Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
5B - Direction on Transit Village Area Plan (TVAP) Phase I Zone Districts
CITY OF BOULDER PLAN~~TING BOARD AGENDA ITEM MEETING DATE: September 25, 2008 AGENDA TITLE: Public hearing and direction on Transit Village Area Plan (TVAP) Phase I Zone Districts: ¦ RH-3: existing Residential high Density -3 zone district • New RH-3 zone for TVAP (RH-7} ¦ MU-4: TVAP Mixed Use -21and use; ¦ RH-6: TVAP High Density Residential -1 land use (HDR-1) REQUESTING DEPARTMENTS: Ruth Mciieyser, Acting Plaruung Director Susan Richstone, Long Range Division Manager Louise Grauer, Senior Plaruier, Long Range Planning David Gehr, Deputy City Attorney Randall Rutsch, Seiuor Planner, Trans ortation EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The purpose of this item is for Planning Board to review the following new and revised zone districts for phase 1 of the Transit Village Area Plan (TVAP) implementation prior to staff returning with draft ordinances on October 29. See Attachment A for the list of all existing and proposed zone districts and information on Use, Form, and U~tensity Modules for each zone and Attachments B-D for the proposed revised Use, Fonn, and Intensity Module charts from the Land Use Code: ¦ RI-1-3: existing Residential High Density -3 zone district with proposed changes to address I'laruung Board's de-brief of recently developed projects on September 4. ¦ RH-7: new proposed zone for TVAP high Density Residential -21and use, modeled after the RH-3 zone district; ¦ ML7-4: new proposed zone for TVAP Mixed Use -21and use, modeled after BMS. ¦ RH-6: new proposed zone for TVAP High Density Residential -1 land use, for townhouses. RH-3 As discussed at the September 4 Planning Board meeting, for the existing RH-3 zone along the Frontage Road, staff proposes the following changes to improve the existing zone and ensure better projects in the future without creating nonconforming uses: • Add criteria to the open space section to improve and enhance the open space; • Add a 20 foot front yard setback for third story and above; • Review and bring forward the Transportation Coruiections Plan developed for the Frontage Road area for adoption, making any changes necessary due to the approval of three Large projects in the area. These three Phase 1 zone districts proposed for implementing TVAP are shown on the map below. ag~da (gym ~ _ ; RH-7 , ~ t'I :.tee ~ ~ fyi~ /J_,~ I t e l ( I;~I{..:rc =~L ;~~'r • 7 U 1.-..7 ~ Anew zone for the TVAP High Density Residential -2 i r ~ ~ • land use areas would be modeled after RH-3 with some 11 U •RHb~(HDRytj, J~ =f ~ - j~~ . ? ' - 'j differences. The primary standards for a new RH-7 ~~i~_-~~~ ~ ~ ~ I zone include: 't ~ r ~ ~y . ~`~~f~~.~~??~'~~~i ~ I • Use the open space requirement to determine '~II,R ~7~(HDft-21 17~,~ intensity or density, similar to the existing RH-3 . f r ` ~ zone district; 1 > ~ • Reduce the open space requirement from 60 - t I,:- , ' ~'•J percent to a lower amount such as SO percent, 1 ~'~'r"" ~ -`-'=='f - but with more ualitative criteria: ~--w~ - C • Ensure urban form-based criteria that include ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ building entrances along the street,, a walkable t, I~ c^-, t,~~-.\. ~ streetscape with buildings located close to the ~ ~ -•T street, allowable neighborhood -serving retail ' uses, and articulated building fronts. O e MU-4 and RH-6 to addition, Planning Board discussed the two other new zones for TVAP at their May 15 meeting-- now proposed as MU-4 for the mixed use zone, and RH-6 for the townhouse zone. Planning Board generally supported the components of these zone districts as presented by staff with a few changes described in this memo. After Planning Board direction at the September 25 meeting, staff will draft these new zone districts into ordinance form which may result in different zone district names or wording changes to criteria and standards. City Council Feedback City Council discussed proposed new zone districts at its June 3 meeting and generally supported the components of these zones with a few changes. Council had the following comments about proposed TVAP zoning districts: ¦ lnclude a .5 FAR maximum for nonresidential uses in the TV MU-2 zone district (original staff recoirunendation); ¦ Explore the desire for all permanently affordable housing to be developed on site (no cash in lieu for TVAP}; ¦ Explore including covered bike and bike trailer parking as a requirement in new zone districts; • Explore /conduct further analysis for revising height regulations to allow more articulated roof peaks; treat roof peaks similar to other roof appurtenances Minutes from these meetings are included in Attachment S: ¦ Planning Board May 15 and Draft September 4, 2008; ¦ City Council June 3, 2008 AGF,1yDA ITEM ~ PAGE # 2 In addition, staff has included proposed new maximum parking standards for the TVAP zone districts, an approach for unbundling parking from the principal use, and proposed revised bicycle parking standards for the TVAP zone districts. OL7ESTIONS FOR TILE PLANNING BOARD: 1. Does the Board have any comments or changes to the proposed revisions to the existing RH-3 zone district? 2. Does Planning Board have any comments or changes to the proposed components of ~a new high density residential zone district far TVAP (for the I~DR-2 land use areas), to be called RH-7? 3. Does Planning Board have any comments or changes to the proposed elements of a new Mixed Use-4 (MU-4) zone district for the TVAP MU-21and use category? 4. Does the Board have any comments or changes to the proposed elements of a new Residential High Density - 6 (RH-6) zone district for the HDR-1 land use category? S. Does the Board have any comments or changes to the praposed parking and bicycle parking standards? 6. Does the Board have any additions to the TVAP Guidelines Document? See Attachment F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends: 1. The following changes to the existing RH-3 zone district: Use Module: no change to the existing R7 Use Module for RH-3. See Attachment C for the existing Use Module. Form Module: Add a criterion to the "1" Form Module: a 20 foot "Minimum Front Yard Setback for all principal buildings and uses for third story and above." See Attachment D for the revised Form :Module. Intensity module: No changes to the Intensity District 14. Add additional open space requirements to Section 9-9-11 for changes to open space for the RH-3 zone to ensure that that at least half of the required open space meets additional criteria. 2. The following changes for a new TVAP High Density Residential Zone district RH-7, based on the RH-3 zone with the following modifications: Use Module: no change to the existing R7 Use Module. Form Module: Use the "1" Form Module with the change described above fora 20 foot Minimum Front Yard Setback for third story and above. See Attachment D for the revised Form Module. y~ AGENDA ITEM ,fir,.>PAGE # 3 Intensity module: Create a new Intensity District 14.5. This would require 50 percent open space. See Section 9-9-1 l for changes to open space to ensure that that at least half of the required open space meets additional criteria. See Attaehtnent E for the revised Intensity Module. 3. The following changes for a proposed Mixed Use (MU-4) zone, based on the existing Business Main Street (BMS) zone, one of the city's most flexible form- based zones: Use Module: Use the same uses as permitted under the existing BMS zone, the B2 Use Module. Form Module: Use the same "o" Form Module with the following new criterion: the maximum percentage of the 3rd story floor area that can be included in a 4th story-70 percent. Intensity Module: Add a new Intensity District 24.5 to include a .5 maximum nonresidential FAR limit which can be increased to .7S through criteria to be included in Section 9-8-3 Density in Certain Tones. Additions to the maximum floor area ratio (FAR) include .5 FAR for residential use for a total FAR of 1.0 if not in a parking district. For properties located in a parking district, which we anticipate will be all of the phase 1 MIJ-4 properties, the total FAR increases to 2.0 FAR. Use 15 percent Minimum Open Space on Lots (Residential or Nonresidential Uses.) The Guidelines in TVAP provide some additional criteria for the design of the open space. See Attachment F. 4. The following changes for a proposed new TVAP Residential High Density - 6 (RH-6) zone district (for the IIDR-1 land use category): Use Module: Use the definition of Townhouse: An attached single- family dwelling unit located or capable of being located on its own lot, and is sepaj•ated. from adjoining dwelling units by a wall extending from the foundation through the roof which is structurally independent of the corresponding wall of the adjoining unit. . Create a new use category, R8, which would allow only Townhouses as an allowed use. Form Module: Use the form module " j". Intensity Module: Add a new Intensity District 17.5; the Minimum Lot Area Per Dwelling Unit would be 1800 square feet. Fox Minimum Open Space per Dwelling Unit, staff proposes &00 square feet. 5. Parking Standards Parking maximums: For RH-7 and MU-4, parking standards would. be parking maximums. See the Parking Table on pages 12 - 13. inbundled parking The concept adopted in TVAP is that parking should be unbundled or disconnected froiu the primary use, either residential or nonresidential. By allowing by AGENDA ITF,M ~B PAGE # 4 right parking as a primary use on a parcel, owners and tenants can lease parking spaces at other locations. PUBLIC INPUT: • Staff has held several meetings with phase 1 property owners and developers since last fall to dzscuss the implementation of TVAP. A TVAP area-wide property owners' meeting was held on Apri130 to update TVAP property owners on the status of the implementation elements that staff has been working on: the proposed new zvne districts; the proposed timeline for the elements of implementation; and the direction asked of Planning Board and Council at their May 15 and June 3 meetings respectively. ~ Staff held. a public meeting on September 3 including TVAP and RH-3 property owners to provide information on the proposed changes to the RH-3 zone district. ANALYSIS: 1. Residential High Density 3 (RII-3) The original purpose of this zone district was to: ¦ Allow higher residential densities in close proximity to either a primary destination or a transit center; • Encourage a new pedestrian-oriented neighborhood with limited neighborhood-serving retail uses allowed by right; ¦ Improve the desig?~ of the streetscape by requiring buildings to be built close to the street, with less parking required and underground parking included whenever possible; ¦ Provide new residents in this zone an adequate amount of functional open space. At its September 4, 2008 meeting, Planning Board toured three projects: Flatirons Terraces at Golden West Manor, completed; Landmark Lofts 1, under construction, and the Peloton, mostly completed. They discussed and identified some problems with the projects they visited and recommended some changes or tweaks to the existing RH-3 zone district. Planning Board members discussed and identified issues that they felt could be improved upon in the RH-3 zone district. Staff suggests the following follow-up actions: ¦ The importance of having an adopted Transportation Connections Plan in place with rights- of-way to create a gridded street pattern. Staff is recommending that Planning Board adopt the Transportation Connections Plan that was prepared for the Frontage Road area at the time that the zone district was adopted. Staff will review the Plan for any changes that might need to be made based on the projects that have been completed, are under construction, or approved. ¦ Improve the quality oi'the open space, both aesthetic and functional or useable open space. Staff suggests adding criteria to better define how the open space should be designed; ¦ Improve the building articulation of the upper stories. Add criteria for better articulation ui the 3r`~ and 4`h stories. There was considerable discussion about how to improve the aesthetic and functional quality of the open space, particularly open space to be used by residents and neighbors, either for active or passive uses. The Board did not support reducing the open space requirement Less than 60 percent. The following table shows the projects that have been approved under RI-1-3: AGENDA ITEM S~ PAGE # 5 Pro'ecis A roved under RH-3 Project Project Gross # Units/ FAR %Open Nonresidential SF Name Address site Units Acre Space acres Peloton 1685 38` 9.9 390 40 1.3 53% 23,830 SF of neighborhood St center: retail, office, restaurant uses; also fitness center & community room Golden 1055 3.5 54 57 1.39 67% An addition to an West Adams established high density Ylanor Circle low income senior housing develo ment. Landmark 1000 28` 1.9 103 54 2.17 44% Coffee shop & retail uses Lofts I St Landmark 970 28` 2.5 129 55 1.9 62% 1900 SF neighborhood- I,ofts II Street servin retail uses Included below is the code language for what maybe counted as useable open space, in 9-9-i l (e) - (g) (e) Types of Useable Open Space in the Code include: (1) Landscaped areas including open air plazas, fountains, and waterfalls, pedestrian arcades, small seating areas... and vest pocket parks; (2) Outdoor actr'vity areas such as play fields, swimming pools or hot tubs, and hard surface areas ut the ground level that are enclosed by an overhead structure, including tennis, volleyball, or baslcetball courts. (3) An outdoor garden or landscaped courtyard with u minimum dimension of 20 feet. Seating and other elements encoteraging use and occupation shall be included in its design and should form an integral part of the circulation pattern within the project; (4) All landscaped areas, plazas and patios, used as open space, and located adjacent to a street, alley, driveway, or parking lot, and protected from vehicular encroachment by a vehicular barrier which may include, without limitation, a bollard, wall, fence, or curb; (S) Exterior paved surfaces, except public sidewalks less that f ve feet in width and those paved areas specifically prohibited in subsection (h) of this section. Special Open Space Requirements Applicable to Residential Use: (1) Individual balconies, decks, and patio areas that are not intended to be enclosed, if the minimum size is not less than 36 square feet and not less than 48 inches in any dimension. Such areas shall countfor no more than 25 percent of the required open space. (2) Pedestrian ways, plazas, or atria within a building... such areas shall constitute no more than 25 percent of the required open space. The areas described may constitute no more than 75 percent,,for housingforspecial populations, such as the elderly, that may have need for more of such areas, if approved through site review. (3) An uncovered parking area and drive that serves only one detached dtivelling unit on a lot; (4) If specifically approved as part of a site review, landscaped areas of public yr private rights- oj=-way that are not anticipated to be converted to public or private highways, streets, or alleys within the next 10 years. Such areas shall not constitute no more than ten percent of the required useable open space. f(~ AGENDA ITF,M??, PAGE # 6 (S) Wetlands shall constitute not more than SO percent of tlae required open space. (g) Special requirements for Nonresidential Buildings: Useable open space for u building containing a business or industrial use may be indoors or outdoors but must be at ground level, accessible from public areas, and open to use by the public. Planning Board members generally supported improving the quality and the aesthetics of the open space. They discussed the proposed open space criteria presented by staff and generally agreed with the intent of most of the criteria as long as they are not too prescriptive or unreasonable. Planning Board did not recommend any changes to density or intensity. Proposed changes to the RH-3 Zone: Use Module: No change proposed to the existing Use Module, R7. See Attachment C. Form Module: ¦ Add to the "1" Form Module the existing criterion "Minimum front yard setback from a street for all principal buildings and uses for third story and above - ZO feet." Currently this criterion applies to only to Mli-3 and. BMS. Intensity Module: ¦ The intensity district 14 would continue to require 60 percent open space on the lot. Olen Space for RH-3: Although Planning Board discussed the possibility of eliminating the provision that the 60 percent open space could be reduced. down to 30 percent, staff is recommending that that provision be retained so as not to create nonconformities in the few existing and approved projects. The existing provision in Chapter 9-8-3(d): Additional density in the RH-3 District: In the RH-3 District, the open space per lot may be reduced from sixty percent to thirty percent of the lot if at least half of the open space provided meets the open space requirements of paragraph 9-9-11(e)(3): An outdoor garden or landscaped courtyard with a minimum dimension of 20 feet. Seating and other elements encouraging use and occupation shall be included in its design and should form an integral part of the circulation pattern within the project; Staff proposes modifying the provision 9-9-11(e)(3) as shown below, and in addition, including some additional criteria that would apply in any case to the open space in RH-3. An outdoor garden or landscaped courtyard, designed for the use for the occupants of the building, with a minimum dimension of at least 20 to 40 feet depending on the height of the buildin Seating and other elements encouraging use and occupation shall be included in its design and it should form an integral part of the circulation pattern within the project. Additional criteria to better define tl2e open space should be added: • Common open space shall provide southern exposure where possible to provide maximum sunlight. Other exposures are permitted only when southern exposure is not possible; AGENDA iTEN PAGE # 7 • The space shall be paved with unit pavers, such as bricks or quarry tiles, preferably porous pavers, or poured -in-place materials. If poured in place materials are selected, they shall be of decorative color and/or textures; • All spaces shall provide amenities including a significant amount of seating, plantings, shade, and lighting; • At least half of the required open space be accessible directly from an adjoining public sidewalk along at least 50 percent of the total street frontage; • All spaces shall provide a minimum of one tree per 1000 square feet of space, planted in the ground. 2: New High Density Residential - 7 (RH-7) zone for TVAP (for the HDR-2 land use areas) The intent of this zone as described in TVAP includes: • To include stacked flats and lofts with underground or structured parking at two to five stories; • Can vary substantially in teens of affordability, from very affordable to very high-end with many amenities; • With elevators and one-story living, this prototype maybe appropriate for people with disabilities and seniors; • Orient buildings adjacent to Goose Creek Greenway to that amenity. Provide direct access to the greenway. Although staff originally thought that the existing RH-3 zone would be an appropriate zone district for the HDR-2 land use area in TVAP, we are now recommending that a new zone be created for this land use area based on RH-3 with some changes. There are some differences that will make it difficult to revise the existing zone and changes are made to the RH-3, nonconformuig issues could result for the existing projects in RH-3. Staff has analyzed the one property in the phase 1 HDR-2 land use area to help determine the appropriate amount of open space. The results showed a range of between 50 and 60 percent open space. On one hand, since there is a general lack of parkland in TVAP, it could be appropriate to require 60 percent open space. On the other hand, this is an urban area, the parcel is adjacent to Goose Creek, and 50 percent still provides a signif cant amount of open space. We could enhance the quality of that open space by including the same open space criteria. Given that there are no floor area maximums or density limits, staff's analysis showed that the project would work with either percentage, but 50 percent may be a more appropriate requirement for this urban area.. The other difference with the TVAP zone is the inclusion of parking maximums, which are further described nn pages 13 - 14. 3. New MU-4 zone district (for the TV MU-2 land use) Planning Board has had several discussions about the new proposed MU-4 zone and has generally supported the standards proposed by staff, with the exception of the base FAR for nonresidential uses. further analysis of this standard is included below. The Plan describes the following vision for the phase 1 mixed use areas: The plan provides for a high percentage of mixed-use development. This will provide flexibility for changes in market demand. Predominant uses in mixed-use areas could be AGENDA ITEM PAGE # 8 business or residential, with homes vertically (above businesses) or horizontally (residential buildings next to commercial buildings). (TVAP, page IS) Specifically, the description for the Mixed Use-21and use in TVAP is: Three-to four story buildings; 1.5 to 2.0 floor area ratio; predominant use of business or residential; mostly structured or fzrst floor parking; may include some surface parking. (TVAP, page 17) Staff has identified Business Main Street (BMS) as an appropriate zone district model in terms of form and general intent: BMS is one of the city's form-based zoning districts. It is a main street business zone that serves the surrounding residential and employment neighborhoods and is pedestrian-oriented, with buildings close to the street and parking behind or under buildings. It reflects a vibrant neighborhood center that is more than just stores. It is a place to live, shop, work, recreate, and meet friends and neighbors. Fewer parking spaces are required than in other zones because of the mix of uses and the location near transit, bike routes, and on-street parking along a grid of streets. To ensure that parking lots do not predominate, the number of on-site parking spaces is limited. The following analysis describes each of the modules proposed for MU-4 and where MU-4 differs from the existing BMS zone. Planning Board, at their May 15 meeting, indicated that would like to see as much flexibility as possible. Use Module: MU-4 would have all the same permitted uses as BMS, in the B2 Use Module. Form Module: Use the same form module as BMS, or "o" with the following modifications. ¦ Add the following criterion: Maximum percentage of the 3"~ story floor area that can be included in a 4`~' story: 70 percent. ¦ This criterion would take the place of 4`h story setbacks. Intensity Module: ¦ Add an Intensity District 24.5. ¦ Maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR}: staff recommends using .S maximum nonresidential FAR, and if residential uses are included, 1.0 is the maximum FAR for properties not located in a parking district. The .5 maximum nonresidential FAR criterion maybe modified up to .75 based on criteria to be included in Section 9-8-3. ¦ For properties in a parking district, the maximum FAR increases to 2.0. Staff had recommended a nonresidential FAR maximum of .5 in order to provide a disincentive for redevelopment to a low density commercial development. Plaruung Board recommended a higher nonresidential FAR of .75 in order to provide greater flexibility in uses and to encourage the nonresidential component of the mixed use. City Council recommended .5 nonresidential FAR due to the high amount of retail and office uses projected for Phase 1 of TVAP. Staff has received feedback from one potential property owner that .5 would not provide the flexibility needed, particularly in the case of adjacent properties where a horizontal mixed use format might be appropriate. AGENDA ITEM PAGE # 9 Staff recommends including the .5 maximum nonresidential FAR with the ability to increase .5 to .75 based on locational criteria to be included in Section 9-8-3 such as: ¦ For parcels located within 100 feet of a major arterials; ¦ For parcels located within 100 feet of the railroad tracks. The rationale for a FAR maximum for nonresidential uses is to ensure a significant amount of . residential uses to create a viable neighborhood, to increase the amount of permanently affordable housing, and to provide a sustainable place to live with viable travel options. Limit on Percentage of 4-Story Floor Area The Plan states that the land use area MU-2 would have a mix of 3 and 4 story buildings. As a result of the zone testing work completed in the fall of 2007, some additional definition of where 3 stories would be preferable and where 4 stories would be preferable was identified. Four-story buildings should be located along major streets such as pearl Parkway, 30`h and Valmont Streets; or adjacent to the railroad tracks. Three-story buildings should be located along greenways, open space, pedestrian paths and Local roads. The proposal for MU-4 is that when a 4`h story is approved, it should include only 70 percent of the third floor footprint.. This requirement is to reduce the overall mass of a 4- storybuilding and create a pleasant and comfortable pedestrian environment without negatively impacting local streets and greenways such as Goose Creek. 4 New lone District RH-6 (for the HDR-1 TVAP Land Use) One of the goals of TVAP is to include: A variety of housing types at a range of prices from market rate to affordable (including housing for very low, low, moderate and middle income households) to meet diverse needs (workforce housing, senior housing, family housing, housing fir special populations such as those with disabilities). (TVAP, page 11.) For the land use area High Density Residential -1 (HDR-1) the Plan says that: it is intended for "urban townhouses with individual garages, surface parking or underground parking; mainly 2 to 3 stories at 15 to 24 dwelling units per acre. "(TVAP, page 16.) Townhouses provide a housing choice which maybe more appealing to couples, families, seniors, and empty nesters. There is no existing residential zone at a similar density that is designed primarily for townhouses. Without restricting allowed uses to townhouses only, staff feels that other types of housing that are allowed in the other TVAP zones could be developed. The variety in housing types is an important overall goal of TVAP in order to provide diversity. A summary of the proposed zone RH-6 zone is described below. The definition of townhouse in the code states: An attached single- family dwelling aenit located or capable of being located on its own lot, and is separated,from adjoining dwelling units by a wall extending from the foundation through the roof which is structurally independent of the corresponding wall of the adjoining unit. . Use Module: Create a new use category, R8, which allows only townhouses as a housing type. Form Module: Use the Form Module " j" which is the same as for R_M-3 and RH-.1. It includes the following standards: ¦ 15 foot front yard setback; n AGENDA ITER4 3 PAGE 10 ¦ 0 or 5 from an interior lot line; ¦ 15 foot rear yard setback; ¦ 35 foot height; ¦ 3 stories; ¦ the primary building entrance location on the street; Intensity Module: Add an Intensity District 17.5 which stipulates the following: ¦ 1800 Minimum Lot Area per Dwelling Unit; ¦ 600 square feet minimum open space per dwelling unit; 't'his would include a small front yard and a rear yard or patio/courtyard in addition to a garage or parking pad adjacent to the rear alley. The minimum lot size of l 800 square feet could be l 8 x 100 feet which would allow for a minimum 15 foot front yard setback, a 1000 to 1600 square foot 2 or 3-story house, a garage or parking pad adjacent to the alley or access street, and a rear yard or patio/courtyard, for a total of at least 600 square feet of open space including the front yard setback. 5. Par'g This memo addresses parking and bicycle parking for the new and revised zone districts. TVAP provides direction for the following parking components to be implemented inmost of phase 1 development. ¦ Parking maximums or caps ¦ Unbundled parking The zones which would not include parking maximums or caps arc RH-6 (HDR-1 land use) the primarily townhouse zone district, and the existing Service Commercial zone. In addition, City Council asked for covered or protected bicycle parking standards for TVAP. Staff has included parking maximums or caps with the new zone districts for TVAP. Parking maximums would not be able to be increased on site; but additional parking would be available for lease at other locations or at a parking district location. They are shown below in the table. The revised Table 9- l : Residential Parking Requirements by Zoning District and Unit Type and Table 9- 3: Nonresidential Parking Requirement by Zoning Category are included in Attachment G. In addition, City Council asked staff to include covered bike parking in TVAP. Staff has taken this opportunity to identify new nonresidential bike parking standards for employees and for customers to reflect a higher anticipated usage in TVAP. They are based on the percentage of the required auto parking which in effect is based on the numbex of employees determined by the building square feet. Residential parking would still be based on a per dwelli~ig u~iit standard. AGF,NllA ITEMPAGE # 11 Pro osed Auto and Bic clc Parking Standards for TVAP Parking Existing BMS Proposed for RH-7 Proposed for MU-4 Proposed for Standard cone ~-6 Parking Per dwelling Maximum parking: Maximum parking: Maximum Standard for unit: 1 1 per unit on site 1 pcr utut on-site parking: 2 per lot residential uses Parking 1:400 square No parking required Use same parking NA standard for feet of floor for nonresidential ratios as maximums; nonresidential area if neighborhood- uses residential uses serving retail uses Tlus requirement comprise less does not apply in the than 50 percent TVAP parking of the floor district area; otherwise 1:500. This requirement does not apply in the CAG1D & UIIGID Parking Districts) Unbundled NA Allow 1 space pcr Allow 1 space per NA parking residential unit as residential unit as accessory use; all accessory use; all other parking is other parking is principal use on a principal use on a parcel; owners and parcel; owners and tenants can lease tenants can lease additional spaces additional spaces Bicycle At lest 3 spaces One covered bike One covered bike NA Parking: or 10 percent of parking space per parking space per Residential the required off- dwelling unit dwelling unit street parking spaces whichever is greater. AGENDA 17'EM ~V PAGE # 12 Parking Existing BMS Proposed for Rii-7 Proposed for MU-4 Proposed for Standard zone RkI-6 Bicycle At lest 3 spaces Provide 10 percent Provide 20 percent NA parking: or 10 percent of of the required off- of the required off- I~Tonresidential the required off- street parking spaces street parking spaces street parking for bicycle parking far employee bicycle spaces for customers. parking. These whichever is bicycle spaces greater. should be covered and protected from the weather. IIi addition, provide l 0 percent of required off-street parking for customers. Planning Board discussed a parking management approach at their May 15 meeting and gave staff the green light to move forward to develop a parking district plan. The city's parking staff will be working with property owners over the next several months to determine how and what services should be included in a parking district. Following those discussions, staff will develop a service plan for a parking district to identify the estimated costs and expected revenues of a district, and how property owners will opt into a district at the time of rezoning. 6. TVAP Guidelines The Guidelines were adopted with the Area Plan. They include General Guidelines and Guidelines that pertain to each of the character districts. They are scattered throughout the Plan. They have been consolidated together in Attachment F. The intent is that these Guidelines be used as additional site review criteria in reviewing any projects through the site review process. If' Planning Board wishes to consider any additional, it would be appropriate to provide feedback now so that any additions could be considered at the time Planning Board considers adoption of the new zone districts at the October 29 meeting. NEXT STF,PS: Based on direction from Planning Board on the proposed zone districts, staff will incorporate these proposed new and revised zone districts into ordinance form which will be considered by Planning Board at the October 29 meeting. Ordinance drafting may result in wording or zone name changes. First reading of the new and revised zone districts will be before City Council on November 18 and second reading will be December 2. During the first quarter of 2009, staff will prepare the draft concurreney ordinance and the proposed parking district service plan, followed by a rezoning plan for properties in Phase 1. Approved By: Ruth McHeyser, ~ ng Planning Director AGENDA ITEM v ~ PAGE # 13 ATTACHMENTS: A. Revised Table 5-1 Zoning District 13. Proposed revised 'T'able 6-1: Use Module. C. Proposed revised fable 7-1: Form Module I~. Proposed revised Table 8-l :Intensity Module 1?. TVAP General Guidelines F. Proposed revised Table 9-1 Residential Parking Requirements and Table 9-3 Nonresidential Parking Requirements by Zoning District G. Minutes from Planning Board meetings: May 15 and draft September 4, 2008 minutes; City Council minutes from their 1'VAP discussion June 3, 200. AGENDA ITEM ~~}PACE # 14 ATTACHMENT A (b) Zoning Districts: Under the classifications defined in subsection (a) of this section, the particular zoning districts established for the city are as it2 table 5-1 of this section: TABLE 5-1: ZONING DISTI2.IC'TS Former Zoning Classificati Zoning District Use Form lnfensity District on (Abbreviation) Module Module Module Abbreviation Residential Residential -Rural 1 (RR-1) R1 a 2 RR-E Residential -Rural 2 (RR-2) R1 b 2 RR1-E Residential -Estate (RE) R1 b 3 ER-E Residential -Low 1 (RL-1) R1 d 4 LR-E Residentia(-Low 2 (RL-2) R2 g 6 LR-D Residential -Medium 1 (RM-1 } R3 g 9 MR-D Residential -Medium 2 (RM-2) R2 d 13 MR-E Residential -Medium 3 (RM-3) R3 j 13 MR-X Residential -Mixed 1 (RMX-1) R4 d 7 MXR-E Residential -Mixed 2 (RMX-2) R5 k 8 MXR-D Residential -High 1 (RH-1) R6 j 12 HR-X Residential -High 2 {RH-2) R6 c 12.5 HZ-E Residential -High 3 (RH-3) R7 I 14 HR1-X Residential -High 4 (RH-4} R6 h 15 HR-D Residential -High 5 (RH-5) R6 c 19 HR-E Residentia!-High 6 (RH-6) R8 j 17.5 New TVAP zone (for HDR-1) Residential-High 7 (RH-7) R7 I 14.5 New TVAP zone (for HDR-2) Mobile Home (MH) MH S - MH-E Mixed Use Mixed Use 1 (MU-1) M2 ~ i 18 MU-D Mixed Use 2 (MU-2) M3 R 18 RMS-X Mixed Use 3 {MU-3) M1 N 24 MU-X f~~lixed Use 4 (MU-4) B2 0 24.5 New TVAP zone AGENDA ITEM 5l.JPAGE # 15 Business Business -Transitional 1 (BT-1) B1 F 15 TB-D Business -Transitional 2 (BT-2) 81 E 21 TB-E Business -Main Street (BMS) B2 O 17 BMS-X Business -Community 1 (BC-1) B3 F 15 ~ CB-D Business -Community 2 (BC-2) B3 F 19 CB-E Business -Commercial Services B4 M 28 CS-E (BCS) Business-Regional1 (BR-1) 65 f 23 RB-E Business -Regional 2 (BR-2} 65 f 16 RB-D Downtown Downtown 1 (DT-1) D3 p 25 RB3-X/E Downtown 2 (DT-2) D3 p 26 R62-X Downtown 3 (DT-3) D3 p 27 R62-E Downtown 4 (OT-4) D1 q 27 RB1-E Downtown 5 (DT-5) D2 p 27 RB1-X Industrial Industrial -Service 1 (IS-1) 11 f 11 IS-E Industrial -Service 2 (IS-2) 11 f 10 IS-D Industrial -Genera! (IG) 12 f 22 IG-E/D Industrial -Manufacturing (IM) 13 f 20 IM-EID Industrial -Mixed Services (IMS) 14 r 18 IMS-X Public Public {P) P c 5 P-E Agricultural Agricultural (A) A a 1 A-E Flex District Flex (F) TBD TBD TBD n/a (c) Zoning District Purposes: (1) Residential Districts and Complementary Uses: (A) Residential -Rural 1, Residential -Rural 2, Residential -Estate, and Residential -Low 1: Single-family detached residential dwelling units at low to very low residential densities. {B) Residential -Low 2 and Residential -Medium 2: Medium density residential areas primarily used for small-lot residential development, including, without limitation, duplexes, triplexes, or townhouses, where each unit generally has direct access at ground level. (C) Residential -Medium 1 and Residential -Medium 3: Medium density residential areas which have been or are to be primarily used for attached residential development, where each unit generally has direct access to ground level, and where complementary uses may be permitted under certain conditions. (D} Residential -Mixed 1: Mixed density residential areas with a variety ofsingle-family, detached, duplexes and multi-family units that will be maintained; and where existing structures may be renovated or rehabilitated. AGENDA ITEM ~ PAGE # ]6 (E) Residential -Mixed 2: Medium density residential areas which have a mix of densities from low density to high density and where complementary uses may be permitted. (F) Residential -High 1, Residential -High 2, Residential -High 4, Residential -High 5: High density residential areas primarily used for a variety of types of attached residential units, including, without limitation, apartment buildings, and where complementary uses may be allowed. Residential Hign -6 is I_~rimarily a fo~,r~~ni,ouse zcnc district. (G) Residential -Nigh 3: High density residential areas in the process of changing to high density residential uses and limited pedestrian oriented neighborhood-serving retail uses in close proximity to either a primary destination or a transit center, 4^ff,ere ~~n a~~iol.~:ed Transportat:cn Connections Pion is in ~lacr:, and where complementary uses may be allowed. RH-7 is similar to RH-3 but designed prim~;r ly for the Transit Vi~lage Area. (H) Mobile Home: Mobile home parks primarily used and developed at a medium residential density where complementary uses may be allowed under certain conditions. (2) Mixed Use Districts: {A) Mixed Use - 1: Mixed use areas which are primarily intended to have a mix of residential and nonresidential land uses within close proximity to each other and where complementary business uses may be permitted. (B) Mixed Use - 2: Mixed use residential areas adjacent to a redeveloping main street area, which are intended to provide a transition between a main street commercial area and established residential districts. Residential areas are intended to develop in apedestrian-oriented pattern, with buildings built up to the street; with residential, office, and limited retail uses; and where complementary uses may be allowed. (C) Mixed Use - 3: Areas of the community that are changing to a mixture of residential and complementary nonresidential uses, generally within the same building. h.lixed Use -=t is a nixed ~_is :zone similar fo BP~1S, h~:t ~,^.~ith a I~id;~er FAR, predor7~in~~ntiy r~,s'd~~ntial. (D) Business -Transitional 1 and Business -Transitional 2: Transitional business areas which generally buffer a residential area from a major street and are primarily used for commercial and complementary residential uses, including, without limitation, temporary lodging and office uses. (E) Business -Main Street: Business areas generally anchored around a main street that are intended to serve the surrounding residential neighborhoods. It is anticipated that development will occur in a pedestrian- oriented pattern, with buildings built up to the street; retail uses on the first floor; residential and office uses above the first floor; and where complementary uses may be allowed. (F) Business -Community 1 and Business -Community 2: Business areas containing retail centers serving a number of neighborhoods, where retail-type stores predominate. (G) Business -Commercial Services: Commercial areas primarily used to provide to the community a wide range of retail and commercial uses including repair, service, and small-scale manufacturing uses and where complementary uses may be allowed. (H) Business -Regional 1 and Business -Regional 2: Business centers of the Boulder Valley, containing a wide range of retail and commercial operations, including the largest regional-scale businesses, which serve outlying residential development; and where the goals of the Boulder Urban Renewal Plan are implemented. (3) Downtown Districts: (A) Downtown - 1, Downtown - 2, and Downtown - 3: A transition area between the downtown and the surrounding residential areas where a wide range of retail, office, residential, and public uses are permitted. A balance of new development with the maintenance and renovation of existing buildings is anticipated, and where development and redevelopment consistent with the established historic and urban design character is encouraged. {B} Downtown - 4: The regional business area of the Boulder Valley known as the Central Business District which includes the downtown mall, where a wide range of retail, office, residential, and public uses are permitted and in which many structures may be renovated or rehabilitated. A balance of new development with the maintenance and renovation of existing buildings is anticipated, and where development and redevelopment consistent with the established historic and urban design character is encouraged. (C) Downtown - 5: The business area within the downtown core that is in the process of changing to a higher intensity use where a wide range of office, retail, residential, and public uses are permitted. This area has the greatest potential for new development and redevelopment within the downtown core. AGENDA ITEM ~ PAGE # 17 (4) Industrial Districts: (A) Industrial -Service 1 and Industrial -Service 2: Service industrial areas primarily used to provide to the community a wide range of repair and service uses and small-scale manufacturing uses. {B) Industrial -General: General industrial areas where a wide range of light industrial uses, including research and manufacturing operations and service industrial uses are located. Residential uses and other complementary uses may be allowed in appropriate locations. (C) Industrial -Manufacturing: Industrial manufacturing areas primarily used for research, development, manufacturing, and service industrial uses in buildings on large lots. Residential uses and other complementary uses may be allowed in appropriate locations. (D) Industrial -Mixed Services: Industrial areas on the edge of a main street commercial area, which are intended to provide a transition between a main street commercial area and es#ablished industrial zones. Industrial main street areas are intended to develop in apedestrian-oriented pattern, with buildings built up to the street; first floor uses are predominantly industrial in character; uses above the first floor may include industrial, residential, or limited office uses, and where complementary uses may be allowed. (5) Public Districts: (A) Public: Public areas in which public and semi-public facilities and uses are located, including, without limitation, governmental and educational uses. (6} Agricultural Districts: (A) Agricultural: Agricultural areas in a natural state or in which the growing of crops, flowers, and trees or other farming activity is practiced. (7) Flex Districts: A combination of use, form, and intensity standards not reflected in any existing zoning district. Rezoning to a flex district may on{y be initiated by the planning board or city council as part of ari annexation, rezoning after concept review, or area plan, and upon the determination that the flex zone would implement the goals of the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan. When rezoning to a flex district the rezoning ordinance shall identify the specific use, form and intensity modules which shall be identified on the official zoning map. Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent city council from creating new zoning districts. AGENDA 1"['EM~~tPAGE # 18 DRAFT TABLE 6-1: USE TABLE Specific Use R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 MH M1 M2 M3 B1 62 63 64 65 D1 D2 D3 11 12 I3 t4 P A Standard Residential Uses Detached dwelling units A A A A C A A A U U A A A A A A A U U U U 9/8/2004 Detached dwelling unit with t~vo kitchens C C C C 9-6-3(c) Duplexes A A A C A A A A A A A A A A A A G U U N U 9/8/2004 Attached dwellings ' A A A C A A A A A A A A A A A A G U U N U 918/2004 "i a•~,ni"~ous~s Mobile home parks U U U U A Live-work U U U A Cooperative housing units C C C C C C C C C C U U 9-6-3(b) Efficiency living units: A. If <20% of total units U A A M A A A G A A A A A G U U N U B. If a'0% of total units U A U A A U U U U U U U U U U U U Accessory units: A. Accessory dwelling unit C C C C 9-6-3(a) B. Owner's accessory unit C C 9-6-3(a) C. Limited acr~SSOry unit C 9-6-3(a) Ca aker dwelling uni A A A A A A ~ Gr quarters: ~ A. Congregate ca i~cilities A A A A A A A A A A C A A C C C U U U 9-6-3(f) B. uStodial care U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U C. group homes C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C 9-6-3(d) , z y ~ p D. Residential care facilities C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C U U 9-6-3(f) E. Fraternities, sororities, and dormitories A A U A G A A A U U ` F. Boarding houses ` U U A A A U A A A G A A A U U " Home occupation C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C 9-6-3(e) Transitional housing C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C 9-6-3(h) Dining and Entertainment Art or craft studio space 4,000 square feet U U U U U U U A A A A A A A A A A A A A A U Art or craft studio space >2,001 square feet U U U U U U M U U A A A A A A A A A A A Commercial kitchens and catering U U U U U A A A A Indoor amusement establishment ` ` U U U A U U U ` Museums ` U A A A A A A A U U U U Restaurants (general) nla n/a n/a Na nla n/a n/a n/a nr'a n(a nla nla n/a nla n/a nla n/a n/a nia n/a C C C C n/a n/a 9-6-5(b) Taverns (general) n/a n/a Na nia n/a n/a nia n/a nia n/a nla n/a n/a n!a n/a n!a n/a n/a nla n/a n/a n/a I~ j S~ Restaurants and tavems no larger than 1,000 square feet in floor area, which may have meal service on an outside patio not more than 113 the floor area, and which close no later than 11:00 p.m. U A A A A nla nla nla nla n/a nla n/a n/a nla n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Restaurants and taverns no larger than 1,500 square feet in floor area, which may have meal service on an outside patio not more than 113 the floor area, and which close no later than 11:00 p.m. A U A A A A A A C n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 9-6-5(b} Restaurants and taverns over 1,000 square feet in floor area, or which close after 11:00 p. ~-or v~ith an out r seating are ' f 300 square fee r more U U A U n/a n/a nla n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a nla nla nla n/a n/a nia sx ~~~r I~ Restaurants and taverns that are: over 1,500 square feet in floor area, outside of the University Nill general improvement district; over 4,000 square feet within the University Hilt general improvement district; or which close after 11:00 p.m. n/a n/a n/a w~~ n/a n/a n/a U U A A A A A U n/a n!a n/a nla n/a n/a Restaurants and taverns in the University Hill general improvement district that are greater than 1,500 square feet and do not exceed 4,000 square feet in floor area, and which close no later than 11:00 p.m. n/a n!a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a nla n/a n/a n/a n!a C nia n/a n/a nla n/a n/a nla nla n/a n/a n/a n;a 9-6-5(b) Reurants and tav s with an out~or seating ar ~'bf 300 square fe more within 50b eet of a residential zoning dis4ricf n/a Na n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a ~r'a n/a n/a n/a U U U U U U U U n/a Na n/a n/a n/a n/a Small theater or rehearsal space U U U A U U U A A U A Temporary outdoor entertainment C C C C C C C C C C C C C 9-6-5(c) Lodging uses: Hostels U U U U A U U G A A G G U U U " Bed and breakfasts U A U U A A 9-6-5(a) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Motels and hotels U A A A A A U Public and Institutional Uses Airports and . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . heliports U . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cemeteries A A Daycare, home A A A A A A Daycare center with s50 children U U C U U C C C A U U A U A A A U A A U U U U U U 9-6-6(a) Daycare center with >50 children U U U U U U U U U U A U A A A U A A U U U U U U 9-6-6(a) Day shelter U U C C C U C U C C C C C C C C C C C C U 9-6-6(b) Emergency shelter U U U U U C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C U 9-6-6(b) Essential municipal and public utility services U U U U U U U U U U U A A A A A A A A A A A A U U Governmental facilities U U U U U U U U U U U A A A A A A A A A A A A U Mortuaries and funeral chapels U U U U U U z_3 Non~ofit merfi~'ershlp clubs ' U G A A A A A A U Overnight shelter U U C C C U C U C C C C C C C C C C C C U 9-6-6(b) ;~J~ f J Private elementary, junior, and senior high schools U U U U U A U U U U U A G A A A U A U Public elementary, junior, and senior high schools A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A Public colleges and universities A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A Private colleges and universities U A A U U U U A Public and private office uses providing social services U U U A G A A A G A A U U U Religious assemblies A A A A U A A A A U U A A A A A A A A ` ` Adult educational facility with <20,000 square feet of floor area U U U U U U U U U U U A G A A A U A U A A A A A Adult educational facilities with X0,000 square feet or more of floor area U U U U U U U U U U U A G A A A U A U U U U U A vocational and trade schools U G A U A U U U A A A A A U " Da rocessing fac ~ s A G A C A G A A A A A 9-6-7(a) Fin cial institutions M M M M U A A A A A A A Hospitals " " A Medical or dental clinics or offices or addiction recovery facilities U U U U U M U U A A A C A G A A ' U ' 9-6-7(a) Medical and dental laboratories M M M M A A A A A U A U Offices, administrative ' A A A G A G A A A A 9-6-7(a) Offices, professional U U U U U M U M M M A A A C A G A A 9-6-7(a) Offices, technical; with <5,000 square feet of floor area U U U U U M U M M M A A A C A G A A A A A A 9-6-7{a) Offices, technical; with >5,000 square feet of floor area U U U U U M U M M M A U A C A G A A A A A 9-6-7(a) Offices -other U U U U U M U M M M A A A C A G A A ' 9-6-7(a) Parks and Recreation Uses Campgrounds ' ' ' ' ' ' U U U U Outdoor entertainment ' U U U U U U U U Park and recreation uses A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A Indoor recreational or athletic facilities ' U U U U U A A A A A A A A A A U U A Commercial, Retail and Industrial Uses Service Uses: Anim~~ospital or veteris" ry clinic U U A U A U A A A U Animakennel ' U U A U ' A A U A Antennas for wire) s¢i, telec ~ munication s serv ~'es C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C 9-6-9(a) E c~. Broadcasting and recording facilities U U U U U U U M M M A G A A A A A A A A A A Business support services <10,000 square feet A A A A A A A A U U A Business support services zt 0,000 square feet U A A A A A A U U U U Industrial service center C C Non-vehicular repair and rental services without outdoor storage U A U U U U A U A Neighborhood business center U U U U 9-6-9(f) Personal service uses U U U U A U A A A A A A A A A A A Retail Sales Uses: Accessory sales A A C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C 16-Sep Convenience retail sales 4,000 square feet U U U U A A A U A A U U A A C C C Convenience retail sales >2,000 square feet U U M M U A A A U A A A C C Retail fuel sales (not~cluding servile stations) U U U U U U U U U C C U C U U C C U 9-6-9(d) ;~e Reta~sales ~5,00(~square feet ' U U A A A A A A A Ret f~l~les >S,Ob~square feet but 40,000 squar~fieet A A A A A A A a~a r Retail sales >20,000 square feet U U A A A A U Building material sales 95,000 square feet of floor area * * U A A A A Building material sales >15,000 square feet of floor area U U U U U U Temporary sales ` C C C C C C C C C C C C 9-6-5(c) Vehicle-Related Uses: Automobile parking lots, garages, or car pool lots as a principal use U U U U U U U U U U U U U A U U U U A A A U U 9-6-9(b) Car washes U A U U U U * Drive-thru uses U U U U U 9-6-9(c) Gasoline service stations or retail fuel sales U U C C C U C C C U 9-6-9(d) Sales and rental of vehicles ` U A U A A Sales and rental of vehicles within 500 feet of a residential use module U C C C C 9-6-9(i) Service of vehicles with no outdoor storage U U A U A A A A Service;of vehicles with lirr`~ed outdoc~storage U U U A A A IndustrT91 Uses: Buildi~g and landsg contra tors A A A A A " a~ ~3 Cleaning and laundry plants A A A A Cold storage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . lockers U U U U U A A A A * Computer design and development facilities * A G A C A G A A * A A A 9-6-7(a) Equipment repair and rental with outdoor storage * * U A U U U U A A A A Lumber yards * * * A A * Manufacturing uses 95,000 square feet * ` * ` U A A A Manufacturing uses >15,000 square feet * A * A A A A Manu#acturing uses with potential off-site impacts * * * U U 9-6-9(e) Outdoor storage * * * A U A * Outdoor storage of merchandise * C C C C C C 9-6-9(g) Printers and binders * " * A A A A Recycling centers " * U U U U * Recycling collection facilities large U U U * * U U U U U 9-6-9(h) Recycling colle ~"'n facilities small C C C U U U U C C C C C 9-6-9(h) RecY 9 proc ing facility U U U U 9-6-9(h) Self- ervice stor acilities * * " * A U Tele~ommunicatio ns uses A G A U A G A A * A A A c^~ ~.a I Warehouse or distributions facilities A A A A Wholesale business A A A A Agriculture and Natural Resource Uses Open space, grazing and pastures A A Crop production A A A A A A A A A A A A A 14iining industries U U Firewood operations " " A A A " Greenhouse and plant nurseries A A A A A A Accessory Accessory buildings and uses A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A 16-Sep A: Allowed use. C: Conditional i_ise. See section 9-2-2 for administrative review procedures. Use prohibited. U: Use review. See section 9-2-15 for use review procedures. G: Allowed use provided that it is located above or below the ground floor. M: Allowed use provided at least 50% of the floor area is for residential use and the nonresidential use is less than 7,000 square feet per building, otherwise use N: A{{owed use provided at least 50% of the floor area is for nonresidential use, otherwise by use review. n/a: Not applicable; more specific use applications apply. T n spa ~dH ors s~2ooa DRAFT TABLE 7-1 FORM AND BULK MODULE RH-6 RH-? fv1U-4 Form module a b c d e f g h i j k 1 m n e p q r s SETBACK AND SEPARATION REQUIREMENTS Principal Buildings and Uses Minimum front 25' 20' 15' 10' 0' See yard landscaped section 9- setback (e)(h) 7-10 Minimum front 25' 20' 20' 20' 10' ZO' See yard setback for section g- all covered and 7-10 uncovered parking areas Maximum front n/a nla Na 10' n/a Na 10' 15' n/a 10' nla yard landscaped setback for corner lots and side yards adjacent a street ~4aximum front nla n/a nla 15' nla n/a 15' 1~ n/a 15' nia yard landscaped setback for an interior lot Minimum side 25' 12.5' 1 S' 10' 1' per 2' 0' or 5' 1' per 2' 0' 1' per 2' i0' 0' for first and 0' 0' 0' n/a yard landscaped of bldg. {b) of bldg. (attach of bldg. second stories setback from a height, height, ed height, 12' for third story street (a)(i) 10' min. 10' min. DUs); 1' 10' min. and above; per Z' of bldg. height, _ 5' min. (de~tac hed i ` DUs) ~ k I y ~ z i~ 9/19/2008 Form module a b c d e f g h i j k I m n o p q r s Minimum side 15' 10' S' 10' 0' or 12' 1' per 2' of bldg. 0' or 5' 0' or 3' 0' 1' per 3' 0' or 12' 0' or 5' 0' or 5' 0 or 12' 0' or 12' 0' or 5' See yard setback height, 5' min. (b) (attach of bldg. section 9- from an interior ed height, 7-10 lot tine (i) DUs); 1' S' min per 2' of bldg. height, 5' min. (de~tac hed DUs) Minimum total 40' 25' 20' 15' 20' n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a for both side yard setbacks Minimum rear 25' 25' 20' 10' 15' 20' 15' 20' 15' 0' 15' 15' 10' See yard setback (d) section 9- 7-10 Accessory Buildings and Uses fvtinimum front 55' S5' Behind 55' Behind Behind 55' S5' Behind 55' S5' Behind See yard setback rear rear rear rear rear section 9- uses (e) wall of wall of wall of wall of wait of 7-10 principa principa principa principa principa I I 1 I ! sfructur structur structur struclur structur e e e e e Minimum side 25' 12.5' 15' 10' 1' per 2' 0' or 1' per 2' 0' 1' per 2' 10' 0' G' 0' 0' n/a yard landscaped of bldg. 5'(b) of bldg. (attache of bldg. setback from a height, height, d DUs); height, street (a)(i) 10' rnin. 10' min. 1' per 2 10' min. of bldg. height, 5' min. (detach ed DUs) Minimum side 15' 10' 0' or 3' (b) 0' or 3' (b) 0' or 3' (b) 0' or 3' (b) 0' or 3' (b) See U ` yard setback section 1~ ~ from an interior I lot line 9/7/2010 ~ Minimum rear 0' or 3' (b) 0' or 3' (b) 0' or 3' (b} 0' or 3' (b) 0' or 3' (b) See section Ai 9/ 1912008 Form module a b c d e f g h i j k I m n o p q r s yard setback (f) 9/7/2010 Minimum 6' 6' 6' 6' 6' 6' separation between accessory buildings and any other building BUILDING SfZE ANO COVERAGE LIMITATION (Accessory and Principal Butidings) Maximum size of See section 9-8-2 15,000 See section 9-8-2 15,000 See section 9-8- 15,000 n/a any principal sq. ft. sq. ft. 2 sq. ft. building (FAR Requirements) (FAR Requirements) (FAR Maximum 500 sq. ft, nia 500 sq. n!a 500 sq. n!a n/a nla n/a n/a accessory ft. ft. building coverage within principal building rear yard setback (9-7-9) Maximum For residential uses - no greater than coverage of the principal building cumulative coverage of all accessory buildings regardless of location PRINCIPAL AND ACCESSORY BUILDING HEIGHT Maximum height 35' 35'; 40' (in I- 35' 35' 40' 35' 38' 35' 35' for principal zones) buildings and uses {c)(d) Conditional See section 9-'I-6 for conditional height standards =n height for principal ' buildings and a uses ~ Maximum 3 3 nla nla 2 3 3 2 3 2 (3 on 2 3 number of DT-5 stories fora corner building Tots) ~ 9/19/2008 Form module a b c d e f g h i j k 1 m n o p q r s Maximum wall 12' 12' 12' 12' 12' n/a height for detached dwelling units at zero lot line setback (9-7- 2(b){3)) Maximum height 20' (30' in agricultural zone) 20' (25' in industrial zones) 20' 20' ZO' 20' for all accessory buildings, structures and uses (g) FENCES, HEDGES, AND WALLS (for additional standards see section 9-9-15) Maximum height 7' 7' 7' 7' 7' 7' of fences, hedges or walls Minimum height 42" 42" 42" 42" 42" 42" of fence on top of retaining wall Maximum 12' 12' 12' 12' 12' 12' combined height of fencer retaining wall in side yard within 3' of lot line with neighbor approval BUILDING DESIGN REQUIREMENTS Minimum front n!a n/a n/a n/a nia 60% n!a n/a facade window area (9-9-3) Primary building n/a n/a yes n/a yes yes n/a n/a yes yes nia :t entrance • location facing I street I T b 9!19/2008 Form module a b c d e f g h i j k I m n o p q r s Minimum nla n!a nla n/a n/a 70% 50°ro n/a percent of lot Frontage that must contain a building or buildings Minimum front n/a n/a Na ~u' n/a 20' Na Na yard setback from a street for all principal buildings and uses for third story and above Maximum % of n/a n/a n/a Na nla "10'% n/a n;a 3rd story floor area that can be in a 4th story i~ f~ i E 9/19(2008 Form module a b c d e f g h i j k I m n o p q r s Footnotes: In addition to the foregoing, the following miscellaneous form and bulk requirements apply to all development in the city: (a) On corner lots, use principal building front yard setback where adjacent lot fronts upon the street. fib) For zero lot line development. see subsection 9-7-2(b), B.R.C. 1981. (c) The permitted height limit may be modified only in certain areas and oniy under the standards and procedures provided in sections 9-2-14, "Site Review," , (d) For buildings over 25 feet in height see subsection 9-9-11(c), B.R.C. 1981. (e) For other setback standards regarding aarac~es, open parking areas. and flagpoles, see paragraph 9-7-2(b)(8), B.R.C. 1981. (f) Where a rear yard backs on a street, see paragraph 9-7-2(b)(7). B.R.C. 1981. ,(g) Not including light poles at government-owned facilities. For additional height standards regarding light poles at government facilities. see section 9-2-14, ' (h) For front yard setback reductions. see subsection 9-7-2(a). B.R.C. 1981. (i) For side yard setback requirements based on building height, see appendix B, "Setback Relative to Building Height," of this title. Ordinance Nos. 5623 (1994); 5656 (1994); 5679 (1994); 5690 (1995); 5921 (1997); 5930 (1997); 5971 (1998); 6037 (1998); 6054 (1999); 7079 (2000); 7102 r.J yV^'1 9/19/2008 . DRAFT TABLE 8-1 INTENSITY MODULE Minimum Minimum Minimum Minimum Open Space Open Space Private Open Space an Lots on Lots Open Space Per Dwelling (Residential (Nonresiden (Residential Unit Uses) tial Uses)~'~ Uses) Minimum See section 9-9-11 for additional o ens ace Lot Area (in Minimum Maximum requirements. For mixed use developments. square feet Lot Area Per Number of unless Dwelling Dwelling use the re uirements of either the residential Maximum Intensity otherwise Unit (square Units Per or nonresidential standards that result in the Floor Area District noted) feet) Acre greatest amount of open space Ratio 1 5 acres 5 acres 0.2 0 - 10 - 20% 0 0 2 30,000 30,000 1.4 0 - 10 - 20% 0 0 3 15,000 15,000 2.9 0 - 10 - 20% 0 0 4 7,000 7,000 6.2 0 - 10 - 20% 0 0.8:1 5 7,000 7,000 6.2 0 - 10 - 20% 0 0 6 0 0 - 6,000 - 10 - 20% 0 0 7 6,000 6,000 7.3 600 - 10 - 20% 0 0 8 0 0 10 (up to 20 0 15% 15% 60 0 by review) 9 0 0 - 3,000 - 10 - 20% 0 0 10 0 0 - 600 - 10 - 20% 60 0.5:1 11 7,000 0 - 0 - 10 - 20% 60 0.5:1 12 0 0 - 1600 - 10 - 20% 0 0 12.5 6,000 3,200 13.6 600 - 10 - 20% 0 0 13 6,000 3,500 14.5 - - 10 - 20% 0 0 14 0 0 - 0 60% 60% 60 #REFi y 15 0 0 - 1,200 - 10 - 20% 0 0 ~ ~ ~ 16 0 0 - 0 40% 10 - 20% 60 0 ~ X+Cs 17 0 0 - 0 15% 15% 60 0.67 (1.85 if ~ i within CAGID ~ ~i or UHGID) `~3 ~ ~a C 9/19/2008 18 0 0 - 0 15% 15% 60 0.6:1 19 6,000 1,600 27.2 600 (400 by - 10 - 20% 0 0 site review if in a mixed use development 20 7,000 1,600 27.2 600 40% (20% if 10 - 20% 60 0.4:1 within a park service area) 21 6,000 1,600 27.2 600 - 10 - 20% 0 0.5:1 22 7,000 1,600 27.2 600 40% (20% 'rf 10 - 20% 60 0.5:1 within a park service area) 23 6,000 1,600 27.2 0 - 10 - 20% 0 2.0:1 24 0 0 - 0 15% 15% 60 1.0:1 Z4.5 U U - U 75°-b 15'iL f;0 .5 (2.0 if wiUiin TVAP parhiny i i I JisrriclJ 25 0 0 - 0 - 10 - 20% 60 1.0:1 26 0 0 - 0 - 10 - 20% 60 1.5:1 27 0 0 - 0 - 10 - 20% 60 1.7:1 28 - - - - - 10 - 20% - - Footnotes: (a) This requirement may increase based on building heioht pursuant to subsection 9-9-11(c). B.R.C. 1981. Ordinance No. 7522 (2007); 7571 (2007); 7577 (2007) 9-8-2 Floor Area Ratio Requirements. ; ~ (a) Purpose: The purpose of the floor area ratio requirements is to limit the impacts of the use that result from increased building size. (b) Maximum Floor Area Ratio: The maximum floor area ratio on a lot or parcel shall be the greatest of the following: p (1) The floor area set forth in section 9-7-1. "Schedule of Form and Bulk Standards." B.R.C. 1981: (2) The floor area approved prior to June 3, 1997, as part of a valid existing or unexpired planned development (PD), planned residential d l~ unit development (PUD) or a site review; or (3) The floor area on the lot or parcel on June 3, 1997. 9!19/2008 (c) Registration and Calculation of FAR for Existing Buildings: Building floor area on a lot or parcel that exceeds the floor area ratio set forth in iJ~, ~C~i ATTACHMENT' E ~ an ~ ~~~.r~e~ 1_ l ~ e « ~ ~ L I G ~i L F ~-1 ~1 :ry+ r F~! i j~ 1 I ~~_.l ' T't_ ii Wit--- ~j_-i ~ I I %-1 _1 i I ~ j ~_r-; - 1 ~ ~ i _ _Fjf _ . - ~1 ~ w, - ~ r.. -qua - ~ _ ~ Y r _ ~ - ~ u ~L~' 4, ~ 1:-- ~y~~d ~ ~ _'1 'too ~ M ~ ' %}j. 0'- ~ _ ~ ~ ~ ~'~.p ~ k ' .S Y'~ _ ~C; "~e~.+~-~.~ _ -LZZL. ~ 11,E f ~ I ~1 _ ~ 1 i ~f~L ~L~.2^J 1.1~ti~~ .Lf j,,. _ i L~ ~ i - _ ~ ~ ~ ~ 4 ~ ~ ly ; ~ I~ y,, ; ~ , _ _ ~ _ 1~ I- a , : I _ '1 ,~h-i ~ 1' ~ 1 l-- i ~ I ~ ~ ~/A[%/~ ^ ,~4 u`C ~ Table of Contents Guidelines General Guidelines ......................................4 Pocket Park Design Guidelines ..............................5 Pearl Street Center District Guidelines ........................5 Transit Facility Guidelines (Bus and Rail) ......................6 Rail Plaza District Guidelines ..............................7 Rail Plaza Guidelines .....................................7 Depot Guidelines ........................................8 30th Street Center District Guidelines ........................8 Valmont Corridor District Guidelines .........................8 Pearl Parkway District Guidelines ............................9 Wilderness Place District Guidelines .........................9 Steelyards District Guidelines ..............................9 Old Pearl District Guidelines ..............................10 Transit Village Area Plan Guidelines • Boulder, Colorado , ~ ~ ~ ' , 7 / Orban Design d ~r General Guidelines The following guidelines apply to all character districts. Bus Stops • Include the following for bus stops adjacent to devel- Building Placement and Design vpment projects: a shelter, benches, route and sched- • Orient the main facade to the street and provide an ale signage. Additional enhancements are encour- entrance on the street side of the building. aged, such as pedestrian lighting, art, landscaping and • Design buildings with pedestrian-scale materials and waste receptacles. Bike racks should be provided ar architectural articulatia~, particularly on the first floor: regional route stops. (Refer to the bus route and step Avoid large blank walls. Along streets and sidewalks information on the Transit Map in the Appendix. See provide pedestrian interest, including transparent wfi_ the Implementation Plan for funding information.) doves and well-defined building entrances. /unction Place • Consider opportunities to frame or preserve views of • In ac/ditivn to the street trees, sidewalks and bike fadli- the Flatirons to the svuthwest• ties specified by the /unction Place streetscape section, provide seating, planters, art, special pavement and Useable Open Space lighting along Junction Place. (See the Implementation • Incorporate well-designed, functional open spaces with plan for information on funding of the city share.) tree, quaQty landscaping and art, access to sunlight and places to sit comfortably. Where public parks or Where feasible, place active uses, such as retail or open spaces are not within close proximity, provide commercial services vn the first floor of buildings along shared open spaces (or a variety of activities. Where Junction Place. close to parks, open spaces provided by development • Provide way-finding features such as special pave- may be smaller. menu, signs, or art, to facilitate pedestrian movement between /unction Place, Rai! Plaza, tl;e rail platform Permeability and under/overpass, d7e bus station, Goose G•eek • While the improved street network will provide more Greerway, Pearl, Valmont, 30th Street and Wilderness frequent pedestrian connections, also provide multiple place. (See the Implementation Plan for funding infor•- opportunities to walk from the street into projects, thus mation.) presenting a street face that is permeable. Also pro- vide opportunities to walk within the interior between Mixed-Use Buildings abutting properties. This is especially important where • The potential for conflicts between residential and non- street blocks are large, for example in the Wilderness residential uses within Waxed-use buildings should be place District. minimized through careful design and building system planning. Consider the compatihility ofspecific uses. Parking Structures Issues could include noise, vibration, privacy, and • Design the ground level of a parking structure to be entrance locations. interesting and appealing for pedestrians, for example, by wrapping the ground level with active uses, such as retail. Include pedestrian-scale fa~:ade ar•ticulaiion, ar•chitectura! detailing and qualify materials. • Where the ground level is open or exposed to interior drives, paths, or parking lots, screen it with a low wall and/or evergreen (andscapir~g. • If tuck-under parking or podiwn parking (half-level underground) is provided, locate it at the rear of the property or wrap with active uses if feasible. • Where feasible, locate structure entries/exits on sec- ondary, not primary streets. Avoid locating entries/exits on main pedestrian routes. Entries/exits should be carefully designed to ensure safe, comfort- able, and uninterrupted pedestrian flow on adjacent sidewalks. Transit Village area Plan Guidelines • Boulder, Colorado Orban Design Pocket Park Design Guidelines • Locate the park adjacent ter C;ur~sr, Creek to offer easy • [xplore aquatic and ripari,~n h,rbit~rt and stornrwater access from the greenway and the largest concentra- and aesthetic enhancements to the adjacent Goose tivn of housing in the area. Creek channel. This could include widening the chan- nel, configuring the park along the upper terraces of • Design the park to be welcoming and appealing to a the channel (with a playground above), and providing diversity of users. lnvvlve the neighborhoods to the a connection to the enhanced creek corridor. For north in the park design process. more information see the Stormwater Section in Chapter 6: Facilities and Services. • Design the park to be approximately 3/4 acre in size. Deter-mine exact size according to anticipated uses. • Mitigate the existing significant grade drop to Goose :tt a minimum, include a playground, opportunities Creek to ensure a good flow of park users between for sitting, and an open, grassy area for use by nearby the greenway and the park. residents if possible. • Incorporate environmentally friendly features such as pervious surfaces, bio-filter landscaping beds, high- efficiency lighting, and solar-powered amenities. Cnn,r'der opportunities for environmental education. Pearl Streef Center District Guidelines • Locate buildings and building entries along Pearl and • Buildings adjacent to Goose Creek Greenway or the 30th streets, with parking behind the buildings. Large Nord Boulder farmer's Ditch should orient to the buildings will likely need multiple entrances. greenway or ditch amenity. • Along Pearl and 30th streets, provide active first-floor • Provide direct access from adjacent properties to the uses, such as retail, where feasible. future ditch path and the existing greenway, if the grade difference can be reasonably mitigated. • Look for opportunities to create car-free or car- reduced -cones. • See also: General Guidelines, Pocket Park Design Guidelines and Transit Facility Guidelines. • Work with the ditch company to remove concrete embankments along the North Boulder Farmer's Ditch, re-vegetate the banks, and integrate a new multi-use path. Uo not underground the ditch. Preserve existing mature trees. Traosil Y~lage Area Plan CuideGaea ~ Boulder, Colorado 1 ' Urban Design ' Transit Facility Guidelines (Bus and Rail) Access to Transit Facility from Surrounding Area • !n waiting/ boarding areas, provide lighting, seating, • Provide pedestrian access fron-r multiple directions. To service information (schedules, monitors, maps) and be useful, pedestrian connections to facility must be shelter from the elements. short, direct and visually unobstructed. Location of Transit Parking • Close to the facility, design roadways at a pedestrian • Site any transit parking or park 'n ride facility so that it scale and tv control vehicular speeds. Do not disrupt and associated automobile traffic do not impair main sidewalks and crosswalks in the immediate trap- pedestrian circulation between the U•ansit facility and sit area with wide turning radii, driveways, or dedicat- surrounding area. This may entail siting the parking ed turning lanes that require pedestrian refuge islands. outside the immediate hansit area where pedestrian activity is most intense. if the walk to the transit fac;li- • Ensure clear, unimpeded, signed bike access to the ty is safe and pleasant it may not be critical to Ivcate transit facility from the larger bike network. Locate a park 'n ride in immediate proximity. bike parking where it is highly visible and sheltered. It should be lighted and secure. • See also: Transit Parking sidebar in Chapter S: Transportation Demand Management. ' • Provide a pedestrian underpass, rather than an over- pass, for the tracks at the rail stop. Facility Identity • Create a distinctive identity for the transit facility that Bus Loading and Staging Areas resonates with the identity of the larger community. • To avoid bus loading and staging areas from becoming Select a theme that will be universally valued by a "dead space" in key pedestrian areas during off-peak diversity of users. for example, an identity may be cul- hours, concentrate bus loading and staging areas to tivated by incorporating art and/vr an existing natural minimize their size, even to the point of allowing- or man-made feature unique to the area into the Iacili- "cramping" and spiNover during peak times. besides ty. Consider carrying the theme into the way-finding precluding dead zones, this will save valuable land features discussed in the Junction Place and Rai! Plaza and facilitate quick, close regional transit to local trap- Design Guidelines. sit connections for passengers. • Provide pedestrian links between transit connections that are direct, short and uninterrupted. Although few transit connections are expected between the regional bus station and the train, regional-to-local bus connec- tions will occur at the bus facility, and rail-to-local bus `These ~uidetines are bused on BART 7)-ansit-Or•ienred De~~elopnient connections will occur at the rail stop. Gr«derh,es aoo3. Transit Yiiage Area Plan Guidelioes • Boulder, Colors o r';:~ , u:ia (tarts 1. ~ F'Q,c,2 ~ Urban Design Rail Plaza District Guidelines • l ovate buildings along thr strr~et with pad<inl; behind. guidelines), as well as to thr~ tracks. If feasible, place active uses on the first floor. Consider making the • Place active uses on the ground level of buildings track-side frontage acar-free zone with pedesUian adjacent to Rail Plaza, (or example, stores, restaurants, amenitles. cafes, or commercial services, where feasible. They should have entrances directly onto the plaza. • See also: General Guidelines, rail plaza Guidelines, and Transit Facility Guidelines. • C)rirnt hi;r;rGn:~. to /unction Place (see /unction Place Rail Plaza Guidelines • Design the plaza to be approximately a third of an • Incorporate c~nvirvnrncnrally iric:ndly icatures ;u.-h acre. Err on the side ofsmaller rather than larger. pervious surfaces, biv-filter landscaping beds, high- efficiency lighting, and solar-powered amenities • Frame the plaza with buildings, with one side open (e.g., bubble fountains). Explore possible demon- or partially open) to Bluff Street and/or Junction stration or educational aspect for these features. Place. The intent is to create a partially enclosed space that is both inviting and intimate. • Use high-quality, authentic materials. • Provide flexible space to accommodate a variety of • Utilize trees and plants to svften the space. public uses, such as a mercado', farmers' market, and festivals. Also provide flexibility (or different uses • Carefully design the new pedestrian underpass (or during different times of the day, week and year: overpass) at the U•acks so that it does not negatively Anticipated uses and associated maintenance should impact the aesthetics or (unction of the plaza. be an integral part of the plaza design, particularly layout, furnishings, materials and plant selection. • Provide way-finding features, such as signage, special pavement and art, to direct people to the plaza from • Design the plaza so its use cvuld be combined with 30th Street, Bluff Street, Valmont Road, Junction temporary closure of the east end of Buff Street for Place, and Pearl Parkway. special events. • Design the plaza to appeal to and attract a diversity • Include a variety of smaller "places" (activities or of users from throughout the community. Involve destinations) within the plaza. These could be as cultural groups and adjacent neighborhoods in the simple as a vendor cart. plaza design process, particularly residents north of the area. • Provide essential and "comfort' amenities sucl~ as bike racks, a drinking fountain, recycling and trash • Actively manage the plaza to ensure on-going securi- receptacles, pedestrian-scale lighting, shade and soft ty, cleanliness and liveliness. Gear events to attract surfaces, in carefully chosen locations. both existing users and new users. Program uses to change as the seasons change. • Provide an adequate amount of seating and carefully consider its location, orientation, type and materials. • Consider including active art and water featw~es, especially for ehNdren• 2 Some ajrhese guidelines m•e based on "Ten Prirrciptes far Creorbtg Succes.cfid Squares" by Projec•r fin• Public Spaces. • Look for opportunities to incorporate art into built 3 The Spmrish word Jur market, a nrercadu is a public gathering elements, such as paving, railings, signage, seating or vlace.fa,•huying and selling nurc•handise gyicaltyjocrrsing on the Overhead SG'UC[UreS_ Mexican culture and/ or inlernariorrat warts. 7Yansit Pillage Area Plan Guidelines' Boulder, Colorado ~ 11y Urban Design Depot Guidelines • Ensure that the building's historic integrity is restored • Place the building in a highly visible, easily accessible and preserved for future generations. Consider location, if feasible given with surrounding land uses whether funding and land should be sought for and programmatic needs. restoration of the pavilion and Porte-cochiere. • Try to minimize storage time and restore the building • Ensure that the building is an enriching centerpiece to active uses as soon as possible. Ensure the building for the area, with a vibrant use, both day and night. is stable, well-protected from the elements and secure Ideas for uses include: restaurant or cafe; retail/enter-- during movement and storage. iainment; public meeting space, possibly in a base- r77P.nt; bike station; or transit-related function. Other possible uses may emerge. Two or n7ore uses could potentially be combined. 30th Street Corridor District Guidelines • Locate buildings along the street with parking behind. • Provide pedestrian interest along 30th Street by select- ing active ground-floor uses, such as r•etai! and commer- • To create a more pedesb~ian environment and improve cial services, where feasible. safety and traffic flow along 30th Street, eliminate drive- • Provide street furnishings, such as benches, planters, way curb cuu on 30th Street when new streets and cafe seating, art, and pedestrian lighting. alleys are developed in the vicinity. (See Chapter 4: Transportation Connections PIanJ • See also: General Guidelines. Valmont Corridor District Guidelines • Screen parking areas adjacent to the street with land- Plan), eliminate driveway curb cuts on Valmont and scaping and/or !ow walls. 30th streets or combine with adjoining properties. • Where additional access is provided by new streets or • See also: General Guidelines. alleys (see Chapter 4: Transportation Connections 1`ransil Pillage Area )an Guidelines • Boulder, fal ado Urban Design Pearl Parkway District Guidelines • Work with the ditch company to uncover the North • Provide direct access from adjacent properties to the Boulder farmer's Ditch where it's currently under- multi-use pads along the ditch and Foothills Parkway. ground, re-vegetate the banks, and integrate a new multi-use path. Do nor underL;round the ditch. • See also: General Guidelines. Preserve any existing mature trees. • Design buildings adjacent to the North Boulder Farmer's Ditch to take advantage of that amenity. Wilderness Place District Guidelines • !f possible, place higher buildings along foothills to minimize its aesthetic and functional impact on near- Parkway to help buffer traffic noise from residential uses by pedestrian areas. within the interior of the southern portion o(the district. • • Provide way-finding features, such as special pave- s Orient buildings adjacent to Goose Creek Greenway to menu, signs and graphics, to facilitate pedestrian move- that amenity Provide direct access to the greenway. ment between Wilderness Place and the rail platform and underpass (or- overpass), Rail Plaza, Junction Place, • Provide direct access from adjacent properties to die Ualrnont, and the Goose G•eek Greenway. future multi-use path along Foothills Parkway. • See also: General Guidelines. • Carefully design the pedestrian underpass (or overpass) Steelyards District Guidelines • Locate buildings along the street with parking behind. • See also: General Guidelines. • Look for opportunities to create car-free or car- reduced cones. 1`raosil YiUage Area Plan GuideGaes • Bo~ider, Colorado {/t ~~/J~ Drban Design ° it Old Pearl District Guidelines • Locate buildings along the street with parking behind. Boulder farmer's Ditch where it's currently under- ground, re-vegetate the banks, and integrate a new • For properties between Old Pear! and the North multi-use path. Dv not underground the ditch. Boulder Farmer's Ditch, orient the buildings io the Preserve any existing mature trees. street, but also take advantage of the ditch amenity. • Provide direct access from adjacent praperties to the • Orient buildings adjacent to the Govse Creek multi-use paths along Foothills Parkway, Goose Creek Greenway to that amenity. and the ditch . • If possible, place higher buildings along FaotlTills • See also: General Guidelines. Parkway to help buffer traffic noise from residential uses interior to the district. • Work with the ditch company to uncover the North '~aosi(Yillage Area Plan Cuideli~es • Boulder, Color o ATTACHMENT F Revised Table 9-1 Residential Parking Requirements RL, RM, RMX-1, RR, RE, MU-1, RH-3, RH-4, RH- Zone District MU-3, BMS, DT, RMX-2, MU-2, 5, BT, BC, BR, Standard A, RN-6 MH, lMS IS, !G, lM, P RH-1, RH-2 P~~1U-~t; RH-t Minimum number 1 1 1 1 space for of off-street detached DUs parking spaces construction for a detached Prior to dwelling unit (DU) 9/2/1993. Use the requirements below for DUs built after 9/2/1993 Il~9aximum r.umb~r NA NA NA ~1 sp~~ce of off-street dv.elliing unit parking spaces fcr an attached -l:~~elliny snit Minimum number 1 1 for a 1- or 2- 1 for 1-bedroom 1 space for first of off-street bedroom DU 1.5 DU 1.5 for 2- 500 square parking spaces for 3-bedroom DU bedroom DU 2 for feet and 1 for an attached 2 for a 4 or more 3-bedroom DU 3 additional DU bedroom DU fora 4 or more space for each bedroom DU 300 square feet or portion thereof not to exceed 4 spaces per DU Accessible space 0 spaces for the first 7 DUs, 1 space per 7 DUs thereafter requirement Bicycle parking No bicycle parking spaces are required in the A, RR, RE, RL, RM, and 1 cnvered requirement RMX districts. In all other zoning districts, at least 3 bicycle parking space per spaces or 10 percent of the required off-street parking spaces, DU; plus at whichever is greater, are required. After the first 50 bicycle parking least 3 bike , spaces are provided, the required number of additional bicycle parking parking spaces is 5 percent of the required off-street parking spaces. spaces or 10 percent of the required off- street Draft Table 9-3 Nonresidential parking by zoning district Zone District Standard ;DT, RH-3, MU-3 BMS BCS, BR-1, fS,IG,IM, RMX-2, MU-2, IM,MU-1, MU-3 RR, RE, RL,RM, RMX-II!1U--~ I (within a parking (not in a parking d (not in a parking district) ,district) 'i Minimum number of off- 0 '1:400 1:400 if 1:300 if 1:300 street parking spaces per residential uses residential uses square foot of floor area comprise less comprise less for nonresidential uses than 50 percent than 50 percent and their accessory uses of the floor area; of the floor area; otherwise 1:500 otherwise 1:400 Accessible parking requirement I Required Minimum Total Number of ,Number of Parking Spaces Accessible Provided Spaces 1 to 25 1 26 to 50 2 51 to 75 3 76 to 100 ~ 4 101 to 150 5 151 to 200 6 201 to 300 7 _ 301 to 400 8 401 to 500 9 ~ 501 to 1,000 2 percent of total ~ ~ 20 plus 1 for C~ each 100 over I~ Over 1,000 1,000 l~ i i Zone District Standard ~DT, RH-3, MU-3 BMS BCS, BR-1, IS,IG,IM, RMX-2, MU-2, IM~MU-1, MU-3 RR, RE, RL,RM, RMX- MU-4 (within a parking (not in a parking d (not in a parking district) district) ~ Bicycle parking No bicycle parking spaces are required in the A, RR, RE, RL, RM, and RMX districts. In all other zoning Provide 20 percent of requirement districts, at least 3 bicycle parking spaces or 10 percent of the required off-street parking spaces, the required off- whichever is greater, are required. After the first 50 bicycle parking spaces are provided, the required street auto parking number of additional bicycle parking spaces is 5 percent of the required off-street parking spaces. for employee bicycle parking. These bicycle spaces should be covered and protected from the weather. In addition provide 10 percent of the required off-strect auto parking for customer parking. C,~ ~^r ATTACHMENT G CITY OF BOULllI;R PLANNING BOARD MIN UT'F,S itilay 1S, 2008 1777 Broadway, Cow~cil Chambers A pez-manent set of these minutes azzd a tape recording (zxzaintairzed 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:/Iwww.boulctercolo~-ado.gov/ PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Willa Johnson Phil Shull, Chair Adrian Sopher KC Beckez• Andrew Shoemaker PLANNING I30ARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Bill Holicky Elise Jones STAFF PRESENT: Michelle Allen, I Iousing Planner Josh Birks, I?PS Juliet Bonnell, Administrative Specialist David Lehr, Deputy City Attorney Louise Grauer, Long l2.ange Senior Planner Ruth McI-Ieyser, Acting Planning Director John Pollak, Co-Director of Housing and Haman Services Susan Riclzstone, Acting I.,ong Range Planning Manager Martha Roslazwski, Go Boulder Manager Douglas Sullivan, Utilities Project Manager Molly Winter, Downtown and University Hill Management Division and Parking Services Director 1. CALL 'I'O ORDER Chair, P. Shull, dec}ared a quorum at 6:08 p.m. and the following business was conducted. 2. APPROVAL OF ivIINU'CES The Planning Board did not approve the submitted April 3, 2008 I'tanning Board minutes and suggested that staff verify certain details before resubmitting them for approval. On a motion by W. Johnson, seconded by A. Shoemal:cr, the Planning Board approved (4-0, B. llolicky and C. Jones absent, P. Shull abstained) the April 17, 2005 Planning Board minutes as amended. 3. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION 4. DISCUSSION OF DISPOSITIONS, PLANNING BOARD CALL-UPS i\~ne of the following items were called up: 7007 Winchester, 621-626 Nlar-ine Street and 733- 739 Marine Street. 5. ACTION IT}~:MS A. Direction on "Transit Village Area Plan Implementation including code changes, parking management, and storrnwater. Case Manager: Louise Grauer Staff Presentation L. Grauer presented an overview of the item to the board, supplemented by presentations from ll. Sullivan and M. Roskowski. D. Sullivan presented information regarding utilities issues associated with the city's recently completed Stormwater• Master Plan. IIe discussed two potential stormwater- development options in relation to "TVAP. Tl~e first alternative would address the water quality capture volume and stormwater detention requirements outlined in the city's design and construction standards (DCS). A second alternative would meet the DCS requirements and in addition, would focus on low impact development (LID) techniques and additional water quality Features to provide a more "green" option. Also considered was a hybrid approach that might incorporate only some of the LID options since the "greener" option was estimated to be significantly more expensive than the Altcr~ative No. l . Utilities has identified funding i?i its Stonnwater and blood Management CIP and is working with the CAO to develop a "TVAP development and funding reimbursement plan. "There are various alternatives for funding development for the estimated S l ._5 million in stormwatcr inli~astructurc, which will be available in January 201 1. A. Sopher asked how water quality would be addressed. D. Sullivan replied that water quality and stonmvater detention could be addressed on a site-by- site basis or it could be addressed iri a regional facility. Stornwater detention would not be required for properties located adjacent to a major drainageway. A. Sopher inquired why funding could not be available for this project prior to 20l 1. D. Sullivan replied that the timing of the available funding is based on the Utilities' Stormwater and blood Management 20-year C1P. The majority of utilities projects are funded by annual revenue. For larger (several million dollar) projects funding is bonded. The liming of•the TVAP funding is tied to a bond identified for another project at South Boulder Creek. Given the way that other utilities projects are lined up, it makes sense to fund this project as allocated rather than altering the planned timing. A. Sopher asked if it would be possible to make this project happen sooner. D. Sullivan responded that there is an opportunity for moving it forward, albeit small. He cmphasied that projects have been prioritized and many are competing for funding/timing. K. Becker asked what the process is for determining whether the payback for the improvements will occur through an impact fee or district. D. Gehr responded that there are advantages and disadvantages to each oI• these approaches, and there will need to be additional discussions with property owners. S. Richstone noted that staff is implementing a new approach, so things arc not pirvied down yet. A concurrency ordinance will be in place to ensure that development does not occur without adequate public facilities in place or adequate fees to pay for their provision. P. Shull clarified that the CII' budget in 2011 will just serve phase 1 properties. He asked how Goose Creek is affected by the proposed timing of this TVAP development. ~~,~;~n~;~ Il~;m;~~ F~~c,: 5 z P. Sullivan responded that the city owns 8 acres in this area. HHS wants to build units, Parks & Recreatioi~~ is interested in a park on this site. The city will not take possession of this land until 2016. I-Ie noted that some utilities are easier to construct than others (water, for example, is easier than storm sewer and sanitary sewer because water is not a gravity system subject to grades). Wastewater is slightly more difficult to implement and stormwater is the most difficult to construct because the pipe sizes are the largest. He mentioned that ideally, the development would occur close to the creek first and expand from there based on the size of the needed pipes. D. Sullivan mentioned that the TVAP stornlwater plan would meet the city's water quality requirements by directing the stonnwater runoff into a detention pond before it entered Goose Creek. The detention ponds would be sized accordingly. Y. Shull asked about methodology for property owners to move ahead and develop sooner than the utility systems have been installed by the city. D. Sullivan replied that the utilities infrastructure construction phasing may be difficult, but could likely accommodate some property owners (first come, first served). D. Gehr noted that provisions would be put into place so that early development would not reduce later developers' opportunities. S. Richstone mentioned that there is flexibility and the city would work with developers. Public Hearin Robert "Bob" Louden, Louden Prope~•ties at 30'x' and Vahnont, inquired about boundaries and asked if there is a major stonnwater structure at 30'x' and Valmont. D. Sullivan replied that 30`x' and Valmont falls in the phase 1 area where there will be some sort of redevelopment in the next l 0-20 years. The city requires water quality and retention issues to be addressed. Beginning in 2011, the Public Works Department can assist in the funding. Board lliscussion P. Shull noted that concurrency has been built in since the plans were adopted. Ile mentioned that the enforcement and management of this seems tricky and wanted to ensure that equity was built in. He felt that the Goose Creek property owners seemed to have advantages over other property owners. Since systems appear in right-of--ways that aren't there yet, he believed this might confuse issues. L. Grauer replied that this is a timing issue. P. Shull inquired if zoning can be put in place without systems being thoroughly in place. S. Richstone replied that the infrastructure doesn't need to he in place before things arc rezoned, just the mechanisms need to be put in place. W. Johnson asked if the parking distt-ict was described vaguely or specifically in the concurrency ordinance. D. Gehr replied that it is described vaguely currently because it requires public process and input which hasn't happened yet. W. ,Tohnson inquired about the timing for adoption. L. Grauer replied that the rezoning of properties would happen when the zone districts and concurrency ordinance are in place- hopefully in late 2008/early 2009. P. Shull.reconunended arelief valve for property owners who are ready to move forward with deve.loprnent. A. Sopher asked for clarification of the timeline for the completion of the rezoning, concurrency, etc. for the sake of property owners. He wanted definition of the mechanisms that will allow property owners to move forward prior to the installation of stonnwater systems. A.:Sopher asked about the Bluff St. extension's relation to the timefi-ame and storrnwatcr management and what is occurring west of 30°i Street and its impact. He expressed concezm about the timeframe and whether this is occurring in Phase 1 or 2. fIe also inquired if the west side of 30`'' will be handled similarly. D. Sullivan mentioned that stonnwater (water quality) on the west side of the tracks can be addressed in Phase l . He noted that the two utilities (stonmwater v. wastewater) vary. W. Johnson asked about Phase 1's influence/impact on later phases. D. Sullivan responded that on the stormwater side there will be potential impacts from Phase 1 to Phase 2. Wastewater is slightly different and requires tying into an existing system (not building a new one). The water system needs to be constructed as a loop. A. Sopher clarified that the wastewater system would need to be increased under the railroad tracks in both Phase 1 and 2 Summary-.Plannirrg.Board had yuestiorrs ahorrt the timing and zvhetlzer the implementation can be moved up in time. The hoard would like to see some appr°oacl: for property owners to redevelop before the systejn is in place. The board wondered if there is a need to upsize tl:e system on the properties west of 30''' to allow that area to redevelop. Parking Marra ement M. Roskowski provided a short overview. She discussed the fI'ransportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies including: increasing travel choices, encouraging use of all modes, and reducing incentive to single occupant vehicles. Staff recommends a parking district approach rather than a parking management association. Due to the funding, building, and managing needed, the district would work more effectively. The district approach requires more work on the front end, but has long term benefits. W: Johnson asked how the position of property (within or outside of a parking district) affects property values. M. Roskowski replied that she didn't know if any analysis had been done to determine district effects on property values. She mentioned that districts are an efficient method of providing parking from a financial and urban design perspective. K. Becker asked if it was likely that the public would approve the district approach. D. Gehr replied that since public outreach has not been conducted yet, property owners' feelings about the dish•ict approach are currently unknown. The city is not a taxable entity, so when cities get involved in district scenarios, the city enters into a cooperation agreement and defines how it will participate (maybe similar to the way in which taxable entities interact). Equitable payment is provided, just not through taxes. K. Becker asked if financial modeling had been done on the district. M. Winter said that it hasn't been looked at yet, but she noted that other revenues (such as parking revenue generated, enforcement citations, etc.) could offset expenses. f11ot more work needs to be done to determine specifics, but they are just asking for feedback on the basics of the recommended approadi. M. Winter mentioned that there are various management techniques and they are just asking Planning I3oard if they would encourage exploring a district wide approach (for parking as well as other issues). The techniques used will be based on what the needs of the district are which are still being determined. P. Shull wanted to determine the different needs for residential versus business districts. IIe noted that a district approach is efficient by clustering parking rather than having smaller lots/parking options dispersed in various locations. I-Ie wanted to confinm that this could be accomplished with the district approach. M. Winter replied that a hybzid, incremental approach could be incorporated and that there is some flexibility in the district approach. This would be charting new teritory, but it has great potential. Transit parking will need to be managed for the rail and its impact on the area. Various management tools must be in place to handle these issues appropriately. M. Roskowski noted that there would be some parking on site for residential uses, and retail would have some parking up front when employing the hybrid approach. Having agreements in place prior to action is important and necessary to success and smooth operation. K. Becker clarified that RTD is not allowed to charge foz- parking and how opportunities for shared parking can be accommodated. M. Roskowski replied that RTD is able to charge for parking in certain circumstances. The city would partner with RTD, and with city ownership they would be able to charge for parking. P. Shull asked how Steelyards will fit into this development. D. Gehr replied that Steelyards probably wouldn't fit in vezy well. They have their own parking system in place already and their on-street parking may be potential game for metered parking. W. Johnso~~ inquired about areas outside of Transit Village anti what will happen to those surrounding parking areas and how that will be managed. M. Winter replied that parking management options are available for residential or commercial/industz-ial parking that is nearby large business/transit/parkizlg revenue generators. Fee parking is always a viable option. Reinvesting parking revenues back into these nearby areas can ;often the blows of paid parking. K. Becker thought that staff should take the next step and explore a district approach. She stressed that the timing of the district would be impoz-tant to figure out, such as when to put it in place and how parking will be managed until then. The financial aspects and the scope of it need to be clarified. She suggested that staff get a sense of whether owners will be supportive of this approach since it requires their support. A. Sopher felt a district approach would be place-dependent. (.4t the June 19, 2008 Planning Board meeting, A. Sopher clarified that he further questioned whether west of _30'x' Street made sense in terms of a parking district and also questioned how property owners in Phase 11; particularly those adjacent to the station, would be protected. from people a>>oiding the parking.) The implementation within Phase 1 and across multiple phases would be completely different. He questioned whether property owners would be supportive of this and mentioned that the district may need to be broken up into additional zones. He was concerned about low property owners who do not have much incentive to support this will be protected and how to increase the incentive for supporting this approach. He supported researching this approach fuz-ther. W. Johnson supported exploring this option further. A. Shoemaker agreed and supported this option. P. Shull felt that boundary setting was very important in determining the district, but noted that determining the zones to be included in this district could be difficult. This can't necessarily be decided right now since zones are still developing and the zoning will determine how well the district approach will work. IIe supported exploring this approach further, but was hesitant due to all tl~e uncertainties. Currently he surnised that a management plan might be more appropriate followed by a hybrid approach down the line. More research is needed in order to really make this work since it depends on how things develop tlu•oughout the next decade. He suggested laying out an outline for a district approach, but implementing it gradually. M. Roskowski presented information regarding the 131uff Street extension to the board. A. Sopher inquired why this area is a priority and being discussed right now. L. GrarYer replied that the alignment needs to be agreed on to deternine I~ow it will be funded and if it should occur in Phase I or Phase 2. W. Johnson thought this portion was supposed to be on a faster track and wondered why it hasn't moved forward more quickly. j , M. Roskowskii noted that financial aspects have been slowing this aspect down. P. Shull clarified that basically this is just an FYI until more information has been gathered. The board recessed at 8:25 pan. and resumed at 8:32 p.m. Density Bonus/"honing L. Grauer presented this item to the board and iVi. Allen and J. Birks were available to answer any questions regarding FARs and the MU-2 zone. A. Sopher inquired about setbacks and the impact that 2.0 would have on the streetscape. W. Johnson asked why 2.0 was the number arrived at. L. Grauer replied that the plan refers to/recommends '1.5 - 2.0 limits. P. Shull was disappointed that mixed use projects were not found to be viable here. 1Ie asked if it was worth consideri~ag creating a system where affordable credits might be allowable to encourage mixed use. L. Grauer noted that mixed use projects are viable as long as there is not an extensive on-site requirement for the permanently affordable units. P. Shull didn't want to put an affordable burden on certain areas that would limit their ability to build. S. Kiehstone noted that staff doesn't want to treat TVAP differently as far as affordable housing requirements. M. Allen clarified that the city will meet the affordable housing requirements on their site. K. Becker asked to be walked through the details of the analysis and the assumptions. J. Birks replied that active developers have been interviewed about what kind of costs/rents, etc. could he expected in a project like this. Assumptions of cost of construction (residential and non-residential) were made. Tenant improvement allowances and parking ratios were taken into consideration. "I'he most sensitive assumptions related to parking cost and ratio and how much of it is structured versus not structured. The non-residential portion is a drag on the project's feasibility because of its parking requirements. The non-residential lease rates don't generate the same amount of revenue as residential. The cap rate that was used to discover how much value a leasable property has was another sensitive assumption. W. Johnson asked if the density bonus were implemented, if it would result in 104% residential projects. a. Birks replied that we would still see mixed use projects. Based on the experience of other areas, neighborhood-oriented businesses would be developed as an amenity despite the analysis indicating the lower financial feasibility. Board T)iscussion P. Shull felt okay with the staff's recommendation on density bonus. A. Sopher questioned whether 2.0 is the maximum FAR supportable within this zone. W. Johnson was corr~fortable moving in the direction that staff has recommended, but was a little surprised by staff' s recommendation due to the fact that they had previously encouraged incentivizing affordable housing on this type of property. P. Shull felt that this could be revisited down the road at some point. K. Becker was concerned about creating a big gap between market rate and affordable housing. She suggested considering this drawback within any sensitivity analysis. P. Shull wasn't sure if zoning would be in place before the board would be reviewing inclusionary zoning. Zoning Inte~lsity L. Grauer presented the components of the proposed zone districts. _ _ ~i~~,l(~ ~fivl1 r r.,r~ n SJ P. Shull asked how staff s zoning recommendations (within the MU-2 zone) would be affected if there was not a parking district. L. Grauer replied that the parking district and the coning issues are strongly interconnected and that staff has made their recommendations on parking maximums based on management of parking in general. K. Becker asked how the allowances for 3 versus 4 stories will be figured out when applicants submit applications. L. Grauer replied that this would be determined on each property. 70% of the buildings can be 4 stories, while 30% must be less than 4 stories. W. Johnson noted that the intensity generally sounds good, but questioned if they should do more to promote a mixed use component. A. Shoemaker agreed that perhaps shops/retail use should be incentivized. A. Sopher noted that if a greater FAR is allowed, then mixed use will he more likely. W. Johnson wanted to avoid a requirement of retail on the first floor which could result in • empty storefi•onts. P. Shull suggested that this conversation could take place in more depth later on. I-Ie didn't have particular concerns relating to this topic besides the parking district and how FAR is measured vis a vis parking incorporated in the building. He felt the proposed intensity was acceptable. S. Richstone suggested that there are ways to strengthen the design guidelines to ensure more mixed use in particular locations. A. Sopher suggested being less restrictive with the FAR Limit and encouraging more creative chaos. W. Johnson supported having a higher maximum than .5 FAR for non-residential and was open to being less restrictive. K. Becker noted that .5 FAR seemed high enough to accommodate things curently. A. Sopher argued that .5 FAR may not be high enough as time goes by. P. Shull agreed that a higher maximum than .5 could be a preferable alternative. A. Shoemaker felt that there is some flexibility built in already. A. Sopher noted that if flexibility is what the board wants then that is the way tl~e code should be designed. The code should not be so restrictive. L. Grauer stated that the reasons staff included a .S maxinnnn FAR f~~r nonresidential uses were to encourage predominantly residential uses, and to ensure that low density nonresidential projects with surface parking not be developed, since the vision is for mixed use higher density, and structured parking. I'. Shull encouraged working in more flexibility to the maximum nonresidential FAR. W. Johnson felt that a. residential piece here is important, but she's willing to increase the maximum to .7S or 1. K. Becker didn't feel raising the maximum would be productive and felt a maximum of .5 was acceptable. A. Shoemaker understood both trains of thought, but was in favor of greater flexibility. He would like maximums to be less restrictive. P. Shull encouraged raising the maximum allowable FAR to 1 or .75. Saunrrtary -Planning Bva?•d would like to see tlse . S maximu~rt nnnr•eside~itia! FAR Ge increased to .75 FAR i,: order to create more flexibility. H e~.ght A. Sopher didn't feel the board needed to control this issue. He felt that some flexibility is good. He accepted a 4 story portion to some buildings and felt that all the buildings do not need to be set back. ~ ~ A. Shoemaker ag-rced with A. Sopher that setbacks are not always necessary. He encouraged some variations, but accepted the staff's 70 percent recommendation. W. Johnson accepted the 70 percent 4 story building maximum and suggested eliminating the 4`'' story setbacks. She encouraged letting the design guidelines address this issue. P. Shull aln•eed with W. Johnson's thoughts on this topic. L. Grauer noted that the 4`i' story setback could be modified through site review. Stcmmary -Planning Board supported the building form and bulk a~td the 70 pe~•cent maximum 4 stories, but would like the are, story setback require»tent t•emoved. Parking P. Shull noted the importance of accommodating owners wanting to build before a parking district is in place. P. Shull stressed that divisiveness must not be created between owners who are ready to develop and those who are not. I-IDR-1 Zone A. Shoemaker noted that garages are often used for storage of gear. If units have a maximum of one parking space, that might not be enough. L. Grauer replied that they would look at the maximum parking requirements for the HDR-1 zone district further. A. Sopher asked if the use requirements of this zone district preclude the possibility of live/work, home occupations, oa- mother-in-law units, etc. Ile noted that restrictions should not he so tightly defined in order to allow for more creative chaos. L. Grauer mentioned that staff wants to encourage a variety of housing types, and to include opportunities for family living by including townhomes. This area is adjacent to Steelyards, where there are townhouses. A. Sopher would like to see flexibi]ity built in to provide additional options besides solely townhouses. W. Johnson noted that the holiday area includes the studio mews. S. Richstone mentioned that the description in the plan designates this area as residential. Home occupations would be allowed, but staff did not envision live/work in this zone district. A. Shoemaker suggested creating articulation in the setbacks. R. McHeyser replied that the 15 foot setback was based on New Urbanist zones around the country. Setbacks less than 15 feet reduce the opportunity for street trees which add greatly to street life and character. K. Becker felt that the 15 foot setback was too large. P. ShuII noted that the board was trying to describe the character that they would like to see in this area and asked staff for suggestions on how to achieve this character. C. Zucker mentioned that a lot depends on the design of the individual units. He suggested a 70%/30% s-ule, with some setback (l 0 and 15 feet), and some variation. Adding more trees/vegetation between the sidewalk and the building makes a lot of sense. P. Shull suggested a 10 foot setback with no more than 50% of the building sitting on that setback. A. Shoemaker noted that encouraging/preserving trees in this area is extremely important. Summary - Plur:riing Bnrtrd gave di~•ection to staff to build in more flexibility. 6. MATTEKS FROM THE PLANNING BOARD, PLANNING ll1IZECTOR, AND CITY ATTORNEY R. McHeyser checked in with the board on the Planning Board calendar. Due to absence and recusal, A. Sopher will chair the June 19 Planning Board meeting. J - ~ ~ The July 3 Planning Board. meeting is cancelled. 7. DEBRIEF/AGENDA CHECK ADJOURNMENT The Planning Board adjourned the meeting at 10:41 p.m. APPROVED BY Board Chair DATE il!,~.. ~lv~t~ cl~l'Y or' BovLDI;,x PLANNING BOARD ACTION MINUTES September 4, 2008 1777 Broadway, Council Chambers DRAFT TVAP Portion of September 4, 2008 Minutes 5. ACTION ITE17S A. Discussion and direction on possible revisions to the existing Residential- High 3 (RH-3} zone district. Case Manager: Louise Grauer L. Grauer presented the item to the board. Staff Discussion: B. Holieky said the issue is the open space around the perimeter of the building. He questioned what percentage of open space should be usable space. L<'. ,Jones asked if some of the aesthetic open space should be required to be usable space. L. Grauer stated that half should be functional and usable, the other half can be purely aesthetic. A Sopher asked for the definition of functional. L. Grauer replied that functional space needs to be very usable space that you would want to sit in or spend. time in. L. Grauer asked if the board would like to add a maximum density or a maximum floor area. She noted that this is the only zone that doesn't have a maximum density or maximum FAR. A. Sopher asked how the dwelling units are determined. L. Grauer stated that if you have a higher number of smaller units it is considered high density or if you have fewer larger units it is considered lower density. She said it is not regulatory because it depends on unit size. She added that there is staff consensus that a transportation/connection plan be adopted before there are any additional areas rezoned to Residential High - 3 (RH-3). W. Johnson asked if balconies are included in open space. L. Grauer stated that 25°Io of private open space is factored into open space. K. Becker asked about other areas that are, or could be, zoned RH-3. L. Grauer stated that there are areas in the Transit Village area and one or two parcels on 28th Street. K. Becker stated that the purpose of the RH-3 plan is that the rezoning is consistent with the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP) to allow for higher residential density, to provide closer proximity to work, and to encourage pedestrian oriented neighborhoods. She questioned if the zone needed to be modified and questioned if the zone was appropriate based on density. S. Richstone stated that one of the concepts of the RII-3 zone was to determine what places might be appropriate for more high density and mixed use housing. She said there was an interest in a more urban high density zone. K. Becker said you can achieve a pedestri an oriented neighborhood or encourage streetscapes without having a RH-3 zone. P. Shull asked if this zone could be reworked or needs to be redone all together. K. Becker asked if it was the lack of a connection plan. A. Shoemaker asked what areas are left to be developed. L. Jones stated that the Transit Village Area Plan (TVAP) is left to be developed. L. Grauer added that the north side of College is to be developed. E. Jones agreed with K. Becker in that if we are going to use this zone anywhere else in the city then it makes sense to fix it. She said the quality of the open space needs to be usable and if the open space is not usable, then the zoning needs to be fixed. She suggested a maximum density may be the way to go, but said haven't gotten it right yet. • B. Holieky said there is a general concern about the design and suggested considering a Downtown Design Advisory Board (DDAB) revievG. He said it is important to consider connections and how they are oriented to the zc5ne. A. Shoemaker asked B. Holieky about the design problems. B. Holieky stated that with the breakdown into smaller blocks there is a problem with frontage and no places to be or sit. He added that the design felt like a "superblock". A. Sopher noted that Peloton and Landmark Lofts I were both created under this cone and have very different problems. He said Landmark Lofts has a problem with the usability of the open space which is evident when looking at the distance between the one-story and four-story buildings. He asked how this zone can be tweaked in order to prevent this from happening in the future. " P. Shull said underground parking poses a problem in this zone. He said underground parking creates a structural grid acid determines the height of the building. B. Holieky stated that the biggest problem is lot size. He said the parking garage is dictating the size and grade of the lot and whether there is a right of way through the lot. A. Sopher stated that the connection plan is important. B. Holieky stated that if you look at connections it changes the whole context. A. Sopher said the density it not the issue here. P. Shull stated that this kind of density would lend itself to a lower price point. And would cause a lower quality. A. Sopher stated that you can't discount the value of good design. B. Holieky stated that you can't legislate the design. W. ,Johnson agreed with a connections plan and some attention to the quality. She said the quality of the outdoor space is important. She added that the streets will affect the quality of the open space. A. Sopher stated that the streets will come at the expense of open space. P. Shull said we should not require less open space but should improve the quality of open space. He clarified that buildings shape the quality of open space and bad open space is created by the buildings (e.g. closed in four-story buildings that create shadows on the open space). L. Grauer stated that some cz-iteria might be appropriate in terms of landscaping and amenities. ll. Gehr explained that there is a conflict with development and right of way exactions. He said perhaps in this zoning distz~ct, dedicated internal streets can be counted toward open space requirements. A. Sopher stated that it is a huge impact to pull out streets with a forty foot right of way. B. Holicky stated that in this zone there is not a lot area required per unit. A. Sopher stated that the orientation of the buildings do not clearly indicate where the front of the buildings are located. L. Grauer stated that the intent of the zone is that the front doors are to the street. S. Richstone stated what she is hearing from the board is that it would be public rights of way and maximum block lengths that should be used to create the urban street pattern. B. Holicky stated that 200-300 feet blocks work. Looking at open space requirements and orientation. He said the need for roads is the reason for not having the open spaces. S. Richstone stated that the issue is that these are the conditions that would be required before you would apply this zone to an area. B. Holicky said it could be very difficult to meet that requirement because of adjacent right of ways. P. Shull stated that we need to consider what might happen at the Transit Villag@. E. Jones said there needs to be a connections plan that might not need to be necessarily for cars. B. Holicky stated that sometimes you need to keep the public right of way and that it might be better to have small streets. He said even though the street might not go anywhere it still keeps the area alive. IIe added that he would rather have cars and some sort of street life than a pedestrian access that nobody uses. A. Sopher stated that a pedestrian right of way could be a great value. He questioned if the value of cars parking along the frontage was more valuable than trees and planting along a pedestrian right of way. He said if we had a connections plan that went through Landmarks Lofts up the hill that was pedestrian oriented, and went through the site, it could be of value and we could also have trees acid plantings. B. Holicky agreed that a pedestrian oriented area was more valuable. A. Sopher stated that we could do both on RH-3. W. Johnson asked at what point do you lose viability with underground parking. B. Holicky stated that the lot size would need to be approximately 200x340 square feet to affect the underground parking. P. Shull questioned if you have a court yard or open space if it should be at curb level. S. Richstone stated that these were not specific to any project and asked what would be the types of critez7a that would help to get quality open space. L. Grauer agreed that the ground level open spaces can mitigate the mass of the building. A. Sopher stated that we need to be careful of what we put in the regulatory language because it can rule out some possibilities. B. Holicky stated that it will be necessary to tweak all of these ideas and guidelines to make them work. IIe suggested providing some seating or gathering space. W. Johnson asked about the minimum dimensions, and wondered if we are inadvertently regulating the small spaces and unexpected nooks away. A. Sopher said we have to be careful of the additional layers of regulations to design that might possibly rule out regulating small interesting spaces away. W. Johnson stated that the criteria should include planted trees. K. Becker agreed that we can't build a code to create pretty spaces. She questioned why this zone exists. A. Sopher agreed that we need to consider the question of why we have this zone. B. Holicky stated that smaller lots help with the possibility of redevelopment and more variety. E. Jones Said there needs to be quality useable open space in each project not just aesthetic open space. P. Shull said within thirty or forty years density will be a part of the cities fabric and that's why we need to address this issue now. l-3e agreed that we need to improve the quality of open space but said its more important to address the things that shape the buildings. A. Sopher stated that we need to recognize that 28`h Street is a large enough street to support significantly taller buildings. He said we need a model for the design community and have a certain responsibility beyond regulations to understand what the product is. B. Holicky would like to keep the process and not add regulations to them. He said solar technology is changing rapidly and he doesn't feel the need to change the orientation of projects on the street grid. . K. Becker reiterated that we need to address the quality of the open space. E. Jones stated that some of the open space should be usable. A. Sopher stated that there needs to be a definition of usable space. S. Riehstone said the Planning Department will come back to the hoard with solutions. f ~f/ i~ CITY OF BOULDER COUNCIL PROCEEDINGS June 3, 2008 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL - 6:00 p.m. llcputy Mayor Gray called the regular, 3une 3, 2008 meeting of the Boulder City Council to order at b:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers. Those present were Mayor McGrath, Deputy Mayor Gray, and Council Members Ageton, Appelbaum, Cowles, Espinoza, Morzel, Osborne and Wilson. Deputy Mayor Gray announced that item SC on the agenda relating to the Boulder Valley Comprehensive plan had been moved to a future meeting. She noted that no action would be taken on Item 6A which related to the report on the Trust for Public Lands (TPL) land options. It was also clarified that item SD relating to Orchard Grove was a request from Council Member Cowles to determine if a majority of council was in favor of further analysis. Finally, she noted that the "Beyond the Fences" item 8F on the agenda related to an update from Council Member Morzel about legislative work to protect the mountain backdrop and did not relate to #ences in the community or the Vista Village neighborhood. 2. PIII3LIC PARTICIPATION and CUUNCILISTAFF RESPONSE - 6:05 p.m. I . Meg Wolfer, resident of Vista Village, raised safety concerns indicating that access to Centerulial Park now blocked by the new fence forces pedestrians and bicyclists to travel on Airport Road and Valmont. Both high volume traffic roads. 2. ~ Elizabeth Petty, I I years old, opposed to blockage to Christianson Park through Vista Village. It makes it unsafe for her to walk to the park. Please let us have the passage way open again. 3. Tanya Petty, Vista Vi]lage resident, also spoke to the importance of having access allowed. Airport Road is a dangerous road and her kids are also at risk walking near the jail facility. Would like to see the trail back open for residents' enjoyment. 4. Kevin Cook, xesident of Vista Village, raised concern that the fence was erected by the Mobile Home Park owner in an effort to make it easier to sell. He encouraged the city to purchase Vista Village to maintain it as a mobile home park or re-zone the park as manufactured housing to protect homeowners. J-~ - _ - i 5. Jerry Allen addressed the negotiations between the city and Mr. I larvcy Miller, the owner of Vista Village. He requested council direct the City Attorney to file a motion for prescriptive easement before the adverse possession law goes into effect on July 2UU8. 6. Stacey Balcom placed council under citizen's arrest and indicated that she would see the city in federal court. 7. June Keller, resident of Orchard Grove noting that when her husband died, her monthly income dropped $4,000 per month. She could never have made it if not for living in her mobile home. She also noted the disservice to residents. 8. Shelley Slinkazd, third generation Orchazd Grove resident, spoke of the community that thrives a~~d faces the possibility of losing their homes. 9. Dick Williams, resident of Boulder since 1969, noted that as a resident of Orchard Grove he encourages council to do research. It will find the majority of the 400 families in Orchard Grove could not afford to stay in Boulder and will lose the value of their homes. 10. Anne Parker, of Nazopa University and Orchard Grove resident, noted that Orchazd is all owner occupied and agreed that most residents would be unable to stay in Boulder if forced to move out of the neighborhood. 11. Jim Paton agreed with the previous speakers comments. 12. Carole Clements, a Naropa University professor, expressed a sense of heartbreak over the manner in which this vibrant community learned of the intent to sell and asked council to study the missionary ideology. 13. Mary Young thanked council for the resources provided by the city to support the Washington Village working group. The key element throughout the process has been to preserve the open space and park. 14. Margot Bergner, a I S year resident of Vista Village, noted that due to the fence that blocks access to Christiansen Park she now has to walk her dog and rtul near heavy traffic on Valmont and Airport Roads. She presented council with a petition from Vista Village residents. She asked the city to diligently pursue this matter. 15. Jim Yensan, also a Vista Village resident noted that the fence blockage creates a very real safety hazard as pedestrians and bicyclists are forced to travel on the very busy streets of Airport Road and Valmont. He has personally witnessed two vehicle/pedestrian accidents. He also noted that the work release program and detox center also present a safety hazard for residents. 16. Giorgian Zekay, homeowner at Orchard Grove, agreed with previous speakers. He asked to be notified of the name and contact information of a potential buyer. 17. Gary Allen, Orchard Grove resident, also agreed with other speakers. He is very happy where he lives. In one year the mortgage will be paid and perhaps then he could actually afford health insurance. He asked the council to re-zone the mobile home park. 18. James Pasquvtto, resident of Orchard Grove, explained that the first time residents were even made aware of the potential sale of Urchard Grove was through an article in the Business Report. He reminded council that this community is made up of low income residents. ] 9. Brad Segal, south Boulder resident, raised concerns about possibly losing our mobile home parks. 'Phis is truly affordable housing for low income. He would like a zoning change to protect these homes. He also suggested a tax to subsidize these homes. 20. Paul Segal, resident of Orchard Grove, expressed concern about the residents of Orchard Grove who are really suffering. "I~he city needs to step in. r / - r - 1~ i~ ~ ~ 2I . Rebecca Mazet, Orchard Grove resident, explained that because of the affordability she is able to be at home with her four year old child. I City Manager Response: - 6:50 p.m. Interim City Manager Grainger indicated that staff continues to work with the property owners regarding the fence at Vista Village. Ms. Grainger also indicated that Orchard Grave was on this agenda for later in the evening and staff would be available to answer questions from council at that time. City Council Kesponse: ' Council Member Morzel noted for the public that the Orchard Grove Park discussion would be at the very end of the evening. Council Member Espinoza noted that she grew up in a mobile home park and thanked the community for coming forward. Council Member Appelbaum asked the City Attorney about the adverse possession law that will be going into affect and whether this should be a concern at this time. Deputy City Attorney Gehr answered that the new law is geared more towards statement of proof and noted that City Attorney Jerry Gordon was preparing a factual report for city council based on his investigation into this issue. The city attorney was also in contact with the property owner to discuss options relating to opening access for the residents. Deputy Mayor Gray pointed out for the public that council received some background material about mobile homes parks in the city in its May 22 Weekly Information Packet. `there was useful information in the item and it is available on the city's website. Council Member Morzel asked what the current zoning is of the Vista Village neighborhood. Cindy Pieropan with Housing and Human Services indicated that Vista Village is currently zoned MH or Manufactured Mousing. Council Member Cowles asked the City Attorney's Uffice to investigate whether it could file suit as representative of a class of private people using this path. He asked that the memo be provided at least a couple weeks prior to the new adverse possession legislation. going into affect and asked for a nod of five from council to request this additional work of the city attorney. Mayor McGrath suggested that CAC discuss this request from Council Member Cowles. Council Member Morzel raised concern about CAC being on recess until June 3Q and suggested council move forward with seeking a nod of five on this issue during this business meeting. Mayor McGrath agreed but asked council to postpone this discussion until Matters from the Mayor and members later in the evening. I r Public Participation was re-opened at 14:42 p.m. . 22. Jan Morzel pooling time with Margaret Pilcher and Amy Haywood spoke to the Crestview East/Upland annexation which was brought to council on May 20. He indicated that no forward action is coming from the Planning staff. He asked council to take action. 23. Scott Malone addressed a situation he witnessed recently where a family with a young • child indicated they would not return to Boulder due to the number of smokers on the Pearl Street Mall. 24. Joanna Malone shared historic impacts on her health from exposure to second hand smoke. Urged the city to consider outdoor smoking regulations. She noted that at Connor O'Neil's the back smoking patio still affects customers when they open the doors and windows; the smoke fills the entire restaurant. urged Boulder to create a more comprehensive smoke free ordinance that includes outdoors. 25. Earl McGowen spoke regarding potential impacts to residents of Orchard Grove noting that the madness nationwide is now here in Boulder. 26. Lynn Segal raised concern that Orchard Grove residents were not able to speak. She also noted that Spanish sub titles should be on the monitors. 27. Greta Thompson, Orchard Grove resident, invited council to visit the neighborhood. City Manager Response: Regarding the Crestview West annexation, Interitn City Manager Grainger noted that a Weekly Information Packet item would be coming forward to council following the recess. She also indicated that a meeting with residents would be taking place in June. Regarding smoking in public places, Interim City Manager Grainger indicated that smoking was identified as a key issue for 2008 in the 2008 key issues book. The city is currently in compliance with state regulations but staff does expect to bring revisions to the smoking ordinance to council before the end of the year. City Council Response: Council Member Morzel raised concern that the Crestview West annexation issue hadn't come forward faster and recommended accclcratir,g the process to address concerns raised by the neighbors. Interim City Manager Grainger offered to send council an informational memo during recess to address those concerns. Council Member Cowles thanked the Malones' for their work and comments relating to smoking OtitdOOIS. 3. CONSENT AGENDA: - 7:00 p.m. A. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FROM MAY 2O, 2008. B. CONSIDERATION OF A ;ViOTION TO ACCEPT THE SIJMMARY OF THE APRTI, 29, 2408 C1TY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION REGARDING WETLANDS PROTEC'T'ION AND FLOOD E?rtF,RCFNCY PREPAREDNESS. k` ~ - C. CONSIDERATION OF A MOTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY OF BOULDER TO ENTER INTO AN INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER FOR THE PROVISION OF SUPPUR"I'!VE POLICE SERVICES AND AID IN PREPARATION FOR AND DURING THE DEMOCRA"I'IC NATIONAL CONVENTION. The City Attorney presented council with an amended Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) that had been finalized with the City and County of Denver after the agenda packet was produced. D. CONSIDERATION OF A MOTION APPROVING ADVANCED RADAR CORPORAT'ION'S ZO-YEAR LEASE OF PARCEL l2B AT BOULDER MUNICIPAL AIRPORT. E. CONSIDERATION OF A MOTION TO APPROVE THE DISPOSITION OF C ACRES OF THE WOUDLEY OPEN SPACE PROPERTY INCLUDING ALL IMPROVEMENTS LOCATED AT 7957 ARAPAHOE ROAD PUKSUANT TO SECTION 177 OF THE BOULDER CITY CHARTER. I'. SECOND READING AND CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCE NO.7$94 AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A DEF,D OF VACATION TO VACATE PORTIONS OF A SIDEWALK EASEMENT AT 290$ PEARL STREET, CROSSROADS COMMONS. G. SECOND REAllINC AND CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCE NO.7$91 APPROVING CERTAIN BENEFIT CHANGES CONTINGENT UPON FIRE AND POLICE PENSION ASSOCIATION (FPPA} APPROVAI. AND REQUESTING FPPA APPROVAL OF THF. CHANGES TO THE C[TY OF BOt1L.DF.R "OLD HIRE" POLICE. DF,FINED BENEFIT PLAN (OHPDBP}. H. SECOND READING AND CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCE NO.7592 AMENDING CHAPTER 9, "POLICE AND FIRE PENSIONS" OF TITLE 2, "GOVERNMENT ORGANIZATION," B.R.C. 1981, BY REPEALING SEC'T'IONS 2-9-1 TIIRUUGH 2-9-5 AND REENACTING SECTION 2-9-I THROUGH 2-9-.~ TU CLARIFY PENSION BENEFITS FOR POLICE OFFICERS HIRED PRIOR TO APRIL 197$. Mayor McGrath asked Interim City Manager Grainger to continent regarding Kcn Wilson's hotline request on item 3C. Interim City Manager Grainger responded that 29 staff members from the Boulder Police Department will be assigned to assist at the Democratic National Convention. There are a total of 1 f 3 officers in the Boulder Police Department. The Democratic National Convention occurs during the university of Colorado students return to campus and the increased patrol assigned during the start of school year w~i l l remain the same. She noted that all discretionary vacation time and all training during this week has been canceled to provide the needed staff. Boulder County & Longmont SWAT teams are available should Boulder have any needs during this time. In addition, she noted the many agreements between Boulder and other regional cities to assist one another in times of need. Council Member Wilson noted that he met with Deputy Chief Dave Hayes and feels comfortable with the plan the Police Department has in place for this time period. r\ i'. .iii ;7 JJ~U~~:wJ 1 l Council Member Espinoza asked if a margin for illness or unexpected absences has been ' included in the plan. Interim City Manager Grainger responded that this has been discussed and reiterated that other communities are on call to assist should help be required. Deputy Chief Dave Hayes noted that police administration will be prepared to address issues on the force including unforeseen illness. Council Member Wilson asked about home football game conflicts. Deputy Chief Hayes responded that there are no home games until September. Council Member Ageton asked about mutual contingency plans should something significant happen in Boulder. Deputy Chief Hayes noted that other communities are on call and the police department will be meeting with the campus police weekly leading up to the Democratic National Committee. Deputy Mayor Grav moved seconded by Morzel to approve consent items 3A through 3H_with item 3C as amended. The motion carried 8:0 Osborne absent. 4. CAhh- UP CHECK IN: "I'herc were no call-ups on this agenda. ORDER OF BUSINESS 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. CONSIDERATION OF A MOTIUN PROViD1NG DIRECTFON ON PROJECT OBJEC"tFVES AND NEXT STEPS FOR REVISING CFIAP'I'ER 9-3, B.R.C. 1981, "WETLAYDS PROTECTION."- 7:1.0 P.M. Bev Johnson and Susan }Zichstone of the Planning llcpartment provided the presentation on this item, outlining the project objectives and next steps. Currently Phase I is being completed. Three conceptual approaches were outlined and are based on what other jurisdictions are doing. The first approach is what is currently being done, utilizing one regulatory zone. The second approach incorporates two regulatory •rones and the third approach incorporates three different regulatory zones. Planning Board input was to 1) revisit significant criteria, 2) take a "nuanced" approach, 3} compare administrative costs, and 4} evaluate approaches against environmental goals. Bev Johnson clarified that Phase I develops policy options and phase II is creating a draft ordinance. Each phase will include a series of public meetings. Deputy Mayor Gray asked for clarification about objective number 4 on page SA-3 asking what it means to provide a common sense, flexible approach to regulation that promotes compliance. Ms. Johnson responded that this came from comments that the city is regulating too much and the current regulations are too rigid. "I'he objective is to develop an approach that is not so restrictive. Council Member Wilson asked if the flood mitigation ordinance depends upon the wetlands ordinance or whether they are each self contained. Jeff Arthur with Public Works indicated that he could not think of anything that would directly connect the two. ~t i Council member Wilson asked about the history ofTwo-Mile Canyon Creek's wetland designation. ~ Ms. Johnson responded that a portion (up to Kalmia) was included in the 1980's mapping and everything downstream was added in the new mapping. Council Member Appelbaum asked about objective 2 on page SA-band whether staffwas suggesting defining buffer zones on a site by site or corridor by corridor approach. Ms. Johnson clarified that the intent is to take a reach by reach approach rather than smaller sections or properties. She noted that many buffers are driven by the condition of land use around the area. How does staff intend to really get a handle on balancing resource protection vs. wetlands that just need to be protected (environmental goals vs. land owners). Ms. Johnson spoke to the importance of determining the function of vazious streams and providing more protection for those functions. Susan Richstone noted that the functional evaluations provided in a previous study session packet will be even more important going forward in determining what distinct areas need more protection. Council Member Appelbaum asked how changes will be addressed when they occur along different corridors in relation to objective 5 and monitoring cumulative impact. Allen Carpenter, Consultant, responded to questions regarding criteria for valuing wetlands. Council Member Ageton asked if objective two is recommending a minimum buffer width or variable buffers. Ms. Johnson clarified that there would probably still be a standard minimiun buffer width with some variability for specific sites. Council Member Morzel asked how efforts are going to be coordinated with other entities such as Fioulder County to ensure consistency and whether any efforts have been taken to work with the County. Ms. Johnson indicated that no work has been done with the County but some discussion has taken place with the University. Council Member Morzel suggested that working with the County would be useful. She also asked whether minor modification wetland permits have been addressed. Ms. Johnson noted that a simpler permit has been designed for minor modifications but noted that once the use standards are developed for each zone, the review process will be looked at again for these types of projects. Council Member Wilson asked Mr. Carpenter if there is enough information from his assessment to provide council reach by reach data for wetland valuation if a more nuanced approach is taken. Mr. Carpenter noted that some areas were not assessed as easily due to overhanging trees and those areas were interpolated and subject to some level of error. 1-ic does however believe there is enough data to provide council with the means to determine significant wetland areas. lleputy Mayor Gray asked for clarification on the direction staff needs from council. Susan Richstone clarified that staff was asking council to initiate the refining and analysis of all three approaches unless there was one specifically council would like to eliminate. The public hearing was opened - 7:36 p.m.' 1. Alan Olson, an Arapahoe Avenue resident referenced a handout with numerous suggestions for improvements. He suggested acceptable homeowner uses within the buffer zone and asked council to reconsider the financial burden to residents and simplify the overall ordinance. r~ 2. Karen Boardman spoke on behalf of the wetlands noting 2% of Colorado lands are wetlands. 70% of all species xeIy on wetlands for survival. She expressed shat it is critical to protect the wetlands. 3. Gliver Brousse, resident in a N. Boulder enclave, addressed the bigger issues such as awareness and balancing aesthetics, true environmental value, maintenance and casts. 4. Gail Gordon agreed with the approach of speaker numher 2 and onsite mitigation. She supports a narrow zone. She expressed that the city is over-regulating resident's backyards. She suggested funds be utilized for mapping not a consultant. S. Dick Blumcnaein noted the ordinance affects many residents for many years. Please take the time to deal appropriately with the issues. Glossaries and definitions are not clear. He suggested a working group approach. This seems to add additional levels of beauraucracy and mapping is inadequate and there are too many broad brush strokes for a minimal solution. 6. Barb Kostanick expressed that the ordinance is horribly written noting that 1) it should not apply indoors, 2) it should not apply on the exterior of the structure, 3) it should not jeopardize the right to rebuild and 4} it should allow a waiver of permit requirements for tiny projects on residential properties. 7. Craig Bundy spoke to the wetlands designation on his property when a private engineer has opined that it is not a wetland. 8. Alan Weber lives on Gregory Creek where a wetlands buffer zone map was adopted in FaII of 2007. He raised concern about l S small trees thai were allegedly cut by a city crew and questioned the city's respect for property owners. 9. Tom >31 umenthal noted those who live on Boulder Creek do so because they love Boulder Creek. The public hearing was closed. Interim City Manager Grainger addressed the allegation by Mr. Weber noting that staff would investigate the issue with cut trees on his property and commented that this certainly is not the way the city conducts its business. Susan Richstone clarified that staff had just begun the revision process to the ordinance. The three year process was all related to the re-mapping. She also clarified that city property is subject to the wetlands ordinance and permitting process. f~'inally, she noted that the objective to the ordinance revisions is get away from a mare discretionary process and create consistency in how different properties are treated. Mayor McGrath clarified that the eight objectives and next steps listed on page three are the iterns council will be deliberating. Council Member Wilson noted that as a biologist who has studied water issues and served on the Water Resources Advisory Board, it is important to have the consultant provide information about the signi ficance of each reach on each creek. He noted it would also be helpful to know what percent of time water actually flows at each creek. The question about fully understanding what we are protecting is a good one. What are we really protecting; is it the wildlife corridor? Addressing concerns of several neighbors regarding the buffer width, Council Member Wilson noted that buffers are important to wetlands and SO feet is actually subminimal. In balancing property owners' rights and wetlands protection, SO feet seems reasonable. He indicated that he thinks there's r~ i a mistake on page SA-8 relating to measuring the buffer width. His interpretation is that a tangent • should be drawn along the line of the wetland and another line perpendicular to that. Page 8 of the memo doesn't really do that as the red line is at an angle. He disagreed with the speaker suggesting a tape measurement noting that according to the attachment on page 37, areas with a steeper slope actually require a larger buffer. Further he thinks voluntary compliance is a nice concept but isn't a practical approach. He favors a two zone approach with a defined wetland and a defined buffer. He suggested a varying buffer width depending on the significance of the wetland. He hopes the consultant and staff will come back with these options. He noted the importance of understanding which areas are critical and which are secondary. He suggested council set the definition and let the definition and map serve as the controlling factors. Mayor McGrath briefly recognized the arrival of additional members ofthe public intending to speak to the Orchard Grove issue. He noted that public participation will be re-opened in approximately two hours and the Orchard Grove issue will likely come up in approximately three hours. Council Member Cowles moved seconded by Morzel to direct staff to move forward with revising the wetlands protection ordinance topursue the eight objectives listed on pales 2 and 3 of the memo and initiating Phase II by approving the next steps listed on pane 3. Deputy Mayor Gray responding to public participation comments asked if staff considered the wetlands working group option. Susan Richstone indicated that a wetlands working group was one of several options for Planning Board consideration. It was the most costly and time consuming option and therefore the Planning F3oard directed staff to pursue a more streamlined process. She noted that council should be aware that if it were to direct skiff to pursue a working graup at some point during the process, there. would be cost implications due to administrative needs that are currently not available. Council Me?nber Appelbaum offered a friendly amendment changing objective number 3 by replacing "specific site" with "specific stream reaches." The friendly amendment was accepted. Council Member Appelbaum moved seconded by Wilson to amend the main motion adding a new objective number 2 immediately following_obiective number 1) which states "ensure the permanent preservation and protection of defined wetlands values." Discussion on the motion to amend: Mayor McGrath asked for a distinction between preservation vs. protection. Council Member Appelbaum responded that the terms are slightly different when you think of pern~ancnt preservation versus the short term tactical protection. They each have different implications. Mayor McGrath raised concern about the issue ofoffsite mitigation. Council Member Appelbaum responded that the objectives should all work together while each may not be completely attained. Offsite mitigation should be a last ditch effort. Phis new proposed objective just provides additional strength to the preservation aspect. Mayor McGrath asked for staff feedback relating to this new proposed objective. Susan Richstone responded that the objective would be more clear if the last part of the sentence read "defined wetland functions and values:' Council Member Appelbaum agreed. This revision was accepted by Council Member Appelbaum and Council Member Wilson as a friendly amendment. Council Member Agcton agreed with the amendment in theory but raised concern that some of the objectives may not be met, particularly objective number 5. She nvted that it still fails to address the issue of grandf'atl~cring iii existing homes that are already in the buffer zone. [f the priority is to protect wetland values and function, then it lessens further the issue of protecting structures that aze going to be in the buffer lone. She noted that for her to support this new objective, there has to be an objective that addresses existing homes and significant structures within the buffer zone. This new objective increases the risk that property owners will be treated inappropriately. She noted that this is a significant problem in terms of her support of this objective. Council Member Wilson noted that as he read it, it would preserve the wetland buffer as it currently is, therefore he doesn't see a conflict. Council Member Ageton noted that "as it is" includes people's homes. Council Member Wilson agreed. Mayor McGrath asked if it makes sense to move this to a general goal statement. Council Member Appelbaum noted that either way, this is fine. Elc just wanted tv make it clear that this is an important environmental goal for the city. Susan Richstone responded to Suzy Ageton's comments that in all potential options, existing homes will all he grandfathered in. She also noted that the reason the objective being discussed wasn't included in the list is because of the original legislative intent of the wetlands protection ordinance. Council Member Appelbaum moved seconded by Wilson to amend the main motion adding a new objective number 2 which states "ensure the permanent preservation and protection of defined wetland functions and values." The motion carried 7:U; Espinoza and Osborne absent. Discussion on t6c main motion: Mayor McGrath raised concern about ephemeral streams noting that care should be taken in assigning relevant significance to particular wetland areas. lie would like to see staff pursue this concern further. Due to the affects of climate change, droughts may become more typical in the future and it may become eveci more important to protect these "ephemeral" areas. Council Member Cowles moved seconded by Morsel to direct staff to move forward with revising the wetlands protection ordinance to ptu•sue the eight objectives listed on_pares 2 and 3 of the memo and initiating Phase II by approving the next steps listed on pages SA 2&3 with a friendly anicndment from Council. Member Appelbaum changing obiectiyc number 3 b~ replacing"specific site" with "specific stream reaches"and an amendment to the main motion adding a new objective number 2 which states "ensure the permanent preservation and protection of defined wetland functions and values." The motion carried 7:0; Espinoza_and Osborne absent. t' i Objectives and next steps as approved by motion above: ' Objectives: 1. Define a regulated stream and revisit the approach to defining the significance or value of individual streams 2. Ensure the permanent preservation and protection of defined wetland functions and values 3. Clearly define a minimum buffer width that balances resource protection with landowner interests, and is sensitive to specific stream stretches and wetland conditions. 4. Provide clarity to the Landowner in the uses and activities that are prohibited or allowed in the buffer area. 5. Provide a common sense, flexible approach to regulation which promotes compliance. 6. Balance landowner interest and resource protection in the regulation of activities by incorporating exceptions for existing land uses, and offering mitigation options for activities that have minimal cumulative impact. 7. Provide flexibility and a clear and reasonable appeals process to landowners when there are physical site constraints, hardships or other unusual circumstances to necessitate variances. 8. Define mitigation requirements that are achievable and help to insure the goal of "no nei loss" of wetland acreage and function in Boulder Valley. 9. Provide an ongoing educational program that ensures that future residents know about the buffer and use restrictions, and provides incentives and recommendations to landowners for enhancing their wetlands. Next Steps: Initiate Phase II by: a. Approach 1: One Regulatory Zone (Cuneni Ordinance) b. Approach 2: Two Regulatory Zones c. Approach 3: Three Regulatory "Zones 8:40 p.m. Mayor McGrath suggested that council take up item 8n relating to Orchard Grove due to the number of residents who have attended on behalf of this item. "There was no objection fiom Council -see comments under item 8D below. 13. CONSIDERATION OF A MOTION TO PROVIDE UIRI;C'LION ON 1'HE FOLLOWING THREE 'TRANSIT VILLAGE AREA PLAN IMPLEMENTATION ITEMS: 1) TWO PROPOSED NEW ZONING DISTRICTS; Z) WHETHER OR NOT TO INCLUDE A DENSITY BONUS FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING; aN D 3) APPROACH TO PARKING MANAGEMENT. - 9:06 P.M. Acting Planning Director Ruth McHeyser provided a brief background on the Transit Village Area Plan process noting that staff is returning, as requested, prior to council recess to discuss the three implementation items listed above. Louise Grauer, Senior Planner, outlined elements of the two proposed new zoning districis, what the plan includes in terms of affordable housing and the approach to parking management. She noted that the density bonus wouldn't necessarily provide an increase in the amount of permanently affordable housing and this issue can be revisited afterthe review of the affordable housing goals and programs is completed. C~ lr Regarding parking management, Ms. Grauer indicated that staff has applied a comprehensive transportation demand management program and this approach has been successful in the downtown area. The four core elements are parking control, active promotion, sustainable funding and performance standards and monitoring. She then outlined three different approaches considered by the consultant noting that the consultant recommended pursuing the hybrid approach as outlined in the agenda memo. Ms. Grauer also reviewed the timelines on the project and, pending the outcome of direction from council, would anticipate working with property owners and returning to council in the 4~h quarter of the year with a proposed zoning ordinance and parking management plan. A city initiated rezoning process would then begin in 2009. She then briefly reviewed the staff recommendation that is outlined in the agenda memo. Deputy Mayor Gray asked about the building heights being considered. Ms. Grauer explained that the I-IDR1 zone with 2 to 3 story buildings has a maximum height of 38 feet. In the other zone, only 70 percent, per site, could go to 4 stories. Council Member Appelbaum inquired about the density bonuses noting that changes are being considered apart from this process. He asked how council approaches density bonuses when there is potential for significant impact on this project. Ms. Grauer responded that staff recommends moving forward without density bonuses at this time and hopes the two will come together later in the year so that this issue may be revisited. Council Member Appelbaum asked about parking spaces and how those will be mitigated over time (i.e. spaces are put in and then deleted or the use changes). Randall Rutsch, Senior Planner, responded that there are a number of potential options including transitioning parking into something else, changing building type, etc. and staffis recommending looking at this creatively in a way that hasn't been done in the past. Council Member Gsborne asked about the potential RTD parking structure noting that she anticipates it would be one ofthe first structures built. She asked if staff has considered how the parking structure would mesh with the other residential and commercial structures in terms of the city's parking planning. Randall Rutseh responded that those are valid concerns and the process with RTD is still a very dynamic and changing one. Staff will continue to work with RTD on a strategy for parking management. Council Member Morzel indicated that she likes the idea of the city building and managing the parking structure. She hopes that the city has a say in design as well. She commented that she just returned from Kansas City where the parking stntctures are beautiful and look more like buildings than the parking stnuctures on 30`h Street in downtown Boulder that are very raw. She asked about the status of the wastewater/sewer lines. Louise Grauer indicated that staff has been working with property owners and that the Utilities division is doing detail planning to incorporate this into their Capital Improvements Plan for 2011. Susan Richstone noted that there is a regional stormwater approach for the entire site and additionally, a discussion occurred at Planning Board where alternatives were discussed that would allow property owners to move forward on an interim basis. - _ . L Council Member Morzel noted the length of time these properties have been tied up and raised concern about tying them up any longer. Council Member Cowles asked that if the CIP will include the design and implementation of the wastewater system why the engineering couldn't occur over the next 1 to 1 years sa ~ that developers who are ready can move forwazd. Louise Grauer noted that they may be able to. Susan Richstone pointed out that the pipe wouldn't be connected to the regional facilities ~ in Goose Creek so if development occurred further away first, it wouldn't coru~ect to the regional system. Council Member Cowles also asked whether the financing had been laid out. Louise responded that there are up front costs provided by utilities. Staff will be looking at this as part of the work staff is doing over the next couple months. Council Member Cowles asked if there are other ways to get to the .5 or .75 FAR for non- residential uses in the mixed use zone with form based •r_oning. Staff indicated they could lock into this. The public hearing was opened. 1. Lynn Segal voiced opposition to the two new zoning districts and noted that she's opposed to housing density bonuses. There should only be a train station. There being no further speakers the public hearing was closed. Deputy Mayor Gray asked about the staff recommendation and whether the Planning Baird recommendation on page 4 suggesting an increase in the floor area ratios (FAR) from .5 to a .75 FAR in the MU-2 zoning district was being recommended by staff: Susan 1Zichstone responded that staff is simply asking council to provide direction to staff that is consistent with Planning Board direction and many items, including floor area ratios, must be analyzed further as part of the next steps of the implementation process. Deputy Mayor Gray moved, seconded by Cowles to direct staff to move forward on the recommendations outlined on pages 2 and 3 of the memo which include 1) creati~~ two new zone districts to implement Phase 1 TVAP land use categories, 2) do not include a density bonus in the pro~ased new "I'VMU-2 zone district for now, bui monitor and revisit after the incluyionary zoning_(1Z) study is completed and 3) move forward on the development of a service plan for a centralized pazkin~ and management district approach including future estimated costs and revenues. The motion carried 6:3; Appelbaum. Cowles and Morzel opposed. Discussion oo the motion: Deputy Mayor Gray noted the importance of moving forwazd with these recommendations and getting a more detailed analysis in these areas. Council Member Osborne indicated that she will ultimately support the motion but remains very concerned about the intensity of use being proposed on this site. She is more comfortable wish a .5 [lour area ratio in non-residential. She also recommended that a cash in lieu option NOT be available. In addition, she asked if council could see the desibm for the storm drainage plan at some point in the process. Finally, she suggested planning this project in line with LEED N.D. standards and suggested indoor bike parking be included in the parking strategy. J;, i, Council Member Ageton echoed Council Member Osborne's comments, particularly about . i maximizing affordability at this site. She raised concern about the azea wide storm water issue and not attaining money from Utilities unti12011 which keeps the project from moving forward. She also raised concernn about the parking district idea without other infrastructure in place to get developers moving forward. She indicated she feels like the city is getting ahead of the game on the parking discussion when other aspects haven's been fully vetted. She would like to see this gap filled. Council Member Appelbaum Hated that he will not be supporting the motion as he feels there isn't extraordinary community benefit in the project. lle also raised concern about the city fronting so much of the infrastructure costs and the potential consequences of this. He also raised concern about inclusionary zoning and development excise taxes which are currently being analyzed and would like to see where these are going tv end up before moving forward ' with putting sv much funding towards this project. He doesn't see the rush in moving forward as the train won't be coming to Boulder for another 7 years. Council Member Espinoza indicated support for the motion but raised concern about waiting too long and losing affordability in the process. She also raised concern about parking and how it is critical to the viability for small businesses. She also noted that she is reluctant to move forward with any kind of density bonus when there is potential for a shift in that situation. She would prefer to review this again after the affordable housing discussions take place. Deputy Mayor Gray noted that she agrees with all the comments so far. She feels that on site affordable housing is key to the project and would like io see the .5 PAR versus the .75. Shc also noted that Counci 1 Member Appelbaum's concern about "what is community benefit," is a valid one and mentioned the community connection plan which at least provides mobility for walkers and bikers. Council Member Cowles asked staff what issues might arise ifcouncil deferred action on this until later in the summer. Susan Richstvne clarified that Ironting costs for infrastructure is not going ahead of development but in concurrence with it. The development excise tax and construction taxes help pay that back. In addition, staffexpects that a public facilities ordinance will be in place prior to development. Council Member Cowles moved, seconded by Acton to amend the main motion such that 1) there would be a maximum of .5 FAR ofnon-residential use in the mixed use -none; 2) all in_elusiona zoninu on site. 3) include a feasibility stuff of Leed N.D. sttandards 4) indoor bike and bike trailer parking included in regulation, and 4) include options for height regulations. The motion carried 7:2; Espinoza and McGrath opposed. Discussion on the amended motion: Counci] Member Appelbaum raised concern about the specificity of the motions given so many anknown variables. Mayor McGrath noted the importance of providing enough direction so that staff can move forward in analyzing the information and provide options for council. Deputy Mayor Gray moved seconded by Morzel to suspend the rules and continue the ~ meeting at 1026 p m. The motion evTied 6:3: Cowles, Espinoza and Morzel opposed. C. CONSIDERATION OF A MOTION TO APPROVE CHANGES TO THE BOULDER VALLEY CUMPREHENSIVF. PLAN (BVCP) AS PART OF THE 2008 MID-TERM REVIEW. Ties item was pulled, to be rescheduled at a later date. D. ITEMS RELATED TO THE 2009 BUDGET: - 10:24 P.M. 1. CONSIDERATION OF A MOTION TO APPROVE THE CITY COUNCIL BUDGET ACTION PLAN AND; 2. CONSIDERATION OF A MOTION TO APPROVE THE FOLLOWING BUDGET STRATEGIES: i. "MUST Do" 1. MAINTAIN ADEQUATE RESERVES 2. FUND LIABILITIES ADEQUATELY ii. "SHOULD DO" I. FUND COMPENSATION PHILOSOPHY 2. INCREASE FAC1LiT1ES MAINTENANCE BUDGETS 3. USE BUSINESS PLAN APPROACH PROCESS'f0 REINFORCE STRATEGIC DECISION-MAKING. Note: Any items removed from the Consent Agenda will be considered after any City scheduled Public Hearings. Interim City Manager Grainger provided a brief introduction to this item and noted that staff is seeking appxoval of the "must do's" and "should do's," as well as the prioritization done for council's action plan. Mayor McGrath clarified that council will be asked to approve the prioritization based on the outcome of the dot-voting. Council Member Ageton clarified that council is being asked fo approve the must do and should do items on page 3 of the memo. Staff responded that this is correct. Deputy Mayor Gray asked whether the bullet "facility energy costs" on page 3 of the memo should read "facility improvements to be energy efficient." Interim City Manager Grainger clarified that it was written this way to address the shorif'all in energy costs. Council Member Cowles asked for clarification about the amount of on-going dollars available. Interim City Manager Grainger responded that there is between $200,000 to $300,000 in on-going funding available for action plan items. The public hearing was closed. Council Member Ageton moved seconded b~Morzel to approve the council action plan and the budget strategies including: A) "Must Do" I) maintain adequate reserves. 2) find liabilities adequatelYand B) "Should Do" 1) fund compensation philosoptiy. 2 increase facilities maintenance budget and 3) use the businessplan approach process to reinforce strategic decision making and to accept the council budget plan action items listed on ,gage SD 1-2. The motion canned 9:0. lliscussion on the motion: Council Member Cowles raised concern about the number of study sessions devoted to ~ budget discussions which takes up valuable council time. Deputy Mayor Gray outlined the process the previous counci! adopted which allowed more input from council. Council Member Appelbaum suggested council revisit the process and a focus for council should be on ensuring newer programs and services replace older ones. Public pru'ticipation was re-opened ai 10:46 p.m. -please sec comments above under "public participation." 6. MATTERS FROM THE CITY MANAGER: A. REPORT ON THE TRUST FOR PUBLIC LANllS OPTIONS AGREEMENT AT VALMONT BUTTE. - l 1:116 P.M. An update was provided by Interim City Manager Grainger. She spoke regarding the Trust for Public Land's (TPL) option agreement to purchase the butte. Specifically, in regard to the parties' agreement to extend the appraisal objection deadline to August 17, 2008. No action is requested of council at this time. The date proposed for council discussion with TPL and formal council action about a potential property sale at Valmont Butte is proposed for the August 5 council meeting. Review and consideration of the summary of the May 15 study session will be scheduled for the July 22 council meeting so that council has this information prior to considering the potential sale item at its meeting on August 5. Council Member Morzel asked for more information regarding recent desecration of the sacred site. Interim City Manager Grainger indicated that this is currently an open investigation. This information can be provided when the investigation concludes. Staff will include information about what is allowed on the site in future materials. Council Member Atzeton moved. seconded by Morzel to suspend the rules and continue the meeting at 11:05 p.m. The motion carried 9:0. 7. MATTERS FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY: -NONE 8. MATTERS FROM MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF COUNCIL: A. POTENTIAL. CALL-LIPS: NONE B. CONSIDERATION OF A MOTION APPWN'I'ING ONE NEW MEMBER TO THE DOWN'T'OWN MANAGEMENT COMMISSION. - 11:OS P.M. Nominations were opened: Deputy Mayor Gray nominated Virginia Patterson. Virginia Patterson was appointed by acclamation to a five year term. it Council Member Cowles commented on the quality of both applicants for this appointment and thanked each for participating in the interviews. i ~ Mayor McGrath echoed Council Member Cowles' comments. C_ ITEMS RELATING TO POTENTIAL 2008 BA1,L0'f MEASURES: 1. CONSIDI~.RATION OF A MO'T'ION TO DIRECT STAFF TO PREPARE ORDINANCE LANGUAGE THAT WOULD AMEND THE CITY OF BOULDER CHARTER FOR POTENTIAL REFERRAL TO THE PEOPLE AT THE UPCOMING NOVEMBER F.I,ECTION; AND 2. CONSIDERATION OF A MO'T'ION TO DIRECT STAFF'TO PREPARE ORDINANCE LANGUAGE FOR REVENUE BALLOT ISSUE(S~ THAT COUNCIL MAY CONSIDER PLACING ON THE BALLOT FOR THE UPCOA4TNG N©VF.MBER ELECTION. -11:14 P. M. Council member Ageton, speaking on behalf of the charter committee, indicated that there is more detail contained in this memo and the next step is to direct staff to drab the ordinance based on what is chosen tonight. Council has been provided a matrix to assist in voting on which items to move forward. Council Member Ageton also spoke to executive sessions noting that she supports the hybrid approach with direction to prohibit final decisions in session. Council Member Appelbaum raised concern about the process to move these items forward without much discussion about each item. Mayor McGrath pointed oui that this is not the final vote as the ordinances haven't come forward yet and there will be more opportunity to fully vet the items when the ordinances come back. Discussion ensued utilizing the matrix provided and council voted on the items they would like to see move forward. Council Member Morzel asked that staff provide information on how other councils in the region azc compensated. Following voting, Mayor McGrath moved, seconded by Espinoza to direct staff to move forward in reviewing_the following charter amendments as outlined in the memo; 1. Charter section 7 raising_the compensation for council members to $1,000 cp r month. 2. Charter section 9 allowing the city council to convene executive sessions utilizing the third hybrid approach provided in the memo. 3. Section 25 & 26 a]teration of the requirements for s~„nin~ nominative petitions by raising the number of signatures required and deleting a current requirement that the nominator's place of business by provided. b. Amendments to the ,process by which holders of elective office may be recalled. 7 Section 111 extending the longest term for a lease beyond the current 20 ~'rietz~~r ~ i ru; x~ruu,~i :,i~ i(~ l~_ise. ~ 8. Section 130 chan~in the requirement for United States citizenship as a ' precondition for residents who serve on city boards and commissions, with anal sis and o tp ions. D. REQiJEST FOR DIRECTION TO PROVIDE AN ANALYSIS AND UP"rIUNS AUDRESSIN(~ CONCERNS ABOUT THE PO"TENTIAL LOSS OF AFFORDABLE. HOUSING AND DISPLACEMENT OF RESIDENTS THAT COULD REStiL,T FROM RF.DF,VEI.OPMENT OF THE ORCHARD GROVE MOBILE HOME PARK. - 8:40 P.M. This item was taken up at 8:40 p.m. after item SA. Council Member Cowles indicated that he learned on May 22 that Orchard Drove was up for sale and under contract and that Jim Shannon, the potential buyer, had a period of due diligence until July 31S`. Phis brought to mind the history of the property and that Boulder has created a new zoning for manufactured housing that gave owners mere rights. He noted that all znobile home parks in Bvulder have been rezoned except this one because a privy council had a steady stream of people coming in to say that they had been threatened by the owner that if rezoning occurred, rents would be increased. He noted that he is bringing this issue forward to discuss whether there is a nod of five from council to initiate a rezoning of this property to manufactured housing which is consistent with the rezoning laid out in the Bvulder Valley Comprehensive Plan. He was also interested in staff feedback about potential options and what control the city could have over any potential redevelopment of this property. Deputy Mayor Gray indicated that she supports Council Member Cowles' request. She acknowledged correspondence received indicating that the city should have first right of refusal an any contract and asked that this be considered as well. Council Member Morzel also supported the request. She noted the timing was appropriate and suggested staff look into land banking and acquiring the park; similar to what was done with Mapleton Mobile Home Park in order to help stabilize rents. Council Member Appelbaum agreed that this request should be looked into. 1 ie noted the importance of an analysis from staff that reflects the impact on the city (i.e. long and short term infrastructure needs, how much money would be needed from the city to rectify some of these issues and where would that money come from) this should be a critical part of the analysis. He wants to see the situation improve and not create more issues in the future. Council Member Agetan noted the importance of moving forward with an analysis but questioned whether there are any legal issues if council action is taken. She is concerned that council acts responsibly and doesn't create inappropriate expectations. Council Member Appelbaum asked for clarification as to whether council will be directing an analysis for rezoning as opposed to analyzing all of the options. Council Member Cowles indicated that he's really asking for staff to come back with options but asked Acting Planning Director Ruth Mcl ieyser what staff would come back with and what the timeframe would be. Ruth McHeyser responded that staff would partner with Housing to provide an analysis after council's recess that addresses the various options, pros and cons of each and answering some of the questions and concerns raised tonight by council. John Pvllak, Housing and Human Services Director, echoed Ms. McHeyer's comments noting that sitting with the residents and seeking common ground would help broaden the development of options. Assistant City Attorney David Gehr noted that there are three ways to initiate a rezoning process; either by City Council, Planning Board or property owner request. Council would need to take action to pursue the rezoning which would turn this into aquasi- judicial process. Quasi-judicial n~les would then apply to any discussion of the issue. Council Member Morzel asked what would happen if two rezoning requests were received (i.e. from the council and from the property owner) that are not the same. Assistant City Attorney Gchr responded that if it were done in the context of the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan adoption, those properties are looked at specific in the broader context of the Plan. 1-Ie typically recommends looking at rezoning from a community wide perspective rather than at individual properties. As a matter of practice, any rezoning issues would follow the quasi judicial rules of procedure. Council Member Cowles asked that if this were to go to rezoning as a request from city council, council members would have additional responsibility in relation to speaking with the public, residents, developer etc. and asked what advice the Assistant City Attorney has in regard to this. He indicated that ex parse communications are allowed but he generally advised against this noting the importance of all parties having the same information with which to make a decision. Deputy Mayor Gray spoke to the public noting that it's important to communicate with all council members at once regarding the issue. Assistant City Attorney Gehr noted that if individual council members receive communications relating to the issue, they can forward those to their colleagues. Council Member Espinosa asked if there will still be an opportunity for the public to speak tonight. Mayor McGrath clarified that members of the public may still speak when public participation is re-opened laser in the meeting. Another opportunity to speak to this topic will be available when the item comes back before council. Deputy Mayor Gray clarified for the public that residents can speak during public participation at any meeting about any topic. A nod of five from Council was kiven to direct staff to pursue an analysis of options including_possible rezoning of the Orchard Grove Mobile Home Park. C" k ~'~'_I ~~':i1i~ ~ _ i'.i:,~..r E. UPDATE FRUM THE EVALL"AT10N COMMTfTEE -COUNCIL MEMBERS AGH:TON AND GRAY.- 11:55 P.M. ~ Council Member Accton briefly reviewed the evaluation process for the Municipal Judge and City Attorney. A self evaluation is requested from each employee as the first step in the process and then they are rated by peers and colleagues outside of the city organization. Performance factors relating to each employee are included in the packet council members received. Council Member Cowles asked for more specific criteria relating to each job in the future. F. "BEYOND 7'HE FENCES" UPDATE -COUNCIL MEMBER MORZEL -12:05 P.M. Council Member Morzel provided an update about a legislative task force that deals with preservation of the mountain backdrop along the Front Range. This item is in no way related to the issue of and access from Vista Village Mobile Home Park. Senators Salazar and Pearlmutter arc interested in Federal legislation to fund purchasing land with mountain backdrops. It would also allow more flexibility in dealing with Rocky Flats Stewardship issues. Draft legislation will be coming forward and the Rocky Flats Stewardship Coui)cil must agree by unanimous vote. 9. PUBLIC COMMENT ON MATTERS: NONE lU. FINAI. DECISIONS ON MATTERS: Action on motions made under Matters. Vote was taken on the motion to direct staff to move forward in reviewing_the following charter amendments as outlined in the_memo: l . Charter section 7 raising the compensation for council members to $1,000 per month. 2 Charter section 9 allowing; the city council to convene executive sessions utilizing_the third hybrid approach provided in the memo. 3 Section 25 & 26 Alteration of the requirements for si~ninQ nomination petitions by raising the number of signatures required and deleting a current requirement that the nominator's place of business by provided. 6 Amendments to the process by which holders of elective office may be recalled. 7. _ Section 11 ] extending the longest term for a lease beyond the current 20 year restriction up to a maximum of a 30 year lease. 8. Section 130 chan~ina the requirement for United States citizenship as a prcco~ldition for residents who serve on city boards and commissions, with analysis and options. The motion carried 9:0. ,i , 11. ADJOURNMENT 'T'here being no further business to come before Council at this time, IIY MOTION REGULARLY ADOPTED, THE MEETING WAS ADJOURNED AT 12:15 A.M. UV ' Y~~ Shaun Mc , ATTEST: Mayor Grp. Alisa D. Lewis, City Clerk 1+ I _ L IJ