Minutes - Planning - 3/17/2011
CITY OF BOULDER
PLANNING BOARD ACTION MINUTES
March 17, 2011
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: littp://www.bouldercolorado.gov/
PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT:
Bill IIolicky
Elise Jones
Willa Johnson, Chair
Ti1n Plass
Danica Powell
Andrew Shoemaker
Mary Young
PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT:
STAFF PRESENT:
David Gehr, Assistant City Attorney
Susan Richstone, Comprehensive Planning Manager
Chris Meschuk, Planner II
Jean Gatza, Sustainability Planner
Louise Grauer, Senior Planner
Sam Assefa, Senior Urban Designer
Marie Zuzack, Planner I
Debbie Fox, Administrative Specialist III
Bill Davidson, County Land Use
1. CALL TO ORDER
Chair, W. Johnson, declared a quorum at 6:04 p.m. and the following business was
conducted.
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
3. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
a. David Biek, DDAB Board member, presented DDAB's views regarding the
updates to the (Downtown Design Guidelines, to include better integration of
DDAB in the review process, they support the staff recommendations of the set-
backs, the changes to the document and there isn't a need for an additional
interface zone and support the higher density.
4. DISCUSSION OF DISPOSITIONS, PLANNING BOARD CALL-UPS
A. Call Up Item: Floodplain Development Permit, LUR201 1-00012, Bicycle Racks
in Flood Conveyance Zone.
B. Call Up Item: 372 Hollyberry Ln., LUR201 1 -00011, Approval of Site Review
application for a detached garage over the height limit of 20-feet, due to existing
topographic constraints.
I
The board did not call up these items.
5. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
A. Public hearing to consider:
1. Proposed revisions to the Downtown Urban Design Guidelines:
a. A 65 foot setback along Canyon Boulevard,
b. The addition of an Interface Area south of Canyon, and
c. Process for amending the Guidelines.
2. A recommendation to City Council on the following code changes:
a. Reduce upper story setbacks from 20 to 15 feet in DT zones,
b. Increase allowed height From 35 to 38 feet in DT zones,
c. Eliminate the counting of below grade floor area from the overall FAR
calculation in DT zones,
d. Add a new Use Review criterion.
3. Feedback on possible DT-5 zone changes.
Staff Presentation
L. Grauer and S. Assefa presented the item to the board.
Public Hearing
1. Adrian Sopher, 3008 Folsom, spoke in favor of the changes, supports the setbacks
and asked for the easement be removed from the Liquor Mart site for the connections
plan.
2. Rich Majors, 2120 13"' Street, owner of Rob's Music Site. Spoke in opposition to
the 65' set-back because they would loose 18% of their developable floor area. The
arcade on the southside won't be pedestrian friendly during the winter months. Don't
charge people to bring jobs into downtown. Raising the by-right to 38 should not be
a site review.
Board Discussion
On a notion by B. llolickv. seconded by E. Joncs, the Planning; Board approved 7-0 the
proposed revisions to the Downtown Urban Desi,-n Guidelines:
a. A 65 foot setback along Canyon Boulevard,
b. The addition of an Interface Area south of Canyon, and
c. Process for amending the Guidelines.
Concern was expressed about the arcade on the southside due to the weather, how to make it
uniform on the block for multi-blocks and the loss of street frontage for the potential businesses.
S. Assefa explained how the concept works on the southside and how it connects to the
pedestrian connection to the Farmer's Market.
On a Inotlon by B. [iolick , seconded by A. Shoemaker, the Planning, Board approved 7-0 to
recommend to City Council on the following; code changes:
a. Reduce upper story setbacks from 20 to 15 feet in DT zones,
b.increase allowed height from 35 to 38 feet in DT zones,
c.Eliminate the counting Ofbclow grade floor area from the overall FAR
calculation in DT zones,
d.Add a new Use Review criterion.
-Most of the board agreed with the setback with the right situation, as it will match across
Canyon. It was recommended not to list one street (Canyon) as an example and tools will be
necessary to help make the buildings work.
3. Feedback on possible DT-5 zone changes.
Planning Board discussed possible changes to the DT-5 zone.. There were concerns about
making changes to DT-5 across the board as it is important to keep the residential density bonus
in order to encourage people to be downtown. The Board expressed interest in limiting the size
of the residential bonus units. Some members expressed interest in offering community serving
space to bring different mix of people into the downtown. It was felt that a commercial linkage
fee could be powerful engine to affordable housing.
A final concern was expressed about having conversations around specific sites as opposed to an
area wide review, citing 29`x' Street Mall as an example. The board was encouraged to look at
the area as a whole and staff was asked to bring back the map of what residential units have been
constructed and approved in the downtown.
Joint Study Session with DDAB
The board discussed the availability of a joint DDAB meeting on April 13`x'.
6. DISCUSSION rrEM
A. Proposed revisions to Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (13VCP) policies and the
Area iII-Plaiming Reserve and Service Area Expansion Process for the 2010 Major
13VCP Update
Board Discussion
General comments on the policies and the web based plan
Overall it was felt that the text changes were well done. Staff was asked if there was a check
back done on text that was taken out for being too operational. The board discussed including
Post WWII neighborhoods by name in the text for the maps.
Regarding the map on page 154 - Public realm, the board felt it would be better to have layers to
see the map without streets and streets, public space and bikeways should be added.
On page 207, the food introduction lacks information about the lack of availability of oil as
reason to grow local.
Planning Reserve - specific recommendation/comments
The board discussed whether the outlined criteria are stringent enough. It was felt that
incorporating the "unique use that would have lasting positive benefit for multiple generations of
people" should be in official criteria under `i'. In addition, `with an emphasis on' will be
included.
Ilow does the board want to share its comments with council?
W. Johnson will attend the study session. The summary she will share includes: the process
open and fair, accommodated different views, supports the clearer process for planning reserve
with 2 tracks, impressive text clean-up, to include reducing policies, getting rid of'redundant text,
and making it web based. They liked meeting with planning commission and the board had
consensus on all the changes, policy issues and Area III.
7. MATTERS FROM THE PLANNING BOARD, PLANNING DIRECTOR, AND CITY
ATTORNEY
The board gave updates on their- various task forces where they represent the Planning Board:
a. B. Holicky gave an update on the Affordable I lousing Task Force.
b. M. Young gave an update on Civic Use Task Force and the Landmarks board
update on Chautauqua. T. Plass was in attended as well and provided additional
information.
c. A. Shoemaker gave an update on the Hill Ownership group.
S. Richstone updated the board that the Chautauqua discussion will be held at the April 7.
The board will be sent a link to the new CU Master Plan.
The board will codify their ideas for the Planning Board retreat at the April 7"' meeting. M.
Young would like to discuss the Landmarks ex officio member as part of that discussion.
The DRAB joint meeting will be held on April 13"' from 530 or b pm.
8. DEBRIEFIAGENDA CHECK
9. ADJOURNMENT
The Planning Board/adjourned the meeting at 8:54p.m.
A11NZ0VCtU BY
~r
Board C'itiii.r r,
I)ATI:
-I