Loading...
Minutes - Planning Board - 10/12/2010 CITY OF BOULDER JOINT CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING BOARD ACTION MINUTES October 12, 2010 1777 Broadway, Muni Lobby A permanent set of these minutes and a tape recording (maintained fora period of seven years) are retained in Central lZecords (telephone: 303-441-3043). Minutes and streaming audio are also available on the web at: http://www.boul(tercolora(lo.gov/ CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Suzy Ageton Matt Appelbaum KC Becker Macon Cowles Crystal Gray George Karakehian Lisa Morzel Susan Osborne, Mayor Ken Wilson, Deputy Mayor PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Elise Jones Bill Holicky Tim Plass Danica Powell Andrew Shoemaker, Chair Mary Young PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Willa Johnson STAFF PRESENT: Jane Brautigam, City Manager David Gehr, Acting City Attorney David Driskell, Executive Director of Community Planning and Sustainability Susan Richstone, Comprehensive Planning Manager Sam Assela, Senior Urban Planner Chris Meschuk, Planner II Jean Gatza, Community Sustainability Coordinator Marie Zuzack, Planner I Debbie Fox, Administrative Assistant III 1. CALL TO ORDER Mayor, S. Osborne, declared a quorum at 6:12 p.m. and the following business was conducted: 2. JOINT COUNCIL/PLANNING BOARD MEETING ON BVCP MAJOR UPDATE AND SUSTAINABLE STREETS I S. Richstone gave an introduction, review of the timeline and brief overview of the project. Community Design/Urban Form S. Assefa gave a PowerPoint presentation providing an overview of the community design and urban form briefing paper in terns of the definition policy revisions, city structure and sustainable streets and centers. The City Council and Planning Board discussed whether the Community Design Briefing Paper is ready for review and comment. A. Shoemaker thanked staff and stated on behalf of the Board that the Planning Board supports the document as it stands. S. Osborne asked the Planning Board if the areas of change, in relation to stability such as projected growth, is an important change to make'? A. Shoemaker felt it was an appropriate change. B. Holicky felt there was value in the semantic change and feels that parts of the city are well functioning, while other areas need locus. He felt it is important to focus on the areas that are wholly broken. S. Osborne felt that the areas of relative stability needs some change and that may help alleviate the concern of over development. M. Cowles felt the policy papers arc good. He recommended perton-nance measures be attached to the papers to detcrnnine progress, as well as help describe the future that we want. Ile also felt that the city needs to develop form based code or pattern books to help the public (property owners, builders, etc.) understand what the city expects for urban design and therefore simplify the process. C. Gray agrees that a shift in density and focusing on the public realm is good for the public and will help alleviate the public's fear of sprawl or increased density. She also felt this will help with the infill problems and will help people become more engaged in the process. K. Wilson commented that he has heard that Boulder if falling behind in terns of walkable neighborhoods, such as the ability to walk to shops and grocery stores. This is something to keep in mind fOrr west of Polsom, as this needs to be kept that in mind R)r future development and design. S. Osborne agreed and felt that Uni Hill is a potential first project for that type of development. M. Applebaum felt that zoning can't be organic. Areas of stability need to change to address such things as walkability and needs aren't. all equal, in particular for existing residential neighborhoods. He also spoke to gentrification. Ile stated this can't be organic; it needs to be zoning change to create the vision. 1-le also expressed concern that too much is coming offthe table and will end up with gentrification of the city. S. Osborne steered the conversation to the areas of potential growth. I C. Gray spoke to Matt and Ken's corriinents. She felt the new zoning near Pearl to be an example of what people may want to see happen around the city to address the change and potential growth. That project required neighborhood compatible and it actively involved the residents in the designing. T. Plass likes the areas of'stability and areas of change. He felt that it doesn't need to be broad brushes of change, that it can be focus on specific areas of the city. B. Holicky addressed the issue that people may fear- the change, but that the city's job is to engage them so they feel comfortable with the process. He felt the criteria developed by staff are good for making policy changes. K. Wilson prefaced his original remarks that the most emphasis should be on the eastern parts of' the city first. L. Morzel agreed with K. Wilson and felt that the public should be involved in the planning of their own community. North Boulder is an example of a visceral reaction initially that changed over time to allow the stakeholders to give their voice to the project. She feels the paper is ready for the public and excited about the process. She also agreed that the public realm focus, in particular because the streets set the tone for the future buildings. She also felt it was important to do the design guidelines and pattern languages, as mentioned by M. Cowles. D. Powell felt that there needs language to define the opportunities for change to drive the BVCP goals. These could also help create a more walkable community in established neighborhoods. S. Osborne agreed with C. Gray that looking at the definition of`what is desirable sustainable urban form, then that drives the character of walkability rather than the principles. The City Council and Planning Board discussed at length examples of Boulder projects that fit the criteria of sustainable urban form. hxamples included M. Young citing the Ideal Market area as an example and L. Morzel cited the 13"' street area as similar process since the new buildings open to the street. M. Cowles spoke to the need for 15-minute neighborhood patterns, where people dialogue about the future of their neighborhoods. In summary, it was agreed the paper is ready for review and a well written, well researched paper. S. Riclistone capped the conversation by saying the Community Design was based on the need to set the context for future design. Ruth Mclleyser was given special credit for researching and writing a majority of this particular paper. M. Cowles stated the need for traffic predictions to be built into this part to help further design 15 minute neighborhoods. Sustainability Policies J. Gatza give a Powerl'oint presentation providing an overview of the community design and urban fonn briefing paper in terms of the definition policy revisions, city structure and sustainable streets and centers. A. Shoemaker spoke on behalf of the Planning Board that the document is becoming more unwieldy and would support staff making the document more compact. In addition, the Board was in support of adding an active and healthy lifestyle throughout document. He explained that an active and healthy lifestyle is no longer an option, so it needs to be clearly stated in the document. In addition, it would help Boulder further be a leader for the nation. In terms of the Social Sustainability paper, the Board felt the affordable housing goals are too simplistic for a complex situation. In regards to the Economic paper, the Board felt the public realm concept makes Boulder more competitive and draws rnore people to live and work in Boulder. On the Local Foods and Sustainable Agriculture paper, there is concern to about creating sprawling homestead over the compact design goal, it should be to focus on what is acceptable design goals. For the Climate Action paper, there is concern about setting specific goals for sustainability might push the problems onto neighboring communities and thought the goals should be similar to the state- It was also thought that the climate goals should be outside the BVCP, in a Master Plan type document. E. Jones reiterated that the BVCP more accessible and readable, and that goals should be in the BVCP update, instead goals are more appropriate for Master Plans. The BVCP should be a document that outlines guiding principles. M. Cowles spoke to the concept of health being added to the Community Design paper, he stated there is a relationship between a 15-minute neighborhood and the health of a community. In terms of climate action goals, the metrics should be set back to the year it was set, rather than requiring the need to define the number. C. Gray would like to see the numbers identify early in the document to set a challenge, she emphasized the importance of outreaching to all communities to get all communities engaged, wants to see social sustainability priorities highlighted and liked the idea of adding an active healthy living to the document. K. Beelcer highlighted a gap in the document that limited low and moderate housing numbers are highlighted, but suggestion arc listed to address the problem. G. Karakehian spoke to transportation and the fact that the County has simultaneously embarked on a countywide transportation master plan. M. Applebaum spoke to the questions outlined in the document that don't necessarily fit the role of the city and what is the role for the city in terms of the jobs and housing that are generally public realm. S. Ageton spoke to the fact that social services don't necessarily fit the model of the Comp Plan. They are tied to our core values and goals, but they don't necessarily fit in the land use issues generally outlined in the Comp Plan. S. Osborne spoke to the healthy lifestyle and the family friendly resources of the cities should also be included, as other cities are doing that to emphasize a community that is healthy for children and adults. In summary, it was agreed these are ready fir the public. 4 Area III B. IIolicky recused himself from this portion of the meeting since clients could be affected by the outcomes. A. Shoemaker gave a summary of what the Planning Board agreed upon in terms of the Area III plan. It was agreed that the curr-cnt process sets false expectation, and asks for input from the public, yet the process is so cumbersome, it is difficult or impossible to meet. We need to detemine what the bar is and clearly help the way to explain it. It was also felt that the process needs to be clearer about what the goals are for the planning reserve and because of this, the process should be revised since it seems currently flawed. The newly defined process should be used to review the current proposals and the board all agreed that there should be more flexibility than the five year process currently defines. E. Jones also spoke to the need for a high threshold for moving into Area 111. She felt that the goal isn't to make it easier, since it needs to be deliberate growth, but should be fair and clear. She also felt that there should be strong language about the need for the project to have a high community need that can't be met within the city limits, while also recognizing it is difficult to look at areas within in the city to do something productive and meaningful within the city. T. Plass voted against both currently proposed concepts because he felt they could be done someplace else within the city. He also stated it is a philosophical discussion, as Area III should be reserved for something visionary, like future energy, but we also need to outline expectations for property owners so they can plan accordingly. M. Young agreed with T. Plass. She also expressed that the process isn't flawed, but the language is misleading in that every 5 years public or property owners in the service area can request changes that may not be approved. A. Shoemaker said analogized the reserve to a bank. By withdrawing from the bank, i.e. looking at a single project, does not mean that you need to determine at that point what you will do with the remaining balance, particularly where that balance may not be needed at that time. Such a problem may prevent a good project, or in the alternative, cause the city to use the entire reserve at once. D. Powell agreed with A. Shoemaker. She stated that Boulder is a think tank, so this should be an opportunity to use Area III for innovation, but there needs to be a fine balance with big ideas and innovative. There needs to be clarity f-or the applicant so that they are doing the `heavy lifting' on the project proposals, not staff. S. Osborne summarized the key issues and concerns discussed tonight: 3. AD30URNMEN"T The meeting adjourned at 7.56 p.m. APPR -D~ f J 1Joard IlM1 `-'~f yr r DATE 5