Loading...
Minutes - Planning Board - 6/4/2009 CITY OF BOULDER PLANNING BOARD ACTION MINUTES ,Tune 04, 2009 1777 Broadway, Council Chambers A permanent set of these minutes and a tape recording (maintained for a period of seven years) arc 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 Holicky Elise Jones Willa Johnson Andrew Shoemaker Adrian Sopher Mary Young STAFF PRESENT: Steve Buckbee, Civil Engineer Il David Driskell, Deputy Director of Community Planning Charles Ferro, Senior Planner David Gehr, Assistant City Attorney Kathy Haddock, Sr. Assistant City Attorney Brian Holmes, Planner II (Zoning Administrator) Elizabeth Lokocz, Landscape Architect Ruth McHeyser, Executive Director of Community Planning Cindy Pieropan, Housing Planner Curtis Stevens, Civil Engineer Jessica Vaughn, Planner I Paula Weber, Administrative Specialist III Pete Weber, Design Consultant 1. CALI, TO ORDER Chair, A. Sopher, declared a quorum at 5:06 p.m. and the following business was conducted. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES No minutes were scheduled for approval. 3. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION Stephen Sparn, 1731 15th Street, spoke in support of 1135 11`h Street and 1004 14th Street projects. 4. DISCUSSION OF DISPOSITIONS, PLANNING BOARD CALL-UPS Call-up items: 2325 19th Street, Non-conforming Use Review, LUR2008-00111 was not called up by the board. 1 1 135 11`h Street, Non-conforming Use Review, LUR2009-00025 was not called up by the board. 100414 1h Street, Non-conforming Use Review, LUR 2009-00033 was not called up by the board. 970 Aurora Avenue, Site Review Amendment, LUR2008-00101 was not called up by the board. 5. ACTION ITEMS A. Public hearing and consideration of Annexation and Initial Zoning #LUR2008- 00080, Crestview East Addition No. 1 a. The application proposes initial city zoning designations of Residential Estate (RE), Residential Low 1 (RL-1), Residential Medium - 2 (RM-2), and includes the following property addresses: 937 Upland Ave., 2005 Upland Ave., 2010 Upland Ave., 2075 Upland Ave., 2090 Upland Ave., 2105 Upland Ave., 2125 Upland Ave., 2130 Upland Ave., 2135 Upland Ave., 2155 Upland Ave., 2160 Upland Ave., 2114 Violet Ave., 1960 Violet Ave. and 2066 Violet Ave. 't'he application also includes a request to amend the North Boulder Subcommunity Plan Bicycle / Pedestrian / Auto Improvement Maps Staff Presentation C. Ferro presented the item to the board. Applicant/Owner Presentation Nathan Kcnect and Mark Young presented the item to the board. B. Holicky disclosed that he works for a company that is partially owned by someone who lives a few lots away from the annexation boundary in the city limits. He has consulted with the city attorney and the attorney's office feels that he does not have a conflict. He does not feel that he has a conflict nor does he feel that anything inherent in that relationship would cause him to be impartial so he is disclosing it but he is not going to recuse himself on the advice of the city attorney. A. Sopher disclosed that he had a conversation with the city attorney about his involvement with a remaining property outside of the Crestview East annexation area but in the sub-division that was pro-bono. He does not feel there is a conflict and the city attorney has concurred. M. Young disclosed that on Tuesday afternoon she met with some of the neighbors and they gave her a tour of the neighborhood and pointed out some of their areas of concern. Public Hearing Dave Shade, 2198 Upland Avenue, spoke against sidewalks on Upland on both sides. Amy Haywood, 2075 Upland Avenue, spoke in supportof flag lots If they could only be one house allowed and they must be oriented toward Vine Street. Andy Malkiel, 2135 Upland Avenue, said in order for the landowners to continue to live there and pay for the annexation, the landowners need the ability to develop. Anne Hockmeyer, 2010 Upland Avenue, spoke against sidewalks on Upland because of the trees and the rural character and the fact that the sidewalks would destroy that look. Rob Naumann, 626 Cascade Avenue (owner of 1917 Upland, 2180 Violet and 2145 Upland) said there is a minor mistake in the map which is on 1917 Upland where it shows Vine going through, he has given a right of way for there to be an "S" curve. He said the septic tanks on this block are not in good shape. He said the water and sewer are essential. He suggested that sewers 2 go in on Upland and along Violet as soon as possible because the current septic systems are leeching. Christine Adams, 48 Alaska Road (owner of 1937 Upland Avenue), spoke in support of the annexation. Jan Morzel, 2075 Upland, spoke to the board about the cost of the annexation. Saying each property owner would pay a total of $100,000. He said property owners were hoping for the opportunity for development to offset that cost. Betsy Imig, 2114 Violet, spoke to the board about the cost of the annexation. She said the burden on her is huge to put in alleys, bike paths, and low cost housing. She does not understand why she should have to designate fifty percent of her property for low cost housing. She pleaded with the board to consider this when making their decision. Board Discussion A. Sopher said the board should look at the changes requested to the North Boulder Sub- Community Plan supported by staff. Items 1-7 on pages 10-12 of the staff memo as a place to start. Noting the seven items listed as proposed amendments to the North Boulder Subcommunity Plan. A. Sopher asked if the board is in support of this item. W. Johnson said she likes this approach but she would like some discussion on the north / south connections. A. Sopher said there are north / south connections on the plan as submitted, the nature of those north / south connections, we may need to discuss. Number two is also a north / south connector so we will talk about one and two together. Number three is the reduction of the Vine Street right of way from 60 feet to 40 feet. He asked if there is any question about the support for that, otherwise he would like to take that off the agenda. A. Sopher said number three is accepted. He said number four, the east / west alley between 19th and 22r'd, is the width of the alley being reduced to 12 feet paved, 16 feet total. He said number four is accepted. Number five and six are part of the north / south discussion. Number seven, the elimination of sidewalks on the south side of Vine Street is accepted. A. Sopher said for reference he would ask the board to consider all five of the requests made by the applicant, the first being the north / south connector, the second is the sidewalk issue on the south side of Upland, the third one is the affordable housing issue, the fourth one is in relation to the local improvement district. The first one is a part of the north / south connectors. W. Johnson said she would support changing and reducing the width on some of these connectors. There should be some connections and she would like information on which ones make the most sense. The proposals on the table have a bit of conflict She is open to hear what others think about this. E. Jones said she thinks we could reduce the amount of pavement and the amount of connections for vehicles. She is interested in decreasing it and discussing where it makes sense to decrease some of these connections. She would support making some these connections simply pedestrian given that there are bike paths on 19th Street. This would reduce the amount of concrete put in this area and save some trees. M. Young said she agrees with E. Jones. K. Becker said agrees and would like to see what connections there are and if they can be connected in a linear fashion rather than connections that jog and meander. A. Sopher asked staff about the north / south connector shown between 1960 Violet and 2066 Violet and if it is intended to connect to the mobile home park to the north. C. Ferro said it is not intended to connect or align with the mobile home park on the north side of Vine, it is simply a road to serve as access to the alley and for Vine Street. 3 A. Sopher asked the board if there is any interest in keeping that connection. Saying we know we have to have the one to the cast, between 2020 Violet and 2180 Violet. R McHeyser said we already have half of the right of way for that connection. A. Sopher said that one would connect to potentially some kind of crossing of Violet into the mobile home park street which pins north off of Violet. C. Ferro said there is no formal plan for a connection or cross walk but informally it would get people out onto Violet and down to the intersection so they could cross. W. Johnson said the only hesitation to taking the blue line out is that you could then build Vine in a smaller section. A. Sopher said his only concern to taking the blue line out is the access to the alley, this would make it a dead end access otherwise and you can't have any more than three houses access from a dead end alley. S. Buckbee said it is a shared access lane so the alley would connect: to 22nd and the other side, there is no good way to get the alley out to I9'h, it look like it will be a short dead end there so he said A. Sopher is correct. A. Sopher asked if that is the location that is shown in the North Boulder Subcommunity plan. S. Buckbee said that is correct, it is just the width that is being altered. A. Sopher asked if the location of it is going all the way through from Violet to Vine in the Sub- community plan. S. Buckbee said it does. A. Sopher said he takes back his suggestion to delete it. He asked the board for a straw pole on whether or not the board would like to keep the alley connection between 1960 and 2066 Violet. The board decided to keep that connection. A. Sopher said the next question is what to do between Vine and Upland. He asked S. Buckbee if there are any connections that the fire martial says we have to have. S. Buckbee said the one on 2145 Upland, we already have 20 feet of right of way there, fire would like to have. The one between Tamarak and Upland, that would be nice to keep in there to function as a fire lane as well. A. Sopher proposed to the board that we keep the access between 2135 and 2145 in tact in the connections plan as shown. E. Jones said the staff proposal was to reduce the width but to keep the access. S. Buckbee said it is a 20' clear 12' wide multi use path for bikes and pedestrian that serves as an emergency access only. A. Sopher asked the board for a straw pole on support of keeping the access between 2135 and 2145 as per the staff recommendation. The board vote was unanimous. A. Sopher asked the board to look at number five, the 12' concrete fire lane and multi-use path between Upland and Tamarak and 2010 Upland and the properties facing onto 19`h Street. 2010 Upland, to the west side of that. B. Holicky said the issue he has with this one is the removal of the auto access. In doing this it forces all of the traffic from 2010, 2090, 2110, 2130 all of those sub-divided properties, along with any additional properties at 2020 that access onto Tamarak to run all the way around Upland down 22nd and back around Tamarak. We would create a 25-30 car cul-de-sac- It might have a dramatic vehicular reduction in terms of cars on upland to keep that access vehicular. He would like to hear the boards thoughts on this. W. Johnson said she was looking at the plans she was inclined to keep the access in the middle but she thinks B. Holicky has a good point. M. Young said B. Holicky has a good point. E. Jones asked for staff reaction to what B. Holicky said- S. Buckbee said the adopted plan shows a 30' vehicular access lane to provide access off of dead end Tamarak up to Upland as part of the 2020 Upland annexation, they are having to put in a 4 turn around in there at the end of Tamarak. Staff proposed to turn it into a multi-use path fire access lane. There are slightly less sub-division potential on the south side of Upland. C. Ferro said because of the zoning to RE there are lots in the back that will only have the opportunity to sub-divide into additional one property in the back. There may be ten to a max build out of 15 new units along Tamarack. B. Holicky said you have to add to that in terms of traffic all of the units on Upland that also access. He asked if there are any negatives to connecting that as vehicular access from staffs stand point. C. Ferro said he does not think there are any negatives to having that as a vehicular access. The rationale for allowing the conversion to a fire access and multiuse path is to keep as many people in the annexation as possible combined with what we consider to be the lowest density area in the subdivision. A. Sopher said he would support what B. Holicky said to keep that in as a 30' wide street to the standards that are appropriate because that would reduce the impact on any possible reduction in sidewalk requirements along Upland because you have less traffic coming back onto Upland from Tamarak. He asked for a straw pole from the board for the proposal to maintain a 30' street connection north from Tamarak to Upland unless there is further discussion from the board. K. Becker asked if the board could wait and see how it fits in with the rest of what they do. A. Sopher said he is fine with that and the board will table that decision because that may be directly connected to what happens north of that. A. Sopher asked the board to look at the green line north which is a 15' bike path that links Upland and Vine. W. Johnson said she supports eliminating that path because there is a bike path on 19th Street which is two lots over. A. Sopher said that is item one and it is proposed by staff to be eliminated from the sub- community Plan. He asked for a vote from the board for accepting the staff recommendation to eliminate item one. M. Young said she would like to wait and see what happens with the other north / south connection. A. Sopher said the board will table that as well and that leaves the north / south connection between 2125 and 2105 Upland as it runs south down to Tamarak. The staff recommendation is to keep that as per the North Boulder Sub-community plan. B. Holicky said he is familiar with the path that goes from Redwood to Crestview north / south mid block between 15th and 19th. It functions pretty well to take kids on bikes into the school. Kids and their parents will go out of their way to get to the school without being on 19th Street. As long as there is a way to get kids to the school without going onto 19th Street he is alright with eliminating that connection. He does not think it is critical to have it there, it does seem like to have a bike path every three houses is a lot_ E. Jones asked about making it a pedestrian only connection. W. Johnson said a small pedestrian connection creates some relief and additional connection. It doesn't need to be the standard of a bike path. She is comfortable with a narrow concrete path or a unpaved path. A. Sopher suggested crusher fines. M. Young said she would support that if it also meanders to avoid mature trees that are there. S. Buckbee said when one property develops on one side of the path, we get the easement from them and they give us money to build half of the path. When the other property develops that is when the path gets built. The trigger is to have both properties developed to get the path in so we are trying to preserve mature trees until the properties sub-divide. If we did a smaller 5' section in there we could do a wider easement to meander around trees and preserve them. 5 R. McHeyser asked the board to keep in mind that we are talking about three lots, not three houses. A. Sopher asked about the space between those two green lines, the north / south connector, the distance between the two. C. Ferro said it is about 420'. A. Sopher asked if we don't have that connection then we have about 800' down to 22"d Street. He said he would support that recommendation, a 10' easement to do a 5' path. M. Young it should be a meandering path. A. Sopher said it would meander as needed. K. Becker asked how you keep it being a pedestrian path and not a bike path. Her concern is the crusher fine being rutted by bike usage. S. Buckbee said you can not really prevent the use of the path by cyclists. He asked if the board was recommending either concrete or soft path. A. Sopher said in response to K. Becker's question, it should not be a problem there should not be a large volume here. There are other paths here in this area that are 5' wide just on the east side of this zone, bike and pedestrians can coexist without problems. E. Jones said there are bike paths on 19`h Street so anyone who is really trying to move quickly is going to use that and not a soft path that meanders. A. Sopher said he is fine with taking staff recommendation on the material and not addressing that on the board if that is to the boards pleasure. The proposal from the board is to have a 10' easement for a 5' wide path that meanders as needed. That is the north / south connector between 2125 and 2105 Upland and going south down to Tamarak in alignment. The vote was unanimous. Returning to the north / south connector at the western end of Tamarak, the potential elimination as identified as number one in the staff memo. The northern section of that between 2005 Upland and 1937 Upland. Those in support of the staff recommendation, thumbs up, it is unanimous. And then the last remaining item on the connections plan modifications which is the southern section of that which is proposed to be a 30' wide street section connecting Tamarak back up to Upland. E. Jones said she is still torn on that one. She is not big on cul-de-sacs but we create permeability for bikes and pedestrians assuming we agree with the connection with 19th Street. She is wondering if with the number of cars we are dealing with whether or not this is a huge problem. She is not against it but not a fan of extra pavement. A. Sopher asked if we have a 30' right of way, what is the amount of pavement needed. S. Buckbee said it is a 20' minimum pavement section as opposed to a 12' concrete section for a fire access multi use path, so an extra 8'. K. Becker said she likes B. Holicky's proposal, having visited the area, she was surprised when Tamarak ended and thinks it would help with connections throughout the area and the development on that side, between Tamarak and Upland, it makes since to have a connection. M. Young asked how much more traffic would be added on Upland_ C. Ferro said from the subdivision of the properties along Tamarak, there would be ten additional units that could be added to Tamarak. M. Young asked in terms of car trips, what that would mean. S. Buckbee said about seven trips per household would be added per day. A. Sopher said what we are looking at is the percentage of increased lots that are being served by Upland by not having Tamarak in. So we are reducing by having Tamarak connect to Upland on the western side of Tamarak, we are reducing the number of car trips coming back onto Upland by what percentage. S. Buckbee said the lots will split if the access lane is there so the people on the eastern portion of Tamarak will use it you are cutting down the number by 35 trips per day going down Upland by putting that in. 6 A. Sopher said he thinks everyone on Tamarak who is going west will use the proposed connector. He asked if there was more discussion by the board. E. Jones said she is surprised by the staff recommendation because staff is normally looking for more connections and now they are saying they want less. S. Buckbee said in an effort to keep the neighborhood together and to treat the property at 2145 Upland the same as 2010 Upland because there was a street proposed to go through there as well. In an effort to be equitable to property owners. 2145 Upland was originally proposed as a 40' street section and we have 20' right of way. That was proposed as a 30' access lane so in turning that into a multi-use path-fire access, to keep the neighbors together and to treat them equitably and to keep as many people in the annexation as possible. E. Jones asked if staff was concerned if the board makes these changes would that cause people to drop out of this annexation. C. Ferro said that is the feeling he is getting from the neighbors, especially those affected directly by it. B. Holicky said we need to do what is right for the neighborhood. The people who can not bear the burden of the improvements have a right to drop out and that is their perrogotive. A property like 2010 Upland is generating by subdivision, a car seven trips a day or so down Tamarak and up 22nd and down Upland. So they impact every other property. If there is access that would partially be on their property they would only impact themselves and two other properties. It is impossible to fairly balance the trade offs of this between everyone. We have a property at 2066 Violet and 1960 Violet where we are providing that access easement there. So if we are going to try to make everything as fair as possible, that needs to go away if everything else is going away. If we think this is necessary then we should require it, if we don't think it is necessary then we should not require it. E. Jones said she does not disagree with that, she is just torn. C. Ferro said in order for this vehicular access to be completed it would be pending the annexation of the property at 4270. This property has not annexed yet and is not part of this particular application. The access would be pending the annexation and us getting the necessary right of way in order to complete that connection if and when that ever occurred. R. McHeyser said it is just a connection that would be in the outer years. A. Sopher said that is true of the 12' connection as well. C. Ferro said that is correct. A. Sopher asked if there was any further discussion on this. He then took a straw pole on those in favor of the amendment to the staff recommendation to change the north / south connector from the west end of Tamarak to a 30' wide street section as per the sub-community plan requirement. There were six in favor and M. Young question whether they should wait to see what happens with the sidewalk on Upland. A. Sopher said there were six in favor. M. Young said she would drop it. A. Sopher moved to the sidewalk on Upland as the next topic. K. Becker said the sidewalk on Upland could be eliminated because of what we just did and partly because these are RE lots and it is not a high volume of pedestrian traffic and there is a sidewalk on the other side. There are mature trees on that street and it is important to preserve as many as we can. Just given that it maintains the rural feel of that neighborhood to the extent possible eliminating the sidewalk on one side is important and she is only willing to do this because of the sidewalk on the other side. M. Young said she would add an additional point that we have the cascading zoning affect which would work into the idea of having a sidewalk on the north side and not on the south side that would be consistent with the cascading zoning affect. 7 A. Sopher said there is a proposal from K. Becker to delete the requirement in the staff recommendation for a sidewalk on the south side of Upland. The vote was unanimous to delete the sidewalk on the south side of upland. B. Holicky said the reason he did not speak to this is because he would like to consider the width of Upland. I do appreciate the neighbors concern for traffic calming, it is less of a concern if there is an outlet for Tamarak. We have numerous places in town with streets narrower than 22' plus 2' of gravel on each side work fine. The vehicular load is low. The narrower the streets, the slower the traffic goes. He would be fine with something narrower than that, something like 20- 22' pavement section with no gravel on the sides, a five foot tree lawn and four foot sidewalks, the sidewalks don't serve many people. He would prefer something like that loaded to the north side because if we were to narrow the width of it we could actually make a double sidewalk section lit within the same width as a one sidewalk section. If we chose as a board to go with on the north side sidewalk we could make it a smaller overall pavement width. We are serving very few people, really we arc serving pedestrians from the east. Either a one sided sidewalk or a four foot sidewalk is a variation from city standards so as soon as we say we are alright with it on one side, we have a right to start to introduce a four foot sidewalk. There are bike lanes on the street so we should not see too many sidewalks. K. Becker asked if B. Holicky suggested there are bike lanes as well as traffic lanes. B. Holicky said the traffic lane includes a bike route, there is not a separate bike lane. A. Soplier asked if B. Holicky is talking about removing the southern sidewalk. B. Holicky said he is considering shrinking the northern sidewalk from 5' to 4', keeping the 5' tree lawn, removing the 2' gravel edge, making a 20-22' pavement section, removing the 2' on the southern side. Now we have gained 5'. At that point we could consider putting in a southern sidewalk. If the board decides not to put in a southern sidewalk we would effectively reduced the pavement width on the street by 5'. A. Sopher asked S. Buckbee if he has a comment on the removal of the 2' apron. K. Becker asked about B. Holicky's proposal if in reducing the car lanes and adding more sidewalk we would lose more trees that way. B. Holicky said it is two separate things if we forget about the southern sidewalk and if we just look at the northern sidewalk to the edge of the pavement we would reduce it by 5' which would make it easier to save trees. If the board decided that they would prefer the southern sidewalk them that has reduced enough to put the southern sidewalk in the originally proposed width for one sidewalk. This is rural area now but they are being annexed into the city so there probably will be a loss to that rural aspect. But reducing the amount of pavement will help preserve the character. K. Becker asked how you reduce it when it is already there. B. Holicky said it is reduced from the staff proposal. He said the proposal is to add an additional 2' of gravel on each side which will make it 26' wide with a 5' sidewalk. If you remove 2' of gravel on each side and 1' of sidewalk you have taken 5' of pavement out of the cross section. K. Becker asked B. Holicky about his proposal for the bike lane. B. Holicky said the bike lane would be the same as the staff proposal which is in the vehicular lane of traffic. S. Buckbee said what he is hearing from B. Holicky is to leave the street section like it is on Upland and add a sidewalk and take one foot away from width of the sidewalk. B. 11olicky said that is what he was proposing. S. Buckbee said the city standard is 4' width sidewalk right now and they are in the process of being changed to 5'. Through the annexation we are asking for 5' wide sidewalks. A. Sopher asked S. Buckbee about the apron and if staff has a problem with leaving the apron out. S. Buckbee said he does not have a problem leaving the apron out. 8 A. Sopher asked what the apron is for if staff is alright with leaving it out. S. Buekbee said it is for parking and for pedestrians. It allows people to park on the side and leaves area for usable lane width and to not tear up the barrow ditch. E. Jones said she likes B. Holicky's proposal in conjunction with having only one sidewalk as well. W. Johnson said she likes removing the gravel section and would lean toward having one sidewalk and have it be 5' wide. A. Sopher said he agrees with leaving out the south sidewalk and is fine with a 4' sidewalk. He is fine with leaving out the gravel as well. He asked for a straw pole on the deletion of the gravel. The vote is unanimous. He asked about keeping the southside sidewalk out and the vote was unanimous. Then he asked about the width of the sidewalk being four feet or five feet. The vote was 5-2 for four feet for the north side sidewalk, no sidewalk on the south side and no gravel aprons on Upland. A. Sopher asked if the board would like to address Vine in the same manor. S. Buekbee said there is a 26' pavement area on Vine Street with a 40' access lane. A. Sopher asked if staff sees a higher traffic volume. C. Ferro said there is a higher density that will be serviced off of Vine with the MR parcels. A. Sopher said he does not see a reason to raise a question of changing that unless others do. M. Young asked about the access to Vine from 1960 to 2066, she would like to address the fact that there is one property that is not annexing, it is going to impinge on the properties that are to the south of that non annexing property, would it be feasible to instead of making that job into those properties to just narrow it at that point because there is emergency access anyway. S. Buekbee said it goes through, it is a 40' right of way that will connect to the future Vine Street. He said it is the volume and density and we want a minimum 11' travel lane through there so you have to make a decision on whether you don't want the cars to go through or if you don't want the sidewalk to go through or both, we will be struggling to get the proposed 5' sidewalk and 26' pavement section, that will not fit in 30' so we are going to have to narrow them down and attach them to get through that spot. It will be a struggle as is. A. Sopher said that takes care of the items 1-7 on the staff recommendation and items 1 and 2 on the applicants request. Number three on the list is the question of the cash in iicu. D. Gehr said he suggests going through the North Boulder Community Plan portion and to have the board make a motion if they are inclined for efficiency sake. A. Sopher asked the board if anyone would like to put a motion on the table regarding the modifications to the North Boulder Sub-community Plan considered by the board tonight. On a motion by L. Jones, seconded by W. Johnson, the Planning Board recommended (7-0) to City Council approval of the proposed amendments to the North Boulder Sub-community Plan as summarized on pages 12 and 13 with modifications to the staff recommendations in that we are deleting it sidewalk on the south side of Upland and the fr~ivel shoulders on Upland and putting in a four foot sidewalk on the north side of upland and that for the north / south vehicular connection between Upland and Tarnarak we are not accepting the stall recommendation and we are modifying [lie north / south connection between Vine and Tamarak by making it a 10' right of warpath with material selected by staff. A. Sopher said this is a modification to the North Boulder Sub-community plan approved by the Planning Board that also needs to be approved by City Council. A. Sopher said we are looking at the five items, number three on the list that came from the applicants for consideration of the board as differing from the staff memorandum and these are 9 more directly connected to the annexation agreement. The first one still on the table is the 50 percent on site affordable housing requirement as per zone designation as opposed to the staff recommendation as being per property. B. Holicky asked D. Gehr if the board could take official action regarding either the affordable housing requirements or the local improvement district in the annexation process as a board. D. Gehr said the board can take action on the affordable housing provisions. The Local Improvement District (LID) is a separate process that is set up by our charter and our code and that is more of a financing issue that council can take up. B. Holicky asked if the board can make official action on Affordable Housing and make a recommendation on the LTD. D. Gehr said that is correct. B. Holicky said the board should take the LID separately after any recommendation or motion we might make for an annexation at the end. A. Sopher said that is what the board will be doing. W. Johnson asked if the board could talk about the flag lots separately. A. Sopher said the board should start by talking about the 50 percent on site affordability of the RM zone portion of the sites affected by this discussion that is along Violet as opposed to it that the affordable housing be applied to the entire zone from Violet to Vine. He explained that affordable housing requirements are typically applied to entire sites, the sites that are in question that span from Violet to Vine are broken up into two zones, they are split zone sites, with the intention, presumably, that they arc to be sub-divided from north to south. The applicant are requesting this because of the costs that they are having to incur all together, for both the affordable housing requirements and for all of the cost of annexation that the affordable housing requirement for on site units be applied across the zone as opposed to across the entire site because other properties that are RL or RE properties are not having to deal with on site units since they do meet a minimum threshold of more than five units on site. He asked staff if that summary made sense. R. McHeyser said the summary did make sense. D. Gehr said the staff proposal is based on the annexation guidelines. W. Johnson asked C. Pieropan how much is lost in teens of affordable housing benefit going from the current proposal to the applicant proposal. C. Pieropan said the applicant proposal is to do cash in lieu for RL units and there is up to two units on each of those parcels, that would be seven on site affordable units. The cash in lieu equivalent that they would be providing would be 5.6 units. W. Johnson said that would mean that you would loose a unit and a half but the cash in lieu could be leveraged to create more units potentially than five. C. Pieropan said perhaps but we would want to get something similar like single family homes so it is unlikely that it could be used to get more. W. Johnson asked if that would be in the cash in lieu fund. C. Pieropan said that was correct. B. Holicky asked in the RM-2 zone if attached housing is allowed. C. Pieropan said that attached housing is allowed in the RM-2 zone. B. Holicky asked if in the RM-2 split zone it is unlikely that we would get single family homes out of that configuration. A. Sopher asked if in the RL-1 portion of the site duplexes are allowed. C. Pieropan said duplexes are allowed if they are both affordable. A. Sopher asked if in the RM-2 zone attached units are allowed all together. C. Pieropan said that was correct. W. Johnson said she would support the applicant's proposal because she believes an onerous level of affordable housing benefit in the RL-1 portion of the site and that having syminetry 10 across the street makes some sense and she is sympathetic to the costs to provide Vine and she is satisfied with the 50 percent on site in the RM-2 portion. A. Sopher said he is in complete agreement with W. Johnson and when he looks at all of the cost associated with this annexation he is astounded by how much it adds up to and recognized that a lot of this is coming from the desires of City Council to maximize the affordable housing benefit generally in annexations and specifically in the Crestview enclave but the numbers are significant all together and if we can by allowing them to do more cash in lieu in this area, make it more possible for them to do what they need to do, he is supportive. B. Holicky said most annexations are one of convenience but this is one of necessity to some extent because of the failing systems in the area and because of the high cost of meeting city standards we are essentially mandating development here. The costs are onerous and because of the necessity of annexation for the people within it, there is very little choice on their part. To some extent the city can hijack the cost to whatever they want it to be, there is not much alternative for a lot of people. Because of all oftbat he will support the relaxation of that. A. Sopher said that he agrees with B. Holicky and that we are putting people in the position where they have to go forward with this annexation in some manor. E. Jones said she is a little torn because the affordable housing benefit is so important and the city does a great work. She appreciates following the guidelines that we are supposed to. She said A. Sopher and B. Holicky make a pretty good case about the necessity of annexation here and what is happening with the septic systems and the fact that we are forcing people to develop here at high density to cover the cost of annexation is something that she does not take lightly and is willing to follow her colleagues on this one. A. Sopher said he does not feel that staff has done anything wrong here in proposing what they have, he things they are following the guidelines that are set forth and it makes since but altogether it is adding up to a significant burden. M. Young said she is sympathetic with Ms. Imeg and her point that she is someone that is at a level of income that would qualify for affordable housing that would be providing affordable housing. B. Holicky thanked staff for their hard work saying it is very appropriate and it is not a comment on staffs ability or analysis of this proposal. D. Gehr asked in terms of what the board is proposing in page 34 and 35 of the staff memo if they are proposing to take RL out of sub-section 18 B and combining it with all of the RL properties that are in sub-section C. W. Johnson said that is her understanding. A. Sopher asked for a straw pole on this item and it was supported unanimously. The next item on the list of applicant request was for support of the board to recommend a local improvement district as a way to make funding more viable for the applicants to move forward on the improvements requested. One thing he would like to clarify is that the sewer line improvements are not at issue here. R. McHeyser said the proposal is that the city will up front the sewer in Upland and Violet. B. Holicky said that because we can not make official action on this item, the board should table it until after we make a motion on the annexation. A. Sopher said the last item is related to this from the perspective of the applicants but he is not sure if it is from the perspective of the board. The allowance of flag lots which is not just limited to Upland, it is affecting Vine which means flag lots could be accessed from Violet. R. McHeyser said that is correct. W. Johnson said she is not in support of allowing flag lots for all of the reasons that staff presented in terms of the urban fabric and how we go about this enclave. M. Young said she believes the neighborhood was requesting temporary flag lots to defray some of the cost of Vine Street because the first sub-division triggers the entire Vine Street installation. 11 In order to defray some of that cost to just make it temporary until there are more people that have been able to sub-divide and thereby afford to pay for Vine Street. W. Johnson said once you set up a flag lot configuration you become fixed in that pattern, you may build your house to address some future Vine Street but functionally you have your driveway and you are using your back door as a front door and it evolves from there. A. Sopher said if there was a way to insure that the fronts of the houses were turned to a future Vine Street, he is curious how we could control that. He also asked if the access were coming in from Violet you could have access to garages from an alley but he does not know how you can do that from Upland. B. Holicky said he thinks part of the proposal that Brent Bean made is that if there was a flag lot off Vine on the RE / RL-1 split lot zone there is potential for two lots, if you were to have a flag lot you could only have one house back there. It would have to have access off Vine in order to have both lots put in. Because of that, that would allow a driveway to come into the vacant lot on the north side, saying your flag lot is on the east side of the property, it would come in on the east and access the current property on the west side that sub-division. By building that flag lot the owner of that lot would abandon building a third house. What it does allow is for someone who is landlocked in and cant get Vine built on either side of them be able to develop immediately and not have to wait for the rest of the property owners to get Vine through. We could have regulations in that the houses would have to face Vine. He would be in support of flag lots because it really does help the people who have to sub-divide now to help pay for this now. Still leave that stick of the second sub-divided house back there to encourage them to not leave it as a flag lot forever. A. Sopher said the only problem he has with this is that if you then say that the flag lot is really the flag plus the northern half of the Upland lot you are essentially selling off the flag lot in two parts, the second part being sold off when Vine comes in. B. Holicky said there are two ways to do this. You could either sub-divide the whole north half off, put an access easement in from Upland with the language in the access easement that when Vine Street goes in that Upland access has to be abandoned. Then that lot that you just sold off on the north half would be sub-dividable so there would be incentive for that person to install that Vine access and get Vine put in. A. Sopher said they would have to sell of the whole northern half plus the flag in order to do that. B. Holicky said potentially they could hold everything but the northwest corner of one of those lots and have that access easement run over 3/4 of the property to get there and still have the sub- division potential for the other part later. That would be a two part sub-division which is less likely. W. Johnson asked if with the fact that everyone is in agreement that plan A is the LID. If that failed at some point, could we come back to a discussion on flag lots at a later date. R. McHeyser said the board could come back to a discussion on flag lots. The other thing that staff has been in discussion with the neighborhood about is that if the LID did not go through, there are other financing alternatives that we would look at. Part of it is the idea of financing those utilities over a longer period of time because the whole idea of people wanting to subdivide is to offset their costs. We have a little bit of experience with flag lots put in with the understanding that over time they would go away is a challenge to say the least. B. Holicky said his concern is that some of these folks have to redevelop now and some of the land locked properties can not do that until the people on either side of them commit to sub- dividing as well because Vine needs to go through. The utilities are a good point but he thinks that the extra stick of being able to further sub-divide and make that happen, considering with the first sub-division there will be an affordable housing payment and the second one will help offset it. He said he is not willing to give up on it, if it is the boards pleasure that we reconsider if all of 12 the other financing methods fail, he is alright with that but he does thing that the board may see it back if we can't get the financing to work and if it does come back he will support it. A. Shoemaker asked B. Holicky why he is convinced in this economy that further development is going to better allow paying for these improvements as opposed to a different pay schedule on these utilities. B. Holicky said he is not, if that kind ofneighborhood wide vehicle is not found or isn't willing to be fiinded or bonded by somebody, which in this economy is also a possibility, he is worried that two or three of these people would need to sell of a portion of their land in order for them to pay for the $75,000 or $100,000 that it will cost them to get annexed, lie does not want them to not be able to do so and have to move. A. Shoemaker said that raised the question that W. Johnson asked which is if the better alternative is to see what other alternatives exist and then readdress the flag lot situation if there is not another viable solution. B. Holicky said if that is where the board wishes to go, he is willing to do that but he would still be in support of flag lots. E. Jones asked staff if since the original flag lot proposal was Brents and staff is no longer supporting that is that based on the experience that staff has had with flag lot development in the interim or what is the change of mind on that. R. McHeyser said that since that application fell through staff and the neighborhood put their efforts on getting a much larger annexation package together and came up with something that was viable. A. Sopher asked if what staff is thinking there is a way to table this discussion to a sub-division application at a later date. R. McHeyser said staff could keep the board informed of how the discussions go around an LID or other alternative mechanisms and just come back and report to the board as is timely. A. Sopher asked if R. McHeyser sees this as tied to an annexation agreement particularly but it could be a part of a sub-division for this area. R. McHeyser said it could be in a sub-division agreement so we could have it as a separate discussion. W. Johnson asked if there would be individual sub-division agreements that would come in one by one. R. McHeyser said right now it is a policy but staff can figure out a mechanism to come back to the board and have that as a separate discussion. A. Sopher said from Violet to do the flag is less problematic because you have the possibility of doing an alley in the future then you could get utilities off of that alley. He said there is nothing stated here on the request that would lead him to believe that Violet wouldn't also be an option for a flag. A Gehr said it is a higher density zoned property so you are probably not going to see single family development along Violet. A. Sopher said in other words in getting access to the north side of Vine. So what he proposed is tabling the entire question of flag lots until staff can come back with a recommendation on it as either a part of an annexation agreement of sub-division agreement. He said he would like to ask a couple of things on the annexation agreement, the map did not show all of the connections that we had described but they are referred to in exhibit F, is that something that is going to be updated to be reflected in the maps as well. C. Ferro said staff can update the maps to reflect those and will have to amend the agreement to reflect the changes that were made tonight. Motion 13 On a motion by E. Jones, seconded by W. Johnson, the Planning Board recommended (7-0) to City Council approval of the vro osed amendments to the North 13ouldc;r Sub-coininunity Plan as summarized on pages 12 and 13 with modifications to the staff recommendations in that we are deleting a sidewalk on the south side of Upland and the gravel shoulders on Upland and l)itttin 4 in it four foot sidewalk on tl)e north side of upland and that for the north / south vehicular connection between Upland and Tamarak we are not accepting the staff recommendation and we are modifyin _f is north / south connection between Vine and Tamarak by making it a 10' right of way, 5' path with material selected by staff. On a motion by B. Ilolickv, seconded by K. Becker, the 111annin,) Board recommended (7-0) to City Council the approval of LUR2008-00080 the annexation of Crestview East with Staff recommendations as findings of fact the mods tlcatiol) rccomlmllded by the city attorney oii page 3.4 and 35 changed to 1813 to delete the 1Z1. zone from that statement and to further modify subsection C onpagc 35 to make it clear that it applies to all RL zoned Properties within the annexation. On a motion E. Jones,seconded by B. Holick t14 le Planning Board would like to go on record (7-0) as encoura>;ins; City Council to continue exploratioii of formation of LID or other equitable solutions for dealing, will) the up front costs including cxtendinp the payback period. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: B. Public hearing and consideration of a Use Review #LUR2009-00006 for the Shining Mountain Waldorf School Early Childhood Program located at 1101 Union Avenue, to allow the conversion of an existing residence within the RL-1 (Residential Low-1) zone district to a non- residential daycare center use. Applicant: Agaf Dancy Owner: Waldorf School Association of Boulder, Inc., a Colorado Non-profit Corporation Staff Presentation J. Vaughn presented the item to the board. Applicant/Owner Presentation There was no Applicant/Owner presentation to the board. The board asked clarifying questions of the Applicant/Owner. Public Dearing No one from the public addressed the board. Board Discussion On a motion by K. Becker, seconded by W. Johnson recommendinw (7-0) that plannin, Board aT1)1_0vc use Review LUR2009-00006 incorporating; the staff nenio and attached use review criteria checklist subject to the conditions included in the memo as well as to amend 1B to clianr;e the language to: the daycare center shall be closed before 8 a.m. and after a p.m. Monday t111'011gll Friday other than occasional Rleetlnas and lllnctlotls not to exceed one per weck. 14 A. Shoemaker added a friendly amendment to change 113 to change the language to: the daycare center shall be closed from 5 p.m. until 8 a.m. and all day on Saturday and Sunday other than occasional meetings and functions not to exceed one per week. K. Becker said she did not add that herself because the neighborhood didn't get to comment on the 5 p.m. closure. The applicant was ok with 4 p.m. and that they have other locations to move the kids. A. Shoemaker asked if K. Becker's concern was the legal notice question. K. Becker said it is not a legal notice question, just a courtesy to the neighborhood. She is willing to accept the amendment. W. Johnson said she would second the amendment. E. Jones said it is reasonable. We should always make sure we are following good public process but it is pretty minimal impact of one hour that does not involve a lot of kids. It is not a lot of traffic or noise. A. Sopher said we have a motion on the table with a friendly amendment to redefine the hours of non operation from 5 p.m. to 8 a.m. with the exception of up to one time per week for other activities which are not defined. M. Young raised the question that if the Saturday and Sunday closure precluded community work days such as the type I see happening at a day car center by her house. K. Haddock said since 5 p.m. on Monday is after everyone had intended would it be better to word it shall be closed before 8 a.m. and after 5 p.m. Monday through Friday. A. Sopher said that he is going to support the motion but would like to address process here. The access off of Locus is questionable given the operation of the facility being on Union, given the age group of the service population being between 18 months and 5 years. Every parent is going to escort their child in, there is already a school parking lot adjacent to this property, there is already a turnaround on the south side of this property to allow for returning of parents back out to Broadway if they are dropping their child off with a car, there would have been the potential to reasonably find some way to assist in getting the parking closer to the building and not off of another street. He understands from staff that there may be a long range intention to remove the parking lots on the south side of the school, if there is such a plan it should have been in our packets for us to see it or at least noticed of the long range intention. He finds it questionable to do all of this from the north, they will need to find a way to staff that gate in terms of access and security. K. Becker said it was done that way in response to neighborhood concern. A. Sopher asked how many neighbors. J. Vaughn said there were ten neighbors at the meeting and others that sent emails. A. Sopher said the question is what level of concern is this addressing. J. Vaughn said there were other concenis there as well, they weren't meeting the bulk standards as far as landscape setback was concerned and parking in the landscape setback. By eliminating the horseshoe drive it eliminates parking in the front yard setback and it eliminates the violation of the landscape setback for a front yard for a single family residential home. A. Sopher said he realizes that but it is prc-existing and the parking could have been outside of the setback. There are ways to deal with this that he thinks are not able to be pursued because of this requirement that they had to enter off of Locust. He is supporting the application as it stands but he is just stating his surprise. 1. The application satisfies the Use Review criteria pursuant to subsection 9-2-15(e), "Criteria for Review," B.R.C. 1981, if the conditions listed below are incorporated into the approval of this application. 15 Therefore, staff recommends that Planning Board approve Use Review 4LUR2009-00006 incorporating this staff memorandum and the attached Use Review Criteria Checklist as findings of fact, subject to the recommended Conditions of Approval below: RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. The Applicant shall be responsible for ensuring that the development shall be in compliance with all approved plans dated April 22, 2009, the written statement dated May 6, 2009, and the management plan dated May 13, 2009, on file in the City of Boulder Planning Department. Further, the Applicant shall ensure that the daycare center use is operated in compliance with the following restrictions: a) Maximum enrollment is 15 children above the age of 18 months. b) The daycare center shall be closed froth 4:00 p.m_ to 8:30 a.m. Monday through Friday and all day on Saturday and Sunday. 2. The Applicant shall not expand or modify the approved use, except pursuant to subsection 9-2-15(h), B_R.C. 1981. 3. The Applicant shall comply with all previous conditions contained in the annexation Agreement recorded at Film #1139, Reception 400419995 on October 29, 1990, except as may be modified by this approval. C. Public hearing and consideration of Site Review application LUR2009-00008, Valmont City Park Phase 1. Applicant/Property Owner: City of Boulder; Parks Department; Perry Brooks, Park Planner Staff Presentation E. Lokocz presented the item to the board. Public Participation Robbie Noyes, 2439 10"' Street, spoke in support of the Valmont City Park project. Jason Vogol, 1245 Ria, spoke in support of the Valmont City Park project. Elizabeth Train, 1420 Lee Hill Road, spoke in support of Valmont City Park project. Board Discussion On a motion by B. Holickv, seconded by A. Shoemaker Planning Board (7-0) approved Site Review LLR2009-00008 incorporating the staff memorandum and the attached Site Review Criteria Checklist as findings of fact, with the recommendations to staff for consideration subject to the recommended Conditions of Approval below: Board Discussion B. Holicky said he has two parts to discuss, one is minor points about connections and service areas on the bike park section, the other is a more global discussion about the disc golf course. A. Sopher said he should start with the minor points first. 16 A. Shoemaker asked in terms of expediency tonight if the disc golf is something we could do after voting on this motion since it is not related to this parcel. E. Lokocz said it is part of phase one and part of the application. A. Sopher said asked for clarification on that since there isn't really anywhere near what he would expect to see on a site review application on disc golf.. E. Lokocz said that is because there is minimal improvement, there is no proposed vegetation removal, there is no grading, the prairie dog fence is already in place, there is essentially the installation of the tee basket. W. Johnson asked if it requires site review- E. Lokocz said the size of the site triggers the need for site review- B. Holicky asked about on page S4, there is a multi-use path that runs along Valmont Road on the right side of that page it starts to ark up to get around the dog park, there is a little T that comes into it. The Valmont sidewalk comes in and takes a hard right to the north. He asked that the connection is streamlined so we don't end up with a cut through there. The next issue is at S I the northern side of the parking lot where the start finish line is and where there is the emergency access. That should be different material for the part that is fire access vs. the bike path there so it is clear to avoid user conflict there. The next issue is that we are short on bike parking. E. Lokocz said it is over on bike parking requirement based on parking itself. There will be a whole series of temporary bike parking for events and that is something that is part of the events permit the event staff will review and approve- B. Holicky said he would like to defer to staff on how this is managed. If there is a large event there will be at least 2000 people here and a lot of there will come by bike. If we don't have the bike parking in place, he would like to know where it will go. There will be times when parents come with kids and they will want to park their park. It would be really embarrassing to have a bike park with not enough bike parking. E. Lokocz asked if B. Holicky was taking into consideration the event green vendor space, car parking and potential bike parking on B0.2. B. Holicky said that is why he is leaving it up to staff because it was unclear whether it was just a bunch of vendor tents or whether it would be a place to put bikes, if there was enough room and maybe it is on an event by event basis that it is looked at. Maybe it has to do with fund raising but if there is some money to provide some bike parking at a reasonable location. E. Lokocz asked if it actually needs to comply with our typical parking standards, paved surface, spacing, units? B. Holicky said no. E. Jones said the issue here is events because someone coming to this park normally would come here on there bike and be riding their bike while they are here. It is really a part of the special event permitting process. A. Sopher said the issue is event logistics and how they will be handing bikes, cars and everything associated with the event- E. Lokocz said each event will have to go through the events committee in the parks department and their representative from fire, transportation, and police. It has to be a coordinated effort to make sure everything works or it will not be approved. A. Sopher asked if that was addressed separate from site review. B. Holicky said we should identify some areas that might be used in events and keep that in mind as we design the trails that we might specifically move a trail over to create a bigger area for vendor tents or bike parking. He said the cast side of the raw water irrigation pond, there seems to be some room in between some of the single track areas. E. Lokocz said staff might be able to add a layer on this plan to indicate areas in more detail. 17 B. Holieky said his last comment is another user conflict comment. He said you have a number of areas where the 8' multi-use gravel path crosses single track. That is a big deal if people are really moving fast. E. Lokocz said there is a series of both signage programming talking about the park users and a whole series of fences, boulders, landscaping which would not block visibility but to try to get people to slow down. Beyond that there will be some crossings by default but we have tried to minimize them. M. Young asked about on page S 1 how the trails will function. She has counted 13 merges, these arc places where there will be potential conflict. She wanted to know how these trails function. Specifically the area in the northwest corner where you have a single track that splits off and comes back together. P. Weber said what she is looking at on the upper left hand portion of the drawing, the black trail is a descending downhill trail with options or variations along the way and that is why you see multiple Y intersections and lines coming back and forth. That is purpose built design flowing downhill trail with optional lines. You will see it in other areas throughout the trail system. All of the trails are professionally designed by bike trail experts to be up to commonly accepted guidelines and standards for mountain biking trails and also provide for a cutting edge exciting experience that is appropriate for that trail whether it be beginner, intermediate or expert. M. Young asked if these trails are all descending. P. Weber said yes because the height of land is the top center of the map and the trails are descending from the top of the property. M. Young asked if there are several people coming down from the top how that would work. P. Weber said they would tend to start one at a time at the top. As a group they would be aware that the other rider is starting and they would give him some space before they started. The places where the trails reconnect would be gentle merges with consideration for site lines so that two riders if they were coincidentally coming in together, it would be a matter of design to insure there is not an abrupt collision. A. Sopher asked P. Weber could explain the gravel bike start finish line that has parallel tracks that merge. P. Weber said this is designed for maximum variety. The whole trail system is laid out for variety. The parallel line is like a shoulder for spectators to congregate along the full length of the start finish which would be divided by material and fence. A. Sopher asked what the area below where that terminates is. P. Weber said it is a taper down of the gravel start finish from 20' to 15' to 10', eventually down to 4'. That gradual taper will allow the riders to funnel in instead of an abrupt change. A. Sopher said he would like to talk about the connections. There is a master view corresponding to CP 1 which is an aerial photo. There is no connection between what is referred to as the Wonderland creek connection and the southern most internal bike loop and he is wondering why. E. Lokocz said it is an on street connection so you go along the path to where it turns and goes north on Airport and then crosses Airport to the parking lot and then connects over. A. Sopher said he is wondering why there is no connection drawn to the southeast. E. Lokocz said there is one that actually crosses. C. Stevens said there is an existing concrete path from where the orange line turns north that pins south to the Valmont intersection. It will be widened to the extent possible as part of the project. People would cross at the intersection and then there would be vegetation to force people to go north or south and not cross through the intersection. On the east side of the road the path will be widened to eight feet to facilitate people getting to the corner. 18 A. Sopher said the access to the 100 car parking lot that winds around, looking at page TAI, commenting about the shape of the parking lot and why we have to do this loop with the parking all the way down to the southeast and why we can't do something more direct. E. Lokocz asked staff if we would need that for stacking. Staff said we need separation from the entrance of the parking lot to the parking lot. She said we are well in excess of the required distance from the bus stop to the entrance and it could be moved. A. Sopher said the crossing that is shown on the west side, the mid block crossing that you were referring to, asking how is that going to be identified because it seems to be a major access point into the park. H e is wondering the nature of that crossing and if it is being addressed. E. Lokocz said currently there is no crossing there. Steve Tuttal, transportation/traffic consultant with Fox Higgans said that is across the south leg of the intersection of Butte Street which is to the west so it is not a mid block crossing. It would be signed and marked cross walk at that south leg. The city has warrants for the type of signs they would put there. Since this is not a multi-land or four lane road, it would not qualify for a flashing devise but there would be some enhanced signing that would be there to identify that as a cross walk. A. Sopher said he is concerned about the speed of that crossing of bikes and the cars that do go down that portion of Airport Road in terms of the residential and the office use further down. S. Tuttal said they have worked with the city transportation department over the last ten years developing the guidelines for what types of signage is put in based on pedestrian volumes, bike volumes and vehicular volumes. E. Jones said she has not heard anything that will be added as a condition of approval. A. Sopher said these are more directions for staff to follow up on as opposed to conditions of approval. M. Young asked about street trees along Valmont Road. As she understands it there are already trees along Valmont Road and that there will be some added in certain areas. E. Lokocz said there is significant existing vegetation in this area but they are not in a pattern that is typical of street tree planting. M. Young asked if there were going to be additional trees added. E. Lokocz said there will be but there is quite a bit of existing vegetation in this area. There are a few pocket and those will be getting some more formal street trees in them. There was some site analysis that went on to see how to get trees in here, there is a ditch and a multi use path and a sidewalk. There is a desire not to have planting that is so formalized that it doesn't blend with the rest of the park. They meet and exceed the required numbers of trees but you will see that the spacing and clumping varies to maintain a more natural character. B. Holieky said he has site review comments relating to the disc golf course. One of the things we are supposed to look at in site review is where uses go, specifically park uses. This is supposed to be an active recreational park. One of the functions it serves is that it is the closest major park in the vicinity of the Transit Village. The people who are going to be using this park from Transit Village are going to get to the disc golf course first forcing them to walk another acre or two to get to the part of the park that they can use as a recreational amenity. He has a concern that this location for a disc golf course is A. appropriate and B. if it understanding that it is a temporary construction he is wondering about the practicality of that temporary construction. E. Jones said that when she has played disc golf it is not the only use of the landscape, you are walking around and you are throwing the disc at the basket but other people are walking around using the space in between. Whatever else you want to happen in the park can also happen in that comer of the park. Asked staff if this is also their interpretation of how this course can be used. The one question might be whether you want a formalized child's playground closer to the west edge of the park nearest the Transit Village. 19 E. Lokocz said the intention is for the course to be flexible, there is also an existing multi- purpose field in the middle of it which is used for soccer and rugby. M. Young asked about maintenance and how it is going to be covered. Track 58 2:06 Who is this??? Said it is going to be a learning experience for us because there aren't bike parks built like this but this is where our partnership with the Boulder Mountain Bike Alliance will help us because they have said they will help with the jumps and the maintaining the trails. It is not a typical park site where there is not a lot of mowing or irrigation systems. From a typical park maintenance perspective, the north side will be less than we would normally have. A. Sopher said a few weeks ago the board sat in on a presentation made to the City Council by a group of young people from the community and one of the things they brought up was a limited potential for their use of BMX bike in recreational settings comparable to skate parks. He was surprised to not find any accommodation of that kind of use in the bike park. He said he would more formally request that consideration of that be made in relation to the bike park or some other aspect of Valmont Park. W. Johnson said it is well accommodated here because of the pump track and the double slalom and the indoor arena. M. Young agrees with W. Johnson. P. Weber said there are all sorts of disciplines and all of them are being accommodated at the park through pump tracks, slope style, dirt jumps, everything for new school riders and kids. As far as concrete bowls like a skate park, that is being considered for the area under the roof in the chicken barn. When the interior of that space advances in design we will be looking at what styles of riding will fit best in there and what the budget will allow. We hope to add that concrete experience at Valmont. B. Holicky said there are a lot of user conflicts at Scott Carpenter right now. This is a segment of our biking population that is being overlooked right now. It is more expensive and covered will be great. With this facility Boulder will be unparalled in the world for the biking amenities we have. RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. The Applicant shall be responsible for ensuring that the development shall be in compliance with all approved plans dated May 14, 2009 on file in the City of Boulder Planning Department, as may be modified by this approval. 2. Prior to a building permit application, the Applicant shall submit a Technical Document Review application for the following items, subject to the review and approval of the City Manager: a) Final architectural plans, including materials and colors, to insure compliance with the intent of this approval and compatibility with the surrounding area. b) A final drainage report meeting the City of Boulder Design and Construction Standards Chapter 7. c) A detailed landscape plan, including size, quantity, and type of plants existing and proposed; type and quality of non-living landscaping materials; any site grading proposed; and any irrigation system proposed, to insure compliance with this approval and the City's landscaping requirements. 20 d) A detailed lighting plan showing location, size, and intensity of illumination units, showing compliance with section 9-9-16, B.R.C. 1981. e) A detailed parking plan showing the arrangement, locations, dimensions, and type of parking stalls (including any areas of the site for bicycle parking or reserved for deferred parking) to insure compliance with this approval and the City's Parking Design Standards. f) Final transportation plans in accordance with City of Boulder Design and Construction Standards, for all transportation improvements. g) Where the proposed Wonderland Creek Path width is constrained by the ditch and shown to be less than 10' on this plan, the City Parks and Recreation Department shall pursue construction of retaining walls along the south side of the ditch to achieve the full 10' width. A feasibility analysis shall be completed and retaining wails shall be installed to the extent practical as determined by City staff. 3. The Applicant shall not hold any event that draws more than 149 vehicles unless the Applicant has obtained a Parks and Recreation Special Event Permit that is intended to address on-site and off-site impacts of such events. 6. MATTERS FROM THE PLANNING BOARD, PLANNING DIRECTOR, AND CITY ATTORNEY D. Driskell spoke to the board about the possibility of moving the June 18 Planning Board meeting to a later date. D. DriskeIl spoke to the board about the strategy related to the Junior Academy. A. Sopher spoke about the budget for conferences. He wanted to let the board know there is money in the budget for conferences. The issue is how we want to use it as a board. D. Driskeli said it would be appropriate to have a discussion with the board in terms of how they would want to approach the training budget, whether they would like to divvy it up and everyone has the same amount or have some discussion of sending someone and they come back and have a report or whatever the board's preference. A. Sopher said he thinks the board should take advantage of the opportunity that is there and encourage board members to look at what they might be interested in doing. 7. DEBRIEF/AGENDA CHECK 8. ADJOURNMENT The Planning Board adjourned the meeting at 10:03 p.m. APPROVED BY/ i .r Board Ch.ir Fr 71W. DATE 21