Minutes - Planning Board - 12/3/2009
CITY OF BOULDER
PLANNING BOARD ACTION MINUTES
December 3, 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:
Bill Holicky
Willa Johnson
Elise Jones
Andrew Shoemaker
Adrian Sopher, Chair
Mary Young
PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT:
STAFF PRESENT:
Steve Buckbee, Civil Engineer II
David Driskell, Executive Director of Community Planning and Sustainability
Charles Ferro, Land Use Review Manager
David Gehr, Assistant City Attorney
James Hewatt, Historic Preservation Planner If
Elizabeth Lokocz, Landscape Architect
Elaine McLaughlin, Senior Planner
Paula Weber, Administrative Specialist III
1. CALL TO ORDER
Chair, A. Sopher, declared a quorum at 6:06 p.m. and the following business was conducted.
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
On a motion by E. Jones, seconded by M. Young, the Planning Board approved ( 5-0, W. Johnson
abstained) the October 15, 2009 Planning Board minutes as amended.
On a motion by E. Jones, seconded by A. Shoemaker, the Planning Board approved ( 5-0, W. Johnson
abstained) the November 5, 2009 Planning Board minutes as amended.
3. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
4. DISCUSSION OF DISPOSITIONS, PLANNING BOARD CALL-UPS
Call-up items:
3022 E. Sterling Circle, LUR2009-00066, Use Review was called up by the board.
A. Sopher and M. Young were the board members responsible for calling this item up.
5. ACTION ITEMS -
A. 900 28"' Street
Public hearing and consideration of Site Review #LUR2008-00040 for Flatirons Village, located at 900
28"' Street, to add 59 dwelling units with underground parking. The request requires the following
modifications as allowed in the Residential High Density Three (RH-3): height modification and a solar
exception. The site is comprised of 2.57 acres zoned Residential High Density Three (RH-3).
Owner / Applicant: Flatirons Village, LLC
Applicant/Owner Presentation
Steven Walsh spoke representing Flatirons Village, LLC
Staff Presentation
C. Ferro presented the item to the board.
Public Hearing
No one from the public addressed the board.
Board Discussion
The board spent an hour and fifteen minutes reviewing the proposal and discussing their areas of
concern which included:
Parking
Affordable Housing
The tree plaza area
Pedestrian connections
The distance between the new buildings
The north property line ficade
Overall massing
Grating and drainage issues
Landscaping
On a motion by B. Holieky, seconded by A. Shoemaker, the Planning Board approved (6-0) Site
Review #LUR2008-00040 incorporating the staff memorandum dated December 3, 2009 and the
attached Site Review Criteria Checklist as findings of fact, and using the following recommended
conditions of approval.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
1. The Applicant shall be responsible for ensuring that the development shall be in compliance with
all approved plans dated October 8, 2009 on file in the City of Boulder Planning Department, except as
may be modified by this approval.
2. The Applicant shall comply with all previous conditions contained in the Development Agreement
recorded February 8, 2008 at Reception No. 2908796, except as may be modified by this approval.
3. Prior to a building permit application, the Applicant shall submit a Technical Document Review
application for the following items, subject to the approval of the City Manager:
a. Final architectural plans, including material samples and colors, to insure compliance with the
intent of this approval and compatibility with the surrounding area. The architectural intent shown on
the approved plans dated October 8, 2009 is acceptable. Planning staff will review plans to assure that
the architectural intent is performed.
b. A final site plan which includes detailed floor plans and section drawings.
c. A final utility plan meeting the City of Boulder Design and Construction Standards.
d. A final storm water report and plan meeting the City of Boulder Design and
Construction Standards.
e. Final transportation plans and report in accordance with City of Boulder Design and
Construction Standards for all transportation improvements, including but not limited to:
construction plans and pavement design report for the public emergency access lane,
construction plans for all public sidewalks and the transit stop boarding pad, a signage and
striping plan in conformance with Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD)
standards, and a stamped drive ramp analysis for the East Aurora Avenue underground parking
structure ramp.
f. CDOT access permit in accordance with CDOT Access Code Standards, for all
transportation improvements within the CDOT right-of-way including the 28`h Street Frontage
Road access.
g. A detailed landscape plan, including size, quantity, and type of plants existing and
proposed; type and quality of non-living landscaping materials; any site grading proposed; and
any irrigation system proposed, to insure compliance with this approval and the City's
landscaping requirements. Removal of trees must receive prior approval of the Planning
Department. Removal of any tree in City right of way must also receive prior approval of the
City Forester.
h. A detailed outdoor lighting plan showing location, size, and intensity of illumination
units, indicating compliance with section 9-9-16, B.R.C. 1981.
i. A detailed shadow analysis to insure compliance with the City's solar access
requirements of section 9-9-17, B.R.C.
4. Prior to a building permit application, the Applicant shall dedicate to the City, at no cost, the
following easements as shown on the approved plans, in accordance with the City of Boulder Design
and Construction Standards, as part of Technical Document Review applications, the form and final
location of which shall be subject to the approval of the City Manager:
a. A public access easement 1' beyond sidewalk limits of the path along the northern.
property line of the site.
b. A public access easement 1' beyond sidewalk limits of the East Aurora Avenue
sidewalk.
c. A public access easement 1' beyond shared driveway limits for the 28°i Street Frontage
Road access.
d. A 20-foot wide emergency access easement containing the emergency access lane.
e. A 10' utility easement running from East Aurora Avenue to the property line shared with 910
28'h Street located west of existing building located at 900 28'h Street (Building A).
5. Prior to a building permit application, the Applicant shall provide documentation confirming that
the private sewer easement which serves 910 28°i Street and which crosses underneath the proposed new
development has been extinguished.
6. Prior to building permit application, the Applicant shall submit a frnaneial guarantee, in a form
acceptable to the Director of Public Works, in an amount equal to the cost of providing eco-passes to the
residents of the development for three years after the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for each
dwelling unit as proposed in the Applicant's Transportation Demand Management (TDM) plan.
7. Prior to a building permit application, the Applicant shall submit to the City an application for
Individual Landmark designation of the historic Green Shield Building located at 900 28'h Street,
Boulder, CO, with a designation boundary extending from the existing building to the west, south and
north property lines, and east and northeast a distance of approximately 15 feet from the face of the
existing building.
8. The applicant shall modify the final plans dated October 18, 2009 to:
a. Add a prominent pedestrian connection (a minimum of 8' wide) on the approved plans, shown
on sheet A-0, perpendicular from East Aurora Avenue and east of the ADA ramp, across or through the
detention pond to provide direct access to the plaza area,
b. Remove at least 10' x 10' of building mass on the western corners of both sides of the 12' wide
passageway between the two building modules that are located on the northeast portion of the site as
shown on sheet A-0,
c. Increase the setback on the 4th floor on the two building modules along the northern portion of
the property as shown on sheet A-0 by an additional 10 feet from the northern property line.
d. Add three trees in the plaza area in adequately sized below grade tree wells. The city manager
may reduce the number from three trees to two trees upon finding that there is not an adequately sized
area for such trees.
B. Tree Protection Ordinance and Phase 2 direction
Public hearing and consideration of a recommendation to City Council on a Phase 1 ordinance
amending Titles 8 and 9 of the Boulder Revised Code pertaining to tree protection through
impact analysis and maintenance requirements; and, additional discussion on proposed Phase 2
tree protection code changes including potential expansion of the landmarks program, a tree
removal permit requirement and/or other incentives or mitigation requirements for removal of
trees on private property.
Staff Presentation
E. Lokocz presented the item to the board.
Public Hearing
Cosma Krueger Cunningham, 977 7°i Street spoke to the board in support of the certified
arborist contractor licensing. She thinks these proposed ordinances should be put into context of
the other ordinances.
Marjory Goldman, 1043 Pine Street, spoke to the board about classification of landmarked
trees. She said she is an advocate for protection of trees.
Jonathan Hondorf, 2720 4'h Street, spoke to the board about cautioning the board about
making the definitions very specific. He wanted to caution about regulations that may develop
into property rights.
Board Discussion
Motion
On a,motion E. Jones, seconded by M. Young, the Planning Board recommended (6-0) an
ordinance amending Title 8, B.R.C. 1981 creating an affirmative obligation of adjacent property
owners to maintain street trees and Title 9, B.R.C. 1981 tree protection in the site review,
subdivision, and landscaping standards incorporating the staff memorandum dated December 3,
2009 subject to the following conditions of approval.
Phase 1: A property owner shall maintain required street trees on or adjacent to the owners
property in the public right of way, by providing landscaping or a mulch, sod-free base around
the tree and sufficient irrigation to sustain the life of the tree.
Phase 2 Discussion
Mitigation through discretionary reviews:
E. Jones said she thinks staff should explore this. We want to protect large, wonderful trees but
we can't if it restricts development potential so much. How do we make up for that loss? One
way is to potentially look at mitigating the loss. If we could not do it on site because you have a
constrained site that is covered with an underground parking garage then maybe off site is the
only option.
E. Lokocz said there is current language under the site review criteria that says you are required
to mitigate for the loss of healthy mature, long lived trees but there is nothing specific to say
what that means.
D. Gehr said there is also discussion about what the property owner has to bear. Saying
whatever comes back to the board there will be a lot of legal analysis that will have to go into
5
this on site, what is equitable, what is confiscatory, etc... It is almost like Inclusionary Zoning
for trees.
W. Johnson said this is a descressionary review so we are looking at it on a going forward basis,
is it providing the trees that we want.
D. Gehr said when you are charging people money there is usually pretty significant legal
standards that you have to meet.
M. Young said she would like to explore measures that provide incentive for the property owner
to keep a tree as opposed to punitive measures.
B. Holicky agreed with M. Young in wanting to provide incentives.
D. Gehr said if staff gets direction to go forward with the tree mitigation there will be significant
legal issues associated with a lot of the ideas that are in the memorandum.
E. Jones said she does not know if this is the most important place to focus because she feels
like the board has some opportunities through site review. Maybe having an off site mitigation
for projects that do not lend themselves to on site mitigation. Saying there could be flexibility in
the trade offs in that if you are protecting something special maybe we could cut you some slack
in other regards.
B. Holicky said we end up with all of these conflicting regulations push people in different ways.
A lot of the sites primed for redevelopment have a ton of trees on them. If we want to redevelop
those sites into something that we want to see we are going to end up with a huge number of
trees that go away. If we apply the same level of mitigation as the site we saw tonight, it would
be extremely inequitable. Maybe it should be more along the lines of site review criteria that are
more beefed up.
A. Sopher said the question that D. Gehr is raising has more to do with economic value because
we can currently require mitigation in terms of additional plantings.
D. Gehr said that is the straight traditional regulatory approach.
A. Sopher said the only questionable ones in this regard are the ones that involve reimbursing
the city for the loss in terms of dollars and how you determine the value of each tree.
D. Gehr said it also has to do with the equity of mitigation when you look at something like the
lotus property vs. Orchard Grove, they are two different things in terms of regulatory and
economic requirements of those two types of properties.
A. Sopher said we have a lot of tools right now in site review and maybe we need to clarify the
details on that. The financial ones seem a little harder to accomplish.
Tree Removal Permits on private property:
E. Jones said there are ` landmarkable" trees and then there are the very fine wonderful trees that
are not landmarkable that we need to be careful about cutting down. It should not be easy for
someone to cut a tree, and asset like that down. If you want to cut down a walnut tree of a certain
size then you need a permit.
E. Lokocz said it would be possible to come up with a size thresholds per species, at least major
categories, but an inventory would be very difficult.
M. Young said if we do go down the route of tree removal permits, maximizing development
potential by itself would not qualify for tree removal.
W. Johnson said she does not know why we would want to have permits and landmarking, only
need one or the other.
E. Johnson said that is because landmarking is generally done by willing landowners and
permits would protect the trees that have not been landmarked but still need protection.
A. Sopher said then we need to determine what the criteria is for permitting.
A. Shoemaker said that the occasional tree here and there should be easier that a large clearcut
area. He said for the landmarking there needs to be very narrow criteria.
6
B. Holicky he does not have a problem for tree removal permits if we identify the size and
species. The tree removal permits should be for trees in the set backs. He does have a problem
with people with tiny little houses and a tree in the middle of the yard who want to remove their
tree. In some cases redevelopment potential would be enough to remove a tree. He is concerned
about the Landmarks Board being in charge of the removal permits because their mission is to
preserve. Talking about champion trees, not any historic association.
A. Sopher said he finds trees in the set back problematic because they will impact adjacent
property owners. He said this is very complicated.
E. Jones said you have to decide the criteria. She would say you would set it by the size of big
trees. If you have a big tree then you have to come in and get a permit to cut it down. You would
be allowed to cut it down if it significantly impacts development potential; no you can't if you
can expand on your property by working around the tree; yes you can cut it down if it is
undermining the foundation of your house, etc... You would at least put a break on someone
cutting a tree down just because they didn't like it. In the process we should save some trees and
where you can't, there is a requirement for replacement.
A. Sopher said it is the larger concern that we have to be open to being flexible. We have not
talked about solar access.We need to think about tree removal that would affect the adjacent
property.
B. Holicky said that speaks to one thing if a tree is close to a neighbor or not close to a neighbor.
The criteria should included or consider the location of the tree and the impact of that tree. If it's
in a front yard it's different.
W. Johnson asked what landmarking a tree adds if we already have a recognition system
through the champion tree program.
E. Jones said landmarking would allow more protection for the tree.
M. Young said it could be a better system, it could spring civic pride. There could be
landmarked tree tours and we could inform and educate people, it could be a qualitiative process.
E. Jones said if you had a tree removal permit then the landmarked trees would be pretty narrow.
It would be the relationship between the two.
M. Young said there is a list on the city web site of champion trees in the city.
W. Johnson said both points are well taken. Saying we are putting a lot of resources towards this
and wondered if we could start with penmiting and see if it works well enough.
A. Sopher said he is more inclined to start with landmarking. Saying there are lists in existence.
We can start there and see where we can expand to. We need to determine what trees we want to
preserve in this community and then determine what impact that would have on the community
as a whole. He is more inclined to start with the landmarking.
E. Lokoez said we are talking about 1,000's of trees. Perhaps 1/3 could meet a size threshold.
A. Sopher said that gets his attention.
B. Holicky said the problem we are trying to solve is spec. developers coming in and removing
all of the trees on a project and making it easier to come in and develop the entire area, getting
the most housing on the site as possible. That number is much smaller, maybe 1,000 trees. Of
the 1,000 trees, how many are large enough to require a permit.
A. Sopher asked if we are already getting there with the Pops and Scrapes ordinance reducing
the amount of land affected by that house.
A. Shoemaker said we have given staff some guidance on the issues and we are not going to
reach decisions tonight.
E. Jones said cost and feasibility of implementation will factor into this as well.
B. Holicky said he asked for tree mitigation during the Pops and scrapes in terms of public and
private space and because he didn't get it then so he will ask for it now.
A. Sopher asked E. Lokocz about what she thought the survey would include.
7
E. Lokocz said it would entail someone walking down the street and looking at whether there
was a tree that appears to be landmarkable. It would be only a visual assessment.
D. Gehr asked if E. Lokocz was using the term landmarkable to describe the trees physical
condition and/or the historical significance.
E. Lokocz said there have been discussions about historic significance but it's a separate
question.
6. MATTERS FROM THE PLANNING BOARD, PLANNING DIRECTOR,
AND CITY ATTORNEY
Follow up on the disposition:
Call-up items:
3022 E. Sterling Circle, LUR2009-00066, Use Review was called up by the board.
After the board review of additional information provided by the applicant, A. Sopher
and M. Young withdrew their desire to call up the item.
7. DEBRIEF/AGENDA CHECK
8. ADJOURNMENT
The Planning Board adjourned the meeting at 11:18 p.m.
APPROVED B
Board
a AI /J
DATE
8