2 - Planning Board - Draft Minutes - 4/13/2011
CITY OF BOULDER
PB/DDAB Joint Dinner Session ACTION MINUTES
April 13, 2011
1777 Broadway, Muni Lobby
A permanent set of these minutes and a tape recording (maintained for a period of seven years)
are retained in Central Records (telephone: 303-441-3043). Minutes and streaming audio are also
available on the web at: http:/hvNN,w.bouldercolorado.gov/
PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT:
Bill Holicky
Willa Johnson, Chair
Tim Plass
Danica Powell
Andrew Shoemaker
PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT:
Aaron Brockett
Mary Young
DDAB BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT:
Lisa Egger
Fenno Hoffman
Jeff Dawson
David Biek
DDAB BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT:
Paul Anthony Saporito
STAFF PRESENT:
Charles Ferro, Land Use Review Manager
Sam Assefa, Senior Urban Designer
Brian Holmes, Zoning Administrator
Meghan Lawson, Asst. Zoning Administrator
Debbie Fox, Administrative Assistant III
1. CALL TO ORDER
Chair, W. Johnson, declared a quorum at 6:00 p.m. and the following business was
conducted.
2. INTRODUCTIONS
3. PURPOSE OF THE MEETING
S. Assefa introduced the topic to the boards.
4. CURRENT PROCEDURES
9
C. Ferro reviewed the procedures and timing of reviews, PB & DDAB respective roles
and responsibilities and provided examples of previously referred projects, such as the
3100 Broadway and Violet Crossing projects. B. Holmes reviewed the current DDAB
respective roles and responsibilities.
5. PLANNING BOARD
B. Holicky outlined what has worked and hasn't worked with the process between PB
and DDAB, whose role is currently what, explained the need for clarity for all parties,
which includes the applicant, public, DDAB, PB, city council and staff. He stressed that
consensus needs to be reached in regards to comments from DDAB, ideally in a bulleted
format. DDAB should delegate a DDAB spokesperson to present to PB to better
illustrate the suggested design criteria.
6. JOINT DISCUSSION
• PB/DAB roles and responsibilities
The board members agreed there is a need for defined criteria for areas outside of the
designated design areas. DDAB would like PB's support to create a overarching design
guidelines that every project could be reviewed against. (NOTE: DDAB would become
known as DAB (Design Advisory Board). It would be the same board, just with an
expanded role.)
The Sustainable Streets and Centers process was cited as an example as an overarching
guideline to use. Staff responded that the public process and work plan would currently
prohibit that, but questioned if there is an interim process to meet both boards' needs. It
could be as simple as considering the pedestrian experience. The Site Review Criteria
could work in the short term, so that the comments are parallel to what the PB uses. It
was noted that having an Urban Designer on staff should also help move the process
forward.
DAB was recommended to start writing down their recommended changes and sending
them to PB and/or CC to begin the changes to the guidelines and process they seek.
Summary:
The boards will have a "joint learning" field trip at least once a year to discuss design
issues on built projects and to discuss what has worked and what hasn't.
PB will focus primarily on bulk, height, and use issues and would defer to DAB on
design issues.
10
Universal design guidelines that apply citywide are desirable to guide DAB's review, but
resources don't currently exist to develop it. In the interim, a paragraph statement that
refers to the existing Site Review criteria is a general guide could be tested for the next 6-
12 months.
• Process and timing of reviews
The boards and staff discussed the various options that were possible to involve DAB
earlier in the process. Several board members noted that the main difference between PB
and DAB is that PB cannot conduct design critics, while DAB can deal with how
buildings work.
Summary:
It was agreed that at Concept Plan, the PB will summarize their points of concern, send
them to DAB, DAB will review the same set of designs using 3 reviews processes:
PB/Guidelines/own and then DAB will provide written comments and/or verbal
comments at the PB Site Review. It was noted that DAB should remember that PB is
their client, not the applicant.
■ It will need to be determined whether the applicant further develops the
project after concept plan, incorporating PB's feedback, and then to DAB, or
develops concept after getting both PB and DAB feedback. In addition, both
boards expressed the need to close the loop after PB/DAB feedback to
applicant to see how the recommendations are incorporated in the final design
after Site Review.
• PB/DAB Communication procedures
The boards discussed the communication process.
Summary:
DAB should organize and summarize their ideas by the top topics for the project. It will
help create flow with the comments and it will be easier for the applicant to follow. The
board chair then summarizes the comments for the record. PB and staff unanimously
agreed that DAB should not change minutes off-line due to open meeting laws and the
ability to have the applicant respond. This is critical so that the applicant can ask
questions about the critiques.
DAB should provide specific feedback to applicant and send PB a clear bulleted list of
consensus recommendations. DAB could make design recommendations that are
contrary to specific design guidelines, if it believes the guidelines would be contrary to a
desired result. In instances where it is clear that a design does not meet the guidelines, the
DAB should outline why it doesn't meet the particular guideline.
11
Written comments should be forwarded to the PB in advance and a DAB liaison/chair
should come to PB Site Review to summarize the DAB's consensus recommendations. In
addition, a DAB liaison or any member could also attend PB's concept review as part the
general public, and provide comments during public comments.
DAB could provide specific feedback to PB on existing codes/guidelines that are contrary
to city's design objectives.
9. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned the meeting at 7:53 p.m.
APPROVED BY
Board Chair
DATE
12