Minutes - Planning Board - 2/19/2009 CITY OF BOULDER
PLANNING BOARD ACTION MINUTES
February 19, 2009
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.QOV/
PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT:
KC Becker
Elise Jones
Willa Johnson
Phil Shull, Chair
Adrian Sopher
PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT:
Bill Holicky
Andrew Shoemaker
STAFF PRESENT:
Larry Donner, Fire Chief
David Driskell, Deputy Director of Community Planning
Carol Ellinghouse, Water Resources Coordinator
David Gehr, Assistant City Attorney
Louise Grauer, Senior Planner
Chris Hagland, Senior Transportation Planner
Heidi Joyce, Administration Supervisor
Chris Meschuk, Planner I
Robert Ray, Land Use Review Manager
Joe Taddeucci, Utilities Project Manager
Paula Weber, Administrative Specialist III
Mary Ann Weideman, Administrative Services Manager
Jessica Vaughn, Planner I
Molly Winter, Director of Downtown and University Hill Management Division and Parking
Services
Frank Young, Deputy Fire Chief
1. CALL TO ORDER
Chair, P. Shull, declared a quorum at 6:06 p.m. and the following business was
conducted.
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
No minutes were scheduled for approval.
3. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
No one from the public addressed the board.
4. DISCUSSION OF DISPOSITIONS, PLANNING BOARD CALL-UPS
The board did not call-up the following items:
1
• Power Transmission (south of Pearl Parkway and east of 55'h Street) Tower Wetland
Permit
• 1047 Pearl Street Use Review
5. ACTION ITEMS
A. Public hearing and consideration of:
1. A recommendation to City Council concerning the Fire Master Plan and
2. Approval of the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP) Fire-Rescue
Master Plan Summary.
Staff Presentation
C. Meschuk and L. Donner presented the item to the board.
Public Hearing
No one From the public addressed the board.
Board Discussion
P. Shull expressed concerns over what services are on the list for possible budget reductions,
specifically the elimination of the wild fire team and the operations and maintenance of the Fire
Training Center.
E. Jones said new growth and possible existing growth are not providing adequately for the
operations of fire rescue. She said we are not meeting service standards now and as we add more
people and traffic we will keep perpetuating and exasperating that problem from a funding and
service response standpoint.
P. Shull said the plan has lots of good content and in many ways is compliant with the BVCP
policies. He said there are some deficiencies in the service standards that need to be addressed
by the policymakers. He noted that the Fire Master Plan should be prioritized as a plan that gets a
different kind of attention. He was bothered that the fleet is aging and some high priority services
are listed as a possible budget cut.
A. Sopher agreed that the Fire Master Plan has been lacking in attention. He said it is important
to explore the funding needs to support this plan.
W. Johnson recommended striking "early" from the last sentence on page 90 of the staff
memorandum. She said on page 92, under the underlying rising fixed cost there appears to be a
typo in terms of constraints have caused. She also suggested adding "and strains the operating
budget" to the last sentence of the under two few firefighters paragraph.
Motion
On a motion by W. Johnson, seconded by A. Sopher, the Planning Board recommended (5-0,
A. Shoemaker and B. Holicky absent):
L City Council accept the Fire Rescue Master Plan,
2. City Council approve of the BVCP Fire Rescue Master Plan as amended.
3. Completion on the community fire-risk analysis and traffic study in 2010.
In addition, Planning Board was extremely concerned that the city is not meeting adopted service
standards due to the public safety impacts and recommended that City Council re-evaluate
funding priorities to meet (Fire Rescue) operational service standards.
2
B. Public hearing and consideration of:
1. A recommendation to City Council concerning the Source
Water Master Plan and
2. Approval of the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP) Source
Water Master Plan Summary.
Staff Presentation
C. Meschuk and J. Taddeucci presented the item to the board.
Public Hearing
No one from the public addressed the board.
Public Hearing
No one from the public addressed the board.
Board Discussion
E. Jones suggested that the plan include more explicit mention of the city conducting ongoing
monitoring of climate change and its potential effects.
W. Johnson and K. Becker concurred.
W. Johnson offered a correction to page 54 of the Master Plan Summary, second paragraph, to
clarify the nine years reference.
Motion
On a motion E. Jones, seconded by W Johnson, the Plannin¢ Board recommended (5-0, B.
Holickv and A. Shoemaker absent) acceptance of the Source Water Master Plan and approved
the following revisions to the Source Water Master Plan Summarv:
1) that the Master Plan Summarv include more explicit mention of the city conducting ongoing
monitoring of climate change and its potential effects, and
2) that staff correct page 54 of the Master Plan Summarv to clarify the nine years reference.
C. Continuation of consideration of a recommendation to City Council on an ordinance
amending Title 9, B.R.C. 1981, creating the MU-4, RH-6, and RH-7 zoning districts,
amending the requirements for site review, parking, open space, trip generation
requirements, and other changes related to the implementation of the Transit
Village Area Plan (TVAP) and setting forth related details. Coutinued from the
January 22, 2009 Planning Board meeting.
Case Manager: Louise Grauer
A. Sopher stated for the record that he listened to an audio excerpt of the January 22 Planning
Board meeting pertaining to this item.
Staff Presentation
Louise Grauer and Molly Winter presented the item to the board.
L. Grauer gave the board an update on last week's Northwest Rail team meeting and recent
regional DRCOG meetings.
Public Hearing
John Pawlowski, spoke in support of moving forward with this project. He disagreed with the
staff recommendation to wait to finalize the re-zoning until the parking district is finalized.
3
Board Discussion
EcoPass
P. Shull expressed concerns over the future availability and affordability of the EcoPass
program.
A. Sopher said instead of requiring the applicant to reduce vehicle trips by at least 55 percent,
the plan could require that applicants provide EcoPasses.
D. Gehr noted that if EcoPasses went away, the General Improvement District and individual
businesses will still have to meet their trip reduction obligations.
Parking Management
P. Shull expressed concerns over contiguous parking and parking requirements in general. He
questioned how parking would be enforced and asked if the incentives are appropriate. He
wanted to ensure that there are enough advantages to the plan and that the plan is well defined
and the facilities are laid out properly. He was concerned that a variety of properties will be
disadvantaged with this approach. He said there are opportunities to do more here. He was
concerned about timing, funding and the location of the facilities. He suggested that the
concurrency ordinance tie these items together in a more finite way. He also had additional
concerns over parking, Stormwater, curb and gutter on streets and parking meters.
Rezoning
A. Sopher asked why a comprehensive rezoning was not being proposed as an option.
S. Richstone said a core principal in the plan is that all of the tools and implementation
mechanisms are in place before rezoning.
Stormwater
A. Sopher was concerned that the shared Stormwater retention plan was not included in the
concurrency requirements.
Depot
A. Sopher expressed his concerns over the Depot being situated eight feet above ground. He was
also concerned about how the decision was made with regard to the height of the Depot and the
bridge. He opposed the head height of the proposed new bridge especially when a bridge 100
feet away has a shorter head height. Adding that if this is of such great concern a bridge
structure with support beneath it is in appropriate or a clearspan is inappropriate.
Bridge
A. Sopher opposed the head height of the proposed new bridge, especially when a bridge 100
feet away has a shorter head height.
The Plan/Zones
P. Shull said the plan is flawed. He would like to finalize some of the details in the plan before
moving forward with this project.
A. Sopher agreed to move forward with the plan. He did, however, have concerns that the train,
the BRT and funding mechanisms may not be in place for a number of years. He said we are
being too narrow in what we are allowing in the MU-4 zone. He said the plan is fixated on
housing as though this were a housing district. He was concerned that we are not creating a
"place" here. He added that it is important to build more flexibility of usage into the MU-4 zone
to allow for viability in this area in the future. He supported providing more flexibility and more
creative chaos in the plan.
4
K. Becker said one of the reasons she initially supported the Transit Village was because it
provided an opportunity to reduce the number of in-commuters. With the uncertainty
surrounding the amval of the train and its ability to reduce the number of in-commuters, she said
the premise for her decision to support the Transit Village is undermined.
W. Johnson would like to see change in this area. She supported moving forward with the vision
to bring this phase of the project to completion. She said rezoning will support the jobs/ housing
balance and other sustainable goals. She also supported building in more flexibility into the plan.
E. Jones also supported moving forward with this phase of the project. She said it will be more
convenient for people to get to Boulder on the BRT than the current bus system. She added that
having a local circulation of the bus system and multi-modal opportunities will fix part of the in-
commutingproblem. She further stated when this area redevelops there will be more housing
opportunities.
P. Shull said based on the assumptions for the land uses, intensities, parking supply,
infrastructure, and the rate in which this project progresses over time that he did not support the
RH-7 as proposed. He said the BTV, as proposed, does not support the evolution of the "sense of
place" as envisioned in the TVAP all along. He added that the Depot isill-placed above ground
on the site. He additionally had concerns over the bridge, the piece meal approach to the streets
as properties redevelop, parking and the access district. He said we are jumping the gun by
adopting zoning districts that may defeat the original intentions of the board. He said this plan
will not work if certain transit functions are not in place to support the density. He also believed
that retail in this area will struggle. He was concerned that the plan will not attract
redevelopment potential.
A. Sopher was most concerned with the limitations on use. He said early in the process, the
intention of the plan was to create a vibrant place, which is now a high density residential zone
with a bus station. He recommended that more flexibility be built into the plan.
W. Johnson suggested side by side mixed uses in the MU-4 zone and supported mostly
residential in this zone.
K. Becker said the zoning should occur closer to when the development will happen because the
vision can change between now and then.
P. Shull supported the RH-6 zone. He did not support the MU-4 zone because of parking issues,
but supported creating flexibility in the MU-4 zone. He also had issues with the parking
requirements in the RH-7 zone. Additionally, he said this is not the time to move forward with
RH-7 zone because there is no infrastructure in place to support it. He added that it is important
to have a service plan.
W. Johnson said if we put good bones in place, developers and architects will be able to create a
great place.
E. Jones noted that there are not many redevelopment opportunities like this in Boulder, train or
no train.
RH-6
A. Sopher supported allowing for flats at the end of blocks in the RH-6 zone.
K. Becker said the reference in the memo to maximum lot area at 1,800 square feet per dwelling
unit seems tight.
S. Richstone replied that was an error in the memorandum that should read minimum lot area.
W. Johnson supported long term bike parking spaces for units that don't have garages.
Motions
5
RH-6
On a motion E. Jones , seconded by A. Sopher, the Planning Board recommended (5-0, A.
Shoemaker and B. Holickv absent) that City Council adopt the proposed ordinance for the RH-6
zoning district, subject to the following conditions of approval:
1) flats at the end of blocks are permitted in the RH-6 zone and
2) revise section 9-9-b (g) f4)(A) of the ordinance as follows: Long term bicycle parking is
required to be covered ,and shall include use of one of the following:
i. A locked room;
ii. An area enclosed by a fence with a locked gate;
iii. An area within view of an attendant or security guard or monitored by a security camera;
or
iv. An area visible from employee work areas.
MU-4 and RH-7
On a motion by W. Johnson, seconded by E. Jones, the Planning Board recommended (3-2, P.
Shull and K. Becker opposed, A. Shoemaker and B. Holickv absent) that City Council adopt
the MU-4 and RH-7 zones subject to the following conditions of approval:
I) that the plan increase measures for flexibility and
2) that the MU-4 .5 maximum non-residential FAR limit be changed to a minimum of .5
residential. The motion failed.
The board noted that there are other issues in the MU-4 and RH-7 zones that were not addressed
by the board at tonight's meeting.
A. Sopher did not support that all courtyards face south and said this is a narrow view about
outdoor spaces.
Comments regarding reluctance to approve MU-4 and RH-7 were:
K. Becker said there should be greater certainty about the arrival of the transit facilities to this
site; its timing, impact and physical relationship to the residences in these zones. In so many
words, we're getting ahead of what might actually happen, and we might do something
differently, if we knew what would actually happen. The density in the TVAP maybe
inappropriate, if the train doesn't serve this area in the manner envisioned.
P. Shull said staff and consultants have not adequately demonstrated that the infrastructure
necessary to support (indeed, incentivize) the lifestyle advocated in the TVAP will actually be in
sync with the demands created by zoning criteria. This is especially true of the parking district,
but may be as true for East/West connections, North South connections, storm water facilities,
funded access permits such as EcoPasses, and parks development. The concurrency ordinance is
a start at addressing these impediments to rezoning. Staff believes that public private
partnerships will solve the problem, but the private sector participation has been largely absent
from this three year process. The economics of non residential development are unclear in the
TVAP and will probably be avoided in the near to mid term future. Hence, it is ill-advised to put
zones in place that cannot "pencil out" in the absence of greater clarityf certainty about the
infrastructure requisite for the intensity and behavioral aspects implicit in the anticipated MU-4
and RH-7 zones. Specifically all of the eight "next steps" outlined for staff on page 10 of the
memo should be completed before a recommendation for the last two zones be approved.
Additionally, the provision of one space per unit, and on street parking for everything else is
optimistic in terms of these intended densities, absent a fully integrated pedestrianized zone."
6
6. MATTERS FROM THE PLANNING BOARD, PLANNING DIRECTOR,
AND CITY ATTORNEY
The board reviewed the calendar.
D. Driskell spoke to the board about the need for budgetary cut backs.
M. Weideman spoke to the board about action minutes.
H. Joyce spoke to the board about Planning Board dinners.
S. Richstone spoke to the board on the Joint PB/CC Special Meeting on Compatible
Development.
D. Driskell updated the board on Robert Ray's transition to Housing and Human
Services.
D. Driskell updated the board on Washington Village and stated that the applicant has
redesigned the detention area and the Planning Board will be copied on the proposed
plans.
7. DEBRIEF/AGENDA CHECK
8. ADJOURNMENT
The Planning Board adjourned the meeting at 1 1:12 p.m.
APPROVED BY
B and air
G'l~
DATE