Loading...
Minutes - Planning Board - 9/4/2008 CITY OF BOULDER PLANNING BOARD ACTION MINUTES September 4, 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.~ov/ PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: KC Becker Bill Holicky Elise Jones Willa Johnson Andrew Shoemaker Phil Shull, Chair Adrian Sopher STAFF PRESENT: Charles Ferro, Planner II David Gehr, Assistant City Attorney Ruth McHeyser, Acting Planning Director Robert Ray, Land Use Review Manager Paula Weber, Administrative Specialist III Louise Grauer, Senior Planner Charles Zucker, Senior Urban Designer Susan Richstone, Long Range Planning Manager Michelle Allen, Housing Planner 1. CALL TO ORDER Chair, P. Shull, declared a quorum at 7:07 p.m. and the following business was conducted. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES No minutes were scheduled for approval 3. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION Robin Byers and Bob Fiehweg, 1530 Kalmia Ave., requested acall-up for 1520 Kalmia subdivision. 4. DISCUSSION OF DISPOSITIONS, PLANNING BOARD CALL-UPS 1520 Kalmia Avenue Technical Document Review P. Shull stated that 1520 Kalmia Avenue Technical Document Review disposition was called up by members of the public. 1124 13'" Street (Abo's Pizza) Use Review 1 P. Shull stated that the 1124 13`h Street (Abo's Pizza) Use Review disposition was called up by a member of the public. A. Shoemaker requested that the City Attorneys office provide some analysis relating to the Thunderbird Burgers decision. 2800 Palo Parkway The board did not call-up the 2800 Palo Parkway disposition. 4051 Broadway Site Review The board did not call-up the 4051 Broadway Site Review disposition. Elmer's Two Mile Creck Floodplain Development Permit The board did not call-up the Elmer's Two Mile Creek Floodplain Development Permit 5. ACTION ITEMS A. Discussion and direction on possible revisions to the existing Residential- High 3 (RH-3) zone district. Case Manager: Louise Grauer Staff Presentation L. Grauer presented the item to the board. Board Discussion B. Holicky said the issue is the open space around the perimeter of the building. He questioned what percentage of open space should be usable space. E. Jones asked if some of the aesthetic open space should be required to be usable space. L. Grauer stated that per 9-8-3(d) that half of the open space meet certain criteria for 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 usable space that you could 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 dwelling units per acre is not regulatory because it depends on unit size; a higher number of smaller units is considered higher density and a fewer number of larger units might be considered lower density. 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 private open space that meets certain criteria can be counted for no more than 25% of the total required open space. K. Becker asked about other areas that are, or could be, zoned RH-3. L. Grauer stated that there arc areas in the Transit Village area (the High Density Residential -2) that might be considered for rezoning to RH-3; there are a few parcels along the 28`x' Street Frontage Road that have been rezoned to RH-3 that could be redeveloped. 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 2 closer proximity to work, and to encourage pedestrian oriented neighborhoods. She questioned if the zone needed to be modified and questioned if the city needed the zone to achieve those goals or if modification was all that was needed. S. Richstone stated that one of the concepts of the RH-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 pedestrian 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. E. Jones stated that the Transit Village Area Plan (TVAP) is left to be developed. L. Grauer added that there are a few parcels along the 28'x' Street Frontage Road that have RH-3 zoning and could redevelop. 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 that a maximum density maybe the way to go. B. Holicky said there is a general concern about the design and suggested considering a downtown Design Advisory Board (DDAB) review. He said it is important to consider connections and how they are oriented to the zone. A. Shoemaker asked B. Holicky to address the design problems. B. Holicky 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 zone 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 modified 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 and determines the height of the building. B. Holicky stated that the biggest problem is lot size. 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. 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 criteria might be appropriate in terms of landscaping and amenities. D. Gehr explained that there is a conflict with development and right of way exactions. He said perhaps in this zoning district, 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 open to the street. 3 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 said looking at open space requirements and orientation, 200-300 feet blocks work. 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 Village. B. Holicky stated that sometimes it is better to keep the public right of way and have small streets. He said even though the street might not go anywhere it still keeps the area alive. He 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. He also encouraged trees and plantings. B. Holicky agreed that a pedestrian oriented area was valuable. W. Johnson asked at what point is viability lost with underground parking. B. Holicky stated that the lot size would need to be approximately 200 by300 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 criteria that would help to get quality open space. L. Grauer agreed that the ground level open spaces can mitigate the mass of the building. B. Holicky 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 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. A. Sopher stated that we need to recognize that 28`x' 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 likC 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. Richstone said Planning Department will come back to the board with solutions. 4 B. Analysis of the Downtown Residential Bonuses. Case Manager: Charles Zucker Staff Presentation Charles Zucker presented item to the board. Board Discussion K. Becker asked if building costs are higher when you intend your product to be a higher end product. She asked if the building costs could be lowered and asked how solid is the $564 per foot cost. C. Zucker stated that the land cost is $300 per foot and that is part of the equation. B. Holicky stated that the building cost is upgraded because of the land cost, adding that if you start with three hundred dollars a foot, you need to build a higher end product. C. Zucker stated that the downtown micro-zones came about because all of the areas are not the same. He said some of the pieces of downtown are now being seen as not related to the original vision. B. Holicky said that all of these areas have one set of design guidelines. E. Jones asked what role the density bonus would play in driving residential development. C. Zucker stated that two areas are 100% residential and are not mixed use. He added that there should be an argument as to why there has to be mixed use in every site and suggested considering a horizontal mixed use. A. Sopher said that according to the numbers presented it is 70% office space, 30% residential. C. Zucker stated that residential has become a real market downtown. E. Jones asked if we still need the density bonus for downtown to get residential development there. C. Zucker stated that the goal of the downtown alliance is to make a vital downtown. E. Jones said if the goal for the vision for downtown is to add more people, we would get more people if we had smaller units. She added that a density bonus could create an incentive for additional smaller units downtown. C. Zucker replied that the market is handling that question. He said the average size of the units is 1,650 square feet, and said it might not be worth reducing the size down to 1,000 square feet. E. Jones suggested that the density bonus be awarded only if more units are provided. She asked if placing a cap for units over 3,500 square feet would keep with the intent of the vision. E. Jones said if we are looking to provide public benefit, we need to consider whether to have incentive for all units or if we need to aim the benefit to smaller units. K. Becker stated that a larger unit could house more people. A. Shoemaker supported the idea, but wondered if there was a better way to provide incentives. He requested more data. B. Holicky requested further analysis that answers what the problem is, how many people we want living downtown and what are the economic impacts. P. Shull said the size of buildings has been an ongoing issue. He asked if the buildings could be sensitively integrated within the zone. C. Zucker stated that we want to focus on the fringe area and be clear and precise about what is possible so the vision is upheld and development in those areas hopefully will provide a clear idea of what is expected. A. Sopher said the fringe should be its own zone and noted that fringe density is different. R. McHeyser stated that the site review criteria provides some guidance. 5 A. Sopher asked for clarity on what is the vision. C. Zucker stated that it has been ten yeazs since this area has been zoned. He said it is important to have discussions about the codes and visions of the downtown area in order to address concerns and issues raised. A. Sopher stated that the issue is that portion of the zone at 16`h and 17th has no fringe or buffer zone. B. Holicky supported updating the Urban Design Guidelines and Downtown Design Guidelines. He asked if the Downtown Design Advisory Board could provide direction to the Planning Boazd on this matter. W. Johnson asked why the block south of Canyon between 16`h and 17`x' is not in the downtown zone. P. Shull stated that the downtown zone is based on a survey of properties. He said the zone was built around properties that supported the downtown area. A. Sopher stated that there is big difference between 16`x' and 17`h streets. He said this could be a transitional zone. C. Zucker stated that the lines could be revisited a later date. P. Shull said that properties south of Canyon might need to go down to 1.0 FAR. A. Sopher said he has mixed feelings about Canyon and west of 16`h Street being 35 feet and noted that Canyon is the most important eastJwest street in the city. C. Zucker noted that the Urban Design Guidelines has its own section that addresses Canyon. C. Zucker said the vision tends to change over time due to property costs and values and that corrections may need to be made. E. Jones asked about the timing of this project. C. Zucker said that the way that staff is drawing this idea out is not to say that this is our timeline and our solution but that here is a question, does this question have validity then here is our recommendation and here are the questions if you think that we should carry forward on this then you need to tell us how you would like staff to move forward. R. McHeyser replied that this item is scheduled to go before City Council on Oct. 7. She asked that the Planning Boazd provide feedback on whether the board agrees with the staff recommendation/approach. If council does say yes we think that you need to update the design guidelines and better align the code then we would have to put that in the schedule for 2009. W. Johnson asked if there is a way to do a limited scope on the south side of Canyon. R. McHeyser stated that based on City Council's recommendation, staff will bring back options to the Planning Board. P. Shull said if affordable housing is placed on site and the bonuses are removed then the projects would shut down. B. Holicky agreed. He added that most of the sites downtown have changed hands and therefore the costs of the units are more expensive. He said the properties might not be developable due to the high cost of land because when the land value is too high the building stops. E. Jones asked if we removing the bonuses would halt new projects. C. Zucker replied that it depends on the health of the market downtown. E. Jones said there is not a huge link between affordable housing and density bonuses. She asked what was the intention of the downtown density bonuses. C. Zucker said the Downtown Alliance Report was intended to supplement future employment growth and to bring people downtown. He added that affordability, cost of land, and density all need to be considered. He said it is difficult to get enough density downtown due to height caps. P. Shull said due to the market rate values buyers should be willing to pay more. C. Discussion of the Impact Fee/ Development Excise Tax Study. 6 Case Manager: Susan Richstone Staff Presentation S. Richstone presented to the board. Board Discussion A. Sopher asked why affordable housing is considered an excise tax if it is a citywide benefit. S. Richstone said that the report, in terms of a housing excise tax, recommends that it be applied to commercial development not residential. She said the rational nexus of charging for such a tax is that the new job growth creates the need for more housing and therefore generates the need for new housing in the community. She added that the report does not cover inclusionary zoning. P. Shull asked how we can gauge the impact fee. S. Richstone stated that it is the desire of council to see development pay its true cost of the development so that the rest of the residents are not paying that cost. P. Shull clarified that these dollars are not to be used for operations. S. Richstone stated that the policy is for growth to pay for its fair share of costs, or that there is a limit to what those taxes and costs should be. She said the recommendation is to look at the increased tax in a more comprehensive manner. She noted the charts in the memorandum that compare Boulder to other Front Range communities. P. Shull stated that most people will look to the total and not the process behind the tax or fees. A. Sopher asked if this will be on the ballot the year that council is up for re-election. S. Richstone stated that council asked staff to come back with a plan on Oct. 14, 2008 and was not sure if it will go on the ballot next year. P. Shull said the timing of when the fees are charged is important. He said it would be difficult if the fees are due at the front end of the project from a builders perspective. S. Richstone questioned if other communities charge these fees at time of building permit application or later. D. Gehr noted that it is hard to get a fee paid at the end of construction. B. Holicky asked when the board will discuss Plant Investment Fees (PIF's). R. McHeyser stated that on Oct. 14 all of the fees and taxes will be updated. B. Holicky asked why fees in Boulder are substantially more expensive than other communities. R. McHeyser stated that other communities have not done the studies that we are doing. She noted that City Council talked about a phase in approach. B. Holicky said that it is hard to compare to other communities without knowing what we are comparing. 6. MATTERS FROM THE PLANNING BOARD, PLANNING DIRECTOR, AND CITY ATTORNEY S. Richstone gave the board an update on the upcoming Community Single Family Development workshops. R. McHeyser reviewed the Planning Board calendar and asked if the board was available to attend a joint bus tour on Oct. 29 with City Council. R. McHeyser and D. Gehr reviewed the call-up process. P. Shull noted on the Planning Board calendar that P. Shull and W. Johnson will be out of town on Oct. 16. A. Shoemaker agreed to chair the meeting on Oct. 16. R. McHeyser stated that on Sept. 9 there is a City Council Study Session on the City Wide work program. 7 P. Shull asked when the board would meet the new city manager. R. McHeyser stated that she will work on setting up a meeting. R. McHeyser gave the board an update on the status of hiring a new Director. D. Gehr stated that the city is being sued by the Nitro Club. He said the suit is based on their assertion that the discretion built into the use review process as applied to their establishment violates their first amendment right and that a use review has a chilling affect on their speech. A. Shoemaker requested that Planning Board personal email addresses not be posted on the city website. 7. DEBRIEF/AGENDA CHECK 8. ADJOURNMENT The Chair adjourned the meeting at 10:52 p.m. APPROVED BY i ~.-.Q Board Chair ~ t-~~-o8 DATE 8