Loading...
Approved Minutes - 7/22/2002City of Boulder Parks and Recreation Advisory Board Minutes July 22, 2002 City Couttcil Chambers 1777 Broadway 6 pm. The following are the minutes of the.,July 22, 2002 City of Boulder Parks and Recreation Advisory Board meeting (PRAB). A permanent set of these minutes and a tape recording (maintained for a period of 6 years) are retained in Central Records (telephone: 303-441-3043). Board Present: Susan Osborne, Vice Chair, Thomas Sanford, Dave Wining arrived at 7:17 p.m. Board Absent: Ed von Bleichert; Chair, Pam Hoge, Charles Manlove and Suzanne O'Neill Staff Present: Jan Geden, Doug Hawthorne, Sarah DeSouza, Georgia Jackson, Cate Bradley, Kate Bernhardt, Ann Wichmann, Teri Olander, Lisa Bondi I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The agenda was approved as submitted. II. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION Cirizen Participation was opened. Michael O'Keefe, 4520 Nassau, Boulder 80301, spoke about the reduction in parkland at the Kalmia and Jay proposed site since the time the neighborhood originally worked with developers. He spoke about the inadequacies of the proposed parkland for the area. Rodger Ewy, 4082 Old Wastbury Court, Boulder 80301, said both the Kalmia and Jay Road properties have parks much too small for the density of population that is planned. He also said that both parks as planned would be compromised by drainaga because of an undersized culvert. He urged the $oard to make the parks public. Ewy concluded by saying both areas have potential to become urban slums with elavated crime and social problems. John Roper, 216 Seminole Drive, Boulder 80303, gave Board members photos of Pleasant View Fields taken at the end of May and again on July 19 that showed the effects reduced irrigation had on the turf. Roper said all of the vandalism at Pleasant View Fields over the years did not equal the damage done in the last eight weeks by staffls reduction in watering the fields. Barb Ropar, 216 Seminole Drive, Boulder 80303, spoke about the poor condition of turf in Boulder's parks and Pleasant View Fields and asked the Board to hold staff accountable for the damage. Roland Sharette, 2962 Kalmia, Boulder 80301, spoke about the short notice he received that the 47`~'/Jay/Kalmia properties would be on tonighYs agenda. He expressed disappointmentin tha planning process and inadequate proposed parkland. Sharette also spoke about safety concerns in the event of evacuation in an area with high-density population and dead end roads. Bev Sharette, 2962 Kalmia #29, Boulder 80301, said parkland was invalixable to north Boulder and there already was not enough. She expressed concern about evacuation routes with dead end roads and increased density of population. Valerie Walls, 2016 Alpine Drive, Boulder 80304, president of Boulder Tennis Association, spoke on the nead for a competition site that would have more courts in one location. She introduced Jim Swiggart who was working with Boulder Tennis Association to build a tennis eenter at Valmont City Park, Jim Swiggart, PO Box 881537, Sfeamboaf, CO 80488, said he was working with fhe Boulder Tennis Association to present a Request to Propose Partnership (RPP) to the PRAB shortly. Joe VanAndel, 938 Kalmia Avenue #10, Boulder 80301, expressed concern over inadequate parkland proposed with the new development at Kalmia and Jay. He asked the PRAB to work with the Planning Department to come up with a better plan for parks in the area. Citizen Participation was closad. III. CONSENT AGENDA Minutes of June I S and June 24, 2002 Approval of the minutes was, postponed untii the September 30 meeting, as not enough Board mambers were present. IV. MATTERS FROM THE DEPARTMENT Geden said the matariais included in the Board packet were designed to provide Board members with updates on different matters and were not far discussion unless the Board wanted to do discuss or had any questions. Minutes for PRAB Meeting 07/22/2002- Page 2 Osborne and Sanford had no questions on the Recreation Facility Needs Assessment Update or the Boulder Creek Festival Recycling Update. V. MATTERS FROM BOARD MEMBERS Osborne said she had received calls from several vendars at the Boulder Creek Festival who said they hadn't yet been paid. She said Yhere was concern that at some point in time an audit should ba done of the non-profit group. Hawthorne replied that he would contact the City auditor and start that process. Sanford gave an update on the renovation of the North Boulder Recreation Center. He said it was on target, within budget and still scheduled to open on September 9, with the exception of the aquatic area that would open in November. Sanford said they were close to achieving a Silver certification with LEEDS, an environmental target. VI. ITEMS FOR ACTION There were no Items for Action. VIL ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION/INFORMATION A. Boulder Ice presentation Presenters: Jan Geden, CPRP, Director of Parks and Recreation Teresa Grills, Manager of Valmont City Park Management and Plannin, Assistance Team (MPAT) Robert and Ashley Clarke, Bouldar Ice Geden spoke briefly about Boulder Ice, a potential partner for Vaimont City Park. She said the presentation was meant to be informarional for Board members and the public to become more familiar with what Boulder Ice was proposing. Grills gave Board membars a handout explaining tha Partnership Process and what Boulder Ice had done thus far in the process. 5he added that Boulder Ice was now working on a Partnered Project Proposal (PPP), a formal proposal. Geden said Board members would be able to ask questions after the presentation but that the questions would not be answered in the meeting. Instead, questions would be recorded and given to Boulder Ice to ensure that they would be addressed when a formal proposal was submitted. She added that at the August 26 Study Session on Valmont CiYy Pazk, staff would talk more about the next steps for the Board's involvement and when projects would be ready for the Board's review. Minutes for PRAB Meeting 07/22/2002 - Page 3 Robert and Ashley Clarke said their presentation was the broad outline of a full businass proposal that would be coming in approximately one rnonth as a Partnered Proposed Project. They spoke on the history, vision, mission statement and incorporation of Boulder Ice and gaue a brief history of ice skating in Boulder. Boulder Ice proposed a creative alternative to the long-standing tradition of big box standard rink design where their facility would be a model of efficient and gentle energy use with a firm goal to reach a gold LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) standard. Wining arrived at 7:17 p.m. The Clarks concluded with an overview of their financial plan, phases of fizndraising and a design and construction timeline, Crrills asked Board inembers for any questions they mighY have for Boulder Ice. Osborne thanked the Clarkes and said their presentation had been videotaped for absent Board members to have an opportunity to view it. Since he arrived late to the meeting Wining said ha wouid view the videotape and give any questions he mighC have to staff: Osborne said she didn't have any questions for Boulder Ice and stated that she was excited about their proposal for Valmont City Park. Sanford complimented Boulder Ice on their presentation and said he particularly liked the detail related to tha fund raising and sustainability. In addition, Sanford said he especially liked that they would go for the gold LEED standard. S. Review of a concept Plan for the Proposed Northfield Commons and Northfield Meadows Subdivisions (47°i/7ay/Kalmia properties) Presanters: Jan Gedan, CPRP, Director of Parks and Recreation Cate Bradley, Planner Mike Randall, City Planner with the Planning Department Bradley said Randall would speak on the context of the current process because the PRAB was reviewing formal concept plans submitted by the developers that would be going to Planning Board for review in August. Randall said the first process over the past several years included amendments to the Bouldar Valley Comprehensive Plan, which also included looking at the properties that were the subject of this concept plan, review and comment. The second process was having met several times with neighborhood groups to discuss the opportunities, needs, constraints, city policies, ancl neighborhood desires. Randall explained that plans seen by the PRAB in March were not plans made by the developer but had been made by an independent contractor to Minutes for PRAB Mceting 07/22/2002 - Page 4 incorporate community input into the design. He explained that the Concept Plan was an official a,pplication of development to the city of Boulder that would eventua7ly ]ead to development of the land. This was an opportunity for everyone (staff, the community, PRAB and Planning Board) to provide input about the plan. Randall added that the comment period would be open until the Planning Board heard the item on August 22. Comments would be accepted in writing or by e-mail as well as during the public comment portion of the Planning Board meeting. At Yhat time Planning Board would not make a decision but would only comment on their views of the development in an effort to guide Yhe developer toward the ultimate solution, which would be offered in Site Review. Site Review would be the true developmant application that would be presented to the Planning Board at a later date for approval. Randall explained that none of the parcels being considered were within city limits and would have to be annexed before being developed. He aiso spoke about possible conditions of annexation, attachment of zoning and amendment to the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan. Board Comments and Ouestions: • Osborne asked whether the project would come back to the PRAB once past the Concept Plan and when the final Site Review was received. Braddey responded that it ~would not normally come back at that point in the process but based on Board comments and interest in the project, staff would provide the Board wiCh regular updates on the project. • Osborne said it was important to get feedback from Board members who were absent. Sanford asked who prepared the Concept Plan, Bradley replied that it was prepared on behalf of the developer. Geden said it was helpful to understand that the proposal reviewed by the PRAB in March was prepared by a consultant who designed concepts based on what Yhe neighborhood wanted and what staff felt would be appropriate parkland for the development. That information was then given to the developers who came back with the concept plan now under consideration. Osborne said it was troubling to her to use parkland as storm water detention for the project and asked if there were a precedent. Bradley replied that the Holiday site was probably the primary precedent available and that site was still in process. Bradley said staff had serious concerns about the proposals to detuin storm water and provtide water guality features on the Holiday site that was to be dedieated to the city. Through conversations and the review processes, it was decided that the water guality features and the detention would occur on a'n out lot that would be retained by the Holiday development and become a homeowner association responsibility and the remainder of that park site would be dedicated to the city. That was a little different situaZion dn that they had sorree unaesuad water quality features thnt were cutting edge. Bradley said she was unsure whether this water retention would be similar but she shared the concern and included that concern in the Minufes for PItAB MeeEing 07YL2/Z002 - Page 5 packet memo. She felt it was a sign~cant concern wizh regard to usabality of the park site and placement of facilities. • Osborne spoke about the drawbacks of private parks. Bradley said she laad not yet received any feedback from the Four Mile Creek neighborhood about the proposed agreement for Four Mile Creelc Subdivision to share maintenance costs on the Northfield homeowner association parks. Bradley said the Board was in the position of having to review what was on the table at that point. At some future point Bradley.felt it would be helpful to hear from the Four Mile Creek neighborhood regarding the proposed agreement. • Bradley said since the school districY was not participating in the proposal it was difficult to forecast what might happen with thaY property. Staff would have to proceed with the assumption that the school district property might never be available to use or obtain as additional park acreage. • Wining said he had the same concern over water retention and park use and expressed disappointment with the reduction in the amount of parkland. • Wining said he would feel more comfortable if the school disfrict land could be incorporated to expand the parkland. • Wining expressed concern that the homeowner association might want to give the private parkland [and maintenance of that land] to Parks and Recreation. Geden informed the Board that one-acre park sites sporadically located were more costly to maintain. Because of the dual purpose for this land and potential for limited use, this was not land the department would wanX to own lnter on. • Sanford said he was most upset by the reduction of parkland this Concept Plan presented considering how underserved that part of the city is and concurred with comments Osborne made about the idea of private parks run by homeowner assoeiations. • Sanford also did not like the idea of water retention on park sites, considering the size of the parkland available in this area. • Sanford expressed serious concern over the increase in density presented in the Concept plan, over that presented in the independent contractor's presantation. The Meadows Area Concept Plan added 18 units, going from 129 units to 147 units. Ha added that while the Commons went from 215 to 190 units, 25 percent of the land shown in the independent contractar version was removed in the Concapt Plan version. • Sanford was concerned about the quality of living environment the Concept Plan presented with such high density of population, poor traffic circulation, cramped parking and inadequate parks. He felt that this Concept Plan was a poor solution that did not blend well with the current neighborhoods and needed to be replaced with one that presenfed adequate park sizes and reduced living density. • Sanfard spoke about park size and expressed agreement with Geden's comment that one-acre park sites were very costly to maintain. Sanford said that undersized parks ought to be expanded wherever possible, to achieve an adequate size for tha community they serve. He felt this was almost a last Minutes for PRAB Meeting 07/22/2002 - P1ge 6 opportunity Yo provide adequate sized parks to an area that has long been underserved. Osborne inquired about the school district property and the possibiliYy of getting the school district back in the process. Randall responded that it was known not until a few months ago that the district did noz want to put a school on that site. He added that four of the six property owners were willi~ag to work together in the a~anexation process. He said the school district was an independent property owner and did not want to be in the process at this time. Osborne said it was her opinion that it might be premature to look at this annexation until the school district property was available and enough land for a decent size public park could be secured. Randall replied that Planning would like for the school district to come along but couldn't compel them to do so. Osborne said that from the Parks and Recreation perspective the goal was to get a real public park in that area which could be accomplished with the school district's participation. Osborne suggeste'd buying sorne land outright from the school district with fees from the Development Excise Taac. Bradley replied that affordable housing units were not assessed fees and the fees on the remaining units would not generate a substantial amount of funds. Gedan said Board members who were absent from the meeting would be contacted and asked for their comments. Comments from all Board members would then be given to Planning. Osborne said she would be willing to represent the PRAB at the August 22 Planning Board meeting. C. Drought update Presenters: Jan Geden, CPRP, Director of Parks and Recreation Doug Hawthorne, Superintendent of Parks Hawthorne referred to the Weekly Information Packet (WIP) memo sent to Council for their July 9 meeting. He spoke about the irrigaYion plan that had been approved by Public Works and the City Manager's office to which the department was adhering. Hawthorne said that the continuation of the drought was clearly a disaster and that turf and landscape items were being lost. Osborne said the public seemed to be confused as to whose directive this was and felt that department staff shouldn't have to take the blame. Geden said that Council's message was very clear and they recognized citizens and their concerns, but Council's main concern was having adeguate water for drinking, sanitation and fare protection. Minutes for PRAB Meeting 07/22/2002 - Page 7 Hawthorne informed the Board that staff was concentrating on saving ten to twenty year-old trees that were showing signs of strass. He said staff was woxking with Public Warks to secure ditch water rights to fill trucks and hand water the trees. Hawthorne said many ditches were beginning to dry up and only senior ditches were still running. He stated that the City of Loveland used ditch water (with no backup system) to irrigate ball fields and parks and they had just received notice the ditches would soon stop running. Hawthorne said Parks and Recreation, as a diractive from City Council, was being held to the same standard of water restriction as the rest of the city. Hawthorne said several members of Parks' staff attended a field day at CSU ~ir£ and Landscape Horticulture Field the previous week. He indicated that the industry was headed in the direction of developing new strains of turf that would be drought resistant. Saltgrass was one possibility because it improves with heavy traffic and minimal irrigation. Sanford said he would like to research use of gray water far irrigation. Hawthorne referred to a handout from Dr. Koski, noted Front Range turf grass specialist, with recommendations for turf management before, during and a$er a drought. Wining said a number of people had contacted him to say they would gladly tighten up their personal use of water to see green lawn in parks. He also said he was frustrated about the potential loss of trees, which could take years to replace. Hawthorne responded that staff would meet that need by hand watering with ditch water as long as it was available. Wining asked about the possibility of using goif course water for trees. Ha~vthorne said the golf course uses all of its water but that increasing water storage capacity at the golf course might be a possibility in the future. Wining inquired about Scott Carpenter Pool. Geden said that zhe Facilities Asset Management (FA~ group put cameras into the piping system under Che pool and it did not appear that the leak is under the concrete. It appeared that the leak is at a joint located outside the perirneter of the conerete. FAM would tear that up and make repairs, in hopes of making a significant difference in the amount ofgallons leakingfrom the pool. That work will be done in August and September. Hawthorne said the r8cent wildfire came right up to the western edge of Foothills Community Park. Staff had been called in to turn on Yhe irrigation system in tha park in the event the fire moved in that direction. Minutes for PRAB Mceting 07/22/2002 - Page 8 Osborna said she wished there were some way to get the word out about the imgation of parks. Sanford agreed with Osborne and said citizens need to know who made the decision to irrigate parks in accordance with the city's watering restrictions. D. Use of pesticides and herbicides update Presenter. Jan Geden, CPRP, Director of Parks and Recreation Geden stated that Council did re-enact the moratorium ou Civic Center Park and reinstated a moratorium on pesticida spraying within 50 feet of creek corridors and other aquatic habitat on city owned lands. Part of the whole concept of having a study session with the PRAB, the EAB and Council was to have discussions related to the eventual banning of pesticides. Geden continued by informing the Board that on July 15, 2002 Mayor Will Toor eacpressed interest in looking at examples from other cities that have banned pesticides. As a result, Christine Andersen and Alice Guthrie will perform that research and take responsibility for that itam as it relates to the discussion. Geden said that Parks and Recreation will only ba faced with having a community process to discuss how parks will be managed and getting clear direction from Council up front as it relates to the DepartmenYs position on pesticides and herbicides. Council is scheduled to have that discussion sometime in August. That will abbreviate the departmenYs public process for park standards. By August staff will have clear direction from Council which will be incorparated into a parks standards discussion requiring a much smaller public process. Osborne inquired about the DepartmenYs GMO policy, which was to have been on Yhe agenda for tonight's meeting, Geden replied that with so many Board members expected to'be absent, the item was pulled from the agenda and was scheduled to come back to the Board on September 30 [as the August meeting was to be a study sessionJ. E. Board Liaison appointments As so many Board members were absent, Osborne suggested waiting until the September meeting to make Board Liaison appointmeats. Sanfard suggested the committee board list needed to be revised - making additions and deletions to the list. MinuCes for PRAB Meeting 07/22/2002- Page 9 VIII. FUTURE BOARD ITEMS AND TOURS August 26, 2002 - Study Session on Valmont City Park Tour of Sinton Park prior to Study Session - meet at Iris Center at 3:40 p.m. IX. NEXT BOARD MEETING: Monday, August 26, 2002 - Wining may be absent Monday September 30, 2002 - O'Neill will be absent X. ADJOTJRN The meeting adjourned aY 8:45 p.m. APPROVED BY PARKS AND RECREATION ADVISORY BO RD: Edward von Bleichert Board Chair Attest: ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ Georgia ckson - - Recording Secretary Minutes for PRAB Meeting 07/22/2002 - Page 10