Loading...
6B - County Referral of the 1041 State Interest Review of CU-Boulder South Tennis Court ReplacementCITY OF BOULDER PLANNING BOARD AGENDA ITEM MEETING DATE: July 18, 2002 (Agenda Item Preparation Date: July 12, 2002) AGENDA TITLE: Public hearing and consideration oF LUR2002-00044, the Boulder County refenal of the 1041 State Interest Review for the University of Colorado - Boulder South Tetuiis Court Replacement Project (County Docket SI-02-02) per the U.S. Highway 36 Corridor Intergovernmental Agreement between the City of Boulder and Boulder County. Approximately six (6) acres of the 308-acre CU-Boulder South property located within a City of Boulder influence area under the U.S. 36 Corridor IGA will be utilized for the relocation of the tennis courts (12) and associated facilities from the CU main campus to the property. The six acre property is located at 5278 Table Mesa Drive (outside city limits). The City is participating in a County process and is required to make a decision on the request under the County's 1041 regulations. _ Applicant: University of Colorado REQUESTING DEPARTMENT: Peter Pollock, Planning Director Bob Cole, Director of Land Use Review Nan Johnson, Associate Planner, Presenter OVERVIEW: The Planning Board is being asked to consider whether the CU application request for a tennis court complex, as presanted to Boulder County is consistent with the standards of Boulder County's 1041 Areas and Activities of State Interest regulations per Article 8 of the Boulder County Land Use Code. The review under the Boulder Counfy's Areas and Activity of State Interest is required because it is within one mile of the intersection of a state arterial highway. City action is required under the U.S. Highway 36 Corridor IGA. The City Council delegated decision-making authority to Planning Board, who will make the decision on this referral subject to a Council call up. ACrENDA ITEM # ~'/-5 Pnee 1 The summary of the staff's conclusions are: Floodplain restrictions as set forth under Boulder County 1041 regulations are not applicable in the review of the CU-Boulder South tennis court proposal because it is not located within a regulatory floodplain area. 2. The city concurs with the county staff determination that this proposal does not constitute new urban development. Recreational facilities and uses such as fields and tennis courts are permitted under county zoning and do not require a full range of urban services as defined in fhe comprehensive plan. 3. The proposed tennis court facility will cause occasional high demands for vehicles exiting right turns from the site access of Loop Road onto Table Mesa Drive. The staff recommendation is for an approval with conditions based on a finding that the applicable County 1041 standards are met. STATISTICS: Proposal: The Applicant proposes to constntct twelve fenced tennis courts, a temporary gravel parking lot for up to 125 cars, viewing stands, and associated grading and landscaping. The new courts will repiace the existing Kittredge courts, which are currently located on the main campus, and which will be displaced this year by the renovation of the law school. The proposed courts will be used daily for tennis competitions, and for intercollegiate athletics, intramurals, and summer tennis camps. See Attachment I. Although the tennis courts will have electrical service to run items such as tennis ball machines, no outdoor lighting is proposed. Neither will there be any potable water or sewage treatment facilities. Instead, restrooms are proposed as screened portable toilets, and participants are expected to bring their own drinking water to the site. The courts and parking area comprise a total of 6 acres of the existing 30$-acre property. Project Name: County referral of Docket SI-02-02: University of Colorado - Boulder SI- 1041 - CU Boulder South Tennis Court Replacement Project Location: 5278 Table Mesa Drive (outside city limits), south of the intersection of U.S. Highway 36 and Foothills Parkway, in Sections 9& 16, T1S, R70W Size of Tract: Six (6) acres of the 308-acre CU-Boulder South property. Zoning: County zoning - Economic Development (ED) and Agricultural (A) Comprehensive Plan: BVCP land use designation is Open Space . } AGENDA TTENI # ~'~%.) Paee 2 KEY ISSUES: Is this proposed development considered to be "new urban developmenP' as defined by the recently updated Boulder Valley Comprehansive Plan (BVCP)? 2. Is this proposed development consistent with the BVCP land use designations regarding open space? EXISTING SITE / SITE CONTEXT: The six acre site of the 308-acre CU-Boulder South property (also referred to as the Ftatirons property) is located just outside city limits, south of the intersection of the U.S. Highway 36 and the Foothills Parkway. The land has been vacant ever since the gravel mining operations came to an end. Permitted mining was conducted on this site through the 1980's and into the 1990's with reclamation proceeding within the mid- to later 1990's era. The site is not ]ocated within a legally recognized 100-yeaz floodplain although this fact is a subj ect of debate due to the changes in the drainage and from the berms that were created during the mining operations. The six (6) acres of the 308-acre CU-Boulder South property is described in the Campus Master Plans (CU Boulder South): Pianni~ Period 1998-2008 in that: "During the short-term, CU-Boulder expects to use the property for outdoor intercollegiate athletics facilities, recreation fields, pedestrian and bicycle trails, grazing, storage, and a cross-country running course. Outdoor research projects may also occur at CU-Boulder South, for example those related to plant ecology and environmantal biology. Recreation fields and courts (such as tennis courts) are needed for the student population, especially for college students in the 18-to-23 age group, and there ue no alternative locations for the approximately 75-85 acres of athletics and recreation facilities needed. Due to new building projects on the Main Campus and Williams Viltage, some recreation facilities may be relocated to CU-Boulder South. This site appears to be ideal for this specific use. Minor spectator facilities may be included, but the major spectator facilities such as the stadium will remain on the Main Campus. Compatible scheduling of the facilities for community recreation will be considered." Also, under "Phasing", the Campus Master Plans state: "For this planning period, the only infrastructure improvements that are planned relate to flood protection, drainage improvements, wetlands management, and development of athletics and recreation facilities." ~ ~ AGENDA ITEM # ~='f~ Pnae 3 BACKGROUND: A. Boulder County has received a"1041 State Interest Review" application from the University of Colorado on a development proposal for tennis courts on the vacant CU 5outh property. Specifically, the CU project proposes the relocation of the University of Colorado's existing twelve-court Kittredge tennis complex to a new six-acre facility at CU-Boulder South located at 5278 Table Mesa Drive. As a part of the tennis court complex project, there will be twelve fenced courts, a temporary parking lot that wiil allow up to 125 cars, and viewing stands. Some grading will be required. No water or sewage treatment activities or improvetnents are proposed. See Attachment I. B. Boulder County and the City of Boulder have an intergovernmental agreement for the U.S. Highway 36 Corridor that places this land in the area of influence of the City of Boulder. A copy of the agreement is attached as Attachment G. Under the provisions of the agreement, the County is required to seek City input with regard to any development review application for a property located in this area of influence if its Areas and Activities of State Intere'st regulations apply. C. The legislative purpose of H.B. 1041, "Areas and Activities of State InteresY' is to clarify the relative authority of state and local governments in making planning decisions with respect to matters of statewide interest and to further the state's interest in regulating the quality of development. The law estabiished a set of criteria to be used by local governments in identifying development projects that may impact the state beyond their immediate scope. D. Boulder County has adopted regulations detailing the criteria it must use as it evaluates applications related to areas and activities of state interest. Those regulations can be found in Article 8 of the Boulder County Land Use Code. They are available at http://www.co.boulder.co.us/lu/lucode/article8.htm. and the criteria that are to be applied to this application may be found in Attachment H. E. Because the County must use the specified criteria in making its decision, the City's input will be relevant only to the extent that it addresses those specific criteria. These issues will be addressed in more detail below. F. The County staff had reviewed the application and had made the findings known to the Boulder County Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC). Refer to Attachment E for the County staff inemo to the BOCC. I. THE U.S. 36 CORRTDOR INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT: The City and the County entered into the U.S. 36 Corridor Comprehensive Development Plan Intergovernmental Agreement (the "U.S. 36 Corridor I.G.A.") which became effective on June 20, 2000 (see Attachment G). The parties to the agreement are the City of Boulder, the Town of AGENDA ITEM # ~G' [_~ Paee 4 Superior, the City of Louisville, and Boulder County. Each of the governments that signed the agreement have land located on the U.S. 36 Corridor within its jurisdiction or sphere of influence. Contents of the U.S. 36 Corridor I.G.A: A. Plan: The governments adopted a plan that is intended to ragulate land use along the conidor. B. Rural Preservation Area Established: The plan establishes a"rural preservation area" that is to remain with Boulder County jurisdiction. C. Areas of Influence: The plan identifies city influence parcels which may in the future be annexed into one of the participating municipalities. The governments agreed to not annex an influence area of another city. Boulder County agreed to enforce its regulations related to Areas and Activities of State Interest in the influence area of a municipality. The CU-South property is located in the city of Boulder's influence area. D. Citv Approval as Part of the H.B. 1041 Review: The county cannot grant a development permit pursuant to its regulations related to Areas and Activities of State Interest until the permit has been approved by the City to which the influence area applies. (See ¶4.2, U.S. 36 Corridor I.G.A. in Attachment G.) E. Boulder County Reaulations Applv: No specific standards are listed that the City should apply for completing this review. However, a general provision of the I.G.A. states that "to the extent that this Plan is silent as to a particular land use matter, existing local land use regulations of the Regulatory Party having jurisdiction over the property, as amended from time to time, shall control." (See ¶2.2, U.S. 36 Corridor I.G.A. in Attachment G.) F. City to Review Pursuant to Boulder Count,y Rules. Therefore, the U.S. 36 Corridor I.G.A. requires the City to review the application under the County's regulations related to Areas and Activities of State Interest. II. AREAS AND ACTIVITIES OF STATE INTEREST - COUNTY REVIEW UNDER H.B,1041 A. Pu ose: In 1974, the General Assembly enacted, through House Bill 1041 ("H.B. 1041"), a set of ineasures regulating Areas and Activities of State Irtterest. The legislative purpose of H.B. 1041 was to clazify the relative authority of state and local governments in making planning decisions with respect to matters of . statewide interest and to further the state's interest in regulating the quality of development. These regulations established a set of criteria to be used by local AGENDA ITEM # ~~'J) Pace 5 governments in identifying and regulating development projects that may affect the state beyond their immediate scope. B. Desienation of Areas and Activities oF State Interest: A local government may designate certain areas of state interest including: mineral resource areas; natural hazard areas; areas containing historical, natural or archaeologica] resources of statewide importance; and areas around key facilities such as airports, major public utility facilities and mass transit terminals. Activities of state interest are generally concentrated in the site selection of key facilities, infrastnicture development or new community development. Although local governments are not compelled by H.B. 1041 to declare any particular activity or area to be of state interest, they must make such a declaration in order to exercise power under H.B. 1041. The Areas and Activities of State Interest that have been designated by Boulder County may be found in Article 8 of the Boulder County Land Use Code. C. Review of Areas and Activities of State Interest: Once an area or activity is designated a matter of statewide interest, local govemments must receive recommendations from state agencies and the Colorado Land Use Commission ("LUC") and must adopt regulations. A local government may adopt more stringent regulations than those listed in the statute, but must £ollow, at a minimum, the guidelines outlined by H.B. 1041. D. Permits Required for Areas and Activities of State Interest. Anyone desiring to engage in development must acquire a permit from the appropriate local government, and local governments are to consider permit applications after holding a recorded hearing. The local government may approve or deny the application based on whether the proposed activity complies with the local government's regulations and guidelines. The denial of a permit by a local government agency is subject to judicial review. Any person who does not obtain a permit may be enjoined from conducting the activity. E. Objectives of Review under H.B. 1041: The clear objective of H.B. 1041 is to assure that environmental impacts of new development are considered and mitigated. H.B. 1041 provides local government with the authority to adopt regulations governing a range of environmental, developmental and construction- related impacts involving activities of state interest. In granting the power to regulate the construction of state projects, the legislature intended to grant local control over the impacts caused by those projects. This control has manifested itself through the permitting process, F. Authoritxto Regulate under H.B. 1041: Under 1041, governmental entities or developments that intrude on the jurisdiction of another governmental entity may be subject to regulation by that entity. Although an outright prohibition on the exercise of home rule or other governmental powers would fail, the permit applicant's proposal must be consistent with H.B. 1041 and/or conforming county regulations. Any denial of a permit application must emphasize that AGENDA ITEM # ~'f~ Pase 6 governmental powers may be exercised in a manner consistent with the "hosting" county's legitimate regutatory authority over proposed projects of statewide concern within its jurisdiction. Source: Adapted from Nicholas P. Panos, H.B. 1041 as a Tool for Municipal Attorneys, 23 Colo. Law. 1309 (1994). III. REVIEW PROCESS: CITY REVIEW OF THE UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO'S APPLICATION FOR DEVELOPMENT IN AN AREA OF STATE INTEREST UNDER BOULDER COUNTY'S LAND USE CODE A. Planning & Development Services Review: The county referral began with a request for a one-time review from Planning and Development Services June 17, 2002. The city accepted the item as a county referral application and is processing it through the standard Development Review Committee (DRC) administrative process. The application was refened out to the appropriate reviewing parties. The DRC review comments can be found in Attachment B. B. Application - County Referral: C.U.'s "South Campus" is located within a City of Boulder influence area under the U.S. 36 Conidor I.G.A. Therefore, under the terms of the I.G.A., the City is required to "approve" it under the County's 1041 regulations before the County can issue a development perxnit. The application is treated as a separate referral and not as a development review application pursuant to the City of Boulder's Land Use Regulation. The City is bound to accept the application that the County accepted. The City is participating in a County process The decision that the City is required to make is quasi judicial in nature, in that it is required to apply an existing Boulder County law of general applicability to a cunent application and set of facts. C. Process - How the City Will Make its Decision: The City of Boulder and Boulder County have established a referral process for certain types of land use and public improvements activity within the Boulder Vailey. The Bouldar Vatley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP), established by intergovernmental agreement, sets guidelines for that referral process. BVCP referrals are typically reviewed by staff and sometimes by city boards such as the city's Open Space Board of Trustees or the Park and Recreation Advisory Board. Planning Board or City Council may review the referral responses. However, this referral is different in that it is triggered by the U.S. 36 Corridar Intergovernmental Agreement, rather than as typical, through the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan. This agreement is silent about how the City will make its decision. At its July 9, 2002 meeting, the City Council delegated decision-making authority under the U.S. 36 Corridor I.G.A to the Planning Board, subject to review by the City Council under its call-up procedures. The call-up period will end after the Council's August 6, 2002 meeting. IF Council requests the item to be called up, then the city must request the Board of County Commissioners for a short time extension. If Council does AGENDA ITEM # ~~~ Paee 7 not call up the matter, then the city will send the Planning Board recommendation to Boulder County by August 8, 2002. In the event of a Council hearing, this item would be scheduled for the August 20, 2002 meeting. D. Public Notice: As part of the city application process, public notice was mailed to over 1,000 property owners within a radius of 1,500 feet of the CU property. Public notice is noC standard for referrals since the County does public notice on applications submitted to the County. However, notice is standard for public hearing items and the notification radius used in this case is similar to that used in other cases of community-wide interest. The 1,500 feet is the same distance the county used for county public notice. Public comments are included in the DRC. A copy of the public notice is provided in Attachment C. E. Standards: The County is the ultimate approving authority for this application. The County is bound by H.B. 1041. The regulations adopted by the County differ only in minor details from the state template. Thus, with its referral, the County sent a copy of its full H.B. 1041 regulations, with the instruction that the City • apply them in making a recommendation as is required by the U.S. 36 Corridor I.G.A. The County must make the final decision, which is already under challenge by the University in parallel litigation, and it must make that decision strictly according to its own H.B. 1041 regulations. The City is obligated under the U.S. 36 Corridor I.G.A. to review the application under the H.B. 1041 standards adopted by Boulder County. The Cotmty is bound to ignore any comments which are not based on the H.B. 1041 regulations, and County staff has stated that they would be compelled to advise the County to do so. F. Mans: The County has adopted specific floodplain maps relating to the flood plain component of its H.B. 1041 regulations. The County maps must be used in H.B. 1041 proceedings. The proposed development activities are not located in a regulated County floodplain. G. Time Constraints: The County's land use code places limits on the time as to when a H.B. 1041 review must be completed. When the Boulder County Commissioners determine that it does not have sufficient information to decide a matter, it may continue the matter. (See Section 8-511(A), B.C.L.U.C. in Attachment H). The Board of County Commissioners continued the final decision on the C.U. application in order to provide the City with an opportunity to review it under the provisions of the U.S. 36 Corridor I.G.A. The Board continued the matter to its August 15, 2002 meeting. H. Boulder County Location and Extent Review R~ulations: As is permitted by statute, CRS 24-65.1-101 et seq., Boulder County has adopted its own regulations related to areas and activities of state interest. Its regulations are located in Article 8, "Location and Extent- Areas and Activities of 5tate Interest. (1041)," Boulder County Land Use Code (B.C.L.U.C."). AGENDA ITEM # r<'~5~ Pase 8 1. The tennis court proposal requires review under this section because of its location in relation to a state arterial highway interchange. Section 8-405(C), B.C.L.U.C. (Refer to Attachment H.) As such, the relevant standards and criteria are from Section 8-511(A), (B), and (J), B.C.L.U.C. Section (A) contains the general approval requirements. Section (B) contains the standards for approval of all permit applications such as approvals by all interests in the proposal, assurance of the ApplicanYs capabilities, environmental and resource aspects of the proposal, and consistency with the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan. Section (J) contains additional standards for development in areas around interchanges involving state arterial highways such as traffic standards. Refer to Attachment H for a complete list of the standards and criteria. PUBLIC COMMENTS: As part of the city application process, public notice was mailed to over 1,000 property owners within a radius of 1,500 feet of the C.U. property similar to the county public notice. A letter dated 6/21/02 notifying owners of the county referral was mailed on 6/22/02 and had a response date of July 5, 2002. Public notice is not standard for referrals since the County does public notice on applications submitted to the County. Nine written correspondences were received by the City and can be reviewed in Attachment D. The County received numerous public comments, which can be viewed in the Planning and Development Services office. Comments consisted of concerns for open space, floodplains, traffic, additional urban development on the property (overall plans for the property), natural drainage and habitats, land use designations, shortness of public notification, questions over review of 1041 criteria, missing traffic study, compliance with the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan and the U.S. 36 IGA approval process. One letter did agree with the recreational use of athletic fields in case of flooding. Also stating that due to traffic volume concerns U.S. 36/South Boulder Road and Table Mesa Drive, that any approval should be contingent on a plan to improve this intersection, including direct access to from the athletic fields from Foothills Pazkway, not by way of the present interchange. A meeting with city staff was requested by several community members from the various concerned South Boulder Creek groups and panels concerned about the development of the CU property. This meeting was held on July 3, 2002. Attendees were Ron Secrist, Will Toor, Joe de Raismes, Nan Johnson (far Peter Pollock), Alan Taylor, Ruth Blackmore, Tom Browning, Alison Burchell, Jane Green~ield, Pedro Restrepo, Ben Bender, Gilbert White, Ken Wright, and Scott Tucker. The meeting served to respond to their questions on the review process and to provide them with an opportanity to express concems about the application. AGENDA ITEM # ~'~} Paee 9 ANALYSIS: As was noted previously, Boulder County and the City of Boulder have an intergovernmental agreement for the U.S. Highway 36 Corridor that places this land in the area of influence of the City of Boulder. A copy of the agreement is included in Attachment G. Under the provisions of the agreement, the County is required to seek City input with regard to any development review application for a property located in this area of influence if its Areas and Activities of State Interest regulations apply. A staff analysis of this application was performed using a 1041 Standards Checklist prepared by staff for the applicable sections of ArCicle 8 of the Boulder County Land Use Code. Refer to Attachment A for this checklist and specific analysis of the criteria. Staff identified the following key issues for this application. 1. Is this proposed development considered to be "new urban development" as defined by the recently updated Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP)? The B.C.L.U.C, Section 8-511(b)(14) requires that the application be "in accordance with the Boulder County Comprehensive Plan and any applicable intergovernmental agreement affecting land use and development, including but not limited to any applicable land use designations. Therefore, since the BVCP was adopted pursuant to an intergovemmental agreement, then it can be considered under this criterion. Questions have been raised as to whether the tennis court proposal rises to the leve] of new urban development as defined in the BVCP under Policy 1.22. That definition states: DEFINITION OF NEW URBAN DEVELOPMENT. It is intended that `new urban development', including development within the city not occur until and unless adequate urban facilities and services are available to serve the development as set out in Section (IID) Urban Service Criteria and Standards. `New urban development' is hereby defined to include: (a) All new residential, commercial and industrial development and redevelopment within the city; or (b) Any proposed development within Area II subject to a county discretionary review process before the Board of County Commissioners, provided the county determines that the proposed development is inconsistent with the land use projections, maps or policies of the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan in effect at that time. Clearly, paragraph (a) does not apply to this application because the property is located outside of the City limits. Both the City and the County have analyzed this application under Paragraph (b) of the definition. The County considers H.B. 1041 reviews to be discretionary reviews under the B.C.L.U.C. The County ultimately makes the decision under the BVCP as to whether an AGENDAITEM# CO~)7 Paee 10 application is considered new urban development. The County staff has concluded that the application does not constitute new urban development. The city concurs with the county staff determination that this proposal does not constitute new urban development. The comprehensive plan policies stata that urban development should not occur until an adequate range of urban services are available to serve the development, and that the city is tha appropriate service provider. Recreational facilities and uses such as fields and tennis courts are permitted under county zoning and do not require a full range of urban servicas as defined in the BVCP, Section II.D. Prior to the development of urban residential, industrial, or commercial uses on the property, including any development of university facilities at an urban scale such as a stadium, classrooms, laboratories or other uses that are urban in nature and require the full range of urban services, the property should be annexed to the city and adequate urban services and facilities extended to the property. 2. Is this proposed development consistent with the BVCP land use designations regarding open space? The CU-Boulder South property is located in Area IIB of the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP), the area planned for city service provision and annexation. Approximately 221 acres of the 308 acre property has been designated open space since the adoption of the BVCP in 1977) and the City Council has long expressed its wish that a majority of the area remain open space. The western portion of the site proposed for the tennis complex is designated Medium Density Residential and the eastern portion Open Space in the BVCP. The Flatiron Companies, previous ownars of the CU South Campus property, sold the entire property to the University of Colorado in 1996. Prior to that purchase city staff and Flatiron staff held various conversations about the property over the years including the sand and gravel operaYions, reclamation plans, long term management and ownership of the ]and and current and future land use. On Febraary 20, 2001 the City Couneil adopted Resolution No. 877 which states that "the Boulder City Council stands willing to purchase the Flatirons Property from a willing seller at a fair price, for open space or flood control purposas, in fee title or by means of a conservation easement; or to contemplate whatever agreement might lead to the m~imum practicable preservation of the Flatirons Property as an environmental asset, consistent with the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan since 1977." (see Attachment F for a copy of Resolution No. 877) On February 28, 2001 the Open Space Board of Trustees ("OSBT") unanimously adopted Resolution No. 877 and encouraged "continued cooperation between the city and CU to help CU to meet its future land use needs." The city still hopes to achieve the preservation of a significant portion of the property as open space, however, at this time, the issue before the Planning Board is whether the current CU Tennis Courts Relocation Project application is compatible with the 1041 regulations of the Boulder County Land Use Code. AGENDA ITEM # ~4'•~ Pace ll An open space designation indicates the desire to preserve property through a variety of techniques. The BVCP contemplates that land with "open space designations may not reflect the current use of the land while in private ownership." (BVCP Section III.2.3.) Since a portion of the property is designated as Open Space, the application was referred to the Open Space Board of Trustees. The City Counci] and the Open Space Board of Trustees have both passed resolutions indicating the city's desire to purchase the property for Open Space or flood control purposes. The County has zoned land in the unincorporated area within the City's service area in a manner that is intended to be consistent with the BVCP. The underlying Zoning districts in the County applied to the property are Economic Development (ED) and Agricultural (A). Uses allowed as a matter of right in these zoning districts include recreational facilities and uses such as fields and tennis courts. SUMMARY OF THE STAFF FINDINGS Staff concludes that this CU application referred to the city by Boulder County is consistent with the 1041 State Interest standards per Article 8 of the Boulder County Land Use Code. A complete list of findings can be found in Attachments A and B. FINDINGS: 1. Floodplain restrictions as set forth under Boulder County 1041 regulations are not applicable in the review of the CU-Boulder South tennis court proposal because it is not located within a regulatory floodplain area. 2. The city concurs with the county staff determination that this proposal does not constitute new urban development. Recreational facilities and uses such as fields and tennis courts are permitted under county zoning and do not require a full range of urban services as defined in the comprehensive plan. 3. The proposed tennis court facility will cause in occasional high demands for vehicles exiting right turns from the site access of Loop Road onto Table Mesa Drive. Due to the occasional large volumes of exiting traffic onto Table Mesa from this site staff recommends the construction of a separate northbound right-turn lane. Since the only user of this intersection is the South Campus property, staff does not expect any other neighbors to be negatively impacted by not having a sepazate right-turn lane. Signal timing options to deal with large exiting traffic volumes will not be considered at this city operated traffic signal until every effort is made to appropriately handle exiting traffic volumes, including the construction of a separate right-turn lane by the university. Impacts to this intersection warrant the need for staff to include a condition of the approval to assure that no negative impacts to traffic will occur on Table Mesa Drive or the off-ramp from U.S. 36. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Therefore, staff recommends that Planning Board approve LUR2002-00044, the Boulder County referral of incorporating this staff inemorandum and the attached County 1041 Review Criteria AGENDA ITEM # ~~~3 Paee 12 Checklist as findings of fact, and recommend that the County adopt the additional condition of approval. RECOMMENDED CONDITION OF APPROVAL No signal timing changes shall be implemented that would improve traffic flow from Loop Road onto Table Mesa until efforts are made to otherwise handle the volumes of traffic exiting from Loop Road. These efforts may include, but are not limited to, the construction of a separate right-turn lane within the south leg of this intersection. Approved By: ~ ___,~ T " ~.~ _ ~-' i ~ ~-~,,:+i~`=-~^' ~ eter ollock, Director ° Planning Department ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A: 1041 Review Standards Checklist prepared by City Attachment B: Development Review Results and Comments Attachment C: Vicinity Map & Public Notice Attachment D: Correspondence Received Attachment E: Board of County Commissioners Staff Recommendation Memo for May 30, 2002 Attachment F: Resolution No. 87 J- Flatirons/South Campus Property Attachment G: U.S. 36 Corridor Intergovernmental Agreement Attachment H: B.C.L.U,C. Section 8-405(C) "Other Designated Areas and Activities Requiring a PermiY' and B.C.L.U.C. Section 8- 511(A), (B), and (J) "Standards of Approval" Attachment L• Boulder Cotmty's Application Request from the University of Colorado - Boulder (Written Statements and Proposed Plans) S:\PLAN~DATA\CUR~PB-MEMO ~nj_cutennispbm 7 AGENDA ITEM # t~'~7 Paee 13 ATTACHMENT A 1041 REVIEW STANDARDS CHECKLIST (prepared by the City of Boulder) City staff has reviewed the applicable standards for approval of a permit app]ication, as specified in Article 8-511 (A), (B), and (J) of the Boulder County Land Use Code, and finds the foliowing: Article 8-511 Criteria: Standards for Aparoval of a Permit Apnlication Section A. Geneial Approva2 Requiremeuts 1. A permit application for development involving an activity or in an area of state interest may not be approved unless the applicant satisfactorily demonstrates that the proposal, including all mitigation measures proposed by the applicant, complies with all of the applicable criteria set forth in this Article. If the proposal does not comply with all of the applicable criteria, the permit shall be denied, unless the Board determines that reasonable conditions can be imposed on the permit, which will enable the permit to comply with the criteris. The City acknowledges this standard applies to the County. Per the U.S. Highway 36 Corridor Intergovernmental Agreement, the development application with the County has been refened to the City for review and action. The referral is scheduled to be considered before the City of $oulder Planning Board on July 18, 2002 at which time a decision is anticipated on whether the City agrees that this application is compatible with the standards set forth in Article 8 of the Boulder County Land Use Code. 2. If the Board determines at the public hearing that sufficient information has not been provided to it to allow it to determine if the applicable criteria have been met, the Board may continue the hearing until the specified additional information has been received. The Board shall adopt a written decision on a permit application within 45 days after the completion of the permit hearing. Not applicable to city review as these are county specific items and are deferred to the County. Section B. Standards for approval of all permit applications 1. The applicant has obtained or will obtain all property rights, permits, and approvals necessary for the proposal, including surface, mineral, and water rights. The Board may, in its discretion, defer making a Cnal decision on the application until necessary property rights, permits and approvals for the proposal are obtained. The City finds the following regarding permits: Agenda Item # t=F; Page # j~ a) Floodplain restrictions as set forth under Boulder County 1041 regulations do not appear to be applicable in the approval or denial of the CU-Boulder South tennis court proposal because it is not located within a regulatory floodplain area. b) Colorado Department of Transportation staff has stated that the University will need to obtain a CDOT Access Permit for access to Table Mesa since the north leg of this intersection and the intersection itself is CDOT right-of-way. The City of Boulder is the issuing authority for access permits on CDOT right-of-way annexed within the city. Beyond these permits, the City finds the remaining requirements not applicable to city review as these are county specific items and are deferred to the County. The County's response to this standard is that the University of Colorado owns the property upon which the tennis courts will be located. 2. The applicant has the necessary expertise and Cnancial capability to develop and operate the proposal consistent with all requirements and conditions. Not applicable to city review as these are county specific items and are defened to the County. The County's response to this standard is that the University of Colorado has budgeted funds for the completion of the proposed project. 3. Adequate water snppiies, as determined from the Colorado Department of Health, are available for the proposal if applicable. No water services are requested or proposed for the site. Portable toilets will be used for sanitation and users of the tennis facility wiil be required to bring drinking water. 4. The proposal will not cause unreasonable loss of significant agricultural lands as identified in the Comprehensive Plan, or identifiable on or near the site. The area is not designated as significant agricultural land in the Boulder County Comprehensive Plan nor the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP). The subject site lies on the remains of an old grave] mining quarry that has been reclaimed. 5. The proposal'shall not signiticantly degrade or pose a signi~cant hazard to any aspect of the environment, including environmental resources and open space areas as identified in the Comprehensive Plan, and other features or elements that are deemed to be significant components of the natural environment worthy of preservation. For purposes of this section, the following aspects of the environment shall be considered: a. Air quality: The proposal shail not significantiy deteriorate air quality. In determining impacts to air quality, these consideraYions shall apply. Agenda Item # G;,~`5 Page # 1_~> i. Changes to seasonal ambient air quality. ii. Changes in visibility and microclimates. iii. Applicable air quality standards. The site will be subject to all applicable air quality requirements, such as fugitive dust emissions. b. Visual quality. The proposal shall not significantly degrade visual quality. In determining impacts to visual quality, these considerations shali apply. i. Visual changes to ground cover and vegetation, waterfalls and streams, or other natural features. ii. Interference with viewsheds and scenic vistas. iii. Changes in appearances of forest canopies. iv. Changes in landscape character types or unique land formations. v. Compatibility of building and structure design and materials with surrounding land uses. The tennis courts will be level with the ground. The 12-foot chain link fence with windscreening will be visible. However, the tennis facility comprises less than 2% of the total acreage of the CU property which lies in an already disturbed area from the mining quarry. A large berm separates the property from the nearest residential uses that are reporfed to be a distance of 685 feet. c. Surface water quality. The proposal shall not significantly degrade surface water quality. In determining impacts to surface water quality, these considerations shall apply. i. Changes to existing water quality, iucluding patterns of water circulation, temperature, conditions of the substrate, extent and persistence of suspended particulates and clarity, odor, color or taste of water. ii. Applicable narrative and numeric water quality standards. iii. Increases in point and non-point source pollution loads. iv. Increasein erosion. v. Increases in sediment loading to waterbodies. vi. Changes in stream channel or shoreline stability. vii. Changes in stormwater runoff flows. viii. Changes in trophic status or in eutrophication rates in lakes and reservoirs. ix. Changes in the capacity or functioning of streams, lakes or reservoirs. x. Changes in flushing flows. xi. Changes in ditution rates of mine waste, agricultural runoff and other unregulated sources of pollutants. Agenda Item # t~/i' Page # /~i- _ The City has no information that would indicate that surface water quality would be impacted by this development. d. Groundwater quality. The proposal shall not significantly degrade groundwater quality. In determining impacts to groundwater quality, these considerations shall apply. i. Changes in aquifer recharge rates, groundwater levels and aquifer capacity including seepage losses through aquifer boundaries and at aquifer-stream interfaces. ii. Changes in capacity and function of wells within the impact area. iii. Changes in quality of well water within the impact area. The City has no information that would indicate that groundwater quality would be impacted by this development. e. Wetlands and riparian areas. The proposal shall not significantly degrade the quality of wetlands and riparian areas. In determining impacts to wetlands and riparian areas, these considerations shall apply. i. Changes in the structure und function of wetlands. ii. Changes to the filtering and pollutant uptake capacities of wetlands and riparian areas. iii. Changes to aerial extent of wetlands. iv. Changes in species' characteristics and diversity. v. Transition from wetland to upland species. vi. Changes in function and aerial extent of floodplains. The BV CP Inventoried W etlands map indicates a large wetland in Yhe area of the proposed project. This wetland mapping, however, was based on a previous mined land reclamation plan, which has been amended by the university's acquisition of the property. This wetland has never existed, therefore, no wetlands will be impacted by the project. In addition, the project will not impact any riparian areas. The site is not designated on the BVCP Natural Ecosystems Map (areas defined as places that support natural ecosystems of native plants and ar~imals) due to the current disturbed conditions and the past mining use of the site. F. Terrestial and aquatic animal life. The proposal shall not significantly degrade the quality of terrestrial and aquatic animal life. In determining impacts to terrestrial and aquatic animal life, these considerations shall apply. i. Changes that result in loss of oxygen for aquatic life. ii. Changes in flushing flows. iii. Changes in number of threatened or endangered species. iv. Changes to habitat and critical habitat, including calving grounds, mating grounds, nesting grounds, summer or winter Agenda Item # ~~/; Page # I'T range, migration routes, or any other habitat features necessary for the protection and propagation of any terrestrial animals. v. Changes to habitat and critical habitat, including stream bed and banks, spawning grounds, riffle and side pool areas, flushing flows, nutrient accumulation and cycling, water temperature, depth and circulation, stratification and any other conditions necessary for the protection and propagation of aquatic species. vi. Changes to the aquatic and terrestrial food webs. The proposed development site for the tennis facility is not designated by the BVCP such that terrestrial and aquatic ]ife woLild be impacted by development. This proposed project is within an area of a recently reclaimed mining quarry. g. Terrestrial and aquatic plant life. The proposal shall not signi~cantly degrade the quality of terrestrial and aquatic plant life. In determining impacts to terrestrial and aquatic animal life, these considerations shall apply. i. Changes to habitat of threatened ar endangered plant species. ii. Changes to the structure and function of vegetation, including species composition, diversity, biomass, and productivity. iii. Changes in advancement or succession of desirable and less desirable species, including noxious weeds. iv. Changes in threatened or endangered species. The proposed development site for the tennis facility is not designated by the BVCP such that terrestrial and aquatic life would be impacted by development. This proposed project is within an area of a recently reclaimed mining quarry. However, the site is approximately 1/4 mile west of the City of Boulder Open Space and Mountain Parks (OSMP) boundary, which is also the boundary of a designated Colorado State Natural Area, which includes regulated wetlands and endangered species habitat. The potential off-site impacts of tennis courts and related activities could be very disruptive to wildlife on the adjacent OSMP and is a serious concern. OSMP requests that such potential impacts be minimized, including the following: 1. While it is the city's understanding Yhat no services (including electricity) will exist at this site for now, if any exterior lighting is propoaed in the future, sYaff asks that it be designed to effect minimal illumination of adjacent undeveloped ground, and that it be turned off when tennis courts are not in use. 2. Request that noise be minimized and controlled, and if electricity is made available on site, that use of loudspeakers be avoided all together or at least minimized, especially at night. Agenda Item # ~_/~ Page #~_ 3. Request that access and activity on site should be focused away from OSMP and that sight lines not encourage access to OSMP from this area. Public access to the OSMP system and the South Boulder Creek Trail is from Marshall Road to the south and west and from South Boulder Road to the north and east. 4. Encourage the use of native plant materials and that no invasive or weedy species be introduced to the siCe. 5. Site drainage should be directed away from OSMP land and into a storm water system or other appropriate drainage system. The City understands that the Boulder County regulations address these concerns and therefore wil] not be recommended as conditions of approval. h. Soils and geologic conditions. The proposal shall not signiC-cantly degrade soils and geologic conditions. In determining impacts on soits and geologic conditions, these considerations shall apply. i. Changes to the topography, natural drainage patterns, soil morphology and productivity, soil erosion potential, and flood hazard areas. ii. Changes to stream sedimentation, geomorphology, and channel stability. iii. Changes to take and reservoir bank stability and sedimentation, and safety of existing reservoirs. iv. Changes to avalanche areas, mudflows and debris fans, and other unstable and potentially unstable slopes. v. Exacerbation of seismic concerns and subsidence. The proposed development is located within an already disturbed landscape such that this property is a reclaimed mining quarry. 6. The proposal will not have a signi~cant adverse effect on the quality or quantity of recreational opportunities and experience. This property is under private ownership and has been vacant since the mining quarry ceased its operations in the 1970's and since the University acquired the property. This property has not been used for recreational opportunities far the public. 7. The proposal will not cause unreasonable loss of signi~cant cultural resources, including but not necessarily limited to historical structures or sites and archaeological artifacts or sites, as identified in the Comprehensive Plun or identi~able on or near the site. The BVCP provides no indication that cultural resources exist on the property. Agenda Item # ~:a~~; Page # /rl 8. The proposal or its associated transmission collector or distribution system will not create blight, or cause other nuisance factors such as excessive noise or obnoxious odors. The proposal is for a tennis facility that will be separated from the nearest residential area (reported to be 685 feet) by a large berm. No water lines or sanitation lines will be run to the property. No outdoor lighting will be provided. 9. The proposal will not be subject to significant risk from floods, fires, earthquakes or other disasters or natural hazards. The CU-Boulder South tennis courts are proposed in a location outside of the adopted regulatory floodplain, as set forth under Flooc! Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) 08013C0555 F, effective June 2, 1995 (Article 4-402(B), Boulder County Land Use Code). They are also located outside the Boulder County "South Boulder Creek Flood Hazard Initial Control Area" (Article 8-405(E)(2), Boulder County Land Use Code). Given these factors, floociplain restrictions as set forth under Boulder County 1041 regulations do not appear to be applicable in the approval or denial of the CU-Boulder South tennis court proposal. No other information has been provided to the city that would indicate this proposal would be subject to other disasters or natural hazards. 10. The proposal or its associated transmission collector or distribution system will not create an undue financial burden on existing or future residents of the County. There are no known financial burdens associated with this project. 11. The proposal will not have a significant adverse effect on the capability oF local government to provide services or exceed the capacity of service delivery systems. This proposal will not require water and sewer services from the city. 12. The planning, design and operation of the proposal will retlect appropriate principles of resource conservation, energy efficiency and recycling or reuse. Not applicable to city review as these are county specific items and are defarred to the County. 13. For those applications for which the Director has required information on the environmental impacts and costs of alternatives under Section 8- 507(D)(7)(b), above, the proposal represents the leust damaging alternative of reasonable cost among the alternatives analyzed. Agenda Item # ~,p; Page # `? 7 Not applicable to city review as these are county specific items and are deferred to the County. 14. The proposal is in accordance with the Boulder County Comprehensive Plan and any applicable intergovernmental agreement affecting land use and development, including but not limited to any applicable land use designations. In cases where a person who is not a service provider with a County approved service plan or service area, proposes a development within an approved service area, the Board shall not be compelled to consider the development be in compliance with the applicable adopted comprehensive plan or intergovernmental planning agreement simply by virtue of the fact that the development is located within, or is proposed to serve, an approved service area. The CU-Boulder South property is located in Area IIB of the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP), the area planned for city service provision and annexation. Approximately 221 acres of the 308 acre property has been designated open space since the adoption of the BVCP in 1977) and tha City Council has long expressed its wish that a majority of the area remain open space. The western portion of the site proposed for the tennis complex is designated Medium Density Residential and the eastern portion Open Space in the BVCP. The Flatiron Companies, previous owners of the CU South Campus property, sold the entire property to the University of Colorado in 1996. Prior to that purchase city staff and Flatiron staff held various conversations about the property over the years including the sand and gravel operations, reclamation plans, long term management and ownership of the land and current and future land use. On Februuy 20, 2001 the City Council adopted Resolution No. 877 which states that "the Boulder City Council stands willing to purchase the Flatirons Property from a willing seller at a fair price, for open space or flood controi purposes, in fee title or by means of a conservation easement; or to contemplate whatever agreement might lead to the maximum practicable preservation of the Flatirons Property as an environmental asset, consistent with the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan since 1977." (a copy of Resolution No. 877 is attached). On February 28, 2001 the Open Space Board of Trustees ("OSBT") unanimously adopted Resolution No. 877 and encouraged "continued cooperation between the city and CU to help CU to meet its future land use needs." The CU-Boulder Campus Master Plan, which was approved in 2001 and covers the timeframe of 1998 - 2008 states that: "During the short-term, CU-Boulder expects to use the property for outdoor intercollegiate athletics facilities, recreation fields, pedestrian and bicycle trails, grazing, storage, and a cross-country running course. Outdoor research projects may also occur at CU-Boulder South, for example those related to plant ecology and environmental biology. Recreation fields and courts (such as tennis courts) ue needed for the student Agenda ltem ~ ~;~? rage ~ .~~_ population, especially for college students in the 18-to-23 age group, and there are no alternative locations for the approximately 75-85 acres of athletics and recreation facilities needed. Due to new building projects on the Main Campus and Williams Village, some recreation facilities may be relocated to CU-Boulder South. This site appears to be ideal for this specific use. Minor spectator facilities may be included, but the major spectator facilities such as the stadium will remain on the Main Campus. Compatible scheduling of the facilities for community recreation will be considered." Also, under "Phasing", the plan states: "For this ptauning period, the only infrastiucture improvements that are planned relate to flood protection, drainage improvements, wetlands management, and development of athletics and recreation facilities." The city still hopes to achieve the preservation of a significant portion of the property as open space, however, at this time, the issua before the Planning Board is whether the current CU Tennis Courts Ralocation Project application is consistent with the 1041 regulations of the Boulder County Land Use Code. Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP) and other Comprehensive or Master Plans The Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan land use map designates the western portion of the site a Medium Density Residential and the eastern portion of the site as Open Space. An Open Space designation indicates the desire to preserve property through a variety of techniques, Since a portion of the property is designated as Open Space, the application was referred to the Open Space Board of Trustees. The City Council and the Open Space Board of Trustees have both passed resolutions indicating the city's desire to purchase the property for Open Space or fIood control purposes. Please see the Open Space Board's comments under the section on Open Space. The comprehensive plan provides for the county to determine whether or not a proposal in Area II constitutes "new urban development." The policy states: BVCP POLICY 1.22: DEFINITION OF NEW URBAN DEVELOPMENT. It is intended that `new urban deveJopment', including development wilhin the city not occur until and unless adequate urban facilities and services are available to serve the development as set out in Section (II D) Urban Service Criteria and Standards. ` New urban developmenY is hereby defined to include: (a) All new residential, commercial and industrial development and redevelopment within the city; or Agenda item # ~d,x Yage iF ,~? ~ (b) Any proposed development within Area II subject to a county discretionary review process before the Board of County Commissioners, provided the county determines that the proposed development is inconsistent with the land use projections, maps or policies of the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan in effect at that time. The comprehensive plan policies state that urban development should not occur until an adequate range of urban services are available to serve the development, and that the city is the appropriate service provider. The city concurs with the county staff determination that this proposal does not constitute new urban development. Recreational facilities and uses such as fields and tennis courts are permitted under county zoning and do not require a full range of urban services as defined in the comprehensive plan. Prior to the development of urban residential, industrial, or commercial uses on the property, including the development of university facilities at an urban scale such as a stadium, classrooms, laboratories or other uses that are arban in nature and require the full range of urban services, the property should be annexed to the city and adequate urban services and facilities extended to the property. Section J. Additional standards for development in areas around interchanges involving state arterial highways 1. The proposed development shall not pose a danger to public health or safety or to property (including the subject property, other impacted properties, and the environment). There is no information in the submittal concerning traffic or transportation that would suggest any danger to property, health, or safety. 2. The volume of traffic to be generated by the proposed development by the proposed development shall be compatible with the traffic-handling characteristics of the interchange and the access road and existing, affected traffic roads. Due to the occasionallarge volumes of exiting traffic onto Table Mesa from this site staff recommends the construction of a separate northbound right-turn lane. Since the only user of this intersection is the South Campus property, staff does not expect any other neighbors to be negatively impacted by not having a separate right-turn lane. Signal timing options to deal with large exiting traffic volumes will not be considered at this city operated traffic signal until every effort is made to appropriately handle exiting traffic volumes, including the construction of a separate right-tum lane by the university. Aside from these comments regarding the recommendation for a separate right-turn lane exiting the site, the traffic impact study does not indicate that there would be traffic impacts that could not be handled by existing infrastructure. Agenda Item # ~~~~? Yage # ~'' 3. The proposed development shall be compatible with existing developments and with the character of the neighborhood, and shall not significantly impair an area or resource oF special scenic, historical, ar cultural signiftcance. The traffic generated by this project has less impact than other uses in the area and therefore would not be out of character with the surrounding neighborhood. 4. The proposed development shall preserve desirable existing community patterns. The greatest impacts of traffic are contained on the site itself and would not significantly affect the greater community as long as signal timing at Loop Road/Table Mesa Drive is not altered. 5. A developmept that proposes burdens or deprivations on the communities of a region shall not be justified on the basis of local bene~t alone. The traffic from this development proposal would not pose significant bixrdens of the regionai communities as long as signal timing at Loop Road/Table Mesa Drive is not altered. Agenda Item # (-~'i Page #. ~~~ ATTACHMENT B a ~~ / ,~ ~ CITY OF BOULDER Planning and Development Services 1739 Broadway, Third Floor • P.O. Box 791, Boulder, CO 80306-0791 phone 303-441-1880 • fax 303-441-3241 • web boulderplandevelop.net CITY OF BOULDER LAND USE REVIEW RESULTS AND COMMENTS DATE OF COMMENTS: July 12, 2002 CASE MANAGER: Nan Johnson LOCATION: 5278 TABLE MESA DR COORDINATES; S03W01 REVIEW TYPE: County Referral IGA Review 8 Comment REVIEW NUMBER: LUR2002-00044 DESCRIPTION: Boufder County referral per tfie U.S. Highway 36 Corridor Intergovernmental Agreement for a 1041 State Interest Review of C.U. Boulder-South Tennis Courts Relocation Project. REQUESTED VARIATI ONS FROM THE LAND USE REGULATIONS: None. I. REVIEW FINDINGS Staff has completed a review of the county referral on the 1041 State Interest Review of the University of Colorado (Boulder - South) tennis court relocation project. Staff reviewed the CU application using the applicable Boulder County 1041 regulations of the Boulder County Land Use Code. Comments from the pubfic have been incfuded in the review. Key Findings: Floodplain restrictions as set forth under Boulder County 1041 regulations do not appear to be applicable in the approval or denial of the CU-Boulder South tennis court proposal because it is not located within a regulatory floodplain area. 2. The city concurs with the county staff determination that this proposal does not constitute new urban development. Recreational facilities and uses such as fields and tennis courts are permitted under county zoning and do not require a full range of urban services as defined in the comprehensive plan. 3. The proposed tennis court facility will result in occasional high demands for vehicles exiting right turns from the site access of Loop Road onto Table Mesa Drive. Staff finds the CU application that has been referred to the city by the county per the U.S. Highway 36 Corridor intergovernmental agreement will meet the standards and criteria of the county's 1041 regulations if the following condition is included. Therefore, staff recommends the Planning Board approve the county referral for the C.U. Boulder tennis court relocation project with one additional condition. 1. No signal timing changes shall be implemented that would improve traffic flow from Loop Road onto Tabie Mesa until efforts are made to otherwise handle the volumes of traffic exiting from Loop Road. These efforts may include, but are not limited to, the construction of a separate right-turn lane within the south leg of this intersection. Agenda Item # ~ i~ Page #-;~ F; Address: 5278 TABLE MESA DR ~~. STAFF COMMENTS AccesslCirculation Due to the occasional large volumes of exiting traffic onto Table Mesa from this site staff recommends the construction of a separate northbound right-turn lane. Since the only user of this intersection is the South Campus property, staff does not expect any other neighbors to be negatively impacted by not having a separate right-turn lane. Signal timing options to deal with large exiting traffic volumes will not be considered at thrs city operated traffic signal until every effort is made to appropriately handle exiting traffic volumes, including the construction of a separate right- turn lane by the university. Steve Durian, 303-441-4493 2. Gating a city right-of-way is not permitted. A gate is currently located within the Loop Road right-of-way. It is required that this gate be removed to the extent that it impinges upon city right-of-way. Steve Durian, 303-441-4493 3. Colorado Department of Transportation staff has stated that a CDOT Access Permit is required before the tennis courts are active since the north leg of this intersection and the intersection itself is CDOT right-of-way. The City of Boulder is the issuing authority for this CDOT Access Permit. Steve Durian, 303-441-4493 Boulder Vailey Comprehensive Plan (BVCP) and other Comprehensive or Master Plans The CU-Boulder South property is located in Area IIB of the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP), the area planned for city service provision and annexation. Approximately 221 acres of the 308 acre property has been designated open space since the adoption of the BVCP in 1977) and the City Council has long expressed its wish that a majority of the area remain open space. The western portion of the site proposed for the tennis complex is designated Medium Density Residential and the eastern portion Open Space in the BVCP. The Flatiron Companies, previous owners of the CU South Campus property, sold the entire property to the University of Colorado in 1996. Pr'ror to that purchase city staff and Flatiron staff held various conversations about the property over the years including the sand and gravel operations, reclamation plans, long term management and ownership of the ~and and current and future land use. On February 20, 2001 the City Council adopted Resolution No. 877 which states that "the Boulder City Council stands willing to purchase the Flatirons Property from a willing seller at a fair price, for open space or flood control purposes, in fee title or by means of a conservation easement; or to confemplate whatever agreement might lead to the maximum practicable preservation of the Flatirons Property as an environmental asset, consistent with the Boutder Valley Comprehensive Plan since 1977." On February 28, 2001 the Open Space Board of Trustees ("OSBT") unanimously adopted Resolution No. 877 and encouraged "continued cooperation between the city and CU to help CU to meet its future land use needs." The CU-Boulder Campus Master Plan, which was approved in 2009 and covers the timeframe of 1998 - 2008 states that "During the short-term, CU-Boulder expects to use fhe property for outdoor intercollegiate athletics facilities, recreation fields, pedestrian and bicycle trails, grazing, storage, and a cross-country running course. Outdoor research projects may also occur at CU-Boulder South, for.example those related to plant ecology and environmental biology. Recreation fields and courts (such as tennis courts) are needed for the student population, especially for college students in the 18-to-23 age group, and there are no alternative locations for the approximately 75-85 acres of athletics and recreation facilities needed. Due to new buifdfng projects on the Main Campus and Williams Village, some recreation facilities may be relocated to CU-Boulder South. This site appears to be ideal for this specific use. Minor spectator facilities may be included, but the major spectator facilities such as the stadium will remain on the Main Campus. Compatible scheduling of the facilities for community recreation wifl be considered." Also, under "Phasing", the plan states: "For this planning period, the only infrastructure improvements that are planned relate to flood protection, drainage improvements, wetlands management, and development of athletics and recreation facilities." Agenda Item # ( i~ Page #,~ z7 Address: 5278 TABLE MESA DR The city still hopes to achieve the preservation of a significant portion of the property as open space, however, at this time, the issue before the Planning Board is whether the current CU Tennis Courts Relocation Project application is consistent with the 1041 regulations of the Boulder County Land Use Code. Boulder Valley Comprehensive Pian (BVCP) and other Comprehensive or Master Plans The Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan land use map designates the western portion of the site a Medium Density Residential and the eastern portion of the sife as Open Space. An Open Space designation indicafes the desire to preserve property through a variety of techniques. Since a portion of the property is designated as Open Space, the application was referred to the Open Space Board of Trustees. The City Council and the Open Space Board of Trustees have both passed resolutions indicating the city's desire to purchase the property for Open Space or flood control purposes. Please see the Open Space Board's comments under the section on Open Space. The comprehensive plan provides for the county to determine whether or not a proposal in Area II constitutes "new urban development." The policy states: BVCP POLICY 1.22: DEFINITION OF NEW URBAN DEVELOPMENT. It is intended that'new urban development', including development within the city not occur until and unless adequate urban facilities and services are available to serve the development as set out in Section (II D) Urban Service Criteria and Standards. ' New urban developmenY is hereby defined to include: (a) All new residential, commercial and industrial development and redevelopment within the city; or (b) Any proposed development within Area II subject to a county discretionary review process before the Board of County Commissioners, provided the county determines that the proposed development is inconsistent with the land use projections, maps or policies of the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan in effect at that time. The comprehensive plan policies state that urban development should not occur until an adequate range of urban services are available to serve the development, and that the city is the appropriate service provider. The city concurs with the county staff determination that this proposal does not constitute new urban development. Recreational facilities and uses such as fields and tennis courts are permitted under county zoning and do not require a full range of urban services as defined in the comprehensive plan. Prior to the development of urban residential, industrial, or commercial uses on the property, including the development of university facilities at an urban scale such as a stadium, classrooms, laboratories or oYher uses that are urban in nature and require the full range of urban services, the property should be annexed to the city and adequate urban services and facilities extended to the property. Fire Protection Boulder Fire Department will not be the emergency response agency for this location Applicant should consult with Cherryvale Fire Protection District for comments on emergency response requirements. Adrian Hise, 303-441-3350 Cherryvale's Fire Marshal is Bob Dutton, 303-494-3735. Flood Control The CU-Boulder South tennis courts are proposed in a location outside of the adopted regulatory floodplain, as set forth under Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) 08013C0555 F, effective June 2, 1995 (Articie 4-402(B), Boulder County Land Use Code). They are also located outside the Boulder County "South Boulder Creek Flood Hazard Initial Controi Area" (Article 8-405(E)(2), Boulder County Land Use Code). Given these factors, floodplain restrictions as set forth under Boulder County 1041 regulations do not appear to be applicable in the approval or denial of the CU-Boulder South tennis court proposal. As outlined in the city's previous response to the Boulder County Land Use Referral (Docket SI-02-02), there remains a critical concern about potentially adverse impacts the tennis court development may create for ongoing South Boulder Creek floodplain management and mitigation planning activities. A great deal of time and effort has gone into a cooperative floodplain mitigation planning process belween the city, Boulder County, the University of Colorado (CU), and the Urban Drainage and Flood Control District (UDFCD). It is important that the proposed CU development activity does not interfere with or preclude opportunities to reduce area flood hazards from South Boulder Creek. The following discussion is intended to clarify and emphasize these floodplain concerns: Agenda Item # ~-t3 Page # ,V~ ~ Address: 5278 TABLE MESA DR CU has been intimately involved in a long-term collective effort with the County, UDFCD, and city to address South Boulder Creek floodplain problems identified by CU consultants in 1996. CU initiated "due diligence" studies prepared as part of the 1996 property acquisition confirmed inaccuracies in federally adopted regulatory floodplain mapping that failed to indicate that South Boulder Creek overflow flooding would spill across the CU-Boulder South property and into the incorporated west valley. The floodplain associated with this overflow has not yet been determined and delineated by detailed study, and the full impact of flooding on the CU-Boulder South property and west valley area downstream is not currently known. Adjacent to the property, US 36 (another state facility managed by the Colorado Department of Transportation) creates a significant barrier and diversion of South Boulder Creek flood waters. The raised highway serves to back up creek overflows and re-direct flooding northwest across the CU property and into the west valley. The existing bridge at the main creek is large and offers significant capacity to pass flood volumes. However, the fact that the creek invert at the bridge is approximately 10 feet higher in elevation than the highway overtlow elevation into the west valley (at the South Boulder Road interchange) reveals that flooding will overtop the highway (as it did in 1969). Floodplain mitigation planning discussions between CU, the County, UDFCD and the city have recognized the CU-Boulder South property as a key element in addressing South Boulder Creek flooding. A flood detention storage area on the property has been identified as a primary alternative in addressing area flood hazards and CU has expressed a strong commitment in allowing major floodplain improvements to be constructed on the property as part of future plans. CU has separately indicated a preference to place the tennis courts facility at a location and elevation to avoid flooding. A critical concern is that constructing the tennis court facility near existing grades may preclude opportunities to mitigate South Boulder Creek flooding using a flood detention storage facility at this site, or preclude or significantly impair future CU improvements in this area. Moving forward with permanent improvements without considering and addressing the floodplain impacts is ill-advised given the current public ownership of the yet "undeveloped" CU-Boulder South property. CU is an important partner with the County, UDFCD and city in the co-sponsored study of South Boulder Creek. CU staff has been directly involved in these study efforts to evaluate mitigation alternatives and this continued involvement and cooperation is critical to the success of a South Boulder Creek floodplain management and mitigation plan for the entire area. CU's attention to the floodplain issue is vital in ensuring that any site development will contribute to the overall mission of the university, State of Colorado, Boulder County and city of Boulder in sustaining the health, safety and welfar,e of their constituents. There is an ongoing effort to complete new South Boulder Creek flood hydrology and hydraulic analyses. These analyses will better define and delineate the impacts of flooding on the west valley and CU-Boulder South property. They will also assist in the development of floodplain mitigation alternatives for the entire area. With CU's commitment to offer major flood improvements and detention facilities on the CU-Boulder South property it would be appropriate to compiete as much analysis as is possible and necessary to ensure that the tennis court proposal will not preclude, interfere with or be adversely affected by such mitigation improvements. It is also important that the County update South Boulder Creek floodplain mapping is completed prior to future development activities. Open Space and Mountain Parks These comments are reiterated from the letter to the County dated April 11, 2002. The site is approximately 1/4 mile west of the City of Boulder Open Space and Mountain Parks (OSMP) boundary, which is also the boundary of a designated Colorado State Natural Area which includes regulated wetlands and endangered species habitat. The potential off-site impacts of tennis courts and related activities could be very disruptive to wildlife on the adjacent OSMP and is a serious concern. OSMP requests that such potential impacts be minimized, including the following: 1. While it is the city's understanding that no services (including electricity) will exist at this site for now, if any exterior lighting is proposed in the future, staff asks that it meet city standards, that it be designed to effect minimal illumination of adjacent undeveloped ground, and that it be turned off when tennis courts are not in use. 2. Request that noise be minimized and controlled, and if electricity is made available on site, that use of loudspeakers be avoided all together or at least minimized, especially at night. 3. Request that access and activity on site should be focused away from OSMP and that sight lines not encourage access to OSMP from this area. Public access to the OSMP system and the South Boulder Creek Trail is from Marshall Road to the south and west and from South Boulder Road to the north and east. Address:5278TABlEMESADR AgendaItem# ~~f;7' Page# -.x,s~ 4. Encourage the use of native plant materials and that no invasive or weedy species be introduced to the site. 5. Site drainage should be directed away from OSMP land and into a storm water system or other appropriate drainage system. NEIGHBORHOOD COMAAENTS As part of the city application process, public notice was mailed to over 1,000 property owners within a radius of 1,500 feet of the C.U. property similar to the county public notice. A letter dated 6121/02 notifying owners of the county referral was mailed on 6/22I02 and had a response date of July 5, 2002. Public notice is not standard for referrals since the County does pub~ic notice on applications submitted to the County. Seven written correspondences were received by the City. Comments consisted of concerns for open space, floodplains, traffic, additional urban development on the property (overall plans for the property), natural drainage and habitats, land use designations, shortness of public notification, questions over review of 1041 criter'ra, missing traffic study, compliance with the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan and the U.S. 36 IGA approval process. One letter did agree with the recreational use of athletic fields in case of flooding. However, due to traffic volume concerns U.S. 36ISouth Boulder Road andTable Mesa Drive, that any approval should be contingent on a plan to improve this intersection, including direct access to from the athletic fields from Foothills Parkway, not by way of the present interchange. IV. KEY ISSUES & ANALYSIS Refer to Review Checklist in Attachments. IV. NEXT STEPS A Planning Board public hearing has been scheduled for this item on July 18, 2002. The decision made by Planning Board will be subject to a City Council call up. Council will have by August 6, 2002 to call up the Planning Board action and request a public hearing. If Council requests the item to be called up, then the city must request the Board of County Commissioners for a short iime extension such that the County has requested a decision from the city by August 8, 2002. The Board of County Commissioners are currently scheduled to hear this item on August 15, 2002. If Council does not call up the matter, then the city will send the Planning Board recommendation to Boulder County by August 8, 2002. In the event of a Council hearing, this item is anticipated to be scheduled for the August 2Q, 2002 meeting. Agenda Item # l~/~' Page # .;,~~ Address: 5278 TABLE MESA pR C~ ~ ~~\ ATTACHMENT C = of Boulder Vicinitv M w ?W ~ . \~ ~~ t T Subject Area ~ I I 5278 Table Mesa Rd ;. ~ ~ ~_ I j ~ ~ ~-T-r-- I~ %, . . ~ Locatlott: 5278 Table Mesa Rd Profect Name: CU-Boufder South Tennis Court Replacement ProJect Revlew Type: Concept Pfan Revlew /~ ~~r a1 ~~ & Commenf / \ . ~ ~ 8oulcler Revlew Numder: LUR~002-00044 . .. N Tha Irvarmanon tleplctea m mis map Is pmvltled ~ A licant:Universlt dfC0/01'8dA p/7 y lincheqUals1,~00feet as gapNCal r0preserdatlon orVy. he City M Bwltler P~wiaeswwaRanry,expreasedorlmpled.a9ro meaauracyanaarcompteteressortne~normaurn Board ofRegents wrrtainednereon. Agenda Item # (,~1; Page # . ' l ~ii CITY OF BOULDER y,~/~~~1'/:~,~f Pfanning and Development Services "~' 1739 Broadway, Third Floor • P.O. Box 791, Boulder, CO 80306-0791 ~ phone 303-441-1880 • fax 303-4413241 • web boulderplandevelop,net 6/21/02 Greetings: We are writing to notify you that the City of Boulder Building Services Center has received the following development review county referral: LOCATION: University of Colorado, Bouider South, 5278 Table Mesa Drive (outside city limits) PROJECT NAME: BOULDER COUNTY 1041 STATE INTEREST REVIEW OF CU-BOULDER 50UTH TENNIS COURT REPLACEMENT PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Review and Comment of the Boulder County referral of the 1041 State Interest Review document. The CU project proposes the relocation of the University of Colorado's existing twelve-court Kittredge tennis complex to a new six-acre facility at CU-Boulder South located at 5278 Table Mesa Drive. As a part of the tennis court compiex project, there will be twelve fenced courts, a temporary parking lot thet will allow up to 125 cars, and viewing stands. Some grading will be required. No water or sewage treatment activities or improvements are proposed. REVIEW TYPE: County Refierral APPLICANT: Boulder Cou~ty - Land Use Department Why is this rev(ew required? Boulder County has received a"1041 State Interest Review" application from the University of Colorado on a development proposai for tenn+s courts out on the vacant CU South property. Boulder County and the City of Boulder have an intergovernmental agreement (IGA) for the U.S. Highway 36 Corridor that places this land in the area of influence of the City of Boulder. Under the provisions of the agreement, the County is required to seek City input with regard to any development review application for a property located in this area of influence. 1041 Review and the city's role in this 1041 process In 1974, the General Assembly enacted, through House Bill 1041 ("H.B. 1041"), a set of ineasures known as the Areas and P.ctivities of State intesest. The legislative purpose of H.B. 1041 was to clarify the relative authority of state and local governments in making planning decisions with respect to matters of statewide interest and to further the state's interest in regulating the quality of development. The law established a set of criteria to be used by local governments in identifying development projects that may impact the state beyond their immediate scope. Boulder County has adopted regulations detailing the criteria i# must use as it evaluates applications of this type. Those regulations can be found in Article 8 of the Boulder County Land Use Code. They are available at http: //www.co.boulder.co.us/lu/lucode/webcode/article8.htm Because the County must use the specifted criteria in making its decision, the Gity's input will be relevant only to the extent that it addresses those specific criteria. Agenda Item #_ l~_ Page #,~; J When will a response to the County be made? This county referral will undergo a one-time review from Planning and Development Services staff for comments and recommendations. City staff will complete its review on July 5, 2002. The current expectation is that this matter will be presented for consideration by the Planning Board at its at the Juiy 18, 2002 meeting. Thereafter, the City Council will have an opportunity to review the Planhing Board response, if it wishes to do so. The City expects fhat it wifl be able to complete its review and return this mafter to the Boulder County Commissioners for consideration at their August 15, 2002 public meeting. If City review requires additional time within which to frame its response, the City will request e short extension of time from.the Counry for that purpose. Public comments will be included in the Cify's response if those comments are received before July 5, Z002. How can I find out more? For more informatton or to comment on the application, contact the projecYs staff case manager, Nan Johnson: By Phone: 303-441-4190 By Mail: P.O. Box 791,.Boulder, CO 80306 By FAX: 303-441-3241 - By e-mail: SSCComment@ci.boulder.co.us The file can be reviewed at the City's Planning and Development Services Center, 1739 Broadway, 3rd floor, during regular office hours (8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. weekdays, except Tuesdays 1Q:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.). Agenda, Item # /f.~ page # . ~,,? A!'TACHI-~~~T D ;i' f: 4; r'~.` ~'t! i: ~) ~ TO: CityofBouldarP]a~in g Board aud City Council ~R011g: Ruth $laclrmora er , 70S S 41 Street, Boulder, CO 80305, 3~"3-494-3009 ~AT~: July l2, 2002 ~~ Review process for fhe County Refena] o~ of CiI_go~jder South Teruzts Co ~~ 1041 State Interest geyiew urt Repiacame~t Project Since I wi11 be oUt ofto issue to you noW, ~~'om Ju] 1 ~_ ask that o As sorneone wh ~as goliowed tbis issue 2n1 en also request that ~ uall lnf° g mY co~~n~ on this Y cail for alittt~e Se~t to you on this issue as thorY uf hl ~'er six the 1041 re p cific studies that were years, I submitted b utrements and ex g Y as Possib]e, I Y the hired consult~lnB the °Iethodolo perFormed for CU consultants H,ithout askin ~~' I ask that ~ US~ tO ~'ive at t$e conclusio~s~ ~£ conclus[ons g some qu~stions ab ut the t accept alt the conclusions b stud Wer~ based. When a citizen asked ~e c panicular studies on Y thc never'sWhich CU h~ pr~p~.ed ~.or the review pY af the hich those a W a stud ~tY fOr a co r~vi~w~ Y> theYJUStaccepted a]I the aPplicaCion, the co ~~sportation also ~ pp~ication. I find this unacce answers, which ~er~ tY a~itted that they an'ies a lot ofpo~jtical char e, ptable wken reviewin p given Co theui in the ~ °O~ty staff are f~irl g I~'~ttt to lmop, t]~at m g a ro'ect of th~s size, which befora makin Y and accurately reviewin Y elected officials criteria me g a decision. If reviewin g a!I supporting ~ocuments on this isst eand ans that the procass wi]1 t~ all the respective sfpdies related to t extension in order to have the ~~ t0n ~r th he ] 04I Proper time to reyie~, the d cum nts.W~ need to ask far an Although you have to follow the IG to say that it is premature to let CU `~ and 1041 criteria for this review Aoint of the ~1ood piain stud develop on thls pl~ce of land Process I n~u' hydrolo Y which wi11 be which is sTai1 tha ett e h ~Y, then a mitigation s COmpleted in late 2003. the mast {~oad prone section of the CUm needs to be Qn~~ we know the Masa and Hi h property is ~h~ f~,ln place. It is well kno~ to kee g~'ay 36, Some typ~ ofretention nO~h~rn co fhat p all the flo~,s from pond needs to be on the CUear Table 1,500 to 2,p00 homas. ' going downstream into the nei dou~nstream From a health and safet gh~rhoods and im pr~pertY~~st befora N,e °fthis prop~~Y it is irras o Y~§sue for all residents upstream~ana rom ~now exactly the arpount of the floiw,s and h~ obe and downstream residents, B developing on this eliminatin Y buildin ptima] mirigation for u r~~ertY $ what mighf be the optimal piace fo he retention o pS~'~am , CU is obstruoting ~~or Please give consideration to the followin p nds. g suggestions; IGA _ ~ ' the location of these teruiis co ~S ~n relation to a state arter~al higbway ~lgenda Itetr~ # ~. -~ ~~, -i Page # .:,~ .f ---._. interchange and the future development of US 36 as well as futwe CU • development - what are the traffic standazds for development in azeas around interchanges involving state arterial highways - what are the cumulative traffic impacts from development not only from CU's use of the tennis courts but all other groups such as Boulder Valley School District who testified that they needed these courts? What about the impacts from the track which is slated for development soon? what are the cumulative traffic impacts from the entire CU Master Plan for tliis South Campus and not just this first phase development piece? We do know that the buildings are slated for after 2008. We just can't let this development be pieced meal to us and then wake up to the impacts of all the,pieces. , Land Use Code 8-304 A-1 - In factors to be considered at Designation Hearings of our land use code, 8-304 A-1 it says to look at "the intensity of current and foreseeable developmental pressures" and 8- 304 A-4 says "the advantage of development of such area in a coordinated manner." • However, the permit is less rigorous. Why would a permit be less rigorous than a designation? It seems obvious that if the designation language considers foreseeable development, so must the permit process itself. New urban development - At what point in this piece meal development by C U is all this development considered new urban development? The tennis courts are the beginning of one of the largest development projects on a piece of land to come before this community. 1041 - Article 8-511 - Some related issues of concern. CU says they meet all the requirements, but has any one examined the studies? Do we need some independent reviews on the environxnental? impacts conducted? Love & Associates has been a hired, paid consultant for CU since at least 1996 and maybe even since 1995. CU's contract with Love & Associates was for them to maacimize the land for develop- ment as was discovered in the open records search the citizens did in 1996. If you want to worry about the politics of this issue, then look into some of the politics behind CU. - Section B, 3- Adequate water supplies. Water may not be needed for the tennis • Agenda Item # ~;>./s Page # , "„'! /'~ courts, but when will they need water and showers for holding the type of events • they talk about? - Section B, 5, - what are the impacts to the open space and the areas that need to be preserved for the flood detention ponds? - Section B, 5, a- Air quality. What are the impacts of gravel parking lots? - Section B, 5, c- Surface water quality. The de-watering system which CU put in over a year ago have changed the water patterns on this property. What does it say when CU has to constantly de-water their land in order to be able to build on it? Section B, 5, d- Groundwater quality. Has anyone checked to see if the wells are down in the area. During the mining operation, the mobile home park on Marshall Road was experiencing drops in their wells and had hired a lawyer to try to stop the second phase of mining. I want an independent review of all wells in the area. Section B, 5, e- Wetlands and riparian areas. Whaf impact has the de-watering had on all the wetlands and riparian areas as well as Tantra Lake, which was impacted when CU started de-watering? If the land wasn't being de-watered, would the section for the tennis courts still be dry? The tennis courts will have an impact on the function of the floodplains as listed in number "vi" of this section. • - Section B, 5, f- Terrestrial and aquatic animal life. Again, the de-watering and pulling the plug on the beaver dams have already impacted the aquatic life. But this work was done in order to prepare this land for maximum development. Do we really know of the future impacts? Maybe the 1041 rules should have been applied to this land prior to CU being able to destroy wetlands, and tenestrial and aquatic life in order to prepare the stage for tennis courts, etc. Section, B, 5, g- Terrestrial and aquatic plant life. Just like the question I had above. Who is really looking into a11 this specifics of these sections? - Section, B, 5, h- Soils and geologic conditions. I especially believe the tennis courts will cause changes to the natural drainage patterns to this land. This is why it is important to wait until the flood plain study is completed. What independent review do we have o€the soils and geologic conditions of this land? - Section B, 8- Will not cause nuisance factors such as excessive noise, etc. The limits are SOdcb but CU wants to go to 55 dcb. ? How much will the actual noise ~acreaseby i-ncreasing the decibel level by 5? I understand that this could mean that the noise level will actually increase by 2'h to 3 times. How is the loud speaker system going to fit within these limits? Who will enforce noise levels? What are the state levels for neighborhoods? Is it 55 dcb? Check this out. • - Section B, 9- The proposal will not be subject to significant risk from floods, etc. Agenda Item # /.:J`~' Page # .; j<;" First of all, this is the purpose of the new flood plain study. Second, if the berm • fails, which is possible as mentioned in the Taggart report due to the amount of flows from Highway 93 hitting the toe of the berm, then these tennis courts are directly in the flows of the flood. Most important, the flood plain maps are in question. That is why we are doing a new floodplain study. We need to get this information con~ect, once and for all. - Section B, 11 - The proposal will not have a significant adverse effect on the capability of local government to provide services or exceed the capacity of service delivery systems. At what point in the CU Master plan for development of this land will this become an issue? - Section B, 14 - How does the BVCP and applicable intergovernmental agreements relate to development on this land? - Section J- Additional standards for development in areas around interchanges involving state arterial highways. Please review carefully numbers 1-5. There are definitely going to be impacts on the health and safety of property owners upstream and downstream regarding flood issues in this area as Highway 36 is also a problem with the flood plain as it serves as a berm to push waters into the corner of US 36 and Table Mesa. What are the future impacts of widening Highway 36, the traFfic from CU's use of the courts and the other groups which testified, such as Boulder Valley School District, that they too • would use the courts? What will the impacts be from the track use which has already been approve to be moved to the CU South property? What impact will the development have on the scenic significance of this land as the gateway to Boulder? Floodplain Study - - we need to complete the new study prior to any development at the CU South Campus. Putting in tennis courts now could interfere with where the flood storage detention area may have to go. - we don't know the terms of the flows and the optimal mitigation for upstream and downstream residents - the CU land holds the key to the health and safety of residents upstream and downstream of this property. This land could be used to solve the flooding issues in our community and therefore, no development should take place until the new hydrology report is completed and we haue selected a mitigation system. ~ Agenda Item # ~/~ Page # ,;~~It~- L~My~ ~uw. ~.v~•~. M ~~'~'7~"~ ~d ~ • 7~ly 9, 2002 I Memo: Boulder City Council, City of Boulder Planning Board and staff From: Atison Burchell, Jane Crreenfietd, Pedro Restrepo, Criibert White RE: Proposed CU developmerrt of Flatiron property, phase i . Note: The following is a summary of IRP, HAP and CAG concerns. Comments ~• pertain to the 1041 8-511 "S#andards far Approval" sections: A, B, 7 and K, i However, time did not permit itemixation of comments and concerns into the 1041 outline. Figure 1 is an aerial photo of the SBC floodplafn. The appendfx contains additional comments submitted to the County commfssioners and highlights additional 1041 concerns. i G~nsral Comm~nts: The attached aerial photo shows the appraxfmate location of the proposed CU - Phase 1- development with in the greater South 6oulder Creek floodplain. This photo does not contain the various hypothesized lines where previous studies have sketched 50 - 100 -500 or 1000- yr flood boundaries. Thls aerial photogreph depicts the locatlon of the proposed development in the middle of the massive, braided streams and flood depocits that comprise the yreater South Boutder • Creek Floodplain. Furthermore, as a result of sand ~nd gravel mining, the Flatlron site is approximately 15-20 feet lower In elevatlon than i) at the time the aeriat photograph was taken, and ii) the current elevation af the adjacent South Boulder Creek. 7.5% af 8oulders floodplain lands remain nndevetoped. Thus, iess than 1Q% of our floodplain lands remain to absorb the Impacts oP development in riparlan corridors and of reinfall-runoff and flooding hazards. Much of the Flatiron. property lies either wlthin the South Boulder Creek (SBC} floodpialn or on the unstabie, western margin watershed slopes that have extenslve establisfied wetfands. Although the CU/Flatiron Property is located mostly on county land, the impact of development on th~ property direciiy {mpacts the City of Boulder and clty residents, For these reasons, the City of Boulder convened a formal Hydrology Advisory Panel (HAP) to review the SBC issue and to outline a detailed scope of work essentlal to developing and completing an updated hydrology, hydraulics and hazards assessment. The HAP fs mada up of experts from: FEMA, USGS, CWCB, UDFC, CU, and the local community. The HAP expects to complete its scape of work in the next few weeks. Following the recommendations of the NAP, a full hydrologic hazards and community impad anafysis of the South Boulder Creekiwatershed and floodplain will • be commissioned in accordance with a 7$nuary 29, 2001 City Council recommendation. ~ Agendl Item # l~ r~~ Page #,_~~' tl Commenls and Concerns: It is difficult to see how the County, City and University can take a firm • position on any development until the volume and frequency of South Boulder Creek flooding is firmly established for the following reasons: A Comments on Review Criterion Article 8-511, B., 14: 7he proposal is not in accordance with a number of goais and objectives in the BVCP, i.e. the "applicable intergovernmental agreement affecting land use and development", namely: i. General Policies - This proposal is not consistent with the most basic goat of the BVCP, which is to keep urban land uses within the City's limits where services and facilities are available. Twelve tennis courts, bleachers;'125 car parking ~ot, porta-potties, tennis ball machines and the attendant tennis players, spectators, people, traffic and noise is a sports facility typically found within developed City parks or, if private, within a city's boundaries so that urban amenities, {ike water, sewer, transit, police, fire and emergency medical services are availabie. If Rally Sport or anoCher private for-profit sports facility was proposed out in the unincorporated County, this would be considered an urban use, by virtue of the vehicle trips alone. Not to mention that the health department felt that if this facility is to be permanent then it should have permanent toilets (and be on City water and sewer). 2. Community Design • Policy 2.04 COMPACT LAND USE PATTERN. In this policy the city and county agree to take advantage of services provided by existing urban areas so as to avoid patterns of Ieapfrog, noncontiguous, scattered development. The University has many appropriate locations for these tennis courts within the city [the main campus, the research park, various student housing sites, Williams Viilage, vacant lots at Grandview] adjacent to services and public transit as weli as conveniently Iocated nearby the users' residences. This expansion outside the City is no less urban sprawi than any other user intensive development. The 125 cars , parking lot is an indication of the expected use and traffic. Policy 2.06 DESIGN OF COMMUNITY EDGES. This proposal will not create a well defined edge to the community as outlined in this policy. This is particularly true in light of the fact that this is merely the first phase of the development of the CU sports complex (Note that the Boulder Campus Planning Commission approved on ]anuaryl0, 2002 relocating the track at Potts Field to CU-Boulder South site). Policy 2.07 DESIGN OF MAJOR ENTRYWAYS. This policy provides that major entryways into the Boulder Valley be protected and enhanced to emphasize and preserve the natural setting. US 36 is the major entryway, and the comments on policy 2.06 apply here also. 3. Neighborhoods Policies 2.16, 2.17 and 2.18 PROTECTION OF RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS ADJACENT TO NON-RESIDENTIAL ZONES, MIXTURE OF ~ COMPLEMENTARY LAND USES, and COMPATIBILITY OF ADJACENT LAND USES. Agenda Item # ~ / S Page # ~ ";' " In aIi three policies the city and county have recognized the need to ensure the livability of residential neighborhoods and the need to avoid adjacent • incompatible development proposals. If the letters provided in the County's referral on this project are any indication of neighborhood compatibility it seems that there are a number of issues related to noise, trash, traffic, public nuisance items, etc, that should be addressed and resolved before any approval could proceed. 4. Ur6an Services PoliCy 3.01 PROVISION OF URBAN SERVICES IN THE BOULDER VALLEY. Violation of this policy has been discussed above in 1. GENERAL. 5. Environment POIiCIes 4.01, 4.06~ 4.07~ 4.08~ 4.09~ 4.11~ 4.16~ 4.18~ 4.29~ arld 4,31 all raise consistency issues when evaluating the effects of this project on the environment. The project as proposed does not adequately address any of these policies and instead simply states that there will be no or minimal impact, without providing professional and technical documentation to support those contentions. For example, Policy 4.18 Wildfire Protection and Management. "The city and county will require on-site and ofF-site measures to guard against the danger of fire. .. adjacent to forests or grasslands." This land being outside the City is not subject to the city's smoking ordinances. How is CU going to protect the adjacent OS and adjacent neighbors against the caretess use of cigarettes by users or spectators? • B Speclflc Concerns: 1) All ,previous flooclplain stnadies are flawed and the current hydrology is certainly problematic. 2} CU argues that the 2000 Taggart study is conservative; in truth, we do not know this to be certain. 3) Devetopment at this time may complicate flood mitigation efforts and could jeopardize the only location where a comprehensive and meaningful flood controi solution may be placed. 4) Development at this time will complicate and couid jeopardize future federal hydrology assistance. 5) The impacts of future development to neighboring communities have not been adequately addressed. 6) FEMA announced that the floodplain map for SBC is inaccurate and that funds are available to re-map the floodplain in 2003 - with new, better informdti0n dnd daCd. FEMA has available appro~omately US$ 350 million to be used for updating flood studies in the US. Boulder is eligible to apply for up to 70% [FEMAj, 30% City floodplain re-mapping funds. 7) The methodologies developed from the findings of the SBC project and study wi~i greatly facilitate the 2003 re-mapping program and NFIP recommendations. 8) Athletic facilities are a permitted - not a recommended use of floodplain lands. The recommended use is to preserve "flood-plain" . potential 9) This property has been designated an area of state interest a~d therefore, falls under the guidelines of Land Use Code sections 8-304- Agenda Item # t-- / Page # _;~_ A-1 through 4 which mandate consideration of; "the intensity of current and foreseeable developmental pressures and the advantages of regulating development of such an area in a coordinated manner." The County Land • use Department and the Planning Commissioners have not adequately addressed this requirement or near future proposed development -for example, the specific athletic facilities to be developed within "two to three years" as passed by CCHE and described by CU athletic director, Dick Tharp. 10)The National Research Council and the Steering Committee for the National Flood Insurance Program Evaluation have convened to consider a recommendation to increase the national flood standard from a 100- year return period to a 500-year return period. This would require a very large number of existing floodplains in the U5, including South Boulder Creek, to be re-evaluated. li) A formal, completed professional transportation impact study and plan has not been received from either CU or the County. This facility won't be served by mass transit like the present site is. Because of the length of Zf.ie dirt service road and the distance from the main campus, it is likely that many users wiil only drive here. 12) If porta-potties are used in such a"remote" area, wiil all individuals maximize use of these facilities, especialiy if they aren't very frequently maintained? What kind of health and sanitation risk is this? It seems the County Health Environmentaiist Specialist this issue was referred to, thought that a permanent sports facility needed permanent restrooms. 13)The deadly and costly 1997, Fort Collins Spring Creek flood should never be far from the memory of any City or County decision maker. The Spring Creek Fiood claimed five lives and caused miliions of doilars in damage; much of the damage was on Colorado State University property. During this flood, a railroad bed, very similar in construction to the earthen ~ berm on the CU south property failed, sending flood waters into neighborhoods behind the railroad bed washing away homes. There is a natural risk involved if development is permitted. There is also much to gain in preserving the CU south property for flood detention, ground water recharge and as a rapidly recovering wetlands ecosystem that has harbored endangered plant and animal species in the past and continues to habitat these species just a few hundred feet to the south, west and east. Recommenda4ions: For these reasons we recommend that the City and County adopt the following measures: 1) Require that all data, information and analyses used to support the development report and permit application be submitted for independent review by the City, CAG, IRP and independent hydrologists and wetlands experts. Without this information, it is difFicult to fully respond to the applicants repeated claims that the various 3041 concerns are "not appiicable." Particulariy disturbing are the ctaims that ground water and transportation concerns are "not appiicable," that the application need only comply with S00-yr flood return standards, and that the 100-yr flood boundary cuts down-hill and across topographic contours. • ~ Agenda Item # -~'~ page # ~ ~ ~ • • • 2) Elevate review of the CU permit application to full DRC status. A great deal of time, expense and efFort on the part of both staff and citizens has gone into this issue. The Boulder community has clearly indicated that this is a critical issue of major concern. It should not be processed, as was the case with the April 11`h review, as one of many applications undeserving of full consideration. Furthermore, the entire Boulder community should have the opportunity to formally comment on this application - not just the neighbors adjacent to the CU/Flatiron property. 3) Either: a) Table final consideration of CU Docket SI~02-02 until atter the South Boulder Creek watershed and floodplain study is completed.... Or at least not until all parties have an opportunity to review the recommendations of the HAP, or b) Issue only a temporary permit that would be returned to the City and the County for fuil review and consideration - following the independent hydrology and hydraulics study. If the City decides to forward an approval recommendation to the County, it should ask that any County approval be temporary, conditionaf, or time-limited, so as to allow the possibility that the approval will expire upon any one of a number of conditions, such as, if the floodplain study for So. Bouider Creek (when completed) reveals that the hazard to this site and its occupants or to downstream occupants is much greater than the City or the County now knows. 4) Require that all development in the remaining undeveloped SBC floodplain (including the Flatirons Property) be undertaken in support of construction of fiood hazard reduction measures, aimed at: a) reducing of the flood hazard risk to Keewayden Meadows, Tantra, Marshall and other neighborhoods in 5outh and South East Boulder, to a level consistent with stream flows of a SBC 500-yr flood-event b) maximizing both the flood storage and ground water recharge potential of the South Boulder Creek floodpiain. 5) Require a full, formal transportation master plan to deal with traffic impacts in the Table Mesa Corridor that include any projected or likely development in addition to that of the tennis courts or other proposed Flatiron activity. 6) Deny CU's request for an increase in aliowed noise tevels from 50 to 55 decibels. 7) And, in the event that future proper studies reveal that removing 30S acres from the SBC floodplain for ath(eYfc fields is acceptable - Then: the following conditions should be mandated: i) Place a curfew on the use of all facilities from'/z hr after sunset to sunrise and for any purpose other than the specified athletic activity, ii) Because the long term effects of contamination of SBC sub- surface waters by Rock Flats, Marshall mining, etc. are still in Agenda Item # ~~: Page # ~/% question and because the Flatiron property is a mined-out gravel pit, with a base elevation nearly at the surface of the water table - all run-off from any parking lots, potable toilets, • athletic surfaces, etc. should be coliected and either: evaporated, transported to a treatment facility or treated on site, iii) No more than 2% impervious surfaces be permitted and PM10 levels from gravel surfaces be strictly monitored in accordance with Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Office of Air Quality Strategy and Standards for protecting public health in areas where the PM-10 (particulate matter having a nominal aerodymanic diameter less than or equal to 10 microns) national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). iv) Explicit!y clarify that approval is strictly limited to the tennis court permit application. Variances or extensions to this permit will not be approved. v) Mitigation of possible future transportation impacts wiil satisfy C1ty requirements and will be funded at the university's expense. vi) Flood storage on the CU property meet and be situated in accordance with independent hydrology study recommendations. vii) Urge the university to contribute to community flood hazard educatlon and the cost of down stream early warning devices. viii) Urge the university to contribute to a fund to offset impacts to adjacent and downstream neighborhoods in the event of a berm breach. ix) Mandate only native, drought-tolerant vegetation be used in s any landscaping. x) Clarify that emergency medical services, typicaliy provided by our fire department, wiil be provided by CU Thank you. • Agenda Item # (°,f> Page # l ~ Historic South B~~dU D velopmenpl(fir t phase) • With Location of Propose J, ; ~ ~ '~.x '~ ~ ~ iI 1 ~ a~ ~':~ ~Y~ ` ` ~ t .~ x~. ,l P: ~ ~ .~~. ~ ~ ~ ~ r '~ ~; ~ ~~'. f fi . ' A' .: a;' E 7 "' ' : F '~°a~ .. ' .. i' ~. , s F- ~Ni ' ~ i:~v.~ A ~ ~~ . ~ ti.'~. . a ... f . ~~vr. . . . . . _ & fluvial depos~ts ..~ - . . . .~.'F ~ ~ ~r ",~l^~ ~ A~ dl 1 '1 i' : ~ :., ~p'~~;'! ppproximate 10~1 o~ ~troposed dev,el, • (approx. elev.l5 than~~~ of 56~ • ~ " • ~ 'Siy •"f.~ `~'af~j ~ ~~~ ~}~ ~ r~'~ i - a ~ r Y ~ ' ~F,. a.~e ! i Y J' ~ ~ ~~j F y 1 +~ r trar. - y ~" m . ,r e~Yy ^~ f ~'~ I -~ . n ~ ~ ,~a'~ ~~r- ~ ! ' '' ~4` ~ ~ : . ri .4._., r ~... ~ .~ ~Y .: ' ' ~ sw ~ * S~ i~fd ~ . + F x~ ~ ° X~~ ~~ . . ~ a a . a ~~v „ ~ ~,n ~~'~ ' :~l ri' ., u~ ~ ~ - _r _ - ' ~" ' ~,->~,~~ ~, i; :e- . :, ,~4.. , ~ , ay' . ~~' ~u : - : 1 i. t ;y - Fl ; oodplain ~ , ` Margins i !r` '~t'~ . , ~.y l N .: ~ 'f~ ~ . `~,J, ! .. ~ ; _ i~ ~ ~)' i~ , n. " ~ ~ , - _ . ~~: " ~ ; _ _ . ' x~}i t , . . . k Y [' pG~•[' ~/ Q U.J ~OI `.JL Jel Y ~~c. }~Iy 1937 Aerial Photograph Agenda Item # %~_____!~ _ page #~_ BOULDERCOUNTYLAND US°_DEPARTMENT 1 2045 131n Streei I 17th 8 S~nue Slreets r Gourtnouse Anne: ~ ^ i P.030 A4L7530/ Fax 307144 y495fi O6 ~--~~ ,APPLICATfON FORM FFPLICATION DEADUNE ScCONO WEDN°_SDAY OF TH: MONTH • 4:30 poes not apDly tc csemphon Plats, SM1e Plan Renews, licnitetl Impact Spenal Revrews, or Subdwision Ezemooons 0 90AVARWNC'rIAPPcAL O ~ic.20NING -~ 0 SKETGH PLAN 0 EXTENSICN OFAPoROVAI ~ 0 6YEMPTION PL4i O ROAO NAMe CHANG"e 0?REIIMINARY PLAN O OTHER: ' 0 UMI i ED IM?ACT j7ECiqL USE 0 S1Te 71.,4N RcV1eW 0 fINAL PUT 0 LOCA'ION 8 cXTNT O SPECIAL US'e/55DP 0 ROA~/EASEMENT VACATION ~ 0 RSSUBDIVISION (R?PLnTj C SUBOIVISION EXeMPT10N *' IOa1 ~ STFi e INT'eREST REVIEW LOCATIOM~ u~ - STRE_R ~ORESS(E5~ Cti-Boulder South 5?78 Table Mesa D:ive, Boulder Colorado sueorv~s~on ~nMe ~ None NJA ~'UA ~ 9 and 16 ~ One SouCh of Meridiar. uRa in qt,rteo ~ tXISTiNG US'c OF PROPERT`: HUMBER OF PROPCSeD LOiS '~~fi `cD and A vacant N/A None ~ Portable Tcilets AP?4CTNTiPRtlPERTY 0'~TrcP, llniversity oi Colorado -oard of Regents, A Body Corpor STRE=T hGOFE55 te Camous Bos 4~3 C;fy ISiAT: IZIPCO~E PMONENUMBEft Fht.vuM6ER `'soulder (C~~ ~ SQ304-Q45y ~(3Q3~)492- 1525 (303) ~492-7186 ~nLICANTiPROPERtt O~EP I STREET.aCOP.EiS G;Ty ~ I aThi2 21PCOGE PHGNpNUMOER F.IRNVM9=R ~ ~ I ~ ~ I aaPUC~NTIPROP_Rtt 0`/.NER I STRE' ADDRESS 1~iTY ISiATc I 21PCO~E ' {(MONENUMBEa I I / FAaNUjBER 1 I AGcNtIC'~NSUI:TANT I STftE't i AOORE55 'J2*ItOV S'. ~.1DCOi1~ ~~.XOC. y1L0CLOL, eacilities MQ]IlRL. I~+dIIlDLS [iOX 4~3 CITY STAfE I RnnldPr I CO 21P G002 I 80309-0453 PHOHE NUMB'c3 I(303)492-1~25 ` fAX NUMBER (303)492-7186 AGENTICONSULTAHT ~ ISTkc_T A~OR:SS ' Nancy Love, Consultzn[ 1 841 Frant Street CT' ISiATE Louisville ` CO LPCOOE ~ ~80~27 IPMONENUMBER l~3031 6i3-9795 FAXNVM9EA - (303)673-9746 4 cer1~N Nat lhe mbrmatior, ana ez~ioits i havs submnteC a~e tme ana correct to trte best ot my kncwroage. In C~I+ng tpe aopbcauon I am atung w0n me knowletlge ~nE cpnsenl d tnose pe~zons •xno arc cwners o! Ne subjeq prooeM or are 7arties to I~is ap01ica6on I unoe~slantl Iliat all maienals reqmrea Dy 8oultler Couniy musl Oe su0miqeC prw~ lo ~aviog this m0ttet orocesse0. I unaer5tantl I~al pu~hc peanngs or meeVngs may Ce requireE i unaerstana tnat aotlinonal iees or Rlalenal5 may C! rlqulreC as a lesul~ al COnmtlet8irons NTItlt may an5e m Ihe p~oCCSSing of N15 tlockel. I untler5lantl V1al Vte roaq sUt001 antl patk Oetlicanons may be reQarcE as a mntl~aon ol appmvat, I understanC t~at I am consenGng to allow ttro CDUny Slart mvolvetl in mis ao0~~~uon or ~nev oesianees ro emer onto anE inspec; l~e suh~e_ proDerry at any _ A //reasonaDle Itme, wiNout ootami~ any pnor tonsent , TuA£ I f //J~ (/ J~^7'~-F~ .-~ 1DATE { 7 I~f' • PLEASE REFER i0 THE REGUL4TION5 AND APPL~CA7ION SUBMfTTAL PACYCAGc POR COMPL~ i e APPLICATION REOUIREMENTS • . a~ease see eacK ~genda Item #~: /~' Page Date: 25 March 2002 ~: Baulder County Land Use Department Subject: Docket SI-02-OZ . I am not opposed to the University moving tennis wurts and needad parking to the South Campus. In fact, I think that athletic fields and parking, with a free shuttle service to/from the campus is ihe best use of tbis area since such areas could be flooded in a 100 year flood, mducing the danger to homes north of South Bouldet Road. What T am concerned about is that the 350 vehicle trips per day will be only the first steg. Next we will sea a request to move Potts Field with another increase in ~e. The haffic at the US 36/Foothills Parkway/3outh Boulder Road/'I'able Mesa intersection is already a disaster-Adding more u~affic to this intersection will only make conditions worse. I believe thaz a major redesiga of this intersecrion is needed before CU moves any faciliries to the South Campus. T'he redesign should atlow direct access to the South Campus area from US 36 and Foothills Pazkway and a closing off accass to the 5outh Camplu from Table Mesa Drive, ~` . , /l~ C, ~ ~~~ ~~ 7~'~`_._- ~ / Joseph V. DeSousa 5285 Illini Way Boulder CO 80303-4297 303.494.76I2 • Agenda Item #_ l,,f~' Page # ~/~ WILLIAM ZMISTOWSKI ASSOCIATES, LLC dAfH~TERCkE • PLAX~'fuG • I~TERIOR ~ESIG] CLC05 • RESORTS • HOTElS • RESORT COMSIC\ITIES lv» BROADR'>q. SC1TE tn0 ~ nr~r?ireri uddrcs.v I'6:0] BOCL~ER. COLORADO x0:(I}p_IJ iOiNUJx)1711?~uV.l?~SFdS ' Em~il µZADESIG\~3 u'ZADESIC\'.COM April 10, 200? Boulder County Land Use DeQattment P.O. Box 471 Boulder CO 80306 Rz: Docket SI-02-02 Universirv of Colorado - Boulder SI-1041 Dear Plannine Commission Members. and Counw Commissioners: This is a major mn:em. It shculd n::t be permirrd. ~';iey are th: powers tryin~ to ruin our quiet !ife that my wife and I, for example, have enjoyed here in Table Mesa for Z_ years. Now you want to chanse thac and: a) Impose the University's traffic, noise, and oeneral hustle and bustle on us. b) Begin the process ot expanding Cll across Highway 36. And then, on top of that, build a big buildine at Baseline which will cloober that intersection. Please send the law school to Denver. It belones in a bi~ city, not a small cown. Please vote against this request. Sincerely, , - / Bill and Lyn~ ski 3990 Greenbnar Blvd Boulder, CO ~ • . ~0 - Agenda Item # z4~,~~ page # ~~/~; _. ....~..._ ..:.___ _ . .. iv: :. .. _ , . G~~~~~~ ~ ~+- ~ ~ • y~°~' ~`~ ~- ~~~ ~~~^~ ~ ~L ~ ~ ~ L;~.¢~.~,, ,~c~~~~~, ~ ~.~ c~c r~~ ~~ ~ . ~ 7 r~~ ~~~ ~a ~c~, -l~ o c.~l-(~ w ~'~~5 l ~ ~ , ; i . ~. . ' ~ ~~ .. .. _ :.~, : _~ ; ~ ~ m ~ :~ -~ , Laurerl l~~ ~U , ~ ~ ~ ~ , ~/~ I/ - ~,,~., ~1'~x~ `L ~ , l.~ C'°-~..2 ~"'`' , - ~' ~p o ~~'titi ~--t r-~n, ~ y C~'~'` `~ti ~ C u s ~ ~ ~~.,-t., ~ ~~~ ~ ~'~-~. , ~ ~~." S-~T-`~'~ ~ `~~ r v~ ~~~c ~~ ~.t S 3 ~ ~ ~~:~f-~-~'.~ ~~~-~-~--~ ~ ~~.~~ ~ ~ ~ / ~ ~ -r~ l s R ~~ ~ - ~ ~ - ~ l ~ : ~-~-~P S'~~ ~s ~-~-- ,~-~-r- A,~~,~, ,~.~ti~- ~~~.-~~ ~~ . _'=~,~ ~~ ~--~:~ ~ ~ ~~ ~l ~- ~~ . c~ U cr-,~-- ~ c~,- " ~ ~ ~ . . ~ C~ ~.- , ~~ c~--~..~. ~ ' c~ ~~ -`~~~~ . -.~.---- ,. `' _ . . .. '_ ~ ~..e..e~ ~ . ~.: ~_ ~.-.. ;, . . .. ~ .;,y ~:Y.. : .: ~. . ~ .. ..~:;;:.. ~ -~ ~ .:.~~~ Agenda Item # ~~,%~ Page # ~~,%f ~ • • 6- T0: Boulder Couaty Land Use Deparanent Boulder Couaty Plannin~ Commission Boulder County Commissioners FROM: Ruth Blackmore, 70~ S 41~` Street, Bouider, CO 80305 ~~ aEy'T O L 2Q0'u.~FF~Cf ~ ~~~~ ~C-~. ~,~+._'"- /~,,~~, ~c RE: Docket SI-02-02: liniversity of Colorado - Boulder SI - 1041 ,,,,~"`' ~ ~,~ , '~,t DATE: Apri14, 2002 ' In the short period of time I had to respond to this development anplication, I have a few comments now but will cert3inly have much more to say at the public hearing. I object to any approval for development on the South Boulder Campus at this rime. As you may wetl be aware, the South Boulder Creek (SBC) floodplain srudy is still undenvay and there should not be any developmeat in this floodplain until the issIIes surroundin~ this floodplain have been resolved. The Tag;art Study was not accepted by the Ciry and the Counry and a new hydrology study was commissioned. The City of Boulder convened a formal Hydrology Advisory Pane1 (HAP) to review the SBC issue and ta outline a detailed scope of work essential to develop and complete an updated hydrology, hydraulics and hazazds assessment. The HAP is rnade up of esperts from: FEytA, USGS, CWCB, U-DFC, CU, and the local commuuty. The H.4P expects to complete its scope of work in N1ay 2002. Following the recommendations of the HA.P, a fall and independeni-hydrologic, hydraulic, hazards and communiiy impact analysis of the South Boulder Creek watershed and floodplain will be commissioned. All applicarions for development in the SBC floodplain should be denied until after a full, independent-hydrologic, bydraulic, hazards and communiry im.pact analysis of the SBC wate:shed and floodplain has been completed. Further more, the berm has not been fully ce: rified. FEMA will likely re-tt;.ap [he SBC floodnlain in 200~ after the new hydrology study is completed. In CU's application for devalopment, they indicate that their proposed development is locazed outside any previously known areas of historical flood activity, that there is minimal surface ~vazer on the CU-Boulder South property, thai the development will not have any appreciable flood or drainage i.mpacts on other properties, and that there aze no impacts to the endangered animal species and their nabitau. I believe that the public has information to covnter all these statements. I have attended most of the meetings since 199~ associated with development on the Flatirons property and even the Taggart study shows that po*tions of the CU propercy lie in the floodplain, that the most flooding occurred in the northern comer of this property by Table Mesa and Hieuway 36 (the t:nnis courts would be neaz this area,) that the berm both held back and also d'uected flows into the neighborhoods, that over 1,500 homes downsu~eam from the CU property are in the path of floodwaters coming across the CU properry, and that pomons of the CU property aze needed to hold back floodwaters from the nei~oornoods. This land was a natural wedands prior to riining and the land ~~~as to be rescored to a wetlands afte: mining. 'I'ne fact that CU put in an extensive de-watering system last year is testament to Agenda Item # <<--,~ i Page #- 1;~ the amount of surface water on the land. Why would anyone need to constantly de-wate: land as they are doing if in fact there was °`minimal surface water on the CtJ-Boulder South property" as they state on page 17 of their anpfication. Additionally, the SBC • floodplain is one of the few remaining habitau for the tt~reatened Preble's Meadow lumping Mouse. The CU apglication states that the site completely lacks aay habitat componenu for the thteatened Preble's Meadow Jumping Mouse. VJhen CU put in the de-water system there was a l~t of btvsh and ~ees removed from the land. lust how much have they already done to this land to remove suriace water and habitats for eadangere3 species? 'Ihe citizers of this community hava done a~emendous amount of research on tbis piece of land an~', we Iook forwazd to giving our side of the facts at the public hearing. I would like to request that the County Commissioners move the final hearing to a centrai locatian in the South $oulder azea sucn as the NIST/NOAA auditorium and to a Wednesday evening. It is not appropriate for the cotmty to hold any final decision - meedng (on any issue that will have such an impact on citizens, life, properry, qualiry-of- life) during the middle of a workday and so removed from the citizens direcfly affected bv the finai decision. • • Agenda Item # '~~~=; Page # „~ Posr ornce eox a~t • soWder, ca«auo eoa~ Land Use Department Courthouse Annex 2045 13m Sireet • 1Jth & Spruce Sneets • Bou~der, CGorado 86302 •(303) a413930 MEMO TO: FROM: DATE: RE: A2encies and adjacen[ property owners David Callahan, Sta~Planner •~~__, Mazch 19, 200? Docket SI-02-0~ ~ 1 - " ~'`^_ ~ - _ ,; -_. = `IvMAR 2 ~I 2 s zoo ` ~ ~~ ~AiV:~ ~; ~"~•-y-.~.. Docket SI-02-0?: L'NTVERSITY' OF COLORADO - BOLrLDER SI-] 041 ~~ Request: Acnvi[ies of State Interest Review for the consideracion of a tennis court complex consistin~ of iweive fenced courts, a temporarv pazking lot, viewin; stands and associated grading. Location: South of the tntersection of US 36 and Foothills Parlcway, in Sections 9& 16, TiS. R70W Zoning: Economic Development (ED) A4ricultural (A) Appiicant: Universit}~ of Colorado / Aoazd oi Regenu Asenks: Jeflrey Lipton, Executive Diractor / Department of Facilities Manaeement Nancv Love • These processes include public heatings before the Boulder Counry Planning Commission and Boazd of County Cornnussioners. Adjacent prooerry owners and holdets of liens, monea;es, easementi or other :i~hts in the subject property aze notified of these hearings. Tne Land Use staff, Planning Corrunission, and County Commissioners value comments from individuais and reierral agencies. Please check the appropnate responsc below or send a letter, Late responses will be reviewed as the process permit5; all commenu will be made patt of the public record and ~iven to the applicant. Only a portion of the suomitted document, may have been enclosed; you are welcome to review che entire file at the Land Use Department, 13th and Spruce, Boulder. If you have any questions regazding chis application, please contact the Land Use Depattment affcce. Please return rasponses to the above address'by Anrii d, ~uif':. We have reviewed the proposal and have no conflicts. ' Letter is enc]osed. ' / ~~ c 5i ened ~il ~"i,'`"~~,/ ,~C, PRINTED Name •~c~- ~, r1 D/~, h, F'' Agency or Address ! 1~ ~~~~~ ~ ~t c/13~z, `~P ~v ~~w b~. ~R~e-M~s~-~v~l'u..e.,, ~ G:V.U D~1.U S H ARED~DO C KEf S~S f 0202\02REF.-OC Agenda Item # ;;;r~; Page # .~~ ~ Jana L Mxitlez RaiaW K Sfewar .)> Cpunry Canm~oner Canry Camimia ~~ ;~ r - 03 Aprii 2d02 j~'i ~i ~ ^ ~~~~~;` _ ~ ; ~ ~-- ~: _, ~ ~ , , ~ n ~j~ ;''!; APR p 4 2CD2 ;~'; E ;~~~~-, ~_r ~~`,~,,~~~ v:~v:~ ;, ; • Boulder County Land Use Department Court House Annex 2045 • 13ih Street ` Boulder, Colorado 80302 Re: Dock2t SI•02~02: Universi'ty of ~olorado - Boulder SI ~ 1041 To Whom it May Concern: No, and again, no, nc, no. It was absolutely amazing to get the notice of the Boulder County Commissioners public hearing on this proposal. Do we have no memory in this Ci'ty? I have lived here for my entire 50 years, and there is a long and well~documented history of the University's perpetually viola'ted assurances regarding their timing and plans for this property. As a real estate professional (on behalf of the Owner, I manage the Vilfage (McGuckin] Shopping Center), I am personally weil~acquainted with the extensive and exhaustive process requlr~d for development within the floodplain. Does the University operate under difrerent criteria of proof than the resi of us? Though objecting, I am not naive enough to think that development of this property is preventable. It will, of course, eventually occur. But a full community impact analysis of the effect on the South Boulder Creek watershed, not to mention the Boulder community that lives in this ar2a, should and MUST be compfeted before we start. Without that, we allow ihe ever-presumptuous University tc proceed with plans that, you surely know, are simply Step 1 in an ever~more aggressive policy of serving their owr needs, even at the expense of the City its2lf. One more item ~ do you really belfeve that s2tting a public hearing in the middie of a ThUrsday, for goodness sake, is really going to enable our citizens to attend and respond in a constructive manner? Perhaps the intent is to see that we don't attend, since most of us are busy in jobs that, at leasi peripherally, are an effort to improve our City. It is time to SLOW DOWN and make the effort to ascertain that this development, or ANY develQpment, is appropriate, cons~ruc'tive, maintainable and supportlve of our community. Those determinaiions must be made before we saddle ourselves with anoiher mistake that will be indefinitely regretted. Most sincerely, ~ C. D[L[lLq~ ~aul~ Co'Nins Rober; L. Coilins 1405 Chambers Drive Boulder, Colorado 80305 • . Agenda Item # ~ i'i Page # . ~,, :,~ •- ~ ~- _ ,.i. ~~__ • • April 4, 2002 Boulder County Land Use Department Court House Annex 2045 13`" Street Boulder, CO 80302 ^~ ~~ ^'~'~i,=_1~' ~, _ - .~• ~~ ~1 I 1 ',,'„~ APR 0 4 2C~2 ~~ - ~JULD~R COUNTY , qN~ USE • Attention Commissioners: We are homeowners adjacent the F(atirons Property and have received notice that the University of Colorado has submitted an application for development. This, brief but legal, public response time to CU's county1041 application is much too short for many in regard to the huge impact this and CU's future proposed development plans will have on this community! We request that Docket SI-02-02: University of Colorado-Sovlder SI-1041 be denied. We request that NO APPi.ICA710NS be considered until AF7ER A ~ULLY AGCREDITED AND INDEPE~IDEN7 HYDROLOGIC STUDY OF FLOODING 1SSUES FOR 7HE SOUTH BOULDER CRE~K WATERSHED. Should not the potential hazards of flooding in this area be carefully and thoroughly analyzed? The potential impact on citizens' lives and property are immense. (Who would have guessed that CSU's campus would flood!) Obviously, the expense of catastrophe falis to the citizen taxpayer so plsase take time at this point of the discussion. A~so, what effects will the dewatering of the Fiatirons property have on private properties adjacent? There are many concarns to be resolved before ANY development goes forth on this property! May we request that the public hearing scheduled for Thursday, May 30"' at Z:00 PM, be rescheduled to a V+/ednesday evening and a location in the Sout~ 8oulder area so t9iat you can receive more needed information. Thank you for your consideration of #hese requests, Sincerefy, /. - ~~~~r~-~ G (~ ~``~/Y~ao,., ~ ~~ .~. Janet A. Meadows John F. Meadows 1240 Chambers Drive Boulder, CO 80305 Agenda Item # u.-~j Page # .~ ~'-~~ South Creek Seven ~-~`~ Homeowners' Association Memo To: Boulder County Land Use Department From: The Officers of South Creek Seven Homeowners' Association Date: April 3, 2002 Re: Docket SI-02-02 To the Land Use Staff: - _ = .=~ - - _ ._._ _ ~i",i APR 0 4 2C02 ; ~~; -- , , ~: ~.G.=i? ~~:.~fJTY:,i L:~;v~ u5c We the officers, of the South Creek Seven Homeowners' Association would like, to fortnally submit our concems regarding the University of Colorado's plans to construct a tennis facility on the Flatirons Property. Please note that, due to time constaints, we have not yet been able to get feedback from the members of the Homeowners' Association, and the opinions stated below are those of the officsrs only. Our primary concem is that the University has never been forthcoming with information regarding their pfans for development of the Flatirons Property. The language used in the latest 10 year plan submitted to the Colorado Commission on Higher Education was cryptic at best, impiying that use of the properry would be limited to recreation facilities, but leaving open the opiion for other types of development. On 5eptem6er 12, 2001 the University submitted a Land Use Assessment showing 159.73 acres of the 302.02 acre property as "Suilding Potential.° This assessment gives the impression that the Universibj has plans for significantly more deveiopment than just recreationat facilities. This impression is reinforced by the fact that the University is net proposing to relocate the tennis courts to Williams Village or to East Campus. Both sites offer distinct advantages over the Fiatirons Property: Williams Village is on an existing transportation route to and from the main campus; East Campus already has the University's outdoor track and field facility; both locations have water rights and are closer to main campus. Either of these locations would make more sense 'rf the University's sole goal was a new tennis faciiity. As homeowners of South Creek 5even, we have bought our homes with the understanding that the majority of the Flatirons Property has been designated Open Space in the Boulder Vailey Comprehensive Ptan. Any development of the Flatirons Property wiil have a great impact on us, the residents of South Creek Seven, and we ask that University be forthright and compie#e regarding their ~lans for the Flatirons Property so that we as a comrnunity my fuliy understand the University's goals for the property and have input as to minimize any negatiae impact on our community. To date the University has not been forthright and complete. Therefore, while we are not in pnncipie opposed to the te~"nis courts being relocated to the Fiatirons Property, we a2 asking that the request to relocate the tennis courts to the Fiatirons Property be tumed down until the University submits a comprehensive pian for their desired use of the property. Thank you. ~~~ti~~~ 92 _ Kara McGang President, SC7HOA ,;r~ ~!~- Shane W. Brown Vice President "Thomas o~ M ael McN~illen ~ • • Secretary Treasurer Age~da Item # (-,/S Page # .~~ Post Otnce Box 471 • BoWder. Cdorado NpSpy r . ~ ~' U ~~ C' ._; ~ f~ tand Use Department Courmouse Annex 2045 13m Streef • 13m & Spruce Streets • Bowaer, Coicrodo 80302 .(3C3) a41-~930 ~. ~ MEMO TO: Agencies and adjacent properrv o«~ners .' _- ~~' ` FROh1: Da«d Caltahan, StaffPtanner •~'`j. `.' ~2~'~~ L bATE: Mazch 19, 20~2 ',`~~ PeFI ~ r~~N~~ RE: Docket SI-02-02 \,~ cF" 5E ~~ ~~vu~Np ~ Docket SI-OZ-O'_: L'\ TVERSITY OF COLOR~DO - BOL'LDER SI-1041 Request: Activities of State Inierest Review for the consideration of a tennis court complex consisting of twelve fenced courts, a temporary parking lot, viewing stands and associated erading. Location: South of the intersection ofUS 36 and Foothills Pazktivay, in Sections`9 & 16, T1S, R70W Zoning: Economic Development (ED) Aericultural (A) Applicant: liniversity of Colorado / Boazd of Regenu A.gents: Jefirey Lipton, Executive Dizector /]Jepartment of Facilities Management Nancy Lave • These processes include public heanngs before the Boulda County Plazming Commission and Board of County Commissioners. Adjacent properry owners and holdcrs of liens, moneages, easements or othcr' rights in the subject properry are notified of these hearings. The Land Use stafi, Planning Commission, and Counry Commissioners value comments irom individuals and referral aeencies. Pleasa check the appropnate response below or send a lette:. Late responses will be reviewed as the process permiu; al] commenu will be made part of the public record and given to the applicant. Only a portion of zhe submitted documents may have been eaclosed; you aze welcome to review the entire file at the Land Use Dcparnnent, 13th and Spruce, Boulder. If you have any quesrions regarding this application, please contact the Land Use Department ofiice. Pleasc return responses to the above address by Aori] 4. ?002. We have reviewed the ptoposal and have no conflicu. , ~, ~ , -~ ... ~: ~ ~,c: ~ r ~ ' "C .~-{-~'-1-~ ~_iLettcris enclosed.'1 F~r•,~_ .~~- ,, " ~~" -``"":• "1~•.~S St~ -4- ~lv-'~:'dC ~. ~V .~.. ~ / ,~1.J.'~~:~1/Nn~ //.~, (i ,~a.~I- ~~.~J `i^J~ Signed ?7;~. `71 ; P.RII~TED Name '' • ,~'J ~/.~'' ~.tG ~' L ~ ~ ~' ''V _____~---, .-, -E~'----~--~`~~~ AgencyorAddtess lC~~.S G . /"/f~Zf~r"1 4T'~C.~t~ I »I ,.~%r•f~ ~n . ~C~>~~S" ~D ~ `~~ ~„~ ,( ~~. j . ~ ~n,.~~~ G:U.llD~1.ll5HARED~DOCKEf5lS10202102REF.DOC '1 ;~, t' u z.9=~-L ~ '~ -~\Vti~ ~S I v ~'~11~ . ~.:~Is~Y~~~ ~y~=~- ~ ~ ~~ ~/~ ~ ~, . ~ „ ~Mrt~ ~N ~(~- (s~ W ` ~{ ~ u ~~`~'~ ~,~. ~ ~ ~;~~ ~(~'~-'.~.. ~/~ C(~~/ i .~~" ~-Cfi~ ~ ~"~'~ ~ ~ ~-~^} ~S ('~`-~ ~14~''iJ~S"f~~~..11U~ !f~'~ 1~.~~i.alv~ ~~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ co ~ Lc.ort~ vNtt~l«isr C«++ly Cortrry+Ya~er . ~ , c«r+ry~cortr~naone. „C ;~'! -191' /~'A~.,~.z.i. S „~"i tiiS ; ~~.,~ ~ /~ c~` -~t a.z, ~ ~.~{ Fc :~ ,~wr, ~rc;,~.., v~~ . , , _. _ , , Agenda Item # 1~>/~' Page # .~i,%; S 4/2/2002 )0 - To: Boulder County Land Use Departmeni Court House :4nnes 2045 13th Sueet Boulder, Colorado 80302 (303) ~141-3930 From: Douglas Yaeer ' 1270 Chamoers Dr. Boulder. Colorado 8030~ Subje,.--t: Request that Boulder Counri~ den}~ ihe Universin• of Colorado's applicarion for development ofthe Fiatirons Propem~ Uear Boulder Count}~ I.and Use Departrnent: I am requesring that your depamnent denv the Universin~ of Colorado request to begin development of the Flanrons Propem•. The Flatirons propem~ lies partly within the 100-year floodplain. 1 nis fact alone should be enou¢h to dissuade any development whatever of the Flaurons property. However, there is a study undenvay, by a hydrologic expert panel (HAP) to detemune the real risk of flood hazard that currentiy ecists along South Boulder Creek, including the Flatirons propem•. The F~AP studti~ should provide the scientific data ne~ed to determine what risks are involved in developing the Flatirons propem~. Thus, unril the HAP has funshed iu analysis, on]}~ then should an~• application for development be considered. Boulder County l~as onl}' 10% of iu floodplain and wetlands rema;.,;n~ ~t have not already 6een claimed by development. This ecosystem would be irreplaceable once developed. Just this year, the nparian areas adjac,.°nt to the Flatirons Property wetlands were home to rare birds in this region including the rarieci thrush, and the broadwing hawk. Both species were photographed and w~el]-documented b~• loc~l experts. The Flatirons propem~ habitat is favored by the endangerecl, Prebbles lumping Mouse. The westem toad, among many other species has already been adversel}~ affected b} CU's Flatirons property flood conuol measures. Western toad habitat has alread}~ been decunated by construction of French drains designed to dr~~ out the Fladrons Propem~. CU completed the Frencb drains prior to the current request to deveiop and as far as I lmow, the Counry never approved of these efforts. Bridgewalk apar[znent wedands were also adversely affected by CU's Flatirons propem desiccarion mc~sures as they drained riparian wetlands in this area, much to the decrimeni of the exisnng wetlands. This is a pnme example of what CU's unchecked development will entail. Finally, the deadly and costly 1497, Fort Collins Spring Creek Flood shauld never be far from the memory of any entity thaz desires to develop in a floodplain. The Spring Creak Flood struck with litde waming, flooded Colorado 5tate Univetsity Campus, and clairned human life in the Cirv of Fort Collins. The watershed that feeds the 5outh Boulder Creek watershed is lazger than the 5pring Cr~k watershed. 1 strongiy ur¢e your departrnent to deny CU's unwise request w develop the Flatirons property. There is much natural risk involved if deve]opment is pennitt~l. There is also mucb to gain in preservin~ the Flazirons property as a nanual wetlands ecosystem for ours and future generations. Sincerely, ~ ^ ~ 7 . , ~ ~ ~:.~z~`"'.~ Douglas Yager ~` • • • Agenda Item # ~~1'°a Page # ,'=~' ~• Apri13,2002 ' _ - • Re: Docket SI-02-02: University of Colorado - Boulder SI-1041 '~' A PR 0 4 2C02 _ :J '~~ 30UL;~5,~ G: '~r•,TV ` To Whom It May Concern: =^~=~ ~~= As a resident of the South Creek community who frequents the property almost daily, I am compietely against any development of the open space. By adding tennis courts, a paved road and the associated traffic, this peaceiul area will be ruined. The countless birds, frogs, ducks, geese, raccoons, deer, hawks and many other animals will have their lives completely disturbed. Community residents will no longer be able to hike throu~h the area and experience the same serene environment. With cars durin; the day and Iiahts at night, the naturai environment wiIl be forever ~one. Because of this, I completely disagree with your statement "there shouid be no ~ deterioration of the existing natural aesthetics..." How can the area not deteriorate when there will be bulldozers and pavement and liehts? If someone paved your backyazd and put up flood li;hts, would your yard not deteriorate? I fin@ it hard to believe that your letter states "There are no wetlands or riparian azaas within then area of impact." Have you ever been to the area at dawn or dusk' I see countless birds in the area every day. In fact, I saw a hawk in the azea this moming. • Please reconsider this decision to destroy this wonderful azea of Boulder. Instead, be a leader in what is right for the entire Bou(der communizy and not the bottom line of the university. Reeards~ E~ec ~ . g~ Agenda Item #~, ' ~~~ page #-~~ Bulldozed, channelized and filled existing wetlands and historic zapus hudsonius preblei habitat, and Possibly aggravated hydrologic-head draw-down along the westem margin up- • slope azea by installing an extensive drainage canal and a dewatering "French drain" system on the property. • • ~8 - Ageuda Item # ~-~a Page # .~~,~ Recommended Flatiron Floodplain Land Use . Several important factors support a South Boulder Creek Watershed Study as an urban watershed preservation project and as a demonstration area for new planning approaches. These factors inciude: the wealth of background data already available, ihe ecosystem diversity, moderate size: and relatively easy access to the study azea, the e~stence of sev- eral threatened species habitats, a high flood-hazard potenzial to Iife and propeny, a major source of drinking water for the cities of Denver, Louisville and Lafayette, the limited floodplain azea remainine in the Boulder communiry, new federal funding to adequately srudy both flood hazards and flood benefits, and the likely transponation and growth oroblems associated with development in a floodplain bounded by a highway, a major intersection, a school and a moderately dense residential community. Corrections to Statements Suhmitted in the CU-Boulder South Tennis Court Relocatian Project Ezecutive Summaty The project is located within a Natural Hazard Area of statewide importance. This issue has been defended by leeal review {Green, Andrews,and others, 2001) and by extensive previous expert putalic testimony. The site for the proposed tennis court complex is located within the historical Federal; • State, Counry and City desi~nated floodplain. The "berm" has not been certified to re- move any South Boulder Creek low-lands from the floodplain. Thus, a mined-out de- pression located adjacent to and approximately 20 feet lower in elevation from the South Boulder Geek may not withstand a comprehensive Ilood-hazard review. Additionally, the FEMA and the NFIP recommendatioas, if implemented, wil] (i) increase the national FA2M flood-retum scandard, (ii) change "flood-control berm" compliance standards, and (iii) will increase the accountability of both the City and County to help protect life and property against SBC flood hazards and to ma}:e better use of non-structurai solutions. Projected development is not in compliance with the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan. Traffic witl be significantly impacied. The Table Mesa/ US 36/ Moarehead intersection is already a serious iraffic congestion and confusion point. Incidents of accidents have risen significantiy in the past three years (ref: Boulder Potice Tabfe Mesa Annex). It is not Irnown wtrat will be the long-term impact of CUlFlatirons development on sub- surface aquifers. This concern has not been properly and scientificaily addressed by an independent and fuIIy accredited examination process. The Flatiron property is now es- sentially a basin with the watar table at the surface. The pro~ect has had significa;it im~acts on the natural and er.vi oiLmental and aesthetics • of the property. In anticipation of this project CU has: • Eradicated documented stands of spiranthes diluvialis, Agenda Item # !y r ~~ Page # .~ The HAP expects to complete its scope of work by the end of May, 2002. Following the recommendations of the HAP, a comprehensive and independent, hydrologic-, hydraulic-, hazards- and communiry impact- analysis for SBC will be comcnissioned. A • number of management agencies and communities, including the USGS, FEM.4, the Ur- ban Drainage and Fiood Control District, the C~lorado W ater Conservation Board, the City of Boulder have expressed a strong interest in the results of this study. FEMA has recently announced newly allocated funding to be used for updating flood studies all across the US. Moreover, the National Research Counci] and the Steerine Committee for the National Flood Insurance Proaram Evaluation have convened to consider a recom- mendation to increase the national flood standard from a 100-year return period to a 500- year return period. This would require a very large number of existing floodplains in the US to be re-evaluated... including the South Boulder Creek floodplain. The methodolo- gies developed from the findings of the SBC study will ereatly facilitate the 2003 re- mapping program and NFIP recommendations. Following this description, the South Boulder Creek Study has been proposed as a possible demonstration area for the na~ional flood-plain delineation study to be updated in 2003. Relevant Study Area Factors The South Boulder Creek Watershed drains the Front Range of the Colorado Rocky Mountains from the headwaters at Continental Divide to the floodplain at the confluence wiih Boulder Creek located in the City of Boulder. The South Boulder draw is 37 miles • long, passes throueh three counties and drains apprmcimately 30% (132 sq. mi.) of the entire Boulder Basin Watershed. South Boulder Creek serves both as an important ripar- ian corridor and as a channel to move water from the Boulder Basin and the Western slope for stara~e in Gross Reservoir. Gross Reservoir is a major source of drinking water for the cities of Denver, Louisville and Lafayette. The South Boulder Creek Watershed is characterized as a"critical watershed area" at high risk for catastrophic hazards where rapidly expanding urban development continues to increasingly intermingle with floodplains and forested wiid lands that have a high flood- and fire- index. This watershed is also characterized as a"red-line zone watershed" (i.e. at high risk for catastrophic wildfire where rapid3y expanding urban development has increasingly intermingled with forested wild-lands that have a high "vegetative fuels" index). The South Boulder Creek floodplain underlies the southem half of the City of Boulder and is recognized by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for having an extremely high flood hazard potential. South Boulder Creek successfully suppons a diverse watershed environment ranging from the Alpine and sub-Alpine ecosystems to the High-Dessert riparian and wetland ecosystems. The endangered Ute Lady's Tresses Orchid (spiranthes diluvialis) is estab- lished along ihe Sotrth Boulder Cree!c Floodplain. Additionally, the South Boulder Creek Floodpi:in is one of the few : emaining habitats for the threatened Pret le's Meadow 3umping Mouse (zapus hudsonius preblei) and an increasing number or raze birds have • located to the South Boulder Creek Floodplain. 36 - Agenda Item #<„ f~ Page #(> ; the recommendations of the HAP, a full and independent-.hydrologic, hydraulic, haz- azds and community impact analysis of the South Boulder Creek watershed and flood- • plain will be commissioned. All aaolications for develonment in the SBC floodp]ain should be denied until after a full indeQendent- hvdrolo~c hvdraulic hazards and communitv impact analvsis of the South Boulder Creek watershed and flood~lain. Background and Justification for Denial of the CU 1041 Permit Boulder is located at the Base of the Colorado Front Range foothills where there is a high potential for flash flood events that allow little time for warning. More than 15 percent of Boulder is located in the 100-year floodplain (more than twice the nationa( and state.av- erage of 7 percent). Furthermore, less than 10% of Bouiders floodplain lands remain un- developed. Thus, ]ess than 10°/a of floodplain lands remain to absorb the impacts of de- velopment in riparian carridors or of rainfall-runoff and floodine hazards. South Boulder is particularly critical because 3,515 residential structures and 646 commercial structures aze located in the 100-year floodplain and because of the study area particulars discussed below. A major storm event would result in substantial property damage and probable loss of life. Because the threat to life and properry damage is so great, the need to iden- tify, manage and regulate the local floodplains is critical. • There have been three flood studies prepared for the South Boulder Creek floodplain. These studies have had limited value, in part, because of inadequate data, modeling and paleohydroloey verification to address properly the requirements of an urban flood study. To remedy this problem, the City of Boulder and a number of committees, includine the South Boulder Creek Citizen's Advisory Board and the City of Boulder Hydrology Inde- pendent Review Panel, convened a formal Hydrology Advisory Panel (HAP) to outline a detailed scope of work that will be used to develop and complete an updated hydrology for South Boulder Creek. As a result, several sciantists with eatensive backgrounds in various discipiines dealing with flood hydrology studies have volunteered their services to cast the advisory panel and its support staff. The HAP is committed to developing a "state of the art" scope of work and to he[ping the community produce a South Boulder Creek (SBC) hydrology with a high level of confidence. HAP members have expressed enthusiasm with the project and believe that the outcome may yield national and interna- tional benefits. Critical components of the final SBC study will include elem°nts such as: recompilation and evaluation o£historica! ~nd gauged stream data, high resol,.tion topographic and land surface conditions informaYion, staristical storm analysis, synthetic rainfall-runoff analy- sis, and preparation of pa]eoflood data for integration and verification in the technical analyses. • Agenda Item # t=~ ~' Page # /~~I April 3, 2002 Memo: Boulder County Land Use Department • Court House Annex 2045 - 13`~ 5treet Boulder, Colorado 80302 Attn: Graham Billingsley and Land Use Department Staff From: Alison Burchel] 1270 Chambers Drive Boulder, CO 80305 ~4 - Re: County 1041 application for development on the Flatirons Property [Docket SI- 02-02: liniversirv of Colorado - Boulder SI-1041 ]. Mr. Billingsley and Land Use Department stafF I have reviewed the CU 1041 proposal and have serious objections to this permit. For the reasons outlined below, I request that the counry deny this permit. Fur[hermore, I request ihat the Boulder Counry Land Use Depamnent seriously consider moving the CU 1041 permit, public hearing [currently scheduled to be held on May 30, 2002 at the County Courthouse~ to a time and location in the South Bouider area which will fairly represeni , and facilitate good public process. • Thank you. General Statement Requesting Deniai of the GU 1041 permit Considerable effort has been e~tended by the Boulder community both to avoid inappro- priate development on the Flatiron Property and to protect downstream and upstream residents from the impacYS and the costs of possible hazardous developmeni in the South Boulder Creek floodplain. As has been presented to the City, CWCB, the County, CU, the Regents, CCHE, the UDFCD, the JBC, Representative Udall, and all local State Rep- resentatives, NO applications should be considered until after a full, independent- hydrologc, hydraulic, hazards and communiry impact analysis of the South Boulder Creek watershed and floodplain. Furthennore, aithough the Flatiron Property is located mostly on caunry land, the unpact of development on the property d'uectly unpacts the city and ciry residents. For these reasons, the Ciry of Boulder convened a foimal Hydrology Advisory Pane] (HAP) to re- view the 5BC issue ar.d tc outline a detaiied sa~pe of work essenti~.] to develop and com- plete an updated hydrology, hydraulics and hazards assessment. The HAP is made up of experts from: FEMA, USGS, CWCB, UDFC, CU, and the local community. Followin$ • Agen~da IYem #_C~; ~/~ Page # ~;,~ . Thomas Morris 4534 V1'. Moorhead Circle Boulder, CO 80305 April 4, 20G2 ~ouldez County Commissioners Via Facsimile; (303) 441-4856 Re: Docket SI-OZ-02: Universiry of Colorado Request of :~pprovai ` Tenris Courts Dear Commissioners: I am opposed to a~antuig the appli~ation ior the foitowing reasons: i. The University's long-range development plans for South Campus, of which this application is but the first installment, are inappropriate and ill-defined. ' - 2. To the extent that the Liniversiry has committed to a long-term frarnework plan, that plan includes substantial development that: a. Adversely affects or even eradicates wetlands; b. Threatens endangered species' habitat; c. Iuteusifies pre-existing traffic congesrion on Tabie Mesa $ouler•ard; d. Develops designated open space under the Counry's comprehensive plan; and • e. By aIlowing development on the hill on the west-central portien of the property, permits ridge-line development that wil! be highly visible throughouc che south-centra! portion of £3oulder Valley. 3. Construcrion of the new law school has been postponed indefinitely; ther° is no immediate or short-term nced to relocate the courts. Granting this applicar.on now wiil only erode the County's ability to influence both later sitz-specific applicarions and w~hat we should expect to be more intensive development plans in later iterarions oi the long-term framework plan. 4. The tennis court application doesn't specify that artificial Iighting wilI never be installed. Allow such lighting would have a severe aestheric impact on the neighborhood, as this undeti~eleped property is adjacent to hundreds of other acres of undeveloped or low density developed land. 5, Providing par'.ang for 225 cazs far 12 tennis ~ourts seems excessive, evec~ in a toumament context. South Campus' distance from the main campus will hinder students' access to the site; however, relying on single- or low-occupancy veh.icles will only exacerbate traffic congesrion, and the applicarion ofiers no public or altemarive transportation improvements. Thank you. • 5incerely, ~ . g- 1`homas Nioms Agenda Item # t i3 Page #~. ; 7onathon ~Vamer .i6 B~mfield St. Suite 414 $oston MA 02108 Boulder Counry Land Use Dept. CoutcHouse~ex ' 2045 13`h Stroet Bouldcr CO 843d2 RE: Docket SI-GZ-02: CLT Boulder SI-1041 I look forward to the development of CU-Boulder South, and feel that it ~:arF create a corapelling iznprassion to those ~-ho will drive by on thzir way into the city. On thaL note, I have to question whether a tennis caurt with a 12-faot hi~ ciiain link fenet and ~,zndsc:ecn should be located on the boazder o~ our open space and the c:.ry. G~ranted, the buildings on n,her sidc of t,*~e hi,;hway comix~g down Route 36 aze not~ig special. But, just as CCJ made a beaurifl:l statement (in my op;nion) ~zTh the Wi?liams Village Dorms, it should consider this site to be an equally imporcant opportuairy to build sometk:ing notabi~:. Besides being war_ie3 aoout creatina an unimpressive image at the gateo; ay co Boulder, I also have concems about the lack of faciliries for the project. It se~ns optunisric to think that an athletic facilitywould be abie to effectively seivice a large number of players and spectaton without propet t+athrooms and drinking fountains. I hope that ofcer options azt ex.plored beiare portxble toilets aze apprvved. Compostin; toilets or sepric fieids that nounsh a screen oi trees would be prefcrable io chemical toilets. Tne qe.esrion oi liehting is also not covered in the executivc suttunary I received. Both light pollntion as weL' as the aestheric anpearance of the fighting should be cazefully considered before ailowitag t?:c praject to procaed. Th~aks for the o~portuniry to comment This uea needs to have some buiZding tha~ would bring liie and enera to it, and terutis couzts would be far less ser~~iag than extending campus classes to this site, With easy sccess to Foot ~-Iills Pa:kway and Route 36, T would think. that CU would welcome the opport~niry to l~cate some of their commut~ type classes ia thcir Soath Caznpus. ThazilG Yau, u-, ~ ~ ~l .'S . '~''y anthon Warncr Owner 440p Osage St. . • • ~ 32 - Agenda Item # t.~-ri Page # ~,~~ ~ ~ April 3, 2002 Mr. David Callahan I.and lise Depar~ment Courthouse Annex PO Box 471 Boulder, CO 80306 Dear Mr. Callahan: r ~ y"~ ~ ~1• ~~ ,~. ,~~. - _~ ~ ~~ ~~pPR 0 5 2C~2 - ~e~~ ~~~ ~Sc U L~~R G~1JNTy`. I was saddened to receive the notice indicating the tiniversi~y of Colorado's intent to build a tennis faciliry in [he open space (hereafter the propeny) to the east of the Tantra Lake neishborhood. Over [he past three years, I have spent much time in this area, walkin;, jo;~ing and exercisin~ dogs. The area is a tremendous resource to the local residents and freauently used by many citizens of Boulder, not just those that live in the surroundine areas, but also by many people who drive to open space with their pets. • As an avid field biolo~ist, I have aiso observed a surprisinQ amount of wildlife inhabiting the property. Bald and golden eagles, short-eared and oreat horned owls, northem harriers, osprey, red-tailed, swainson, and rough-leg~ed hawks, western meadowlark, several species of warblers, common snipe, numerous mioratory shorebirds (sandpipers, yeilow-]ess, avocets), and o~her avian mi~racory species. In addition to year-round habitat for rasident avian species, the propetty clearly has value as fora~in~ and roosting habita[ for numerous species of mi~ratory birds. I do no[ know how much consideration was ~iven to this aspect of the propeny dnnng the proposal to consiruct the [ennis courts, but I would urge the Board of County Commissioners to review the impact the new facility will have on the wildlife inhabiting this property. Thank you ; or your time. _, _~~r Christopher Byme 4700 West Moorhead Circle Boulder, CO 803Q5 P:303-:94-8809 • - ~ - Agenda Item # t%r i Page #[<- 4; ,1a~~ A ~ 515 Hartford Dr. Bcxki-x, CA 80.'C6 April 4, 2002 David Callahan, Staff Planner PO Box 471 8oulder, CO 80306 Dear Sir. ;-'. l ^\ ~``~ v ,\'; ~; - `'~ ~ ti~ `~.;`/ApR ~ 5 ~2 `'. ~~~,rv `\~a J•~~~ ~ ~ U5E I am writing to strongly objed to the continued destruction of the little open space remaining in the dty and county of Bouldec In the shoR 22 years time that I have lived here the University has gone from a beautrful, quiet campus, with good public access, to a aty campus with extremely difficutt paricing, and very iow pubiic access. AII growth must stop sometime. It would be wonderful 'rf the U~iversity would realize that prior to destroying the city by paving over every patch of grass and field. You ARE destroying habftat every time you builtl and lay down concrete. Please tlo not expand .iraio, and therefore destroy, what you calt Sections 9& 16, Tt S, R70W. Thank you. Sincerely, ~~~ v~ Jonas A. Pologe • • O Agenda Ttem # --~' Page # (~;.(i, ~ ~ 4841 W. Moorhead Circle • Boulder, CO 80305 3 April 2002 Boulder County Land Use Dept. Courthouse Annex 204~ 13th Street ' Boulder, CO 80303 Re: Docket SI-02-02 Deaz Land Use Depc.: As a neighbor, and lona-te.^,n Boulder resident, this responds to the request by the University of Colorado to commence construction on the "CU-Boulder South" property. I strongly oppose any development on that si[e, both from a personal standpoint since it will likely influence the value of my property in ne~ative ways, and from a communiry perspective, Clearly this initial request represents the "foot in the door" for extensive, and inappropriate, development on the property. BouIder is already experiencin, horrendous vaffic and many other problems related to ~rovrth both within the city and throu~hout the surrounding area. Iniriatina development at this key locauon between Boulder and Denver invites gridlock, and • I suspect will eventually require massive hishway and other infrastructure improvemenu to• address the problems [hat wiil result (e.g., the necessiry for "portable toilets" is a cleaz sign that this developmen[ is bein~ imposed on an unwilling communiry). Approva] of this development wou]d further decrease the livability and qualiry of life in Boulder, and i[ should be rejected. The property should become open space, and if the University is a good citizen of Boulde., in addiqon to ]ookin2 after its own interests, it will ins~ead help ensure that this happens. Livability also benefits the students of CU-not just the cicizens of Boulder. Thanks for your consideration of these comments. Yours sincerely, ~• ~1r~ Scott D. Woodruff • Agenda Item # /~/3 Page # IL'y From: "skelly9" <skelly9@attbi.com> To: <commissioners@co.houlder.co.us> Date: 4/4/02 8:14PM Subject: re Flatirons Property Dear Commissioners, Please do NOT grant any development permits for the Fiatirons Property before a floodplain hazard study is completed. CU has formalVy submitted a county 1041 appiication for development of the Fiatirons Property (docket SI-02-02). The application is for consideration of: tennis courts, parking lots, viewing stands, portable toilets, and associated grading. Meanwhile, the County, in conjunction with other agencies, has begun (but not compieted) a detailed study of the flood plain hazard for the Flatiron Property. Please do NOT grant any deveiopment permits for the Fiatirons Property before the floodplain hazard stuay is completed. SuppoR the floodplain regulations that were passed earlier this year. Permits should be evaluated only after the study is completed. Please enter my comments in the public record. Kelly Shanafeit 1 10 S. 31 st St Boulder,Co 80305 • ~ ~ Agenda Item # io!> Page #j~' _ ~s- On April 4, I spoke by phone with Lita Dunham ahout SI-02-~2• • She is apposed to the project- She has concerns about the existing berm,and has experienced flooding. «~~~~~, David Cailahan , • • , _ Agenda Item # ct~..i~3 Page #~ Letter to: David Callahan, Sraff Planner Mazch 23, 2002 RE: Docket 5I-02-02 To Whom It May Concern: Soutka of the intersection of US 36 and Foo[hills Pazkway, in Seccions 9& 16, T1S, R70W is currently vacant land. We can understand why the University of Colorado wants to put tennis courts on this location after reading the Executive Summary regazding the Tennis Couri Relocation Project. After all, in keeping with modern Colo?adian thinking, any unused field simply must be developed for the greater good of all, right? Wrong. We think the points taken in the executive summary aze not points, but rather the selecuve opinions of the few whom would benefit from such an eye sore. The project does not contain water or sewa;e treatment activities? Screaned portable [oilets? Who are you kidding? Wishfut thinking that a clean, sanitary environment wi11 remain stable after the first season. Participants would bring their own drinking water? Yes, they'll bring their own beverages and leave the containers, leading to sanitation issues. 'the summary mentioned no si~nificant adverse impacts on air quality. 13ow do you define si;nificant? Isn't any amount abova the already over polluted meuo azea signi#icant? lOQ vehicle trips per day? 350 vehicle trips during e,Yhibitions or tournaznenzs? If we're talking busas included, that's signi#icant. Havin~ said all of the above, we would ra[her see the area developed with tennis courts than a view-obstructin~ building. We realize that CU is trying to make the most of e~sting, developed land and implement effective and efficient urban infill practices. However, we are concemed abou[ where and wfien CU's plans for expansion wiIl end, What's next? And please, don't insult us with comments like the projecY will tsave no significant impacts on the azea and it's wildlife. Of course it will. The executive summary made no menlion of conferring with CU's own departments of natural resources and urban plannin;, only what the board wants to do. Gran[ed,.the new Law School, s(ated for construcaon in 2002 wiIl brin; a significant amount of revenue to CU, but progressive thinking should not be timited to moneymaking aspects oniy. Consider all of yonr options and think about the lonb-term environmental and aesthetic impacts on . Boulder. For example, why not turn half of the old Crossroads Mall into an lndoor tennis complex complete with already existing water, sanitation, and transportation resources in place? Sineerely, ~ ~~p n .t~-~- ~'-~-'c~ t !///2~. ~ Evan and Connie Schultz 8oulder 76 - ~ ~ • Agenda Item # /; ~> Page # 'i'tJ • • ~ _~:_ April 4. 2002 S4ulder County Coffiaissioners P.O. Bos 791 Boulder, CO 80306 Dear Co~issioners: -~ v,•~Cp C L~~L ~~~. '4/~ ~~'~r~,rjo ~'L '~a oa'r ~ ~ y y`n9.r 200~ ~~~~~~ ~~ ~ ~CC~ ~` n , ~ I~/ , ~, n ..i ~~ RE: Docket SI-02-•02: IIuiversity oE Colorado - Boulder SI-1041 We urge you to oppose any development pexmi.ts to the IIniversity of Colorado for their Flatirons Property until a detailed stndy of ~ the flood plai.n hazards of this property has heen completed. F7e understand the County has begun such a study of the floodplain hazards of this property to its occupants and to downstream parts of Boulder and Boulder County. Common sense seems to dictate that no development permits should be granted to tbe IIniversity without the above noted study being completed. Sin erely, ~ ~ ~~ ~ l~~ ~~ Beverly and To Baker 736 Mazvell Avenue Boulder, CO 80304 Agenda Item # l,~.>> Page # '~ From: "Anne Gifford" <giffordgraphics@hotmail.com> To: <commissioners@co.boulder.co.us> Date: 5/17I02 10:41 PM Subject: SI-02-02 CU South SI-1041 Dear Boulder County Commissioners: As residents of the far southern edge of Boulder on Chambers Drive for the past 20 years, we would like to ask you to please NOT approve the tennis courts that CU is currently planning for it's South Campus. The additional noise and traffc congestion that this would create is not a good tradeoff for the beautiful open fieids that now greet people coming into Boulder via Route 36 !!!! This land makes a first impression upon travelers and tourists corning into our town, let's not make it look like just another congested ciry. We are losing too many of our vistas to rampant deveiopment, especially along Rt.36. The fact that so much of our open space has been preserved is why we all ~ live in Bouider. W e commend our leaders for being the good stewards of the. land that they have been, and hope that you will continue to do so. Thank you. 74 - Anne Gifford Bruce Iden Jon Kerr Lex Telischak MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: http:!/photos.msn.comisupport/worldwide.aspx ~ ~ • Agenda Item # /=•/i Page #J,~_ From: "Sheri Jakobsson" <caliban@ecentral.com> To: <djclu@co.boulder.co.us> •~ate: 5/19/02 2:36PM Subject: CU proposed tennis Courts and parking Dear David Callahan, I am a property owner near the proposed building site and would like to go on record with my objections to this project at CU South Campus: 1. pespite whatever reassurances you make, I am quite sure that it wiil increase the already enormous amount of traffic on Tantra Dr. People who know iYS a shortcut or can find parking, or whatever will go racing by my place. Installing a new road is of course mandatory and will help, but Tantra Dr. wiil always be used by some. 2. I walk in that open space every morning and early evening with my dog for 1/2 hour to I hovr. ft is a wonderful, quiet, sane respite from the people and cars and traffic in Boulder. And it is beautiful and peacaful space. To put in tennis courts and parking and cars is a huge intrusion and will ruin the aesthetic value of the space. Now, from so many points one sees only open space arod trees and grasses. There wiil be a large blot on the landscape should this development be allowed to happen. 3. And lastly, it is my understanding that when CU bought the land there was fo be no development tor a long, long time. Is CU reneging? When will people stop paving America. When will open space be respectsd as something quite rare, and • getting rarer. ~ I trust you are recording my vote as opposed to your project. Sincerely, Sherie Jakobsson, 4771 Tantra Qr., Boulder • Agenda Item # ~:;/; Page # ;7~=; From: Barb Karr <barbk3l@atthi.com> To: <commissioners@co.boulder.co.us> Date: 5l16(02 2:28PM Subject: SI-02-02 CU South SI-t041 Heilo, Our family is located in one of the adjoining subdivisions-Hy View. We are not if favor of you approving CU's petition for tennis courts, The additionai noise and traffic wiil be a detriment to why we afl live here, and personally have since 1983, in this neighborhood. Traffic on Table Mesa is already bad enough, not to mention the back-up that will occur during competitions and also those folks trying to enter the turnpike east at the same time. We will also have pienry of lost cars in all of the surrounding neighborhoods with folks thinking there must be another way into the courts. 7he Flood piain controversy is a very reai concem as weU. We had a very wet spring several years ago, April ist thru June1 st and ~' I counted no less than 7 ponds out there. Thank You, Barb Kerr Rick Rodriguez Nicole Rodriguez Marissa Rodriguez 4670 Macky Wy Bouider 80305 ~ • ~ Agenda Item # /;.~3 Page # ,~`f 72 - From: Iris Sherman To: Caliahan, David • Date: 5!7/0210:03AM Subject: Re: SI-02-02 University of Colorado 7ennis courts on CU South i never received the referral information on this one. Yes for graing of 6 acres the comment, is; Any construction or disturbance of land that is o~e (1) acre or greater shall submit a fugitive particulate emission abatement and control plan to the Boulder County Health Department, Environmental Health Program for review prior to commencing construction activities. Section lil. D., 2, b., (ii} of Regulation No. 1, Emission Control Regulation For Particulate, Smokes, Carbon Monoxide and Sulfur Oxides For the State of Coiorado, as promulgated by the Colorado Air Quality ConYrol Commission staies: "Any owner or operator engaged in clearing or leveling of land or owner or operator or land that has been cleared of greater than five (5)acres in attainment areas or one (1) acre in nonattainment areas from which fugitive particulate emissions will be emitted shall be required to use all available and practical methods which are technologically feasible and economicaliy reasonable in order to minimize such emissions in accordance with the requirements of 5ection III. D. of this regulation." sectlon (iii) states: ".......... Abatement and control pians submitted for construction activities shall be evaluated for compiiance with the requirements of Section III. D. of this regulation." As far as porta-potties, we pref=r that any permanent sport faciliry has permanment sewer facifities. These could be supplemented by porta-potties for busy events, If ihere are no buildings, I'm not sure if we can require perma~ent toilets. They should also hook up to city sewer if available. • Iris . iris Sherman Environmentai Health Specialisi Ph: 303-441-1157 F ax: 303-441-1468 e-mail: isbhe@co.boulder.co.us »> David Callahan OS106/02 11:25AM »> You may recall, this is the application for 12 tennis courts to the south of Tabie Mesa and ihe tumpike, on what was the mining site. The courts and parking will take about 6 acres of land, and they want to use portable restrooms, like they do now at the tennis courts on the main campus. Did you have any concems? Do they nesd io meet air pollution permits for grading on the 6 acres? • Agenda ltem # ,~=,~~ Page # ' ~~ TO: City Council and Planning Department Staff ~ FROM: Ruth Blackmore, 705 S 41S` Street DATE: 7uly 9, 2002 RE: Review Process for the County Referral of the 1041 State Interest Review of CU-BouTder South Tennis Court Replacement Project Please consider the following issues when reviewing this project: IGA - - the location of these tennis courts in relation to a state arterial highway interchange and the future development of US 36 - what are the traffic standards for development in areas around interchanges involving state arterial highways - what are the cumulative traffic impacts from development not only from • CU's use of the tennis courts but all other groups such as Boulder Valley School District who testified that they needed these courts? What about the impacts from the track which is slated for development soon? What about traffic impacts from the entire new campus with its buildings? - what are the cumulative tr~c impacts from the entire CU Master Plan for this South Campus and not just this first phase development piece? Land Use Code 8-304 A-1 - In factors to be considered at Designation Hearings of our land use code, 8-304 A-1 concerns "the intensity of cunent and foreseeable developmental pressures" and 8-304 A-4 "the advantage of development of such area in a coordinated manner.'t Why would a permit be less rigorous than a designation? It seems obvious that if the designation language considers foreseeable development, so must the permit process itself. 1041 - - has anyone reviewed the entire studiesxelated-performed for CU relating to all the required criteria? When citizens asked the county staff for the • uansportation report, they never saw a copy of it. They just accepted the answers they were given. Agenda Item # tc> ~'r Page #' t~> • - what information and statistics aze the studies based on? - do we need to get some independent studies done? - how do loud speakers fit within a 50 dcb range? - at what point in this piece meal development game by CU is this development considered new urban development? - the flood plain maps aze in question. That is why we are doing a new floodplain study. We need to get this information correct once and for all. Floodplain Study - - this study represents a serious health and safety issue for this community - we need to cQ~,p~ete the new study priar to any development at the CU South Campus. Putting in tennis courts now could interfere with where the flood storage detention area may have to go. • - we don't know the terms of the flows and the optimal mitigation for upstream and downstream residents Public Notification - - this is really the start of a major development project in South Boulder and I believe it deserves more notification than a simple review and only notifying residents within 1,500 feet ofthe tennis courts. - every house upstream and downstream needs to be notified - the general public needs to be notified - we need ample opportunity to get written comments into the respective boards and departments. Having information due during the fourth of July long weekend is not acceptable. • Agenda Item # l,', / i Page #~,~ TO: City of Boulder Planning Department FROM: Ruth Blackmore DATE: July 5, 2002 ~R G. S~r~'i.~ Y ~~i~ C'.,, @;3 ".' . ' ~ Jr- I ~-~i•'~ • RE: 1041 State Interest Review for the CU Tennis Court Development Proposal On behalf of numerous citizens in this community who just learned late afternoon on July 3, 2002 that comments on the CU Tennis Court Development Proposal were due on July 5, 2002, I wish to inform you that citizens intend to turn in written comments to the City Council and the Planning Department staff at the City Council meeting on July 9, 2002. It is unfortunate that notice of the deadline for these comments was only sent to residents within 1,500 feet of the proposed development site. This is a major development project, which impacts the entire community, and notification should have been made to the rest of the community outside the 1,500 foot limit. Having just found out about this deadline late on July 3 with comments due on July 5 in the middle of the lon~ July 4 weekend is not very citizen friendly. There are numerous issues to be considered such as: - traffic impacts along Highway 36 and Table Mesa which should be reviewed under the IGA - looking at the development of the South Campus in its entirety rather than piece meal development projects. What are the overall impacts of this major development? - CU's plans for full development with sports fields, athletic complex, and other buildings to be built after 200$ would seem to be urban development - 1041 regulations and CU claiming they meet all criteria. Has anyone reviewed a11 the studies, such as traffic, environment, noise, etc., which were prepared for CU for this application? When citizens asked for the tra~c study from the County staff, the staff admitted that they actually never saw the study. The citizens hope to expand on these issues mantioned above. We will hand deliver our comments on Monday and/or Tuesday, July 9, 2002. • • Agenda Item # ; „r; Page # 'I ~, Carol RchatzlTom Morris [3031 499-2529 p.l South Creek Seven Homeowners Association P.O. Box 3421 Boulder, CO 80307 http:l/bcn.boulder.co.us/community/sc7hoa/ July 4, 2002 Nan Johnson Ciry of Boulder Associate Planner By FAX: 303-441-3241 Re: Boulder County 1041 state interest review of CU-Boulder South Tennis Court Replacement Project Dear Ms. 7ohnson: The South Creek Seven Homeowners Association submitted the enclosed letter to the Boulder County Commissioners with regard to the University's tennis court application. We reiterate those comments for the city staff's consideration. Brietly, the county should deny the application because the proposal does not comply with "all of the applicable criteria" as required by the Boulder Counxy HB 1041 regulations. • In particular, the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan designates the land upon which the tennis courts are proposed to be located as open space. See the letter from Nan Johnson, City of Boulder Associate Planner, to David Callahan, Bouider Counry Staff Planner, dated April 11, 2002 (page 59 ofihe county staff's recommendation regarding this applicatian). Using open space for tennis courts would violate the BVCP. See the attached letter dated July 30, 1996, from the Boazd of Commissioners to the Board of Regents, in which the Commissioners question the Regents' commitment to the BVCP, stating that the University contemplates "a level of development ... which would be far more intense than the plan would altow." Compliance with the BVCP is an applicable criteria under the HB 1041 regulations. See §§ 8-202 (B) (5), (14), and (18), and § 18-117. Purther, the CJ.S. 36 Corridor Comprehensive Development Plan, § 4.1, prohibits the county from approving the application "unless such permit has been approved by the city" . The city should prevent the University from blatantly disregazding city and county open space designations by denying this permit. SOUTH CREEK SEVEN HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION -~~~~~ • By: Thomas Monis, 5ecretary C:VotyFiles~sC7\leners~tennis coun ciry.wpe Agenda Item # ~'%.!? Page #`/~ `% ~ul ^4 02 06:49a Caral Rchatz/Tom Morris (3031 499-2529 South Creek Seven Homeowners Association P.O. Box 3421 • Boulder, CO 80307 http:/Ibcn.bouider.co.uslcommunityisc7hoa/ 7une 10, 2002 Boulder County Commissioners County Courthouse, 3rd Floor 1425 Pearl St. , Boulder Re: Docket SI-02-02, University of Colorado - Boulder SI-1Q41 (Tennis Courts) Dear County Commissioners: South Creek Seven is a 6S-home planned unit subdivision located directly to the west of the University's Flatirons proparty. The members of the Association recently met and uaanimously adopted a positian statement opposing any development of the Ffatirons pTOpcrty, based upon the fotlowing considerations: ~ Most of the land is designated open space under the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan, and as homeowners, we bought our homes with the legitimate expectation Utat this land • would remain open space in fact; ~ Development is inappTOpriate because there is considezable uncertainty regarding the proper extent of the flood plain in the Flatirons property azea, in part due to uucertainry over the certification status of the levee along South Boulder Creek. The County's own regulations, in defining "Flood Hazard Initial Control Area", indicate that the existing mapped flood plain may be substantially in errot. Consequently, approving development would be unconscionable when no one knows the extent to which development would afFect flooding of communities 6oth up- and downstream of the Flatirons property; and • Development of the Flatirons gropecty, if it is to oeeur at all, onght to occuz pursuant to an annexation agreement with the City of Boulder as contemplated by the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan. Any development of the Flatirons property will have a negative impact on the Tantra neighborhood. In addition to single family homes, the neighborhood is comprised of tawn homes and apartments. University development of any kind is lilcely to brin$ moxe students to the neighhorhood, degrading the quality of our neighborhoad and putting additional downward pressure on our home values. With regard to the University's tennis court application, tha Commissioners should deny • the application for the following reasons. Section $-511 (A) (1) of the Boulder County HB 1041 Regulations, Standards for Approval of a Permit Application, General Approval Requirements, states that a permit application for development involving an acuvity or in an area of state interest: Agenda ltem # r>f"s Page # ;~' ; Jul 04 02 D6:49a Jul 04 02 06:49a Carol Rchatz/7om Morris (3031 498-2529 • may not be approved unless the applicanc satisfactorily demonstrates that the proposal, including all mitigation measures proposed by the applicant, complies with all of the applicable criteria set forth in this Article. If the proposal does not comply with all of the applicable criteria, the permit shaU be denied, unless the Board determines that reasonable conditions can be imposed on the perznit wliich wlll enable che permit to comply with the criteria. (Emphasis added.) The University has failed to demonstrate that the proposal meets the following applicable criteria: 1. § 8-511 (.n (2) and (4), Additional standazds for development in azeas azound interchanges involving state arterial highways, which require Wat the "volume of traffic to be generated by the proposed development sha11 be compatible with the traffic-handling cbaracteristics of the interchange and khe access road and existing, affected traffic roads" and that the proposed development shall "preserve desirable existing community patterns." Approving urban-type development in violation of open space designations and commitments to allow such development only pursuant to an annexation hazdly "preserves desirable existing community patterns." The Table Mesa / U.S. 36 / Foothills Parkway area is already overly congested; approving this application will only intensify the congestion. • Further, the University's long term plans as specified in its Land Use Assessment shows a through road connecting Tab]e Mesa to Highway 93 with a branch connecting to Tantza Drive. This road, especially the connection to "Tantra Drive, would dramaticall~ change the Tantra neighborhood with increased traffic and the associated road noise. Under no circumstances should the Univezsity be allowed to fuush this existing dirt road or remove the fences currenUy closing the road to traf~c. 2. § 8-202 (B) (18): This provides that the specific purposes and intent of the xegulation are to "Ensure that development involving all azeas and activities designated hereunder is consistent with these regulations, the BCCP, and any duly adopted IGAs or comprehensive development plans between the County and anoffier govemmental entiry. " 3. § 8-511 (B) (14), which requues that the proposal be "in accordance with the Boulder County Comprehensive Plan and any applicable intergovernmental agreement affecting land use and development. . . .". 4. § 8-511 (B) (5), which mandates that the proposal shall not "significantly degrade or pose a signi~cant hazard to any aspecc of the envuonment, including environmental resources and open space areas as identified in the Comprehensive Plan ..."(emphasis added). Under § 18-117, the "Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan and any similar subarea plans • are considered part of the Boulder County Comprehensive Plan", and the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan is such an "applicable intergovernmental agreement affecting land use and Agenda Item # li.r"~ Page #`~' y' Jul 04 02 06:49a Carol Rchatz/Tam Morris [3~3] 499-2529 deuelopment" . The BVCP designates the land upon which the Yennis courts aze proposed to be • located as open space. See the letter from Nan Johnson, City of Boulder Associate Planner, to David Callahan, Boulder County Staff Planner, dated April 11, 2002 (page 59 of staff's recommendation regarding tlris application). There is no condition that the Commissioners can nnpose upon on the permit that will enable the pernut to comply with the criteria-tennis courts are sunply incompatible with open space, and using open space for tennis courts would violate the BVCP and the BCCP. See the attached letter dated July 30, 1996, from the Board of Commissioners to the Board of Regents, in which the Coznmissioners question the Regents' commitment to the BVCP, stating that the i3niversity was evidently contemplating "a level of development ... which would be faz more intense than the plan would. allow." Nothing has changed in the intervening yeazs since this letter was written except that the University has confirmed that it plans to intensively develop the Flatirons properry. The tennis courts are only the University's initial development proposal, amd the residents of South Creek Seven are very concemed about CU's long term goals for intensive development of the Flatirons property. CU's draft plan for the "South Campus" submitted as parC of a Land Use Assessment shows 159.73 acres of the 302.02 acre property as "Building Potential. " This plan shows that CU plans far significantly more development than just some tennis courts and maybe a couple of soccer fields oi running tracks. The University should not be allowed to avoid the eumulative • impacts of its praposed development by seeking piecemeal development authorization. . ~urther, BVCP Policy 1.20, Definition of Comprehensive Planning Areas I, II, And III, states that new urbau development in Area II (the planning area that includes the Flatirons ptoperty} may "only occur coincident with the availabiliry of adequate facilities and services and not okherwise." "New urban development" is defined under Policy 1,22 (b) to include "Any proposed development within Area II subject to a county discretionary review process before the Board of County Commissioners, provided the county determines that the proposed development is inconsistent with the land use projections, maps or policies of the Botilder Valley Comprehensive Plan in effect at that Yime." Section 18-126 (A) specifies that: It is expected that land within municipal Community Service Areas Cincluding Area II] will be developed in an urban pattem, urban services will be provided by the municipalities, and the azea will even[ually be annexed. AdequaCe water and sewer facilities, which aze presum.ed to be supplied only by the City of Boulder under ~'olicy 3.01, are not available for ihe proposed athletic facilities. How can the University or the Commissioners expect spectators, much less tennis players, to utilize the tennis courts without a water supply? Finally, § 4.1 of the i7.S. 36 Corridor Comprehensive Development Plan, which is an • "applicable intergovernmental agreement affecting land use and development" pursuant to § 8-511 Agenda Item # r._. ,~'i Page # <~<~ ~ul 04 02 06:S~a Carol Rchatz/Tom Marris [3031 499-2529 • (Bj (14) and is incorpot'ated by refezence into the BCCP pursuant to § 18-117, defiues the Ciry of Boulder's "influence area" to include the Flatiron property. Section 4.2 states: Until and unless annexed, Boulder County shall enfoTCe its "Areas and Activities of State InteresY' regulations upon any parcels identified as within the Influemce Area of any city or town Pazry, and shall not grant a permit for development pursuant to such cegulations unless such permit has been approved by the city or town whose Influence Area the map indicates for such pazcel(s). (Emphasis added.) The Commissioners properly posiponed action on the University's application pending the City's review, and should commit to abide by the City's veCO power granted in § 4.2. SOUTH CREEK SEVEN AOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION ~ ~ ~~ By: Kaza McGazigal, P{ry ident v ~~~~~~~ By: Michael McMillen, Treasurer • cc: Boulder City Council ~ ' .~- `~v~ ~ y: Shane Brown, Vice President - l,~c-~~-~T: U`~-~c~- By: Thomas Morris, Secretary • Agenda Item # rr':/"7' Page #;i' i C:1MyFiles~SC7\letters\tennis wurt.wpd Jul 04 02 06:50a Carol Rchatz/Tam Morris (303] 499-2529 i Pcst OMce Box 471 • aouiaer, coiarcao eoaoa Board of County Commissioners i3m & aean srreers • Boulder Counry Courthouce . aowder. coiorodo eo3oz . caa~~ aai-3soo July 30, 1996 Baard of Regents University o£ Colorado Campus Box 3 Bouldex, CO 80309 Dear Members of the Board of Regents: We are writing concerning your possible acquisikion of the ~~Flatirons Property" in unincorporated Boulcler County adjacent to the City of Boulder. We request that you reserve a 30-day period a£ter due diligence actions have been completed in order to discuss issues of concem to Boulder County citizen9 regarding.acquisition of this property. On behalf of our citizens, our concems relate primarily to 1) the apparent iaflated purchase price, base~ on valuea of comperable land in the County; 21 the lese than open pzocess by which the purchase agreement has evolved; and 3) concez'ns about the University's commitment to the Boulder Valley CompXehensive Plan's land use regluationa and guidelines, inaamuch as the proposed purchase price suggeata that a level of development is being contemplated for the property which would be far more intense than the plan would allow. we strongly beliave that a broader dialogue is needed between tha University, Boulder County and the City of Soulder as to the future uaes of this property. Surely this dialogue would be in the best interests of the University, Boulder County and the City oP Bouldex, as well as other citizens of the State of Colorado. Thi.s is too important an action of govemment to be done without such a dialogue. Therefore, we urge you to aet aside a 30-day waiting period before you contemplate finalizing the acquisition. Sincerely, ~ ~ ~ ( ~`~ ~~ Ron Stewart, Chair a a Meadez, Vice ir Paul Danish BOULDER COUNTY BOARD OF CONIIrlI5SIONERS Agenda Item # ~ ,r~ Page #~_ Jane L MeneleZ RonOltl K. Stewc I~rv wA~ /~nr~MMlnw ~~. ~ ~~.. ~ ~ I am making the same comment to the City that I made to the County: I think using this land for athletic fieids is a good use because there wouid be no problem if the fields have to be flooded in a 100 year flood. My concern is that this proposal calls for 100 trips per day. Then they will add more fields and the trips will grow, particularly if they move the football practice fiefds there, The traffic at U536/South Bldr Road-Table Mesa is already a mess, There are frequent lines of cars waiting to turn left from eastbound Table Mesa to westbound US36, There are numerous fender benders as cars exiting the Foothilis Parkway try to merge with westbound traFfic on South Boulder Road. We do not need more traffic in this intersection! I think that any approvai should be contingent on a plan to improve this • intersection, including direct access to from the athietic fields from Foothills Parkway, not by way of the present interchange. Joe DeSousa 5285 Illini Way Boulder • Agenda Item # ~r.~ Page # `~ ~~ file://C:\Documents%20and%20Settin~s\i ohnn 1 \Local%20~ Nan 7ohnson - Comments on the Development of CU South • From: "Nancy Thalman" <nthalman@hotmaii.com> To: <BSCComment@ci.boulder.co.us> Date: 7/3/2002 12:46 PM Suhject: Comments on the Development of CU South CC: <emjhogan@hotmail.com> Nancy E. Thaiman Ellen M. Hogan 1070 Tantra Park Circle Bouider, CO 80305 ]uly 3, 2002 To City of Boulder Planning and Development Services: I am very strongly opposed to any further development of the CU South property. This property, which is adjacent to the South Boulder Creek open space should remain open space. This land is part of the citys buffer zone and the natural corridor of open land that is seen • when descending the Davidson Mesa via US 36 into Boulder. I live adjacent to this area and don't want to see traffic and noise levels increase. The traffic is already horrible during the rush hour periods of 7:30 - 9:00 am, 11:30 am - 1 pm, and 4:00 - 6:30 pm. It is difficult now during rush hour periods to turn from Table Mesa Dr into the Martin Acres and Tantra Park neighborhoods. This is especially true when CU is in session during Fall and Spring semesters. Further development of the CU property is sure to bring more traffic volume to an already congested area. Also, CU may build a road through this land to connect Table Mesa Dr and Hwy 93 together. I can see this becoming a major thoroughfare for people wanting to bypass Broadway to get to Foothills Parkway or Hwy 93. Although this may not be CUs intention, thaYs really how it wili be used. This area also provides a natural drainage for Boulder's mountains and for South Boulder creek. During spring, this area turns into a wetiand as it coilects rain runoff in low-lying areas. Many amphibians, reptiles, water fowl and other birds use this area as their nesting grounds for several months during the spring. This land also provides a safe haven for coyotes, deer, fox, owls, plovers, red-wing black birds, meadow larks, red-tailed hawks, water fowl such as ducks and geese, and the countless more creatures. In the spring of 2001, during the height of breeding and nesting for many animals and birds, CU repiaced • naturai drainages with French drains. For me, this was very heartbreaking to observe these natural habitats being destroyed. The people in adjacent neighbors already treat and use this Agenda IYem # c~;~~ Page # ,:~'~ file://C:\Documents%20and%20Settin~s\johnn 1 \Local%20S land as open space. It adds to the quality of our lives being able to walk in this space and observe nature so close to where we live. Our • quality of life would be severly effected by the development of this property. The City of Boulder needs to do the right thing in this case. The right thing is to not allow CU to develop this Iand any further. CU will not leave town if you turn them down. Please preserve this vital tract of land for future Boulderites and for the wildlife that needs these open spaces to sustain their lives. Open space is one of the main draws of CU students and Boulderites alike to this beautiful, dramatic landscape. Do the right thing!! Nancy E. Thalman Ellen M. Hogan Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http;//mobile.msn,com • • Agenda Item # ~- ~~~ Page #;3` i' file://C:\Documents%20and%20Settines\i ohnn 1 \Locai%2( Table Mesa CU Tennis courts proposal- I oppose!!! NQn Johnson - 1'uble Mesa CU Tennis courts proposul- I opposeli! • From: Julie Thompson <JThompson@IonicsInstruments.com> To: "' BSCComment@ci.boulder.co.us"' <BSCCommentC~ci.boulder.co.us> Date: 7/2/2002 10:30 AM Sub ject: Table Mesa CU Tennis courts proposal- I oppose!!! Denr Ms. Sahnson, I received the City of Boulder 6/21/02 letter concerning the proposed CU Bould¢r Tennis court project on Table Mesa. 2 live ut 628 Tantra Dr., in the South Creek Condominiums. i am apposed to the development of the CU property neor my home. I have heard rumors of a potential land trode between the City of Boulder and CU,..(the Table Mesa property for Crossroods Mail). I know the City does not own Crossroads yet, but I assume there has been discussion on the purchuse of that property? If a potentinl trade is in the works....why let development start now? I believe that the building of the tennis courts on the Table Mesa property, is just u foot in the door for CU to develop the rest. I wont that open space to remain open space. I don't want to s¢e Tuntrn br. and my home to become to back door entrance for CU student parking to get to their new south campus. Please, please, please.,.,....stop them from building there. If there will be any more meeYings that the local residents can attend in opposition to this project, pleose let us know where and when. Is there anything else„ that you are aware of, that I can do at this time to help stap the development of this land?? Sincerely, Julie Thompson jthompson@Ioni csInstruments,com 628 Tantra Dr. Boulder. CO 80305 (303) 554-9919 eve. (303)444-2009 day • • Agenda Item # ~~~'~ Page # ;~~' file://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\johnn 1 \Local%20Se Mabel Nan JohnsoYi - tennis on south cu campas • I~rom: "Shcri Jalcobssori" <c~zlibun(ir7,ccent~~~Lcom> Tu: <=[3SCCotnnicnt(u~.ci.bould~r.co,us~ Date: G/30/2002 4:57 PM Subject: tennis on south c~i carrtpus '~nr.i^ ..~^~_". ~ . _~r~r ~ ~~.~.e...i~..-~.-^""'.,V" ~IlC +4rr 7~ '^~M..r I would like to reiterat~e my ohjections Ca llle cc>nstruction oP tennis courl~s ar~d a p~rking lot on ihe beauti'ful open space adjacent my coudo. They ~~re o37 (iJe. This be~tuti'ful spttce would be destroyed aestheUcally by the bli~ht ol'temiis courts (and I arn ~ serious teunis player) aud 1he pttr•ldng lot. FIow~ can anyone ev~n conceive oldoin~ such a 19~iri~ in fPiat lovely spaee filled with. trecs, fl~~vEr~s, grasses, poncls, l~irds and ~ll 1<inds of wildlifc. l'otz cannot go anywhere in l~oulc~er where you do not sce c~~rs and parking lots. Must you Cake Chis open sp~cc also arid ii I] it with pavemcut and cars7?'?'?? It is furthec a sure ~Pa~~, denied by many, that the Craffic ~vill increase on 7'antra Dr. AS c~ne of C",U''s ~nc~st resa~eeted geologists noted m an a~rt~ic(e in tl~c C;amcra a ficw momhs ago, ~ha has ~ su•ious reservaCiC~nS abotiil~ it b~ing a tlood ~~lain }IE 1S AN EXP~RT, WITI I NO VLSTED INTL'REST. I'lease heed liis ~varnings. Thank You. Slierie J~d:c~bssoi7, 4771 Ta~nYra I)r. •r~..r._~~.+~~-~.~'.~'"~rw,'~„tit`~'"",...r.~` ~~,"~"v~ '~'~ -a~..~•^ ~~~ • Agenda Item # l>:li Page # ~`~ file://C:\Documents%20and%20Settin~s\lohnnl \Local%20 ATTACHMENT E Post Offlce Box 471 • Boulder. Colorado 80306 Land Us~ Department Courihousa Annex ~ 2045 13th Street . 13in & Spruce Sireets • Boulder, Colorado 80302 •(303) 441-39?0 Board of County Commissioners May 30, 2002: 3:00 PM Hearing Room, Third Floor, County Cuurthouse, Boulder PUBLIC HEARIM'G STAFF PLANNER: David Callahan STAFF RECOMME;'VDATION RE: Docket SI-02-02: UN[VERSITY OF COLORADO - BOULDER SI-1041 Request: Activities of State Interest Review for the consideration of a tennis court ;= complex consisting of twelve fenced courfs, a temporary parking Iot, -_ vie~*nng stands and associated grading. _- Location: South of the intersection of US 36 and Fouthills Parkway, in Sections 9& i ] 6, T 1 S, R70W Zoning: Economic Development (ED) : Agricultural (A) , Applicant: University of Colorado / Board of Regents = Agents: Jeffrey Lipton, Executive Director / DepaRment of Facilities Management =- Nancy Love ' DISCUSSION = This review considers whether development within one mile of the intersection of a state arterial ~' highway is compatible wiYh the standards set forth in Article 8 of the Boulder County Land Use Code. The proposed development is located outside of any historical, archaeologica] or natural resource azea, '_ and is outside of any 11ood hazard area, or geologic hazard area. Consequently, the application can ' only be reviewed in accordance with the general approval standards, and the additional standards for ~~ development in areas around interchanges involving staTe arterial highways (sections 8-511 B., and J. -, of the Land Use Code). ,' The application proposes twelve fenced tennis courts, a temporary graval parking lot for up to 125 cars, viewing stands, and associated grading and ]andscaping. The new courts will replace the existing Kittredge courts, whirh are currently located on the main campus, and which will be displaced this year by the new law s~~hool. The proposed couRS will be used daily for tennis competitions, and for intercollegiate athletics, intra~r,urais, and summer tennis camps. Although the tennis oourts will have electrical service to run icems such as tennis ba]] machines, no outdoor ]ighting is proposed. Neither ~vill there be any pot:ibla water or sewage treatment facilities. Instead, restrooms are proposed as screened portable toilr.ts, and participants are expected [o bring their own drinking water to the site. T'he courts and parking area comprise a total of 6 acres of tha existing 308-acre property. Agenda Item # ~~.%' Page #~ Jana L. Mendez Ronald K. Siew~ CcunN Commissior,er Counry Commissi Docket SI-02•02: University of Coloratlo -Boulder SI-1041 Board of Counry Commissioners May 30, 2002 -3:OOpm REFERRAL RESPONSES This proposal was referred to usual agencies, departments, and adjacent proper[y owners (within 1,500 feet). The refeaal responses received by staff, as of the date of wnting this recommendation, are summarized below: lieferral Agencies and Departments indicating No Conflict: Cherryvale Fire Protection Dismct, Urban Drainage Flood Control District, County Building Safety and Inspection Services Division. County Transportation: No conflict with the proposed courts. Still researching existing berm, and its effect on the floodplain boundary. Colorado Geological Survey: notes the high swelling characteristics of the existing soil and high groundwater could affect construction and long term performance. They recommend conducting a geotechnical investigation before construction, County Parks and Open Space Department: finds that the proposal will not have significant environmental impacts. Recommends clustering the complex with the existing building to preserve trees, and to increase the likelihood of wildlife use of the pond ro the south. Recommends prohibiting outdoor lighting. City of Boulder, Planning and Development Services: states that to be consistent with the Boulder Valley Comp. Plan, the property should be annexed ancl urban services extended before development. Requests continued assurances thst continued cooperation :tnd coordination of the multiple agency South Boulder Creek eFfort will not be impaired by the current proposal. Notes the uncertainty of the current FEMA mapping, and that floodplain concems should be verified. Seeks certain conditions of approva] to mitigate noise, any fuhire lighting, and to protect the Open Space and Vlountain Parks property. Notes a separate right tum lane wil] be required at Table Mesa Drive. Adjacent Property Owners /Public No conflict = 40 (three of these support the application) Opposed = 24 Those opposed listed concems such as: noise, wildlife affects, the effect on the floodplain, destruction ofopen space, trash, traffic and appearance. Want the development delayed until a new tloodplain study is conducted. Believe this is the ti,st in a series oF more requests for more extensive, inappropriate development. Question portable toilets. Parking is escessive. Affects on subsurface aquifers are uncertain. The area will lose its serene environment. The project is insufficiently comprehensive. The intersection at the north of Ihis property should be re-designed a~~ aage z oe i i Agenda Item # (c„~~ Page #~_ G9LUD\LUSHARED\Dockets\SI0202\SI-02-02 bocc BR.doc DocketSl-02-02: University.ofColorado-BoulderSl•1041 Board of County Commissioners May 30, 2002 ~:OOpm to accommodate the additional traffic. CRITERIA ANALYSIS Land Use staff has reviewed the applicable standards for approval of a permit application, as specified in Article 8-~ 11 B. and .T. of the Boulder Coanty Land Use Code, and finds the following: Articie 8-512 Criteria Section B Standards for approval of all permit applications 1. The applicant has obtained or will obtain all property rights, permits, and approvals necessary for the proposal, including surface, mineral, and water rights. The Board may, in its discretion, defer makittg a final decision on the applicafion unti] necessary property rights, permits and approvals for the proposal are obtained (11/01/Ol). ~ The Universiry of Colorado owns the property upon which the tennis courts will be located. 2. The applicant has the necessary expertise and S'inancia] capability to develop attd operate the proposal consistent with alt requirements and conditions. (17/O1/OI) The tiniversity of Colorado has budgeted funds for the completion of the proposed project. 3. Adequate wuter supplies, as determined from the Colorado Departmant of Health, are available Tor the proposal if applicable. Not applicable. The proposal will not cause unreasonable loss of signi~cant agricultural lands as identified in the Comprehensive Plan, or identifiable on or near the site. This. area is not designated as signiFicant agricultural land in the county Comprehensive Plan. S. The proposal shall not significantly degrade or pose a significant hazard to any aspect of the environment, including environmenta! resnurces and open space areas as identified in the Comprehensive Plun, and other features or eiements that are deemed to be signiticant components of the naturat environment worthy of preservation. For purposes of this section, the foltowina aspects of the environment sha11 be considered:(11/01/UI) a. Air quality: The proposal shatl not signiflcantly deteriorate air quality. In determinin; impacts to air quality, these considerations shall apply. i. Changes to seasonal ambient air quatity. ii. Changes in visibitity and microclimates. a~~ Pa~e 3 of I I Agenda Item #~_ Page #`.~~ G:\LUD\LUSFIARGD\Docke~s\SIO?02\SI-02-0? bocc BR.doc DocketSl-02-02: UniversityoFColorado-BoulderSl-1041 Board of Counry Commissioners May 30, 2002 -3:OOpm iii. Applicable air quality standards. The applicant will be required to meet and demonstrate compliance with applicable air qualiry requirements, such as fueitive dust emissions. b. Visual quality. The proposal shall not significantly degrade visual quality. In determ'sning impaccs to visual qualih, these considerations shall apply. Visual changes to ground cover and vegetation, rvatertalls and streams, or other natural features. ii. Interference with viewsheds and scenic vistas. iii. Changes in appearances of torest canopies. iv. Changes in landscape character types or unique land tormations, v. Compatibility of building and structure design and materials with surroundingland uses. The construction of tennis courts on six acres should not create much of an impact. The proposed fencing, windscreens, and landscaping should be all that is visible. It will comprise less than Z% of the total acreage. c. Surface water quality. The proposal shall not significantly degrade surface water quality. In determining impacts to surface water Quality, these considerations shall apply. Changes to esisting water quality, including patterns of water circulation, temperature, conditions o1'the substrate, extent and persistence of suspended particulates and clarity, odor, color or tuste of water. ii. Applicable narrative and numeric water quality standards. iii. Increases in point and non-point source pollution loads. iv. Increase in erosion. Increases in sediment loading to waterbodies. vi. Changes in stream channel or shoreline stability. vii. Changes in starmrvater runoff tlows. viii. Changes in trophic status or in eutrophication rAtes in lakes and reservoirs. is. Changes in ti~e capacity or Functioning of streams, lakes or reservoirs. djc Pape 4 uf I I G:1LUD\I,USHARED\Docke~s\510202\51-02-02 bocc BR.doc Agenda Item # ~~. /=~ Page #`I i DocketSl-02-02: UniversityofColorado-BoulderSt-104t Board of County Commissioners May 30, 2002 -3:OOpm x. Changes in flushing llows. xi. Changes in dilation rates of mine waste, agricultural runoff and other unregulated sources of poliutants. This application will have no direct impacts on sur£ace water quality. The additional water runoff crsated by the tennis courts should Ue easily absorbed by the remaining undeveloped acreage. d. Groundwater quality. The praposal shall nat signiticantiy degrade groundwater quality. In determining impacts to groundwater quality, these considerations shall apply. i. Changes in aquifer recharge rates, groundwater levels and aquifer capacity including seepuge losses through aquifer boundaries and at nquifer-stream interi'aces, ii. Changes in capacity and function of welts within the impact area. iii. Changes in quality of well water within the impact area. There is no evidenca that this project will create any degradation to groundwater. e. 'Wetlands and riparian areas. The proposal shall not signiC~cantly degrade fhe quality of wetlands and riparian areas. In determiaing impacts to wetlands and riparian areas, these consiclerations shall apply. Changes in the structure and function of wetlands. ii. Changes to the filtering and pollutant uptake capacities of wetlands and riparian areas. iii. Changes to aerial estent of wetlands. iv. Changes in species' charlcteristics and diversity. Transition from wetland to upland species. vi. Changes in function and aerial extent oi' floodplains. This project is outside of any junsdictional wetland areas, and will not have any significant impacts on any riparian area. f. Terrestrial and aquatic animal liFe. The proposal shall not signiCicantly degrade the quality of terrestrial and aqultic animal life. In determining impacts to terrestrial and aquatic Animal life, these considerations shall apply. Changes that result in foss oT oxygen for aquatic life. air Page i of 11 Agenda Item #!e C~i Page #~ G:\LUDILUSHARED\DocketslS1020?lS1-02-OS bocc BR.doc DocketSl-02-02: UniversityqfColorado-BOUIderSl•1041 Board of County Commissiooers May 30, 2002 -3:OOpm ii. Changes in flushing flows. iii. . Changes in species composition or density. iv. Chanaes in number of threatened or endange~ed species. v. Changes to habitat and critical habitat, including calving grounds, mating grounds, nestin; arounds, summer or winter range, migration routes, or any other hubitat feutures necessary for the protection and propagntion of any terresirial animals. vi. Changes to habitat and critical habitat, including stream bed and banks, spawning grounds, riffle and side pool areas, flushing Ilows, nutrient accumulation and cycling, water temperature, depth and circulation, stratification and any other conditions necessary for the protecfion and propagation of aquatic species. vii. Changes to the aquatic and terrestrial food webs. Staff finds no evidence that the proposal will significantly degrade the qualiry of terrestria] or aauatic animal life. g. Terrestrial and aquatic plant life. The proposal shall not signif7cantly degrade the quality of terrestrial and aqaatic plant life. In determining impacts to terrestrial and ~quatic animallife, these considerations shall apply. Changes to haUitat of threatened or endangered plant species. ii. Changes to the structure and function oS vegetation, including species composition, diversity, biomass, and productivity. iii. ~ Ch:~nges in advancement or succession of desirable and less desirable species,including nosious weeds. iv. Changes in threatened nr endangered spccies. Staff finds no evidence tha[ the proposal will significantly degrade the qnality of tenestrial or aquatic plant ]ife. h. Soiis a~~d geologic conditions. The proposal s1~a11 not significantly degrade soils and geologic conditions. In determining impacts on soils and geologic conditions, these considerations shall apply. a;~ rageboe~~ AgendaItem# 1,~3 Page# ~_~~; G:11UD\LUSHARED\Dockeu\SI0~02\SI-02-02 bocc BR.doc Docket SI-02-02: University of Colorado -BOUlder SI-1041 Board of County Commissioners May 30, 2002 -3:OOpm Changes to-the topography, natvral drainage patterns, soit morphology and productivity, soil erosion potential, and ilood hazard areas. ii. Changes to stream sedimentation, geomorphology, and channel stability. iii. Changes to -ake and reservoir bank stability and sedimentation, and safety of esisting reservoirs. iv. Changes to avalanche areas, mudflows and debris fans, and other unstable and potentially unstable slopes. v. Exacerbation of seismic concerns and subsidence. This proposal will have very few, if any, significant impacts to any soil or geologic conditions. County Parks and Open Space staffrecommends review and approval of final grading, erosion control, and reclamation plans to reduce erosion impacts. 6, The proposal will not have a signi~cant adverse effect on the quality or quantity of recreafional opportunities and experience. This property is not purposefully providing recreational opportunities or expenences, Given that the proposed development uses ]ess than 2% of the total property, staff finds that it will not have a significant adverse effect on any recreational conditions. The proposal will not causa unreasonable loss of significant cultural resources, including but not necessarily limited to historical structures or sites and archaeological artifacts or sites, as identifled in the Comprehensive Plan or identifiable on or near the site. No known archeological, cultural, or historic sites are known to exist at this site. 8. The proposal or its associated transmission collector or distribution system will not create blight, or cause other nuisance factors such as excessive noise or obnoxious odors. New tennis courts will not have a blighting impact on the surrounding area, and there are no nuisance factors associated with courts that wil] be separated by a very large berm, and by a distance of 685 feet from the nearest residential uses. 9. The proposa[ will not be subject to significant risk from iloods, fires, earthquukes ar oiher disasiers or natural hazards. The location of the floodplain in this area is a matter of dispute and currently undar study. Howeaer, the cunent best estimates of the flood boundaries for this area show ti.at the cou~~, are outside of any flood hazazd areas. There are no other applicable natural hazards. 10. The propossl or its associaied transmission eollector or distribution system will a~~ Pas~ ~ or i i Agenda Item # r~_ Page #<//. G:\LUD\LUSHARED\Dockets\SIO?OZ\SI-02-0? bocc BR.doc Docket SI-02-02: University of Colorado -Boulder SI-1041 Board of County Gommissioners May 30, 2002 -3:OOpm not create an undue financial burden on existing or future residents of the County. There are no imown financial burdens associated with this project. 11. The proposal will not have a significant adverse effect on the capability oFlocal government to pravide services or exceed U~e capacity of service delivery systems.(11/01/OI) No service or capacity issues have been raised by this review. 12. The planning, design and operation of the proposal will reflect appropriate principles of resource conservation, energy efficiency and recycling or reuse.(II/01/DI) Given the temporary nature of the construction disturbance, the avoidance of sienificant environmental resources, and the implementation of the conditions of approval, staff finds the design and operation is appropriate. 13. For those applications for which the Director has required information on the environmenta] impacts and costs oF alternatives under Section 8-507(F)(7), above, the proposal represents [he least damaging ulternative of reasonabte cost among the alternatives analyzed. Not applicable. This standard applies to developments typically allowing for a variety of utility improvement routings. 14. The proposal is in accordance with the Boulder County Comprehensive Plan and any applicable intergovernmental agreement affecting land use and development, including but not limited to any applicable land use designations. In cases rvhere a person who is not a service provider with a County-approved service plan or service area, proposes a development within an appmved service area, the Board shall not be compelled to consider the development be in compliance with the ~pplicable adopted compretiensive plan or interaovernmental planning aareement simply by virtue of the fact that the development is located within, or is proposed to serve, an approved service area.(11/OI/01) This project avoids significant impacts to any environmental resources, and it is outside of any significant hazard areas. Consequently, it complies with the County Comprehensive Plan. The City of Boulder reYerral notes that to be consistent with the policies of the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan, the site should be annexed and adequate urban services extended prior to development. County staff finds that the proposed development is consistent with the Boulde° Valley Comprehensive Plan, and further notes that the current applicable policy (1.18) authorizes the county to determine that the development is consistent with the plan. J. Additional standards for development in areas around interchanges involving state arterial highways. (8/13/98) a~~ Page 8 of 11 ~genda Item # ~l~ Page #~j ~ G:\LUD\LUSHARGD\Dockets~.S10?02\SI-02-02 bocc BR.dac Docket S1-02-02: University of Colorado -Boulder SI-1041 Board of County Commissioners May 30, 2002 -3:OOpm 1. The proposed development shall not pose a danger to public health or safety or to property (including the subject property, other impacted properties, and the environment).(II/01/01) No public health or safety dangers have been revealed in this review, While the city staff referrai states that "The University wil] be required to construct a separate right turn lane," the staff does not find that the traffic associated with this development poses a dan;er. 2. The volume of trafGc to be generated by the proposed development shall be compatible with the tr~f~c-handling characteristics of the interchange and the access road and existing, affected traffic roads. The traffic study conducted for this proposal states that the 2005 level of service for the three intersections most afFected by this project will be the same, with or without the project. The study goes on to state that the same is true for 2020, excapt that the ]evel of service For special events deteriorates to E for the US 36 West Ramp. The study concludes that the increased traffic impact is not related to the tennis courts, but rather results from other back~,nound changes in traffic volumes, and finds that the deterioration can be overcome by "opcimizing" the si,,anal timing, which is a current function of the city staff. Consequently, county land use staff finds that the naffic associated with this project is compatible with the interchange and affected roads. 3. The proposed development shall be compatible with existing developments and with the character of the neighborhood, and shall not signiFcantly impair an area or resource of special scenic, historical, or cultur~l significance. Staff finds the proposed development is compatible. It is outside of all loiown historical and culhiral areas, and will not significantly impair any special scenic area. Tennis courts are typicaliy considered appropriate uses for flood prone areas, and are compatible with residuntial neighborhoods. These particular courts aze more than '/< oY a mile from any single family homes, and are significantly buffered and removed from the nearest residential dwellings to the west. 4. The proposed development shall preserve desirabte existing community putterns. This use will preserve the existing desirable community patterns b,/ generally maintaining existing land use patterns, by limiting traffic impacts to the road systems that can handle the increase, and by limiting noise and visua] impacts. 5. A development that proposes burdens or deprivations on the communities of a region shall not be justified on the basis of local benelit alone. This de~ alopme:it poses no significant burdens or deprivations on the communities of a region. di~ P~°e ~ ~~~ ~~ Agenda Item # Gr• /~ Page # `;' G:\LUD\WSHARED\DocAets\SIO?02`,SI-02-0? bocc BR.doc Docket SI-02-02: University of Colorado -Boulder SI-1041 Board of County Commissioners May 30. 2002 -3:OOpm PLANNING COM~IISSION REVIEW The Planning Commission heard this item on May 1~, 2002. The hearing lasted about 3 hours and 24 minutes. Fifreen speakers from the audience addressed the commission. The concerns centered on impacts on the floodplain, and to the environment. Among the other issues raised were that this approval would lead to future approvals, that the staff analysis is deficient, that the portable toilets are inappropriate, and that the ]ack of potable water could be problematic. The Planning Commission amended condition of approval number 5. to raise the sound limit from ~0 to 5~ decibels, and voted 5 to 3 to recommend approval of the docket. SUMMARY / RECOMbIENDATION Staff has reviewed the application and finds that it is consistent with the applicable standards of the Land Use Code. It complies with the Boulder County Comprehensive Plan and ~vith the joindy adopted Bou]der Valley Comprehensive Plan. Therefore, the Land Use staff and the Planning Commission recommend to the Board of County Commissioners CONDITIONAL APPROVAL of Docket Docket SI-02-U2: U^~IVERSITY OF COLORADO - BOULDER SI-1041 to construct new tennis courts and associated parking and grading subject to the following conditions: 1. Prior to tl~e issuance of the grading permit, the applicant shall obtain and provide verification of all applicable permits and approvals as required and necessary by state and federal law. The operation of any aspect of this proposal that does not compiy with the terms and conditions of all required permits shall be grounds for a revocation hearing before the Board of County Commissioners. 2. Final grading, erosion control, and re-vegetation and landscaping specifications (including weed management provisions) and plans shall be reviewed and approved by County staffprior to any construction. The re-vegetation and landscape plans shall consist principally of native plant materials, and shall be subject to monitoring for three years upon completion of die courts to ensure success. The grading plan shall depict the limits of all grading associated with the tennis courts. The grading shall be staked on the ground. There shall be no disturbance associatad with this review to the remainder of the site that is outside of the grading limits approved bythe grading plan. Any outdoor lighting of the courts or parking areas is prohibited. The applicant may apply, and the county may agree to amend this condition, provided that an application review is conducted and proper notice is given, all in accordance ~vith applicable regulations. 4. The applicants shall be subject to the terms, conditions, and commitments of record and in the file for pocket SI-OZ-02: iJNIVERSITY OF COLORADO - BOULDER SI-] 041. 5. The sound emanating from any ]oudspeaker system located on the tennis courts shall nut exceed 5~ decibels when measured at any University of Colorado property line adjacent to any residentia] zoning district. Sound shall be measured on the "A" weighting scale on a sound level meter of standard design and qualir~ and chara:teristicr established Uy the American National Standards Instihite. ~i~ Pagc 10 of I I gen a tem tw./' age #~ G:\LUD\LUSHARED\Dockets\SIO?02~51-02-02 bocc BR.doc Docket SI•02-02: University of Colorado -Boulder SI-1041 Board of County Commissioners May 30, 2002 -3:OOpm 6. The Preble's Meadow Jumping Mouse (PMJM) survey by wildlife biologist Ron Beane, the other environmental studies cited in the app]ication, and the letter from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service accepting the PMJM survey shall be submitted to the County prior to any conshvction. Geotechnical investigaYions, as recommended by the Colorado Geological Survey referral dated March 27, 2002, shall be conductad and submitted to the County prior to any construction. 8. This use is limited to 100 average daily trips, and a maximum of 350 trips on any sin~le day. The 350-trip maximum shall not occur more than 4 times in any calendar year. The applicant may apply, and the counry may agree to amend this condition, provided that an application review is conducted and proper notice is given, all in accordance with applicable regulations. a~° Page ~~ °E" Agenda Item # (~ly Page # ~~"~ ';'; G:\LUD\LUSHARED1Dockets1SI02021SI-02-02 bocc BR.doc CERTTFICATE OF RESOLUTTON TO: Boaril of Bouider County Commissioners FROM: Boulder Counry Planning Cc~mmission DATE: May 21, 2002 g~; Docket application SI-02-02. Tkris certifies that at a public hearing of the Planning Commission, Counry of Boulder, State of Colorado, duly called and held on May 1~, 2002, the following resolution was duly adopted. Be it resolved that the Planning Commission, County of Boulder, State of Colorado, recommends to the Boazd of County Commissioners that the following request be Approved with Conditions, by a vote of 5 in favor, 3 against, 1 abstaining and 0 absent. . Docket SI-02-02: iINIVERSITY OF COLORADO - BOIJLDER SY State Interest (1041 Request: Acriviries of State Interest for the consideration of a tennis coutt complex consisting of twelve fenced courts, a temporary pazldng lot, viewing stands and associated grading. Location: South of the intersection of US 36 and Foothills Pazkway in Secrion 9, T1S, R70W Zoning: Agricultisal (A) Zonin;: Economic Development (ED) Subject to the condirions that: 1. Prior to the issuance of the grading permit, the applicant shall obtain and provide verification of all applicable permits and approvals as required and necessary by state and federel law. The operation of any aspect of this proposal that does not comply with the terms and conditions of all required permits shall be grounds for a revocation hearing before the Board of County Commissioners. 2. Final grading, erosion control, and re-vegetarion and landscaping specificarions (including weed management provisions) and plans shall be reviewed and approved by County staff prior to any construcrion. The re-vegetation and landscape plans shall consist principally of native plant materials, and shall be subject to monitoring for three yeazs upon complerion of the courts to ensure success. The grading plan shall depict the lunits of all grading associated with the tennis courts. The grading shall be staked on the ground. There shall be no disturbance assooiated with this review to the remainder of the site that is outside of the grading limits approved by the grading plan. 3. Any outdoor lighting of the caurts or parlcng areas is prohibited. The applicant may apply, and the county may agree tu amend this condirion, provided that an applicarion review is conducted and proper notice is given, ail in accordance with applicable regulations. 4. The applicants shall be subject to the tenns, condifions, and commifi ~ents of record an+i in the fi:e .°o: Uocket SI-02-02: UI : VEt:SITY OF LOLORADO - BOIJLDER ST-1041. 5. The sound emanating from any loudspeaker system ]ocated on the tennis courts shall not exceed 55 decibels when measured at any Universiry of Colorado property line adjace~rt to any residenrial zoning district. Sound lZ " Agenda Item # <%,~ Page # '~~ shall be measured on the "A" weighring scale on a sound level meter of standard design and quality and chatacterisrics established by the American National Standards Insritute. 6. The Preble's Meadow Jumping Mouse (PMJM) survey by wildlife biologist Ron Beane, the other environmental studies cited in the applicarion, and the letter from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service accepting the PM7M survey shall be submitted to the County prior to any construcrion. 7. Geotechnical snvestigarions, as recommended by the Colorado Geologicai Survey referral dated Mazch 27, 2002, shall be conducted and submitted to the County pnor to any construcrion. 8. T'his use is limited to 100 average daily ~ips, and a maximum of 350 trips on any single day. The 350-trip maximum shall not occur more than 4 times in any aalendar yeaz. The applicant may apply, and the coanty may agree to amend trus condition, provided that an application review is conducted and proper norice is given, all in accordance with applicable regularions. . This docket lias been scheduled for final consideration by the Boazd of County Commissioners on May 30, 2002 in the Hearing Room, T'hird Floor, County Courthouse, Boulder. BOULDER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION '_7 " . "L ~~ ~ by Darnd Callahan, A.ICP, C•,inent Planning Manager for Crraham S. Billingsiey, Secretary 13 - Agenda Item # l~. (; Page # s,>7 BOULDER COUNTYLAND USE DEPARTMENT 20ai 13th Street!'?tn & Spruce Streets ~ Courthouse Annex ~ . . P.O. 8ox 471 f 9oulder, Coloratlo 8C306 ~ 309 a41.39301 Fax 303.441.4850 • APPLICATION FORM APPLIC~=.710N DEADLlNE ~~~ ~ ` ~ S=COND WEDNES~AY OF THc MONTH • 4:30 ~ '~s- Ooes nof apply to Exemo:ion Plats, Site Pian Reviews, -.~ ~- ~-: ` limited Impact Special P.eviews, or Subdivision Exemption s s;,,,.r ~ ' 0 BOA VARIANCFIAPPBAL O REZONI4G 0 SKETCH PL4N 0 EXTENSION OF APPROVAL 0 EXE!dP710N PIAT O ft0A0 NAME CNANGE 0 PReLfMINARY PLAN 0 6THER: ~ 0 I.IPAIT=~ IMP4CT SPECIA4USE O S17E PLAN ReVIEW 0 FINAL P~Ai . O LOCATION 8 EXT'=FJ;' 0 SPECIAL USElSSOP O ROAO!"eASEMENT VACArIOM 0 RESUODIVISION (RcPLAT) 0 SUBOIVISION <XEMPTION Z' 1041 - STATE WTcREST REVIEW ~OCA'IONIS~-STREEi FDOR'c55(ES~ ^U-Bo lder South 5278 Tab1e Mesa Drive, $oulder Colorado SUBON~SIDN NAME None LOT(.) aIOCK(S) SECTION(5~ TOWNSHIP(S~ ftANGE(5) NJA I N/A 9 and i6 One South , of Meridian AP,EAIMACRES E;CfSTINGZqNeVG ~%157fNGUSECFPftOPEftN 4UM9EROFPftOPOSE0lOt5 ~308_ I ED and A ~ vacant ~ N/A _ 7Pfioaoseo wqTER suvvlv ~ Irnurw~u aewnoe uisrusAl me i nw I None Portable Toilets APP~':CANTIPF:PEftTY0wN2P, . STREETA~pRESS IUniversity of Colorado Board oi Regents, A Body Corpor~te Catnpus 9os 453 I ~Boulder ~CO I APPLIpAN7/PAOPERTY OWNEft OVvNER 80309-0453 ~(303)492-1525 I(303) 492-7186 Si.ZEE7A0DR"c5S IC:TY STATE ~ 21P GOOE PHONE NUM2ER FAX NV1dBER ~ ~ ~ ~ AGcNTICONSULTANT ST0.EET AOCaESS Jeffre S, Li ton, Exec. Director, Facilities M mnt, Campus Box 453 CITV STA7E `ZIP COOE PNONE NUM9cR FAX,YUMeER CO I'80309-0453 (303)492-1525 (303)492-7186 AucNT/CONSUITANT . SiREETA00RE5S ' Nancy Love, Consultant 841 Frc,nt Street CITY STAiE Z!P COOE ~ PHONc NUMBER FA%NUMBER Louisville CO 80027 ~303) 673-9795 ((303)673-9796' I . ~ I certiFy maUhe in~ormation antl exnibits 1 nave suhmittetl are ttue anC correctto tne best ol my knowletlge. In filing the apolicatior I am acdng wiN the knowletlge aod con5en~ ot l~o5e pel4on5 who are owner5 of the Suh)BCt pr0peny or are parties to Ni5 applica6on. I untleBtanq tha~ all mafenals reQUifetl by Bouldel COUnIy musl6e su6mitted prior ro having this matter pmcessetl. I understantl that DuClic hearings or meetings may be reQuired I untlerstand that addiponai fees or ~ materi215 may be repuifea as a result of consitlerations whicll may anse in tne yrocessing of this oockeL I untlerstantl that ehe road, school anC park tlediCalions may te reqwretl as a condition of approval. ~ I unoerstand thal I am con;enting to allo++ the Counry StaH involve i in tnis apf'~ication or iheir tles'3ne=s n^ enter ontc am insDect!he s~bject pre;.cay al any reasonaCletime wPhcutebtaininganypriorconsent , ~ SIGNATVRE' L ~ DATE X CI SIG~AT ' IOATE ~ • ~ . Agenda Item # ;,,~ Page # ~} ~ I • PL"tASE REF&R TO Tlic REGUlATIONS ANO APPUCATION SUBPAITTAL PAC -- -- -- __ • PLEASE SEE BAC! ----......-------„..,_--..........._.__ ATTACHMENT F RESU~,UTiON 1VU. 877 A 1~ESOI,T7TION ON TkIF. ~'Lt~TIROI~S / SOTI l'H Cr1MPUS 1'1ZOP~RTS'. WT,IE?IZEAS, Clte 30& acros of th~ Flatirotis/SuutEt (,'axnpus Property, located o» che sau~hoasC perimelur of the Ci~y o£ ~3oulder, forms a"Gal:eway to Boutder" alon~ tYae 'f1,S. Ffi.;;iiwly 36 coxzidur; aiid '1~T3~:RFAS, the possiUla presertce of imslaUle soils and of prohectCd enviromnent'.al assets lnei spuez~s lnalces 1dc1'ttional developmant of Clvs property problematic; and WHHTZ~AS, in January, 2Q00, Soul:la ~3oulder Creel<, which llows nenr tl~e boundary of t1~c Piatirons Prt~Perty, w1s designated a State Nalural.Area by tlx~ Go]orado Nahiral Arc~s 1'rogranx uwing to the pXasence of cxceptional nal'ural features; and ~NS~rREe15, dcvclqpment of tha rlatirons Properiy would increase Exaffrc on Tablc Mesa Drive and th~ TaUle 1Vfesa iriterchange t~nd aggravlte tltie already increasing congestion alona 1fio U.S. Tli~;hway 36 curridor, and WIITIZEAS, since 1977 porcions of thc; filaCiroz~s Property have been dcsignat~d as "Opzn SP:tce° on tlti; F3~ulder Valley Comprehensive Plan. NUW, TT~ITiRErUti~, b~ it resolvcd that the Bouldet City Cuuncil stands willin~ to purcl~sc the l~latirons I'roperty from n willing 5eller 7t a Pair prtce, For open space or flaod miti~ation purposes in fe~ title or by mea»s of Co115ez'vation CaSetnent; or to Contemplltc wlzatevcr agreemeiit :night leld lo tlia enlximunz practictible preservation of the Flatirons Property ns ,ui e~rviromneut~~l asset consistent witli tha $oulder Valley ContprehensivC Plan sincc 1977. ADOPTIiU tlus 20t0 day of Pc:Uruzxy, 2U01. A.ttesl; City Clerk un Uehalf of t(ie ~ DircctoY ufl~inunce and Recozcl C1T'Y OP BOULDET2, COLORAUO Mayor ~ _~ ~ 1, ~ I, ; ~ Agenda Item # /~,f'; Page # ~~ ~ ~ '~ I x~ i~evr•nie.a~~n.~:x i ATTACHMENT G Cf i Y OF EOULD~^~; CITN hi:;"'.".G~^'~ ., , ., ,_ I'~'TERG04ER'VNI~NTAL 4GR~~;~~IENT ti.S. 36 CORRIDOR CO~IPREHENSIVE D~VELOP~4~~'1~~1..~1N ~,. ~~ ~~ This Intergoveinmental ~~reement by, bet~n~een and amon~ the city of Bou]der, a Colorado home rule city (Boulder); the City of Louisville, a Colorado statutory city (Louisvilie); the Town of Superior, a Colorado statutory town (Suparior)(hereinafter, collectively, the "Municipal Parties"): and the County of Buulder, a body politic and corporate ot the State of Colorado (Boulder County); (colleaively the "Parties") is made to be effective on the 30th day of 7une, 2000. Vr'IT?~1ESSETH: ~VHERE.4S, '9-~'0-101 et s~., C.R.S. ~ts ~mended, enables the Parties to enter into In[ergov~rnmentai :~areements to plan for and regulate land uses, in order to minimize the negative impacCS of development on the suirounding areas and protect the environment, and specifically authorizes local novernments to cooperate ~~nd contract with each other for the puipose of plunnin~ and reRulatin~ dle development of land by means of a"comprehensive development plan"; and ~~/HERE.~S, in order to ensure that the unique and individual character of Boulder, Louisville, und Superior, respectively, are preserved, the Parties believe that a comprehensive developman[ plan which recognizes the annexed areas and development approved by each community, accompanied by bindina commitments by the responsible jurisdictions for the preservation of the rural charucter of surrounding Inn~ts as identified within the Plan Area, is in the Uest interest of ~he citizens of each uf the Parties: and WHERE.~S, the prohibition of rezoning or otherdiscretionaiy land use appro~ als by Eoulder Countyand of annexation or development by Boulder, Louisville, or Supe~ior, of cereain lands wiihin the Plan Area, is intended to ~reelude increusecl development and urban spruwl which would obli[erate [he boundades of Boulder, Louisville, or Superior, sn~l ~voulcl, if pernlit[ed in ~he uni~tcoipotaced area, require tlle pro~ ision of urban services by Boulder Coun[y, in contravention ot provisions of d~e Boulder County Cumprehensive Plan; and ~VHEREAS, the pnrcels desi~nated Rural Preservation do not currently have City utility services, and the Municipal Panies are not cim~ently capable of providing such services Co devefopment on such parcels; und ~ WHEREAS, the Parties desire to enter in[o this Interaovernmental A,reement in order ~o plan for and re~ulate the use of the fands within die Plan .area throush joint adoption of a mun.iullv bindins and enforceable comprehensive development plan; and WHER~AS, the Panies find dlat dzsi~natin~ a portion of the Plan Areu to remain as P~urail Preservation tbr~he purpose of preservin~ acommuni[y buffer serves the economic and civic interest of theirci~iaens and meets the aoals of theBoulderCuunryCom~rehensive Plun, undmeets the goals and furthers the ~uiposes of ~he comprehensive and mnster plans of the A-lunicipal Pnr~ies, as ~tated ~ in such plans und uppliclble lucvs; and ~ Agenda Item # r~ !y' Page # ~L:1.'7 ~VHERE~IS, with respect to the rezoning ~md other land use regulatory actions required pursuant to this A~reement, the Parties find chat li.S. 36 serves as a major throuoh~~~ay in Boulder County; that, due to the levei of development acti~ ity in the corridor in recent years, U.S. 36 has become more con~ested, and is projected to become more consested in [he next few years, to the point where such hi~hway will not provide [he tra~sportation accessibility required, andmaynot then be functionin; at an acceptable level of service; and WHEREAS, it is essentiai that fur[her development in the U.S. 36 corridor be iimited, so that traffic-Qenerating uses in the vailey do not further exacerbate the con~estion of the hi ~hway and surroundin~ transportation infrnstructure, and so that future ~ransportation improvements can return the hiehway to an acceptable level of service; and ~VHEREAS, with respect to the annexaCion provisions herein, the Parties declare that the Rural Preservation and City Influence Area desianations and land use regulations contained in this AgreemenC affect the future developmenC of euch municipality. Consistent witll the municipal annexation, utility service, and land use llws of the State of Colorado, this A~reement, inciudina specifically the anneaation and utility service portions hereof, is intendecl to encourage tlie na[ura] and well-ordered future development of each Parry; to promote plnnned and orderly ~ro~eth in the affected areas; to distribute fairly and equitably d1e costs of government seivices amons those persons who benefit [herefi-om; to extend the ~overnmen~, services, and fac?lities to the affec[ed areas in a lo~ical~ fashion; [o simplify providing uiility services to the affected areas; to simplify the ;overnmental structure of the affected areas; [o reduce and avoid, wh~re possible, friction bet~veen the Par[ies; and tu promote the ecunomic viubility of the Parties; nnd WHEREAS, the fiunctions de5cribed in this A~reement are lawfully authorized to euch of the Parties which perform such functions hereunder, as provided in article 30 of title 39; part 1 of article 2~ of title 30; part 1 of ~rtide 13 of title 31; and pflrts 2 and 3 of article 23 oF tide 31, C.R.S., as amended: and WHEREAS, ?9-1 ?O1, et seq., C.R.S., as amended, authorizzs d~e Paities to cooperate and conCract with one anotherwith respecC to functions la~vfully auChorized ro ~ach of rhe Pnrties und [he people af the St1te af Color•tdo have encouiaQed such coaperation ond contrnctin~ thi•oudh the adoption of Colorado Constitution, Article YIV, 1S(3); and ~VHEREAS, the Parties have each held hearinas after proper public notice for che consideration of enterine into this A~reemenc and the adoption of a cornprehensive development ptmt for the subjec[ lands, hereinafter refen'ed tu as the "Plan Area", ns sho~vn on the map por[ion of the Developmenc Limi[a[ions accuched hereto as Exhioi[ ~.. NO~V THEREFORL, in consideration Qf the abQVe and [he mututit covenants and commitments made herein, [he Parties agree as follows: 1. U.S. 36 COFRIDOR CONIPI2EH~NSTVE DEV~LOP~iENT PLAN. T h i s Agenda Item # ,~~~ Page # j , Agreemen[, includin~ Developm~nt Limitations (both [ext and map portions) attached hereto as Exhibit A, is adopted by the Par~ies as the li.S. 36 Cotridor Comprehensive Developmen[ Pian (the "Plan") governing the P1an Area. 2. CONTROLLINGREGliLATIONS. Restrictionsonuse~ncldevelopmentoflands within the Pl~tn Area, 2s provided in Exhibit A, shall control and supersede local reQulations of the Re~ulatory Party to che exten~ they conflict. For puiposes uf this P1an, the "Re~ulatory Paity" is that Par[y havin~ regulatory jurisdiction over the subject property at the relevnnt time, No Pnrty shall asree with ~ny landowner or other person or entity interested in any pnrcel within the Pian Area to allow any use or development ~vhich does not comply with the Plan without first ubtainin~ a Plan .-~mendment as set for[h herein. ?.1 The Psrties ench agree to undertake al] steps to adopt procedures, plans, policies; snd ordinances or other regulations as may~ be necessary to implement and enforce the provisions of this Pl~n. ~ny Party adopting such procedures, plan~, policies, ordinances or re~=ul~a[ions shull Qive aach of ~he othe~r Parties sufficient ndvance notice of such ac~ion as will enubla such Pm•ties, iY ~hey so desire, to comme:~t upon the planned ac[ions of [hat Party. 2.2 To the exCent this Flan is silent as ro u particular landuse matter, e~istin~ locul land use re~ulations of the Regulatory Party hnvingjurisdiction over the propertv, as smended from time ~o time, shall conrrol. 3. AUR~L PRESERVATION AREA. Buuider, Louisvitle, and Superior each aeree that they will immediately disctose to the other any and nll instances in which they have received ~n annesation pe~ition irom landowners in the Rural Preservation Area seekin~ anne~ation. Further, Boulder, Louisville, and Superioreach eommi[ that they are not cun~enCi y pursuing any annexntions within the Rural Preseivation Area. 3.1 The Map por[ion ofExhibit ~ shows cer[nin lands widlin the Plan Areawhich ure designated "Rural Preservation Area". These lnnds are intended [o remain within the unincorpora[ed area of Boulder County, suUject to Boulder County's land use reQulutoryjut~sdiction as limired in the text portion of Exhibit A. Boulder, Louisville, and Supetior each a~ree that none of them will initiate nor approve an annexation of any portion oF any of the lands sho~vn as "Rural Preservation Area" on dte Map poi~tion oP Exhibit A without first obtainin~ approval of a Plan Amendment as provided fior herein. 3.2 By authorizino the eaacution oY this :~greement, the Ciry Councils of Boulder and Louisville, and ~he Town Board of Superiur, each respectively finds und de~clares that tl~ere is nu community of interest Uerween the lands designa[ed "Rural Preservation .1rea" on the Map portion uf ~his Plan with their respecCive jurisd~ccions, that none af these lands is urban noe is likely to ui-banize wi~hin the term of ~his Plan, and tha~ none of these lands is cuc-rentiy integra[ed ~~~ith, noi• for the term of [his Plan will any of tltem be capable uf Uein; inte~r~ted with their respective jurisdictions. -l. CITY INrLLiENCE ARE:1 PARCELS. =F.1 The Map portion uf this Plan identifies are~s cuizently Iocared within w~incorporated Boulder Countp ~vhich may in ~he tuture be annexed [o ~he one of rhe city or rown Agenda Item # ~>.~,' Page # %_j~ Par~ies, as denoted ~y the "Influence .~rea" desi,na~ion. No~hins in this section or the P1an is intended to require sueh city or town to annex such area. However, ~he Municipal Parties a~ree that; if such nrea is co be annexed ~o or is to be provided ~vacer or sewe; service by a municipaliry durins the term of this Asreement, such area will be annexed to and/or wi11 be so served by dle city or [o~~~n whose Influence Area ~he mup indicates for such parcel, and not by any of the other city or town Panies. By authorizing the execution of Chis Agreement, each city council and town board finds and declares tha[ the communit}~ of interzst in the Intluence Areas so designated on the iVlap pottion of this Flan is, or for the cerm of diis Plan, will be, wid~ the ciry or town whose Tnfluence Area the map indicates fox such parcels, and not ~vith any other ciry or town. 4? Until and uniess annexed, Boulder County shall enforce its "Areas and Acti~~ities of State Interest" resulations upon any parcels identified as within the Influence Area of any city or town Party, and sha11 not grant a permit Ior development pursuant ~o such re~ulatioeis unless such permlt lias Ueen approved by the eiry or town whose Influence Area the map indicates for such parcel(s). ~.3 Boulder County as.ees that, for purposes of the _vIunicipal Annexacion ~ct, there is, or for the term of this Plan, N~ill be, a communiry of interest in [he parcels designated as city or to~vn intluence areas o~ the D/Iu~ poition of this Plan ~vith the respecCivelv desianated ciCy or town, and Boulder County will not objec[ to annexation of such areas by such ciry or Cown. ~.~F No Party shnli purchase an~~ parcel of land either within the incor~~orated limits of anotherPat2}~, nor~vithin the influence area of anotherPa~~ty as desiena~ed on the M~p po~tiun of tl~is Plan, wi~hout [he erpress consent of such other• Party. ~. REFERR~LS. Any applicstion or other proposal for annexation or development on any pm~cel within [h~c portion of the Plan Area designated Rural Preservation Area as sa~ fordl in E.shibit A shali be immediately rate~red in ~~niting to al] Purties, and no action sh~11 be taken thereon by the reten~inR Party until such Parties ha~~e had ~he opporcunity to respond conceming the proposul's confomury to this Plan and other Iand use concems. To be considered, such responses shall be received ~vidiin 20 days of date of refen~nl. 6. ~1NIENDIVIENTS. T(~is Plan contains the en[ire aereement between Che Parties. Any Proposed amendment of the Plan affectin~ the jurisdiction over lands or che development regulation of lands must be referred to the Parties by the Re~ulatory Party, or by any Party seeking to become the ReQulatory Party tlirou~h annexaCion. Amendment of the Plan shall take place only upon approval by resoluCion or ordinance adopted by the oovernin~ body of each of the Pairties, afrer no[ice and hearing as ma~~ ba required by law. The Rz~ulatory Party shull not approve nor permit any development or chan~e of use of any parcel in ~he Yl~n Area by any means, and no Party shall approve a~ny unnesation which is inconsisCent widi this A~reement andPlan unril andunless ~he Plan has been amended so that the proposed develoPment or use of such parcet or its annexution is consis~ent ~viCh the Plan. 7. SEVEI2~~,BILITY. If any portion of this Plan is held by a coui•t in a fin~il, non- appealuble ~lecisi~n Co ~e per se invatid or ~menforceabte as t~ any ~Party, the en[ire Agreement and the Plan shull be ~ermin~~eil, it being the understnntlin~ zind inten[ oY the Parties diat ever~~ poi~tion Agenda Item # _/v,t~ Page # /~; ~' of the A~reement and Plan is essential to and noc severable from the remainder. 8. BENEFICIARIES. TheParties,intheircorporateandrepresentative~ovemmental capacities, are the onIy enuties intended to 6e the beneficiaries of the PIan, and no other person or entity is so intended. ~ 9. ~NFORCEI~LENT. Any one or more of the Paities may enforce this ~sreement by any le~al or equitable means ineludina specific performance, declaraCOry and injunctive relief. iv~u other person or zntity sh1Ii have any ri~h[ to enforce dle provisions of Chis AQreement. 10. DEFENSE OF CL aINIS/INDE:I~INIFICATION If any person allesedly a~~rieved by any pro~~ision of the Plan and who is not a Party to the Plan should sue any Party concernin~ such Plan pro'vision, such Party shall, an~l any ocher Party m~y, defend such claim upon receiving timely and appropri~ite notice of pendencv of such claim. Defense costs s6all be paid by the Party providino such defensz. Non~~iths~unding the foi•e~oing, if the cluim concerns r.he designation of property as "Rural Preserva[ion .~rea," Boulder CounCy sha11 provide a defense in such action. If the e11im cuncerns the desianation of property as "Influence Area," the respunsible city or town Party sha11 provide such defense~ In the evenC that any person n~t a Party to the Plan should obtnin a final moneyjudgment a~ainst any Party who is no[ the Regulatory Party for [he diminu~ion ir. value of any re~ulated parcel resultin~ from regulations in the Plan, or regulations adopted by the Regulatory Par[y implementin_ the Plan, the Re~ulatury Party shall, to the extent petmitted by (a~v, indemniTy such Party for the aatount ot snid judgment. 11. GOVEIL~TING LAW AND V~NL~. This Asreement shall be soverned by the laws of die State of Cotorado and venue shall lie in the County of Boulder. 12. T~RVI aND ~FFLCTIV~ Dr1T~. This Agreement shall become effective upon signature of an uuthorized represen~arive ~f the governin~ bodies of the Pareies. Excep~ as provided herein, this A,reement shall remain in effect for a peiiod of thirty (30) years from tha effecCive da[e, unless terminated prior daere[o by aareement of all [he Pa~-ties or pursuan[ to the terms of section' above. 13. P~1RTY R~1~RESENTATIVES. Ref~rrals made under the ~erms of ~his Agreement shull be sen[ ro the Parties' representatives as follo~vs: E'_VTITY: Citv of Boulder REPRLSENTATIVES: Ci ty :~Tunager P.O. Box 791 Boulder. CO 30~06 Agenda Item #_(;; ~' page #~ Cit~~ of Louisville City Administrator . 7~9 Main St. ~ Louisville, CO 50027 To«n of Superior Town Vianaser L4 E. Coal Craek Dr. 5uperior, CO 30027 County of Bou]der Director, Land Use Depanment P.O. Box 471 Boulder, CO 80306 Name and nddress chan~es for representatives shall be made in writina, mailed to the other representatives at the ~hen current addi-ess. V THIS AGREENIENT made and entered into to be effective on the date as set forth above. CITY Or BOUI.D~R B v: ~'/^`" ~ Will Toor: Mavor ATTEST: ' • /=~ % r-; ~~r ~ City Clerk `~, ~.' CITY OF LOtiISVILL~ ~[ ~C.' ~Uv Date APPROVED ~S TO FORNI: 1 7oseph N deRaismes, III, Ciry Attorney B ' /~~,A~ r%~°~ ,~'~ ~ Th~omas Davidson, Nlayor Date ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: . r. ,,,~ ~ ' ~~ ,'` ~ ~ ' ~ ,~ '~ ~--~~:~ 3._.. ~ '~, i •i'' ~.,', ~ ~~~.,~.,,t.:~~•.-_.~ L Ciry Clerk San4uel J. Li~ht, City Attornev Agenda Item # ~ i; Page # ///i TOWN OF SUPERIOR / B~i''Susun S~aerr~~~'M "~ ~.. Ai"I'EST: ~la, ( o0 Date APPROVED AS TO FORNI ~~~~.e! ~ ~~v .. IL~ . 1 ~~\ Town Clerk Kat lleen Haddocl<, Town Attorney \ COUNTY OF BOUZDER BY: BOARD OF COUNT~" COMivIISSIONERS ~ 7 I B~: ~~~-~,~ -~.: :z~ ~ u~ 5 3~ ~ o 0 R~nald K. Stewart, Chair Date .4TTEST: APPROVED AS TO FOR:~L ~~~ ~, ~ ~/ ~~`~ Clerk to tY~e Board H. nce Hoyt, Cou ~.~ ~tomey Agenda Item # ~:, ;! Page # /// ~.~HIBIT A (te~t portion) L'.S. 36 CORRIDOR IGA CONLPREHENSTVE DEVELOPNIENT PL~N 1. INTRODUCTION. 1.1 .4DOPTION; This Comprehensive Deveiopment Plan (hereinafter "CDP") has been joindy developed and adopted by the Parties, and is entered into by Inter~overnmental .A,reement of said entities, 1.2 PARCELDEVELOP.'v[ENTRESTRICTIONS:TheseDevelopmentLimitationssre intended to provide specific land use and development restrictions oovemin~ the ' "Rural Preservation Area" parcels ]ocated widlin the Plan Area, the 6oundaries of which are set forth on the attached Map. ~ 3. DEFINITIONS. Z.1 DEVELOPMENT: Construction or establishment of structures, parkin~ areas, andlor surfaced vehicular roadways , or establishment of new land uses. 2.2 PLAN AREA: Lands induded ~vithin tl~e boundaries of the desienated Plan Area as set foi~h on the NIap, inciuding ri~ht-of-way, satbuck areas, and p~rcels subjeet to the Plan's Development Limitations. 2.3 STRUCTLI2E; Anythintr which is built or consn~ucted, including but not limited ~o an edifice or buildinQ o; any kind, or any piece of ~rork artificial~y buil[ up or composed of parts joined toQecher in some definite manner, but excludin~ fences, recainin~ walls noC over 6 feet in height, and 6uried utility tines. 3. DEVCLOPNI~NT LI~IIT:ITIONS ON RliR~1L PRES~RVATION AREA P~RC~LS. .i.l For parcels desi~nated Rurnl Preservation Area on the Mup, those esistin~ uses of such parcels wliich conform to Boulder County's reQulations, or which are legally noncor,FuiTning, shall Ue permitted to continue, eitheras 1ega1 or le~al nonconformin~ uses. No density increase beyond the limits currently permissiUle under the Bou]der Counry Lnnd Use Code shall be approved for any such parcel, nor shall any such parcel be annexed to uny Municipal Party, unless the same is approved throuoh the Plan amendment procedure set forth in Section 6 of the Intereovernmental A~reement adoptin~ this Plan. 3? Pursuant to regulatiuns in the Boulder Cuunty Land Lse Code as it may exist from time ~o time, parcels within the Rura] Preservation .~rea may be "sendina parcels'" forputposesofn~ansfeninsdevelopmentri~hts(TDRsI. Ho~vever,suchparcelsshall not serve as "receiving parcels" without amendment ~T this Agreement. TDR units shall not be "sent" from parce]s dzsienated in [his .~~reement as Rurul Preserva~ion Aren to be locuted upon a receivin~ s-ite within thz adopted comprehensive plun area of a Niimicipal Part}~ without the consent of rhe interested Parry or Parcies. Agenda Item # (~„~~ Page # /l.~ ;.3 Developmentonparcelsforwhich"vestedri~hts"'rorfurtherdevelopmentha~~ebeen acquired chroueh an es~oppel agains[ Boulder County precluding the prohibition of such development established b;~ a final, non-appenlabte court jud~ment in a proceeding of which the other Parties have been ~iven timely notice and the opportunitytojoin or intervene shal] be permitted to the ex[ent such development is in conformance ~vith the riehts so acquired and occurs within ~he vested period. Bou]der County certifies that it is not aware of any such vested ri~hts currendy existin~ for Rural Preservation parcels within the Plan Area. 3.4 Establishment of uses and development in conformance ~vith the zonin~ (includino but not limited to approved PUD plans) and other land use and development regulations applicable ~o thz proper[y on rhe effective da~e of dlis Plan shall be permitted, ~~here such uses or development continue to be permit~ed uniler [he • provisions of Che Boulder CounryLand Use Code a[ the time nt which thev are souQht to be es~ablished. Permission for sucll developmen[ shall be processe~l through the norrna] p~rocedures oCherwise estaUlished by Boulder Counry. 3,5 Approva] by Boulder County of an NUPUD with residen[ial densiry no ~reater than 2 units per 3~ acres upon such lands is permittect p.ursuant to the regulatians ge~erally applicable therefor , and such approval is not for pwposes of tl~ese Development Limitations an increase in density. 3.6 Any proposed use or devzlopmen[ of any portion of the parcels desi~nated Rural Preservation :~rea shall conform to the provisions of this Plan, or, if nonconForn~ing, shal l require amendmen[ of [he Plan in thz manner provided in the Interoovemmental ~~reement adopcin~ this Plan. The Re~ulator}~ Party shall not approve any pruposed rezoning, subdivision, special use or other reaulatory process, or amendmenC of modification of any existin~ zonin~, PLID, specinl or conditional use, or sub~livision plat, orissuance of a buildingpermit, orproposed ~nnexation, whether ornot coupled with any such ce~ulatory process, for any lands designaced Rural Preservation Area unless such nction conforms with the Plan, or with an approved amendment thereof. 3.7 Soecific Parcel Provision: The Rural Preservation p~rcels located west of S. SS`~' St., and norih of US 36, adjucent to the City of Louisville's bounduries, cun•ently o~vned by Curlson and Scriffanv, shull be ireared as~Louisville Int7uence ~rea upon tha uccun~ence of the following event: the fee dedication of land for open space pwp~ses equivalent in size the combined acreaee of the parcels and ]ocate~ wi~hin'ri mile of the parcels und widiin the City of Louisville in the liS 36 view coiridor. 4. GEN~R~L P~RCELS PROVISIONS. ~.1 It is a Uoul uf the Parties to maximize [he se[back of structures from the nearest U.S. 36 right-of-way line, and [o d~is end, the E2e~ul~tory Par~y shall, to the estent possible, ne~otiate [o maximize such setbacks. 5. OPEN SPACE :~CQUIR~D IN RliRr~L PRESERV~TION AR~A. i.l Any properties within the Plun .~rea ~lesignated us P ural Preservation ~rea ~~~hich are Agenda Item # l;~ ; Page # ~/_~ intended to be acquired as "open sp~ce" shall be acquired in fee or by perpetuai conservation easement (as detined in ~38-30.5-102, C.R.S.) for open space puiposes by any one or more of.the Parties, to the extent funds are appropriated anil made available for snch puipose. Whether and the method by ~vhich sueh acquisition will take place, and the terms and conditior.s of purchase, to~ether wi[h the determinaCion of whether fee ~itle or a perpetuai conservation easemenC ~,vill be acquired, shall be at the sote discretion of the acquirin~ Party(ies). 5.2 Upon acquiaition of any Rural Preservation parcels shown on Exhibir A, the acquiring Party shnl] present to its eoverning body, pursuant ~o its charter, ordinance or oCher provisions of law, a request to provide to aach of che other Parties an undivided interes[ in a perpeCUal conservation easement upon said Iands, providina for restrictions on deve]opment and the use in accordance witl~ the [erms of Chis Plan • and the site-specific management plan. ~.3 Open space shali serve one or more of the follo~vin~ functions: (a) urban shaping between or around municipalities or community service areas and buffer,zones between residentitil and non-residential developmenr, (b) preservation of critical ecosystems, natural areas, scenic vistas and area, fish and wil~life habitat, natural resources and landmarks, and cultural, histoncal and archaeolo~ical areas; (c) linka~es and crails, access to public lakes, streams and other usable open space lands, stream corridors and scenic coiridors slonn hishGVays; (d) areas of anvironmental preservation, desisnated ns areas of concern, generally in mul[iple ownership, ~vhere several different preservation methods (including o~her dovernmental bodies' paiticipation or piivate ownership) may need to be utilized; (e) conservation oP natural resources, includin~ Uut not limited to forest lnnds, range lands, agricultural land, aquifer rechar~e areas, and surface water; (~ preservation of land for outdoor recreation areas ]imited to passive recreational use, including buT ~ot ]imiced to hiking, photograplly or nuture ~ studies, andif speciFieally designated, bicycling, hoiseb~cl:ridin~, orfishing: (~~ under;round public facilitizs, public utility mains, lines; other public facilities may be located thereon where approved by the Qovernin~ badies of each of the Parties. 5.4 Once acquired, open space may be used unly for the above purposes, and shnll Le asedin accordance ~vith a site-specific manaaement plun approved by the eovei~ning body of the acquirin~ Pa~ty(ies) after consultntion with tha other Parties. Until acquisition, such parcels or portions of parcels sllall be subject to the Developmen[ Limitations set fortli in Section 3 of Chis Plan. 5.5 Boulder County shnll use i~s best efforCS in good faiCh ro acquire the parce( desienaCed Rural Preservation located west of d~e L`.S. 36 and iVla~shall Road i~ ~h[-oY-wav trea adjacent [o the Superior to~vn lintits in Section 13, T1S, R70«-, 6°i PNI. Agenda Item # ~1 Page # //~~ ii A nveA~ U. S. 36 CORRfDOR COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT PLAN Exhibit A Legend Plan Bountlary O PamelSpecifm Prmiaon Municipalities ''`~ IncorporatetlAreas lnfluence Areas Rural Preservation Areas Open Space ~ BoWCerCOUnryopen5pare ~ eoWde~ Counry Comervaoon Easemen[ - Joint 6+mership Open Spaa ~ Ciry d BoWtler Open Space ~ ~'-T~ City o! 8oultler V~J ConservationEasemem O Gry of Boul0.a Parks ~ LowsailleParks and Open Space Counly Subdrvisions O ~~TS O NUPUD OUTLOTS June 20, 2000 ~) (=~ 3 ~ \, i1., b A7 QQ ~ ~ -' l TO ARVADA ATTACHMENT H 8-405 Other Designated Areas and Activitfes Requiring a Permit /sn3~sal C. Development located in whole or in part within areas around state arterial highway interchanges, unless the development is regulated with full and binding effect under other Articles of this Code. Areas around state arterial highway interchanges, as designated hereunder, shall be considered to be those areas which are immediately and directly affected by (including having an immediate and direct effect upon) the state arterial highway interchange, be an area'within aPadPus oflTmee f~om the centerhof thereas shall interchange. Agenda Item # (n,/} Page # j/~. S•511 Standards for Approval of a Permit Application A. Generai Approval Requirements 1. A permit application for development involving an activity or in an area of state interest may not be approved unless the applicant satisfactorily demonstrates that the proposal, including all mitigation measures proposed by the applicant, complies with all of the appiicable criteria set forth in this Article. If the proposal does not comply with all of the applicable criteria, the permit shall be denied, unless the Board determines that reasonable conditions can be imposed on the permit which will enable the permit to comply with the criteria. 2. If the Board determines at the public hearing that sufficient information has not been provided to it to allow it to determine if the applicable criteria have been met, the Board may continue the hearing until the specified additional information has been received. The Board shall adopt a written decision on a permit application wiihin 45 days after the completion of the permit hearing. B. Standards for approval of all permit applications. 1. The applicant has obtained or will obtain all property rights, permits, and approvals necessary for the proposal, including surface, mineral, and water rights. The Board may, in its discretion, defer making a final decision on the application until necessary property rights, permits and approvals for the proposal are obtained.~ivo~ro~/ 2. The applicant has the necessary expertise and financial capability to develop and operate the proposal consistent with all requirements and conditions. ~i~iovoi~ Agenda Item # /;, r; Page # ,// ; 3. Adequate water suppiies, as determined from the Coloraqo Department of Health, are available for the proposal if applicable. 4. The proposal will not cause unreasonable loss of significant agricultural lands as identified in the Comprehensive Plan, or identifiable on or near the site. 5. The proposal shall not significantly degrade or pose a significant hazard to any aspect of the environment, including environmental resources and open space areas as identified . in the Comprehensive Plan, and other features or elements that are deemed to be significant components of the natural environment worthy of preservation. For purposes of this section, the following aspects of the environment shall be considered:~tvo~roi~ a. Air quality: The proposal shall not significantly deteriorate air quality. In determining impacts to air quality, these considerations shall appfy. i. Changes to seasonal ambient air quality. ii. Changes in visibility and microclimates. iii. Applicable air quality standards. b. Visual qualiry. The proposal shall not significantly degrade visual quality. In determining impacts to visual quality, these considerations shall apply. i. Visuai changes to ground cover and vegetation, waterfalls and streams, or other natural features. ii. Interterence with viewsheds and scenic vistas. iii. Changes in appearances of forest canopies. iv. Changes in landscape character types or unique land formations. v. Compatibiliry of building and structure design and materials with surrounding land uses. c: Surface water quality. The proposal shall not significantly degrade surtace water quality. In determining impacts to surface water quality, these consideraYions shali apply. i. Changes to existing water quality, inciuding patterns of water circulation, temperature, conditions of the substrate, extent and persistence of suspended particulates and clarity, odor, color or taste of water. ii. Applicable narrative and numeric water quality standards. iii. Increases in point and non-point source pollution loads. iv. Increase in erosion. v. Increases in sediment loading to waterbodies. vi. Changes in stream channel or shoreline stability. vii. Changes in stormwater runoff flows. viii. Changes in trophic status or in eutrophication rates in lakes and reservoirs. ix. Changes in the capacity or functioning of streams, lakes or reservoirs. x. Changes in flushing ilows. xi. Changes in dilution rates of mine waste, agricultural runoif and other unregulated sources of pollutants. d. Groundwater quality. The proposal shall not significantly degrade groundwater quality. In determining impacts to groundwater quality, these considerations shall apply. i. Chanqes in aquifer recharqe rates, qroundwater Agenda Item # (~ <`i Page # i/,~ levels and aquifer capacity including seepage losses through aquifer boundaries and at aquifer•stream interfaces. ii. Changes in capacity and function of wells within the impact area. iii. Changes in quality of well water within the impact area. e. Wetlands and riparian areas. The proposal shall not significantly degrade the quality of wetlands and riparian areas. In determining impacts to wetlands and riparian areas, these considerations shall apply. i. Changes in the struciure and function of wetlands. ii. Changes to the ~Itering and pollutant uptake capacities of wetlands and riparian areas. iii. Changes to aerial exfent of wetlands. iv. Chartges in species' characteristics and diversity. v. Transition from wetland to upland species. vi, Changes in function and aarial extent of floodplains. f. Terresirial and aquatic animal life. The proposal shall not significantly degrada the quality of terrestrial and aquatic animal life. In determining impacts to terrestrfal and aquatic animal lif.e, these considerations shall apply. 't. Changes that result in loss ot oxygen for aquatic life. ii. Changes in flushing flows. iii. Changes in species composition or density. iv. Changes in number of threatened or e~dangered species. v. Changes to habitat and critical habitat, including calving grounds, mating grounds, nesting grounds, summer or winter range, migration routes, or any other habitat features necessary for the protection and propagation of any terrestrfal animals. vi. Changes to habitat and critical habitat, including stream bed and banks, spawning grounds, rifile and side pool areas, flushing tlows, nutrient accumulation and cycling, water temperature, depth and circulation, stratification and any other conditions necessary for the protection and propagation of aquatic species. vii. Changes to the aquatic and terrestrial food webs. g. Terrestrial and aquatic plant life. The proposal shall not significantly degrade the quality of terrestrial and aquatic plant life. In determining impacts to terrestrial and aquatic animal life, these considerations shall apply. i. Changes to habitat of threatened or endangered plant species. ii. Changes to the structure and function of vegetation, including species composition, diversity, biomass, and productiviry. iii. Changes in advancement or succession of desirable and less desirable species, including noxious weeds. iv. Changes in threatened or endangered species. Agenda Item # (a ~; Page #~_ h. Soils and geologic conditions. Tlie proposal shall not significantly degrade soils and geologic conditions. In determining impacts on soils and geologic conditions, these considerations shail appiy. i. Changes to the topography, natural drainage patterns, soil morphology and productiviry, soil erosion potential, and flood hazard areas. ii. Changes to stream sedimentation, geomorphology, and channel stability. iii. Changes to lake and reservoir bank stability and sedimentation, and safety of existing reservoirs. iv. Changes to avalanche areas, mudflows and debris fans, and other unstable and potentially unstable slopes. v. Exacerbation of seismic concerns and subsidence. 6. The proposal wiil not have a significant adverse eifect on the quality or quantity of recreationai opportunities and experience. 7. The proposal will not cause unreasonable loss of signiticant cultural resources, inciuding but not necessarily iimited to historical structures or sites and archaeological artifacts or sites, as identified in the Comprehensive Plan or identifiable on or near the site. 8. The proposal or its associated transmission collector or distribution system will not create blight, or cause other nuisance factors such as excessive noise or obnoxious odors. 9. The proposal will not be subject to significant risk from fioods, fires, earthquakes or other disasters or natural hazards. 10. The proposal or its associated transmission collector or distribution system will not create an undue financial burden on existing or future residents of the County. 11. The proposal will not have a significa~t adverse effect on the capability of local government to provide services or exceed the capacity of service delivery systems. (i l/01/01) 12. The planning, design and operation of the proposal will refiect appropriate principles of resource conservation, energy efficiency and recycling or reuse.(11/O1/Ol) 13. For those applications for which the Director has required information on the environmental impacts and costs of alternatives under Section 8-507(D)(7)(b), above, the proposal represents the least damaging alternative of reasonable cost among the alternatives analyzed. 14. The proposal is in accordance with the Boulder County Comprehensive Plan and any applicable intergovernmental agreement affecting land use and development, including but not limited to any applicable land use designations. In cases where a person who is not a service provider with a County- approved service plan or service area, proposes a development within an approved service area, the Board shall not be compelled ta consider the development be in compliance with the applicable adopted comprehensive plan or intergovernmental planning agreement simply by virtue of the fact that the development +s located wiihin, or is proposed to serve, an approved service area.(17/01/Ol) Agenda ltem # /'~, - Page # r, ;2r.) J. Additional standards for development in areas around interchanges invoiving state arterial highways. ~a~i~sa/ 1. The proposed development shall not pose a danger to public health or safety or to property (including the subject property, other impacted properties, and the environment).~~ vovoi~ 2. The volume of traffic to be generated by the proposed development shall be compatible with the traffic-handling characteristics of the interchange and the access road and existing, affected traffic roads. 3. The proposed development shali be compatible with existing developments and with the character of the neighborhood, and shall not significantly impair an area or resource of special scenic, historicat, or cultural significance. 4, The proposed development shali preserve desirable existing community pattems. 5. A development that proposes burdens or deprivations on the communities of a region shall not be justified on the basis of local benefit alone. Agenda Item # ,!-,/ Page # .~ ATTACHMENTI U1~TIVERSITY OF COLORADO - BOULDER 1041- STATE INTEREST REVIEW APPLICATION CU-BOULDER SOUTA TE1~INIS COURT REPLACEMENT PROJECT Agenda Item # Page # /ca~ BOULDER COUNTYLAND USEDEPARTMENT ~ 2045 13th Slreet I 13th 8 Spmce Streels! Courthouse Annex. ~~ ~- P.O. Boz 471 / Boulder, Caloredo 80306 305.441.3970 / Fax 303.441.4856 • APPLICATION FORM APPLICATION DEADLINE :r ~ SECOND WEDNESDAY OF THE MONTH - 4:30 ~ ~~ a• ~.. ~oes not apply to Exemption Plats, Site Plan Reviews, .. tc~ - Limited Impact Special Reviews, or Su6division Exemptions ,:~ ~ r~.,: -,ndW ' ~ O BOA VARIANCE/APPEAL 0 REZONING ~ O SKETCH PLAN O EXTENSION OF APPROVAL O EXEMPTION pIAT O ROAD NAME CHANGE O PRELIMINARY PLAN 0 OTHER: 0 LIMITED IMPACT SPECIAL~ USE O SITE PLAN REVIEW O FINAL PLAT ~ O LOCATION 8 EXTENT O SPECIAL USEISSDP O ROAD/EASEMENT VACATION 0 RESUB~IVISION (REPLAT) O SUBOIVISION EXEMPTION ~ 1041 - STATE INTEREST REVIEW LOCATION~S)-5T0.EETAOORE55(ES) ~ -Boulde South 5278 Table Mesa Drive Boulder Colorado I SUBDIVISION NAME None LOT~S~ BLOCWS) SECTION(S) TOKTISHIP(S) MNGE(S) N/A N/A 9 and 16 One South . of Merid ian AREAINACRES EXISTING20NING EXISTINGUSEOFPROPERTY NUMOEROFPROPOSEDLOTS 308 ED and A vacant N/A PROPOSED WATER SUPPLV ~ PROPOSED SEWAGE DISPOSAL METHOD None Portable Toilets APPIICANT/PROPERTV OWNER STREET MORESS University of Colorado Board of Regents, A Body Corpor te Campus Box 453 LIN STATE , ZIP CO~E . PHONE NUMBEft FAX NUMBER Boulder CO 80309-0453 (303)492-1525 (303) %+92-7186 . APPIICANTIPROPpRTV OWNER STREET AODRE55 CITY ' ' STATE ZIP CODE PHONE Nl1MBER ~ ~ ~ ' FAX NUMBER ~ ~ ~ _.~. APPLICANT/PROPERN OWNER STREET AODRESS ~ ` I CITY STATE ZIP CO~E - PHONE NUM9ER ~ ~ FAX NUMBER ~ ~ AGENTICONSULTqNT ~ STREETADDRESS ~ ' Jeffre S. Li ton Exec. Director, Facilities M mnt. Campus Box 453 CITY STATE ZIPCOOE PHONENUMBER FAXNI1M9Eft . CO 80309-0453 (303)492-1525 (303)492-7186 ACENT/CONSULTANT . STREETAODRESS ~ Nancy Love, Consultant 841 Front Street CIN STATE ZIP CODE ~ PHONE NUMBER FAX NUMBER I Louisville CO 80027 (303) 673-9795 (303)673-9796 ,1 ~ i I certify Uat the inlormalion antl exhibits I have submilletl are true and correcLlo the hest ol my knowletlge. In 1{ling lhe application 1 am acling wilh the knowledge Boultler County nl of those ersons wha are owners of the suhject roperry or are arties ro this a 6cation I undersland lhaFall malenals re uireC b and con p pp p p . q y se roces I undersfantl that u6li s or meefin tantl Ihal aSditional fees or musl 6 6mitfed no to havin this m3iter ed hearin s ma uiretl I u b tl ~ p p p g . g g y . e su r s c e req n ers uire0 as a resull of consitleretwns which may arise in Ihe ark Oedlcations may materials ma be re rocessin of this dockel I understantl ihal the road school and q p g p y . , 6e requiretl as a condilion ol appmval. I understand that I am consentiog to allow the Counry Statf involveA in this applicalion or thelr tlesignees to eoter onlo and inspect the su6ject property at aoy 6l li i i h t b i ning any pr reasona e me, w t ou o ta or consent. . ~ SIGNATURE' DATE O SIGNAT ~ DATE I • pi, cqSF SFF RACK BUILDING PLANS/ELEVATION DRAWINGS/LANDSCAPE PLAN/SITE PLAN1 VICINITY MAP ~!~1 k- `f~ ., ~- ~ i ~ T,~ ..1., ... ,.. . ;~ I~RTEt ELEVATfOh[ ~ l _..~ : _. ~\- I . r~~ WEST ELEVATION L i?r. r ._ <'" _ ' ' _'_CPLi0.FT.a~ ' _ _ _ . ..._'.7__"'_ '- ~~ --" "' - . ._~._~ .5pg~.M15=_F~~ ad~._BTI-'a~lOOW75 _._' , - . .. . _. . _ _ ._ . _ _ . _ _ ~ . .. _._._ _ "_" j ~ q,R~WifdfM . . .. . . ~ - . ~e, SECT~N `~ y«. rz•...;;. :~w.~ ~~ D~ RELOCAI'i0N OF KIT~RED~E TENNIS COURTS TO THE UNNERSITY OF CpLORADp AT B L ER __ . _ ....,......~.., • ...,,.d . ~..., ~ aU D - SOUTH CAAAPUS ......»~ w_ ,-._._ `~.'"~• °. ~~~~~ ~'~d pr~ ~.g,~..~.n,. °"``".°""~'°~°"°'°'"""~ I'1L ~~x~.~.~ ~trirtaez ~\ /~ , ~ ~ ~ . 17-0'XNii EqWEfEp ~ -' \ I ~"~ ~__~-i rr--~-~ rr----'-~ ( ~I I~ ~I I~ ~I I~ II II'~ ~I I~ ~1 I~ ~I I~ II -- eDA -II $ ~, ~~"_ _~ _ ~ tiL _ ~ ~, ~ _ ~ . ~ ~ . /J :..~._.._'~ ~ -. ~ PONTABLETOILETSR~'P.IJ I ~ -COMPACTEDGMVELBASE ~ 5'-0' S'-O' O w ~--- E6 A3 ~ ~, PORTABLE TOILET PLAN ~ wtt, w•.ro ...__.... :._,:yt~ - b'-O' w•c• GMVaWAUf ~ +za wox renw~n~ GUW~lBdCFENCE W'-0' . '~ ~I.. ~i i~ ~~ i~ ..~i i~ , ii iill i' 'i ~' 'i Ili~ ii 4 , ~i i, ~i i~ ~~ ~~ ~i ~~ - ~ ~ 'i § ~ iill ii ii ii i~ Ilii ii ° ii iill ~i i~ ~i i~ Ilii i' ~L-- i i-- Ji iL-- ~ i__ Ji --- -- -- --- ~ II ~ ~ I I ~ i I I I I I arwuESCp~r+ax I I t I t ~ I~~ I I ~II~ . ~II~ I~~II I~+++tt~+Cein I I1~~1 I~~II IIII I~~I I~~II~~I I~~II~~I I~~II I° ~ I"Y'~7''`t~~T~O~~IT""~-'f" I I LJ LJ LJLJ LJLJ LJJ ~, ELEVATION L yuae, w•.r.p~ RELOCATION OF KITTREDGE TENNIS COURTS TO THE CONCEPT PLAN A3 Su~nc Cor,~s D~_~s ~~.......4.~~.~...~. UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO AT BOULDER - SOUTM CAMPUS -- ~•^~°°°~^~°~'~~°~ ..._.... ~r.,_ __ ~.~~~..,~.~ CU-Boulder South Tennis Court Relocation Project Executive Summary This application proposes the relocation of the University of Colorado's exisfing twelve- court Kittredge tennis complex to a new six-acre facility at CU-Boulder South. As a part of the tennis court complex project, there will be twelve fenced courts, a temporary pafking lot that witt allow up to 125 cars, and viewing stands (which wift be relocated from the existing tennis court sfte on the Main Campus), Some grading wil! be required to construct level pads for the courts and for the parking area. The new Law School, targeted to begin construction in 2002, wiil displace the existing Kittredge tennis courts. The twelve courts are a key facility for the University's competitive tennis programs. The courts are used daily for practice and training during both the Fall and Spring seasons and as a competition venue. The predominant users of the proposed tennis courts will be the student athletes that compete in the intercollegiate athletic competitive tennis program. Other users would include CU students that compete in intramural tennis, students attending summer tennis camps, and the iocal community who may be able to schedule the courts fo~ local tennis competitions. The intent of relocating the proposed tennis facilities to CU-Boulder South is also consistent with the University's goal of relocating several existing athletic and recreational fields to this land in order to make land on the Main and East campuses available for more intense development to support academic, research, and housing facilities. The Main and East Campuses are closer to existing facilities and would require fewer additional infrastructure, utility, and transportation improvements. The p~oposed project does not contain water or sewage treatment activities or improvemenfs. Screened portab(e toi(ets are incorporated into fhe design and pa~ticipants would bring their own drinking water to the site. The proposed project does not require major facilities of a public utility and is not located in whole or in part within designated Nafura( Resource, Natural Hazard, or Hisforica( and Archeological Resource Areas of statewide importance. Additionally, the site for the proposed tennis court complex is not located within any federal, state or County designated floodplain or Initial Control Area. The proposed tennis courts location is in compliance with Boulder County Zoning. The site is located approximately half in the "ED" Economic Development Zone, and half in the "A° Agriculture zone. Both of these zoning districts list recreational facilities, and specifically tennis facilities, as an appropriate use. Traffic wouid not be significantly impacted by the use of the tennis courts. During the regular tennis program practice times, the proposed development will typically generate a maximum of 100 vehicle trips per day with a peak hour load of 25 trips. This peak hour would typically occur outside of the peak hour of adjacent street traffic. During the peak hour of adjacent street traffic, the development would typically generate five trips duri~g the moming peak hour and eight trips during the afternoon peak hour. Traffic peaks may increase to 350 vehicle trips per day with a maximum peak hour load of 150 trips during tennis exhibitions or toumaments, which would typically occur approximately three to four times per year, No additional right-of-way or easements wou)d be required for new or expanded transportation facilities There are no areas of surface water that will be affected by the proposed tennis court complex on the CU-Boulder South property and the proposed development should not have any direct impact on subsurface aquifers. There are no wetlands or riparian areas within the area of impact proposed by the tennis court facilities and there are no specific areas of critical wildlife habitat or a livestock range that will be affected. The projecf is not anticipafed to have any significant adverse impacts on air qua(ify due to the low number of vehicle trips generated and there should be no deterioration of the existing natural aesthetics as it relates to the cunent condition of the properly. UIVIVERSITY OF COLORADO - BOULDER TENNIS COTJRT RELOCATION PROJECT "RESPONSE TO ARTICLE 8- BOULDER LAND USE CODE" B. APPLICATION REOUIIZEMENTS l.b. Name of Proposed Development: Relocatian of Tennis Court and associated faci[ities from the University of Co[orado's Main Campus to a portion of the CU-Boulder Soutk site. Total Number of Acres: ~lpproxlmately six (6) acres oj the 308-acre CU-Boulder South property are expected to be utilized for this relocated tennis facility. l.c. Maps and Plans included in this applicatiott (reduced size) include: I) CU-Bou[der South Map indicating location and scale af hvelve (12) Tennis courts, temporaryparking for I25 automobifes, viewing (Exhibit l) Z) Floodplain Map including delineations for FEM~I Regulatory floodplain, Flood Hazard Initia[ Control Area and Existing Conditions Jloodplain. (Exhibit 2) 3) Map of Geologic Hazard Areas locat¢d on tlie CU-Boulder South Campus property. (Exhibit 3) 4) Boulder County Zoning Map (Exhibit 4) S) Boulder County Land Use Map (Exhibit S) 6) Map of Surface Waters on lhe CU-Bou[der South Property. (Exhibit 6). 7) Map of Estimated Groundwater Contours and Depths jor the CU- Bnulder South Campus Property. (Exhibil7). 8) Delineated wetlands on CU-Boulder South Property. (Exliibit 8) 9) Phoros of CU-Bou[der South taken from various [ocations (Exhibit 9J. l.d. Name, Address and Phone Number of Applicant, Designer, Engineer, and other Consultants. Applicant: Dniversity of Colorado Board of Regents, a Body Corporate Agent: Jeffrey S. Liplon, Execulive Director Department of Facililies Management Campus Box 453 Bou[der, CO 80309-0453 303-492-2222 303-492-7186 - fax En:ail: linton(a~,co[orado.edu i- Consultant: Love & Associates, Inc. 841 Front Stree~ Louisville, CO 80027-1849 303-673-9795 303-673-9796 (fax) Email: nlovei~loveassociates.com Nancy Boudreau Love, C.E.O. - Consu[tant - Project Principal Nancy Boudreau Love has a anlque coinbinatlon af arban plannimg, pablic speaking, pubfic process, business ~nanagement, ecanomic and accounting erperience and education. Nancy has wnrked in !he freld oj wate~ resnurce ' consu[ting jor more than twenty-eight years. Her expertise ranges jrom the day-to-day planning and management oja projessional consulting busrness to individual project managemen~, urban planning, public participation, regulatory agency coordinafion and approva[s and projecr cosY conlroC Her ro[e a1 Love & Associates, Ina as Chlef Executive O~cer, ajjords her tke responsibility ojrn~erjacing wlth indivTdual slafjmembers, clients, reviewing and regalalory ageacies, contraclors, and [he general pablic ia order [o insure tl~ar each project undeKaken by Love & Associales, Inc. is compleJed in the mos[ e~cienf, expeditious, and cost ejfective manner providing the highesl quality ojproduct while keeping the client attd/or the public injarmed as to its progress at aU times. Nancy has a degree in Ur6an Planning jrom !he University ojOklahoma (1972) and has laken extensive poslgraduate work in water rights, Jloodplain managemen(, and hydrology, etc. David J. Love, P.E. - President - Principal Engineer Davld Love has a degree in Engtneering Physics from flie Colorado School Mines (1972) and 'u a licensed Projessib'nal Engineer in lhe State ojColarado. He has more than thir[y-one (31) years ojexperience in civil and water resoarce engineering for state, municrpay Induslriati agricutlural, and prlvate sector dienls Hu areas af erperYise include hydraulics, hydrology, civil, sYOrm drainage, flood control, masler planning, recrealion engineering, environmenta[ design, wetland miligation design, in-slream water quality and habi(at impravements, road design, water supply, sewerage, and subsurface drainag~ David has been a gaes~ lecturer at tke Universtly of Co[arado at Bou[der rn the coUeges ojCivi! Englneerfng, JournaUsm and Environmenta! Design and has taught conslruction inspeMion school lo City oj Boulder Public Works employees: Due to his uaique approach ire jorgixg functional engixeering solutions wilh environmental and aesthdtc concerns, David has been a featured speaker al several projessional conjerences. He alsa conlinues to update his education rhroagh seminars, workshops and sympasiums. David is qualifred in Federa( Cour! as an expert witness in lhe areas of drainageway masYer planning, ftnal design, coat eslimaling and cons7ruction management and has proviAed lestimony on mukiple court cases over tlie pas~ thirty one years. Consultants: Transportation - Felzburg, Kolt, Ulevig - 7951 East Maplewood Avenue, Suife 200 Greenwood Village, CO 80111 303-721-1440 Jeff Ream, P.E. Sn Trm:sportalion Engir:eer •Z- Jejf Ream is a registered projessiona! exgineer wilh ten years of experience in !he fields oj trajfic engineering and lransporta~ion planning. He graduafed from rhe Universi[y of Washrng[on wilh a degree in civi! engineering in l992. He rs nn rxperienced projecf manager for engineering, planning, and lravel demand mode[ing proJects, and has worked in suppart roles on transil planning projects. He has also been rnvolved in ~he development oj quantitalive service ana[ysJs models for ~rajftc opera~ians and has been invnlved in the develnpmenl af survey tnols and methado[ogies jnr ~ransportation-related dafa gathering. Mr. Ream has canduMed tra~c impac~ analyses jar over 100 public and private developments in the stales aj Washington, Oregon, Nevada, and Colorado. These inc[ude hoasing deve(opments ranging from IS [0 9,000 unlts, retai! centers, mixed-use commercial cen~ers, ojfice buildings, ojfice parks, industrtaf parks, jreight jaci[itles, transi~ jacilities, schools, galjcourses, and public parks. Environmental - Wildlife: ERO Resources - 1842 Clarkson Street Denver, CO 802I8 (303J 830-II88 Ronald D. Beane Mr. Beane is a cer[ified ecologlst anA Research Associate wilh the Denver Museum of Natura[ History. Xe has over 22 years ojprojessional ezperience as an ecologist and wildlije btologist, spectaliung in NEPA, environmenla[ permltting, environmental planning, threatened and endangered species, urban wildlife, applied ecological studies, and ecological risk assessmenrs. Mr. Beaxe has been involved in a wide rarege ojprojecfs including sYate and jederal highways, transmrsslon lines, jederal superfund sfles, military rnslalla[ions, oi1 and gas plpelines, mi~Jfng, open space p[anning, and natural resources managemenG His fields oj ezpertise include: wlWlife biology/ ecology, Threatened and Endangered Species Assessments; raptor biology, natural resource planning, NEPA Compliance - biological assessments and ha6itat restoratian/management He is a cer[ifted as an Ecologist by fhe Ecological Society.ojAmerican (7993) and holds a Masters degree in biology jrom the University of Colorado (1996). Environmental - Wetlands - Keammerer Ecological 5858 Woodbourne Hollow Boulder, CO 80301 303-530-1783 Dr. Warren Keammerer Dr. Warren Keammerer is a Doctor aj Philosophy in Botany and Plant Ecology jrom NoRh Dakota State University (1972) and has been working as an independent consultant in plant ecology and vegetalion studies since 1973. He has worked on over 250 different sludies in Colorado, New Mexico, lYyoming, Utak, Ariznna, Calijnrnia, Nevada, Monlann, Norlli Daknta, Sou1G Dakota, Nebraska and Oklahoma Studies have related to mining, ski area, ircdustria[ artd park developmenl. Dr. Keamme~er l~as provided erpert testimony in planl ecology. Dc Keammerer, over die years, has developed specia! expertise in moniloring vege[alion clmnges and develaped conrpu~er sojlware designed (o facilitale fhe organization and anafysis of vege(a~ia~ -3- da~a Dr. Keammerer has authored more than 195 consulting reports over the las~ 25 years related to vegetatlon studies. l.e. ExhibitlDrawing Information: All drawings, maps, eta incorporated as a part of this submittal include the date [he drawing was prepared, a revision box, an appropriate scale, a grapliic scale and a Korih arrow. Refer to each indivutual drawing jor tliis informatioa. See Exhibit 1 for Location of Property and Location oj Tennis Court Facilities within the CU-Boulder South property. 2, The following requirements shall apply only to applications for the water and sewage treatment activities designated in Section 8-309(A)(1)-(3) above. b. Detailed plans for the activity or development including the proposed system capacity and service area plans and maps. c. A description of at[ existing or approved proposed domestic water or sewage treatment systems witrun the jurisdiction of the applicant as well as adjacent communities (incorporated and unincorporated). d. The dasign capacity of each domestic water or sewage treatment system and tha distribution or collection network identified in (3) above. e. A detailed inventory of total commitments akeady made for current wafar or sewage services in terms of taps or other appropriate measurement. f. The source of the existing or new water supply for the proposed activity including applicable decreed water rights or plans, and information on any agricultural water rights decreed to land in unjncorporated Boulder County anct converted to provide the supply. Not applicable. Proposed project does not contain water and sewage treatment activities as designated in Section 8-309(A)(1)-(3). 2. The following requirements shall apply only to applications for major facilities of a public utility. b. Detailed plans for the facility including, but not limited to, the associated system capacity and proposed service azea plans and maps. c. A description of existing and proposed service in the area to be served. d. A description of the distribution natwork for the area proposed to be served. Not app[icable. Proposed project does not contain major facililies of a public utdliry. 3. The following requirements apply only to development located in whole or in part within designated Historical and Archeological Resource Areas of statewide importance. -4- b. A state historical site su~vey form completed by a qualified professional acceptable to the State Historic Preservation Officer for all resources affected by the development. c. A description of the mitigating efforts to be taken to preserve the designated resource. d. Plans and procedures for notification to the State Historical Society and State Archaeologist upon discovery of historical or azchaeological resources. (8/13/98) Not applicabl~ Proposed project is not located in whole or in part within designated Historical and Archeologica[ Resource Areas nf statewide importanc~ 4. The following requirements apply only to development located in whole or in part within designated Natural Resource Areas of statewide importanca. b. A survey of habitat of applicable species by a qualified professional. c. A plan of conshuction and operations, which shall contain an analysis of the effects of the proposed development upon wildlife species within the designated wildlife habitat. (8//3/98) Not applicabl~ Proposed project is xot located in whole or in part within designated Natural Resource Areas ojstatewide importance. 5. The following requirements apply only to developtnent located in whole or in part within designated Nahual Hazud Areas of statewide importance. (11/01/01J b. For development within a natural hazard area as sat forth in Section 8-405 (E)(1): i. Application for a Floodplain Development Permit containing the information required in Article 4-407(B) of this Code. ii. A flood hazard impact report that addresses the criteria for developing in a flood hazazd azea, certified by a registered Colarado Professional Engineer. iii. Maps or reports addressing flood hazard azeas must be prepued by a registered Colorado Professional Engineer, a hydrologist or other professional with appropriate expertise in the issues addressed in the map or report as determined by the Land Use Director. Not applicable. The site for tlie proposed tennis coun complex is not located within any designated Natura[ Hazard Area of statewide importance. c. For development located within a natural hazard area which is a flood hazard azea contained within an Initia] Control Area as set forth in 8-405 (E) (2): -6- i. Studies sufficiently detailed to allow the Coanty Engineer, in consultation with the Colorado Water Conservation Board, to determine whether the development is within a flood hazard area that should properly ba mapped as a floodplain. ii. Upon receipt of tha studies the County Engineer shall refer such studies to the Colorado Water Conservation Boazd. As part of this referral, the applicant shall submit additional information that the Colorado Water Conservation Boazd may require to determine whether the development or any part thereof lies within an area that should properly be mapped as a floodplain. iii. If, following consultation with the Colorado Water Conservation Board the County Engineer determines that the development or any part thereof lies within an azea that should properly be mapped as a floodplain, then the applicant shall submit the information required under Section 8- S07D.6.a. Nnt applicab/Q The site jnr the proposed tennis court compl~r is nnt located within the Initia[ Contro[ Area as set farth in 8-405 (E) (2). (See Exhibit 2). d. For development within a flood natural hazard area, that is located in whole or in part within an Initial Control Area (see subsection b., above), but is also located in part in a cuaent mapped floodplain under Article 4-402 of this Code (see subsection a., above), the development shall be considered to be within the current mapped floodplain and the application requirements of subsection a., above, shall apply. • Not applicable. The site for die proposed tennis court complex is not lacated within any currently mapped floodp[ain under AMicle 4-402 of the Code, flood natural hazard area or Initial Control Area. (See Exhibit 2). e. For developments ]ocated within a natural hazard area which is a geologic hazard area: A geology report documenting and assessing the nature and extent of the applicable geologic hazard, its impact on the proposed developmant, and proposed mitigation measures if any, prepazed by either a member of the American Institute of Professional Geologists, a mamber of tha Association of Engineering Geologists, or an individual registered as a geologist by a state. Not app[icable. The proposed projecl is not [ocated withir~ a designafed Natural Hazard Area, whicli is a geological ltazard. (See Exhi6i13). -~- FLOODPLAIN MAP ~~ ~-~- . -~ , ~ .-----~-~ ~ `• , ,, . ,, , n_,~~L `. ~ ~ ~ ~ ` ~ ~ ~~ , ,~_„ ~ , .. _.. . - ---~-- ....._.. . . . ~ ~ r \` .r-~-- rvmowuxnwrv~ 1 ~ 1 --'_' ~munm~x~wemnmutr ~ ~J ~~ ~ \ a . n ~ ~ J A u ~' ~ ~ r ~, , ~ ,, ~ ~ , . . .~ . .m.. . ~_ ~,~ ~ ~ ~~. , ~ ~~ ~ ,~ ,~ ~ ~~ .,\` ,~ ~ F.a.~.m .~.~~ ~ ,~_ _.~-- /~: m~ a ~~ §a& n~~^. ~~~g %'ca s$€~ ~~g: ~`1 ~° " __~ _ .. ~ ~~n ~t o 0 ~~~~ fl Q~°cn {~ r~~tl~. ~ ~ ~Q 4eigPoe~ Smlc P = 900' ~ IINIY~'RSITY OF COLOR~II~O AT BOIIL~~'R ~C. , ., .. . ._.... , ~ . ,.,. . _. % ~ cr.~r, ~ ADOPTFD 1986 ------ 0a ~ ~ Y ~ t P 1 lR F L00DPW N 00-1 'R FLOOD WN .__. _. ___... FLWD HA7ARD INRIAL COHIROL AREq BOUNDARY ~ X'^°^"°~~ ~ I CU - BOULDER SOUIN EXHIBIT ` I I TENNIS COURT RELOCATION PROJECT Z GEOLOGIC HAZARD AREAS mg F C ~ ~`. g~ga ^g~ C ~;~ ~';~ s ~:. -__ __ _ ~ _ ~ ~ .~~ ~; ' ' _ .~~ ' ~~HO~~ fY ''~ ` \ ~ _"' ~ ~ ~ ~~~ . __' . ~ ~i i ~~ '~ m'' _ .~.a+~~ ' • i =- ~,~ : _ _ ~ ~ ~ ~=.= ~- __-_ - ~ i,_ ~ ~ ., ,, , ~ ~ , , ~' ~~~ S: H; ) ~ - ~ _ .. . - i ~ . ~~ Y I .~.~ I .- Q ~ T . .'.~" .- 1 . o .,..,~.... , .. .. t. ~ . - - -- ~. ~, - - -- - - - : _ ___ _ _- ~ , . > ,. /; ` - - f ~ ~~'- -------J ; a, ~ --' _-- _ ~, ~ ~ •-- '4 ~ ~~ '-_ ---_ ~/ s ~/ '~ /~' C~OLOCiICHAZflflD3 ~ ~ C~~OX. LOCATIONS) / " _ _ MODQ2AlE HAZARD MODERATE CONSTRAINT ~.l1~ ~'l~ ~ MINOR CONSiRNNT n~i sm~c f= sou~ ~ IINIY~'RSITY OF COL01~4IJ0 AT BOIlL~~'R ~~ TENNSUCOURT RELOCR ONO ROJECT EXHIBIT ~~~~ 3 6. Requirements applicable to all applications: b. Detailed description of the need for the proposed development or activity, including but not limited to: The present population of the area to be served and the population to be served. This application proposes the relocation of the University of Colorado Bou[der's existing twelve-court Kittredge tennis couK complex to a new jacility at CU-Boulder South. A new Law School building, targeted to begin construclion in 2002, wi1[ displace the existing ICitlredge tennis courts. The twelve courls are a key jaclliry for the tennis programs in the DepaMment oj Intercollegiate Athletics. The couMs are used dai[y for practice axd training and during both the FaU and Spring seasons as a competition venue. It is critica[ for Ath[etics to have twelve new courls in p[ace prior to ihe demolition of the existing couns. The facilities that support the current cour[s- spectator sealing, resiroom faci[ities, temporary parking, and security fencing wfU also be included as parl of [he replacement project See Exhibit I jor location ofproposed facilities. The Campus Master Plan was adopted witl:in !he past year 6y the University's Board of Regents and the C6lorado Cammission on Higher Education. The Master Plan identified CU-Boulder South as the location for ihe replacement tennis courts as well as other athletics and recreationa! fields and facilities. ii. The predominant types of users or communities to be served by the proposal. The predominant users of the proposed tennis couris will be the student aihleres tkat compete in the intercollegiate athletic competitive tennis program. Other users would include CU students that compete in intramural tennis, students attending summer teunis carnps, and tl~e local community who may be ab[e to schedu[e the courts for [ocal tennis competitions. iii. The percentage of the design capacity at which the cunent system is now operating. -io- NoC applicable. iv. If the proposal is a new water or wastewater treatment system or public utility faciiity and that system exceeds a ten-year projected increase in demand, a detailecl explanation of the excess service capacity and the cost of the excess capacity. Nol applicabl~ No new water or wastewa~er treatment system or public utiliry facility is being proposed at fhis tennis faci[ity. v. The relationship of the proposal to the applicant's long-range planning and capital improvements programs. As men[ioned above, the praposed development is consistent wi[h the CU-Bou[der Master Plan, which was approved by the Universiry's Board of Regents and the Colorado Commtssion on Higher Education. The intent aJ relocating the proposed tennis facilities to CU-Boulder South is also consistent wilh the stated goal of re[ocating severa[ existing a[hletic and recreationaf fie[ds to CU-Boulder South in order to make land on the Main and Eas1 campuses avai[able for more intense academic, research, and housing facilities since those lands are closer to existing jaci[ities and would require fewer additiona! injrastructure, utility, and transpoKalion improvements. c. Environmental Tmpact Anaiysis ~' i. Land Use: I. Specify whether the.proposal conforms to local govemment planning policies and master plans. The proposed tennis courts location is in compliance with Boulder County Zoning. See Exhibit 4. The proposed tennis facility site is located approximate[y half in the "ED" Economic Development Zone, and half in the "A" Agricullure zone. Both of these zoning districts lrst recrea~ional faci[ities, and specifical[y tennis faci[ities, as an appropria~e use that can be permitted following revieiv. The zoning is an isdica[ion that the tennis facility is an appropriate use at this location. Taking all aspects of the Boulder Va[ley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP) into consideratfon, a reasonable conclusion is that this proposal is in accord with lhe County's Comprefiensive Lmrd Use Plan. See Exl:ibit 5. 11- r AND COUNTY ZONING ~ \ ~~-~~~ i~ ---------!` i -%, , m g ~ ti~:. d~,~ ~,~a, ,~ . ,. ~ . C ~^ ~~1l~F~ 4n'{ yi~rLh W. .. Af"' R~, . ~ ~ ~ ~ '~ Vr . ~ 3 i /~ j9~ iI'-..i:6. ~. ~F / fi'~,ti ~ ~ -~y hi~i ~`rt,.: '& : :P '~~ / ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~1 F I ~ .~... =g /'~.T`~ .~:> T6' I _ ~"'.v_'_"_" ___ $n ~~ ~~ cY ~=$ IlNIY~'RSITY OF COLOR4D0 AT BOIILD~'R ~ae ,:~ u.,.~ - --..~~~.,~ ~_~~ ~ ~ ~ 3..:~~~~ ~ ~^~~ ~ ~ r~, ~ ° ~ ~ ;~ ~~,~ ~° Ais' . ~m~o.~..+u ~ _ a ~Y . . ~ ` ~ ex-rem.omxmer.x ~~1 f i ••ui rA :~Jl1L~TJ:O~ ~ ~-~ 11mYYNy ~ CU - BoULDER SoUiH EXHIBIT TQJNIS COURT RELOCA710N PROJECT c} LAND USE LEGEND ~ a~. ~ ~ ~ _~.~ -~ ~~ _~t _,~. 4.: _~ ~ ' ~~. UNIY~'I~SITY OF COlOR~4IJ0 AT BOIILD~'11 COUNTY LAND USE MAP • The entire "CU-Boulder South" site is located within Area lIB, indicating ihe site ultimately wi![ become more urban and has the potential for fulure annexalion into the City of Boulder. • Urban services, wkich are not yel available, are not required jar tennis courts. • Transportation access is more than sufficient for the proposed tennis facility use. • The CUproperty is divided into three BVCP land-use categaries: medium-densiry residential, low-density residentia[, and open space. The specific tennis facility site is on the edge of the medium-densiry residentia! designation, overlapping into the open space designation. Recreational faci[lties such as tennis courts are common in medium-density residentia[ areas. In terms of open space, the specific tennis courl location does not have unique open space characteristics (such as wetland, steep slope, unique,Jlora or jauna, etc) to preserve. The site of the proposed tennis facilities has been previously gravel mined and re-vegetated with a native, non-irrigated pasture grass. No shrubs or lrees exist on the proposed sire of the tennis facilities. The University has recently surveyed such characteristics for the entire property, and has identifted other portions of the site that cou[d potentia[ly 6e preserved or designated as open space. ,~ • Locating tennis cour[s as proposed wifl not disrupt the desirable averall pattern of county development II Detail the agricultural productivity capability of the land affected by the proposal (SCS classification). The proposed site for the tennis couK facilities is located within an area [hat was sand and grave! mined to within a jew feet of the underlying Pierre Sha[e formation. Upon completion of the gravel mining activiti~s, the area was re-topsoiled and revegelated with an approved native, dry land grass mix as part of the reclamation process. Tlie revegetation is relatively sparse, and tlie coversoil contains a considerable amount of rack, generallyl2-inckes or less in size. The coversoil ntaterial wou[d not like[y sustain or be conducive to agricultura[ productivity due to the ~tature of the malerials that liave 6een utilized to fll and topsoil il:e site following t1:e gravel operatio~rs. Soils wil/iin 1he projec! site were generally c[assified as Niwot soils (NRCS 1975). T/iese soils formed on !ow lerraces and -14- bot[omlm:ds in loamy alluvium superimposed over sand and graveL Currenlly the soils consis! of mining fines intermixed with pebbles and small to large cobble. II. Specify how the proposed development will utilize existing easements or rights-of-way for any associated transmission, distribution or collector networks. ' During the regular tennis program practice times, the proposed development is typically expected to generate a maximum of l00 vehicle irips per day with a peak hour load of 25 trips. This peak hour would typically occur outside of the peak liour ojadjacent street traffic. During the peak hour of adjacent street trajfic, the deve[opment wou[d typically generate five trips during the morning peak hour and eight trips during the afternoon peak hour. Traffic peaks may increase to 350 vehicle trips per day with a maximum peak hour load ojI50 trips during tennis exhibitions or tournaments, which wou[d typical[y occur approximate[y three to four times per year. Additional traffic may occasionally occur from scheduled public use. The traffic load jrom that use would fit into the peak loads described abov~ The findings of the traffic study for the site are as follows: The three intersections primari[y afJ`'ected by site traffic are tlie Tab[e Mesa DrivelUS 36 West Ramp, the Table Mesa Drive/Faot/tills Parkway West Ramp, and t/ie Sautlr Boulder Road/US 36 East Ramp. In 2005, all three intersections would operate ar Level of Service "LOS"B or better during the AM peak hour both without and with the project. During the PMpeak hour on a typical day, all three intersections would operate at LOS C or better both without and with the project. During the PM peak hour on a special event day, llie intersections would also operate at LOS C. In 2020, a!! t/rree i~sterseclia:s wou[d operale at LOS C or better during tke AM peak kour. During the PM peak hour, all three intersections operate at LOS D or 6etler duriug a typica! day, while during an evenl, lhe US 36 t 5- West Ramp deteriorafes to LOS E. With optimized signal timings during the PM peak, al! three intersections operate at LOS C or better on both a typica[ day and during a specia[ event. The increased tra~c impacts for ihese ixtersections wi!! not be a funclion of lhe tennis courts but rather from other background changes in tra~c volumes. Therefore, in 2020, the signa! timings at the three impacted intersections a[ong Table Mesa Drive should 6e re-optimized during !he PMpeak to improve traffic flow. Currently, the City ofBou[der Signal Operptions Engineer regu[arly monitors and optimizes the City's signal system. It is anticipated tliat the task ojoptimization will continue to be conducted by the Signal Operations Esgineer in the juture, and tkerejore anticipated that the City would perform this re-optimizatinn as part of their nn- going monitoring efforts. III. Specify any additional right-of-way or easements for new or expanded transportation facilities. No additional right-of-way or easements would be required for new or expanded transportation jaci[ities. However, as noted abave, it is anticipated lhat the City's Signa[ Operations Engineer will continue to monitor traffic Jlow along Tab[e Mesa Drive and re-oplimize the traffic signals when appropriate. This represents a typical responsibility for tkat position. ii. Water resources: I. On the same, or another appropriate map, indicate any flood hazard uea associated with the proposal. Documentation of historical flooding activity on the parcel where the activity or development will be located, and on other properry affected by the activity or development, should be included. Detail potential, adverse impacts related to the associated flood hazazd area. (II/01/01) Exhibit 2 indicates the proposed development in relatlon to the FEMA designated Jioodplain map. T/ie proposed development is located outside any previously known areas of historical Jlood activity. The development wi[1 not liave any appreciable flood or drainage impacts o~e other properlies or ihe balance of the CU-Boulder South property. As can be seeu fram the three jloodplains show~r on ExJtibit 2, the location of t/se tennis facilities are c[early located outside al! 16- known areas of flooding including the current FEMA regulatory Jloodplain, the updated existing conditions jloodplain and the Counry's Flood Initial Control Area. II. Map and describe all surface waters, including applicable state water quality standazds, to be affected by the project. Tkere are no areas af surface water that wil[ be affeceed by the proposed tennis court complex on the CU-Baulder South property. There is minimal surface water on the CU-Bou[der South property. A1! areas of surjace water including irrigation ditches, stormwater drainages, and/or gravel mined lakes are shown on Exlribit 6. Since no existing surface water areas will be affected by the development of the tenn~s court jacilities, there are no app[icable state water quality standards that are required or ajfected. III. Describe the immediate and long-term impact and net affects that the activity would have on the quantity and quality of surface water under both average and worst case conditions. Since there are no surface waters that wil[ 6e affected by the development of the tennis court facilities, there wil[ be no immediate and/or long-term impact or net effects generated by the construction or operation of these faci[ities. Surface drainagelrainfall runojf from' the tennis court areas will be treated in grassy or landscaped areas surrounding ihe tennis court compler and soak into the surrounding grassy areas. Additinnadly, ihe I25 space temporary parkisg lot wil[ be gravel and much of the rainfa[[ on the parking area wi[I soak into lhe underlying soils. The parking area will be surrounded by grassed and/or landscaped areas, which should accommodate the runoff from the parking area prior to saturating the underlying soils. The rainfall runoff generated by the impervious areas of tl~e ten~zis courls wi[l soak into the surrounding grassed areas. In the extreme case of a large rainfal[ event, runoff will travel through the surraunding grassed/landscaped areas mid reac/t ilie lake at the northeast corner of tlie property and be de[ained The volume of water generated 6y the inrpervious areas of t/:e tennis courls, even in a large rainfalf event, wou[d not be enougl~ to cause an impaci to the exislii:g grave! lake or the drainage systems interna! to the CU-Boulder South property. There would be no long-term impact ai tlie qumitity and qua[ity af surface water u~~der either m: average or worst- t7- SURFACE WATERS --- --_ ~ ----:_--- . - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~_ .`~a°""°""" \ ~ ~ ~---i l `°~` ,Po~s ~~ - _~ - _~-~-_ --=- ~ , , ~~,~ =~------ -~ ~~~ --- ~ 2e m~ a s ~ 3 SR? 9 Rg~ S~N =°3€ ~ §gEe §-^o LdCi ~ ---~ / O // ~ 0 DIIC1~ ~ ON~net Seelc 1' = 90 ~ ' ~ ~ ~~n U O EXHIBIT IINIY~ RSITY OF COLORAIJO AT BOllL1~ER ~ ~ - -~ --- I ~ ~ _ __ iENNS COURT RE O N PROJECi _ _ r s case condition as minrma[ additiona! impervious area will be added by [his prnposaL IV. Map and describe all groundwater, inctuding any aquifers. Describe the impacts and net effect of the activity on groundwater. The proposed deve[opment should not have any impacl on subsurface aquifer.~ The area of the proposed tennis court facilities has been sand and grave! mined to within a few feet ojblue shale and therefore no groundwater or aquijers wi[l be aJ)''ected by the development of this tennis court facility. There will be na we[ls or irrigations systems associated with the developmenG Drainage and run-off will be directed to existing ponds by using sheet jlow, grass swales and sha[!ow ditches. At a miiumum, the description should include: a. Seasonal water levels in each subdivision of the aquifer affected by the activity. Since the propased developmeat will not have any impact on subsurjace aquifers this injormation is not app[icab[e. ., b. Artesian pressure in aquifers. Since the proposed development wi[[ not have any impact nn subsurface aquifers, there should be no impacts to arlesian pressure, if any, in the underlying aquifers. c. Groundwater flow directions and levels. Groundwater Jlow directions and levels have been mapped for the overall CU-Boulder South site. See Exhibit 7. The groundwater injormation on this exhibit was generated by Western Mobile-Boulder, the sand and grave! mining company who mined tlie site, as wel! as from specific pits dug to determine tl:e elevation to groundwater at various locations across the entire CU- Boulder South si1e. -19- d. Existing aquifer recharge ratas and methodology used to calculate recharge to the aquifer from any rechazge sources. Since the proposed development shou[d not have any impact an subsurface aquifers, there should be no impacts to aquijer recharge rates. e. For aquifers to be used as part of a water storage system, methodology and results of tests used to determine the ability of aquifer to impound groundwater and aquifer storage capacity. Not applicable. Aquifers are not proposed as part of a water storage system. f. Seepage losses expected at any subsurface dam and at stream-aquifer interfaces and methodology used to calculate seepage losses in the affected streams, including description and location of ineasuring devices. Since the proposed development will not have any impact on any subsurface dam or at stream-aquijer interfaces, there should be no impacts to streams. g. Existing groundwater qnality and classificarion. Not Applicable. Groundwater is not proposed for use by this project h. Location of all water wells and their uses. There is currently only one permitted water wel[ on the CU-Baulder South sit~ This groundwa~er wel! is located north and east of the proposed tennis court facilities site, just northwesl of ilse existing building on tl~e properly. The water quality of lhis well is poor and lzas not been used by CU since purcliasing ihe property. This we![ wi[[ not be utilized by the tennis cour~ facilities. -20- ~ ~ ~ ~ :g ~$ c~ 3~ "so„ g~€ cae V. Describe the impacts and net effect of the activity on wetlands and riparian areas. Wetlands and riparian areas have been de[ineated on this site (September 1999). See Exhibit 8. There are very few areas of jurisdictional wetlands on the CII-Boulder Souih property. There are no wetlands or riparian areas wit/:in the area of impact proposed by the tennis court jacilities. a. Map and describe wetlands, and riparian areas to be affected by the activity, including a description of each type of wetlands, species composition, and biomass. Wet[ands and riparian areas that currently exist on ihe CU-Boulder South property were delineated in . September, I999 and the map has been updated at [ocattons where drainage improvements were made in the summer of 2001. See Exhibit 8. There are no jurisdictiona[ wetlands and/or riparian areas that wiU be ajfected as a part af the tennis courl facilities insta[[alion or use. Vegeration on the extire CU Sou[der site consists large[y of re-seeded g~fasslands associated with the rec[aimed grave[ pit and scattered wel areas associa[ed with drainage channels, retention ponds and groundwater seepag~ Grassland areas have been re- seeded with a mixture of native grasses and forbs including 6lue grama (Boute[oua gracilisJ, little bluestem (Schizacliyrium scopariumJ, western wheatgrass (Pascopyrum smithii), prairie cordgrass (Sparlina pectinata) and other species. Much of the area was seeded less than four years ago and ihe reclaimed grassland areas are stil[ developing. b. Describe the source of water interacting with the surface systems to create each wetland (i.e., side-slope runoff, over-bank flooding, groundwater seepage, etc.). Since there no wetlands in tlae vici~zity of the tennis caurt compLex nor wi![ there be any we1[and areas affected duri~tg construction or ajter t6e comp[ex is comp[e1ed, saurce of water iieteracfing to create other wellands on the property is iminaterial. However, for _ZZ_ DELINEATED WETLANDS __-~ ,__~ ~ _ ~~ ~ ~ ----~ ~~~. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~--~ ~ ,~.,._ ~ - ~---- - I ~ ~„~,a,s ~ _ ~ FPml16AtlY ~ • .- . . TBMMNRYPIRWG ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ m ~ ,~ ~ - ~ Q , ~" -~.,~ ----~ ~ ------------~ s < °~ a 8~~ ~~~ s'•_`s §'g~s 53c': ~ ~~ ~ NOTE: Delineation perfortned by Worren Keammerer during field site~ visit on August 7& 8, 1999. IINIV~'RSITY 0~' COLORAI~O AT BOIILII~'R iFNN15 COURT RELOCATION PROJECT EXHIBIT tlaose areas an tlie CU-Bou[der South properry that do rontain wetland vegelatio~e, these wetlands are created either by groundwater from drainage swales on the periphery of !he floor of the mining pit or ponds which were created as a paK of the mining operation. In some areas along the western edge of the property, there are some wetlands that have developed because of some side hill seeps. Again, none of these wetlands are within close proximity to the tennis court comp[ex No existing streams, creeks or drainages are [ocated within or wi![ be affected by the propased site for the tennis court complex. h. Describe impacts and the net effect that the project would have on the wetlands and riparian areas. There are no wet[ands or riparian areas in the vicinity of the tennis court complex nor will t/:ere be any wetland or riparian areas affected during construction or after the tennis couK complex is completed iii. Terrestrial and Aquatic Animals and Habitat. I. Map and describe terrestrial and aquatic animals including the status and relative importance of game and non-game wildlife, livestock and other animals; a description of stream flows and lake levels needed to prot'ect the aquatic environment; description of threatened or endangered animal species and their habitat. T/ie majority of the CU-Boulder Sautle properry contains sparse vegetation or habitat components. Vegetation within the CU-Boulder South property is characterized by areas of early successiona[ grasses and weeds and recently seeded grassland vegetation with sparse areas of sandbar willow/cattail wetlands with a scattered plains cotto~iwood and Russian olive overstory. The understory vegetation kas low species diversity and is dominated by toad,flax (Linaria spp.) and Baltic rush (Juncus ba[licus) in various, scattered wet areas tltroughout tlie entire praperiy. In the vici~rity of the tennis court complex, sparse dryland grasses exist witli no tree or shrub overstory. The [ennis court comple_Y area completely lacks any tree or shrub componeirt tlaaf could provide terrestrial habitat or cover for wi[dlife. A resideut population of mule deer occurs i+: the genera! area, lanrvever, according to wildlife habi[at maps developed by the Colorado Division of Wildlife (Natural Diversity b~forneation Syslenr - -24- NDIS) the tennis court complex contains no suitable habitat for mu[e deer, elk or other game species. Tlie site has had [itt[e time for ~:atural ecologica[ succession to provide the vegetation aud soi[ componenls necessary to suppoM a diverse, junctioning wi[d[ife community. Addilionally the recent completion oj aggregate mining on the site has provided 1it11e opportunity jor rodents and other wild[ije to re- colonize tlte site. Sparse vegetation and a[ack of vegetation structures provides litHe habitat for non game grass[and bird or mamma! species. A few ground nesting so~:gbirds, such as western meadowlark or horned [arks may nest on the site; /towever,little evidence of use af the area by breeding birds or burrowing mammals has been observed on the tennis complex site. The tennis complex site conrains no potentia[ habitat for federa!!y listed threatened or endangered wildlife species. The site completely lacks any habitat components for the threatened Preb[e's meadow jumpi~:g mause (PMJM), particularly shrubs or low growing trees lhat could provide potential day roost or /:ibernation habitat for the PMJM. During observations of the property over the past two to two and half years, animals or animal sigi:s observed included raccoon (Procyon lotor), mule deer (Odocoileus /iemionus), white-tailed deer (O.virginianus), danestic dogs (Canis domesticus) and cats (Fe[is domesticus). On the CU-Boulder South properly, human activity including histarical livestack grazing (pre-minin~, grave! mining, aud water diversion for irrigation (historically) have heavi[y impacted the area. Itesidential housing borders the property on the west Individuals access the entire properry and walk (and run) domestic pets throughout tl:e property on a daily basis. The University's cross-country track is located at the property and is uiilized for inter and intramural track meets as well as regular training. With all of tlie human aclivities occurring on Yhe CU-Boulder South property i~: conjunctior: with minima[ groundcover, understory or overstory; previous dis[urbance (aggregate mining); and proximity of residentia[ areas, limited wildlife activity occurs within the [evee acreages. The lakes on t/te site are groundwater fed a~id wi[l ~~ot be i~npacted by fhe coustruction of the tennis court co»~plex. The lake levels fluctuate througkout the year based upoii d:e groundwafer systenr (lower in winter a~rd /rig/1er i~r spri~rg and summer due to Jlows ii~ irrigation dilckes and Soutlt -25- Boulder Creek which are in c[ose proximiry to the CU- Bou[der South properry). II. Map and describe critical wildlife habitat and. livestock range to be affected by the activity including migration routes, calving areas, summer and winter range, and spawning beds. The vast majority of CU-Boulder South has been mined with reclamation sti11 underway on the majoriry ojthe site. As a result, the property is largely disturbed and much of the pre- existing wildlife habitat is no longer represented According to maps developed by the Colorado Division of Wildlife, the site contains no migration corridors, critical winter habitat or calving/jawning areas for mule, deer, elk or other economically imporlant species. Oaly highly specific wildlife studies (e.g. PMJM) have been completed since mining has occurred Some of the most visible wi[d[ife on the siCe is Canada Geese. These birds can often be seen by the open water bodies and a[ong site drainages. Mamma! species such as the PMJM and the black tai[ed prairie dog have been presents on areas adjacent to the CU-Boulder South property; however, neither of these species is documented to exist on this entire properry. Tl:ere are no specific areas oj critical wildlije habitat and livestock range that will be affected by the construction of the proposed tennis court complex on the CU-Boulder South propert}c The area on the CU-Bou[der South property with the most potential for deve[opment as a wild[ife habitat on the property exists on the south % of the property outside and soutl: af the flood levee. There are approximately four wet cel[s remaining on tl:e property as a resu[t of the gravel mining operation and a variety of species including sandbar willow/caKail wetlands with scattered plains cottonwaod and Russian olive overstory exisY in this arerc The understory vegetation has low species diversity and is dominated by toadjlax (Lixaria spp.) and Ba[tic rush (Ju~ecus ba[ticus) in various, scattered wet areas throughout various isolated location on t/ie e~:tire property. However, the location of the proposed tennis court conep[ex miglit potential[y provide for a summer or winter range area if cattle were to be moved to the properry. Flowever, the a~nount of forage (grasses) availab[e o~: diis particu[ar sLr acres (terr~:is coun site) is sparse and would not sustaiir a graung opera~ion for more thm~ a few iveeks. -2G- III. Describe the impacts and net effect that the activity would have on terrestrial and aquatic animals, habitat and food chain. The tennis courl comp[ex does not directly or indirect[y impact any aquatic animals or aquatic habitats. The tennis comp[ex may impact a jew breeding terrestria! birds; however the recent disturbance of 1l~e site has severely limited 1he quantity and qua[iry of any potentia[ breeding songbird l:abita~ Wintering grassland birds, particularly Canada geese, may occasional[y forage on the site, although food resaurces are extremely [imited. In its current condition the tennis complex site provides little to no /iabitat for breeding, migrant or wintering terrestrial animals and developmen! of the site would have a negligible impact on terrestrial or aquatic anima[s, habitat or tlie funclioning of fhe surrounding ecosystem, including any food web/jood chain interactions. iv. Terrestrial and Aquatic Plant Life I. Map and describe tenestrial and aquatic plant life including the type and density, and threatened or endangered plant species and habitat. Exhibit 8 is attac/:ed whicli identifies ihose areas on the CU- Bou[der South properly where wetlands (both jurisdictional and nonyurisdictional) 'occur'on [he overall sitz Terrestrial vegetation on the proposed site consists of reclaimed areas dominated by perennia[ grasses. Tliere is no aquatic vegetation on the proposed site. There are no threatened or endangered plant species or habitat witkin the acreages proposed for the tennis court complex nor in close proximity to the area and therefore construction or use of the tennis complex wi[[ not ajfect identified areas of wetlands or fhreatened or endangered species. Duriug tlie 1999 wetland delineation of i/:e entire property and again in the summers of 2000 and 2001, tleose areas which have been ideniifted to contain tl:e e~:dangered Ute Ladies Tresses Orchid (Spiranthes diluvialis) have been investigated to determine wliether or not tlie distribution of this species is expanding or contracting in the drainage areas along the toe of the [evee. Tl:e distribution of Spiranthes has no~ expanded due to ei:croach~nenl by catlails witki~: tleis drainage. The availab[e habitat far this species nray be decreasi~eg. T/ie [ocation of tl:is endangered species is several thousand feel away from the proposed te~inis courl site and there wi!! be no impact ox this species from 1he deve[opnie~:~ or operalion of the teunis _Z7_ courl coneplex In tke [ate summer of 2000, a Preb[e's Meadow Jumping Mouse (Zapus hudsonius preblei)(PMJM) survey was completed for the entire CU-Boulder South property. Again in November, 2001 a second (more site specific) habitat evaluatiox was completed in order to identify areas of both non-habitat and potentia[ PMJM habitat within an area released from mining reclamation isside the levee of the CU-Boulder South property. It was concluded by the wild[ife bio[ogisl (Ron Beane) canducting the survey and tlie US Fisk and lf~ildije Service lhat (excerpt frnm !he USFWS letter dated 2/4/2002) ~The subject area, whtch was inUially trapped for Preble's in 2000 as par[ of a[arger trapping e,jfort jor the University of Colarado South Campps area was re-assessed in 2001 jor potenlia! suitable Preble's habilat in the event that site condilions in the subjec! area may have changed This assessment determined that ~he subject area (proposed tennis courT camplex) does not con[ain habitat for Preble's....The Service (USFWS) finds the reporl acceptable and agrees that Preble's habitae is nol present wilhin the subjecr area Thus ihe Service concludes lhat activilies on this site should no[ kave direct adverse efjec~s to Preble's... " II. Describe the impacts and net effect that the activity would have on terrestrial and aquatic plant life. Based upon the investigatio~t~ performed to date on the CU- Boulder South praperty and the specific [ocation identified for the tennis court comp[ex and that area required jor construction and use of ihe tennis court complex will noC cause an impact on the terrestria[ and aquatic plant life thaY does exist in ot/ier areas around the CU-Bou[der South properly. v. Air quality: I. Detail how many average daily trips will be generated by the proposal. During !he regular tennis program practice times, the proposed devefopment is typically expected to ge~:erate a maximum of 100 vehicle trips per day witli a peak hour load af 25 trips. This peak hour would typically occur outside of the peak hour of adjacent street traffic. During !lie peak hour of adjace~rt street trajfic, tl:e develop~nent would typically generate five trips during the morniiig peak hour mid eight trips during the afternoon peak hour. _Zg_ Traffic peaks may increase ta 350 vehic[e trips per day with a maximum peak hour laad of 150 trips during tennis e.zhibitions or tournaments, which would typically occur approximately three to four iimes per year. Additional tra~c may occasionally occur from scheduled public use. The tra~c [oad from that use would fit into the peak loads described above. II. Explain any other adverse impacts on air quality anticipated from the proposal. The project is not anticipa~ed to have adverse impacts on air quality. III. , Describe how any state or federal air quality standazds will be impacted and if the proposed transportation facility has bean included in the region's air quality models to verify confomuty with the air quality plan. (8/13/98) The project, is not anticipated Yo have adverse impacts on air quality standards due to the low number of trips generated The project was not specifically included in the region's air quality model because no additional transpartation facilities are required and smal[ projects such as Cbis one are included in the background traffc grmdth used in the modeL N. Describe the airsheds to be at~ected by the activity, including the seasonal pattem of air cuculation and microclimates. (I1/01/O1) No airsheds are anticipated to be affected by the construclion and regular usage of the tennis court complex including the seasonal pattern of atr circulation or microc[imates. V. Describe the impacts and net effect that the activity would have on air quality during both construction and operation under both average and worst case conditions. (11/Ol/01) No impacts to air qualify are expected from tl:e prajecG During the construction of the tennis coun complex, t/zere is m:ticipated to be minor re grading of tl:e area affecled by the comple.~ Regalar spraying of the ~ disturbed soil (dust contro[) during tl:e construction activities will niinimite dust particu[ates being introduced into the air. Any gravel or ~ion- fixed paved ('e.e. concrete or asphalt) roads will be wetted on a -29- regular basis, as needed io contro[ dusl. Under normal operatiox of the tennis court complez, there should be no impact or net ejfecl fo air qua[ity as the tennis courls are hard-surfaced and the parking areas wi!! be graveled with enough gravel ~o as to protect the. underlying soils. vi. Significant environmentally sensitive factors: I. Identify and locate on a map of appropriate scale the juxtaposition of any of the following features present in the proposed development or activity and its environs, and detail the potential impact of the proposal upon each feature, 1. Potential natural hazards As stated above, there are no potentia[ natura! hazards at the location of [he proposed tennis court complex. 2. Public outdoor recreation and open space areas. The area selected jor [ocating the tennis court complex is an area that has recently been released jrom the Deepe Farm Pit mining permit The area has been rec[aimed with a native non-irrigated grass seed mLr. The area is located within a fenced area, which might be construed as open space but is not a public outdaor recreation arer~ There is some foot trajfic~ivithin a close proximity of the tennis couri comp[ex site but the site is not desigxed as public. 3. Unique azeas of geologic, historic and archaeological importance. There are no unique areas of geologic, historic or archaeological imporlance as the sile of the tennis cour[ complex was comp[etely mined for its underlying sands and gravels and has on[y recenily been re[eased jrom the existing Deepe Farm Pit mining pernrit as being successfully reclaimed. vii. Visual aesthetics and nuisance factors: I. Identify viewsheds, scenic vistas, unique landscapes or land formations. (11/01/01) As a part of the recent[y completed "CU Bou[der Soutk La~:d Use Assessment'; a visi6ifiry analysis, based on the exisliiig si[e conditions was compleled for die site. This analysis -30- indicates the areas of the site u:ost visible from roadways adjacent to llre site at ground level. Points were ideutifted every 330 feet along each adjacent road and 33,000 points were used jrom iaside the si[e. The foreground, middle ground and background were also integrated into the study (i.e. foreground less than '/. mi[e, middle `/. mile -%s mile, background greater lhan % mileJ. The result was that the area of the tennis cour[ complex is aie of Y/ie [esser visib[e sites within the CU-Boulder South praperty. The facilities to be constructed as a pan of t/te tennis court comp[ex include a Il foot high perimeter fence to protect the facilities from vandalism and damage. This fencing is an integra[ part of the tennis court facilities. lndividua[ court fencing wi![ like[y be set at a[ower elevation. Due to the nature of the faci[ity being located witkin the pit floor of the previous mining operation, minima[ visibility will occur with tke exception of the neighboring residesces located to the west of tlie CU- Boulder South property. Some of these residents will have a view of the proposed jacilities from a distance. There is no facllity lighting planned for 1he tennis courl complex at this time. In tlie evenii:gs when the residenrs are in their homes, no lights wi[l be o~: to draw attention to the complex As far as viewsheds, scenic vistas, unique landscapes or land formations, the properly is in the JToor of a completed sand and grave[ operation knd there are no unique [andscapes or land formaYions. There are scenic views from the site of the proposed tennis caurt complex [ooking west to the Flatirons but not lonking into the pit ftoor a[ the comple.x. See Exhiblt 9 for the CU-Boulder South Photo Analysis. Tliis exhibit was taken jrom lhe "CU-Boulder Soutli Land Use AssessmenP' prepared by Shapins Associates in May, 2001 for the University of Colorado. II. Identify any significant deterioration of existing natural aesthetics, creation of visual blight, noise pollution or obnoxious odors, which may stem from the proposal. There should not be any significant deterioration of existing natural aesthetics, creation of visua! bliglit, noticeable polluJinn or obnoxinus odors t/iat steni fra» die proposed tennis court coneplex on Yhe CU-Bou[der Sor~[h property. The proposed activity is a substmrtial iinproveme~rt in all of these regards fros~ its prinr aggregale sri»iirg use. -31- CU BOULDER SOUTH nt~ar~a aaatrsrs ~'' ~ ~. •: e~- ' ~ Nonh kae Pe~ EXHIBIT _~ ~ .> y ~~.:: .~j: ..~. - sua x nrmmus3s ~ CU Boulder South ~rg "~°tl""~^ ~`1!'~. ~ m~'~ps°vec`d~ve~ ~n+m..w. ~.,....~...~...~......~ o...... smd. rw ~'+W.mr~.:.+.. m...u.rrr III. Identify and describe any structures, excavations and embankments that will be visible as a result of this project. (8//3/98) As a part of tl~e tennis courE complex project, there will be twelve fenced courls construcfed a[ong witG a temporary parking [ot that will allow jor parking of up to i25 cars, and viewing stands (which will be relocated from the existing tennis court site on the Main Campus). Some grading wil[ 6e required [o construct level pads for the courts and for the parking area. These structures and embankments wi![ kave minor visibility as a very sma[[ part of a very [arge parce[ of land viii. Transportation impacts: I. Describe what impacts the proposal will have upon transportation pattems in the azea intended to be served or affected by the proposal through the submittal of a traffic impact analysis of the proposed transportation facilities. The iraffic impact analysis should include but not be limited to the following: 1. Identify the facilities required to support the exisdng and future land uses being served by the proposed transportation facility. Table Mesa Road would carry the maJority of site tra~~ The t/tree intersections primarily affected are the Table Mesa Drive/US 36 West Ramp, the Table Mesa DrivelFovthills Parkway West Ramp, and llie Snuth Bou[der Road/US 36 East Ramp. In 2005, al[ three intersections would operate at LOS B or better during the AM peak hour both without and witli the project. During the PM peak hour on a typical day, all three intersections would operate at LOS C or better bot/i wiChout and with the projecG During tlre PM peak kour on a special event day, Uie intersections would also operate at LOS C. In 2020, al! three intersections would operate at LOS C or better during tlie AM peak hour. During the PM peak hour, a![ t/tree intersectibns operate at LOS D or be[ter during a typica[ day, whi[e during an event, lhe US 36 West Ramp deteriorates to LOS E. Witl~ optin~ized sig~sal tin:ings during the PM peak, all [/rree iirfersections -33- operate at LOS C or better on both a typica! day and during a special event. The increased tra~c impacts for these intersections will not 6e a function af the tennis courts but rather from other background changes in trajfic volumes. 2. Fu~nish the traffic model data verifying consistency with the DRCOG regional plan, the Colorado Deparhnent of Transportation (CDOT) Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) and the DRCOG Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). The project was not specifically identified in any of the above programs; however, small projects such as this one are included in the background traffic growlh used in the programs. 3. Provide the existing and proposed tra~c volume impacts to the adjacent road system, including local roads. On a typica[ day, the project is anticipated to add approximately 100 trips to South Loop Road south of Table Mesa Drive, 70 daily vehicle trips onto Table Mesa Drive east of the US 36 West Ramp, and 30 daily trips onto Table Mesa Drive -Jest of the US 36 West Ramp. During special events, the tennis courts would add approximately 350 daily trips to South Loop Road south of Tab[e Mesa Drive, I00 daily trips onto Tab[e Mesa Drive east of the US 36 West Ramp, and 250 daily trips onto Tab[e Mesa Drive east of the US 36 West Ramp. 4. Provide the existing and future Level of Service (LOS) and capacity of the transportation facilities before and after the proposed transportation project is completed. Table Mesa Road would carry !he majority of site traffta The t&ree intersections primarily affected are the Table Mesa Drive/C/S 36 West Ramp, the Table Mesa Drive/Foothills Parkway West Ramp, and t/ee Sout/i Boulder Road/US 36 East Ramp. Under existing conditions, a![ three intersections operate at LOS B or 6etter during botlr the AM and PM peak period. -34- In 2005, al! three intersections would operate at LOS B or better during the AM peak hour both witkout and wi~h the project Durixg the PM peak hour on a rypical day, all tkree in[ersections would operate at LOS C or better both withoul and with the projecG These levels of service are maintained during a special event, as well. In 2020, all three intersections would operate at LOS C or better during the AM peak hour. During tlie PM peak hour, aU three interseclions operate at LOS D or better during a typica[ day, while during an event, the US 36 West Ramp deteriorates to LOS E. Witk optimized signa! timings during the PMpeak, a!! three interseclions operate at LOS C or bener on both a typica[ day and during a special event. 5. All transportation access information as required by the CDOT State Highway Access Code, 1998 revisions or the most current edition thereof. The site would access Table Mesa Drive via the existing south leg of tke US 36 West Ramp intersection. Therejore, no access revisions are p[anned jor [he road system. 4~ 6. Submittal of a benefidcost analysis of the proposed transportation unprovements and identify the distribution of the burden of the cost for the proposed improvements to the project as well as the adjacent state or local road system. (8/13/98) No structura[ transpoKation improvements would be required for tke project so the cosl/benefit analysis is not applicab[e. The only transporlation improvement identified is the potential re-optimization of Tab[e Mesa Drive during the PM peak hour in 2020. Currently, the City of Boulder Signal Operatio~:s Engineer regularly monilors and optimizes the Ci[y's sig~ea[ system. It is anticipated that the task of optimization will coietinue to be conducted by t/ie Signa[ Operations Engi~reer in tl:e juture as parl of lhe regu[ar duties of that position. -35-