Loading...
Approved Minutes - 9/22/2003DO NOT REMOVE - PRAB File Material • City of Boulder Parks and Recreation Advisory Board Minutes September 22, 2003 City Council Chambers 1777 Broadway 6 p.m. The followang are the mcnutes of the 5eptember 22, 2003 C~ty of Boulder Parks and Recreation Advisory Board meeting (PRAB). A permanent set of these minutes and a tape recordang (maantained for a pertod of 6 years) are retained tn Central Records (telephone• 303-441-3043). Board Present: Charles Manlove, Chair, Susan Osborne, V~ce Cha~r; Ed von Bleichert, Pam Hoge, Suzanne O'Neill, and Stu Stuller Board Absent: Tom Sanford Staff Present: Jan Geden, Jeff Lakey, Sarah DeSouza, Doug Hawthorne, Georgia Jackson, Jam~e Sabbach, Julya Bridgewater, Christine Andersen, John Pollock, Milce Sweeney, Tracy Wmfree and Doug Newcomb . I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The agenda was approved as subnutted II. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION Public Participation was opened No one spoke. Pubhc Participation was closed. IIL CONSENT AGENDA The nunutes of August 25 were approved with changes IV. MATTERS FROM THE DEPARTMENT There was a brief discussion about Parks and Recreation User fees for 2004 V. MATTERS FROM BOARD MEMBERS C~ VI. TTEMS FOR ACTION A Public hearing and consideration of a motion to City Council to approve a ten • year agreement with Viola E Haertlmg for lease of City park land ad~acent to Central Park for outdoor patio purposes Hawthorne provided Board members wrth a brief history of lease agreements for the area and gave an overview of information contained m the current lease. The Public Hearmg was opened No one spoke. The Public Hearing was closed On a motion by Osborne, seconded by Manlove, the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board voted unammously (6-0 with one member absent) to recommend to City Council approval of a ten year agreement with Viola E Haertlmg for lease of city park land adjacent to Central Park for outdoor restaurant patio purposes. VII. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION/INFORMATION A. Poss~ble disposal of six acres at Valmont City Park (VCP) for relocation of Pollard Motors. • Geden• The Deputy City Manager and staff from Transportation, Housmg and Real Estate Services are in attendance to provide mformation and answer questions the Board may have. This conversation will enable staff to gather information for the October 27 PRAB meeting and the October 28 Study Session with Crty Council Frank Bruno, City Manager, wanted Geden to convey his feelmgs on this issue to the Board Bruno also offered to be in attendance durmg the October 27 pubhc hearmg. Lakey gave a bnef presentation covering materials mcluded in the PRAB packet and asked Board members for theu comments and questions so they can be addressed at the October 27 PRAB meeting Andersen: The property m question is park land m the sense of the Parks and Recreat~on Advisory Board's role m providmg advice and guidance on park issues. The distmction is whether it meets the Charter defmrtion for PRAB authority to approve or deny as to whether or not there is a Chazter role or an Advisory Board role. Erther way the PRAB is still addressing park issues for the communrty in relationship to the community's needs The PRAB recommendation or advice on how to address this request from the Pollard's is important, critical and necessary in CounciP s decision-making process Andersen: The PRAB's public heazmg, d~scussion, study session and recommendation to City Council will be crrtical for the Council. • PRAB Meetmg Mmutes 09/22/2003 - Page 2 • Geden: Spoke about the possible impacts as far as mvestment, process, time commitment and potential changes to the park design. Osborne A tremendous amount of work, hme and money has been spent to brmg the design of VCP to where it is today, only to be told that part of that land ~s not park land. Hoge. Would not l~ke to discuss the matter at all until the study sess~on wrth City Council on October 28. Felt it was mappropriate the way the PRAB has been forced into this process Osborne's comments • Need to acknowledge another process that mvolves the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan, rezorung and eubdivision of land that will need the Plannmg Board's approval. Even if Council decides to take this land and give it to the car dealer, there is still a process tbat the City will have to go Chrough and another citizen board will have to decide whether or not they approve the process Noticed that the Plamm~g Department was not listed on Che distribution ]ist for Che memo and suggested they be made aware of the process. • Spoke about the PRAB's autharity under the Charter over the disposition of this land. Wasn't there a point in time when the site plan was submitted that all parcels in VCP had to have been considered as a smgle property~ Each parcel was not considered separately when the site plan was submitted for approval. Did it ever become a smgle • property? • Would hke to explore the possibility of the Arapahoe Avenue site for Pollard Motors as well as look at lhe other sites that were re~ected by Pollard. Stuller's comments • Concurs wrih what Osborne said, especially trymg to understand Pollard's need far the six acres m VCP • Understands Manlove's concern that we've got some standmg to address the ~ssue with how it affects the park • Sees the PRAB's role as providmg advice to City Council - but that mformation ought to flow both ways - both up and down. He spoke of the ~mportance of understandmg Pollard's need for this site and the process that went mto the selection ofthese six acres O'Neill's comments • Recalled a comment where at Che time Pollard began to evidence mteresY m Che sile they did not real~ze it was part of Valmont City Park • With all the money spent m the planning of this park, she really does not want Pollard or any other private mterest located in VCP Thts is a terrible precedent and one that she does not have a des~re to participate m. • Hoge. Would like the Board to be uncooperatrve when it comes to these discussions. Would have liked Bruno to be at tonighYs meetmg for him to understand how • strongly the PRAB feels about this issue PRAB Meehng Mmutes 09/22/2003 - Page 3 von Bleichert's comments • Concurs with the memo from the Transportation Department as to the need for and the importance of the Transit V illage and why it should be located on the Pollard Motors site Many of the same reasons illustrated for keeping the TransII Village whole and keepmg it on that particular site are the same arguments that the PRAB ~s making For Valmont City Park. So much time and effort put into both projects - almost seven years for both. If the PRAB is to go through this process, cooperate and come to a resolut~on, he agrees with Stuller and Osborne on the need to understand why Pollard feels the Valmont City Park site is so important One of the reasons why Pollard chose this srte is that they want a hghted mtersection w~th full flow-through traffia The PRAB has akeady stated that havmg Poilard Motors m VCP would have huge implications with regard to the park design and placement of roads. Andersen: Bruno understands how seriously this is viewed by the Parks and Recreation Department and Advisory Board The competmg public interests potentially mean that the publids mterests are not gomg to be fully achieved if mdeed Pollard Motors is relocated to another pubhc site for the Transit Village. The difficulty for Crty Council will be to understand, as fully as possible, what the benefits and needs are for Chose competmg public mterests. If PRAB members choose not to cooperate wrth Council they would be takmg away needed information to understand the impact to the park system Andersen. PRAB members are being asked to articulate what the tradeoffs and impacts • are for relocation of Pollard Motors m VCP That means lookmg at the presumption of a lighted mtarsection. If there is a change to the way the park is developed the need for a main entrance to the park on Pearl Parkway may go away. That could be a red flag indicatmg there is no guarantee there would ever be a lighted intersection at that location Geden: Does not know what the outcome of this process will be. Staff and Council need the PRAB to identify and commumcate what the tradeoffs and impacts would be. If the PRAB chooses not to participate m the process thinkmg that will demonstrate to Council that the PRAB does not agree with the proposal, the outcome might not be what the PRAB desires. Andersen• There is keen mterest on the part of inembers who are leavmg Council m November to feel a sense of accomplishment relatmg to the Transit Village. There was a great deal of ownership around the project and that was the motivator for Council wanting to get this moving. She encouraged the PRAB to respond to the need for mformation in a timely manner Even if all questions are not able to be answered before the pubhc hearmg and discussion with Council, it is important to have those questions or concerns flagged for Council. • PRAB Meenng Mmutes 09/22/2003 - Page 4 • Manlove's comments • Anythmg the PRAB wants researched and answered should be in the October PRAB packet memo that will be the same memo gomg to Council for the ~omC study session Che following day. • One clarification to the memo is that an amendment to the approved srte plan is the process that happens prior to subdrvision, not as a result of subdrvision. • Of the $17 rrvlhon spent creahng VCP thus far, what portion of that was from the Permanent Parks and Recreation Fund~ • Of the money spent planrung the park, was any of that from the Permanent Parks and Recreation Fund? • The value/cost of these s~x acres to the community and to the park should be clear to everyone. It is probably worth a lot more today because the land has smce been annexed mto the city • There should be a clear history of VCP as a park smce none of the current members were on the PRAB when the VCP was created This information would be helpful to Council as well VCP wae not Parks and Recreation staff's first choice for a commumty park site because it was very expensive land to acquire. The reason the park ~s located where it ~s today ~s because it accomplished the City Council goal of jobs reduction m keepmg that land from development He believes Parks and Recreation staff preferred the Area III site because it cost much less, more land could have been purchased and there would have been more money ]eft to develop facilities on that land. Parks and Recreation was doing Council a favor at the time by buying . land at VCP to help them accomplish one of their goals. Now Parks and Recreation is bemg asked to give up some of Chat park land to accomplish yet another of Council's goals • It would be helpful to have timelines showmg when Pollard Motors could actually be located on the VCP srte after all the appropnate process has been followed • There rrught be alternate sites available that are already zoned for buildmg a car dealership and would not need to go through such a lengthy process. von Bleichert's comments • Need to know the total redesign cost. • Need to determme the length of time for reopemng public dialogue, reopenmg uses, cons~deration of the scope of the pazk and resubmitting to Plannmg Department for approval • Is uncomfortable with the quick analysis wilh iegard to movmg Parks Operations and whether or not a skatepark is st~ll needed Wrth all the other needs and requests for recreation at VCP, it is not as simple as saymg smce we have a skatepark we don't need that land any more. • The prairie dog management issue needs to be addressed. It is unclear what impact a pnvate entrty m the park would have on pra~rie dogs The question of how Pollard will deal with prairie dogs on the site should be answered. • A stacked optron for Pollard Motors has some merrt • It is unclear by lookmg at maps of the five parcels amounting to over 40 acres exactly where those five parcels comprise property withm the park. [Refers to the 40 acres • that were purchased with funds other than Parks and Recreation funds of which one PRAB Meetmg Mmutes 09/22/2003 - Page 5 parcel was a gift.] That raises concerns over the status of tha portion of that land that • is included m VCP If these six acres were meant for park land and they are now beiug considered for a car dealership, what is the fate of the remaming acres withm those five parcels? Where do those acres he on the current VCP site plan? What is the potential of the rest of Ybose acres bemg taken away from the park at some future time~ Hoge's comments • Feels strongly that the PRAB should say this property is off limits because it ~s in a park and many years of work and milhons of dollars have already been invested in it. • It was imtially said that the land m VCP was off limits and if city staff had been strong about that, Pollard Motors would have found another site Staff should rerterate that relocation of Pollard Mo4ars onto park land is not an option • Why isn't Pollard at the maetmg~ Why haven't they come to find out how the PRAB feels about this~ This one company could have enormous effect on the city's largest park and generations to come If Pollard came to the meeting they might agree that VCP is an mappropnate site for a dealership. Board comments • Manlove: It is important to make sure that the value of the park and the history of the park is clearly put forward. • Osborne: The PRAB's role has Co be to fight for the park. No matter what the outcome, she has to feel hke she fought as hard as she could to keep the park whole. • Stuller To what exCent is Pollard makmg their judgment that this is the proper site for • their car dealership based on expectations that are not yet settled? • von Bleichert That ought to be the fust issue addressed. What are the~r requuements and do we actually satisfy those on this site? • Hoge• What is the hne of communicahon with Pollard Motors? Newcomb replaed that zt was through Bruno and htmself. Hoge asked if they have communicated the PRAB's views to Pollard Newcomb said they had done that many times Hoge asked what thett reaction was. Newcomb sa~d Pollard does not want to move off theer site any naore than the PRAB wants to have Pollard Motors on the VCP site. He spoke of the process to find an approprcate site for them, look~ng as far away as the Gurcbarrel area and Broomfield. When compared to their current site none of the proposed sites compared, even the proposed VCP site is not equal in traffic volume and exposure to Pollard's current sete Pollard as not trying to invade the park; Chey , are trying to find a site where they can keep their business vaable • Osborne If there is no recreation center in VCP the orientation of the park would be mare along Valmont Road and less along Pearl Parkway. She would then try to distance the park from the car dealership to the extent possible Made the suggestion that a 49`" Street access road would be another option that would be shorter In addition, if the recreation center ended up on the western edge of the property at Valmont Road, it might make more sense to have an access t}rrough there. It isn't a given that amended site plans would have a road ad~acent to the proposed site for Pollard Motors m VCP Newcornb said Pollard knows there cs no need for a laghted intersection at the present eime and understands there would be a delay for . PRAB Meehng Mmutes 09/22/2003 - Page 6 • installation of a traffic light But if there as never goang to be a road past Pollnrd's proposed s~te in VCP that would make a bag dafference to Poltard. • von Bleichert• Is Pollard askmg the PRAB to confirm existence of that ioad before they agree to move onto VCP~ • Hoge• If there is no road there, people commg from the east would use Valmont Road and not come along Pearl Parkway. • Osborne. Will Pollard be at the October 27 PRAB meetmg and public hearmg~ Newcomb replied that he did not know whether Pollard would be there • von Bleichert• The question of the road is crucial and what Pollard's expectations are with re~ard to that road and that design If there is a car dealership and potentlally Yhe rest of that area of the park is our Park Operations, it won't be a beautiful area and should not serve as the mam entrance. In that case, theie may not be a need for a through road at that location • Manlove: How about proposmg the Yards site for Pollard Motors but moving the mtersection down so that it is beiween Che park and the Yards siCe~ That way Pollard would have what they need far that corner but it would have a different ~mpact on the park. That would keep the VCP exposure along Pearl Parkway. • Hoge What about the site on Arapahoe, across from existmg car dealerships, as a place for Pollard Motors to relocate? Newcomb saad he met weth owner of that s~te and the owner already has an approved plan for development. Newcomb sa~d he tried hard to get the owrcer to relanquash part of that land far Pollard Motors He explained that wher2 a property owner already ha,s an approved site plan at is hard to ~ compete wath because at as no longer a raw land prace. He also thought there maghC possably be problems with the neaghborhood af they tned to put a car dealershcp an there. In addat~on the owner dad not want to change the road on his existzng plan Newcomb saad there maght stall be some chance for that site and he was wallang to follow up on the suggestaon • Osborne: What if Pollard remamed on theu srte by using a stacked deck for the~r dealership hke the John Elway dealership~ Newcomb ,saad he never proposed that to them but would be wtlling to propose it. Manlove The precedent already exists m Boulder wrth John Elway Ford The economics of it obviously make sense because that car dealership voluntarily relocated from a much higher valued location to the~r existmg location and stacked it Newcornb saad he would definetely ask Pollard about that. • Manlove• One of the thmgs to be clar~fied is while the need for a skatepark at VCP may no longer exist that does not necessar~ly create a vacant piece of land The unmet needs identified m the needs assessment far exceed all of Parks and Recreation undeveloped land. • Osborne. It would be helpful if staff put together a timeline demonsCratmg how long rt would real~stically take to look at what the evculauon system would be in the redesigned park It would also need to show placement of uses and facilities Lakey: Would typically handle somethmg l~ke that by makmg some assumpt~ons Osborne It is okay to make assumptions for what a typacal plannang process takes to go through a comp plarz change, rezonang and subdiv~saon. Lakey added that there might be • some programmatic assumptions PRAB Meetmg Mmutee 09/22/2003 - Page 7 O'Neill Suggested PRAB members crafr a memo to City Council members in • advance of the study session as a way to orgamze their arguments m a persuasive document. After a brief discussion it was decided to call a special meeting of the PRAB. Manlove: What will Ue the structure of the ~omt meetmg wrth PRAB and City Council members~ Andersen. That has not yet been determirced. She added that what has worked in the past is to have a couple of inembers of the repieseritative boards sct zn wath the Councal. Osborne Will the focus of the meetmg ba whether or not Pollard Motors is relocated onto the Valmont City Park site? Andersen said her understanding was that at would be a broader dascussion of the Transat Village and its rat~o~iale for sate space Council will seek to gam an understanding of the current Pollard site and what can and cannot happen there to keep everyone in place; and if Pollard Motors remamed on its current site what impact that would have on the Transrt V zllage If there was consideration of the park siCe, undeistandmg whaC Che implications would be to the public need for public park purposes for VCP m particular And understanding that the city does have a site that has been created through the redevelopment of the Pubhc Works Master Plan far the Yards site; helpmg to understand what those look like Manlove. Are the plans for the Transit Village puxely conceptual at this time~ Newcomb replaed in the affirmative Geden: Given the current time frame she is not sure whether staff can have answers to all • the PRAB's questions raised this everung Manlove • It is not as cr~tical to have answers to all of the questcons as it as to have all of the questions. What will be cratical to communicare to Council as that Chere are many questions needing answers. Board members discussed holdmg a special meetmg to draft the~r recommendations to Council as a board On a motion by von Bleichert, seconded by Stuller, the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board voted unanimously (6-0 with one member absent) to look at dates for an additional pubhcly noticed meetmg for the purpose of the Board to create a memo to Conncil with regard to the Boulder Transit Village and Pollard Motors relocation issue, befare the PRAB's next regularly scheduled meeting on October 27. Board members decided to mdividually send their comments and questions to the Board SecreCary, to have the mformation put together mto one documenC to be ed~ted at the special meetmg The special meeting was scheduled for Monday, Octobei 6 at 6 p m with the location to be deterrruned. VIII. FUTURE BOARD ITEMS AND TOURS • PRAB Meering Mmutes 09/22/2003 - Page 8 • IX. NEXT BOARD ME~TING: October 6, 2003 - The purpose of this special meetmg of the PRAB is to prepare a memo to CiCy Council regardmg the possible relocation of Pollard Motors to Valmont City Park The meetmg will be held at 6 p m m the Iris Center auditormm located at 3198 Broadway. October 27, 2003 - Next regular PRAB meetmg X. ADJOYJRN The meetmg adjourned at 8.15 p m APPROVED BY PARKS AND RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD. • Attest• C ~"~~~~ -- Gharles Manlove Board Chau ~~~ ' ~ - Georgia J~ son ~ ~~ ~_ Record~ng Secretary • PRAB Meehng Mmute+ 09/22/2003 - Page 9