Minutes - Planning Board - 9/25/2008 CITY OF BOULDER
PLANNING BOARD ACTION MINUTES
September 25, 2008
1777 Broadway, Council Chambers
A permanent set of these minutes and a tape recording (maintained For a period of seven years)
are retained in Central Records (telephone: 303-441-3043). Minutes and streaming audio are also
available on the web at http://www.bouldercolorado.gov/
PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT:
KC Becker
Willa Johnson
Andrew Shoemaker
Phil Shull, Chair
Adrian Sopher
PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT:
Bill Holicky
Elise Jones
STAFF PRESENT:
Louise Grauer, Senior Planner
David Gehr, Assistant City Attorney
Julie Johnston, Senior Planner
Ruth McHeyser, Executive Director of Community Planning
Susan Richstone, Long Range Planning Manager
Paula Weber, Administrative Specialist II[
1. CALL TO ORDER
Chair, P. Shull, declared a quorum at 6:05 p.m. and the following business was conducted.
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
On a motion by A. Sopher, seconded by A. Shoemaker, the Planning Board approved (4-0, B.
Holicky and E. Jones absent, W. Johnson abstained) the August 7, 2008 Planning Board
minutes as amended.
3. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
There was no public participation.
4. DISCUSSION OF DISPOSITIONS, PLANNING BOARD CALL-UPS/
CONTINUATIONS
There was no discussion.
1
5. DISCUSSION ITEM
A. Discussion and Direction on Transit Village Area Plan (TVAP) Phase I Zone Districts.
Staff Presentation
L. Grauer presented item to the board.
Public Hearing
John Pawlowski, 3155 Bluff Street Boulder 80301, said the program needs to be championed
and the "cash in lieu of option needs to be maintained.
Board Discussion
P. Shull asked staff to address council's suggestion that Planning Board provide input on how to
create a more interesting roofline/skyline in buildings above 55 feet.
D. Gehr said there is flexibility in the Charter amendment for appurtenances. He said the height
does not apply to spires, belfries, copulas, domes not used for human occupancy and other
necessary mechanical appurtenances carried above the roof level that do not take up more than
twenty five percent of the roof area.
A. Sopher asked if the definition of measuring height in the Boulder Revised Code differs from
the definition in the Charter.
D. Gehr said the Charter definition of height is the vertical distance from the lowest point within
25 feet of the tallest side of the structure to the upper most point on the roof.
Discussion on RH-3
A. Sopher said the criteria for improving the quality of open space might be too vague. He said
the effort to improve building articulation and form module was a little overdone. He did not
agree that only two stories could be allowed before a ] 0 foot setback. He asked how the adoption
of a 28"' Street Frontage Road Connections Plan would impact the existing buildings in that area.
L. Grauer said staff will bring back the Connections Plan for the 28`h Street Frontage Road to
the board at a later date.
W. Johnson expressed concern about creating more zones. She added that wading through the
implications for users and administrators is challenging.
A. Sopher said the open space maybe overstated to require a percentage to be accessible from
the public ROW. He also did not see the problem with a hidden garden.
L. Grauer said the intent of the open space criteria is for visual relief, access, and urban design.
A. Sopher said we need to clearly define if we are talking about public space or private space.
S. Richstone said in terms of urban design, open space should be usable so there is some relief.
A. Sopher was concerned about access.
W. Johnson suggested that there needs to be access from a public adjoining sidewalk.
P. Shull was concerned about permeability, building transparency, connectivity, and the "super
block"issue.
L. Grauer said the criterion could be changed to address the need for the open space to be
accessible.
K. Becker asked about the requirement of providing one tree per thousand square feet of
building or open space.
L Grauer clarified that the requirement is one tree per thousand square feet of open space.
A. Sopher discussed stepping back. the third and fourth floors.
P. Shull supported creating an attractive four story building without large set backs.
W. Johnson did not like that every building will have a wedding cake look.
. 2
A. Sopher said it appears that everything will have to come through site review or look
institutionalized. He found this disturbing.
A. Shoemaker suggested adding a requirement that articulates rooftops or stories in some
fashion and leaving the "how" up to the applicant's discretion. He said what everyone is looking
for here is non uniformity. He added that good buildings have multiple elements.
P. Shull was concemed about buildings that are articulated well above a certain height.
K. Becker asked if an intent statement could be included with the provision that it could be
modified in site review.
A. Sopher was concerned that the code changes are to protect against bad buildings. He said it
would be better if there was less building.
P. Shull was comfortable leaving the 3`d and 4`h story setbacks.
P. Shull asked if the open space could be reduced.
L. Grauer clarified that current code states that the 60 percent open space requirement can be
reduced to 30 percent through site review and meeting of the criteria being proposed.
Discussion on RH-7
W. Johnson said the nuance between the RH-7 and RH-3 is so small and asked if there were
other options besides creating a new zone. She recognized that the major difference is parking.
A. Shoemaker said it seems more complex to have another zone but with the legal language that
would be required to make exceptions for the two zones, it would be more straightforward to
draft two separate zones.
A. Sopher was surprised at the desire to have 60 percent open space in TVAP.
P. Shull agreed and pointed out that there is a huge park just a couple of blocks away.
A. Sopher asked if we need to step back with the third story and above.
L. Grauer said that the guidelines address building articulation.
A. Sopher asked if the intent is to see every project in site review or create guidelines that keep
projects from having to go through site review.
S. Richstone said that because of the size of the parcels, projects would have to come in for site
review.
A. Sopher said that site review will undermine a certain amount of creative chaos.
Discussion on MU-4
A. Sopher appreciated the staff solution to allow projects to go to .75 FAR for non residential.
W. Johnson agreed with A Sopher.
P. Shull said designating parking spaces are determined by the use (commercial or non
residential). He added that non residential properties might not work in certain zones. He said
developers will hold back until the parking district is in place because the developers can not
develop at the higher FAR until there is a district.
L. Grauer said phasing the parking maximum was an idea in the beginning.
S. Richstone said parking maximums allow for parking as a principal use on a site that over time
can be re-developed, which allows for phasing in. She said the city is talking to RTD about
having ownership of a lot on the bus facility and working towards having the parking district in
place sooner than later.
A. Sopher said the board agreed to allow the parking district to be phased in over time.
However, he said the board did not agree that would affect the FAR allowable on site if the
parking district was not iri place. He added that the board also discussed if someone built parking
they could sell that off and should not be penalized in terms of their allowable FAR.
D. Gehr said the question then becomes do you want to regulate building bulk.
A. Sopher said we are then penalizing the developers on both sides by allowing them 1.0 FAR.
3
D. Gehr said the bottom line is that there might not be any parking when the parking district is
formed but there would be a service plan and taxing authority in place before the area is rezoned.
P. Shull said if you build without a parking district you will have businesses that fail because
there is too much competition for parking and there will not be enough spaces to support that
density of businesses. He further stated, if the non residential businesses are developed and
oriented for transit uses, businesses will fail because there is not enough parking for the
businesses.
Discussion on RH-6
W. Johnson asked why detached dwelling units and duplexes are not allowed in this zone.
L. Grauer said detached units were not anticipated.
S. Richstone said in the early conversations that single family detached units were never
anticipated in TVAP.
A. Sopher said his concerns early on were about allowing more uses to create more flexibility.
He asked if the Housing Division preferred cash-in-lieu or town homes.
L. Grauer said that City Council gave direction to explore the question of no cash-in-lieu in the
Transit Village. However, staff s response to council was that the Transit Village should not be
treated differently from the rest of the city and that review of the overall IZ ordinance should be
considered as a whole.
P. Shull said thirty five feet in three story town homes is very tall.
A. Sopher appreciated the small minimum lot area because it gives the flexibility of having
some larger and some smaller lots. He said it might be a good idea to allow different types of
units such as flats at the end of blocks in RH-6.
TVAP Quidelines
P. Shull was concerned if the train does not come to the Transit Village that some elements of
the plan might have to be revised, such as the rail plaza and maybe even Junction Place.
S. Richstone said if there is a significant change in plans or circumstance, these elements of the
plan and guidelines would have to be revisited. She added that RTD is moving forward with the
bus facility.
A. Sopher asked if the schedule for rezoning phase one was still on track.
L. Grauer said the zone districts should be in place by the end of January. She hoped that the
zone districts, the concurrency ordinance, and at ]east the service plan for the parking district will
be in place by the end of the second quarter 2009. She noted that after these have been
completed, rezoning would begin.
6. MATTERS FROM THE PLANNING BOARD, PLANNING DIRECTOR,
AND CITY ATTORNEY
Report on Compatible Development and Single Family Neighborhood Community
J. Johnston presented her item to the board.
P. Shull asked the board members who attended any of the community meetings to provide
feedback.
K. Becker stated that the public felt engaged at the first public meeting and said there was
generally a positive feedback from the public.
A. Sopher found the kick off meeting to be cursory at many levels. He said people in the room
were being presented with information they did not understand.
K. Becker said some people came with the idea of being able to express their opinion and this
was not the forum for them to do this.
4
S. Richstone stated that there were some concerns expressed by individuals, but for the most
part people really participated in the workshops. She said in the smaller neighborhood workshops
there was more time for the public to speak but the public comments were not driven by
solutions, rather opinions about their neighborhoods.
Calendar Updates
R. McHeyser updated the board on the work program and updated the board on the October 29
bus tour.
A Shoemaker requested a leave of absence Jan., Feb. and part of March.
7. DEBRIEF/AGENDA CHECK
8. ADJOURNMENT
The Planning Board adjourned the meeting at 9:13 p.m.
APPROVED BY
Board hair
2'L
DATE
5