Loading...
2 - Draft Minutes - Planning Board - February 19, 2009 CITY OF BOULDER PLANNING BOARD ACTION M[NUTES l+ebruary 19, 2009 1777 Broadway, Council Chambers A pcrrnanent set of these minutes and a tape rewrding, (maintained for a period of seven years) are retained in Central Records (telephone: 303-44I-3043). Minutes and streaming audio are also available on the web at: http://www.bouldercolorado.gov/ PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESI?NT: hC Becker Laise Jones Willa .Johnson Phil Shull, Chair Ac}zian Sophcr PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Bill }-Iolicky Andrew Shoemaker S"CAFE PRESENT': Larry Donner, Fire Chief David Driskell, Deputy Director of Community Planning Carol L:Ilinghouse, Water Resources Coordinator David Gchr, Assistant City Attorney Louise Grauer, Senior Planner Chris 1 lagland; Senior "Transportation Planner Heidi Joyce, Adminisfiation Supervisor Chris Meschuk, 1'lanncr 1 Robert Ray, Land Use Review Manager .Toe Taddeucci, Utilities Project Manager Paula Weber, Administrative Specialist ll1 Mary Mn Weideman, Administrative Services Manager Jessica Vaughn, Plannez- I Melly Winter, Director of Downtown and University Hill Management Division and Parking Services Frank Young, Deputy Fire Chief I. CALL TO ORDER Chair, P. Shull, declared a c]uorum at 6:06 p.m. and the following business was conducted- 2. APPROVAL Or MINU'T'ES vo minutes were scheduled for approval. 3. PLIRI-.IC' 1'ARTICIPA"TION No one from the public addressed the board. 1 i 4. DISCUSS[ON OF DISPOST"PIONS, PLANNING BOARD CALL-t1PS The board did not call-up the following items: • Power Transmission (south of Pearl Parkway and east of 55`J' Street) Tower Wetland Permit • 1047 Pearl Street Use Review 5. ACTION ITEMS A. Public hearing and consideration of: 1. A recommendati(?n to City, Council concerning the Fire Master Plan and 2. Approval of the Boulder Valley Comprehensive;Plaii (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 Firc Training Center. E. Jones said new growth and possible existing growth are not providing adeduatcly 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 SdJd the plan has lots of good cOIlteIIt alld In Inany Ways IS COrllplldJlt Wlth 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 he 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 teens 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 Planzain~ Board recommended (5-0, A. Shoemaker and B. Holiclcy absent): 1. City Council accept the Firc Rescue Master Plan, 2. City Council approve of the; [3VCP f~irc Rescue Master Plan as amcn(le(1, 3. Completion on the community fire-risk analysis and traffic study in 201 U. 2 In addition, Planning Board was extremely concerned that the city is not meeting adopted service standards due to the ~luhlic safety impacts and reconlmen(led that City Council rc-evaluate fi,ndin~pl:iorities to meet Fire Rescue} operational service standards. 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. Mesehulc and J. Taddeueci 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. I3o::r~l Discussion L. Jones suggested that the plan include more explicit mention of the city conducting ongoing monitoring of climate change and its potential effects. , W..lohnson and K. Becker concurred. W. Johnson offered a con-ection to page 54.of the Master Plan Summary, second paragraph, to clarify the nine years reference. Motion Qn a motion E..lones, seconded l?v W. Johnson, the I'lanninr; Board reconunended (.5-0, B. ]"1nI1C~(\ aRd A. Shoemaker absent) acceptance OI the Soul•Ce Watel' Master Plan and approved fhe ti~llowing revisions to the Source Water Master Plan Summary: that the Master Plan Summary include more explicit mention of the city conductiu~; onr;oinb monitoring of climate change anti it~otential cffects~ and 2) that stafl•con•ect t~a~;e 54 of the Master Plan Summary to clarify the nine ye:ll's r-eierence. C. Continuation of consideration of a recommendation to City Council orl an ordinance amending Title 9, B.R.C. 1.981, creating the MU-4, RH-G, and RH-7 zoning districts, amending the requirements for site review, parking, open space, trip generation- requircments, and other changes related to the implementation of the Transit Village Area Plan (`1'VAP) alld setting forth related details. Contincced•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 .Tanuary 22 Planning Board meeting pertaining to this item. Staff :Nresentation Louise Grauer and Molly Winter presented the item to the board. L. Grauer gave the board an update on last week's Northwest Raii team meeting and recent regional DRCOG meetings. 3 Public Hearing John Pawlowski, spoke in support of moving forward with this project. IIe disagreed with the staff recommendation to wait to finalize the re-coning until the parking district is finalized. Board Discussion LcoPass P. Shull expressed concerns over the future availability and affordability of~the LcoPass program. A. Sopher said instead of rcquinng the applicant to reduce vehicle trips by at least 55 percent, the plan could require that applicants provide EcoPasses. D. Cehr 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 he enforced and asked if the incentives are appropriate. He wanted to ensure that there are enough advantages to the plan and that the plan swell 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 opporhinities 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. Re~orr irrg A. Sopher asked why a comprehensive rezoning was not being proposed as an option. S. Kichstone 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 six feet above ground. He was also concerned about the grade around the Depot. Bridge ~ A. Svpher opposed the head height of the proposed new bridge, especially when a bridge l 00 feet away has a shorter head height. ".1'he Plan/'/_.ones 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 concenls tlrat the train, the I3RT 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-4rone. I-Ie 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. I Ie added that it is important to build more flexibility of usage into the MU-4 gone 4 to allow for viability in this area in the tutw•e. He supported providing more flexibility and more creative chaos in the plan. K. Bee-ker 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 arrival 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 underniined. W. Johnson would like to sec change in this area. She supported moving tc~rward with the visivn to bring this phase of the project to eomhletion. She said rezoning will support the jobs/ housing balance and ether sustainable goals. She also supported building in more flexibility into the plan. L. Jones also supported moving forward with this phase of the project. She said it will be ~xrvre convenient for people to get to Boulder on the BRT than the cura-ent bus system. She added that having a !veal circulation of the bus system and multi-modal opportunities will fix part of the in- commuting problem- She tirr~ther stated wizen this area redevelops there will be more housing opportunities. P. Shiiil 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 net support the R1I-7 as proposed. He said the BTV, as proposed, does net support the evolution of the "sense of place" as envisioned in the TVAY all along. Ile added that the Depot is ill-placed above ground on the site. He additionally had concerns veer the bridge, the piece meal approach tv the sheets as properties redevelop, parking and the access district. ~He said we are jumping the girn 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 )n place to support-the density. He alsv believed that retail in this area will struggle. He was concerned that the plan will-not attract redevelopment potential. A. Sophet• 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 iri the MU-4 zone and supported mostly residential in this zone. K. Becker said the zoning shoo!<I occur closer to when the development will happen because the vision can change between now and then. P. Shull supported the R1i-6 zone. He did not support the MU-4 zone because of parking issues, but supportccl 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 in:Ii-astructure in place to support it. I-Ie 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, train or no train. RH-b A. Sopher supported allowing for flats at the end of blocks in the RII-b zone. K. Becker said the reference in the memo to maximum lot area at I,SUO square feet per dwelling unit secrns 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. 5 Motions RI-I_G On a Inlltlon L. ,loncs ,seconded by A. Sopher, Ilia; hlaml]Ill~ BOaI'Cl rCC0111111eIlCled (S-O, A. Shoemaker and B. Floliclcy absent) that City Council adoi.~t the proix>scd ordinance for the RI I-6 zoning district, sul1ect. to the following conditians_~f approval: l) flats at the endofblocks are permitted in the RI I-6 zone and revise section 9-9-6 (4)(A) of the ordinance as follows: Land term bicycle parking is required to be covered , alul shall include use of one of the fallowing_ 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 ward ar monitored by a security camera; or . iv. An area visible from employee work areas. MU-4 and RII-7 Un a motion by W. Johnson, seconded by E. Jones, the P1anllin~ Board reairnrrtended (3-2, P. Shall and K. Becker oz~posed, A. Shoemaker and B. IIolicky absent) that City Cowlcil adot~t the Mi)-4 and ltl I-7 zones subject to the following conditions of ap},lroval: I) that the plan incrcase_rn.casures for flexibility and 2~ that thc~ yIU-4 .5 maximum non-residential FAR limit be chanz;ed 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 diu not support that all courtyards face south and said this is a nall-aw 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 alrival 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 k~1ew what would actually happen. The density in the TVAP may be inappropriate, if the train doesn't serve this area in the mazlner envisioned. P. Shull said staff and consultants have not adequately demonstrated that the infrastructure necessary to support (indeed,: iricentivize) the lifestyle advocated in the TVAP will actually be in sync with the demands created by zoning criteria. 'T'his is especially true of the parking district, but may be as tare for East/West connections, I~'orth South connections, storm water facilities, funded access pennits,such as Ecol'asses, 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 clarity/ certainty about the infrastructure requisite for the intensity arul behavioral aspects implicit in the anticipated MU-4 and RH-7 zones. Specifically all of the eight "next steps" outlined for staff on page l U of the memo shou}d be completed before a recommendation far the last two zones be approved. Additionally, the provision of one space per unit, and on street parking far 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. Driskcll spoke to the board about the need for budgetary cut backs. M. Weideman spoke to the board about action minutes. II. 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. Driskcll updated the board on Kobert Ray's transition to Dousing and Human Services. D. Driskcll 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/AGENllA CIiECK ADJOURNMENT The Planning Board adjourned the meeting at 11: ] 2 p.m. APPROVED BY Board Chair DATIr