Loading...
7 - Items for Discussion/Information, PLAN-Boulder County News & Notes May/June 2001.~- Hospital site -BOULDER COUNTY NEWS c~ NOTES Several board membecs are acnvely smdymg vanous aspects of the proposal by Bo~ der Commumry Hospital ro bmld a satelLte fanLry neaz the mcecsunon of Arapahce and the Foorfvlls Parkway T6e sne, whuh vs at ihe confluence of Boulder Creek and Beaz Creek, poses senous flood dangecs PBC boazd members aze studymg these tlood plazn ~ssues az well as the proposed hospital's effects on wildl~fe habuat m the creek comdor and m Cottonwaod Grove A hospital m that locauon would also mcrease naffic at one of Boulder's most congesred mteisecuons A posmon will be for[hcoQUng when the boazd feels suffic~endy mformed to lx able [o pom[ out the dangers and suggest altemanves We Lost One Smce ffie previous newsletter, the PBC boazd has ~ssued only two fomial pos~aon statements T'he first of these was strongly m support of stau repzesentanve A,ice Maddeds Mutu-Modal Trnnsportanon Capital Fund Inll HB 1329 The PBC letter was sent eazly m Mazch ro key mem- bas of the legislature tugmg passage, wtuc0 would prov~de much needed fundmg for pubhc tians~t Colorado is one of only five states allocanng no funds m other thau Ivghway transportanon pro~ects Under current plans the Colorado Department of Ttanspo[tauon leaves all mulh-modal pro~ecu unfunded widun the 20.yeaz plamm~g 6onzon. HB 1329 would ,~*~kave given voters a chance to aeate financial suppoa and allowed CDOT ~, work w~th local commumnes all over ~he state to better address one of the b~ggest and mos[ commonly expenenced frusaanons of Colondo cmzens growmg traffic congesnon Obv~ously, our lettecs did not cazry quite enough we~ght wrth some members of the House Appropnavons Committee By one vo[e [he leg~slators dechned to report HB 1329 out of the comauttee, thus kilLng u Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan Update In Febivary 2000 t6e PBC board sent a statement to the city plan- ners generally suppocnng [he d~mcaon bemg taken m the staff's work on the Yeaz 2000 upda[e of the Boulder Valley Comprehens~ve Plan, but citing concerns over a number of issues mvolvmg affordable housmg, res~deanal densrty, and wise uses of the Area II and Area III plamm~g designanons The full tezt of that statement is found on the PBC web srte http //bcn boutder co us/ptanbouldtt Chck on newsletters ?000, March/Apnl issue A yeaz later. with the work on the Comprehensrve Plan neanng wmpleaon, the PBC boazd sent a new sraumen[ to members of the Boul- der City Council m Apnl, ezpressmg speafic concerns as follows "PLAN-Boulder Counry conunues ro support pohc~es that will m- crease our stock of affordable housmg, provide for a vanety of housmg types and s~zes, mcmase dens~aes m tazgeted azeas, pazucularly along transit comdors and m commemaVmdusa-ial zones, encourage au~ced- use development, and make the creauon of aff'ordable hous~ng [he top ~ ~nry when Area II lands are annexed "PLAN-Boulder beheves that such pohc~es will help mamtmn our socio-econocmc d~vecsity, allow more Boulder workers ro Lve m Boul- dez and thus become part of our commwuty, reduce regional auto travel and ~ncrease local ttensu use, and help create more fnendly, vibrant, and successful commercial areas Wlvle these poHc~es may also creare some addmonal local uaffic, we beheve that, when unplemented carefully, the long-term and reg~onal benefits w~ll greaHy outweig6 the costs "Therefore. PLAN-Boulder urges the Qty Council dunng ~ts re- new of [he cuxrent update ro[he Comprehensrve Plan ro consider the changes to the land use map proposed by staff wuh the fo]low~ng pnn- c~ples m rtund PLAN-Boulder s¢ongly supports the proposed changes ro the land use map m Area I that w~ll allow and encourage res~denval uses m selected commerciaUmdusmal areas and add iesidenval dens~ry m a small number of ex~sang res~denual areas We beheve that addr nonal housmg opportumves m Area I should be emphas~zed because ~ansu is more readily avazlable, as aze employment and servtces PLAN- Boulder County cauuons Counc~l noc to rely too heavily on addmonal ms~denual development mArea II The proposedArea II changes s6ould be grven more study ro cons~der the appropnateness of res~denual den- s~ty m each locanon grven the envuonmental ~mpacts, the character of the exisung ne~ghbor6oods, and the axea's prox~wty to t:ansu and other sernces The benefit of any add~uonal affordable housmg that can be gazned must be balanced agaznst the demments assceiated w~th the spe- ttfic needs of the ]ocaaon "PLAN-Boulder also urges the City Council to rev~ew the acaon of s[aff and the Plamm~g Board, which removed from cons~derenon avxed use redevelopment of exisnng s6opping centers such as the Table Mesa Shoppmg Cevter, and removed map changes that would have allowed some mcreased densty nea ez~sung residenaal azeas m Area I These areas exemphfy opportumues ro create addmonal housmg and nuxed- use development m areas that already have relauvely dense housmg and have ready access to pubLc trnnsportanon "Tlus Comp Plan updatc is an excellent chance to make a sigmfi- cant impact on the prov~s~on of more housmg, and pamculazly afford- able housmg, m Boulde~ Wtvle some proposed land use changes aze wntrovers~al and some si[es would need addmonal review dunng the subsequent development pmcess, we note that modifymg land use des- ignanon m the Comp Plan ~s but the first step The actual zomn~ would snll need to be changed and any development proposal would have to undecgo a sigmficant pubhc process PLAN-Boulda County beheves [hat t6e proposed changes ~dennfied above are appropnate and neces- sary C~ty Council should approve these changes and work with the o[her rev~ewmg bod~es ro ensure that [he proposed land use des~gnauons w~ll be adopted" Advisory boards At us Apnl 2 meenng the PLAN-Boulder Counry board cons~dered [he hst of peogle who had appt~ed for appo~nanents to the ranous cicy adv~sory boazds that deal wuh issues of pazncular relevance to PBC Afrer dtscuss~on and voung, the PBC boazd agreed on their preferences among the apphcants. and subsequently sent an e-mail ro the Gry Coun- cil w~th their recommendauons Most of the people who were appomted were included on PBC's Lst of recommendanons Friday open discussion meetings There has been standing mom only at several of the Fnday lun- cheon meeangs at the Umvets~ty Club Neazly as populaz as the formal progcams are the open diswssions scheduled at least once every two months Among those aneadmg the luncheons have been elected offi- nals mcludtng present and former city council membecs, c~ty and county board appomtees, as well as our regulaz group of very knowledgeable achvists. These open d~scusswns g~ve our members and fnends an op- portumry to speak out on vanous issues The PBC board consideis the discussions so valuable tl~at they appomt a boazd memba to take notes and report on them 'Lhe follovnng are ezcerpts from the notes made by PBC boazd vice- chau~ Bmce Bland at two recent open d~scusswns All of these comments ieflea the views of the mdrv~du- als, and alt6ough msaucnve, do no[ represen[ posiuons of PLAN-Boul- der County South BoWder Creek flood plain: Gi16eR White reported that the nty is facmg two ~mporrant de- cisions m the near future. 1) how to rcsolve the South Boulder Cicek flood plam problem and 2) devel- opmg a c~ty-wide plan for ail drmn- age areas. Boulder, Wce many cn- ies. cceates zomng based on the Pre- sumed I~mus of the 100-year flood. However, a cowderable pomon of flood damage nanonwide ~s bemg caused m developed areas oucs~de of the 100-yeaz ]u~e The s[andard of the 100-year flood is an mad- equate protecaon, sazd Dr Wh~te, w6o secves on an mdependrnt re- v~ew panel that w~U look at the South Boulder Cteek flood poten- nai and rsvnganon opaons afrer the Taggart srudy rs completed. Dr Wlvte's colleague Mary Fran Myers added that the Taggazt report was hvuted ro eeg~nernng solunons and not the full range of opnons that should be coas~dered. Tlus was not Taggan's fault, she sa~d, m that the scope of the~r srudy was dictated by theu conaact. The rev~ew gtoup. however, will look at all possibie opuons Dite6es: T'here was cons~dernble d~scuss~on of Boulder's lustonc ungauon drtches Kurt Gecstle, a shareholder ~n the Silvet Lake ditch, pomted out that some diuh wata, once used d~rectly on fields, is now drverted [o the t:eatment plant, brwght ro"dnnk~ng wata quality" stan- dards and then piped to the same fields He smd ttus seems wasteful and "k~lls off' histonc d~tches such as S~lver Lake Peter Richards, a share- holder in Andecson duch, pomted out that theie aze a total of 100 shares m the Anderson ditch company. 62 of them owned by the city, 25 by [he Umvers~ty, and 12 by the Federal Depaztment of Commerce (IVIST and NOAA) Each share ~s worth about 560.000 D~scussion brought out that the lugh monetary value of ttus water may be moavaang [he lengthy Anderson duch fight with Lafayeae, and [hat a proposed aail along the Boulder Reservou Feeder Canal could cause problems wirh fecal con- tammanon of the nty water supply as well as other ~ssues such as hab~l- ~ty and ~ntecference w~th reptors Those attendmg the diswssion agreed that the very complex srtuauon suitoundmg ditches needs ro be consid- ered carefully Crossroads redevelopment Concern was ra~sed that the cny m~ght go ahead w~th condemnauon without actually knowmg what n ~s trymg ro get m mtum Meeang attendees agreed that the c~ty should fust de- velop a cleaz v~sion of what rt wan[s out of the process SubsequenUy, the s¢uanon has taken on a different [one In Apnl, it became known tha[ the Macench company plans ro encourage development of one or more'~"~+~, box' stores m Crossmads For the fust ame, the family nvsts wY.,,,,, control much of the south end of the Crossmads srte showed an mterest m cooperanng w~th the city to find a means to redevelop the area m a way more m keepmg wuh the des~res of Boulder c~uzens US 36 funding: Dick McLean, an elected member of the Re~onal T:ansponanon D~stnct board, expiessed concem thac there is no funduig ro complete the recommendanons of the US 36 Ma,7or inves[ment Study because RTD is "tapped ou[" and New PBC website design ~ ~ ~ Have you checked out the PLAN-Boul- 1\~!~ ~~ der County website lately° Lmda Comett has done a superb ~ob of ex[rndmg rt to cover ~"--'~'~ I all aspects of PLAN-Boulder's mter- ~ /-' ests Among sub~ects [hat can be found ~~~ are the full tezt of all of the PBC news- ~ letters for 1999, 2000 and 2001, PBC's bylaws and statement of purpose and the full [ezt of key pos~aon statements, both recent and tustonc Her cedes~gn makes findmg the ~nformanon very dvect and easy At the end of each hnk is an tmitanon to com- ment on the srte Tlus is to grve Lnda clues ro malung the webs~te evrn more complete and user-fnendly Our thanks go to PBC board member Neal McBumett, one of the foundeis of Boulder Commumty Network, which provides us ttus ou[stauding means of commumcanon I[ was Neal who first launched the PBC webs~[e He gmtefully tumed it over to Lnda when ivs work schedule made ~t impossible for tum ro conbnue to mazntam it Check rt ou[ http /Pocn boulder co us/ cadt help He pomted wt that CDOT wodt help because of the pohuca] reaLnes of the s~ruation RTD is wnsidenng pumng on the d~smct ballot a JO°k tac increase, but the eovemor would res~s[ hav- mg a tarz proposal on [he balloc m 2002, when he will be tucwng for re-elecnon McLean pomted out that the tax for [he I-25 soucheasc comdor recerved fundmg last yeaz because it had sohd support from the governor, IocaS govemments. busmess, acuv~sts etc He beheves it may take that kmd of w~de sup- port agam co get ttus tax passed The Trnns~t AlLance ~s domg a stanso- cally s~geuficant survey of the m~ populaaon to see ~f there is adeq~*ew~ supporc for a tax ~ncrease CDOT has sa~d [hat rt does not even have the money to do `us part" (road widemng) on US 36 It could be that CDOT would ask for its own tac increase in 2003 '.~IcLean potnred out that unhl the southeast comdor work is compleced. there is s~mply no money to bmid the many other desuable RTD pro~ects m the meao azea Lon~ont open space: Bob Zimmerer, a PBC member who hves in I.ongmont, reported that four fazmets witlvn the boundary of the m- tergovemmeatal agreement (IGA) that Longmont has wrth the county w~sh to sell theu land w Counry Open Space rnther than see tt developed as Longmont plans to do I-Iowever, because of che IGA, the county must have LongmonPs consent ro purchase i[, Zrmmerer sa~d Officials m Longmont have rusuS three concems about ttus deal 1) They already have mfrastructure neazby and would be lefr with about a half aulLon dollars of "svanded development wsts " 2) What would be the reacnon of other property owners, who expected ttvs land to be developed^ 3) Would Uvs reduce the amount of affordable housmg~ Zimmerer sazd ffiat the Longmont Council was acavely cons~denng tlus matter (Subsequent to PBC's open discussion, the Longmont Gty Council at ~ts Apnl 17 meenng dec~ded ro allow Boulder County to purchase these propemes for open space ] ~1'~i The neM open discussion w~ll be at PBC's Fnday June t lur,..-- meenng at che Umveisrty Club Pu[ ~t on your calendar for a snmulaung and provocauve exchange of ideas -BOULDER COUNTY Statement on Eidorado Mountain On Apnl 18 the PBC boazd approved the followmg statement m op- posmon to the proposal by Annacle Towers, Inc to build severai ~m- mense aansmtsston towers on Fldorndo Mountazn m Jefferson County ~ust 250 feet past the Boulder County Ime It waz to Ix sen[ ro the Jefferson County Comauss~onees and the 7effeison County plannmg boazd The staument follows PLAN-Boulder County is a cmuns' orgaruzanon founded m 1959 We are an orgamzanon of environmentally concemed c~azens worlung to Qieserve the harmomous chazacter of the city and the county of Boulder We wnte today te expmss our plofound concern over the proposed rezon- mg by Rnnule Toweis, Inc on Eldorado Mountam T'he pcoposed rezomng blatandy violates the Telxommumcaaons Land Use Plan, rhe North Mountams Commumty Plan, and [he Zomng Resoiunon. It would create s~gmficant enwonmental damage to the res~- deat and mtgaang bird populanon It ~s also grossty out of character wrth the surrounduig neighborhood. PLAN-Boulda suongly opposes rozon- mg for PTI based on the unacceptable tmpacts the towers and associated s¢ucnues w~ll create 1'he apphcanon defic~ene~es w~ll be detailed below. As one looks az Eldorado Mountam and to the north and south of it, rt is immed~ately evident that, w~th the excepaon of a ielanvely small, unLghted commumcanovs facil~ry now az that locanon, great care has ~xen taken to preserve tlvs azea from developmeat and scamng Dunng ~"°the daynme, the only evidence of human acnvity along the length of the backdrop is the rulroad embankment on the finnt of the mountaza At mght, no hg6u mar t6e v~ewshed from Coal Croek Canyon all the way north past Flagstaff Mountam m Boulder. All one sees is the dazk silhou- etze of the mounta~ns agaznst the sky T'he Stau of Colorado, Jeffe:son County, t6e nty of Boulder, and Boulder Counry have spent lazge amounts of publ~c funds to preserve the spx~al beauty m ihis locanon 7effetson County has eni~sted broad comm~uuty pazncipaaov m de- velopmg its Telxommumcanons Land Use Plan and commumty plans These plans have served the connty wel] m producmg development that mspects the umque character of the county's dive[se commueihes The care and effort that went mto these plans should be iespected by reqwnng rezomug pmposais ro comply wuh [he letter and the sp~nt of these plans Telecommunications Land Use Plan 13e vsual and Noiso Pol~c~es mquue that telecommumcanons fa- cilmes shouid msult m a mmimal visual 3mpact for res~dents m the ~mme- d~aze azea and m the lazger commumty who view the facilmes from a distance Ways to mm~m~ze visual ~mpact ~acluded m the 1T..UP mclude s~ang a tower so thai at least 80% of the he~ght is scceened by vegetauon or landfom~c, or nhng a tower down-slope from the top of a ndgelme so that a mmonty of the he~ght of the wwer is newed agamst the sky The T'LUP recommeads that new faciliaes should be located m close proxmvty to other comparnble stivctums The vssual ~mput of eelecommmucanoe fac~Laes is to be compat- ~,~.,Fble wrt6 the aesthetic chazacter of the surroundmg azea FAA colonng ~nd hghhng reymrements must be consideced To m,mm,~- ~e visuat impac[ of new telecommumcauon rowers, the TT.UP states that 6eighu and laanons thaz nxess~rate FAA colonng and hghnng should be avoided, rowers and antennas should be consoh- dated, they should be located away from key pubhc v~ewpom[s, mono- poles or guyed toweis should be used, and towers should be located neaz similaz uses These pol~aes accommodaze the diffiwity of screemng tafi towers by requvvig them to be locazed neaz eximng siaulaz uses, or down-slope from the ndge w~th 80% scieemng They requue the effec[ of colonng and lighmg to be cons~dered m assessmg visual impact Md, [hey defer [o the e~sLng aesthenc chazacter of the azea. The pmposal sansfies none of these policies • Ysual impact is not mtmmvcd Iadeed, the locaaon will produce the maximum possible ~mpact by m~oducmg three rowers, each of which w~ll be close w thiee ames as tall as the eusnng unLghred tower and many nmes larger m ovecall mass, mro an area that cunendy beazs only fmnt sigas of human development ~ Eldorado Mountam rs v~sually prommeot from a large v~ewmg azea • The towe:s w~ll be located on the ndgelme • T'here are ao compazable strucwies m the azea • T'he aesthenc character of the area is undeveloped and pnsnne, and a ma~onty of the sucrounding land has Ixen protected from development • 1'he lack of any neazby tall suuctuees ensures that [he FAA will reqmre colonng and hghnng • The Offic~al Developmeat Plan does not requue any consohdanon of toweis • T'he towers will be free-standmg laznce structures msread of guyed, creaung max~mum bullc. Tower Siting and Review Poticies: These pohcies mqmre PI'I [o show that [heu proposed eqmpment cannot be accommoda[ed on auy ex- isnng facil~ty The Official Development Plan must specify a ameframe for removal of consolidated towers New rowen aze allowed onty when an equal face area of exisnng tower(s) will be cemoved or when credrt can be grven for removai of build~ngs that have an advecse visual ~mpact m the vsmtty of the pro- posed rower. Whm new fanhnes aze proposed oumde of eusnng ma~oruse trans- miss~on areas, the appl~caac is reqmred m demonstrnu tha[ thae is not smtable spue on exisnng towers If a new tower ~s necessary, the TLUP iequues mmgaaon measunes mcludmg bmldmg m close proz~anry w other towers or locanng w6eie the tower can be a[ leas[ 80°G screened by eust- mg vegetauon, landforms, or sttucnues The Tower Smng and Review Policres reflect an effort ro prevent prohferanoe of rowers to undeveloped azeas They eeflect an effon to pmvent any net gau~ m tower face area wrthm the counry by reqmnng iemoval a[ a 1 1 rano Aad, they state that if a new tower m an undevel- oped area ~s necessary, it must be az least 809o sezeeaed - mdicanve of a po6cy to prevent the mnus~on of ma~or [elecommumcanons facihnes ou[side of the Lookout Mouutaw and Mount Mamson aieas Wlule theu poLcies are dvected at prohfernnoe and assoc~aied im- pacts ro property, they should also be ~mplemented m a way that protects other envuonmental mtecests Tall towecs represent a thteat ro cestdent and au~amry b~rds and shoutd Ix sued in a way that complies wnh the IvLgretory Bvd Troaty Act 'Ihe PTI rezomng proposal fmis to mee[ these poUcies • 1'he appLcaaon dces not con[azn responses from ownecs of ex~so- mg tower s~tes that demons~ate new faciliaes aze necessary The letter of mquuy about ava~lable space requesud space for the max~mum poss~ble number of antennas ra[her thao t6e eqmpment thaz is ac[ually planned for the si[e • T'he ODP contams no reqwremen[ thaz any abaadoned towas must be iemoved other than the e~snag tower on Eldorndo Mountaia. Even tlns towa need not be remwed unnl all three new toweis are constructed • Them aze no consohdatton provis~ons thai reqture removal of any ez~snng towecs This proposal wou(d result m a net mcrease of 1,350 addmonal vemcai feet of toweis and an incalculable amount of addi- honal face azea • PTI has idennfied only one potennal tenant The lack of support fmm the ma~or telev~sion broadcasters and FM rndio stauons mdmares tha[ towers .nll remazn on Lookout Mountam and proLferete to Eldoredo Mountazn as well • T6e ennre he~ght of [he tower wdl be visible above the ndgelme, effecnvely cceaung yet another lughly v~s~ble an[enna farm with no m~h- ganon of any e~sang v~sual ~mpaccs • 1'6ere are no toweis of a sivulaz scale or visual ~mpact m the v3cm- iry to sh~eld or buffer the proposed roweis • The proposal places three new tall rowers m an arca that does not cunendy pose a threat to migaang bmds, and m an area with eztremely high naturel resoiuce values thaz serve as an amacnon to b~rds Norih Mountains Community Plan The rnerall goal of the North Mountams Commumty Plan is stated m iu mvoducnon The pian azms ro ietam and protect the nanual beauty of the North Mountuns area, iu niral charecter and the ex~snng quahty of the mountaw area rnvuonment The mtent of [he plan `tis to aclueve a proper balance between man-made envvovmenu and nanual ones by rns~mag that devetopment is sensinve to natural iesoutca and consaa~nts " The plan as a whoie reflects the lazgely undeveloped, cugged nature of this area. The remmng proposal v~olates v~rtually ali of the apphcable goals, ob~ecaves and pol~cies of the Yisual Resouxces element and the Moun- tam Site Desig¢ Cntena m the NoRh Mountauis Commumty Ptan Visual Resources: T1us element of the plan states, "Protection of v~sual open space should be a pnonry because it is a rnncal element of t6e umque chazacter of the nuai mountavi rnvuonment m the North Moun- tams azea" The goal of the Yisual Resuurces polictes ts to "[ejnsuce tbe mtegnty of landsca}xs wluch have spec~al visual quaLnes and aze seen frequendy bY manY PeoP~e " The pol~c~es that implement th~s goal mclude • Developmea[ proposals must cons~der viewer sensmvity, mdud- mg the number of people v~ewmg the sne and the vatue of such views held by the pubhc • Man-made feawres should visually complement the natmal rnvi- ronment • The wtens~ty and des~gn of development should be companble wrth s~gmficant visual rosoiuces • Ridgehne silhouettes should be avoided • Eusang vegetaaon and natuiat landforau should be used ro mte- gate structwes mto the siumundtng envaonment • Lghang should be kept to a nvmmum Rewmvg Eldoredo Mountazn for a ma~or telxommumcanons ~ans- miss~on s~te would v~olate these pohcies Eldorndo Mounram ~s an azea of eztremely high viewer sens~avrty I[ ~s v~s~ted by thousands of peopie each year because of the beauty of the canyon and iu value as a recreauon sne Most of t6e homes m South Boulder are oneuted so that it is m thea duect lwe of s~ght It is v~sually promwent from I-Lghways 93, 128 and US 36 The commumnes on the plmns have sweeptng views of the area. Yews of Eldorado Mouniam are valued pmisely because the moun- tam is cuaendy zelaUvely unblemts6ed, and because the surround~ag azea is untouched. Eldorado Canyon Stau Pazk, BLM lands, and purchases by the Jeffecson County, cuy of Boulder and Boulder Couary open space progtams have c:eaied a pnsane envuonment - an uedeveloped moun- tam backdrop as one looks west fr'om the northern plazns of Jeffetson Couety and the eastem pazts of Boulder County Replacmg a 160-foot-tall unl~ghted sttucture wu6 thcee 450.foot tall, pawted and l~ghted smunues would violate the mtegnty of the ex~snng landscape Man-made feanues wouid become downant No amount of screemng of bmldmgs and accessory structuies could mtegrate the tow- e:s and support buildmgs mco the natuiat envuonment The visua( resoiuce analysis subautted wi[h the apphcanon focuses only on the few addmonal areas from whsh the new towecs would be v~sible compared with [he eusnng tower This analys~s misses [he ma~or source of advecse visual ~mpact The ezunng tower is w~dely vis~ble, but ~t ~s short, slender, unlighted and a s~agle tower The new towas would creaze a vaslly greater nsual impact, bemg three hmes raller, of faz gearer mass. pamted and Lghted, and accompan~ed by a massrve transm~s~ston buildmg ' "~ Mountain Site Design Critieria: The Ob~ecave of the Desig, ~..- tena stated m the Plan is to create development that `Yespects the envi- ronment" T3e cntena recogmze `Yhe dramanc beauty of the surroundmg natutal landscape T6e lazge numbe:s of v~ewers make [ma~or aans- portavon comdois) very ~mportant w establ~shing a posmve image to visrtors and restdents alilce " Protecaag ndgehnes from development is a key etement m the Sue Design Cntena The cncena s[ate thaz the ndgel~ae s~lhouette s6ould be composed predommandy of trees and landforms Man-made feanues should not be the dommarn feanue m the land- scape Buildmgs shoWd be m propomon to the sumoundwg landfacm rather than appeanng monumeatal ~n uale ~ldhfe movement comdots are to be mau~tuned 1'he iezomng proposal v~olates these cntrna The ndgehne would be douunated by man-made snucnues The structuces would be vasdy out of propomon ro the sunounding landforms and vegetanon T'he sce- mc qualiry of this area, wtuch depends upon rts undeveloped nanue, would bespoiled The proposal would erect a lethal bamer to the Front Range miga- tory bvd comdor, wtuch is used mtenstvely m spnng and fall by both common and tare species The Colorndo Breedmg Bud Adas from the Colorado Drvis~on of ~Idlife idennfies ttus azea as 6ome to the state's first and second-Ivghest concentrnnons of breedmg bud Qugaaon and nesnng Local land use decis~ons must compiy wuh federal regulanons T6e apphcant has not invesngaced whether the proposal would nolaze the NLga[ory Bud Treazy Act Jefferson County should ~nquue whe[her FCC approval of antennas on Eldorado Mounraui would v~olare nonal Env~ronmenral Protecaon Act, grven the importance of the ar,~ augranng b~rds Jefferson County Zoning Resolution Secuon 15 F of the Zomng Resolunon requ~res [he county commis- s~oners and the plannmg comvusston to cons~der the compaubil~ty of the proposal wnh eusnng and allowed land uses w the surroundmg azea, the applicable commmuty plans and the Telecommumcanons Land Use Plan The proposal is cleazly mcompattble w~th tkte ex~snng and allowed land uses Unlike other mountaznrops west of Denver, tlus area and iu sur- roundmg ndges have no humaa developmrnt, much less tall towe:s As is demonstrated above, the proposal dces not comply wrth the commumty plan or the TLUP Secvon 15 F also wntau~s avmmum standazds that an apphcaaon must meet ro qualify for rezowng for a lugh-powered telecommumcanon use The apphcant must demonsvue thaz no eusnng telecomm~uucaaons sue is available to accommodare [he eqmpment or pucpose for whic6 the tower ~s proposed The applicant 6as not subautted any ev~dence to ttus effect Summary Eldorado Mountam is a ma~or envaonmen[al and visual asset for an ennre re~on It ~s currendy unspoiled and is surrounded by unspo~led land PC! proposes a rezomng that is completely out of character wrth the azea. Lt would hacm t6e pazk aad open space Lands m the ~mmediate v~cmuy The rezomng would allow telecommumcanons uses to soread.to a new part of t6e county wnhout any m~uganon of the impact '~ ~*~ PLAN-Boulder Cowty urges Jeffeeson County ro deny tlvs re~- ~ng x ~r ut d a n FRIDAY NOON MEETING SCHEDULE May 4 Jim Knopf, landscape arc}utect Topic I can't beheve thaYs a xenscape. e. May 11 NO MEETING -Umvers~ty Club unavazlable May 18 Denms Ihumm, town admuusu~aror, Ene Topic - What's on the honzon for Ene~ 9VIay 25 Joe McDonald, chief financial officer and vice-president, Boulder Commumty Hospital Topic - Need medical caze~ Sorry, we're full June 1 Open discussion June 8 Bob Wlutson, semor transportanon placu~er, city of Boulder Topic - 28th Street as a pedesman fnendly place~ You have ro be luddmg ~ June 15 Alan Taylor, floodplazn and wedands coordmator, ciry of Boulder Topic - South Boulder Creek. a complex complex of nature and sociery June 22 Jeannette Hillery, volunteer lobbyist for League of Women Voters Topic - A 2001 leg~slaave odyssey: what really happened June 29 Bruce Swmehart, coordmator, Boulder Counry Civ~c Forum Topic - Quahty of life m Boulder County the 2000 Commumty Indicators Report Agendas and minutes by e-mail Any of you who w~sh to recerve e-mail with the agendas and muwtes for PBC board meeungs should e-mail your address to Jom Teter ~_teter@hotmul com ; ~w a,~~ e.. °~~' ,~ .~ • ~~°~~.,a a`aa.~ss R ~ ~: f`a .,z, _ ~'Ey ~ ~ ~` ~`fe ~ ~taay; s~ P~.~"s,."e. ~,~ o ^. ~.~~`an ~ `s ~~, ~ e.~. r~oetdei~e, ~, m°'~~e ~,"~'e~". ~ ~~~~n~~, ~~°~ ~ ,= `~~ ~_ ~xoioca~adaidn,~ , ~P~~~^"~'~~.,r d-s°o~ ae a= ~ ~ ~ a~ q a" :~ "~~;x° _ , - ............................................ Join PLAN-Boulder County . Send tlus form with your check to ~ PLAN-Boulder County : PO Box4682 , Boulder CO 80306 ; Name . Address : C1~Y State - Z'p - ; Phone E-mazl address ' Annual dues (new or renewa!) ; ~ Regulaz ($15 per yeaz) Enclosed ~ ~ Sustazmng (S25 per yeaz) ~~ Student or Semor (3t0 per year) $ 16L090608 00'~ap~nog l6L Xo8 Od s~aqwayy o~ aNqu~si4 aseald p~eog tios~npy uoi3ea~oay y s~ed ~apl~o8 i~~~~~1'lll~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ll'll~~~~~ll'I"II 9£I #~~d ZO£08 OJ `~Plnog ~Vd ~~a sn Qa.s iasita ' PLAN-Bovc.uEx Covirrr sonxn x C6uir: looi Teter, 303-444-8970, fa~c 303-499-2124, ~ ~teter~ho~ail com Vkc-c6air: Brace Bland, 303-499-8612, btuce 2u(~email.com Secretary: Jane Greeofield, 303-444-9492, pemt@d~ac com Treasanr. Bnd Snydey 303-4947326, faz same, ' snydeib~qwestnet Pro~ams co-chair: San Michl, 303-447-2206, smichl Cs~ spotcolmado.edu Archives: Janet Ro6erts, 303-442-7446. fax same, , ~anet~oberts@earthlmk.net Matt Appetbaum, 303-499-8970, fu 303-499-2124, matf_appelbaum@~2 com David Cook,303-442-3256,cookdw2]@cscom , Gwen Dooley, 303-447-0582, faz same Linda Andes Georges, 303-543-9404, fax same, andes@rmi com Crystsl Gray, 303-449-9680, crystal_boulder@hom~a~l com Claim Levy, 303-494-2244, fa~c 303-543-7276, clevyl ~qwest nec Neal McBurnett, 303-494-6493, neai@bcn boulder co us Beth Pommer, 303-444-2545, pommerco@aol com Ricky Weiser, 303-530-1037 Visit PBC on the web at http://bcn.boulder.co.us/planboulder Q~P~ ~i . Q ~ a m O~~ o ) J~1 ~3d ~ vo~os o~ b~a zs9o =os ~~o ~a uNno~ aamnoH NY7d OeF-soasn: Progcams co-chair: Marp Fran Myers, 303-444-9044. myecsmf~colorado edu Newsletter editor: Pat Cahn, 303-543-9417, fax same, pcahn@earthnetnet Newsletter design/production: Caroline Littlefield cazolme@pblespeed com Member records: Paul Bailep, 303-449-7779, e-fax 630.566-3774, pbailey@esn com Oral distory project: Guy Errickson, 303-448-5828, pbcoh~yahoo com Web page: Linda Cornett, 303-875-5610. Icomea2@home com PLAN-Bonldv Countq Oral History e-mad address: pbcoh@yahoo com LssuFS oF CoxcExx ro PBC nv 2001 Open space acqmsihon, pieservanon and use, crty and county II Affordable housmg and mixed-use developmenc Boulder Valley Compre6rnsrve Plan update ' Crosscoadsl BVRC azearedevelopmrnt ~, Econowc stabtLry for the c~ry of Boulder, a staregic plan ,I Transrt and haaspo:tanon, city, county and US 36 Waste manageaunt countywide plan South Boulder Creek flood srudy Greenways Master Plan updaee and peesmaaon of other npanan ~ comdors, mcludwg unganon drtches ~I Four Mile Creek flood smdy/CDUMP updare ~ Stacew~de "smart growth" and ann-sprawl uuaanves