Loading...
2 - Draft Minutes - Planning Board - November 13, 2008 CITY OF BOULDER PLANNING BOARD ACTION MINUTES November 13, 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 Bill ~-Iolicky Elise Jones Willa Johnson, Chair Andrew Shoemaker Phil Shull Adrian Sopher STAFF PRESENT: David Gehr, Assistant City Attorney Micki Kaplan, Transportation Project Manager Ruth McHeyser, Executive Director of Community Planning Elaine McLaughlin, Senior Planner Robert Ray, Land Use Review Manager Jessica Vaughn, Planner I Paula Weber, Administrative Specialist III Charlie Zucker, Senior Urban Designer 1. CALL 1'O ORDER Chair, P. Shull, declared a quorum at 6:07 p.m. and the following business was conducted: 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES P. Shull asked the Planning Board to not take action in accepting the October 2, 2008 Planning Board minutes tonight. He would like to review the audio from October 2. 3. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION No one from the public addressed the board. 4. DISCUSSION OF DISPOSITIONS, PLANNING BOARD CALL-UPS Call up item: 1600 Mariposa Ave. The board did not call-up this item. 5. ACTION ITEMS A. Public hearing and consideration of Concept Plan Review and Comment application #LUR2008-00085 Boulder Transit Village (BTU) -Regional Transportation Department (RTD) Bus Rapid Transit Facility and Park -n- Ride. The proposal is for an 11.2-acre Transit Oriented Development that includes immediate plans for construction of a 3.23 acre bus transit facility as well as future mixed 1 use/residential development. Only the 3.23 acre bus transit facility is anticipated to move forward at this time, residential development will proceed in a seven- to 10-year time frame. Case Manager: Elaine McLaughlin Applicant/Property Owner: RTD and City of Boulder: Housing & Human Services and Transportation Divisions. Staff Presentation E. McLaughlin presented the item to the board. Applicant Presentation M. Kaplan presented the item to the board. Public Hearing John Spitzer, 2323 20`x' Street, was concerned about parking. Board Discussion P. Shull said the public art needs to be sensible and functional. He also expressed concerns that the Historic Depot was being slighted. A. Shoemaker had concerns with the pedestrian and Depot interfaces and with the amount of asphalt. E. Jones said we have to think outside of the box. She said it is important to create a place, not just a bus tun around. She also was concerned about the location of the Depot. B. Holicky said it is Pla~u~ing Board's role to protect the civic realm. He suggested stacking the "stuff 'and having buildings on Pearl Street and Boulder Junction Place. He added that if we are going to "do urban," the site must be an urban site. W. Johnson said we need to think of how to get away from all of the turns. She further stated that the proposal feels very sub-urban. West side and housing B. Holicky said the pocket park on Junction Place does not work and needs to be moved to the west. He said it is important to emphasize the streets and the connections. He would like to see a stronger northern east/west connection. A. Shoemaker agreed with B. Holicky about the pocket park. He further stated that the residents of this project could have a hard time accessing the bus area. E. Jones said it makes sense to move the park to the residential area. She said the park should also be accessible by the bike path up to the west by Goose Creek. P. Shull said the pedestrian pathways to this facility need to be safe, intelligent and well thought out. V~ithout knowing when the project to the west will be developed, he suggested that a screen or wall be considered to block the view. A. Sopher asked staff to address the issue of underground parking and the associated costs. M. Allen said the preference is to not have surface parking. She said the city could look at underground parking due to the expense. A. Sopher preferred as much underground parking as possible. M. Allen said due to the high water table, it might not be possible to go farther than one level underground. A. Sopher would like to see the pocket park more internal in the housing area. He was less concerned about the east/west connection of Spruce Street in terms of access to the Park-n-Ride facility and access to the bus turn around. He further stated that the mid block connection at Pearl Parkway could be more of a pedestrian connection. W. Johnson summarized the board's comments as follows: • The board was interested in the park being more integrated into the housing. • Flexibility from the board on street widths, pedestrian verses auto, maintaining the connections plan in some format and an interest to explore the intersections as proposed. • The board did not provide a lot of comments to the housing options. • The board preferred underground parking. Urban Corridors P. Shull would like to see the future parking structure have a wrap, noting that RTD does not usually work that way. He was concerned about the connection at the south end of the parking lot and the south access con~iection to the parking structure. A. Sopher said the alternate entrance is useful. B. Houck}~ said to reach the board's vision of Junction Place, it is important to have buildings for people +o walk around and have something to do. He said if the Depot is to be vibrant, there needs to be something going on around it. A. Sopher said the bus area and the parking garage are the two large elements of this RTD site, which are not working side by side. B. Holicky preferred placing the parking garage and the bus loop on top of each other. K. Becker said the site seems to be driven by property ownership. She was concerned that the site was not integrated. She suggested that the city and RTD work together to have the site and the parking integrated with housing. She also supported buildings on Pearl Street. E. Jones agreed that buildings on Pearl Street would make the internal space of Junction Place livelier. She asked for additional data as to how many people from the north and east will use this facility to park and commute from. W. Johnson suggested minimizing the amount of turns. If Spruce Street is to be maintained as a street, she would like to see Spruce Street line up with access into the RTD portion of the site. She also supported framing both sides of Junction Place with buildings. She also supported the shared access of the Depot. W. Johnson summarized that attention to the corridors is important and there is a desire to make them more urban. Parking B. Holicky said less parking is alright. He further stated that one of the potential results in having less parking in the beginning is financial pressure to have a garage. K. Becker did not want auto oriented transit. She supported a more integrated Transit Oriented Development (TOD) with a bus transit facility. She said there are more opportunities for creative business ventures here. P. Shull did not think the Kiss-n-Ride concept was done well. He added that the lot being used as a cut tlu-ough or exit should be minimized. He said if the Depot is to be used for event purposes, more parking will need to be provided. He said if there will be a maintenance facility in the future, a discussion needs to occur about the buses and the fact that they are typically running when they are stopped. W. Johnson agreed that the Kiss-n-Ride does not work well. She said parking is needed, especially short term parking. She asked that the applicant to bring an example of a wrap at time of Site Review, including an explanation of how it would be accommodated for the parking structure. 3 A. Sopher asked if it is viable to have the bus turn around facility underground with some form of parking in the future. If viable, he suggested that it be wrapped with accessible office/commercial spaces that front onto Pearl Parkway and Junction Place. P. Shull said the parking should not drive the loop configuration. Depot A. Sopher said the depot is in a weird spot and it is not connected to anything. He said the Depot needs to have a com~ection to something, possibly the bus station. P. Shull said the while the Depot is an interesting architectural icon, it will not serve a purpose and that is a terrible waste. E. Jones said the Depot could be used as a destination or meeting space. She added that the Depot, quite frankly, needs to be moved. B. Holicky said the Depot could be used as a viable structure in the center of the bus loop. He further stated that if the Depot was used as a place for people to come in and out of while waiting for the bus, that it would free up some land on the south side along Pearl Street and on the west side along Junction Place. A. Shoemaker said the Depot is in the wrong spot and faces the wrong direction. He said the Depot should face the bus turnaround. K Becker would like to see the Depot more integrated and serve a purpose. W. Johnson summarized that the Depot is isolated and the board does not understand how it will work with the site and would like for that to be made clear. Pedestrian interface/connections A. Shoemaker said from a pedestrian standpoint, with the volume of buses, the interface/connections are very dangerous. He was concerned with the connection to the island and the fact that t}lere are too many street crossings. E. Jones did not mind people boarding in the center of the loop as long as there are clear markings across it. A. Sopher found it awkward that it is center loaded to all of the buses. W. Johnson suggested a stronger comlection between Pearl and the bus facility. She also suggested that the green dotted line (on the map) come down toward the bus facility. A. Sopher added that the board had talked about it being street side as opposed to rail side. Character/Public Art and the Sus Shelters B. Holicky said at site plan he will look for tree placement. P. Shull said character is important and careful consideration needs to take place as to what is approved at this site. E. Jones said the city needs to figure out what the theme is for the site and make it a more interesting place. 1'. Shull said the art integrated at Pearl Street is interesting but riot zany. He said the art can be sensible and serve social and recreational purposes. B. Holicky said it is important not lose this opportunity to connect to Pearl Street. He said if there is a place for big public art, it is the corner at Pearl. A. Sopher wanted a more urban area where buildings come up to the street and there is continuity of street life and streetscape. W. Johnson said the shelter should be a little more sheltering with more refuge. A. Shoemaker said a lot of issues could be resolved if the turnaround was underground. W. Johnson summarized the board's comments as follows: • There are more opportunities here to be thoughtful and creative, as well as functional and practical. =1 • The terminus on Pearl has support from the board. • The users experience with parking and shelters are priorities. 6. MATTERS FROM THE PLANNING BOARD, PLANNING DIRECTOR, AND CITY ATTORNEY R. McHeyser presented the Summary of the Planning Board Tour. R. Ray checked in with the board on the content and layout of the staff reports. K. Becker said that she is continually impressed with staff memos.. P. Shull said that smaller plans or plans on CD's would be acceptable and preferred. He also questioned the requirement for the model at concept plan. D. Gehr presented the Planning Board Leave of Absence Request. A. Shoemaker said that he will be gone from January 1 through March (back before the last meeting in March) W. Johnson asked Planning Board if there were any objections to voting on the Leave of Absence on December 41~`. There were no objections. B. Holicky updated the board on Pops and Scrapes and Compatible Development. P. Shull spoke about the Letter to Council. 7. DEBRIEF/AGENDA CHECK 8. ADJOURNMENT The Plaru~ing Board adjourned the meeting at 10:29 p.m. APPROVED BY Board Chair DATE 5