Root ball of a tree knocked over in a windstorm exposing the water table near Hogan-Pancost property (photo by Jeff McWhirter)

At a presentation sponsored by PLAN-Boulder County on Friday, January 13, neighbors of the proposed Hogan-Pancost development, in opposing the project, acknowledged that high groundwater levels and flood hazards probably should have kept the City of Boulder from ever permitting the subdivisions in which they currently reside. One such resident, who was a member of the presentation’s audience, claimed that she had assumed when she bought her home that the city had determined that the area was suitable for residential development. But she indicated that time and experience have proven that the city’s approval had been a mistake.

The presentation was conducted by 14-year area resident Jeff McWhirter. He implied that the city should not compound the errors it had made decades ago in approving the Greenbelt Meadows and Keewayden Meadows subdivisions by approving the Hogan-Pancost development.

The Hogan-Pancost property covers 22 acres south of the East Boulder Community Center and to the west of South Boulder Creek. McWhirter said that it has been designated as Area II (potentially eligible for annexation) since the inception of the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan and that it has been subject to various development proposals for decades. Its current owner, Boulder Creek Commons LLC, bought it in the fall of 2007 for $4.5 million, McWhirter said. McWhirter related that the principal owners of Boulder Creek Commons are Mike Boyers, Lou Della Cava, and Woody Eaton. The company declined an invitation to participate in the program on January 13, although Eaton sat in the audience and commented occasionally on statements made by McWhirter or other audience members. The city’s planning department also declined an invitation to participate in the event.

The Boulder Creek Commons’ development proposal is to build 121 residential units on 19.5 acres on the west side of the property, with 2.5 acres on the east side to be preserved in an undeveloped state. Fifty of the 121 units would be part of a senior congregate care facility, six would be part of “affordable duplexes” for seniors, two would be “affordable” single family homes, and 63 would be market rate houses. The concept plan for the development will be heard by the city’s Planning Board on January 19.

McWhirter claimed that some of the neighbors had “grown old and died” fighting development proposals for the Hogan-Pancost property. He declared that the opponents are weary of the struggle and want an end to it this year, preferably with a decision by the city to re-designate Hogan-Pancost as part of Area III (which would preclude annexation to the city); but, if not, with approval of the current proposal. He asserted that, if the property is not annexed, two houses could be built on it under current Boulder County regulations.

McWhirter noted that the whole area lies in the alluvial plain of South Boulder Creek. It was all inundated in a major flood in 1969, which he showed photographs of. Current city flood plain maps show the western edge of Hogan-Pancost, which is bordered by the Dry Creek Ditch No. 2, to be in the 100-year flood “high hazard” zone. McWhirter commented that the Dry Creek Ditch No. 2 alignment seems to follow an old channel of South Boulder Creek and that flood waters will naturally flow there.

McWhirter related that city regulations require the lowest part of any structure in a “high hazard” zone to be situated at least two feet above the expected high water mark. He said that Boulder Creek Commons proposes dumping 80,000 cubic yards of fill dirt on the property.

McWhirter observed that most of the Hogan-Pancost property, including the site of the proposed congregate care facility, would be covered in a 500-year flood. He asked rhetorically, “Is it wise to place our most at-risk population in a high-risk flood plain?”

McWhirter acknowledged that studies conducted for Boulder Creek Commons affirm that flood hazards can be successfully managed on Hogan-Pancost. However, he said he disagrees with their conclusions.

One of the residents, Jeff Rifkin, claimed that Boulder Creek Commons proposes to divert flood water out of the northwest corner of the trapezoidal-shaped property on to the Manhattan School property and the homes in that area. Rifkin and others attending the presentation contended that the developer’s plan would to some extent shift the damage from flood waters to those downstream in the South Boulder Creek alluvial plain.

Audience member and geochemist Alison Burchell related that several years ago she and legendary CU geography professor Gilbert White had secured $500,000 (which ultimately grew to about $1 million) from FEMA for a flood study along South Boulder Creek. She decried the “piecemeal” development decisions that have occurred in its flood plain, and argued that the Hogan-Pancost proposal should be viewed in the larger context of the entire plain. “Upsteam impacts are never considered,” she commented. Burchell and others at the session observed that due to changes in the South Boulder Creek flood maps, Frazier Meadows Manor, a large complex for seniors along 47^th Street, sits in the high-hazard flood zone—hardly an appropriate location for a relatively vulnerable community.

McWhirter recounted that Hogan-Pancost has been the subject of seven or more groundwater studies. He said that the water table is just one to four feet below the ground surface, depending upon the season. He stated that many homes in the adjoining subdivisions need sump pumps and that one resident, Ron Craig, pumps out 40,000 gallons a day. McWhirter asserted that the amount of groundwater afflicting the residents increased dramatically when the East Boulder soccer fields were created; and, since groundwater is a “squirrely beast,” development of Hogan-Pancost could be reasonably expected to aggravate the problem in the adjacent neighborhoods.

McWhirter also claimed that the Hogan-Pancost proposal would burden local streets with unacceptable levels of traffic. He stated that studies indicate that 700 to 1,300 car trips a day would be added to 55th Street, which already carries a lot of vehicles. Kewanee Drive, which would provide access to the development, is a small neighborhood street, he remarked; and he asserted that a connecting street, Manhattan Drive, was deemed by the city 25 years ago to be overloaded.

McWhirter also raised the possibility of harm to the Prebles jumping mouse resulting from the development of Hogan-Pancost. He noted that the South Boulder Creek corridor, which lies relatively close to the eastern part of Hogan-Pancost, is the most important habitat for the mouse in Boulder County and one of the most important in the state. He questioned whether changes to the groundwater on Hogan-Pancost and to its vegetation might impair the mouse’s ability to thrive in the area.

McWhirter, Burchell, and others suggested that the Hogan-Pancost property might be an appropriate acquisition for the city’s Open Space and Mountain Parks Department. He asserted that the developer had recently offered it to the department for $8.5 million, but that the department had rebuffed the approach. Eaton defended the price, declaring that Boulder Creek Commons has spent $8.2 million on the property, including over $400,000 for studies, and substantial interest costs. Of course, if the city re-designates Hogan-Pancost as part of Area III, its development potential would apparently be limited to two houses– without any expenditure of city funds.

If you’re like us, you know Dr. Seuss – you’ve either had his stories read to you, or read them to your own children.  Woven into the whimsical illustrations and sublime rhymes are some pretty serious lessons.  One seems very timely, with the proposal of a concept plan to develop what’s known as the Hogan-Pancost property in Boulder.  It’s The Lorax.  You know the story:  The Once-ler comes to town, and, happening upon a pristine land full of Truffula Trees, he sees green – money, that is.  He chops down every last tree, builds a factory that pumps out Thneeds (which nobody really needs), making such smogulous smoke and Schloppity-Schlopp that everything leaves – the Brown Bar-ba-loots, the Swomee-Swans – even the Lorax himself, the only one who would “speak for the trees.”

There are 22 acres of Truffula Trees, so to speak, just outside the city limits of Boulder, adjacent to the East Boulder Recreation Center.  The area, known as the Hogan-Pancost property, is home to wetlands, wildlife and lots of water.  It’s in the South Boulder Creek Flood Plain – “high hazard” for flooding.  And, since the recent building of soccer fields and parking lots near the rec center, those of us whose homes line the west boundary of Hogan-Pancost now have sump pumps in our basements.  In peak wet season, our pumps remove tens of thousands of gallons of water from our homes’ lower levels each day – water that didn’t enter our homes before the land was disturbed for building.

Location map (click to enlarge)

The land is part of the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan, and can be annexed into city limits.  It’s the last large parcel of land in Area II that can be developed.  But we say just because it can, doesn’t mean it should. Developer Mike Boyers, whose plans for developing Hogan-Pancost have been turned down several times in the past, is trying again.  The concept plan for his Boulder Creek Commons development will be discussed at the City of Boulder Planning Board meeting tentatively set for Jan. 19, 2012.

At that Planning Board meeting, city officials are sure to hear from many of us Boulder residents who, like the Lorax, will speak for the things that cannot speak for themselves:  the trees, the wetlands, the wildlife… the very fabric of our neighborhood, Keewaydin Meadows.  We residents of Keewaydin Meadows are concerned about the consequences of building at least 120 new residential “units” on Hogan-Pancost.  But really, ALL Boulder residents should be watching this decision closely.  After all, we all trust city officials to uphold the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan, which states:

The overall effect of urban growth must add significant value to the community, improving quality of life. The city will require development and redevelopment as a whole to provide significant community benefits and to maintain or improve environmental quality as a precondition for further housing and community growth.

Does the Boulder Creek Commons concept plan uphold these values?  NO.

Concerns

Compromised Child Safety:  The safety of Manhattan Middle School students as they face substantially increased traffic at already-congested peak drive times.  In addition, children playing at Keewaydin Park, adjacent to the middle school, will face increased traffic in an area already heavily-used for after-school sports events.  Parked cars line Manhattan Drive for blocks during such events, making it difficult to see small children as they attempt to cross the street.

Compounded Residential Traffic Congestion:  The impact on Kewanee Drive – a short, dead-end street with a dozen or so homes with driveways connecting to the street – would be devastating.  Even the developer’s conservative estimates of six to ten car trips per household per day add up, when you consider a minimum of 120 new “units” at the end of the street.  The other access street, 55^th, is what neighbors call a “slow road to nowhere.”  It jogs around the East Boulder Rec. Center and borders open space, not any shops or services.  It’s reasonable to assume that most traffic in and out of Boulder Creek Commons would use Kewanee Drive, severely impacting residents.

Wetlands Destruction:  The proposed destruction of wetlands, even with a developer promise to re-create them somewhere else on the Hogan-Pancost land, is suspect.  Why destroy what nature intended?  Isn’t protecting fragile habitats a core value of Boulder city officials and residents?

Increased Flooding:  The western and eastern portions of the Hogan-Pancost property are in the designated 100-year flood plain, with some areas deemed “high hazard,” according to a city study.  According to the City of Boulder’s web site, Boulder is the #1 flash flood risk in the entire state. The site says: “It only takes three inches of rain over a few hours to trigger a 100-year flood.”   Those of us who lived through the 1969 flood in this area saw the land behind our homes become a fast-moving river.  That same land would become Boulder Creek Commons.

Groundwater Drainage Issues:   Groundwater is a huge concern among those of us who live on the western border of Hogan-Pancost.  (Remember our sump pumps?)  Many of us had no water in our basements prior to the nearby soccer fields and parking lots being built.  We are extremely concerned that increased development will only make the situation worse.

Broken Promises:  A memo from city staff in 1992, discussing the possibility of making Kewanee Drive a through-street, connecting to future development, promised us it would never happen.   Here’s a direct quote from that memo:  “…staff and Planning Board made assurances to the neighborhood on Manhattan Dr. that this connection would not be made in the future.”  Area residents trusted city leaders then, and hope they can still trust them now.

Residents of Keewaydin Meadows are entrusting city officials with the symbolic last Truffula Trees in Boulder.  We want the Hogan-Pancost property to remain undeveloped.  We’re hoping Planning Board members heed the lesson of The Lorax.  In the book, the Once-ler says,

You’re in charge of the last of the Truffula Seeds. 

And Truffula Trees are what everyone needs.

Plant a new Truffula.  Treat it with care.

Give it clean water.  And feed it fresh air.

Grow a forest.  Protect it from axes that hack.

Then the Lorax

and all of his friends

may come back.

Take Action

• Take the city survey about the proposed Boulder Creek Commons concept plan.
• Speak out at the Planning Board meeting, tentatively set for Jan. 19, 2012, at 6:00 p.m., in City Council chambers, 1777 Broadway, second floor.
• Join the Southeast Boulder Neighborhoods Association (SEBNA) www.seboulder.org.
• Read more about the development of Hogan-Pancost at www.hoganpancost.org

photo by Zane Selvans

Last fall, representatives from Community Cycles participated in a discussion with the city and various stakeholders regarding upcoming redevelopment along Pearl Parkway.  I wrote about the experience and the Transit Village Area Plan (TVAP) more generally from the perspective of a human-powered urbanist.  Mostly, we looked at different possible streetscapes for Pearl Parkway between 30th and the railroad tracks.  The property at 3100 Pearl Parkway is slated to be developed in the near future, as a 320 unit rental apartment complex, and as one of the first major developments in the area plan.  The city is interested in experimenting with novel street treatments in order to try to make the place special and attractive.  Community Cycles got involved largely because the TVAP “Connections Plan” had, with minimal fanfare, superseded the Transportation Master Plan (TMP) and removed the bike lanes which had long been planned along Pearl Parkway in favor of off-street only infrastructure.  We felt that this change was not necessarily in the best interest of cyclists, and wanted to ensure that whatever did end up getting built would be safe and efficient.

Unfortunately, the meeting last fall didn’t really come to a clear conclusion.  We only got through two of the four possible street cross sections, and were told that there would be a follow-up meeting to complete the process and rank the alternatives, but that never happened.  Actually it turns out that’s not true — it did happen — Community Cycles just wasn’t invited to participate again, so we didn’t have any part in ranking proposed designs.  The various options considered back then and the resulting rankings can be seen in the Transportation Advisory Board (TAB) info packet from the October 17th meeting (PDF).

Anyway, that’s all water under the bridge (and flooding the bike path) at this point. Recently several of us got to meet with city staff again to go over the somewhat narrowed universe of street cross section options, and give feedback from a bicycle’s perspective. The sketches below show what they look like. I’ll talk about why we picked what we did. You can click on the images for larger versions where the annotations are readable.

Across all of the options, we stressed that car speeds are not really a function of signage or laws, but are rather determined by the physical engineering of the space. If this is to be a human-friendly street, it has to be physically impossible for someone to drive too fast here. The treatment is only 2 blocks long, and the only reason for someone to come into the side-streets is to park. People can drive 5 mph for a block without suffering any hardship whatsoever. We also strongly advocated that the city prioritize completing the multi-use path connection along the Boulder Slough (the canal which passes behind both 3100 and 3000 Pearl Parkway), which will link the controversial “underpass to nowhere” near Ras Kassa’s Ethiopian Restaurant up with the bike path along Foothills Blvd. Currently the responsibility for construction of that path falls to the developers of the adjacent properties (because the path will double as emergency vehicle access to the rear of the buildings), but 3000 Pearl Parkway, which sits at the corner of 30th and Pearl, doesn’t yet have any definite redevelopment plans. Without the city stepping in to build that section, there would be about a 50 foot gap in the path for the foreseeable future, which would be pretty irritating. Hopefully they’ll be able to find a little bit of funding somewhere to get it done.

Alternative 1

Pearl Pkwy Alt1 (click to enlarge)

In this option, the existing multi-use path which parallels Pearl Parkway is retained, serving as a shared space used by both bikes and pedestrians.  It provides a 10 foot wide human-powered right-of-way in front of the stoops which open onto the street.  Immediately adjacent to the multi-use path is either a standard curbside parking lane with some trees interspersed, or the parking can be moved to the far side of the side-street, along the median separating it from the main thoroughfare.  The latter was our preferred alternative for several reasons.

We want the road to serve both cyclists who are simply traveling through this area, and those who are coming from and going to the 3100 Pearl development itself.  For the through cyclists, traveling in the same direction as the automotive traffic on their side of the street, we want the facility to be safe, legal and efficient.  For local contra-flow cyclists, who will be fewer in number, and not going very far, it simply needs to be safe and legal.  The 3100 Pearl development is on the south side of the street, so cyclists who are traveling eastward (toward the railroad tracks, Foothills Blvd, and the various industrial and office parks out that way) will be the ones going the same direction as automotive traffic.  If they’re concerned with speed and efficiency, and are comfortable sharing space with automobiles (as many relatively fast commuter cyclists are) then they can simply use the side-street’s automotive right-of-way, which will be very calm and quiet, avoiding potential conflicts with slower cyclists and pedestrians on the multi-use path.  Additionally, if we make the curb “mountable” (smoothly angled, such that one can ride over it, even obliquely) even those cyclists who would prefer to be on the multi-use path have the option of avoiding conflicts pretty easily, should the path become congested.

We strongly supported putting the street parking on the far side of the side-street from the building itself.  This helps to emphasize the shared, human-friendly nature of the street, as even drivers will have to walk across it to get to and from their vehicles.  It also removes hazardous car doors from the normal bicycle travel zones — for both those on the multi-use path, and for riders toward the right side of the side-street lane.  Putting the cars on the far side of the side-street is also important for another reason.  The automotive right-of-way is only 10 feet wide here; this is good because narrow lanes calm traffic effectively.  However, emergency vehicles claim to need at least 14 foot wide lanes for easy access on rare occasions (for some reason the Fire Dept. is convinced that its vehicles must increase in size over time, don’t ask me why).  Having the multi-use path and the side-street adjacent to each other, with a modest, mountable curb means that a fire engine has a 20 foot wide emergency access right-of-way.  The curb also acts as a “shoreline” for the visually impaired, delineating the separation between humans-only, and motor vehicle spaces.  The hope is that we can come up with a curb cross-section that can both function as this kind of guide and allow wheelchair access across it.

Alternative 2A

Pearl Pkwy Alt 2A (click to enlarge)

This is the “shared street” design which has been favored by some within the Planning Department.  Here, bikes and pedestrians going either direction, and cars going with the flow of traffic all share the same right-of-way, though it’s still necessary to create a small humans-only zone at the margin, to accommodate the sight impaired.  That area can be set off from the roadway either by bollards, or a curb.  The idea is that the area would be active enough that the constant presence of bikes and pedestrians would act to calm traffic, with cars crawling through as guests at 5mph.  We felt that this scenario was pretty unlikely, since the side-street is right next to a very busy arterial.  Pearl Parkway carries about 35,000 cars a day.  If you want to know what that looks and feels like, go stand next to Canyon Blvd. downtown some time, and try to have a conversation or just chill out on the sidewalk.  It’s not particularly pleasant.  Given the other better amenities which residents will have available to them — the courtyards inside the buildings, the very calm and quiet Junction Place, running north-south, and the Boulder Slough path behind the development — it seems to us unlikely that this area is where people will choose to linger.  There also isn’t going to be much in the way of street-level activity here.  There’s very little retail planned for this stretch of road, and only six of the 300+ units actually have stoops which open directly onto the sidewalk.  If you’re driving to/from the development, you’re likely going to use the direct access to the underground parking garage, and never set food on the street itself.  The majority of the building’s bike parking is also in the parking garage, so even cyclists won’t necessarily be passing through on this sidewalk.  Given all these issues, we felt that this particular “shared street” really won’t end up being shared all that much, and the 14-foot-wide travel lane would be an invitation to cars to travel faster than they really should, with the few pedestrians really inhabiting the narrow 4′ strip along the building side of the street, and no particularly safe contra-flow bike option.  It’s also unclear whether the city will be able to change the governance of this kind of space, giving bikes and pedestrians legal protection through vulnerable user laws (recently passed in New York, Delaware, and Oregon, and common in places like the Netherlands and Denmark where bikes and pedestrians are taken seriously as transportation), making any accidents which did happen here automatically the fault of the motor vehicles.  We felt that many, if not all, of Planning’s shared-street and place-making goals could be met using Alternative 1, with parking on the street side, while providing calmer traffic and better dedicated bike and pedestrian facilities.

Alternative 2B

Pearl Pkwy Alt 2B

This last design option has a dedicated contra-flow bike lane on the street-side, with parking along the building-side curb.  Bikes traveling with traffic would use the main automotive right-of-way, pedestrians and the disabled would be corralled in the narrow sidewalk between the parking and the building, and those few cyclists opposing traffic would be on the far side of the street from the building.  Nobody really thought this was a good option.  Because of the requirement for a 14-foot emergency access lane, there can’t be any physical separation between the contra-flow bike lane and the main side-street traffic.  Again, this provides cars with a 14 foot wide unobstructed space, which will encourage inappropriately high speeds, and there’s precious little space dedicated solely to humans.  I love the contra-flow lane on 13th St. downtown, but I think it really only works well because of the median separating it from traffic.  This contra-flow lane in the midst of many lanes of car traffic also poses major issues at the intersections.  How does a contra-flow cyclists integrate with traffic safely when they come to the end of the block, and have to cross the side-street traffic they’ve been paralleling?

The Saga Continues

At this point, it’s been more than a year since the initial design meeting.  The original developer (Scott Pederson) has sold the 3100 Pearl property on to someone else, and decided instead to work on the RTD center and/or hotel to be built across Pearl Parkway on the north side.  Ground is supposed to be broken on these projects by early 2012, just a few months from now.  We need a final design so engineering plans can be brought up  The above options went to TAB as informational items in October.  The developers signed off on either Alternatives 1 or 2A.  We advocated in multiple meetings and public fora for Alternative 1 with parking street-side, and feel that it does a good job of satisfying everyone’s needs: it offers on-street parking, buffers the residences from a busy road, provides good emergency access, a large amount of dedicated human-powered space, efficient through travel for bikes (on the road), safe local travel for slower bikes and pedestrians (on the path), a decent chance of being a livable space, easy snow removal, etc.

Unfortunately, the design has been tweaked by Planning yet again, so it won’t be a real agenda item subject to approval by TAB in November.  I’m very happy to have had the opportunity to participate in the process, and certainly hope to be able to give human-powered feedback to the city in the future, but at this point I’m also looking forward to this episode finally ending so we can move on to other more exciting issues.

You know, crazy stuff like… just how are we going to price the limited parking in the Transit Village?

Area III-Planning Reserve location

Discussions on the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP) continued to creep forward at Tuesday’s Boulder City Council study session. Substantive discussion focused on the process for considering development proposals in the Area III-Planning Reserve.

City planners Chris Meschuck and Susan Richstone presented an update on progress toward completing the 2010 major update of the BVCP.  City Council, at the October 12, 2010 meeting, specifically instructed planning staff to “conduct a study of the Area III-Planning Reserve” and “…revise the service area expansion process as part of 2010 BVCP Update.” Staff were also instructed to survey and engage public opinion on the topic. In what was to be a straightforward reconnect with City Council and an input opportunity, discussion quickly veered into the core debates around the planning reserve.

To develop or not to develop?

Although this was one of the final discussion items of the evening, it should have been the first. Councilmember Appelbaum outlined the fundamental contention by suggesting that there seems to be an inevitability to the development of the planning reserve. To this, city staff clarified and stated that the land in the planning reserve is currently designated in the BVCP as being equally likely to: (1) be re-designated as Area III- Rural Preservation land or (2) to be developed when a unique opportunity is accepted by the city and Boulder County. Staff followed Councilmember Appelbaum’s question by bluntly asking whether inevitable development was the wish of the Boulder City Council.

None of the council members gave a direct response to the question but instead stated that the current discussion about the Planning Reserve would not be taking place if there was not a real possibility of development. But, when asked for clarification, no council members spoke definitely in favor of or against development.  Several council members hinted that they favored development, whereas Councilmember Morzel clearly favored temporary preservation in order to provide options for future generations Boulderites.

Conduct a baseline study, or not?

As a means of better understanding the needs of the planning reserve, city planning staff suggested a baseline study of the area. The idea behind a baseline study would be to assess existing environmental needs, provide an assessment of necessary infrastructure investment, and consider urban designs that might integrate well with surrounding neighborhoods.

Council was split on whether or not to conduct an in-depth site study of the planning reserve. Most of the discussion came down to whether a “worthwhile” baseline impact study is possible. Several council members took the position that a study would be valuable in establishing a range of future investment costs,while other council members believed that discussions around appropriate types of development are so varied that estimating potential impacts would be very challenging. Council members cited hypotheticals ranging from a zero-impact bio-dome to a high energy teleportation terminal.

Essentially, the baseline study question came down to whether the city should spend resources on a study when the value of such a study is unknown without a clearer understanding of possible development. Additionally, several council members expressed concern  about the possibility of the study quickly becoming out of date due to advances in sustainability and building technology.

City planning staff found themselves in the unenviable position of being told to find a means to accelerate the city’s future ability to react to development proposals without a clear plan to follow in preparing for whatever emerges. Council members repeatedly echoed that they wish to leave the process open enough that a brilliant idea might emerge from outside of city government.

Staff argued that the study would protect the city from bearing a disproportionate amount of a development’s impact bill, and that the baseline study would address one of council’s major concerns related to the current long and complicated process. Planning staff indicated that the timeline for a development proposal to pass through the existing process is 21 to 36 months. If a baseline study is conducted in advance of a proposal, staff estimates that it would cut down the timeline of approval to 9 to 24 months.

The core question becomes, How does the city planning staff design a process that is conservative enough to ensure the right project and flexible enough to allow for more rapid response to the right project proposal? Council maintains that they do not know what kind of project would be ideal, but that they “will know it when they see it.”

What should the rules be?

Until the dream project comes along, Council seems unanimous in its viewpoint that the current rules dictating decisions in the Area III Planning Reserve do not work. An equally irking frustration for many of the council members is the fact that under the current rules, all proposals must be approved by the County Planning Commission, a body that consists of 5 members from the City of Boulder and others from Longmont, Louisville, Lafayette and Gold Hill. For several members of the City Council the fact that residents of communities outside of the City of Boulder can veto a project that most immediately affects the City of Boulder, and hypothetically could be Boulder’s dream development, seems like a misallocation of decision making power.

The majority of City Council supported renegotiating the rules of the process with the Boulder County Commissioners to simplify the approval process. Ideally, City Council believes that by removing the county boards from the decision making process, it would reduce the necessary approval from a four body decision (the County Commissioners, the County Planning Commission, the City Planning Board, and the City Council), to just the city’s two bodies (the City Planning Board and the City Council).

But what seems like a simple request may be more complicated than they expect. How likely is the county to surrender its input on the future expansion of the City of Boulder’s urban boundary? By eliminating four body review, the City of Boulder, so often the stalwart of careful planning, could be setting a dangerous precedent undermining the decades-old Inter-Governmental Agreement (IGA) known as the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan.

*In addition to the County Commissioners and the Boulder City Council, two bodies that have veto and approval power over the Planning Reserve are:

The Boulder County Planning Commission:

Ben Blaugrund- Gold Hill

Meg Blum- Boulder

Dan Cohen- Boulder

John Gerstle (1st Vice Chair)- Boulder

Gail Hartman- Louisville

Scott Holwick (Chair)-Longmont

Suzanne Nelson- Lafayette

Pat Shanks (2nd Vice Chair)- Boulder

Doug Young – Boulder

City of Boulder Planning Board:

Willa Johnson

Andrew Shoemaker

Danica Powell

William Holicky

Mary Young

Tim Plass

Aaron Brockett

images from staff memo: http://tinyurl.com/6b8f2x2

Progress towards Boulder’s ambitious future Champs Élysées, the South of Downtown Area (SODA), proceeded forward this Saint Patrick’s Day evening (3/17/2011). City of Boulder Planning staffers Sam Assefa and Susan Richstone came before the Planning Board and proposed a series of adaptations to the existing SODA design guidelines and building code.

The most significant proposal of the evening was a solidification of design guidelines recommending a 65 foot building setback. Previously, a 75 foot setback was the norm along Canyon Boulevard. For the majority of existing buildings within SODA, the implications of a 75 foot verses 65 foot setback are minimal. However, for the former Rob’s Music site, the 65 foot proposal is welcome news to developers. The 10 foot difference will be equivalent to an 18% increase in developable retail floorspace. According to the property owner, this is the difference between a profitable project and a project that simply won’t happen.

For the broader Boulder community, design and code guidelines for SODA are significant in that they represent the city’s holistic attempt to unify the north and south sides of Canyon Boulevard. The planning department’s objective is to create a more functional and aesthetically pleasing street scape. Even with the smaller 65 foot setbacks, rather than the current 75, city planning staff assure the Planning Board that there will be sufficient remaining right of way for pedestrians, bikeways, and greenery. As the 75 foot guideline exists, city planners believe Canyon Boulevard’s average 180 foot width with zoning for 50 foot buildings along both-sides creates an aesthetically off-balance environment.

In the interest of breaking the monotony of heights and building facades, city planners are encouraging a reduction in building’s third floor setbacks from 20 feet to 15 and in some cases allowing for a zero setback on third floors. Additionally, in the interest of architectural variety, city staff recommends flexing the three story building height limit from 35 feet to 38. At the core of these code adaptations is a belief that it will allow for a more varied collection of building heights and result in a positive aesthetic impact.

click to enlarge

Of all the SODA related proposals, the most creative and interesting of the Saint Patrick’s day evening was Sam Assefa’s cantilevered building proposal. The main focus of the cantilevered buildings  would be on buildings on the south side of Canyon. The idea is to encourage the construction of buildings that create an arcade like effect, mimicking  the architectural feel that exists in many European metropolises as well as exists at Pike’s Place Market in Seattle. If such buildings were to be built in conjunction with the 13th Street Farmer’s Market, the cantilevered space could be used as a covered space for the Farmer’s Market vendors.

While the concept of several blocks of covered walkways along the south side of Canyon is a creative and adaptive way of imagining the space, several significant questions  remain. Planning Board members expressed concern about both the potential darkness created by overhangs as well as the potentially awkward period of buildout, in which buildings with cantilevered walkways could exist with no buildings adjacent to them.

In the end, the adaptation of the design guidelines passed unanimously with a motion by Holicky and seconded by Jones. The proposed code changes also passed unanimously, on a motion by Holicky and seconded by Shoemaker.

from http://www.bouldercolorado.gov/files/PDS/boards/Section_4.pdf

City staff have proposed a subtle but important change to the policies governing the Planning Reserve.  Current rules require any development in the area to show that it meets a need that can’t be satisfied in the already-developed area of the city.  Staff’s proposal would, instead, require development to show that it achieves certain community goals.

The Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan designates 680 acres on the northern edge of Boulder as “Area III – Planning Reserve.”  It was set aside in 1993 as a location for possible future development, and in 2005 the BVCP was amended to state that the area should only be developed in order to satisfy a “priority need that cannot be met within the existing service area.”  Planning staff are proposing to ease the process for developing the land, including possibly changing that criterion to require any new development in the Reserve to satisfy the BVCP’s sustainability and other goals, with the intention of both clarifying and lowering the threshold for development.

The BVCP partitions Boulder and its surroundings into three pieces.  Area I is the city; Area II is land outside the city but planned for annexation; and Area III is land to be preserved in its rural character.  Areas I and II make up the city’s service area.  Area III – Planning Reserve fits between Areas II and III in a sense, as the part of Area III that could, in the future, be designated for annexation.

The proposed policy changes are independent of any specific development proposals for the land.  Property owners have floated two possible projects recently: one for a multi-sport athletic training center, and another for a mixed housing and farming development termed “Agriburbia.”  Use of the land for a future Naropa University campus is also a recurring idea, but Naropa’s current financial straits make that unlikely in the near term.

Some city and county officials have expressed the desire to change the service area expansion process from a reactive approach, based on specific proposals made by developers as part of the BVCP update process, to a proactive one initiated by the community.  As a first step, staff have suggested conducting a baseline study of urban service requirements for the Planning Reserve.  The study would analyze the need for utility infrastructure, roads, parks, fire protection, and so on for various possible development scenarios.

That suggestion met some skepticism when pitched to the city’s Planning Board at its December 16, 2010 meeting.  Board members weren’t convinced that the scenarios would cover the kinds of unforeseen needs the Planning Reserve could be called upon to meet.  Board member Tim Plass wanted to be sure any study left flexibility for “truly visionary projects that we can’t even conceive of currently.”  Danica Powell suggested, perhaps with tongue in cheek, that the area might be needed as a mortuary, in which case it wouldn’t demand much in the way of services.  Andrew Shoemaker wasn’t convinced of the need for a change in approach.  “I don’t see why we’re shying away from this reactive process,” he said.

Under the current rules for service area expansion, there are three steps in the process that each require approval by the city’s Planning Board, the City Council, the county’s Planning Commission, and the County Commissioners — what’s called four-body approval.  Part of staff’s proposal includes allowing some steps to be approved just by the Planning Board and City Council, in order to streamline and speed the process.

Based on the (sometimes conflicting) guidance given by the Planning Board, staff will draw up a more specific briefing paper on the service area expansion process.  The intention is to convene a focus group of community members to study ideas, and then hold a public meeting on any proposed changes.  The results will then be incorporated into the BVCP update, which is scheduled for final approval next summer.

Planning staff simulation (not an actual proposal)

City staff had recommended changes to zoning and the Downtown Design Guidelines that would have ratcheted down, slightly, the potential intensity of redevelopment in the 5½ block area from 13^th to 17^th Streets on the south side of Canyon Blvd.  Unlike the downtown (north) side of Canyon, this area is adjacent to the Goss-Grove neighborhood,  the city park and Boulder Creek.  It is traversed by the North Boulder Farmers Ditch.  The Dushanbe Tea House, the Boulder Museum of Contemporary Art and the Farmers Market are also located in the area under review.

Background

In 1997, the Downtown Alliance, a group of 35 representatives of businesses, neighborhoods, city boards and Historic Boulder, prepared a set of recommendations for City Council about the future of Boulder’s downtown.  In their report they recommended “one to three story buildings” downtown and that new development be guided by “respect and preservation of the adjacent residential neighborhoods.”

The Downtown Design Guidelines, a 2002 document that is  “the direct result of work conducted by the Downtown Alliance” recommended a guideline to, in transitional zones between commercial and residential areas, “In general, construct buildings of three stories or less.”

In December 2008, Council directed staff to develop an urban design vision for the south side of Canyon that would include updating the Downtown Design Guidelines, revising the Land Use code (a Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan term analogous to zoning), and defining public benefits that would be required in exchange for density bonuses to developers.

In January 2009, a proposed 28,100-square-foot, four-story, mixed-use building at the site of Robb’s Music (1580 Canyon) was rejected by Council as being too tall for an area near a residential neighborhood.

Planning Board Hearing

The city staff took Council’s direction and put together a proposal that would help guide redevelopment on the south side of Canyon.  Among the many recommendations were two key items:

1. Limit the height of buildings in interface areas (adjacent to the residential neighborhood) to 3 stories.
2. Reduce the current floor area ratio (FAR) of 2.7 to 2.0.  (For comparison, the 4-story, First National Bank building on the NW corner of Broadway and Canyon, 1155 Canyon, has an FAR of 2.3).

Members of the public spoke both for and against the staff recommendations.  Business owners including Jack Stoakes of Liquor Mart and James Travels’ Andy and Don James spoke against the height and FAR reductions.  Dylan Williams, an engineer, urged the Planning staff to revisit their analysis of occupancy rates of the luxury condos on Canyon, suggesting that the staff’s methodology significantly overestimated the occupancy.   Neighbors Forrest Williams, Kate Remley and Elizabeth Allen spoke against blocking the views.  Builder Phil Shull and land use attorney Ed Bryne spoke against limiting development potential in the area.

The buildings on the north side are kind of universally disliked – for good reason. Bill Hollicky, Planning Board member

Much of Planning Board’s deliberations centered on the existing 4-story, 55-foot-tall buildings on the north side of Canyon Blvd., with some members arguing that those buildings were a Planning Board mistake and that measures should be put in place to prevent such mistakes in the future.

Planning staff simulation (not an actual proposal)

Arguments put forth for rejecting staff’s recommendations included the assertion that the zoning should be the same on both sides of Canyon as a fundamental planning principle and concerns that limitations would dampen development.

The Planning Board rejected the recommendations limiting building sizes, with members Elise Jones, Mary Young and newcomer Tim Plass voting in support of the limits and members Andrew Shoemaker, Willa Johnson, Bill Hollicky and newcomer Danica Powell voting against.

How do you feel about 4-story buildings on the south side of Canyon?  Let us know by voting in the Blue Line poll in the sidebar.

UPDATE:  Poll is now closed.

The City of Boulder has 19 boards and commissions (18 of which had openings this year), each with specific responsibilities as detailed in the Boulder City Charter and/or the Boulder Revised Code.

City of Boulder boards and commissions are established for the purpose of acquiring and studying information in specific areas and to make recommendations to the City Council on issues within the board’s area of expertise.  Some boards are quasi-judicial and have decision-making powers. Decisions made by quasi-judicial boards are appealable to the City Council or the Courts.  The appointment procedures and a list of applicants for the various boards and commissions can be found here.

The following appointments were made at the March 31, 2010 City Council Special Meeting:

Arts Commission, two positions: 5-year and 3-year terms, one must be male.

Seven applicants.  There were two rounds of voting, one for each position.  Crystal Gray nominated Richard Turbiak, Ken Wilson nominated Anna Salim, and George Karakehian nominated Valerie Mitchell.  Anna Salim was appointed to the 5-year term on an 8-1 vote with George Karakehian voting for Valerie Mitchell.

Mr. Turbiak, being the only male applicant, received unanimous approval for the 3-year term.

Beverages Licensing Authority, one 5-year position.

Three applicants.  Lisa Morzel nominated Timothy McMurray and Susan Osborne nominated Linda Haertling.  McMurray’s nomination was approved with 8 votes; Susan Osborne voted for Linda Haertling.

Board of Zoning Adjustment, one 5-year position.

Two applicants.  Council unanimously decided in favor of reopening the nominations on a motion by Matt Appelbaum, seconded by Ken Wilson.

Boulder Urban Renewal Authority.  Mayoral appointment to 5-year term, must be female.

There was only one applicant to this position and that person did not show up for the interview, so Lisa Morzel moved, seconded by George Karakehian, to reopen the nominations.  Following discussion of the possibility of appointing a Councilmember to BURA, the motion was withdrawn and the issue will be taken up by Council under Matters at a future meeting, possibly April 20.

Colorado Chautauqua Association, two positions:  3-year and 2-year terms.

Five applicants.  Crystal Gray nominated Nancy Kornblum and George Karakehian nominated Thomas Thorpe.  Nancy Kornblum was appointed to the 3-year term with 7 votes, with Suzy Ageton and George Karakehian voting for Thomas Thorpe.

For the 2-year term, Matt Appelbaum nominated Thomas Thorpe, Crystal Gray nominated Gretchen King, and Macon Cowles nominated Virginia Zukowski.  Thomas Thorpe was appointed with 7 votes for the 2-year term, with Macon Cowles and Crystal Gray voting for their respective nominees.

Downtown Design Advisory Board, one 5-year term, must be a design professional.

Three applicants.  Susy Ageton nominated David Biek and Lisa Morzel nominated Barbara Bronk.  David Biek received 6 votes, with Lisa Morzel, Crystal Gray, and Susan Osborne voting for Barbara Bronk.

Downtown Management Commission, one 5-year position.

There was only one applicant, John Koval, who was nominated by Susan Osborne.  He was appointed unanimously.

Environmental Advisory Board, one 5-year position.

Five applicants.  Matt Appelbaum nominated Scot Woolley and Suzy Ageton nominated Dan Omasta, both CU students.  There was some Council discussion about the impressive list of well-qualified applicants.  They were particularly excited about the opportunity to appoint CU students, both of whom had excellent qualifications for this board.  Scot Woolley was appointed with 5 votes from Matt Appelbaum, Macon Cowles, Crystal Gray, KC Becker, and Lisa Morzel.  Ken Wilson, Suzy Ageton, George Karakehian and Susan Osborne voted for Dan Omasta.

Housing Authority, one Mayoral appointment to a 5-year term.

Four applicants.  KC Becker, Ken Wilson, Crystal Gray, Lisa Morzel, and Matt Appelbaum all advocated for Valerie Mitchell.  Matt Appelbaum, Susan Osborne, Suzy Ageton, and Lisa Morzel commented that Council needs to have some discussion about the role of board members on the Housing Authority and raised issues about Housing Authority appointments, particularly multiple reappointments.  Crystal Gray suggested that there should be a Study Session on the relationship between Council and the Housing Authority and Boulder Housing Partners.  Mayor Osborne decided on April 1 to appoint Valerie Mitchell.

Human Relations Commission, one 5-year position.

Six applicants.  Ken Wilson nominated Jo Ruder, Macon Cowles nominated John Paul Harris, and Lisa Morzel nominated Laurence Gendelman.  John Paul Harris was appointed with 5 votes from Matt Appelbaum, Lisa Morzel, Susan Osborne, Crystal Gray, and Macon Cowles.  George Karakehian, Suzy Ageton, Ken Wilson, and KC Becker voted for Jo Ruder.

Landmarks Board, one 5-year position, must be an architect/planner.

Three applicants.  Crystal Gray nominated Leonard May and Ken Wilson nominated Mark Gerwing.  Leonard May received 4 votes from Lisa Morzel, Susan Osborne, Crystal Gray, and Macon Cowles.  Mark Gerwing was appointed with 5 votes from Matt Appelbaum, George Karakehian, Suzy Ageton, Ken Wilson, and KC Becker.

NOTE: Later in the meeting, Tim Plass, current chair of the Landmarks Board, was appointed to Planning Board, opening a one year position on Landmarks.  Matt Appelbaum moved that the position be re-opened because it would no longer be restricted to professional architects and planners.  The motion to re-open passed 6-3 with Matt Appelbaum, George Karakehian, Suzy Ageton, Ken Wilson, Crystal Gray, and KC Becker in support.

Library Commission, one 5-year position.

Nine applicants.  Lisa Morzel nominated Anne Sawyer, Ken Wilson nominated Celeste Landry, Crystal Gray nominated Judith Reid, and Macon Cowles nominated Virginia Zukowski.  After two rounds of voting, Anne Sawyer was appointed with 5 votes from Matt Appelbaum, Lisa Morzel, Susan Osborne, KC Becker, and Macon Cowles.

Open Space Board of Trustees, one 5-year position.

Five applicants.  Suzy Ageton nominated Tom Isaacson and Lisa Morzel nominated Frances Hartogh.  Crystal Gray noted that some recent appointments to the board, who represent the broader community, have been excellent board members and she expressed concern that Tom Isaacson has been a leader of the highly political Outdoor Coalition.  Matt Appelbaum said that, even though he was more philosophically aligned with Frances Hartogh, he was going to vote for Tom Isaacson, hoping that he would be more broad-minded than simply representing the “so-called recreational community.”  He also expressed the desire that the Open Space Board of Trustees be expanded to seven members.  Susan Osborne said that Hartogh had a very good interview and Lisa Morzel said that Hartogh did a good job on the Parks Board, has a broad perspective, and is a daily recreational user of Open Space.  Macon Cowles commented that Isaacson has applied before, has a very broad world view, and that a vote for Frances would be equivalent to letting her “cut in line.”  KC Becker said that Isaacson is “smarter than smart.”  Tom Isaacson was appointed with 6 votes, with Lisa Morzel, Susan Osborne, and Crystal Gray voting for Frances Hartogh.

Parks and Recreation Advisory Board, two 5-year positions.

Nine applicants.  Crystal Gray nominated Myriah Sullivan Conroy, Suzy Ageton nominated Timothy Shea, Ken Wilson nominated Michelle Estrella Wolf, and George Karakehian nominated Mike Conroy.  Ken Wilson noted that there were many excellent candidates and argued that persons with budgetary experience, such as Michelle Estrella Wolf and Mike Conroy, would be helpful.  KC Becker said she was looking for candidates with a strong financial background and with children in the system.  Crystal Gray noted that the board only has one women left with Frances Hartogh’s departure. Myriah Conroy was appointed with 5 votes (Matt Applebaum, Lisa Morzel, Susan Osborne, Crystal Gray, and Macon Cowles) after two rounds of voting for the first position.

For the second position, Lisa Morzel nominated Michelle Estrella Wolf and Susan Osborne nominated Tim Shea.  Michelle Estrella Wolf was appointed with 6 votes from Matt Applebaum, Lisa Morzel, Ken Wilson, Crystal Gray, KC Becker, and Macon Cowles.

Planning Board, two positions: 5-year and 3-year terms.

Eight applicants.  Crystal Gray nominated Tim Plass and Ken Wilson nominated Danica Powell.  Tim Plass was appointed with 5 votes for the 5-year term with support from Matt Applebaum, Lisa Morzel, Susan Osborne, Crystal Gray, and Macon Cowles.

Lisa Morzel nominated Anne Parker and Ken Wilson nominated Danica Powell for the 3-year term.  During discussion, Crystal Gray spoke for Anne Parker as bringing a unique perspective as a resident of the dense housing in the Orchard Grove Mobile Home Park and a Naropa Environmental Studies professor.  Suzy Ageton said that Danica Powell was extremely knowledgeable and gave an impressive interview and doesn’t appear to be tied to any of the traditional groups in the community.  KC Becker said that Danica Powell had designed her own degree in Urban Sustainability and that the Planning Board needs professionals with planning background and experience.  Macon Cowles countered that the Planning Board works better as a layperson board and is better for the community that way.  Danica Powell was appointed with 5 votes for the 3-year term from Matt Appelbaum, George Karakehian, Suzy Ageton, Ken Wilson, and KC Becker.

Transportation Advisory Board, one 5-year position, must be female.

One applicant.  Ken Wilson moved, seconded by Lisa Morzel, to reopen the nominations for this board.  The motion passed unanimously.

University Hill Commercial Area Management Commission, two positions:  5-year and 1-year terms.

Three applicants.  Macon Cowles nominated Hillary Griffith for the 5 year term.  There being no other nominations, she was appointed by acclamation.

Macon Cowles nominated Jyotsna Raj for the 1-year term.  Ken Wilson moved to reopen the nominations, seconded by Suzy Ageton.  Macon Cowles objected that the motion was out of order given that he had nominated Raj.  The City Attorney recommended that the Council vote on Wilson’s motion.  Lisa Morzel and Crystal Gray spoke in favor of Jyotsna Raj as a leader on The Hill and in establishing the 14th St Historic District, and therefore they did not favor reopening the applications.  KC Becker commented that Jyotsna could reapply if the position was reopened to get more applicants with a particular expertise and added that a couple of the applicants didn’t even know what the board did and Jyotsna was one of those.  The motion to reopen the nominations failed, 4-5, with Cowles, Gray, Osborne, Morzel and Appelbaum opposed.  Jyotsna Raj was appointed with 5 votes from Matt Applebaum, Lisa Morzel, Susan Osborne, Crystal Gray, and Macon Cowles for the 1-year position.

Water Resources Advisory Board, one 5-year position.

Four applicants.  Lisa Morzel nominated Kate Ryan and spoke to the high quality of the applicants and Kate Ryan’s valuable experience as a water attorney.  There being no other nominations, she received the position by acclamation.

With nominations concluded, Councilmember Cowles moved, Morzel seconded, to accept the entire slate of applicants.

Public Hearing: [Public comments are taken only after all the nominations are completed, but before the final approval of the slate of appointments.]  One member of the public, Dylan Williams, addressed the Council.  He said that it has been his experience that Planning Board is a very closed group that welcomes comments from design professionals and is hostile to input from mere citizens.  He noted that he is very pleased that Council is discussing the tenor and composition of the Planning Board and expressed his extreme frustration with that board.  He also spoke in support of Tim Plass, who adds fairness, experience, balance, and openness.

The motion passed unanimously with no further discussion.