Map / Planning Board / ← 2024-08-06 · 2024-08-27 →
Planning Board · regular
8-20-24 Planning Board Meeting
- Date
- Series
- regular
- Status
- past
- Sources
- YouTube, via the Woven archive; YouTube's automatic captions
Agenda
No agenda items read for this meeting.
Excerpts by topic
AI-read · unreviewed43 mentions; quotes verbatim from the captions or agenda, chosen by a model, unchecked by a personthe parking requirements basically make many adu and duplex and unit additions impossible
Obviously water and air pollution, heat islands. It encourages car travel, more air pollution, more carbon.
Obviously water and air pollution, heat islands. It encourages car travel, more air pollution, more carbon.
the loss of the sales, tax revenue to high-end student housing with cars all with cars, plenty of cars
the loss of the sales, tax revenue to high-end student housing with cars all with cars, plenty of cars
This is related to this overall Amps, access management and parking strategy implementation and code project.
that's how our land use code is set up. Now compare that to the on street parking.
the Chapa access management program or camp, the civic area parking management and Tdm programs.
the civic area parking management and Tdm programs. The neighborhood permit parking or Npp review.
Vehicle. Miles traveled reducing greenhouse gases, improving safety, and that we're tracking regularly
There's also policies in our transportation master plan that set aside some certain, some objectives
the bill prohibits minimum parking requirements. If a property is at least partially within what's called the transit service area
They found in these studies that local minimum parking requirements increased vehicle miles traveled increased greenhouse gas emissions
We had a good discussion with boulder housing partners to try to understand what impact, if any are the city's minimum parking requirements
There really isn't a mechanism in there to set specific, measurable objective targets like something about vehicle trip generation
basically create a vision of what this Tdm ordinance would be, and how it would function in order to meet our goals as a city.
There also needs to be a specific methodology to set those target levels. If your metric is vehicle trip generation
The largest. You could think of a project like a Cu South level, where there'd be very strict requirements.
we have under contract to do an audit basically of our entire parking. Section 996 of the land use code.
And I think of an example like student housing and the need for additional loading zones for student housing
And I think of an example like student housing and the need for additional loading zones for student housing
So we would use those Boulder Valley comprehensive plans, policies the Tmp. The transportation master plan policies.
So we would use those Boulder Valley comprehensive plans, policies the Tmp. The transportation master plan policies.
could you pull out those key takeaways again? You might. You might have gone through them.
You mentioned that you talked to boulder housing partners. About? What impact does the current parking requirement have
these were high level policy decisions that were determined through comprehensive plans. Oftentimes cities were simply implementing
Do you have a sense of the car to unit ratio at current Vhp properties.
You could put tubes on the road, you could put cameras up. You can look at trips in and out of the site.
when the State eliminated occupancy limits the city pretty quickly drafted an ordinance and we adopted it correct?
So we do have to make an update to the code. So we are preparing a new ordinance that will come before planning board this fall.
Can't we just rip the Bandaid off that and take that off the table. And suddenly our public process is about tdm.
I come back to thinking of it more as from a standpoint of an impact fee. And so could it be implemented partly in that way
I think we should be moving to a regime where we are charging for all the parking in all the public barking in this city
The way that we do for affordable housing. And I really do like Kurt's idea here that if we can move away
But the city does have a mechanism for assessing impact fees. The way that we do for affordable housing.
that's land that can't be used for affordable housing, so they owe us something that can be used to improve affordable housing throughout the city.
development impact fees have to be directly related to the service at hand. So it's not possible, for example, to charge a development impact fee
which was tested in Colorado by the Colorado Supreme Court. It was a case involving Fort Collins.
on all existing properties, not just new development, all existing properties, and what the city of Loveland does with it
about 30% of our population are non drivers, children and youth people with disabilities, seniors.
about the new, the the newest iteration of zoning for affordable housing, whatever it's called family friendly.
about the new, the the newest iteration of zoning for affordable housing, whatever it's called family friendly.
bear in mind the Comp plan won't get adopted until a year and a half later. and so it was their interest