Minutes - Planning Board - 5/7/2009
CITY OF BOULDER
PLANNING BOARD ACTION MINUTES
May 7, 2009
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: http://www.bouldereolorado.gov/
PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT:
KC Becker
Elise Jones
Willa Johnson
Adrian Sopher
Mary Young
PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT:
Andrew Shoemaker
Bill Holicky
STAFF PRESENT:
David Driskell, Deputy Director of Community Planning
Charles Ferro, Senior Planner
David Gehr, Assistant City Attorney
Elizabeth Lokocz, Landscape Architect
Paula Weber, Administrative Specialist III
1. CALL TO ORDER TRACK 20
Chair, A. Sopher , declared a quorum at 6:03 p.m. and the following business was
conducted.
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
On a motion by E. Jones, seconded by A. Sot?her, the Planning Board approved (3-2, M. Youna.
and W. Johnson recuscd, A. Shoemaker, B. 1lolicky absent) the February 5, 2009 Planning
Board minutes as amended.
On a motion by E. ,tunes, seconded by W. Johnson, the Planning Board approved (5-0, A.
Shoetnake.r, B. Ilolicky Absent) the April 2, 2009 Planning Board minutes as emended.
On a motion by W. Johnson, seconded by 1C. Becker, the Planning Board approved (5-0, A.
Shoemaker, B. Ilolicky absent) the April 16, 2009 Planning Board minutes as amended.
3. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
No one from the public addressed the board.
1
4. DISCUSSION OF DISPOSITIONS, PLANNING BOARD CALL-UPS
Call-up items: 4830 Nautilus Court North, Boulder Country Day School was not called up.
5. ACTION ITEMS
A. Public hearing and consideration of Use Review #LUR2009-00021 to allow
construction of a new 630 square foot pump station facility located at 3715 Iris
Ave. The property is zoned Residential High Density Four (RH-4).
Applicant: Randy Earley
Owner: City of Boulder
Staff Presentation
Charles Ferro presented the item to the board.
Public Hearing
No one from the public addressed the board.
Motion
On a notion by E. Jones, seconded by W. Johnson, [lie Planning Board reconunended (5-0,
A. Shoemaker and B. Holicky absent) approval of Use Review #LUR2009-00021
incoiporating this staff memorandum as findings of fact and subject to the following
recommended conditions of approval.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
1. Prior to a building permit application, the Applicant shall submit revised plans
for review of the following items, subject to the review and approval of
Planning and Development Services Division:
a. Final architectural plans, including materials and colors, to insure
compliance with the intent of this approval and the architectural intent
shown on the elevation plans dated April 2009, including detailed site
plans, floor plans and section drawings to verify floor area and compliance
with Subsection 9-7-7(b), B.R.C. 1981 regarding building heights and
Chapter 9-16, "Definitions," B.R.C. 1981 regarding building heights.
b. Final landscape plans to include additional screening to the south side of the
building from Iris Ave.
B. Discussion of Tree Protection and Preservation Objectives and Potential Code Changes
(Title 9). Based on comments and input from the Board, staff will develop potential code
language changes to achieve the agreed upon objectives.
Staff Presentation
E. Lokocz presented the item to the board.
2
Public Hearing
Margery Gordman, 1043 Pine Street, spoke in support of tree protection.
Peter Richards, 470 University Avenue, spoke in support of tree protection.
Board Discussion
The board discussion was two hours.
Board Direction
Objectives per Memo:
1. Balance development potential with public interest and private development goals.
2. Provide protection for trees on properties adjacent to development projects.
3. Prohibit removal of especially large and mature trees without appropriate analysis.
Support additional protection for significant trees, public and/or private, as defined
through size and species criteria.
4. Provide additional incentive for the preservation of existing trees on development sites.
5. Ensure that qualified professionals perform tree assessment, construction management and
root or canopy removal.
Revised Objectives per Planning Board Direction:
1. Recognize the social, economic and environmental sustainability benefits associated with
trees and the need to balance those benefits with development potential and goals.
2. Provide protection for significant trees, as defined by location, size, condition and overall
desirability, on public and private properties adjacent to development projects and mitigate
harm to existing significant trees.
3. Promote protection of all trees and prohibit removal of significant trees without
appropriate analysis.
4. Incorporated into #3 and deleted.
5. Ensure that qualified professionals perform tree assessment, construction management and
root or canopy removal.
b. Mitigation: Under what circumstance is mitigation required? Is mitigation part of
promoting protection? Is mitigation required when you kill an adjacent tree and remove a
tree from your own property? Should mitigation include transfer of development rights
from one area of a lot to another or between lots? Mitigation must balance the loss of the
tree and the loss of property use. To state mitigation as an objective might be:
Require tree and site appropriate mitigation for the loss of all trees on public and private
property due to removal as a result of development.
7_ Review/refine protection vs. preservation: Can one term be used interchangeably or are
they distinct terms? Staff proposes to continue using both terms, but protection is a
broader term if only one term is preferred.
8. Street tree planting patterns: The multi-modal corridor study will include some analysis
on existing planting requirements and may be able to incorporate recommended changes in
planting guidelines. Additional staff review and discussion is needed to identify the
constraints and opportunities of the study.
3
D. Gehr spoke to the board about his research on ditches. There were two points that come up for
ditch companies. They arc held to a negligent standard for liability and are liable for the damage
caused to the properties that their ditches flow through. A lot of their maintenance is to avoid the
possibility of flooding. The second point is that the ditch companies have a responsibility to return
the as much water to the creek as they can to avoid wasting water.
6. MATTERS FROM THE PLANNING BOARD, PLANNING DIRECTOR,
AND CITY ATTORNEY
D. Driskell spoke to the board about the Affordable Housing update being moved to the
May 21 meeting. He also spoke to the board about the Landmarks Board retreat
discussion, indicating that there arc three topics that the Landmarks Board would like to
discuss with Planning Board. Those topics are density in historic districts; process related
to the Camera building redevelopment; and issues related to annexations.
A. Sopher asked staff to work out a joint meeting with Landmarks Board. He also asked
staff to prepare any pre-meeting documents or materials for Planning Board.
D. Driskell let the board know that there is a request from a group of young people who
will be presenting to City Council on Tuesday, May 12. The Planning Board is invited to
attend.
E. Jones said that the memo sent out about process was good but Planning Board might
want to have the Planning Board minutes reflect the nature of the discussion and the length
of discussion when requested in advance from the Planning Board Secretary.
W. Johnson notified the board that she will be absent on May 21.
D. Gehr said A. Shoemaker has recused himself from the May 21 Planning Board
meeting due to a conflict of interest.
7. DEBRIEF/AGENDA CHECK
8. ADJOURNMENT
The Planning Board adjourned the meeting at 8:57 p.m.
APPROVED BY
Board Chair. '
DATE
4