the benefit of employees of each lot or building, in an amount to cover program
operations for no Icss than three years after the issuance of each cerli(icatc of
occupancy.
3. Prior to an application fir any building permit for the construction of any building on
proposed l.ot 2 or Lot 3, Gunbarrcl Business Park Replat B, the Applicant shall
submit a Technical llocumcnt Review application for the following items, and subject
to the approval of the city manager:
a. Final detailed architectural & landscaping plans for the parking lot and
common plaza area, including materials, colors, and landscape plants to insure
compliance with the intent of this approval
4. Prior to the tinal inspection tin- any building on the proposed Lots 2 and 3, (~unbarrel
Business Park Replat Q, the Applicant shall construct the parking lot attd playa
improvements on proposed Lots 2 and 3, Gunbarrel Business Park Replat B, as
indicated on the approved plans dated .tune 2, 2008.
5. 'l'he Applicant shall he required to allow any visitors, tenants, owners, and
occupants of any building located on proposed Lots 1, 2, 3, and 4, Gunbarrel
Business Park Replat B, to use the parking area shown on the approved plans
dated June 2, 2005.
6. At such time as the Applicant submit, for "I~eehnical Doeun~cnt Review ;iud as the
property redevelops, all outstanding conditions of Site Review I,li1Z2008-0(1022 shall
be complied with or a Site Review application for an Amendment shall be filed,
subject to approval by the City Manager.
7
6. ~~IATTERS FROM "1'IIE PLANNING I30ARll, PL~~INNING ll1R1?C'1'OR,
AND CITY ATTORNEY
R. Ray reviewed the Concept Plaz>/Site Plan Process. He noted that a large amount of staff tune
and money is being spent on Concept Plans, but the city is not receiving any fees for this part of
the process. IIe asked the board for their opinion on the process.
Concept Plan/ Site Plan Process and Ices
B. Holicky suggested that fees could reflect a Simple, Standard and Complex Concept Plan
Review. He thought that billing for revisions makes sense.
A. Sopher mentioned that if the fees for Concept Plan increase, then the fees for Site Review
should decrease.
W. Johnson suggested that pre-application comments be sent to the board.
P. Shull assumed that the city will determine the fees for these reviews. He noted that Concept
Plan reviews with more detail should provide for more efficient Site Reviews before the board.
A. Shoemaker supported an initial fee upfront decided by using the categories of Simple,
Standard and Complex.
A. Sopher said an area of concern is how to make TEC documents more workable and less
strained by revising the process. There should be some amount of flexibility built in.
R. Ray noted that staff is working on revisions to the TI;C doe process.
Public Bearing
Jeff Dawson, North Creek Ventures, felt that the TI?C doe pilot program was moving in the
right direction. He suggested projects coming in for one round of'I'EC doe review as part of a
hybrid approach. He questioned whether concept review was always necessary. According to
staff, concept review is preferred for applicants to get the board's feedback before they move too
far forward with their projects. If a concept review is very detailed, then site review should be
more simplified. This idea made sense to him. Having established fees for any of these
approaches is necessary. Regarding infill vs. greenfietd development he felt that the board was
more concerned about infill sites than greenficld ones. He thought that the expectations for these
sites should be well-defined enough that they wouldn't require the full review process.
P. Shull supported having more information at Concept Review.
B. Holicky asked that this item be added to the next agenda.
R. Ray noted that they may need to schedule another board meeting to discuss the Crestview
East Annexation toward the end of August.
Minutes
Approved amendments made to board minutes that do not reflect the audio recording will be
documented as clarifications.
Grecnways
K. Becker gave the board an update on the June 25 Greenways meeting.
Boulder_1-Fusing Partners Tour
W. Johnson invited the Planning Board to attend a Moulder Housing Partners tour scheduled for
July 31, 4-5:30 p.m. leaving from 4800 N. Broadway.
8
f'ubticl_,onin~_on School Properties
A. Sopher gave the board an update on a Boulder Valley School District presentation, which
included a discussion on public zoning on school properties.
Pc~~s and Scrapes Request for Proposal _RFP
B. Holicf:y gave the board an update on the RFP For the Pops and Scrapes project.
7. DEBRIEF/AGENDA CHECK
The board would have liked more information included in the Valmont Park memorandum and
expressed concern over the process of the project.
8. AllJOURNMENT
The Planning; Board adjourned the meeting at 10:46 p.m.
APPROVED BY
Board Chair
DATE
9