Loading...
6B - County Referral of the 1041 State, Interest Review of CU-Boulder South Tennis Court ReplacementATTACHMENT E CITY OF BOULDER PLANNING BOARD AGENDA ITEM MEETING DATE: July 18, 2002 (Agenda Item Prepazarion Date: July 12, 2002) AGENDA TITLE: Public hearing and consideration of LUR2002-00044, the Boulder County referral of the 1041 State Interest Review for the University of Colorado - Boulder South Tennis 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 azea 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 ciry iimits). 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 Po!]ock, 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 presented to Boulder County is consistent with the standards of Boulder County's ] 041 Areas and Activities of State Interest regulations per Article 8 of the Boulder County Land Use Code. The review under the Boulder Counry's Areas and Activiry 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 refenal subject to a Council call up. ~; ~ The summary of the staff's conclusions aze: Floodplain restrictions as set forth under Boulder County ] 041 regulations are not applicable in the review of the CU-Boulder South tennis court proposal because it is not ]ocated within a regulatory floodplain azea. 2. The city concurs with the county staff deternunation that this proposal does not constitute new urban development. Recreational facilities and uses ~such as fields and tennis courts aze 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 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 construct twelve fenced tennis courts, a temporary gravel pazking lot for up to 125 cazs, viewing stands, and associated grading and landscaping. The new courts will replace 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 electricai service to run items such as tennis ball machines, no outdoor lighting is proposed. Neither will there be any potable water or sewage treatment £acilities. Instead, restrooms are proposed as screened portable toilets, and participants are expected to bring their own drinking water to the site. The courts and pazking azea comprise a total of 6 acres of the existing 308-acre property. Project Name: County referral of Docket SI-02-02: University of Colorado - Boulder SI- 1041 - CU Boulder South Tenriis Court Replacement Project Location: 5278 Table Mesa Drive (outside city limits), south of the intersection of LT.S. Highway 36 and Foothills Pazkway, 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,Iand use designation is Open Space o? 7 KEY ISSUES: Is this proposed development considered to be "new urban developmenY' as defined b}~ the recently updated Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP)? 2. Is this proposed development consistent with the BVCP land use designations regazding open space? ' EXISTING SITE / SITE CONTEXT: The six acre site of the 308-acre CU-Boulder South property (also refeaed to as the Flatirons propcrty) 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 located within a legally recognized ] 00-yeaz floodplain although this fact is a subject 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 tke Camnus Master Plans (CU Boulder Southl: Plannine Period 1998-2008 in that: "During the short-term, CU-Boulder expects to use the property for outdoor infercollegiate 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 building projects on the Main Campus and Williams Village, some recreation facilities may be relocated to CU-Boulder South. This site appears to be idea] for this specific use. Minor spectator facilities may be included, but the major spectator facilities sach 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 aze planned relate to flood protection, drainage improvements, wetlands management, and development of athletics and recreation facilities." ~ G-r 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 South 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 pazking lot that will allow up to 125 cazs, and viewing stands. Some grading will be required. No water or sewage treahnent activities or improvements are proposed. See Attachment I. B. Boulder County and the City of Boulder have an intergovemmental 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 pmvisions of the agreement, the County is required to seek City input with regazd to any development review application for a property located in this azea of influence if its Areas and Activities of State Interest regulations apply. C. The legislative purpose of H.B. 1041, "Areas and Activities of State InteresY' is to clacify the relative authority of state and local govemments 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. D. Boulder County has adopted regulations detailing the criteria it must use as it evaluates applications re3ated to azeas and activities of state interest. Those regulations can be found in Article 8 of the Boulder County Land Use Code. They aze available at httn://www.co.boulder.co.us/]u/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 Boazd of County Commissioners (BOCC). Refer to Attachment E for the County staff inemo to the BOCC. I. THE U.S. 36 CORRIDOR INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT: The City and the County entered into the U.S. 36 Comdor Comprehensive Development Plan Intergovemmental 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 a~ 7 Superior, the City of Louisville, and Boulder Cotmty. Each of the govemments 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 Comdor I.G.A: A. Plan: The govemments adopted a plan that is intended to regulate land use along the corridor. B. Rural Preservation Area Established: The plan establishes a"rural preservation azea" that is to remain with Boulder County jurisdiction. C. Areas of Influence: The plan identifies city influence pazcels which may in the future be annexed into one of the participating municipalities. The governments agreed to not annex an influence azea of another city. Boulder County agreed to enforce its regulations related to Areas and Activities of State Interest in the influence azea of a municipality. The CU-South property is located in the city of Boulder's influence azea. D. Citv Approval as Part of the H.B. 1041 Review; The county cannot grant a development permit pursuant to its ragulations related to Areas and Activities of State Interest until the permit has been approved by the City to which the influence azea applies. (See ¶4.2, U.S. 36 Corridor I.G.A. in Attachment G.) E. Boulder Countv Regulations Anplv: No specific standazds aze 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 particulaz 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, ~J.S. 36 Corridor I.G.A. in Attachment G.) F. Citv to Review Pursuant to Boulder Countv Rules. Therefore, the U.S. 36 Corridor I.G.A. requires the Ciry 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. Pumose: In 1974, the General Assembly enacted, through House Bill 1041 ("H.B. 1041 "), a set of ineasures regulating Areas and Activities of State Interest. The legislative purpose of H.B. 1041 was to clarify the relative authority of state and local govemments in making planning decisions with respect to matters of statewide interest and to further the state's interest in regulatin$ the quality of development. These regulations established a set of criteria to be used by local ~~ 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 azeas; natural hazazd areas; areas containing historical, natura] or azchaeological resources of statewide importance; and areas azound key facilities such as airports, major public utility facilities and mass transit terminals. Activities of state interest aze generally concentrated in the site selection of key facilities, infrastructure development or new community development. Although local governments are not compelled by H.B. 1041 to declare any particulaz 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, loca] governments 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 follow, 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 govemment, 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. Obiectives of Review under H.B. 1041: The cleaz objective of H.B. 1041 is to assure that environmental impacts of new development aze 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. Authoritv to Reeulate 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 applicanYs proposal must be consistent with H.B. 1,041 and/or conforming county regulations. Any denial of a permit application must emphasize that ~% governmental powers may be exercised in a manner consistent with the "hosting" county's legitimate regulatory authority over proposed projects of statewide concem 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. Plannin~ & Development Services Review: The county refenal 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 refeaal application and is processing it through the standard Development Review Committee (DRC) adminisVative process. The application was referred out to the appropriate reviewing parties. The DRC review comments can be found in Attachment B. B. Annlication - Countv Referral: C.U.'s "South Campus" is located within a City of Boulder influence area under the U.S. 36 Comdor 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 permit. 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 appIication that the County accepted. The City is participating in a County procass. 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 current application and set of facts. C. Process - How the Citv Will Make its Decision: The City of Boulder and Boulder County have established a referral process for certain types of ]and use and public improvements activity within tha Boulder Valley. The Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP), established by intergovernmental agreement, sets guidelines for that referral process. BVCP referrals are typically reviewed by staff and sometimes by city boazds such as the city's Open Space Boazd of Trustees or the Park and Recreation Advisory Boazd. Planning Boazd or City Council may review the refenal responses. However, this referral is different in that it is triggered by the U.S. 36 Corridor Intergovemmental 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 afrer the Council's August 6, 2002 meeting. If Council requests the item to be calied up, then the city must request the Boazd of County Commissioners for a short time extension. If Council does ~3G• 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 not standazd for referrals since the County does public notice on applications submitted to the County. However, notice is standazd 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 aze 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 Counry is bound by H.B. 1041. The regulations adopted by the County differ only in minor details from the state template. Thus, with its refeaal, 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 pazallel litigation, and it must make that decision strictly according to its own A.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 County 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 Boazd continued the matter to its August 15, 2002 meeting. H. ~ Boulder Countv Location and Extent Review Resulations: As is permitted by statute, CRS 24-65.1-1i"1 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 State Interest. (1041)," Boulder Counry Land Use Code (B.C.L.U.C."). v'/ 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 aze 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 pernvt applicaHons such as approvals by all interests in the proposal, assurance of the Applicant's capabilities, environmental and resource aspects of the proposal, and consistency with the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan. Section (7) contains additional standards for development in areas around interchanges involving state arterial highways such as tra~c 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 prop8rty 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 standazd 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 concems 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 Pian 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 concems 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 (for Peter Pollock), Alan Taylor, Ruth Blackmore, Tom Browning, Alison Burchell, Jane Greenfield, 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 opportunity to express concerns about the application. 3_~ ANALYSIS: As was noted previously, Boulder County and the City of Boulder have an intergovemmental 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 agreetnent 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 azea of influence if its Areas and Activities of State Interest regulations apply. . A staff analysis of this application was performed using a 1041 Standazds Checklist prepared by staff for the applicable sections of Article 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 Comprehensiva 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 level 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 oity not occur until and unless adequate urban facilities and services aze 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. Cleazly, paragraph (a) does not apply to this application because the property is located outside of the City limits. Both the City and the Counry have analyzed this application under Pazagraph (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 .33 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 state that urban development should not occur until an adeyuate range of wban services are available to serve the development, and that the city is the appropriate service provider. Recreationa] facilities and uses such as fields and tennis courts aze permitted under county zoning and do not require a full range of urban services 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 scala such as a stadium, classrooms, laboratories or other uses that aze 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 B VCP 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 eastem 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 yeazs including the sand and gravel operations, reclamation plans, long term management and ownership of the land 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 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." (see Attachment F for a copy of Resolution No. 877) On February 28, 2001 the Open Space Boazd 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 cuirent CU Tennis Courts Relocation Project application is compatible with the 1041 regutations of the Boulder County Land Use Code. ;3 y 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 IIl.23.) Since a portion of the property is designated as Open Space, the application was referred to the Open Space Boazd 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. The County has zoned land in the unincorporated azea within the City's service azea in a manner that is intended to be consistent with the BVCP. The underlying zoning districts in the County applied to the property aze 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: 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 ]ocated 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 wil] cause in occasional high demands for vehicles exiting right tums 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-tum 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 thi5 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 .i 5 Checklist as findings of fact, and recommend that the County adopt the additional condition of approval. RECOMMENDED CONDTI'ION OF APPROVAL No signal timing changes shall be implemented that.would improve traffic flow from I.oop Road onto Table Mesa until efforts are made to otherwise handle the volumes of traffic exiting from Loop Road. These efforts may include, but aze not~limited to, the construction of a separate right-turn lane within the south leg of this intersection. Approved By: ~ ~-~'"~~.~T ~ 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: Boazd of County Commissioners Staff Recommendation Memo for May 30, 2002 Attachment F: Resolution No. 877 - 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 I: Boulder County's Application Request from the University of Colorado - Boulder (Written Statements and Proposed Plans) S:~PLAN~DATA\CUR~PB-MEMO ~nj_cutennispbm c~ ~ ATTACHMENT A 1041 REVIEW STANDARDS CHECKLIST (prepared by.the City o[ Boulder) City staff has reviewed the applicable standards for approval of a permit application, as specified in Article 8-511 (A), (B), and (J) of the Boulder County Land Use Code, and finds the following: Article 8-511 Criteria: Standards for Annroval of a Permit Analication Section A. General Approval Requirements 1. A permit application for development involviug 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 criteria. The City acknowledges this standard applies to the County. Per the U.S. Highway 36 Comdor Intergovernmental Agreement, the development application with the County has been referred to the City for review and action. The referral is scheduled to be considered before the City of Boulder 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 t6at 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 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, ip its discretion, defer making a final decision on the application until necessary property rights, permits and approvals for the proposal are obtained. The City finds the following regarding permits: -' ~ a) Floodplain restrictions as set forth under Boulder County 1041 regulations do not appeaz 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 aze deferred to the County. The County's response to this standazd 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 tinancial capability to develop and operate the proposal consistent with all requirements and conditions. Not applicable to city review as these aze county specific items and are deferred 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 supplies, as determined from the Colorado DepaMment of Health, are available for the proposal if applicable. No water services are requested or proposed for fhe site. Portable toilets wi]] be used for sanitation and users of the tennis facility will 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 identitiabie 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 gravel mining quarry that has been reclaimed. 5. The proposal shall not significantly degrade or pose a significant hazard to any aspect of the environmeut, including environmental resources and open space areas as identitied in tde Compreheasive 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 environmeat shall be considered: a. Air quality: The proposal shall not significantly deteriorate air quality. In determining impacts to air quality, these considerations shall apply. ,7~,' 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, t6ese considerations shall 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 wil] be level with the ground. The 12-foot chain link fence with windscreening will be visible. However, the tennis facility comprises less than 2°/a of the total acreage of the CU property which lies in an already disturbed azea from the mining quatry. A lazge berm separates the property from the nearest residentia] uses that aze reported 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 sha11 apply. i. Changes to existing water quality, including patterns of water circulation, temperature, coaditions of the substrate, extent and persistence of suspended particulates aad clarity, odor, color or taste of water. ii. Applicable narrative and numeric water quality standards. iii. Increases in point and non-point source pollution Ioads. iv. Increase in erosion. v. Increases in sediment loading to waterbodies. vi. Chauges 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 dilution rates of mine waste, agricultural runoff and other unregulated sources of pollutants. ~ :,~ 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 Ievels and aquifer capacity including seepage losses through aquifer boundaries and at aquifer-stream iuterfaces. ii. Changes ip capacity and function of weUs within the impact area. iii. Changes in quality of well water wit6in the impact area. The City has no information that would indicate that groundwater quality would be impacted by this development. e. Wetiands and riparian areas. The proposal shall not sigoiCcantly degrade t6e quality of wetlands and riparian areas. In determining impacts to wetlaads and riparian areas, these considerations s6a11 apply. i. 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 extent of wetlands. iv. Changes in species' characteristics and diversity. v. Transition from wetland to upland species. vi. Changes in function and aerial exteut of floodplains. The BVCP Inventoried Wetlands map indicates a large wetland in the 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 wedands 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 animals) due to the current disturbed conditions and the past mining use of the site. f. Terrestial and aquatic animal Iife. 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 ilows. 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 `~L range, migration routes, or any other habitat features necessary for the protection and propagatian of any terrestrial animals. v. Changes to habitat and critical habitat, including stream bed and banks, spawning grounds, riffle and side pool areas, flus6ing flows, nutrient accumulation and cyciing, 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 life would be impacted by development. This proposed project is within an area of a recently reclaimed mining quany. g. Terrestrial and aquatic plant life. The proposal shall aot 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, includiug species composition, diversity, biomass, and productivity. iii. Changes in advancement or successiou of desirable and less desirable species, includiag 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 I/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 concem. OSMP requests that such potential impacts be minimized, including the following: 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 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 azea. Public access to the OSMP system and the South Boulder Creek Trail is from Mazshall 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 site. 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 concems and therefore will not be recommended as conditions of approval. h. Soils and geologic conditions. The proposal shall not signiGcantly degrade soils and geologic conditions. In determining impacts on soils 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. C6anges to stream sedimentation, geomorphology, and c6annel stability. iii. Changes to lake and reservoir baek 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 signifcant 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 for the public. The proposal will not cause unreasonable loss of significant cultural resources, including but not necessarily limited to historical structures or sites and archaeological artifacts or sites, as identified in the Compre6ensive Plan or identifiable on or near the site. The BVCP provides no indication that cultural resources exist on the property. , '~a 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 sepazated from the nearest residential area (reported to be 685 feet) by a lazge 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 Flood 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, 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. 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 transmissioa 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 signi5cant 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 aud operation of the proposal will reflect appropriate principles oT resource conservation, energy efficiency and recycling or reuse. Not applicable to city review as these are county specific items and are defened 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, t6e proposal represents the least damaging alternative of reasonable cost among the alternatives analyzed. ~' ~ Not applicable to city review as these aze county specific items and are deferred to the County. 14. The proposal is in accordance with the Boulder County Comprehensive P-an and any applicabte 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 t6e development be in compliance with the app(icable adopted comprehensive plan or intergovernmental planuing agreement simply by virtue of the fact that the development is located within, or is proposed to serve, an approved service area. The CU-Bouldcr South property is located in Area IIB of the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP), the azea planned for city servica 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 westem portion of the site proposed for the tennis complex is designated Medium Density Residential and the eastem portion Open Space in the BVCP. The Flatiron Companies, previous owners of the CU South Campus property, soid 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 yeazs including the sand and grave] operations, reclamation plans, long term management and ownership of the land and cuaent and futtue 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 sel]er ai a fair price, for open space or flood control 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 Boazd 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 200] 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 fietds, 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 yy population, especially for college students in the 18-to-23 age group, and there aze no altemative locations for the approximately 75-85 acres of athletics and recreation faci}ities 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 staditun 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 planning period, the only infrastructure improvemerits that aze 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 issue before the Planning Boazd 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 Plan (BVCP) and ot6er Comprehensive or Master Plans The Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan land use map designates the western portion of the site a I4ledium Density Residential and the eastem 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 refened 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 Standazds. ` New urban developmenY is hereby defined to include: (a) All new residential, commercial and industrial development and redevelopment within the city; or y~ (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 aze available to serve the development, and that the city is the appropriate service provider. The city concurs with the county staff datermination 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 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. 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, aff'ected traFrc roads. Due to the occasional large volumes of exiting traffic onto Table Mesa from this site staff recommends the construction oF a sepazate northbound right-tum 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 wi]] 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 ihese 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 cquld not be handled by existing infrastructure. y~ 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 signi5cance. The traffic generated by this project has less impact than other uses in tHe azea and therefore would not be out of character with the surrounding neighborhood. 4. The proposed development shall preserve desirable existing community patteras. The greatest impacts of traffic aze 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 development that proposes burdens or deprivations on the communities of a region shail not be just'sCed on the basis of -ocal benefit alone. The traffic from this development proposal would not pose significant burdens of the regional communities as long as signal timing at Loop Road/Table Mesa Drive is not altered. ~/ ~ ATTACRMENT B /~-G~'J;'~~'' ,a~ ~.~' ~ CITY OF BOULDER Planning and Development Services 1739 Broadway, Third Floor • P.O. Box 791, Boulder, CO 80306-0791 phone 303-441-T880 • fax 303-441-3241 • weti bouiderpiandeveiop.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: Counry Referrel IGA Review & Comment REVIEW NUMBER: LUR2002-00044 DESCRIPTION: Boulder County refercal per the t1.S. Highway 36 Corridor intergover~mentat Agreement for a 7041 State Interest Review of C.U. Boulder-South Tennis Courts Reloeatfon Project. REQUESTED VARIAT IONS FROM THE LAND USE REGULATIONS: None. 1. 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 public have been included 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 developmer~ 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 ptan. 3. The proposed tennis court facility wiil 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 conditia~~ is included. Therefore, staff recommends the Planning Board approve the county referral for the C.U. Boulder tennis cou ' relocation project with one additional condition. 1. No signal timing changes shail 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 oonstruction of a separate right-turn lane within the south leg of this intersection. ~ ~~ ~ Address: 5278 TABLE MESA pR II. STAFF COMMENTS AccesslCirculation 1. Due to the occasional large volumes of exiting tra~c onto Tabie Mesa from this site staff recommends the construction of a separate northbound right-tum 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 tra~c volumes will not be considered at this city operated traffic signal until every effort is made to appropriately handle exiting traffic volumes, inciuding 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 Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP) and other Comprehensive or Master Plans The CU-Boulder South psoperty is located in Area IIB of She Boulder Valley Comprehensive P{an (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. 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 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 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." On February 28, 2001 the Open Space Board of Trustees ("OSBT") unanimously adopted Resolution No. 877 and encouraged "continued cooperation beriveen 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) 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 building projects on the Main Campus and W illiams Village, some recreation facilities may be relocated to CU-Boulder South. This site appears to be ideai 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 planning period, the only infrastructure improvements that are planned relate to flood protection, drainage improvements, wetlands management, and development of athletics and recreation facilities." yi Adtlress: 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 Plan (BVCP) and other Comprehensive or Master Plans The Boulder Valiey Comprehensive Plan land use map designates the western portion of the site a Medium Oensity Residential and the eastern porlion 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 referzed to the Open Space Board of Trustees. The Ciry Council and the Open Space Boarq 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 developmenY, irtcluding 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) Ail new residential, commercial and industrial development and redevelopment within the city; or (b) Any proposed devetopment within Area il subject to a county discretionary review process before the Board of County Commissioners, provided the county determines that the proposed deveiopment 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 cdmmercial uses on the property, including the development of universiry 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. Fire Protection Boulder Fire Department will not be the emergency response agency for this location Applicant should consuit with Cherryvale ~ire Protection Distrtct 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 (Article 4-402(B), Boulder County Land Use Code). They are also located outside the Boulder County "South 6oulder 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-Bouider 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 between 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: Address: 5278 TABLE MESA DR 5~-' 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 Coiorado 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 overflow etevation into the west vailey (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 Counry, 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 altemative 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 directiy 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 attentio~ 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 welfare of their constituents. There is an ongoing effort to complete new South Boulder Creek flood hydrology and hydrauiic 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 complete 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 Bouider 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 approximateiy 114 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 reiated 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. Adtlress: 5278 TABLE MESA DR S~ 4. Encourage the use of native plant materials and that no invasive or weedy species be introduced to ihe site. 5. Site drainage should be directed away from OSMP land and into a storm water system or other appropriate drainage system. NEIGHBORHOOD 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 datetl 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 referrats since the County does public 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 (overail plans for the property), natural drainage and habitats, iand 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. 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 pubiic hearing. If Council requests the item to be called up, then the ciry must request the Board of County Commissioners for a short time 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 20, 2002 meeting. Address: 5278 TABLE MESA DR - S~ ATTACHMENT C = of Boulder Vicinity M .~ ~ ~ ~ . ~~ ~~. ~ ~ , , r-~ ' ~-- 4~ _ ~~~~ ~ ~ ~' ~ ~ - , '' ~ ~~ ~ ~ ' Subject Area -~ ` ~ _ 5278 Table Mesa Rd ~ \~ ~~ ?' ~!i ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - -~'~ r-, 1 I / ,: ~~~~ ~ g `` ~ i ~ ~ ; ~ I ~1 ~ ~ ' LocafJon: 5278 Tab/e Mesa Rd Project Name: CU-Boulder South Tennis Court Repfacemenf ProJect Revlew Type: Concept P/an Revlew 8 Comment Revtew Number: LUR2002-00044 ApplJcant: UnlversJry of Colorado Board of Regenfs ~ N 1 inch equals 1,000 feet ciry oj Bculder Tne umrtnabon depcted m thls m~ la pm.~aed I as g~ncai represertatlon ary. he clly af Bouurer ponaes rowamanry, e~ressetl orimpletl, ae 6~ ~ Neaccuracyarn7larmmplRetY~foftlnlr7artnetlm , mr¢airen neeon. ; _5 J 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 6i21l02 Greetings: We are writing to notify you that the City of Boulder Building Services Center has received the following development review counly referrai: LOCATiON: Universtty of Coloredo, Boutder South, 5278 Table Mesa Drive (outside city limits) PROJECT NAME: BOULDER COUNTY 1041 STATE INTEREST REVIEW OF CU-BOULDER SOUTH TENNIS COUR7 REPLACEMENT PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Revisw 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 sixacre facility at CU-Boulder South located at 5278 Table Mesa Drive. As a part of the tennis court complex project, there will he twelve fenced courts, a temporery parking lot that will allow up to 125 cars, and viewing stands. Some greding will be required. No water or sewage treatment activities or improvements are proposed. REVIEW TYPE; County Referral APPLICANT: Boulder Courtty - Land Use Department Why is this review required? Boulder County has received a"1041 State Interest Review" application from the University of Colorado on a development proposal for tennis courts out on the vacant CU South property. Boulder County and the City of Bouider 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 Counry is required to seek City input with regard to any development review application for a property iocated 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 Activities of State Interest. The legislative purpose of H.B. 1041 was to clarify the relative authoriry 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 it must use as it evaluates applications of this type. Those regulations can be found in Article 8 of the Boulder Counry Land Use Code. They are available at http: //www.co.boulder.co.us/lu/lucode/webcode/article8.htm Because the County,must use the specified criteria in making its decision, the City's input will be relevant only to the e~ent that it addresses those specific criteria. ~y When wiil a response to the County be madel This couniy 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 July 18, 2002 meeting. 7hereafter, the City Council will have an opportunity to review the Planning Board response, if it wishes to do so. 7he City expects that it wiil be able to complete its review and return this matter 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 a short extensian of tlme from the County for that purpose. Public comments will be included in the City's response if those comments are reeeived before July 5, 2002. How can I find out more? For more information or to comment on the appiication, 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-maii: BSCComment@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 10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.). ~ _5 ATTACHMENT D RECEIVED TO: City of Boulder Planning Boazd and City Council ~ FROM: Ruth Blaclanore, 705 S 41 S` Street, Boulder, CO 80305, 3~-494-3009 DATE: July 12, 2002 RE: Review Process for the County Refeaal of the 1041 State Interest Review of CU-Boulder South Tennis Court Replacement Project Since I will be out of town from July 17-31, 2002, I am submitting my comments on this issue to you now. As someone who has followed this issue in-depth for over six yeazs, I ask that you review all information sent to you on this issue as thorouglily as possible. I also request that you call for all the specific studies that were performed for CU as part of the 104] requirements and examine the methodology used to amve at the conclusions submitted by the hired consultants. I ask that you not accept all the conclusions by the consultants without asking some questions about the particular studies on which those conclusions were based. When a citizen asked the county for a copy of the uansportation study, which CU had prepared for the review application, the county admitted that they never saw a study, they just accepted all the answers, which were given to them in the review application. I find this unacceptable when reviewing a project of this size, which also carries a lot of polirical charge. I want to know that my elected officials and city and county staff are fairly and accurately reviewing all supporting documents on this issue before making a decision. If reviewing all the respective studies related to the 1041 criteria means that the process will take longer than expected, then we need to ask for an extension in order to have the proper time to review the documents. Although you have to follow the IGA and 1041 criteria for this review process, I do wish to say that it is premature to let CU develop on this piece of land which is still the center point of the flood plain study which will be completed in late 2003. Once we know the new hydrology, then a mitigation system needs to be put in place. It is well known that the most flood prone section of the CU property is the faz northern comer near Table Mesa and Highway 36. Some type of retention pond needs to be on the CU property just to keep all the flows from going downsueam into the neighborhoods and impacting from 1,500 to 2,000 homes.' From a health and safety issue for all residents upstream and downstream of this property, it is irresponsible for CU to be developing on this property before we know exactly the amount of the flows and the optimal mitigation for upstream and downstream residents. By building the tennis courts, CU is obstructing and/or eliminating what might be the oprimal place for the retention ponds. Please give consideration to the following suggestions: IGA - - the location of these tennis courts in relation to a state arterial highway S ~. interchange and the future development of US 36 as well as future CU development - what aze the traffic standards for development in areas around interchanges involving state arteriai 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 aze the cumulative traffic impacts from the entire CU Master Plan for Uus 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 CU is all this development considered new urban development? The tennis courts aze 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 environmental? 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 maximize the land for develop- ment as was discovered in the open records seazch 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 s7 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 aze the impacu of gravel pazking lots? - Section B, 5, c- Surface water quality. The de-watering system which CU put in over a yeaz 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 azeas. What impact has the de-watering had on all the wetlands and riparian azeas 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. Dc 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 terrestrial and aquatic life in order to prepare the stage for tennis courts, etc. Section, B, 5, g- Teaestrial and aquatic plant life. Just like the question I had above. Who is really looking into all 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 of 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 increase.by increasing the decibel level by 5? I understand that this could mean that the noise level will actually increase by 2'/z to 3 times. How is the loud speaker system going to fit within these limits? Who will enforce noise levels? VJhat 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. S~ 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 aze d'uecdy 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 coaect, once and for all. - Section B, i l- 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 aze definitely going to be impacts on the health and safety of property owners upstream and downstream regazding 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 tesrified, 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 upsh~eam 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 have selected a mitigation system. sy (.~ /'~ ~ V'^ ~ ~~~ _~/ ~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~ Juiy 9, 2002 Memo: Boulder City Council, City of Bouldar Planninp Board and staff From Alison BurcheQ Jane Greenfield, Pedro Restrepo, G1bert White RE: proposed CU developmerrt of Fladron p~oparty, phase 1 Note: The followinq is a summary of IRP, HAP and CAG concems. Comments •~ pertain to the 1041 8-511 "Standards f~or Approval' sections: A, B, ] and K. i However, time did not permit itemization of comments and concems into the 1041 outtfne. Figure 1 fs an aerial photo ot the S8C floodpiafn. The appendfx contains additional comments submitted to the County commissioners and highliqhts additional 1041 concerns. 1 G~ral Cotntn~nts: The attached aeria( photo shows the approximate location of the proposed CU - Phase 1- development with in the grea~er South Boulder Creek floodplain. This pboto does not contain the various hypothesized Unes where previous studies have sketched 50 - S00 -500 or 1000- yr flood boundaries. This aenal photograph depicts the loCatfon of the proposod develapmant fn the middla of the massive, braided streams and flood depocits that Comprise the qreater South Boulder Creak Floodqialn. Furthermore, as a result of sand and gravel mining, the Flatlron site is approximately 15-20 feet lower In elevation than i) at the time the aerial photograph was taken, and ii) the current e-evation of the adjacent South Boulder Creek. 7.596 of 8oulders floodplafn lands remaln undeveloped, Thus, less than 10% of our floadplaln lands remain to absorb the impacts of development in riparian comdors and of reinfatt-runoff and flooding hazards. Much of the Flatiron property iles either wfthin the South Boulder Creek (SBC) floodplain or on the unstable, westem margin watershed slopes that have extensive established wettands. Although the CU/Flatlron Property is located mostly on county land, the ~mpact of development on the property directly Impaets the Clty of Boulder and city residatrts. For these reasons, tha City of Bouldar convaned a formal Nydrology Advisory Panel (HAP) to review the SBC Issue and to outline a detailed scope of work essential to developing and completing an updated hydrology, hydraulics and hazards assessment. The HAP (s made up of experts from: FEMA, USGS, CWCB, UDFC, CU, and the local community. The HAP expects to complete its scope of work in the next few weeks. Following the recommendations of the HAP, a full hydrologic hazards and community impact analysis of the South Boulder Creek watershed and floodplain will be commissioned in accardance wlth a~#nuary 29, 2001 City Councli recommendatlo~. ~ WL 11 Comments and Concerns: It is difficult to see how the County, City and University can take a firm position on any development untll the volume and frequency of South Boulder Creek flooding is flrmly established for the following reasons: A Comments on Review Criterion Artlcle &511, B., 14: The proposal is not in accordance with a number of goals and objectives in the BVCP, i.e. the "applicable intergovernmental agreement affecting land use and development", namely: 1. Generai Policies - This proposal is not consistent with the most basic goal of the BVCP, which is to keep urban land uses within the City's limits where sarvices and facilities are available. Twelve tennis courts, bleachers,'"125 car parking lot, 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, like water, sewer, transit, police, fire and emergency medical services are availabie. If Rafly Sport or another 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 faciiity is to be permanent then it should have permanent toilets (and be on City water and sewer). Z. 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 leapfrog, 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 Village, vacant lots at Grandview] adjacent to services and public transit as well as conveniently located nearby the users' residences. This expartsiort outside the City is no less urban sprawl than any other user intensive development. The 125 cars parking lot is an indication of the expected use and tra~c. Policy 2.06 DESIGN Of COMMUNIIY EDGES. This proposal will not create a weli 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 deveiopment 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 MA]OR 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 poficy 2.06 apply here also. 3. Neighborhoods Policies 2.16, 2.17 and 2.18 PROTECTION OF RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS AD]ACENT TO NON-RESIDENTIAL ZONES, MIXTURE OF COMPLEMENTARY LAND USES, and COMPATIBILITY OF ADJACENT LAND USES. ~/ In all 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 raferral on this project are any indicatiort 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. Urban Services Policy 3.01 PROVISION OF URBAN SERVICES IN THE BOULDER VALLEY. Violation of this policy has been discussed above in i. 6ENERAL. 5. Environment Policies 4.01, 4.06, 4.07, 4.08, 4.09, 4.11, 4.16, 4.18, 4.29, and 4.31 all raise ~nsistency 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 simpty 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 cfty's smoking ordinances. How is CU going to protect the adjacent OS and adjacent neighbors against the careless use of cigarettes by users or spectators? B Speelfto Concerns: :) All previous floodplain studies 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) Development at this time may complicate flood mitigation efforts and could jeopardize the onty location where a comprehensive and meaningful flood cantrot solution may be piaced. 4) Development at this time will complicate and could jeopardize future federa! 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 information and data. FEMA has available appro~mately U5$ 350 million to be used for updating flood studies in the U5. Boulder is eligible to apply for up to 70% [FEMA], 30% City floodpiain re-mapping funds. 7) The methodalogies developed from the findings of the SBC project and study will greatly faciliYate 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-piain" potential 9} This property has been designated an area of state interest and therefore, falls under the guidelines of Land Use Code sedions 8-304- lo a7 A-1 through 4 which mandate consideration of; "the intensity of current and foreseeabie 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 Tliarp. 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 fr.om a 100- year return period to a 500-year return period. This would require a very large number of existing floodplains in the US, including South Bouider Creek, to be re-evaluated. il) A formal, completed professionai transportation impact study and plan has not been received from either CU or the County. This facfitty won't be served by mass transit Iike the present site is. Because of the length of tbe dirt service road and the distance from the main campus, it is likely that many users will 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 Environmentalist 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 nevar be far from tha memory of any City or County decision maker. The Spring Creek Flood ciaimed five lives and caused millions of dollars in damage; much of the damage was on Colorado State University property, During this flood, a railroad bed, very similar in constructian to the earthen berm on the CU south properly failed, sending flood waters into neighborhoods behind the reilroad bed washing away homes. There is a natural risk involved if development is permitted. There is aiso 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. Reeommendalions: 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 wetfands experts, Without this information, it is difficult to fully respond to the applicants repeated claims that the various 1041 concerns are "not applicable." Particularly disturbing are the claims that ground water and transportation concerns are "not applicable," that the application need only comply with S00-yr flood return standards, and that the 100-yr fiood boundary cuts down-hill and across topographic contours. ~ ,~ 2) Elevata 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 criticai issue of major concern. It should not be processed, as was the case with the Aprii 11"' review, as one of many applications undeserving of full consideration. Purthermore, the entire Boulder community shouid have the opportunity to formally comment on this apptication - not just th~ neighbors adjacent to the CU/Flatiron property. 3) Either: • a) Table final consideration of CU Docket SI-02-02 until after the South Boulder Creek watershed and floodplain study is completed.... Or at least not untfl 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 full review and consideration - foilowing the independent hydrology and hydraulics study. If the City decides to forward an approval recommendation to the County, it should ask tha.t any County approval be temporary, Conditional, or time-limited, so as to allow the possibiiity that the approval will expire upon any o~e of a number of conditions, such as, if the floodplain study for So. Boulcier Creek (when compieted) 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 ali development in the remaining undeveloped SBC ftoodpiain (including the Flatirons Property) be undertaken in support of construction of flood hazard reduction measures, aimed at: a) reducirtg of the flood hazard risk to Keewayden Meadows, Tantra, Marshall and other neighborhoods in South and South East Boulder, to a level consistent with stream fiows of a SBC 500-yr flood-event b) maximizing both the flood storage and ground water recharge potential of the 5outh 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 iikely development in addition to that of the tennis courts or other proposed Flatiron activity. 6) Deny CU'S request for an increase in allowed noise levels from 50 to 55 decibels. 7) And, in the event that future proper studies reveal that removing 308 acres from the SBC floodplain for athletic fietds 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- surtace waters by Rock Flats, Marshall mining, etc. are still in ~ c~ 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 collected 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 gravei surfaces be strictiy monitored in accordance with Environmental Protection Agency (EPA); O~ce of Air Quality Strategy and Standards for protecting public health in areas where the PM-SO (particulate matter having a nominal aerodymanic diameter less than or equal to 10 microns) national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). iv) F~cplicit!y clarify that approval is strictly lirnited to the tennis court permit application. Variances or extensions to this permit will not be approved. v) Mitigation of possible future transportation impacts will satisfy City requirements and wfll be funded at the university's expense. vi) Flood 5torage on the CU property maet and be situated in accordance with independent hydrology study recommendations. vii) Urge the university to contribute to community flood hazard education 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 oniy native, drought-tolerant vegetation be used in any tandscaping. x) Clarify that emergency medical services, typically provided by our fire department, will be provided by CU Thank you, ~7 Historic South Boulder Creek Floodpiain With Location of Proposed CU Development (first phase) ' ~f~r~ ' v I .c Y~ .Y J'v :1 ' l ~.i S"i.~'G .l: ~ ' ~.' . . ' _ ' ~ .. .. tid b • ~ ~ ~ '~ ' ia ' ~ '. . . . {ql_' _ ~_ } 5 t•, 1+ . . . t• _ . ~ ~_' ~~ .. 1' . W ~~. . 10.. ~` • . . . ... -. . a 1 l' ~ _ ~~a ~~ t.:. ~ .>'~" ..r_ . ~c' i ' ~ N '~/ • r Braided' eams & fluvial c~eposit . _.- _. • r . I. .- ._; ; ~; ~- ,y . Approximate loa .af proposed devE (approx. elev.l5 ' thaq~V. of SB~ ~ F • - . r'~ f~n 4± ~ y ~ . .~, ~~ F~~i' ~: . J~'.~~ :~' ~ a,.zw ~, ~.~~. - ~ ~7~•_. S ~ ^ `T . y }rF~ ~ '' ~~~ ~/~ t t 1. . e' . ~ ~ ~ '.~ i d ~ ~ ' ~ .a~~. .. . . ~ht;^ j~~ ' ., ~~ ` r•. ~~'r ~~ `, _ ~~ ~ ~~ i E,"~ ~ ~ , ~-~~ ~,~ry ~ .,., . ~ ,. g ~ ,~ , ~ . f' 1 , ,; .~ ~W J~~~k. ~~T ~~ . r 4; v , t~;{` r . ' !! a~ ':'i~ • tii;~r ~ ~ r~ s;r 3j ylf~. ~ ' . ~h -~ ~!i o~ ~ t _ r•~ r - 4~ ~ ° . °'_'!~ ;; :,:,, . l~. li :- ~~~//\i ~ • • ~,~ S ~,( ~ } ~.7 ' ~~r._ ~ r.-a,.. 1'q' ~'' E ' ' : ' ~; ; Eloodplain •/~ Margins ,'*" ~y --. ~' . ~V.y- ;,~ :~ : ~• .~~~'~~'~~'_..~ . . Yw; . ~~s~~' ,;.. ~ u' .. :~ : : -.~~i ~ 1 V ~ i. ~. ~ _,. .-~ ~ ~ ,. , AS . J'. L. k I ~ . ` i1~ ~''~ 'J ~~ L ~ ~ ~ ~r .1Y~- ,~F ~South~Boul° ~ ' k (SBC) . .~ree . : ~ •` ~ - ~ t ~~ ~k~j July 1937 US Forest Service Aerial Photograph N ~ ~~ APPLICATION 0 30AVARIANC:/F7°;AL O F~'ONING ' 0 SKciCFiPUN 0 EXl'"eN510NOFAPPRDVAL ~, p cX°MPTION PLA7 C ROAC NAMe CNANG'c 0?REIIMINARY P:AN 0 O7N'cR: ~ p LIMIi = IM?AL' iPE~iAL USE O SiTe °L4N ReVICW 0 FINAL oWT . p i ~~A7iON d'e%T_N' O SPE~~A. U5=!550° 0 ROA~/~iS~MENT VACFTION ~ ' p R~SUBDNISION 1.'cc?L:.~~ C SU60MSION eXcMP'ION ~ 10~1 • STnTe IN'neST R~VIEW ~ ~p~qilOn151 • STRE~ ~CR:55(~5) rt,-3ou~ er Sovtn, 5378 Tzble Mesa D^ve, Boulder Celorade . SIIBvNi510N uAMC ' NOAe N/,~ I ti/n ~° and lo ~ One South ~G. of Me:idiar. None I ?o:taole Tcclets T/A qpo_~pANT?ROG'_~'~~'Owt.E2 ~STRE=_ :.:DflE55 IIa_versi:y o: Coio:ado Bozrd ef Begents, A Body Co;porate Ca.au~ Bcs 4~3 -±v : iTA.i ~ZIP -0.~~ >nON[ NUMBEn FAS NUMSER 3oclder C_ 8Q30S-04=3 ~;303i4°Z-1~_'S I(3C~3) 4~_-i'_96 ~ ~_:::.,.~r,9ao~eP.-V owr.:=. js:n=__-aoo=. ,; .. ~.~. _ ZIO .CJ= I~MCHc NI1M:cn FrVt NUMg:q ~ '. ~'~ ~ i~ ~ ~~ .~;~ 1 ' S~Ai= I ~ZIP:C7i I ~PMON5Nl/MEeR ~~~ ~ :faNUM9:-R I~ ~ '~ 4~cNTl.Or~SL'LUNT ~ STReET ID~R_Si _~~_"'e:• 5. Livter.. ~x_c. Uirector. YaCl~l'1B5 P?41IIZ1:. I(.d5DL5 boX 47~ ,[^y SiAR i ZIP Cppc PMONE N11M9 ~ G4XHUMdER .,.,,,,,;o~ CD I 8030?-0453 I(303 )'49?-1525 I(303 )49~-?186 • AJcKTiC~N5l1:TAM . I SFRc°7 PL~N°SS ~ ~ ,tianc~: iove, Consu'_tzr.t 84? Frent Street I::TY STATE 217:OCE ~ PMONEHUM6ER F~NUM9en '*_ou±s~ille CO IBOOZ7 (3031 67~-979~ I(303~bi3-0796 1 certiN Ni; Ine inlormaUOC ano eznioitt I nave suom~veC at! ~~ue anC arteo! :o me 7esl o~ my anewroege. in lning me aoeiiwuon i am at:ing witn Ine know~eaqe anC CDnil~I d NOS! 7erSOn3 wtlo ite vanefs of (/1! Sub~lCl O~oClM C' 2fe pYr1ilS IO NIS iOCliUllan I unoerslanC Nai ai~ matena¢ recwrec Ov Bauiaer Goumy mus; x suommea onor to n~HnS ~~is mtner orxesseo. i unaerstantl Inat ouoim ne~nngs or meetings may De recmrea I unoerstana Init aCOmanal lees or rtfa~ena~s may De rB~wrea as a resNl ol pr.s~oeraf~ons wn~rn mav anse m ine o~oC2tamg of tnrs ,^.ccKet. I unaersune ina~ ine rcac, sC1oo~ ano oarlt oeoionans may tie reawred as a mnan~an oi aocmvai I unCersUna tnat I am consenimg to allow me CounN Stan mvorveo m tnrs ao0nnuon or tneir oemonees to eniv onto ana msxc; tne suo~e_ oroverry al anY ~ ~rliSO~~D~! tITl, W~NOUt ODILNDq inV prlat CGflsln. . X -iivo // O/_ // / . - IOATE / / rn • PLE4SE REFeR 70 i Mc REGUlAT10N5 AND APPUCATION SUBMI'TAL PACKAGc FOR COMPLc i e APP! ICATIOH REOUIREMENTS • • PLE.4Sc SEE 7BACK ~G / Dau: 25 March 2002 To: Bouider County Land lise Depa~ent Subject: Docket SI-02-02 I am not opposed to the liniversity moving tennis cautu and needed parking to ihe South Campus. In fact, I think that athletic fields and parking, with a free sfluttle service to/$om the caznpus is the best use of this area since such area~ could be flooded in a 100 year flood, reducing the danger to homes north of South Boulder Road. What I am concerned about is that the 350 vehicle trips per day will be only the first step. Next we wili see a reyuest to move Potts Field with another increase in traffic. The naffic at the US 36/Foothills Parkway/South Boulder Road/Table Mesa inteisection is already a disas~er.-Adding more ~affic to this intersection will only make conditions worse. I beiieve that a major redesi~ of this intezsecrion is needed before Cli moves any faciliries to the South Campus. The redesign should ailow direct aceess to the South Caznpus ~es froin US 3b and Foothills Parkw•ay and a closing off access to the 5outh Campus frnm Table Mesa Drive. ~ ~~. i f, ~ 1`,T`, `~~r---~ , ~ ~~ ~ ~~C, , ' ~. ~ Joseph V. DeSousa 5285 IIlini R%ay Bouldez CO 80303-4297 3Q3.494.7612 ~ .~ ~. ~~~ ,~p[11178CTL'RE.'I.A~'~I~G.IhTERIOR OESIG~• r ~LI;BS . rtFSOR75 • X07E15 • RESORT fUNNI'\ITIES ~xTBROrDWA1'. Sl'REiM ~ nr~r.vrrr~nddm.cr /:A:qJ 80CLDF0.. COLDAADO z~ilq.$]t1 ;o? a+'LN?I Jn}.uaip! FAS Emnl M'ZADESIG~W NZADESIG\.COM April 10, '!00? Boulder Councy Land Use Department P.O. Box 4 i 1 Boulder CO 80306 Re: Docket Sl-0?-0'' Universit~~ of Colorado - Boulder S1-10-i1 DeaT Planning Commission ~Sembers. and Coanry Commissianers: This is u roajc,z con:em. lt :;huui~ n~; be pezn'srcG. W';,ey are th: poweis Ccyin~ [o cuin our quiet iiP: th~t my wife and I, for example. have enjoyed here in Table Mesa for 2= years. Now vou want co chanee that and: a) Impose the Univezsity's traffic, noise, and general hustle and bustle on us. b) Begin the process of expandirtg CU across Hi¢hway 36. And then, on ton of that build a big building at Baseiine whicfi will clobber thaz intersection. Please send the lav.- school to Denver. It oelongs in a bie city, not a small cown. Please vote a¢ains: this requesc. Since;ely, ~~~~~~~~ Bill and Lvnn Zmiscowski ~990 Greenoriar Blvd Boulde:, CO ~0 - ~~ ~ ^~ ~ ~}~,°~'~ ~-~-~.~. ~ ; ~~~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ,,,_ ~.r,~u,,.~L~-,-'~C~, ~ J J ~a c~ r~n ~~ ~ ~ ~t~ 7 ~,S" 1~~, ~~ ~r ~~ ~~~,1~,,- C~ ~~ ~ s ., ti ~G _~ v ,~ . - , 1 !,~-~ ~-a-~. ~, ,~ ~ , ~~~ -~ ~ ~,,, .,~~., ' . . C'-~- ""`' , :", \ ~ . ~; ~ ~,,,ti ~o o s ~'~tivi ~I -r -~ r ~n. ~ ~ ~"'''` ~ ~, ,~ i ~~ ' ~ 1... G~ S J lG'~-- ~ '~ . ~.1~ . ~ ~~~ S-.:~.=c~'~1 ~ `~~.. ~ r~ ~.,~srtis~r c~ C.~ S 3~~~'~~.~'~ j~~-~-~ '^~. c ~ ~ . T ~ S R ~o i.~.~ , ,T~- ~,~..-~~ ~~- ! ~ c~a ~_.~-~-p S'E~ LS `-~i~k- ~'`' ~~o,(cs.-~ ~zG~~ ~ , p~a~ ~~ y~L D L~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ :~ - ~~ ~, . (' . G c~--/~-- ~`,~~ C'~,~~ %„' ~ ~C~-,.~ ~~- . ~~ ~ ~"`c ~ ~ ~ ~, ~,.~- _ ~-!'I/~a ,_ _,~- , , ~ y ~I Gi~~ ~ • ~ ~ . : ~~ ~ , R : n ~- _ ~ ' ./> .r .%.fi ~ ~• / %~ _ 1 ~ '~ .. ~. ~~' ~.~. , I .. ~~ . . r- l~N.l"' . 7( T0: Boulder Counry Land Use Deparmeat Boulder Couary Plaaning Commission Boulder Counry Comm.issionen FROM: Ruth Blackr~are, 705 S 41n S~eet, Boulde:, CO 8030~ ,~MC V ~•Y _ i G0~ _ %c,CC \ . ~ (~ R: : Docke: SI-02-02: Ciaive:siy of Colorado - Boulder SI - 1041 DATy: Arr14, 2002 l~l • ~ . ~ ^..i /~~~~, ~c ~ % ~i„"~..~ ~ ~,~ In the short aeriod of ume I had to respond to this developmea; anplication, I bave a few commeats now but will cerrinly have mLCh more to say at the public bea:;n,. I object to aay anproval for development on the South Boulder Campus at this ~me. As you may well be aw•are, the South Boulder Creek (SBC) floodplain midy is still underway and the: e should not be any developmeat in this floodplain uatil the isSIIes sutroundine this floodplain hava be:n resolved. The Taggart Study was not accepced by the Ciry and the Counry and a new hydrology study was commissioned The City of Boulder convened a formal Hydrolow Advisory Panel (HAP) to review the SBC issue and to outlir.e a detailed scope of work essenriai to develop and complece an updated hydroloQy, hydraulics and hazazds assessment The HAP is made uD of exne*ts rrom: ~VI.~., LSGS, CWCB, L~FC, CU, and the local com~mury. Tne H.4P expec*s to cornlete its scooe of work in May 2002. Following the recommend2tions oi the Ei4.°, a iull and indeoendent-hydrologic, hyd,~ulic, ha7ards and comrsuniry impaci analysis of the South Boulde: Cresk wate:shed and floodpIain will be commissioned. All aaplicarions for development in the SBC floodplain shou'.d be denied until af:er a full, indeoendeat-hydrologic, hyd:aulic, hazards and communiry impact analysis of the 5BC wz:e:shec and floodplain has been comnleted. Furtne: more, the ber.n haz not been fuily cerrined. FEM~ wi111ixely re-~an the SBC floodplain i:: 3003 afre: the aew hydrology smdy is completed. Ir. CU's applicadon for development, they indicate thaz their proposed deveiopment is locaze3 ouuide any previously lmowa areas of historical flood activiry, that there is .ini '~ suriace wazcr oa the CL'-Boulder South property, that the development will aot have any appreciable flood or dr~.inaee impacts on other propezries, and that there are no impacts to the endangered ani.mal species and their habirats. I believe that the pubIic has information to countez all these statements. I have aaended most of the meetinss since 1995 associated with development on the Flarirons properry and even the Taggart study snows that po*tions of the CU properry lie in tise floodnlain, that the most flooding occurre3 in the aor[hern corae: of this propery by I'able 1~Iesa and Hi~way 36 (the t^~nnis courts wouid be aear this area,) that the be:m both held back and also directed flows into the neighborhooc+s, that ove: 1,~00 homes downs~eam from the CU progerry ar: in the path of floodwau:s coming across the Cli prop::ry, and thaz porrions oi the CLJ grope. ~y az: needed to hold'oack floodwat:rs irom the nei~nborhoods. This land was a natual wetlaacs prior to mining and tce laad was to be resored to a weilands afte: minin~. 'I"ne fact tfiaz Cti puc in an exceasive de-wate:ing syst:m last year is testament to 6- ~a the amount of sw-face water on the land. SVhy would anyone aeed to constaafly de-wate: laad as they are doing if in fact there wzs "miaimat surfa~: wa,t-s an the CIJ-Boulder South proper.~' as they scau oa pa.Q: •17 of tiseir anplication. Additionally, the SBC floodnlaia is one oi the few r.maining habitats for the threat:ne3 Preble's Meadow lumpiag MoL:se. 1" ~ CU apglicatioa st3ta that the site compietely lacks aay habitat comnonents for tnc ;hrratened P:eble's Meadow Jumpiag Mou:e. W aea Cli put ia the de-wau: systers ther_ was a lot of brush and ~:~s r~oved fron th: land. Ju how much'bave they a.tr:ady done to this laad to r.mov: sr~.*race waze: aad hacitzu ior eadange: ed snecies? The c:~zes o: this commuaity have done a~emeadous aaount oi msearch on wis piece oi laua an:: we look iorward to giviag our side of the ia,."u az the puhlic hearing. 1 wouid like to request that the Couary Commissionc:s move ihe final hearing to a can~ai location in the Sauth Boulde; azea such as th: I3ISI'/NOA.4 auditorium and to a a%ednesday eveniag. It is aot appropriate for the coimry to hold aay fiaal decision - meeang (on any issue that wi11 have such an impact on citizens, Iife, properry, quality-of- lue) during the middle of a workday and so removed from the citizeas direc~ly affected by the nnzl decision. 'l_~ Post OtM1Ce Box 471 . BoWdec. Cdoroclc g03py Land Use Department c«:m,o~cse Arrne: 2Cd5 13m Sheet • 1Jm & Spruce Streers • Bouiaer, Cdorodo 803p2 .(3p9) eal-3qyp MEMO T0: Aeencies and adjaceat propacy owaers ~;.~ FROM: David Caliahan, St3II PI3IlIIC: •r'j,• ~, - ~ ~- -~. , DA?E: Mazch19,20Q~ -_,. - RE: Docket SI-02-0~ ' MqR 2 6 Zp 2 ~ . =~~~^'-~ ``V ~ , ~ . Docket SI-0?-02: L'NTVERSIT~' OF COLOR4D0 - BOLZDER Si-] 041 ~ r` "~~ • Request: Acnti•~t~es of State Interest Review for the consideration of a tennis court complex consis:ing of twelve fenced courts, a temporarv pazking ]ot, viewing stands and associated grading. Location: 5outh oi the mtersection of US 36 and Foothills Pazkway, in Sections 9& 16, T1 S. R70W ' Zoning: Economic Development (ED) Asicukural (.4) Appiicant: linive*sin• of Colorado / Board of Regenu Agents: Je:aey Lipton. Execurive Director / Depaztment of Facilities Manaecmeat Ivancv Love Tnese processes include public heanngs beior: the Boulder County Plannin¢ Commission and 3oud of Councy Com_^.iissionc.s. Adiacent propem owne:s and holdc.s of liens, mot[eases, easem^us or other r~::*.s in tne subject ptonr.rv az: notified of these hear.nes. Tna iand lise s:, r. P:annine Commission, and County Cos.missioners value cotrtm~ttts IIor..:ndividuals and reie~l aeencies. Please enecic the appropnate response below or send a lener. Late responses will be Teviewed 2s ;ne process pe:mits; all commeau will be made par: of the puolic record and eiven to the apnlicant. Only a po: cion oi the submitted documer.u may nave oeen rnclosed; you are welcome to re~~ew ftie entire file at the Land li se Depamnent, 13th and Spruce, Boulde:. If you have any quesrions regazding fnis appiication, piease contact the Land lise Deparanrnt omce. Please return responses to the above address by Anrii d, YUU':. We have re~~ewed fne proposal and have no conflicrs. Lettr. is rnclosed. ' ~/ ~`c Si~ed ~'_ ~l ~~/.' ~,~.~~C~~ PRIIJI"r.DName ~~ ~ r1 ~J /~.l+. h~ Agency or Address / Lb~l~~ ~ ~l t/tRc~e. `l~'rn.P ~v"a~iw ~ ( ~-,,,~, ~Ak,(e -M~s a- ~v~ i w-e. , Jana L Mendex RonoW ~...~....~ Canry Cdttnmionar CanrV Cartrrmia ~y G:~,LUDV.USHARED~DOCKE: S'510202~02REF.DOC i i,!! 1~~;~ 03 Aprif 2002 Boutder County Land Use Departmer; Cour House Annex 2045 • 13`" Street ' Boulder, Colorado 80302 ~~~~ i ~''_ ~`- -_ - ^~I ._ . ~ _; ~; ~_" /~ A~R ~ 4?CG2 ~; ~ _-_= c_. .; r~; -,. -- ~ ~~:;rv: ~ „-c' R~: Docket SI~G2•G2: Univ~rsi~y of Coloraco • 3oulder SI • lp~l To Whcm li May Concern: No, and agair~, no, no, no. It was absolutely amazing to g=t the notice or tne Boulder County Commissioners pubiic hearing on this proposal. Do we have no memory in this Ciiy? I have lived here f~r my entire 50 years, and ther= is 2 long and weli•documented history or the University's perpetualiy violated assurances regarding their timing and pians tor th.is property. Ps ~ real estate proressional (on oenalf or the Owner, I manage the Vilfag2 [McGuckin] Shopping Cent°Y), I am personally well•acquainted with the 2XC?^,SIV~ 8l1~ °XR2US~fVc C'OC°~S C°1UlC°~ f~f d°V~ICDtTl2tlt Wlih{R i`° rloocpiain. Does ~`lc Uf11Vc"SIiY 0~2~8L"c ;:!1Cc~ G~lii2!cfl~ C~ li2fic Oi proor Iii~'1 ;t1° I'?S~ Oi U5.'' Tnougr~ o~iec*.ing, I am no' naive enough 'to t7ink ~ha't d2velopment oT this property is ~reventa~le. I; wif{, oi c~urs~, eventually oc~ur. Bu: z Tull communi;y impa~: anaVysis o~ ~h~ e;~2c~ on the Sou?n °ould2r Creek watersned, r,ot to men~ion ~he Boulder ~~i^,ITU~~IiV ir12i ~IV°S Irl iill~ 2'cc, SilOU~G~ af1C M~.~SI D2 COf`ip~~ied be?orz W2 Stdf~. Wi;nout t7a;, we aiicw tn~ ~ver•pr=sumpiuous Univ2rsiiy tc proceed with plans tnat, you su~~iy know, are simoly 5tep i In an ever•more aggresslve aolicy o~ serving their pWii il?°.^.~, 2ven a: the °X~cf1Sc OT L?l° rity IL52ft. Gne more iiem • do you really believe ~hat se:'ing a pubiic hearing in the middle of a Thursday, ror goodnzss sa~ce, is r2ally going to enable our citizens io attend and r=SrCnd In a constructive manner? Perhaps tne intznt is to s~? ii1ZT W° CIOfI't attend, sinc~ mest of us are busy in jobs ~~~at, at leas-~ peripheralfy, are an errort to improve our City. It is time to SLOW DOWN and make the eftort to asc~r~ain that this cevelooment, or ANY development, is appropriate, construc~iv~; mairtainable and SU~rJOYTIVC Oi OU' community. Tnose de~ermir~ations mus~ 'J° fiiad? ~BiOfe we saddle curselves wfth another mis.ake ~hat will be inde*initely regret~ed. Mos~ sincerzly, ~~~ ~o~ Paul ~ane M. Co ins Robert L Co4fins 1405 Chambers Drive Boulder, Coloraoo 803Q5 7~ Apri14, 2002 Boulder County Land Use Department Court House Annex 2445 13"' Street Boulder, CO 80302 Attention Commissioners: r.--- - _-~ _.~ __ _ _ ~,~1,'~ APR 0 4 2C~2 ~,-; ~J - -~~'J~~_P COUN?Y _AN~ USE We are homeowners adjacent the.Fiatirons Property and have received notice_that the University of Colorado has submitted an application for development. This, brief but (egal, public response time to CU's counry1041 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-Bouider SI-1041 be denied. We request that NO APPLICATIONS be considered until AFTER A FULLY ACCREDITED AND INDEPENDENT HYDROLOGIC STUDY OF FLOODING lSSUES FOR THE SOUTH BOULDER CRE~K WATERSHED. Should not the potential hazards of flooding in this area be careruily and thoroughfy analyzed? The potenfiaf imoac; on citizens' lives and property are immense. (Who would 'nave guessed that CSU's campus wouid flood!) Obviousiy, Yhe expense of catas:rophe ;alls to the citizen taxpayer so please take time at this point of the discussion. Also, what effects will the dewatering of the Flatirons property have on private prooerties adjacent? There are many concerns to be resolved before ANY development goes forth on this property! May we request that the pubiic hearing scfieduled for Thursday, May 30"' at 2:00 PM, be rescheduled to a Wednesday ~vsning and a location in the Sou#h Boulder area so that you can receive more needed information. Thank you for your consideration of these requests. Sincerely, ~~~ ~ ti~ anet A. Meadows ~/ John F. Meadows 1240 Chambers Drive Boufder, CO 80305 ~~, ~'~ South Creek Seven ~ ,. Homeowners' Association Memo To: Baulder County Land Use Department From: The Officers of South Creek Seven Homeowners' Association --- - Da[e: Apni 3, 2002 ~ ~ = ~ - _' ` ' _~. Re: Docket SI-02-02 "- = _- ; ~ ~ ' A°R 042C02 ~~'~ ~~~:°? ^~:JrvTy~ ?o the Land Use Staff: ~ ~ _ ~+i~.7 JSc We the o~cers of the South Creek Seven Homeowners' Association would Iike to formally submit our concems regarding the University of Colorado's plans to construct a tennis facility on the Flatirons Propetty. Please note that, due to #ime 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 officers only. Our pnmary concem is that the University has never been forthcoming with information regarding their pians for development of the Flatirons Property. The language used in the iatest 10 year plart submitted to the Colorado Commission on Higher Education was cryptic at best, imclying that use of the properry would be limited to recreation facilities, but leaving open the opiion for other types of dsvelopment On September 12, 2001 the University submitted a Land Use Assessment snowing 159.73 ac2s of the 302.02 acre property as "Building Potential.' This assessment gives the impression that the University has plans for sign~cantly more development tnar just recreationa! €acilities. This impression is reinforced by the fact that the University is net proposing to relocate the tennis courts to Wiiliams Viilage or to East Campus. Both sites offer distinct advantages over tne rlatirons Property: Williams Village is on an existing trensportation 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 cfoser 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 Valley Comprehensive Plan. Any development of the Fiatirons Property will have a great impact on us, the residents of South Creek Seven, and we ask that University be forthright and complete regarcing their ~tans for the Fiatirons Property so that we as a community my fuily understand the University's goals for the property and have input as to minimiz= any negative impact on our community. To date the University has not besn forthright and ~omplete. Therefore, while we are not in pnnciple opposed to the te~„nis courts being relocated to the Flatirons Property, we are asking that the request to relocate the tennis courts to the Flatirons Property be tumed down urttil the tJniversity submits a comprenertsive pfan for their desired use of the property. Thank you. Ka,~a6~1 ~,~orrt~ /~~-- ~-!/~- "~~~- `J~~ YL. ~ 92 - Kara McGangaj' Shane W. Brown homas oms Mic ael McliRilfen President, SC7HOA Vice President ~~ SPrrPtarv Treasurer Pmt OMee Box 471 . Bouoer. Caoraoo 8,^„~ypp Y ~y~ Y y ~ ~' ti ~~ ~ ._; ~ ~ v Land Use Depprtmenfi Counouse Annex 2Jd5 1Jth Sheet • l3m & Spnrce Srteets • Bouiaer. Coioraca BC302 .;3C3) m;•~v30 IvLMO TQ: Agencies and adiac:a[ prooercy oa~nen •-- - ,.. FROM: Da~1d CaIlahan, Staf~ Planncr .~~",, _:~. DAi~: Mazch 19, 2003 -';" RE: Docke. ST-02-02 \-,,~ ,•~. ,: ~ Docket SI-0?-Ol: L'1TVERSITY OF COLOR4D0- BOLL•DER SI-1041 ~~ . .` 1 VO~ \~ 1 ~AQ~ p Qv~ JN~~~ ~O~ VCaN~ v'E ~ V Request: Actrvmes of 3zate Inierest Review for the consideration oi a tennis court complex consisting of twelve ienced couru, a temporary parking ]ot, viewing stands and associated erading. Location: South of the mtersection of US 36 and FoothiIls Pazkway, in Sections 9& 16, TIS. R70W Zoning: Economic Developmrnt (ED) • A~icultural (A) Applicant: liniversity of Colomdo / Boazd of Reeenu Agents: Je2irey Lioton. Executive Director / Deparanent oi racilities Manaeement ivancv Love These processes include public heannes beiore the Bouldr. County Planning Commission and Boazd of Counrv Com.~aissior.e.s. Adiacent pronem owners and holders of iieas, moneaees, easements or other n~nu in tha subject prone~y aze notitied of inese hearings. Tne Land use staf:. ?lannine Comm.ission, and County Commissiona-s vaiue commrnts irom individuals and rei:r.al ae:acies. Please caeck the appropnate response below or srnc a]ene:. Lau responses will be reviewed az the process pcrmirs; al] commenu will be made part of the public record and givrn to fne applicant. Only a nonion of tae suomitted documencs may have bern rnclosed; you aze wolcome to roview the rntire file at the Land lise Dcpazmirnt, 13th and Snruc:, Boulda. Ifyou havc any ouesrions rceazding this appiicarion,plrzae contac: the Land Use Deparanrnt ofiice. Agrncy or Addras ~ L Please :etum responses to tee above address by Anri1 4. 2002. We have zaviewed the proposa] and have no cgnflicCS. . _ R • ~~ ' ~ y_ LGttC715 Cl1C~OSCCL':.i ~\~•»_ ' ~v= `. ,'' ~~ ~v ~~• ,- •v`, ~ ~•1.~ :T ~' 1 ~ ~,, ,vJ -~-~$ Sd ' ;.CY\D~.-`.~'.rc :.. ~v ~ :~ ~'1•J. ~.:1'J`.+s~. .~/.L f'.%~' ~~ ~i ~r..~ { n ~ S1~C1Gd ~.`TI.. ~~,,,,r~//L.. , P.~VT~..D TY3ITIC I t ~ • / ,~, ~iE~„ •i{~ ^ ~~ ~ ~! ~~..0 '~J _. / :.~2~ ~'=C ~( ~;-.` ~ . ~ th'.2. ~ , ~~ '.~ . ~,1: s -~~~L1 ~ I ~ ~`~~~ ~ ~ - --- - ~ ~ ,, ~ ~ ~vtnr~. ~7'V~ G:1LUD\l.L'SHARFD~DOCKc'TS~510202~02REFDOC ~(~...1Aw ~ =J4 ~ u~ `~'rT'~`~`\ ~.,,a,, ~ ~~-!~ ~ !~?-'~'.~... '~l ~ f;^J.~~ lj,tqL~uJ~ .S~Jrt'l:l~~l I~~ ~ .I~ta L MMiorx c«.m ca+moor,« ' n a,.,i:~.t.~ ~¢~"1 n~, ,•~~.a i C, ~6 r _ . /( ~~ / ~ n-~ ~/~- ~~~~~ ' ~ ~;,iFcS~rL~ / ~ ~ cj r„a,~-~-~- ~ .y, /..1 ~ -~e ~~' ~ '~~j /,•a/u ~ Npndd K Slwwart ~ L ~- CanN ~iar 1 ~ ~i i /,, ~ : ~I.:~~ ~C F..r4,w+'~^' ..~-{ ~S raW D~ Co~+nY Corrrrm~orvr ~~r j -`L Fc :.. ,uu..~ ~rc;.~.. ti~.c~r 4/2/2002 To: Boulda County Land Use Departrneni Court House Annex 2045 13th Svert. Boulder, Colorado 80302 (303) ~1v930 From: Douelas YaQ:r ' 1Z70 Chamoers Dr. Boulder. Colorado 8030~ Subje..~-:: R~uest that Boulder Counn~ drny the Universin~ of Colorado's applicarion for development of the Flarirons Propem~ Deaz Boulder Counn~ L.and Use Depaztment: I am raiuesring that vour deoar¢neitt dem~ the liniversin• of Colorado request to' be2in developmrnt of the Flaurons Propem~. The Flarirons propem lies paztiy within the 100-year floodplain. 'Ihis {act alone should be enou2ti to dissuade anc development w~hatever of the Flatirotu propem•. Howevcr, there is a stud}~ underway, by a hydrologic expert panel (HAP) to detemune the real risk of flood hazard that currently esists along South Boulder Cr~k including the Flatirons propem•. The HAP stud~• should provide the scientuic data ne~id to detErmine what risks aze involved in developing the Flatirons propem•. T'hus, unril the H.4P has nnished iu anaiysis, onl}~ then should am• application for developmrnt be considered. Bouider County bas oni~ 10% of iu floodplain and wetlands remaining that have aot alread}• b~n clauned by d~velopment. This e«osti~su-.m wouid be imQlac~ble once developed. Just this year, the nparian areas adjac..°nt to the Flaurons Propem~ wetlands were home to rare birds in this region including the ~aried thrusiL and it~e broadwin¢ hawk. Boti~ species were photoeraohed and w•eil-documented b~• local exnerrs. Tne Fiatirons prooem~ habitat is favored by the endaneercc? Prebbles ]umoing Mouse. The weste~ toad amone mam other species has alread}• b~n adversel}• afr'e~ o} CU~s Flanrons property flood convol measures. l~ estrm toad habitat has alread~• b~n de^.imated b~• consauction of French drains desiend to dtv out the Flanrons Propem. CU completed the Freach drains prior to the currrnt request to develop and as far as I Irnow, the County never approved of these efforu. Bridgewalk apamnent wetlands were also adversely aaected by Cli's Flatirons property desic:ation measures as they drained ripanan weclands in this ars~ much to the desiment of the exisnng wettands. Tnis is a pnme examole of wnat CU~s unchecked development will entail. Finally, the deadly and costlq 1997, Fort Collias Spring Creek Flood should never be far from the memory of any eauty thaz desires to develop in a floodplain. The Spring Cr~k Flood s[ruck with little . waming, flooded Colorado Stau University Campus. and claimed human life in the Cin• of Fort Collins. 7be waurshed that f~ds tho South Boulder Creek wattrshed is lazeer tban the Sprine Creek watershed. I svongly ur¢e your deparcc~ent to deny Cti's unwise request to develop the Flarirons propem. There is much naaira] risk involved if deve]opment is penained. Tnere is aiso much to eain in preserving the Flaiirons propem as a nasural wetiaads e: osystrm for ours and iurure generations. Sincereiy, ~ 7 ~ ,~ .~..a ,~' ;.~~ Douglas Ya2cr ~ ~ ~0 - 79 Apri13,2002 Re: Docke: SI-02-02: liniversity oi Colorado - Boulder SI-10~1 ' AP~ 0 ~~~._ . ~~ ~oCU~_ '¢R ,- - To tWhom It May Conce~: -~~= -~_ As a resident of the South Creek commuury wno freauenu the prope:t}~ almost dail}•, I am completely asair.st any deveIopment of the open space. By adding tennis courts, a paved road and the assoc;ated ~affic, this peace:ui a~ea will be niined. The countless 6irds, froes, ducks, geese, raccoons, deer, hawks and many other animals will have their lives completely distiubed. Community residents will no longer be able to hike throueh the area and experience the same serene environment. ~%ith cars di:ring the day and lishts at nieht, the natural rnvirontnent wilI be forever gone. Because of this, I completely disa~et with your statement "there should be no ~ deterioration of the exis:ing natural aestherics..." How can the azaa not deteriorate when there will be bulldozers and pavement and liehts? If someone paved your backyazd and put up flood lignts, would your yard not deterionte? I find it nard to believe ihat your letter states "There aze no wetlands or rinarian azeaz within ftien area oi impact." Have you eve: 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 area this rnorning. Plese reconsider this decision to destroy this wonde:ful area of Bouider. Instead, be ~ leade: in wicat is riQht ior the entire BouiQe: community and not the bottom line oi the univers:tv. Reoards~ ~ / ric ec _ g~ KG' . Bulldozed, channelized and filled existing wetlands and historic zapus hudsonius preblei habitat, and • Possibly a¢gravated hydrolomc-head draw-down along the western margin up- slope area by instalIing an extensive drainage canal and a dewatering "French drain" rystem on ihe properry. as- g~ Recommended Fiatiron Floodplain Land Use Several important faccors suppoR a South Boulder Creek Watershed 3tudy as an urban watershed preservation project and as a demonstration area for new planning approaches. These factors inciude: the wealth of background data atready available, the ecosvstem diversiry, moderate size.and relatively easy access to the study area, the e~nence oi sev- eral threatened species habitats, a hi~ flood-hazard potential to liie and property, a major source of drinking water for the cities of Denver, Louisville and Lafayette, the limited floodplain area remaining in the Boulder coaununitv, new federal fr.~nding ro adequaceiy scudy both flood hazards and flood benefits, and the lil:ely transponation and growth probiems associated with development in a floodplain bounded by a hishway, a major intersection, a school and a moderuely dense residential community. Corrections to Stateme~ts Submitted in the CU-Boulder South Tennis Court Relocation Project Executive Summary The project is located within a Natural Hazard Area of statewide importance. This issue has been deiended by le~al review (Green, Andrews and others, 2001) and by extensive previous expen public testimony. The site for the proposed tennis court complex is located within the historical Federal, State, County and Ciry desisnated floodplain. The "berm" has noi been ce~ined 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 5outh Boulder Creek may not withsand a comprehensive flood-hazard review. Additionally, tne FE.YL~ and the i~TFIP recommendations, if impiemented, wiIl (i) increase the aational FIRM flood-return standard, (ii) change "flood-control berm" compiiance standards, and (ui) will increase the accountability of both the City and County to help procect life and propeny aeainst SBC flood hazards and to make be:ter use oi non-s~ructural solutions. Projected development is not in compliance with the Boulder Valley Comprenensive Plan. Traffic will be simincantly impacted. The Table Mesa/ LTS 36i Moorehead intersection is already a seriovs trai~c congestion and confusion point. Incidents of accidents have risen sienincantly in the past three years (ref: Boulder Police Table Mesa Annex). It is not I~own what will be the long-term impact of Cli/Fiatirons deve]opment on sub- scuface aaaif'ers. This concern has not bean properly and scientifically addressed by an independent and fully accredited examination process. The Flatiron property is now es- sentialty a basin with the water tabie at the surface. The pro~ect has had si_mifica:rt imnacts on the natural and er.vi:oiL*nentai and aesthetics of the property. In anticipation of this project CLi has: • Eradicated documented stands of spiranthes diluvialis, ~~~~ The HAP expects to complete its scope of work by the end of May, 2002. Foliowing the recommendations of the HAP, a comprehensive and independent, hydroloeic-, hydraulic-, hazards- and communiry impact- analysis for SBC will be commissioned. A number of management agencies and communities, including the USGS, FEM.4, the Ur- ban Drainaee and Flood Control District, the Colorado Water Conservation Board, the Ciry of Boulder have expressed a stron~ interest in the results of this study. FE;vIA has recemly announced newiy allocated funding to be used for updatine flood studies all across the U5. Moreover, the National Research Council and the Steering Committee for the Navonal Flood Insurance Program Evaluation have convened to consider 2 recom- mendation to increase the national flood standard from a 100-year return period to a 500- year rerurn period. This would require a very laree number of existing floodplains in the US to be re-evaluated... inciuding the South Boulder Creek floodplain. The methodolo- ¢ies developed from the findings of the SBC study will ~eatly facilitate the 2003 re- mapping pro¢ram and Iv`FIP recommendations. FoAowing this descriptio~ the South Boulder Creek Srudy has been proposed as a possible demonstration azea for the national flood-plain delineation study to be updated in 2003. Relevant Study Area Factors The South Boulder Creek VJatershed drains the Front Range of the Colorado Rocky Mountains from the headwaters at Concinental Divide to the floodplain ai the confluence with Boulder Creek ]ocated in the Ciry of Boulder. The South Boulder draw is 37 miles long, passes throuQh three counties and drains approximateiy 30°io (133 sq. mi.) of the entire Boulder B~sin VJatershed. South Boulder Creek serves both as an important ripar- ian co;ridor and as a channel to move water from the Boulder Basin and the Western slope for scoraQe in Gross Reservoir. Gross Reservoir is a major source of drinking water for the cities of Denver, Louisville and Lafayette. The South Bou]der Creek Watershed is characterized as a"critical watershed area" at high risk for catastrophic ha~ards where rapidly expandins urban development continues to increasingly intermingle with floodplains and forested wild lands that have a high flood- and fue- index. This watershed is atso characteciz.ed as a"red-line zone waterstied" (i.e. at high risk for catastrophic wildfire where rapidly expanding urban development has increasingly interminsled with forested wild-lands that have a hieh "vegetative fuels" index). The South Boulder Creek floodplain underiies the southern half of the Ciry of Boulder and is recomized by the Federal Emereency Management Agency (FEM.A) for havin¢ an extremely hieh flood hazard potential. South Boulder Creek successfully supporzs a diverse watersned environment ranging from the Alpine and sub-Alpine ecosys4ems to the Hieh-Dessert riparian and wetland ecosystems. The endan¢ered Ute Lady's Tresses Orchid (spiranthes diluvialis) is estab- Iished along the Sotrth Boulder Creelc Floodplain. Additionaily, the South Boulder Creek Floodpi..in is one of the few ;emaining habitats fo; the threatened Pret le's Meadow Jumping Mouse (7apus hudsonius preblei) and an increasing number or tare birds have located to the South Boulder Creek Floodplain. - 86 - ~3 the recommendations of the HAP, a fu11 and independent- hydroloeic, hydraulic, haz- uds and communiry impact analysis of the South Boulder Creek watershed and flood- plain will be commissioned. 4l1 aa~lications for development in the SBC floodplain should be denied until after a full independent- hvdrolo '~ hvdraulic hazards and communirv impacc analvsis of che S uth Boulder Creek watershed and floodolain. Background and Justification for Denial of the CU 1041 PeRnit Boulder is located at the Base of the Coiorado Front Ranse foothills where there is a hieh potential for flash flood events that allow litt-e time for warnine. More than 15 percent of Boulder is located in the 100-year floodpiain {more than twice the national and state.av- erage of 7 percent). Furthermore, less than 10% of Boulders floodplain lands remain un- developed. Thus, ]ess than 10% of floodplain lands remain to absorb the impacts of de- velopment in riparian corridors or of rainfail-ruaoff and f~oodin¢ hazards. South Bouider is particular3y critical because 3,515 residential structures and 646 commercial structures are located in the 100-year floodplain and because of the study area particulars discussed below. A major storm event would result in substantial propem damage and probable loss of tife. Because the ttcreat to life and propem damage is so ¢reat, the need to iden- tiiy, manage and regulate the local floodplains is c.itical. There have been threr IIood studies prepared for the South Boulder Creek floodplain. These srudies have had limised value, in pari, because of inadeqnate data, modeling and pa{eohydrofoay verincation to address properly the requirements of an urban flood study. To remedy tkus problem, the City oi $oulder and a number of committees, includine the South Boulder Creek Citizen's Advisory Board and the City of Bouider Hydrology Inde- pendent Review Panel, convened a formal Hydroloey .Advisory Panel (FiAP) to outline a detailed scope of work that will be used to develop and complete an updated hydrology for South Boulder Creek. As a result, several scientists with extensive backerounds in various disciplines dealing with flood hydro[ogy studies have volunteered their services to cast ihe advisory pane! and its support staff. The HAP is committed to developine a "state of the art" scope of work and to helping the community produce a South Boulder Creek (SBC) hydrology with a high level of confidence. HAP members have expressed enthusiasm with the project and beiieve that the outcome may yietd national and interna- tional benefits. Critical components of the final SBC study will include elements such as: recompilation and evaIuation of historicai and eauged stream data, hish resoluiion topographic and land surface conditions informarion, staristical storm analysis, synthetic rainfall-runoff analy- sis, and preparation of paleoflood daca for integacion and verincation in the technical analyses. ~y Apri13, 2002 Memo: Boulder Counry Land lise Deparcment Court House Annex 2045 - U~' Street Boulder, Colorado 80302 Attn: Csraham Billingsley and Land Use Depar~ment Scaff From: Alison Burchell 1'?70 Chambers Drive Boulder, CO 80305 Re: County 1041 apolication for development on the Flaiirons Properry [Docket SI- 0^-0^: liniversirv of Colorado - Boulder SI-10411. Mr. Biliinesley and Land Use Depaztment sta$: 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. Furthermore, I request that the Boulder County Land tise Depar~ment seriously consider moving tne CU 1041 permit, public hearinQ (currently scheduled to be held on May 30, 2002 at the Counry Courtnouse] to a rime and location in the South Bouider area which will fairly represent and facilitate good pubiic process. Tnanic vou. General Statement Requesting Denial of the CU 1041 permit Considerable effort has been extended by the Boulder communiry both to avoid inappra priate development on the Flatiron Propertv and to protect downstream and upstream residents from the impacts and the costs of possible hazardous development in the South Boulder Creek floodplain. As has been presented to the City, CWCB, the County, CU, the Reeents, CCHE, the UDFCD, the JBC, Representative Udall, and all local State Rep- resentatives, NO applications shoutd be considered until after a full, independem- hydrolo0c, hydraulic, hazards and communiry impact analysis ofthe South Boulder Creek watershed and floodplain. Furthermore, aithough the Flatiron Property is located mostly on county land, ihe impact of develonment on the properry directly unpacts the city and city residents. For these reasons, the Ciry of Boulder convened a foimal Hydrology Advisory Pane] (HAP) to re- view the SBC issue a.~d tc outiine a detaiied sc~pe of werk essenti~l to de•~elop and com- piete an updated h.ydrology, hydraulics and hazards assessment. The HAP is made up of experts from: F'EMA, LTSGS, CWCB, UDFC, CU, and the local communiry. Following 34 - ~5 Thomas Morris 4534 V~'. Mborhead Circle Boulder, CO 8030~ Apri14, 20G2 Boulder County Commissioaers Via Fa,;simile: (303) 441-4856 Re: Docket SI-0_-Q': LTniversiry of Colorado Request oi :~poroval ' Te:u~is Courts Dear Commissioners: I am opposed to ~anting the application ior the following reasons: i. The University's lons-ran¢e development plans for South Campus, of which this application is but the first installment, a:e inappropriate and ill-defuied. ' - 2. To the extent that ttte L:'niversiry has commined to a long-term framewor:; plan, that plan includes substantial development that: a. Adversely affects or even eradicates wedands; b. Threatens endangered species' habitat; ... Iuteusifics pre-exisdng ~a.~"nc con~esrion on Table Mesa Boulev~rd; d. Develops desi~ated open spac: under the Counn~'s comprehensive plan; aad e. B~• allow:ng development on the hill on the west-central porticn of tho properrv; pe_^.niu riege-line deve'.opmentthat will be high}~ visiole tiiroughout ine south-centra~ poraon of Boulde: ~"alley. 3. Consm:c:ion oi the ne~• iaw school h2s been postponed ind~f!nite:y; :he:: ;s no unmediate or shon-te:m nc~d to relocate the courts. Grantine Lnis applicar.on now will only erode the Counry's ability to influence boti~ later site-spe~ific appliczrions and what wc should expect to oe more intensive development pians in later iterarions oi the long-ter.m ~ arnework plan. 4. The tennis court application doesn't speciiy that art.ficial Iighang wzll never be installed. Nlow such lightin~ would have a severe aestheric impact on the neighborhood, as this undeti~eleped property is adiacent to hundreds of other acres of undeveloped or low density developrd land. 5. Providing paridne for 1'?5 cars far 12 tennis courts se~ms excessive, even in a tournament context. South Campus' distance from the main campus will hinder students' access to the site; bowevc:, relying on single- or low-occupancy vehicles will only exacerbate ~c congesrion, and the appIicarion affers no public or alternative ~znsportarion improvements. Thank you. s: Sincezel}~, Th~mas hioms ~~ : onathon Narnc: 36 B:o~eld St. S~.uto 410 $oston MA C_108 Boulder Couay Lanc Use De~~ Coutt iiouse ?,~ex ' 2Q~: U'h 54~a Boulder CO 8G30: RE: DocKet Si-42-02: Cu Boulce: SI-1041 I look zoru~arc to tha developsnen: of CU-Boulder Soi:tls, aad feel that :t r,ar: creace a cozzaelling i.*-ipression to those ~-~o will d.~ive by on thcir way into the city, On ~a:. aau, I hava to ~::saon whethu a tc~.nis court wi'u a 12-faot high caain link f~c: aad w-inds..~en should be loca:ed on the boarde: o£ our open spaca and Lhe c:ry. [rranced, fno builc^~gs on ~ 1:c sice of ti'~e hi~way comisig down Itoute 36 ar r,.ot~ing special. Bus, ,}ust as CCJ made a beautifil s:at~ne:i: (in my op•;nion) RZt~ fae ~illiams Village Doaus, it snoti:ld consid~ tnis s:te to be an equaLy ;mporsant oppom~iry to build somes}^.?ng notzbi:. Bessces be:ng wor_:a3 about crezrin; an vai.:spressive irsage at the gate:.ay tc Bovlder, I also havc conc~s aeout ti2e la ;k of faciiities fo- the arojec:. It seems optiza'tsac to rnk tnat an a:hletic facility wou13 be abie to effec~ve2y s~vics z large a~.imb~~: of playe.s aad spxa:o*s w*_r:~out aroper bathzoems zud rsin]ang iouataias. I hagc t~at otca options ara exglo: ed beiere Ao*tzble toileLS azc approvt~. Composria~ toiles or sepric fieids :hat r.aurish a sc:..°~ e: ~ees wauld ba prie =ble te che~tical toilets. The qi:esion o°ii~hring is aiso noi covere@ ir, the exxnti~e sumzzary I:ec~ived, Bo:h light poll~znon as wcL• as the aesthe::c aeg-„arance oi te: fi,ahtin~ should be care'mlly coasi@ered b~ia-e ailowing tt:e proiect to pra:eed. Thzaks fo: ti=e oppoc ~unzr; ro cor..~ent T2sis area needs to have some buile:aa tt+a: would bciag liie and ene.a -to it, and tennis cou..^ts would be far less s~~iag t~zan exsencing cazapus ciasses to cisis siu. With easy ~:cess co =oot H:lis Pa:lczvay anC Route 36, T would thiak tCat GTi wauld welwme the opporzuairy to locate so~c of :tieir corsmut~ type classes in [.'~es South Car.~pt~,. Thazi~ Yau, w.,, Q.a.'l.~v?, ~c~on w~~ O~Q ~aoa Os~~~ Sc. . s^_ - ~' % April 3, 2002 ?vSr. David Callahan Land iJse Depar~ment Cour[house Annex PO Box 471 Boulder, CO 80306 Deaz Mr. Callahan: ~ ----- - ~ V'1 `PR 0 5 2C02 - 1,~~ a _~ v~,Jh_~-. V~"~y~.ILY- ~~?` uyN~ I was saddened co receive the notice indicauna the liniversity of Colorado's intent to build a tennis facility in the open space (hereaner the propeny) to the east of the Tantra Lake nei~hborhood. Over the past three years, I have spent much time in this area, walkin;, jo~oing and exercisino dogs. The area is a uemendous resource to the local residenu and freauently used by many citizens of Boulde:, not just those tnac live in the surrounding areas. but aiso by nany people who drive to open soace with their pe:s. As an avid field biolo~ist, I have also observed a surorisins amount of wildliie inhabiting tne prooeny. Bald and ooldon easles, shon-eared and ~reat homed owls, northern har.iers, osprey, red-tailed, swainson, and rouoh-le,ged hawks, western meadowlark, seve.al species oI warblers, common snipe, numerous mis:atory shorebirds (sandpipers, yellow-leg<_, avocecs), and other avian migratory soecies. Ir addition to year-round habi~at ior resident avian species, the property clearly has value as fora~in~ and roosdng haoitat for numerous species of mi~ratory birds. I do not know how muchvconsideration was siven to this aspect oT the nroperty durinQ che proposal to construct the [ennis cour[s, but I would urQe the Board of County Commissione;s to review [he impact the new facility will have on the wildiife inhabitino this property. Thank you :or your time. ,> ~~'-r Christopher Byme 4700 West Moorhead Circle Boulde:, CO 80305 P: 303 ±94-8809 . fi'~' ,Jar~sa Pt~o~ 515 Hartford Dr. Balder, CA 8CL?05 Apri14, 2002 David Callahan, Statf Planner PO Box 471 ' Baulder, CO 80306 Dear Sir. ~ -". " ; ~.~~•.i .~`~. .~~~. \ j ~., ;~L`l -~ "~ ZC01 ' ~ \~,\ APR ~ ~~~r~.. i` ~ J~~D~ C ug'c I am writing to strongly object to the continued destnidion of the IitUe open space remaining in the cRy and county of Boultler. tn the short 22 years time that I have lived here the tJniversity has gone from a beautrful, quiet campus, with good pubiic access, to a dry campus with e~2mely dilficutt partcing, antl very low pubiic access. All growth must stop sometime. It would be wortderful if the University would rea(ize that prior to tlest~ying the ary by paving over every patch of grass and field. You ARE tlestroying habitat every fime you build and lay tlown conerete. Please qo not expand aato, and theretore destroy, what you call Sections 9~ t6, T1 S, R70W. Thank you. • Sincerely, ~~:.ZU'y''" v Jonas A. Pologe - s0 - ~~y 4&11 W. Moofiead Circle Boulder, CO 80305 3 .~pri] 2002 Boulder Counry Land Use Depc. Courthouse Annex 2045 13th Street ' Bouider, CO 8030'_' Re: Docket SI-02-02 Deaz Land Use Dept.: As a neighbor, and long-tem Boulder resident~ this responds to the request by the University of Colorado co commence construcrion on the "CU-Boutder South" propem. I scrongly oppose any developmenc on that site, both from a personal standpoint since it will Iikely influence the vaiue of my properry in negative ways, and from a communiry penpecrive. CIearly this initial request represenu the "foot in the door" for extensive, and inappropriate, development on the propem. Boulde: is already experiencing horrendous trafFic and many o~he: problems reiated to growth both within the city and throushout the surroundino area Inidadng development at this key location between Boulder and Denver invites gridlock, and I suspect will eventuallv require massive hishway and other infrastrucrure improvemenu to• address the problems that will result (e.g., the necessiry 1or "por[able toilets" is a dear sia tnat this davelopmenc is being imposed on an unwilling communicy). Aonroval of this develooment would furche: decrease the livabIlity and quality of life in Boulder, and it snould 'oe reje: ted. The proper[y snould buome open space, and if the liniversity is a good citizan of Boulde:, in addition [o looking after its own interesu, it will instead help ensure that this happens. Livability also benefi~s the students oi CU-not just the citizens of Boulder. Thanks for vour consideration of these comments. Youts sincerely, ~• ~c~ 'I Scott D. Woodruff 9G From: "skelly9" <skelly9@attbi.com> To: <commissioners@co.boultler.co.us> Date: 4/4/02 8:14PM Subject: re Fiatirons Property Dear Commissioners, Please do NOT grent any develooment permits for the Flatirons Properry before a floodplain hazard study is completed. CU has formally submitted a county 1041 application for developmeni of the Flatirons Property (docket SI-02-02). Tne application is for consideration of: tennis courts, parking lots, viewing'stanas, portaole toilets, and associated greding. Meanwhile, the Counry, in conjunction with other agencies, has begun (but not completed) a detailed study of the flood pfain hazard for the Flatiron Property. Please do NOT prant any development permits for the Flatirons Property before the floodplain hazard stuoy is completed. Support the flooColain regulations that were passed earlier this year. Permits snould be evaluated only after. the study is completed. Please enter my comments in the pubiic record. Kelly Sh2nafelt ~ 10 S. 31 st St Boulcer.Co 803C5 ~s- 4i On April 4, I spoke by phone mith Lita Dunham about SI-~2-Q2. She is opposed to the project• She has concerns about the existing berm,and has experienced flooding. ~~frk(~i~!l+~P'r`---~ David Callahan , - - % ~~ I.etter to: David Callahan, Sraff Planner March 23, 2002 RE: Docket SI-02-02 To Whom It May Concem: South of the intersection of US 36 and Foothills Parkway, in Sections 9& 16, T1S. R70W is currendy va~ant Iand. We can understand why the liniversiry of Colorado w•ants to put teanis couru on this location after readin; the Executive Summary regazding the Tennis Court Relocation Project. After all, in keepiaa with modern Coloiadian Lhinkiag, any unused field simply musi be developed for the greater good of alt, right? Wrong. We think the poinu taken in the executive summary aze not poinis, but rather the selective opinions of the few whom would benefit from such an eye sore. The project does not contain water or sewa;e treaunent activiues? Screened portable toilets? Who aze you kiddino? Wishful Lhinking that a clean, sanitary environment will remain stable after the fint season. Participanu would bring their own drinkin; water? Yes, ffiey'II brin~ tfleir own beverages and leave the containers, leadin; to sanitauon issues. T3e summary menuoned no si~cant advene unpacu on air quafiry. How do you define significan[? Isn't any amoaat above the already over polluted metro area si~nificaut? 100 vehicle trips pe: day? 3S0 veiucle trips during exhibitions or iournaments~ If we're talking buses included, that's si~nificant. Havine said ail of the above, we would rache: see the area develoved with tennis courts than a view-obstructin~ buildina. R%e realize that CU is trying to make the most of existing, developed land and implement effective aad efficien[ urban inf~ill practices. However, we are concerned about where and when CU's plans for expansion will end. What's next? And please, don't insult us with comments like tne project will have no siaaificant impacu on the atea and it's wildlife. Of course it wiIl. The executive summary made no mention of confeirin; witb Cii's own depaztments of natural resources and urban ptanning, oaly w~at the board wanu to do. Granted, the new Law School, slated for construction ia 2002 will bring a signiiicant amount of revenue to CU, but proa essive thinkin~ sbould not be limited to moneymaking aspects only. Consider' all of your opdons and think about the lon;-tenn environmental and aesthecic impacu on . Boulder. For ezamule, why not turn half of the old Crossroads Mall into an indoor tennis complex complete with already existin; water, sanitaaon, and transporcation resources in place? Sincerefy, ~, ~//!1/c.~~n.,,,..~- 4~,.`µ-'ct Evan and Connie Schulu ~ Boulder -76- ~S Apiil 4• ?00°_ Boulder County Commissioners P.O. Boz 79l Boulder, CO '8D306 Dear C~+++~~~sioners: i3cp~ LC' ~ ;''F~p ~''oiP ~'~r'r~o yCG 'y,~ ay 0 ~'e`~q s2oo~ sp~cf ~C ~- ~ , ~r'~ t . ~, ;~ ~' ~^~~ I ' . ,:/ ~, :,~. j `.~ ~~ RE: Docket SI-02-02: IIaiversity of Colorado - BouLder SI-1041 We urge you to oppose aap developmeut pexmits to tiae IIaiversity af Colorado for their Flatirons Property until a detailed study of - the flood plain hazards af this property 6as been completed. Ae ~mderstand the Cotmty has begun such a study of the £Ioodplain hazards of thi.s property to its accupants and to downstream parts of Boulder aad Boulder County. Cc~on sease seems to dictate that no develepmeat pezmits shoss].d be granted to the IIniversity vithout the above noted study being completed. Sin ere2y, ~ n~~ '~ ~, ~ L~r ~ Seve=ly and Toaq Saker ~ 736 Mazvell Aveaue Boulder, CO 80304 ~~a.la~> ~y. From: "Anne Gifford" <giffordgreohics@hotmaii.com> To: <commissioners@co.boulder.co.us> Date: Sf17/0210'41PM Subject: SI-02-02 CU South SI-1041 Dear Boulder County Commissioners: As residents of the far southem 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 iYs South Campus. The additional noise and traffic congestion that ihis would create is ~ not a good tradeoff for the beautiful open fieids that now greet peoole coming into Boulder via Route 36 !!!! This land makes a first impression Upon trevelers and tourists coming into our town. IeYs not make it look like just another congested city. We are losing too many of our vistas to rampant development, especialiy along Rt36. The fact that so much of our open space has been preserved is why we all live in 8ouider. We 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. Anne Gifford Bruce Iden Jon Kerr Lex i elischak MSN Photos is the easiest way to snare and print your pnotos: h tt p:!/ p h o to s. m s n. c o m i s u p p o rtiwo r l dw i d e. as p x 74 - ~~ From: "Sheri Jakobsson" <caliban@ecentral.com> To: <djciu@co.boulder.co.us> Date: 5/19/02 2:36PM Subject: CU proposed tennis courts and parking Dear David Callahan, ~ I am a property owner near the proposed buifding site and would (ike to go on record with my objections to this project at CU South Campus: 1. Despite whatever re25surances you make, I am quite sure 2hat it will increase the aiready enormous amount of traffic on Tantre Dr. People who know iYs a shortcut or can find parking, or whatever wiil go racing by my place. Installing a new road is of course mandatory and wiN heip, but Tant2 Dr, witi always be used by some. 2. I walk in that open space every moming and early evening with my dog for 112 hour to I hour. It is a wonderful, quiet, sane respite hom the peopie and cars and traffic in Boulder. And it is beautiful and peaceful 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 and trees and grasses. There will be a large blot on the landscape shoutd this devefopment be allowed to happen. 3. And 12stly, it is my understanding that when CU bought the land there was to be no development for a long, lo~g time. Is CU reneging? When will people stop paving America. When wip open space be respected as something quite rere, and getting rarer. I trust you are recording my vote as opposed to your project. Sincerely, Sherie Jakobsson, 4771 Tantra Dr., Boulder yl~ From: Barb Karr <barbk3l @attbi.com> To: <commissioners@co.boulder.co.us> Date: 5I16/02 2:28PM Subject: SI-02-02 CU South SI-1041 Hello, 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 additional noise and Vaffic will be a detriment to why we all 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 tumpike east at the same time. We will also have plenty of lost cars in all of the surrounding neighborhoods with folks thinking there must be another way into the courts. The flood plain controversy is a very real concem as well. We had a very wet spring several years ago, April 15t thru June1 st and - I counted no less than 7 ponds out there. Thank You, Barb Karr Rick Rodriguez Nicole Rodriguez Marissa Rodriguez 4670 Macky Wy Boulder 603~5 ~~ - 97 From: iris Sherman To: Callanan, David Date: 5/7/02 10:03AM Subject: Re: SI-02-02 University of Colorado Tennis courts on CU South I never received the referral information on this one. Yes for graing of 6 acres the comment is: Any consvuction or disturbance of land that is one (1) acre or greater shail submit a fugitive particulate emission zbatement and control plan to the Boulder County Health Department. Environmental Health Program for review pnor to commencing construction activities. Section III. D„ 2, b., (ii) of Reoulation No. 1, Emission Conirol Regulation For Particulate, Smokes, Carbon Monoxide and Sulfur Oxides For the State of Coloredo, as promulgated by the Colorado Air Quality Conttol Commission states: "Any owner or operetor engaged in clearing or leveling of land or owner or operator of land that has heen cleared oF greater than five (5)acres in attainment areas or one (1) acre in nonattairtment areas from which fugitive particulate emissions will be emitted shall be required to use all available and practical methods which are technologically feasible and economically reasonable in qrder to minimize such emissions in accordance with the requirements of Section III. D. of this regulation " section (iii) states: ".......... Abatement and control pians submitted for construction activities shall be evaluated for comaliance with the reauirements of Section IIl. D. of this regufation." As ~ar 2s cor~•ootties, we pref_=r that any permanen2 sport faciliN has permanment sewer facilities. These coulc be suoplememed by porta-potties tor busy events. If there are no buildings, I'm not sure if we can reauire permanent toilets. They should also hook up to city sewer if available. Iris Iris Sherman Environmental Heafth Soecialist Ph: 3G3•44 i-1157 F ax: 303 :41-146 B e-mail: isohe@co.oouldecco.us »> David CaNzhan 05/06/02 1':25AM »> You may recall. this is the application for 12 tennis cours to the south of Table Mesa and the tumpike, on wnat was the mining site. The coutts and parking will take aoout 6 acres of land, ano they want to use porable restrooms, like they do now at the tennis courts on the main campus. Did you have any concerns? Do they need to me=t air poilution permits for grading on the 6 acres? 9s' TO: City Council and Planning Department Staff FROM: Ruth Blackmore, 705 S 4151 Street DAT'E: July 9, 2002 RE: Review Process for the County Referral of the 1041 State Interest Review of CU-Bouider 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 aze the traffic standards for development in areas around interchanges involving state arterial highways what are the cumularive traffic impacts from develogment not only &om 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 tcack which is slated for development soon? What about tr~c impacts from the entire new campus with its buildings? - what aze the cumulative traffic 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 concems "the intensity of current and foreseeable developmental pressures" and 8-304 A-4 "the advantage of development of such azea in a coordinated manner." 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 studiesae}ate~performed for CU relating to all the required criteria? When citizens asked the county staff for the transportation report, they never saw a copy of it. They just accepted the answers the~ were given. 99 - what information and statistics are the studies based on? - do we need to get some independent studies done? - how do loud speakers fit within a 50 dcb rauge? - at what point in this piece meal development gazne by CU is this development considered new urban development? - the flood plain maps are in question. That is why we are doing a new floodplain study. We need to get this information coaect once and for sll. Floodplain Study - - this study represents a serious health and safety issue for this community - we need to cQm„p~ete 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 azea 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 of the tennis courts. - every house upstream and downstream needs to be notified - the general pubiic 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. /GG' 1\ ` r .~ ~ ~ .aw, TO: City of Boulder Planning Department 0 a,- 15~-', FROM: Ruth Biackmore DATE: July 5, 2002 RE: 1041 State Interest Review for the CU Tennis Court Development Proposal On behatf of numerous citizens in this community who just learned late afternoon on July 3, 2QQ2 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 Councii 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 pmposed development site. Tlris 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 long July 4 weekend is not very citizen friendly. There aze numerous issues to be considered such as: - traf~ic 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 2008 would seem to be urban development - 1041 regulations and CU claiming they meet all.criteria. Has anyone reviewed all the studies, such as traffic, environment, noise, etc., which were prepared for CU for this application? When citizens asked for the traffic study from the County staff, the staff admitted that they actually never saw the study. The citizens hope to expand on these issues mentioned above. We will hand deliver our comments on Monday and/or Tuesday, July 9, 2002. icr South Creek Seven Homeowners Association P.O. Box 3421 Boulder, CO 80307 http://bcn.boulder.co.uslcommunity/sc7hoa! July 4, 2002 Nan Johnson City of Boulder Associate Planner By FAX: 303-441-3241 Re: Boulder County 1041 state interest review of CU-Boulder South Tennis Court Replacement Project Aear Ms. 7ohnson: The South Creek Seven Homeowners Association submitted the enclosed letter to the Boulder Counry Commissioners with regazd to ihe University's tennis court application. We reiterate those comments for the ciry staff's consideration. Briefly, the county should deny the application because the proposal does not comply with "all of the applicable criteria" as requited by the Boulder County AB 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, Boulder County Staff Planner, dated April 11, 2002 (page 59 of the counry staff's recommendation regazding this application). Using open space for tennis courts would violate the BVCP. See rhe attached letter dated July 30, 1996, from the Board 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 allow. " Compliance with the BVCP is an applicable criteria under the HB 1041 regulations. See §§ 8-2Q2 (B) (5)> (14), and (18), and § 15-117. Further, the U.S. 36 Corridor Comprehensive Development Plan, § 4.1, prohibits the counry from approving the applicarion "unless such pertnit has been approved by the city". The city should prevent the University from blatantiy disregazding city and county open space designations by denying this permit. SOUTH CREEK SEVEN HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION ~~~~~ By: Thomas Morris, Secretary C:VvtyEiles15C711etters\tennis caun ciry.wpd . ~ /L- ~a South Creek Seven Homeowners Association P.O. Box 3421 Boulder, CO 80307 http://bcn.boulder.co.us/community/sc7hoa/ 7une 10, 2002 Boulder County Commissioners County Courthouse, 3rd Floor 1425 Pearl St. , Boulder Re: Docket SI-02-02, Univeisity of Colorado - Boulder SI-1041 (Tennis Courts) Deaz County Commissioners: South Creek Seven is a 65-home planned unit subdivision located direcfly to the west of the University's Flatirons property. T'he members of the Association recenfly met and unanimously adopted a position statement opposing cnry development of the Flatirons properry, based upon the following 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 that this land would remain open space in fact; ~ Development is inappropriate because there is considerable uncertainty regarding the proper exCent of the flood plain in the Flatirons property area, in part due to uncertainry 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 error. Consequenfly, approving development would be unconscionable when no one lmows the extent to which development would affect flooding of communities both up- and downstream of the Fiatirons propercy; and • Development of the Flatirons property, if it is to occur at all, ought to occur pursuant to an annexation agreement with the City of Boulder as contemplated by the Boulder Valley C~mprehensive Plan. Any development of the Fla[irons 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 likely to bring more students to the neighborhood, degrading the quality of our neighborhood and putting additional downward pressure on our home values. With regard to the University's tennis court application, the Commissioners should deny the application for the following reasons. Section 8-511 (A) (1) of ffie Boulder County HB 1041 Regulations, Standards for Approval of a Permit Application, General Approval Requirements, states thac a permit application for development invoiving an activity or in an area of state interest: /G~i 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 Boazd determines that reasonable conditions can be imposed on the permit which will enable the pemiit 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 standards for development in azeas around interchanges involving state arterial highways, which require that the "volume of ~~c to be generated by the proposed development shall be compatible with the traffic-handling chazacterisrics of the interchange and the access road and existing, affected traffic roads" and that the proposed development shall "preserve desirable existing community patterns." Approving urban-type development in violarion of open space designations and commitments to allow such development only pursuant to an annexation hazdly "preserves desirable existing couununity patterns." The Table Mesa / U.S. 36 / Foothills Parkway area is already overly congested; approving this application will only intensify tt~e congestion. Further, the Universiry's long term plans as specified in its Land Use Assessment shows a through road connecting Table Mesa to Highway 93 with a branch connecting to Tantra Drive. This road, especially the connection to Tantra Drive, wouid dramatically change the Tantra neighborhood with increased traffic and the associated road noise. Under no circumstances should the University be allowed to finish this existing dirt road or remove the fences currently ciosing the road to traffic. 2. § 8-202 (B) (18): This provides that the spe~ific purposes and intent of the regulation aze to "Ensure that development involving all areas and activities designated hereunder is consistent with these regulations, the BCCP, and any duly adopted IGAs or comprehensive development plans between the County and another governmentai entiry." 3. § 8-511 (B) (14), which requires that the proposal be "in accordance with the Boulder County Comprehensive Pian and any applicable intergovernmental agreement affecting land use and development. . . . ". 4. § 8-511 (B) (5), which mandates that the proposa] 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 ..."(emphasis added). Under § 18-117, the "Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan and any sunilaz subarea plans aze considered part of the Boulder Counry Comprehensive Plan", and the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan is such an "applicable intergovemmental agreement affecting land use and /G ~ development". The BVCP 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, &oulder Counry Staff Planner, dated Aprii 11, 2002 (page 59 of staff's recommendation regarding this applicarion). There is no condition that the Commissioners can impose upon on the pernut tt~at will enable the permit to comply with the criteria-tennis courts are sunply ineompatib3e 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 Boazd of Commissioners to the Boazd of Regents, in which the Commissioners question the Regents' commitment to the BVCP, stating that the LTniversity was evidenfly contemplating "a level of development .., wlrich would be faz more intense than the plan would. allow." Nothing has changed in the interven'vag yeazs since this letter was written except that the Univeisity has confirtnad that it plans to intensively develop the Flatirons property. The tennis courts aze only the University's initial development proposal, and the residents of South Creek Seven are very concerned about CU's long term goals for intensive development of the Flatirons property. CU's draft plan for the "South Campus" submitted as part of a Land Use Assessment shows 159.73 acres of the 302.02 acre propeziy as "Building Potential. " This pian shows that CU plans for significanfly more development than just some tennis courts and maybe a couple of soccer fields or running tracks. The University should not be allowed to avoid the cumulative impacts of its proposed development by seeking piecemeal development authorization. Further, BVCP Policy 1.20, Definition of Comprehensive Planning Areas I, II, And III, states that new urban development in Area II(the planning area that includes the Flatirons proper[y) may "only occur coincident with the availability of adequate facilities and services and not otherwise. ""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 [he county determines that the proposed development is inconsistent with the land use projections, maps or policies of the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan in e$ect at that time. " Section 18-126 (A) specifies that: It is expected that land within municipal Community Service Areas [including Area II] wi11 be developed in an urban pattem, urban services will be provided by the municipalities, and the azea will eventually be annexed. Adequate water and sewer facilities, which are presumed to be supplied only by the City of Bouldez under Policy 3.01, are not available for the proposed athletic facilities. How can the Universiry or rhe Commissioners expect spectators, much less tennis players, to utilize the tennis courts without a water supply? Finally, § 4.1 of the U.3. 36 Conidor Comprehensive Development Plan, which is an "applicable intergovernmentai agreement affecting land use and development" pursuant to § 8-511 ;`~.ti (B) (14) and is incorporated by reference into the BCCP pursvant to § 18-117, defines the City of Boulder's "influence azea" to include the Flatiron properry. Secrion 4.2 states: Until and unless annexed, Boulder County shall enforce its "Areas and Activities of State Interest" regulations upon any pazcels identified as within the Influence Area of any city or town Parry, and shall not grant a permit for development pursuant to such regulations unless such permit has been approved by the city or town whose Tnfluence Area the map indicates for such pazcel(s). (Emphasis added.) The Commissioners properly postponed ac6on on the University's application pending the City's review, and should commit to abide by the City's veto power granted in § 4.2. SOUTH CREEK SEVEN HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION ! ~ By: Kaza McGarigal, ident ~~~~~~~ By: Michael McMillen, Treasurer / Y~ '' • : Shane Brown, Vice President ~t-e~.~%~~llN~-~. By: Thomas Morris, Secretazy cc: Boulder Ciry Council C:\MyFilu1SC7\leners\tennis court.wpd /G~ ~~ Pwt QMce Box 471 • BoWder. Colorcno BC~pb Board of County Commissioners ism & aean srreea . eouioer coun~ courmouse . doulder. Coloratlo 80302 . caoa~ aei-3sm July 30, 1996 Board of Regents University of Colorado Campus Box 3 Boulder, CO 80309 Dear Members of the Board of Regents: we are writing concerning your possible acquisition of the "Flatirons Property" ia unincorporated Boulder County adjacent to the City of Boulder. We request that you reserve a 30-day period after due diligence actions have been completed in order to discuss issues of concera to Boulder Couaty citizen~ regarding.acquisition of this property. On behalf of our citizens, our conceras relate primarily to 1) the apparenL inflatad purchase price, base~ on values of comperable land in t:ne County; 2? the lese than opea procesa by which the purcnase agreement has evolved; and 3) concerns about the University's commitment to the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan's land use regluationa and guideliaes, inasmuch as the propbsed nurchase price auggests that a level of developmeat is beiag contemplated for the property which would be far mo:e inteaee than the plan would allow. We strongly believe that a broader dialogue ie needed between the University, Boulder County and the City of Boulder as to the future uses of this property. Surely this dialogue would be in the best iaterests of the IIniversity, Boulder County and the City of Boulder, as well as other citizens of the State of Colorado. This is too important an action of goverament to be done without such a dialogue. Therefore, we urge you to set aside a 30-day waiting period before you contemplate finalizi.ng the acquisition. Sincerely, ('.~ . G~ ~ C~~ Ron Stewart, Chair 'v,~-- ~ ~ Mendez, Vice ir Paul Danish BOULDER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS /G'~ Jona L Mantlex . RonOltl K. Stswt r~......w. r........1..i....~. i-... ~.. ~ „~.Y.._ Nan Johnson - 1041 Rview From: ")oseph V. DeSousa" <jdesousa@ecentral.com> To: <BSCComment@ci.boulder.co.us> Date: 7/5/2002 8:07 PM Subject: 1041 Rview I am making the same comment to the City that I made to the County: I think using this land for athletic Felds is a good use because there would be no problem if the fields have to be flooded in a 100 year flood. My concern is that thfs proposal calls for 100 trips per day.'fhen they will add more fields and the trips will grow, particularly ff they move the football practice fields 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 Foothills Parkway try to merge with westbound haffic on South Boulder Road. We do not need more tra~c in this intersection! I think 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. Joe DeSousa 5285IIlini Way Boulder / G ~' file://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\johnnl \Local%20; Nan 7ohnson - Comments on the Development of CU South Prom: "Nancy Thalman" <nthalman@hotrnail.com> To: <BSCComment@ci.boulder.co.us> Date: 7/3/2002 12:46 PM Subject: Comments on the Development of CU South CC: <emjhogan@hotmail.com> Nancy E. Thalman Ellen M. Hogan 1070 Tantra Park Circle Boulder, CO 80305 July 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 properly, which is adjacent to the South Boulder Creek open space should remain open space. This land is part of the cftys 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 tra~c 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 will be used. This area aiso provides a natural drainage for Boulder's mountains and for South Boulder creek. During spring, this area turns into a wetland as it collects 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 countiess more creatures. In the spring of 2001, during the height of breeding and nesting for many animals and birds, CU replaced natural 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 ia9 file://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\johnnl \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 properly. The City of Boulder needs to do the right thing in this case. The right thing is to not allow CU to develop this land 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 eoulderites alike to this beautiful, dramatic landscape. Do the right thing!! Nancy E. Thalman Elien M. Hogan Send and receive Hotmail on your mobiie device: http~obil_e,msn.com //C file://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\j ohnn 1 \Local%2( ................ .... ........o w...... y...y....... ..yl..i....... Nan Johnson - Tcble Mesn CU Tennis courts proposnl- I oppose!!! From: Julie Thompson <JThompsonC~IonicsInstruments.com> To: "'BSCComment@ci.boulder.co.us"' <BSCComment@ci.boulder.co.us> Date: 7/2/2002 10:30 AM Subject: Toble Mesa CU Tennis courts proposal- I oppose!i! Dear Ms. Johnson, I received the City of Boulder 6/21/02 letter concerning the proposed CU Boulder Tennis court project on Table Mesa. I live at 628 Tantrn Dr., in the South Creek Condominiums, I am opposed to the development of the CU property near my home. I have heard rumors of a potential land trode between the City of Boulder and CU...(the Table Mesn property for Crossroads Mall). I know the City does not own Crossroads yet, but I assume there has been discussion on the purchase of that property? If u potentinl trade is in the works....why let development stort now? I believe that the building of the tennis courts on the Table Mesa property, is just a foot in the door for CU to develop the rest. I want that open space to remain open spnce. I don't want to see Tantra Dr. and my home to become to bock 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 meetings that the local residents can attend in opposition to this project, please let us know where and when. Is there anything eise, that you are aware of, that I can do a# this time to help stop 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 /%/ file://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\j ohnn 1 \Local%20,Se Nan Johnson - tennis on south cu campus From: "Sl~eri Jakobsson" <calibaz~r~ecentral.com> To: <BSCComment!a.;ci.bouldecco.us> Datc: 6/30(3002 =4:57 Pn-1 Subject: tennis on south cu campus ~s~Y ~ 7~.If. I would like to reiterate m~~ objeciions to the construction of termis courts and a pazkinu lot on 1he beautiful open space adjacent my condo. They are on iile. This beautiful space would be destroyed aesthetic~lly by the blight of tennis courts (a~id ] am a serious tennis player) and the pvking lot. How can anyone even conceive of doin~ such a thing in that lovely space filled with trees, flowers, grasses, ponds, birds and all kinds of wildlife. l'ou cannot oo anywhere in Bouider where you do not see cars and pazking lots. Must ~~ou take flus open space also and fill it a~ith pavement and cars?'?'??'? It is further a sure tact. denied by many, that the ti•atiic will increase on Tantra Dr. • As one of CL?'s most respected ~eologists noted in an aiticle in the Camera a few months ago, he has serious reservations about it reing a flood plain. HE IS AN EXPERT, WITH NO VESTED INTEREST. Please heed liis ~~•arnings. Thank You. Sherie Jakobsson. 4771 Tantra Dr. - . .-~#~-~ . - ~~a file://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\j ohnn 1 \Local°/a20 ~~ PoslOffice Box 471 • Boulder, Coloratlo 6G30o land Use Department Courtnouse Annex 2045 131h Sirest . 13ih & Spruce Sireets • BoWtler, Coloratlo 80302 •(303) 441-3430 ATTACHMENT E Board of County Commissioners May 30, 2002: 3:00 PM Hearing Room, Third Floor, County Court6ouse, Boulder PUBLIC HEARIh~G STAFF PLANNER: David Callahan STAFF RECOMMENDATION RE: Docket SI-0Z-02: UNIVERSITY_OF COLORADO - BOULDER SI-1041 Request: Activities of State Interest Review for the consideration of a tennis court complex consisting of twelve fenced courts, a temporary pazidng lot, viewing stands and associated grading. Location: South of the intersecrion of US 36 and Foothills Parkway, in Sections 9& 16, T1S, R70W Zoning: Economic Development (ED) Agricultural (A) Applicant: University of Colorado / Board of Regents Agents: Jeffrey Lipton, Executive Director / Depanment of Facilities Management Nancy Love DISCUSSION This review considers whether development within one mile of the intersection of a state arterial hiehway is compatible with the standards set forth in Article 8 ofthe Boulder CountyLand Use Code. The proposed development is located outside of any historical, archaeological or natural resource azea, and is outside of any flood hazard area, or geologic hazard area. Consequently, the application can only be reviewed in accordance with the general approval standards, and the additional standaids for development in areas azound interchanges invo]ving state arterial highways (sections 8-511 B., apd J. of [he Land Use Code). The application proposes nvelve fenced tennis couns, a temporary gravel parking lot for up to 125 cars, viewing stands, and associated grading and landscaping. The new courts will replace the existing Kimedge courts, which are currently located on the main campus, and which will be displaced this yeaz by the new law school. T'he proposed courts will be used daily for tennis competitions, and for intercollegiate athletics, intramura]s, and summer tennis camps. A!though the tennis .;ourts wil] have electrica] service to run icems 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 expec~ed to bring their own drinking water to the site. The courts and pazking area comprise a total of 6 acres of the existing 308-acre property. JanaL.Mendaz CcunN Cemmiss;or.er Ronald ~~,~ Counry Commiss~ Docket SI•02•02: Universiry of Colorado -Boultler SI•1041 Boartl of County Commissioners May 30. 2002 -3:ODpm REFERRAL RESPONSES This proposal was refeaed to usual agencies, depaztrnents, and adjacent property owners (within 1.500 feet). The refenal responses received by staff, as of the date of writing this recommendation, are summarized below: Referral Agencies and Departments indicating No Conflict: Cherryvale Fire Protecrion Dis~ict, Urban Drainage Flood Control District, County Building Safety and Inspection Services Division. Counh• Transportation: No conflict with the proposed courts. Stil] reseazching existing beitn, and its effect on the floodplain boundary. Colorado Geolosical Survey: notes the high swelling characteristics of ihe 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 anvironmentaI impacts. Recommends cIustering the complex with the existing building to preserve trees, and to increase the ]ikelihood of wildlife use of the pond to the south. Recommends prohibiting outdoor lighting. City of Boulder, Planning and Developmeut Services: states that to be consistent with the Boulder Valley Comp. Plan, the property should be annexed and urban services extended before development. Requests continued assurances that continued cooperation and 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 approval to mitigate noise, any future ]ighting, and to protect the Open Space and Mountain Parks property. Notes a separate right tum lane will be required at Table Mesa Drive. Adjacent Properry Owners /Public No conflict = 40 (three of these support the application) Oppose3 = 24 Those opposed listed concerns such as: noise, wildlife affects, the eFfect on the floodplain, destruction of open space. vash, traffic and appearance. Want the development delayed unti] a new floodplain study is conducted. Believe this is the fi:st in a series of more requests for more extensive, inappropriate development. Question portable toilets. Parking is excessive. Affects on subsurface aquifers are uncertain. The area will ]ose i[s serene environment. The projact is insufficiently comprehensive. The intersection at the north of this property should be re-designed djc G:1LUD\LUSHARED\Dockets1Si0202`S!-0?-02 hacc btt.aoc J/~ Docket SI-02•02: University of Coloredo -Boultler SI-1041 Board ot County Commissioners May 30. 2002 -3:OOpm to accommodate the addicional uaffic. CRITERIA AtiALYSIS Land Use staff has reviewed the applicable standards for approval of a permit application, as specified in Article 8-~ 11 B. and J. of the Boulder County Land Use Code, and finds the following: Article 8-511 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 making a final decision on the application until necessary property rights, permits and approvals for the proposal are obtained (II/OI/01). • The University of Colorado owns the property upon which the tennis courts will be located. 2. The applicant has the necessary expertise and financial capability to develop and operate the proposal consistent with all requirements and conditions. (11/O1/01) The liniversity of Colorado has budeeted funds for the comp]etion of the proposed project. Adequate water supplies, as determined from the Colorado Department of Health, are available for the proposal if upplicable. Not 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. This area is not designated as significant agricultural land in the county Comprehensive Plan. 5. The proposal shall not significantly dearade or pose a significant hazard to anp aspect of the environment. including environmental resources and open space areas as identi}ied in the Comprehensive Plan, and other features or elements that are deemed to be signilicant components of the natural environment worthy of preservation. For purposes of this section, the following aspects of the environment shall be considered:(11/01/01) a. Air qualit}•: The proposal shall not signiscantly deteriorate air quality. In determining impacts to air quality, these considerations shall apply. i. Changes to seasonal ambient air qu~lity. ii. Changes in visibility and microclimates. djc G:\LUD\LVSHARED\Dockets\SIO?0?\SI-0?-0'_ bocc BR.doc //S Docket SI-02•02: Universiry of Colo2do -Boulder SI-7041 Board of Counry Commissioners May 30, 2002 -3:DOpm iii. Applicable air quality standards. The applicant will be required to meet and demonstrate compliance ~vith applicable air quality requirements, such as fueitive dust emissions. b. Visual qualin~. The proposal shall not significantly degrade,visual aualih~. In determining impacts to visual qualih•, these considerations shall apply. Yisual changes to ground cover and vegetation, waterfalls and streams, or other natural features. ii. Interference wit6 viewsheds and scenic vistas. iii. Changes in appearances of forest caaopies. iv. Changes ta landscape character types or unique land formations. v. Compatibility of building and structure design and materials with surrounding land 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 2% of the total acreage. c. Surface water quality. The proposal shall not signii'icantly 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 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 soarce poJlution loads. iv. Increasein erosion. v. Increases in sediment loadine to waterbodies. vi. Changes in stream channel or shoreline stability. vii. Changes in stormwater runoff 11ows. viii. Changes in trophic status or in eutrophication rates in lakes and reservoirs. is. Changes in the capacity or functioning of streams, lakes or reservoirs. djc G:~LUD\LUSHARED\Dakeu~S10?0?\SI-02-02 bocc BR.doc ~~~ DocketSl•02-02: UniversiryofColorado-BoulderSl-t0a1 Board ot Counry Commissioners May 30. 2002 -3:OOpm x. Changes in flushing ilows. xi. Changes in dilution rates of mine waste, agricultural runoff and other unregulated sources of pollutants. This application will have no direct impacts on surface water auality. The additional water runoff created by the tennis courts should be easily absorbed by the remainin~ undeveloped acreage. d. Grouadwater quality. The proposal shall not sisnificantly degrade groundwater quality. In determining impacts to groundwater quality, these considerations sha11 appiy. Changes in aquifer recharge rates, groundwater levels and aquifer capacity including seepage losses through aqulfer boundaries and at aquifer-stream interfaces. ii. Changes in capaclty and function of wells within the impact area. iu. Changes in quality of well water within the impact area. There is no evidence that this project will create any degradation to groundwater. e. w etlands 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. Changes in the structure and function of wetlands. ii. Chanees 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. This project is outside of any jurisdictional wetland areas, and will not have any significant impacts on any riparian area. f. Terrestrial 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 shaU apply. Changes that result in loss of oxygen for aquatic life. djc G:\LUD\LLISHARED~Dockets\51020?151-02-02 bocc BR.doc ~~ r Docket SI-02-02: University of ColoraCO -Boulder SI-1041 Board of Counry Commissioners May 30. 2002 -3:OOpm ii. Changes in ilushing flows. iii. , C6anges in species composition or deesity. iv. Chanses in number of t6reatened or endangered species. v. Changes to habitat and critical habitat, including calving ;rounds, matine grounds, nesting grounds, summer or winter range, migration routes, or any other habitat features necessary for the protection and propagation of any terrestrial animals. vi. Cbanges to habitat and critical habitat, including stream bed and baaks, spawning grounds, riffle and side pool areas, flushing 11ows, nutrient accumuladon and cycling, water temperarure, depth and circulation, stratification and auy other conditions necessary for the protection and propagation of aquatic species. vii. C6an;es to the aquatic and terrestrial food webs. Staff finds no evidence that the proposal will sienificantly deerade the qualiry of terrestrial or aauatic anima] tife. g. Terrestrial and aquatic plant lii'e. The proposal shall not significantly deerade the quality of terrestria! and aqaatic plant life. In determining impacts to terrestrial and aquatic animal life, these considerations shall apply. Chan;es to habitat of threatened or endangered plant species. ii. Changes to the structure and tunction of vegetation, includine species composition, diversit}•, biomass, and productivity. iii. Chan;es in advancement or succession of desirable and less desirabie species, including noxious weeds. iv. Changes in threatened or endangered species. Staff finds no evidence tha~ the proposai witl significantly degrade tiie qcality of teaestna] or aqua[ic plant ]ife. h. Soils and geologic conditions. The proposal shall not signilicantty deerade soils and geolovic conditions. In determining impacts on soils and geologic conditions, these considerations shall apply. djc G:ILUD~WSHARED\Dockets~510202'.SI-0?A? bocc BR.da ~~ ~ Docket 51-02•02: Universiry of Coloredo -Boulder SI•1047 Board of County Commissioners May 30, 2002 -3:OOpm Changes to the topograph}•, natural drainaee patterns, soil morphology and producti~•ity, soil erosion potential, and ilood •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 snd debris f$ns, and other unstable and potentiaily 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 Pazks and Open Space staff recommends review and approval of final grading, erosion control, and reclamation plans to reduce erosion impacts. 6. The proposal will not have a significant adverse effect on the quality or quantity of recreational opportunities and experience. This propem is not purposefully providing recreational opportuniries or experiences. Given that the proposed development uses less 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 cause unreasonable loss of significant cultural resources, including but not necessarily limited to 6istorical structures or sites and archaeological artifacts or sites, as identiFied in the Comprehensive Plan or identifiable on or near the site. No Imown archeoloeical, cultural, or historic sites are known to exist at this site. S. 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 bliehting impact on the surrounding azea, and there are no nuisance factors associated with coutts that ~vill be separated by a very large berm, and by a distance of 685 feet from the nearest residential uses. The proposal will not be subject to signiS'icant risk from floods. Sres, earthquakes or oiher disasters or natural hazards. The location of the floodplain in this area is a matter of dispute and currently under svdy. Howe~~er, the cuaent best estimates of the flood boundaries for this area show ti.at the cou• ~ are outside of any flood hazard areas. There are no other applicable natural hazards. 10. The proposal or its associated transmission collector or distribution system will ajc G:\LUDILUSHARED\Dockecc\SIO?02\SIA2-0? bocc BR.doc // ~ Docket SI-02-02: Univarsity of Coloredo -Boultler SI-1041 Board of Counly Commissianers May 30. 2002 -3:OOAm not create an undue financia! burden on exisiiRg or future residents of the County. There aze no lmown financial burdens associated with this project. 11. The proposal will not have a significant adverse effecf on the.capability oflocal government to provide services or exceed the capacity of service delivery systems.(11/01/01) No service or capacity issues have been raised by this review. 12. The planning, desiga and operation of t6e proposal will reflect appropriate principles of resource conservation, energy efficiency and recycling or reuse.(11/01/01) 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 environmental impacts and costs of alternatives under Section 5-507{F~(7), above, the proposal represents the least damaging alternative of reasonable cost among t6e alternatives analyzed. Not applicable. This standard applies to developmenu typically allowing for a variety of utility improvement routines. 14. The praposal is in accordance with the Boulder County Comprehensive Plan and any applicable intergovernmental agreement afiecting land use and development, including but not timited to any applicable land use designations. Tn 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 appiicable adopted comprehensive pian or intereovernmental planning aereement simply by virtue of the fact that the development is located within. or is proposed to serve, an approved service area.(ll/01/01) ?his project avoids significant impacts to any environmental resources, and it is outside of any significant hazard areas. Consequently, it comnlies with the County Comprehensive Plan. The City of Boulder refetTal 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 developmen:. County staff finds that the proposed development is consistent witn the Boalde: Valley Comprehensive Plan, and further notes that the cunent 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) ajc G:\LUD\LUSHARED\Dockea\SIO?02~51-02-0? bocc BR.doc i~G Docket SI•02-02: University of Cotoredo -Boultler SI-1041 8oartl of Counry Commissioners May 30, 2002 -3:OOpm 1. The proposed development shall not pose a danger to public health or safetv or to property (includins the subject propert}•, other impacted properties, and the environment).(11/Ol/Ol) No public health or safety dangers have been revealed in this re~•iew. While the ciry staff refeaal states that "T'he University will be required to construct a separate right tum lane," the staff does not find that the uaffic associated with this development poses a danger. 2. The volume of traffic to be generated by the proposed development shall be compatible with the traffic-6andling characteristics of the interchange and the access road and existing, affected traffic roads. The traFfic study conducted for this proposal states that the 200~ 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, except that the level of service for speciai 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 background chanees in traffic volumes, and finds that the deterioration can be overcome by "optimizing" the sienal timing, which is a current funccion of the city staf£ Consequently, counry land use staff finds that the traffic associated with this project is compatible with the interchanee and affected roads. 3. The proposed development shall be compatible with existing developments and wiih the character of the neighborhood, and shall not signi~cantly impair an area or resource of'special scenic, histarical, or cultural significance. Staff finds the proposed development is compatible. It is outside of all ]mown historicai and cultural areas, and wi11 not significantly impair any special scenic area. Tennis couns ue typica!'y considered appropnate uses for flood prone areas, and are compatible with residential neighborhoods. These particular courts are more than '/< of a mile from any single family homes, and are significantly buffered and removed from the nearest residentia] dwellings to the west. 4. The proposed development shall preserve desirable e~isting community patterns. This use will preserve the existine desirable community pattems by eenerally maintainine existine land use patterns, by limitin~ traffic impacts to the road systems that can handle the increase, and by limiting noise and visual impacts. 5. A development that proposes burdens or deprivations on the communities of a region shal- not be justified on the basis of locat benefit alone. This de~ alopme;~t poses no sienificant burdens or depnvations on the communities of a reeion. djc G:\LUD\LUSHARED~Dockeu\SIO?02`SI-02•0? bocc BR.aoc ~~~ Docket SI-02-02: Universiry of Colorado -Boulder SI-1041 Board of County Commissioners May 30. 2002 -3:OOpm PLP,NNING COM~IISSION REVIEW The Planning Commission heard this item on May 1~, 2002. The hearing lasted about 3 hours and 24 minutes. Fifteen speakers from the audience addressed the commission. T'he concems 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 toileu aze inappropriate, and that the lack 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 > to 3 to recommend approval of the docket. • SUMMARY / RECOMMEVDATION Staff has reviewed the application and finds that it is consistent with the appiicable standazds of the Land Use Code. It complies with the Boulder County Comprehensive Plan and with the jointly adopted Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan. Therefore, the Land Use staff and the Planning Commission recommend to the Boazd of Counry Commissioners CONDITIONAL APPROVAL of Docket Docket SI-02-02: li1IVERSITY OF COLOR4D0 - BOULDER SI-]041 to construct new tennis courts and associated parking and grading subject to the Following conditions: Prior to the issua~ue of the grading permit, the applicant sha]] 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 comply with the terms and conditions of all required pezmits shall be erounds for a revocation hearing before the Board of County Commissioners. 2, Fina] gradin2, erosion conROl, and re-vesetation and landscaping specifications (including weed mana~ement pro~~sions) and pians shall be reviewed and approved by County staffprior to any construction. The re-vegetation and ]andscapc plans shall consist principally of native plant materials, and shall be subject to monitorine for three years upon completion of the courts to ensure success. The grading plan shall depict the limits of all grading associated with the tennis couns. The grading sha11 be staked on the ground. There shall be no disrurbance associated with this review to the remainder of the site that is outside of the grading limits approved by the grading pian. 3. Any outdoor lieh[ing of the coarts or parking areas is prohibited. The appticant may apply, and the county may agree to amend this condi[ion, provided that an application review is conducted and proper notice is given, a11 in accordance with applicable regulations. 4. The applicants sha~l be subject to the terms, conditions, and commitments of record and in the file for pocket ST-02-02: LTNIVERSITY OF COLORr1D0 - BOULD~R SI-1041. 5. The sound emanating from any loudspeaker system located on the teanis courts shall no~ exceed 55 decibels when measured at any University of Colorado property line adjacent to any residential zoning district. Sound shall be measured on the "A" weighting scale on a sound leve] meter of standard desis,,m and qualit; and chara:[cristic~' established by the American National Standards Institute. a~~ G:\LUD\LUSHAAED\Dockers~S10?0'_\SI-02-02 bocc BR.aoc ia,.~ Dockat S1-02-02: Universiry ot Coloredo -Boulder S1-1041 8oard of Counry 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 applica[ion, and the letter from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service accepting the PMJM survey shall be submitted to the County prior to any cons~uction. Geotechnical investigations, as recommended by the Colorado Geological Survey referral dated Mazch 27, 2002, shall be conducted and submitfed 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 single day. The 350-trip maximum shall not occur more than 4 times in any calendar yeaz. The applicant may apply, and the county may agree to amtnd this condition, provided that an application review is conducted and proper notice is given, all in accordance with applicable regulations. djc G:\LUD\LUSHARED\Dockets~5I0202\SI-02-02 bocc BR.doc f~, ~ CERTIFICATE OF RESOLUTION TO: Boazd of Boulder Couary Commissioncrs FROM: Boulder Couaty Planning Co~ission DATE: May 21, 2002 RE; Docket application SI-02-02. Tlvs certifies Yhat at a public hearing of the Planning Commission, Coemry ofBouldet, State of Colorado, duly called and held on May 15, 2002, the following resolurion was duly adopud. Be it resolved that the Planning Commission, Coimty of Boulder, State of Colorado, recommends to the Boazd of Couaty Commissioaers that the following request be Agproved with Conditions, by a vote of 5 in favor, 3 against, 1 abstaining and 0 absrnt. . Docket SI-02-02: L'!~'R'ERSITY OF COLORADO - BOLZDER SI State Interest /1041 Request: Activities of State Interest for the consideration of a tennis court complez consisting of twelve fenced courts, a tesnporary pazldng lot, viewing stands and associated gtading. Locatioa: South of the intersection ofU3 36 and Foothills Parkway in Section 9, TtS, R70W Zoning: Agricultural (A) Zoning: Economic Development (ED) Subject to the conditions that: I. Prior to the issuance of the gcading peanit, the applicani shall obtain and ptovide verincation of all applicable permits and approvals as required and necessary by state and federal law. The operarion of any aspect of this proposal that does not comply with the teans and conditions of all required pemuts shall be grounds for a revoca6on heazing before the Boazd of Counry Commissioners. 2. Final grading, erosion control, and re-vegetation and landscaping specificarions (including weed management provisions) and plans shall be reviewed and approved by County staff prior to any construction. The re-vegetarion and ]andscape plans shal] consist principally of nadve plant materials, and shall be subject to monitoring for three years upon complerion of the courts to rnsure success. The gading plan shall depict the lunits of all gading associated with the tennis courts. The grading shall be staked on the ground. There shall be no disturbance associated with this review to the remainder of the site that is ouuide of the grading luaits approved by the grading plan. 3. Piny outdoor lighting of the courts or paz~ng areas is prohibited. The applicant may apply, and the county may agree to amend ttsis condirion, provided that an application review is conducted and proper notice is given, all in accordance with applicable regularions. 4. The applicants shall be subject to tha tvrms, conditions, and commitn:ents of rPccrd and iz the fi:e .°or Docke: SI-0'1-02: IR; VFr'.SITY OF COLORADO - BOLTLDER SI-1041. 5. The sotmd cmanating from any loudspeaka system located on the tennis courts shall not exceed 55 decibels whea meas~sed at ahy University of Colotado property line adjacent to any residenrial zoning disuict Sound I~ _ ~ay shall be measured on the "A" wcighting scale on a sound level meter of standazd design and qualiry and characteristics established by the Americaa Nationa] Standards Insritute. 6. The Prehle's Meadow Jumping Mouse (PMJIv~ sutvey by wildlife biologist Ron Beane, the other eavironmental studies cited in the application, and the letter from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service acccpting the PM7M stiavey shall be submitted to the County prior to any construction. . 7. Geotechnical invesrigarions, as recoammended by the Colorado Geological Survey refrnal dated Mazch 27, 2002, shall be conducted and submitted to the County prior to any construction. 8. Tlus use is limited to 140 avetage daily txips, and a maximum of 350 hips on aTry single day. The 350-hip maximum shall not occ~ mare than 4 times in any calrndar yeaz. The applicant may apply, and the coimty may agree to amend this condition, provided that aa application review is conducud and propa notice is given, all in accordance tvith applicable regulations. , This docket has been scheduled for final considcration by the Boazd of Crnmty Coamussioners an May 30, 2002 in the Hearing Room, Third Floor, Coimty Courthouse, Boulder. BOULDER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION ~~~~ by David Calla2~an, AICP, Gtarcnt Planning Manager far Crraham S. Biliingsley, Secretary 13- ~a? S BOULDER COUNTY LAND US°_ DEPAR7MENT 2045 13tn Street 1 7 7!n & Scruce Stresrs r Counnousa n ~~ ~.. ~ PC Box s71/9omcer, C~~ora~c 3C30o / 90J.aa~.3330~Fax3C3.d4~.<~56 . i ~~ nnex APPLICAi ION FORM AP?L!C^ ~lON DeADLINE S~COND WEDNeSDAY OF Tne MONTH -<:30 Oaes not aoG~Y to Ezemo:ion Plats. Site Plan Reviews, L~mneC impact Special Revicws, or SuhCivision Ezempaans 0 90A VARIANCElAPPEAI O cXEMPTION °LP,T 0 L~M(TCC IM?AC73?EC~AL USE O LOCATION d E%TcNT 0 RESV6DIVISION ~REPLA~ 0 REZONIUG 0 ROP.D NAME_ HANGE O SITe PL;1N f2eV!=W Q SPECIAL USJSSD? C SUBDIVISION cXeMPT10N O SKETCH PL4N C EX?=NSION OF 0 PRcLIMINARY PL4N O O7HER: O F(N0.C PLAS O ROAO/'eASEMENTVACATION ~'ioa7•STA7cINTcRESTREVIEW rado ! None ~LOT(SI dLOGK(S~ SECTION(S~ TONMSMIP(4) RANGE~S~ ! N/:~ I N/A I 9 and 16 ' One South d. of Meridia i Ane:.IN qCREa ~ aXlc ~ IN~a ZONIM1u ~X;STING USE C: PROPE0.TV I4UM6ER OF pROPO5E0 LOTS 306 ~ cD and ~ ~ vacant I h/A ~~ROPCScC WA-E0. $tIPPLY PR070SD SEWn^vc OISPOSA~ MFTHOv 1~ None I Portable Toilets + ~ aPo::ANimF..?ER"' DWN_°' STRE'c7A00RE55 - - ~ ~ - - - - - ~ - - ~ - ~~ - -I Ilir._.er;ity of Colo.-ado Board of Regents, A Body Corpor~te Camous Bos 453 'S~0.Tc . Z!? COCE PhONe NuM3ER F;.X VUMBcR 'Bcclder iC6 ~ 80304-0453 ~(363~}492-L~Z~ i(303} ~492-7186 . i ppoUCAN'I?q0°cn^! 0'JvN°_R . I STREEC A~CaESa ( j I ! i5'~TE IZI?CuJE ~ I A3cryT1CON5UlTANT i_ _. Jer_re~• 5. ~~r CO I 80309-0453 1 np°v;;~~NSULTANT ;tiencv Love, Consultant S:GNFTIIRE SiRc3TA0Cn=55 Cam~us Box 4~3 9?-1525 I.(3031492-i186 JSTREETA~DR~Sb - ~ 842 Front SCreet (3031673-9796 • PLi4S"c R=FER T0 TH_ R£GULATIONS ANO APPLICA'ION SUBMG,/ J/. _. • o~_EASc SEE BAC' ~ I certily tnat Ihe m~or^~0twn antl ezni0its I nave suomittea are ~rue ana correct ~o me oes: of my knowiecge. m filing the xcoueauon i am aeUnq wilh th! knowieCpm i antl ConSenl C( f1105E plfsons w116 afe Owners Of tlle Sub~eCt pfOCe(ry or 0ffl 08Nei (Q t~i5 a00~~~~a~. I unCerslantl Inal all mdlenal5 reduifetl Gy 86ultler COU~Iy i must oe suomrctea pnar ro navmg mrs matter orocessea. I underetana tnae ouoiic neanngs or meeemgs may oe reauvea I onCefStanC Mat atltli60nat 1e85 Of matenats may oe teGUrteO as a resutt Of consiaeretlans wmcn may anse m tne p~ocessmg ot tnis cocket. I unCerstantl cnat ine roaG. srnool anp parK oedicauons may 'i be reowretl as a c~ntlition of aporovai. i unoerstana irat 1 am c~nsa~tr,~5 ro allo++ the Ca^nry Sta!1 invone~ m fnis av.~~cauen or inev oes•;ne^s "e.~lel Onf~ 3nC +RSOB[i :Oe S~bjeGt prCpm'[y a~ Ny i _ w .7~e:soaaD~e Ume wi.ncu: t~taminq any pnor c~nsenc . , ATTACHMENT F -'"' ~ RESULUTIOT~T N0. 877 A 1tESOLTIT[ON ON TFIF. PLATIRONS / SOUTH CAMPUS 1'1tOPERTY. WIIFI2EAS, ttte 308 ~ores of the Flatirons/South Campus Properry, Ioc;~ted o» the soullieast peiicnetcr af the City of $oulcic7, foi'nu a"Gsteway to Boulder" alon~ the i7.S, FIi.nllway 36 coirtdUC'> and WH~RF.AS, tl~e p~ssible prescnce of unslable soils wd of protected environmental s.ssets and spccies makes Additional developme~it of chis p~operty problematic; and WFi~TZEA3, in 7anuary, ?000, South I3oulder Cretk, which llows near thc botwdtuy of qic Platiroiu Pmpeity, w1s designated a State Natural.Area by th~ Colondo Natural Arca» 1'rogram uwing ta tbe presence of exeeptional natura] features; and 'WHTREAS, dev~lopmeut of tha Flatirons Property would inerense traffic on Tablc Mesa Drive and thc TaUle Mesa inierehange and a~gravate the already inereasing congestion alon; the U.S. ilighway 36 corridor; and Wf1TREAS, since 1977 portions o£ die ~'lalin>ns Propeay have been di;signated as "Opzn Spncc" on flic Aoulder Valley Comprehensive Plan. NUW, TTiIiREFUI2E, ba it resolvcd that the Bou1Se~ City Cuwicil stands willin~ to purclus'e the l~latirons' Property $om a willing seller at a fair price, for open space oi flood mitigation purposes in fee title or by means of conservation casement; ar to contemptltc wliatcver agreenieut might lead ro d~a maximum practicablc preserva~ion of the Flatirons Properry as an c~r~viroruneut~il asSet consistent widi the Boutder Valley Cort~preheasive Plan since 1977. ADOPTL'D tlris 2D°j day of Fcbruary, 2~b1. CITY OP BOULDEIt, COLORADO Mayur Attest: Ciry Clcrk on bzhalf of the Dirc;tor of Financc and Recorcl ' a- ~ ~` K' I' W 6C.\R•e i7.iu ~~ I [ii tAl.rilVlr.1V 1 lz ctrY c= ecu~o_F CiTY i'.~:Ar:.. ~ - - L'~TERGO~"ER~~IE\T?,L ~GREE~~IENT „~,..._„ .. L;.S. 36 CORRIDOR CO~IPREHE\SI'VE DEVELOP~ ~?~'T~~I.?~~ ~',. ~~ ~:; This Intersovernmenta] :~greement by, bet«~een and amone the city of Boulder, a Colorado home rule cit~~ (Boulder); the City of Louisvil]e, a Colorado statucory city (Louisville); che Town or Superior, a Colorado statuton• town (Superior)(hereinafrer,'collectivel~~, the "ti4unicipa] Parties"j: and the Councy of Boulder, a body politic and corporate oi ~he Sca[e of Colorado (Boulder Coun[y~): (collectivelv the "Panies") is made to be effective on the ?Oth day of June, 3000. WITI-ESSETH: WHERE.aS, '_9-~'0-101 et seo., C.R.S, as amended, enablzs the Parties to znter inro Incergoveir.men~al A~reements to plan for and re~ulate land uses, in order to minimize the nesative impaccs of development on the suiroundins areas and protect the environment, and specifically uuthorizzs local ~ovemments to cooperate and contract with each other for the purpose of plannin~ and reoulatino ~he dzvelopmenc of land by means of a"comprehensive development plan"; and WHERE.~S. in order ~o ensure chat the unique and individual character of Boulde:. Louis~ille, and Superior, respectively, are preserved, the Paries belie~•z that a comprzher.sive developmenc plan which recognizes the annexed aress and developmen~ approved by each communin~. accompsnied by bindin~ commitments by the responsible jurisdiccions for thz przsen•ation of the : ural character ot'sutroundin~ lands as identified within the Plan Area, is in the best in~erest of the citizens or each oT the Panies: and 1NHERE.~S, [he prohibition ofrezoning orotherdiscretionarv land use appro~ als by Boulder Counc~~and or"annexation or development byBoulder, Louisville, orSupetior, of certain lands within the Plsn .~i'ea, is in[ended [o precludz increased development and urban sprawl ~vhich ~~~ould obli[era[z CI72 boundaiies of Boufder, Louisville, or Supe:ior. anu ~~ould. if pemliaed in [he unirn-o»orated areu, require the pro~ ision ot urb~n services by Boulder Counry. in c~ntra~~en[iun ot' provisions ot [he Boulde: Coun[y Comprehensive Plan; and ~VHERE.~S, the parcels desiRna[ed Rural Preservation do no~ cutTen~ly have Ciry utiliry ser~•ices. and the '~Iunicipal Panies are not currently capable of providin~ such services to deve!upmer,t on ~uch parce!s; and «'HERE.~S, ~he P:u~[ies desire to enter into chis Inter~orernmen[al .~~reement in order to plan for and re~uia[e [he use of the lands within the Plan .~.rea ~hrough juin[ adoption of a mu[ually bindin_ and enforceable comprehensive development plan; and WHERE.aS, the Par~ies iind that designating a portion oi ~he Plan .~rea to remain as Rural Preszrva~ion for ~he purpase of preservin~ a communi~v buffer serves [l~e econonic and civi~ interest ot dieirc;tizens and meets the ~oals of the BoulderCoun~v Comprehensive Plan, and mee[s the ~oals and funhers ~he puiposes or ~he comprehensi~ e and maste: plans or the \-lunicipal Panies. as s[ated in such plans and applicable laws: and /~.~ `~T1ERE:~S. with respect co the rezoning and other land use resulatory actions required pursuant ~o chis .-~~reement, ~he Pnrties find thnt L~.S. 36 serves as a major through~~~ay in Boulder County; that, due to che levei of development acti~~ity in the corridor in recent years, L.S. 36 has become more con~ested, and is projected to become more con~ested in che next few years, to thz poin[ where such highway ~a~ill not provide the transporzation accessibility required, and may not then be functioning at an acceptable level of service; and WHEREAS, it is essential tha[ furthzr development in the li.S. 36 corridor be limited, so tha[ vaffic-;eneratins uses in the valley do not further exacerbate the consescion of the highu~ay and surroundin~ transportation infrastructure, and so that future [ransportation improvements can re~urn the hiehway to an acceptable level of service; and WT~REAS, with respect to the annexation provisions herein, the Parties declare tha~ the Rural Preservation and City Influence Area desiQnations and land use regulations contained in this Agreement affect the future development of each municipality. Consis[znt with [he municipal annexation, utility service, and land use laws of the State of Colorado, this Agreemen~, includin, specificaliy [he anne~ation and utili[y service portions hereof, is intended to encoura~e tlte natural and well-ordered future development of each Partv; to promote planned and orderty gro~~•th in [he aifzc~ed areas: to discribute fairly and equicably the costs uf sovernment services amons those persons whu beneTit dierefrom: to extend the governmen~, services, and facilities to the affected areas in ~ lo?ical rashion: to simplify providin~ uti]iry services to [he aifec[ed a~~eas; to simplify the ~overnmental scructure of che affected areas: to reduce and avoid, where possible, friction bet~veen die P,u-~ies: and ro promo[~ the economic viability oT the Panies: and `VHERE:~S, che fune[iuns described in this ?,~reemenc are la~~fully authorized to each of the Panies which perrorm such functions hereunder, as provided in ar~icle ?0 of title 29: part 1 of arcicle 33 of :ide 30: patt 1 of :n-[icle 13 of title 31; and parts ' and 3 of an:cle '_'3 of tide 31, C.R.S., as amended: and WHERE~S. 29-1-'_'O1, et seq., C.R.S., as amended, authorizes ~he Par[ies to cooperate and contract ~vith one ano~her with respec[ tu functions lawfuih~ au[horized [o each of ~he Patties and the people of the State c~f Colorado have encourased such cooperation and con~ractinQ through [he adoption of Colorado Cons[itution, Article XIV, 18('_'); and «%HERE.aS. the Parties have each held henrings after proper public nocice for the consideration of encerine in~o this agreemen~ and tne adoption of a con~prehensive development plan ror the ~ubject lands, he.einaTter referred to as the "Plan :~rea"; as sho~vn on the map portion of the De~ eloomea[ Limi~a~ions attached hereto as E.~hioit .~ . NOW THEREFORE. in consideration of the abo~~e and the mutuai cuvenants and commi[men[s made herein. [he Psi-~ies asree ns follo~+~s: 1. L.S. 36 COFRIDOR CONIPREHE\~SIVE DEVELOP'~IENT PLaN. T h i s /d9 .~ereement, includino Development Limitations (both text and map ponions) attached here[o as Ezhibit ~, is adopted by the Panies as [he L.S. 36 Corridor Comprehensive Deve]opment Plan (the "Plan") oovemin~ the Plan Area. 2. CO~iTROLLL\~G REGliLATIONS. Restricuons on use and development of Iands within the Plan Area, as provided in E~hibit ?,, shall contro] and supersede local regulations of the ReQula[ory Party to the extent ~hey conflict. For purposes of this Plan, the "ReQulatorv Partv ' is that Party havine reeulatory jurisdiction over the subject propeny at the relevan[ time, \~o Pary shai] agree with any landowner or other person or entity interested in an}~ parcel within the Plan .~rea to allow any use or development tivhich does no[ comply wich the Plan ~vithout first obtainin~ a Plan ~mendment as set forth herein. '?.l The Parties each aeree to undertake all steps to adopt procedures, plans, policies' ar,d ordinances or o[her re~ulations as may be necessary to implement and enforce [he provisions of this Plan. :~ny Party adop[in~ such procedures, plans, policies, ordinances or re_ulacions shall eive e~ch of the other Pzrties sufficient advance notice of such action as will enable such Pm~ties, if they so desire. to comme~t upon the planned actions of that Par[y. '_.' To the extent this Plan is silent as to a panicular fand use matter, existina local land use re~ulations of the Re~ulatoiy Party having jurisdiction over the property, as amended from time to time. shal] conn•ol. 3. RUR.-1L PRESERV:~TION ~REA. Boulder, Louisville, and Supenor ench asree that thev will immedia[ely disclose to the other any and all instances in which they have received an anne~stion pe~ition :rom landownzrs in the Rura] Prese:~~a[ion Area seei:ins anne~a[ion. Fur[her, Boulder. Louisville, and Superior each commit that they are no[ currentl~~ pursuin~ any annexations ~vithin the Rural P;eservation Area. 3.1 The VIap portion of ExhiUit :~ shows ~e:~ain (ands widlin the Plan Area which arz desisna[ed "Rural Preserva[ion Area". These lands are intended ~o remain ~vithin [he unincorqora~ed area of Boulder County. subject ~o BoulderCounrv's land use re~ulatoryjunsdiction as limited in the text ponion of Exhibit A. Boulder, Louisvi]le, and Superior each agree that none of them will initiate nor approve an annexation of any por[ion of any of the lands sho~vn as "Rural Prese:vation .area" on ~he '~1ap ponion of Exhibit A withou[ first obtainin~ npproval of a Plan ?,mendment as provided ;or herein. ~.~' Bv authorizins dte execution of this ~~reemen~. the Cicv Councils of Boulder and Luuisville, and the To~vn Buard~of Supeiior. each respec[i~~ely finds and declares that there is nu communi~v of interest benveen the lands desienated "Rural Preservation Area" on the J~ap nor:ion of chis Plan wi~h their respecti~-e jurisdic[ions, that none of chese lands is urban nor is like}y ~o urb:~nize ~ci~hin the term of ~his Plan. and [ha[ none of these ]ands is currendy inte~rs~ed ~~•i[h, nor for the te:m of this Plan will any or them be capable oi ueine integra~ed with their respeccive jurisdic;ions. V ~. CITY INFLLE~TCE ~RE:1 P.~RCELS. -F.1 The :~4ap po~zion of ~his P1an iden~ifies areas currendy locatzd ~vithin unincomora[ed Boulder Count} ~~~Ilich mav in ~he tu[urz be annexed to the one or the city or [u~+~n /.3G Paries. as denotzd b~ the "Inrluence Area" desien¢tion. ~o~hin~ in this sec[ion or the Plan is in[ended ~o require such city or cown ~o annex such area. Ho~vever, the'~~unicipal Panies agree tha~, if such area is to be annzxed ro or is to be provided ~vatzr or sewe; service b}~ a municipality durn~ the te:m of this A~reement, such area will be annes.d to and/or will bz so served by the city or tou n whose Influence Area the map indicates for such pazcel, and not by any of ~he other ciry or town Panies. By authorizinQ the execu~ion of this AQreement, zacti city council and to~~~n board iinds and declares tha~ the communit}~ of intzrest in the Influence Areas so designated on.the ~1ap por[ion of this Plan is, or for the [erm of [his Plan, ~vill be, with the city or town whose Influence Area the map indicates for such parcels, and not with any other city or [own. 4? L~nti] and unless annexed, Boulder County shall enforce its "Areas and .4ctivities of Sca~e Interest" regulations upon any parcels identified as within the Intluence Area of any city or ~own Party, and sha11 not ~rant a permit ior developmenc pursuant Co such regulations unless such '` pernvt lias been approved by the ciry or town whose Influence Area the m~p indicates for such parcel(s). =1.3 Boulder Countv ag:ees that, Tor purposes of the blunicipal Annexation ?~ct, thzre is. or for the cern oi this Plan, ~~-ill be, a communi~y of inczrest in [he parcels desisnsced as city or town influence areas on the Vlap poRion of this Plan with ~he respectively desisna~ed city ar to~vn, and Boulder Countv will not object to annexation of such areas by such ciry or town. -~.~ ~o Pary shall purchase any parcel oi land either wi~hin [he incorporaced limits of another Patty. nor ~vithin the inrluence area of another Part~~ as desi~rtated on the ?viap portion of this Plan. ~ ithout the e~press consen[ of such othzr Party. 5. REFERR~LS. .~ny applicatic~n or o~her propossl ior annexation or development on anv parcel ~vithin that portion of the Plan .~rea designated Rural Preservation Area ~~ se~ forth in E.~h;uit .~ shall be immedia~elv reTeired in ~~n[in~ ~o all Pm-ties. and no action shall bz ~ak~n thereon u~~ the refz:rn_ Pirty un[il such Parties have ha~i the opporzunity to rzspond cuncernins [he proposal's conIOrmiry to this Plan and other land use concerns. To be considered, such responses shali be received widlin''0 days of date of refen~nl. 6. ~~fEV~D~IENTS. This Plan contuins the entire asreement benveen the Parties. :~nv proposed amendment of che Plan affectin_ the jurisdiction over ]ands or ~he development resulation or lands must be rererred to ~he P;uties by the Resulatoi•y Par[y, or by anv P~~-ty seekin~ ~o become the Re~ulatory P:uiy throush annexacion. Amendment of [he Plan shall take pluce onfy upon appro~~al by resolution or ordinance adopted by the govzrnins body of each of :he Patties, after notic~ and hearin~ as may be required by la~+~. The Re~ula[ory Paity shal] not approve nor permit am~ developmen[ or chanee ef use of any parcel in the Plsn :~res by unv means, and no Pam~ shall approve any annexation which is inconsisten«~~ith this A~reement and Plan until and unless tlte Plan has been amended so ~ha[ che proposed deveiopment or usz ut such parce] or i[~ annexa[ion is consistenc ~~i~h the Plan. %. SE~ ER-~BILITY. If anv pottion oi this P1an i~ held bv a court in a rinal, non- anoealable de:;ision ~o.oe per se in~~alid ur uneniorceable as to anv Pam, the entire Asreement and the Plan ~hall 'ue :erminuce~. i~ bein_ :he unders~anciin~ and in[ent of the Paiiies tha[ e~~er~~ portion /3/ of the _~~reemenc and Plan is essencial to and nut se.-erable from ~he remainder. 8. BENEFICI~IRIES. The Parties, in cheir coroorate andrepresentative govemmenr~l capacities. are the only entities intended to be the beneficiaries of the Plan, and no other person or entity is so intended. 9. ENFORCEVIE\T. Any one or more of the Parties may enforce this :~sreement by any legal or equi[able means includin~ specific performance, declaratory and injunc[ive relief. Nu other person or ~ntity shall have any n~ht to enforce the provisions of chis :~~reemen~. 10. DEFE\'SE OFCL:~IiVIS/INDE:~IIV'IFICATIOM1' Ifan~~person ~illegedly ae~ieved by any pro~~ision of the Plan and who is not a Party to the Plan should ~ue any Party concerning such Plan pro'vision, such Party shall, and any other Party may> defend such c]aim upon receivins timely and appropria~e nocice of pendency of such claim. Defense costs shall bz paid by the Party pro~~idins such deiense. y \otwidu[andin~ *.he foregoins, if the claim concerns the desisnation of property as "Rural Preservu[ion .~rea,° Boulder Coun[y shall provide a deiense in such sction. If the claim concerns the designation oT propem as "Influence Area," the responsible ci~y orto~vn Party shall provide such defense. In the event [hat anv person not a Party to the Plan should obtain a fina] money jud~men[ asainst am~ Paizy ~vho is not die ReQulatory Pany for the diminution ir. vaiue of any re~ulated parcel resul~in~ from re~ulations in the Plan, orreeulations adopted by the Resu]atory P;u-ty implementins the Pl~n, the Reeulacorv Parc~• shall, to the extent permitted by Ia~, indemniry such Pary for the amoun[ oT snid judement. 11. GOVERVING L~~V AND ~'EtiL~. This .-~~reement shall be eoverned bv che laws of ~he Sta[e ot Colorado and venue shall ]ie in ~he Counrv of Boulder. L'. TER~I ~1VD EFFECTIVE DaTE. This .-1~reement shail become effec~ive upon sienature or an auchorized represer,~ative of the ~ovemine bodies ot" ~he Panies. E~cep[ as provided herein, thi~ .-~~reement shall remain in effect Tor a period of thiny (30) years from the effzctive dnte, unless [enr,ina[ed i nor chereto bv asreement of all the Panies or pursuant to the terms of seccion', above. 13. P.~RTY I2~PRESEVT.~TIVES. Rz?errals made under che terms of ~his ~=re°men~ shall be szn~ ro the Pm-:;es' reDresencacives as folluws: E\~TITY: Citv of Boutder REPRESE~iT:~TIVES: Citv'~ianaQer P.O. Box 791 Boulder. CO 30?.06 ~:~ a~ Ciq~ of Louisvillz City Adminisuator i~F9 vIain S[. Louisville, CO 50027 To~~~n of Superior Town'vIana~er 12~ E. Coal Creek Dr. Superior, CO 80027 County of $oulder Director, Land Use Depar~ment P.O. Box ~71 Boulder, CO 50306 ~arne and address changes for representatives shall be made in writins, mailed to the other represencacives a~ the then current address. v THIS AGREEMENT made and entered into to be effeccive on che dace as sec fonh above. ~ •~-w/ .' - ~. CITY OF $OULDER Sv.~--f-~= ~ ~'ill Toor. Mavor ATTEST: -"~, y~ , ; . . ~, ~ ,..., ~ . ! /-~ ;. : - o Citv Gerl: CITY OF LOLTSVILLE B ~ ~~i~.,~,,,~.=/ TKumas Da~~~dson, Mayor ,~TTEST: „ ~ "~._ ( i l:~ !~ t''~, C.f -~il L~{J City Clerk ~ ! 2 ~-' ~ U!i Date ~PPROVED ~1S TO FOR:~I: / 7oseph V eRaismes, III, City .~~tomey p'~,~-/~ Date ~PPROVED AS TO FOR:~i: ``~., ~--_i.... _ ~~ -~' `w-. `~`. `. ,_~ Sarxuel J. Light. City :~ttoney /33 TOWti OF St'PERIOR ~-- 'S ~ .. _ y---~, ~__~ a, o0 By' .~~ ~ ~ / usan ~ip~~Iayor Date :~TT'EST: ?.PPROVED AS T0 FOR'~I ~~,~n! ~ ,J~ ~, ( ~ ~~~ ~; ``~ J `~`~.~~.9-~0 (/` • P-}C~+.b'~-~.v / .~~cT~~C~.(~~ Town Clerk Kathleen Haddock, Town Attomey~ COL'tiTY OF BOULDER BY: BO?.RD OF COU?3T~" CONL~vIISSIO?~'ERS 8~~:~ - % ~ .c~~cc~ 5 3~ o0 ~ / ' 7 / ~ Ronald K. Stewan, Chair Dace .~TTEST: APPROVED AS TO FOR:vI: `~ G~ ~n~'`~ Clerk to thz Board H. nce Hoyt, Cou _: ttorriey "C /3y EXHIBIT :1 (text portion) I:.S. 36 CORRIDOR IG~ CONIPREHEVSIVE DEVELOP:~IENT PL ~\ 1. INTRODUCTIOn. 1.1 ADOPTION: This Comprehensive Development Plan (hereinafter "CDP") has been jointly developed and adopted by che Panies. and is en[ered into by Intereovernmenta] :~~reement of said entities. • 1' P:~RCELDEVELOP_'v1EVTRESTRICTIOhS:TheseDevelopmentLimitationsare intended to provide specific land use and development restrictions Qovemin~ ~he • "RuraI Preservation Area" parcels loca[ed within the Plan !~rea, the boundaries of which are set forth on the attached Map. 2. DEFINITIONS. '_.l DEVELOP'v1ENT: Construction or establishment of struc~ures, parkine areas, and/or surfaced vehicular roadways , or establishment of new land uses. '_.~' PLAN AREA: Lands included within the boundaries of [he desi~na[ed Plan .~rea as se[ forzh on the Map, includin~ ri~ht-of-way, secback areas, and parcels subject to the Plan's Deve[opment Limita~ions. Z.~ STRtTCTL12E: Anvthin~ which is built or const;•ucced, includine but noc Iimited ~o an edifice or building o; any I~ind, or anv piece of work :utificialIv buiIt up or composed of pans joined ~ogether in some definite manner, but excluding fences, retainins waIls not o~~er 6 feet in heisht, and buried u~ilitv Iines. 3. DE4ELOP:~LELT LI1-fIT3TIONS ON RT:R-~L PRESERV?,TION AItE.~ P.~,RCELS. 3.I For parcels desi~r.a~ed Rural Preser~~ation Area on ~he ~fap. those existin~ uses of such parcels which contoim to Boulder County's re~ula~ions, or which are le~ally noncar.iurming, shall be permitted to concinue. either as lesal or legal nonconfurnvns uses. No density increase beyond the limits currentlv permissible under [he Buulder Countv Land lise Code shali be approved for any such parcel, nor shall any such parcel be annexed [o any Municip~l Pany, unless the same is approved throush the Plan amendment procedure set fonh in Section 6 of the Intersovemmencai A~reement adoptins this Plan. ' V 3? Pursuant to resulacions in the Boulder Coun~v Land L'se Code as it mav exis[ from ~ime to time, parcels within the Rural Preservation .~rea may be "sendins parcels" for purpos~s of ~ransferring development righcs (TDRs l. Ho~vever, such parcels shalt no[ serve as "receivinr parcals" without amendmen~ ot this Agreement. TDR units shatl not be "senc" rrom narceis desisnaced in chis .~areement as Rural Presero~ation ?.rea to be located upon a recei~ ino si[e ~vi~hin [he aciopted comprehensive plan area ot a ~funicipal Parq~ without the consent af the in~erested Parry or Panies. /35 ~3 Developmentonparceisforw•hich"vestedriehts"forfurtherdeve]opmenthavebeen acquired throush an estoppel asainst Boulder County precludin~ the prohibition of such development established b~~ a final. non-appealable court judgmen[ in a proczedino oi which the other Parties have been ~iven timely no~ice and the opponunity to join or intervene shall be permitted to the extent such de~~elopment is in conformance with the ri~hts so acquired and occurs within [he vested period. Boulder County certifies that it is not aware of any such vested rights currently exisuns for Rural Preservation parcels wi[hin the Plan Area. 3.-i Establishment of uses and development in conformance with the zoning finciudine but not limited to approved PLTD plans) and other land use and deveiopmen[ reQulations app]icable to the property on the effective da[e of this Plan shall b~ permitted, where such uses or development continue to be permitted under the • provisions of ~he Boulder Counry Land Use Code at the ~ime at which thev are sought to be es~ablished. Permission for such developmenc shall be processed throuah the normal procedures o~herwise established by Boulder Count;~. 3.~ Approvsl by Boulder County of an ~Z~PL~D with residential density no greater tltan ~' units per 3~ acres upon such lands is perznittzd p.ursuant to the reeulations oene;ally applicable therefor , and such approval is not for purposes oi these Development Limi~ations an increase in density. ~.6 Any proposed use or develooment of any portion of the parceis desienated Rural Presen•ation .~rea shall conform to the provisions of this Plan, or, if nonconforming, snall require amendmen[ of ~he Plan in [he mannerpro~~idedin the Intergovemmental :-~~reement adoptin~ this P,an. The Reeulatory Put~> shall not approve any proposed rezonine, subdivision, special use or other re~ulatory process, or amendmen[ of modificacion of any existin~ zoninP, PL-D. special or condicional use, or subdivision pla[. orissuance of a building permit, orproposed annexation, whether or not coupled wi~h any such regularory process, for any lands designa[ed Rural Preservation ~rea unless such action conforms wi[h ~he Plan. or with an approved amendment thereof. 3. ; Soe::ific Parcel °rovisien: The Rural Preszr~ ation parcels loca[ed w est of S. S3"' St., and nonh of L S:6. adjac~nt to the Ciry oi Louis~~ille': buundanes, currently o~vned by Carlson and Sciiffanv, shall be treated as Louisville Intluence ~rea upon the occuirence oi [he folluwing even~: ~he iee dedicacion or land for open soace puip~ses equivalen~ in siz~ the combined acrease or the parcels and ]ocnted ~vithin !~: mile uf the pm~ceis and ~vithin the Citv of Louis~ ille in the LS 36 view coiridor. :t. GEVER-1L P~RCELS PRO~%ISION~. -+.1 It is a soal ur ;he Pa~-[ies [o masimize ~he se~back of struc;ures from the nearest U.S. .i6 rish~-or-wav linz. and ca ~his end. the Resularorv P~rtv shall, ~o the exten[ possible, ne~otiate to ma~imize such setbacks. 5. OPE~ SP:~CL ~1CQL:IRED IN RL;R:~L PRESERV:~TION.~RE:1. ~.1 :~ny properties within the Plan _~re~ desi~nated as Rural Preservation .-~rea which m-e /3~ in[ended to be acquired as "onen space" shall bz acquired in fee or b~~ oerpecua! conservation easement (as deiined in §35-30.5-102, C.R.S.j ior open space puiposes ' by any one or more of the Parties, to the extent funds are approoriated and made available for such purpose. V~'hether and the method by «~hich such acquisi~ion ~~ ill cake place, and the terms andconditior.s of p¢rchase, ro;ether evith [he decerminacion of ~vhether fee ~ide or a perpe~ual conser~~a[ion easement will be acquired: shail be at the sole discretion of the acquirinQ Party(ies). . ~? Upon acauisi[ion of any Rural Preserva[ion parcels sho~vn on Exhibit ?., the acquirino Party shall present ~o i[s ~ovemine body, pursuant to its chaner, ordinance or ocher provisions of law, a reques[ to provide to :,ach of thz other Parties an undivided interest in a perpe~ual conservation easement upon said lands, pro~~idin~ for res[rictions on development and che use in accordance with che ~erms of this Plan • and the si[e-specific manaQement plan. ~.3 . Open space shall serve one or more of che followinQ funetions: (a) urban shapin~ between or around municipali[ies or community service areas and buffer zones between residenti~l and non-residential development; (b) preservation of critical ecosystems, natural areas, scenic vistas and area. fish and wildlife habicat, natural resources and landmarks, and cultural, hiscorical and archaeoloeical areas; (c) linkaaes and trails, access to public lakes. streams and oth~r usablz open space lands, stream corridors and scenic coiridors a]onQ high~vays; (dj areas oi em•ironmental presen~ation, designa~ed as areas of concem, eeneralh~ in mulciple o~~nership, where severa] dirierenc preser~ation mechods iincludin~ o~her sovzrnmental bodies' pai2icipation or ptiva[e ownership) mav need to be utilized: (e) conserva[ion of na~urnl resourees. inciuding bu[ not limited to forest lands. ran~e ]ands. agricultural land, aquifer rechar~e areas, and surface wa~er; (~ prese:•~~ation or land for ou~doar recreation areas limi~ed ro passive recrea[iona] use, includin~ but not limi~ed to hikin~, photoeraphy or nature studies, and ir specifically desi anated. bicycfin~, horsebacl: ridins. orfishine: (~) under~round public facili[izs. public utility mains. lines; other public facilities may be loca~ed thereon «here approved by the ~overninQ bodies uf eacn uf tne Panies. ~.~ Once acquired, open space may be used onlv for ~he aho~z purposes, and shall be used in accordance with a site-speciiic manaQement plan approved by [he ~overning bodv of the acquinng Parcy(iesl afcer consultntion ~vi~h the o~her Panies. L;mci] acauisi[ion. such parcels or portions oi parcels shail be subject co ~he Development Limications set ronh in Section 3 of this Plan. ~,~ Boulder Coun[y shall use i[s best efforts in eood faith to acquire the parcei desi`nated Rural Preser~~ation located ~vest of che t'.S. 36 ~nd :vla~snall Ruad n ~n[-of-~vav area adiacent to the Superior [o~~m limits in Section U. T1S. R'0~'~~. 6°i P'vi. i3~ i._d ...rva..- U. S. 36 CORRIDOR COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT PIAN Exhibit A Legend Plan Boundary O Pa~cN SpeaGc Pooviron Municipalilies ^„~ Incoryoralefl P,reas Influence Meas Rural Preservalion Areas Open Space - Bo~lm~ cwny Open space ~ HaiCe~ Counry Cwiserva9an Emmmmt - JoinlpwnetWD~VenSpan ~ Ciry d BoJde~ Open Space I~--'- 1 Gh of BuiEe~ 1.~~.• 1 CaservsionEasemenl ~ Cih ^~ Baider Paike ~ LousWePa~Ms and Open Spaca COItf11y $UbdlNSrof15 ~ LOTS ~ NUPUDq1TlOT5 June 20, 2000 ~~ (-i ) .~, ~. TO ARVADA ATTACHMENT H 8-405 Other Designated Areas and Activfties Requfring a Permit re~~s~e~ C. Development located in whole or in pan within areas around state arterial highway interchanges, unless the development is regulated with fuil and binding effect under other Articles of this Code. Areas around state arterial highway interchanges, as designated hereunder, shali be considered to be those areas which are immediately and directly affected by (incfuding having an immediate and diract effect upon) 2he state arterial highway interchange, whether existing or proposed, The baundaries for these areas shall be an area within a radius of 1 mile from the center ot ihe interchange. ~~~ 8-511 Standards for Approval of a Permit Application A. General Approval Requirements 1. A permit application for development invoiving an activity or in an area of state interest may not be approvetl 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 appiicable criteria, the permit shall be denied, unless the Board determines that reasonatile conditions can be imposed on the permit which will enable the permit to comply with the criteria. 2, lf the Baard determines at the pubiic hearing that sufficient informafion has not been provided !o ft to aAow 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 appiication within 45 days atter the completion of the permit hearing. B. Standards for approval of all permit applications. 1. The applicant has obtained or will obtain ali property rights, permits, and approvals necessary for the proposal, including surtace, mineral, and water rignts. 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.nvnvo~) 2. The applicant has the necessary expertise and financial capability to develop and operate the proposal consistent with ail requirements and conditions. ~~vovoi~ /5~L' 3. Adequate water supplies, as determined from the Colorado 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 identHiabie on or near the site. 5. The proposal shali not sign'rficantly 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 ot the natural environment worthy of preservation. For purposes ot this section, the following aspects of the environment shall be considered:~t~rofro~1 a. Air quality: The proposal shall not significantly deteriorate air quality. in determining impacts to air quality, these considerations shall apply. i. Changes to seasonal ambient air quaiity. ii. Changes in visibility and microclimates. iii. Appiicable air quality standards. . b. Visual quality. The proposal shall not significantly degrade visual quality. In determining impacts to visual quality, these considerations shall apply. i. V'isual changes to ground cover and vegstation, watertalls 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 rypes or unique land formations. v. Campatibility of building and structure design and materials with surrounding land uses. c. Surtace 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, including patterns of water circuiation, temperature, conditions of the substrate, e~ent 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 runoif 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 dilution rates of mine waste, agricultural runofl 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 appiy. i. Chanqes in aquifer recharqe rates, oroundwater / ~{/ levels and aquifei capacity including seepage losses through aquiier boundaries and at aquifer-stream intertaces. ii. Changes in capacity and function of wells within the impact area. iii. Changes in qualiry of weil water within the impaci area. e. Wetlands and riparian areas. The proposal shall not significantly degrade the quality of wetiands and nparian areas. In determining impacts to wetlands and riparian areas, these considerations shall apply. i. Changes in the structure and function of wetlands. ii. Changes to the filtering and poliutant uptake capacities ot wetlands and riParian areas. iii. Changes to aerial extant of wetlands. iv. Changes in species' characteristics and diversity. v. Transition from wetland to upland species. vi. Changes in function and aerial extent of i~oodplains. f. Terrestrial artd aquatic animal life. The proposal shall not significantly degrade ihe 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 lite. ii. Changes in flushirtg flows, iii. Changes in species composition or density. iv. Changes in number of threatened or endangered 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 tor the protection and propagation of any terrestrial animals. vi. Changes to habitat and critical habitat, including stream bed and banks, spawning grounds, riNle and side pooi areas, flushing flows, nutrient accumulation and cycling, water temperature, depth and circulation, stratification and any ather 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 significanlly degrade the quality of tercestrial and aquatic plant life. In determining impacts to terrestrial and aquatic animal iife, 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 productivity. iii. Changes in advancement or succession of desirable and less desirable species, including noxious weeds. iv. Changes in threatened or endangered species. /y~7 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 shall apply. i. Changes to the topography, naturai drainage pattems, soil morphology and productivity, soil erasiort potential, and flood hazard areas. ii. Changes to sheam sedimentation, geomorphology, and channel stability. iii. Changes to lake and reservoir bank stability and sedimentation, and safety of existing reservoirs. iv. Changes to avatanche areas, mudflows and debris fans, and ather unstable and potentially unstable slopes. v. Exacerbation of seismic concems and subsidence. 6. The proposal will not have a significant adverse effect on the quality or quantity of recreational 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 proposai or its associated transmission collector or distrihution system will not create blight, or cause other nuisance factors such as excessive noise or obnoxious odors. 9. The proposai will not be subject to significant risk from floods, 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 significant adverse effect on the capability of local government to provide services or exceed the capacity of service delivery systems.(11/Ol/Ol) 12. The planning, design and operation of the proposal will reflect appropriate principles of resource conservation, energy efficiency and recycling or reuse.(11/01/Of) 13. For those appiications for which the Director has required information on the envi~onmental impacts and costs of alternatives under Section 8•507(D)(7)(b), above, the proposal represents the least damaging atternative ot 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 appiicable 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 compeiled to consider the development be in compliance with the applicable adopted comprehensive pfan or intergovemmental planning agreement simply by virtue of the fact that the development is located within, or is proposed to serve, an approved service area.(17/O1/01) /y3 J. Additional standards for development in areas around interchanges involving state arterial highways. ~bi~sa~ 1. The proposed development shall not pose a danger to public health or safety or to properry (including the subject property, other impacted properties, and the environment).~rrrorror/ 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 shall be compatible with existing developments and with the character ot the neighborhood, and shail not significantly impair an area or resource of special scenic, historical, or cultural significance. 4. The proposed develapment shall preserve desirable existing community patterns. 5. A developmant that proposes burdens or deprivations on the communities of a region.shall not be justified on the basis of local benefit alone. ~~y ATTACHMENTI IINIVEItSITY OF COLORADO - BOULDER 1041- STATE INTEREST REVIEW APPLICATION CU-BOULDER SOUTH TEI~TNIS COURT REPLACEMENT PROJECT Jy ~ BOULDER COUNTY IAND USEDEPARTMENT 2045 73M Street / 17ih 8 Spruce Streets / Courthouse Annex. ~~ ~- P.O. Bos a77 / Boultler, Colorado 80306 303.447.39301 Fax 303.447.4856 • APPLICATION FORM APPLICATION DEADLINE ~ SECOND WEDNESDAY OF THE MONTH - 4:30 ' Does not appty to Exemption Plats Sile Plan fteviews, Limitetl Impacl Special Reviews, or Subdivision Exemptions O 80AVARIANCFJAPPEAL O REZONING O SKETCHPLAN ~ O E%EMPTION PLAT O ROAD NAME CHANGE O PRELIMINARY PLAN 0 LIMITED IMPACT SPECIAL USE 0 SITE PLAN REVIEW O FINAI PLAT . O IOCATION 8 E%TENT 0 SPECIAL USEISSDP O ROADIEASEMENT VACATION O RESU801VISION (REPLAT) 0 SUBOIVISION EXEMPTION * 1047 • STATE INTEREST REVIEW Boulder None 0 EXTENSION OFAPPROVAL O OTHER: L0T(S~ BLOCK(5) SECTION(S) TONMSHIP(S) RANGE(S) : N/A N/A 9 and 16 One South . of Meridi~* AREAINACRES E%ISTING20NING EXISTINGUSEOFPROPERTV NuMBEFOFPROPOSEDLOTS 308 ED and A vacant N/A PROPOSED WATER SUPPLV ~ PROPOSED SEWAGE DISPOSAI METH00 None Portable Toilets ADPLICANT/PROPERiY OWNEP. STREET ADORE55 University of Colorado Board of Regents, A Body Corpor te Campus Box 453 i GITY STATE , 21PCODE . PHONENl1MBEft Fq%NUMBER ~i Boulder CO 80309-0453 (303~)492-1525 (303) 492-7186 ~ APPLICANT/PROPERTY OWNER STREET AO~RE55 CITY ' STATE ZIP COOE PHONE NUMBER ~ ~ ~ ' fAX NUMBEft ~ ~ APPLICANTIPROPE0.TY OWNER STREET ADDftESS . . CITY STATE 21P CODE PHONE NUMBEft ~ ~ FA%NUMBER ~ ~ AGENT/CONSULTANT STREETADDRESS ' Jeffre S. Li ton Exec. Director, Facilities M mnt. Campus Box 453 CITY . STATE ZIPCODE PHONENUMBER FAXNUMBEft . CO 80309-0453 (303)492-1525 (303)492-7186 AGENT/CONSVLTANT . STREETAO~RESS ' Nancy Love, Consultant 841 Front Street Cltt STATE 21P CODE ~ PMONE NUM9ER FAX NUMBER Louisville CO 80027 (303) 673-9795 (303)673-9796 . ~ I ceniry I~at the inlormation antl ezhibits I have su6mitletl are Irue and wrrect ro the Eesl ol my knowletlge. In filing Ne application 1 am aqing wilh the knowle0ge . antl conse~l ol lhose persons w~o am owners ol t~e subjecl properry or are parties ro Ihis appliwlion. 1 understand ihal all ma~erials requireC by Boultler Counly I in m0tt r I r Eli Etli~ional ~ees ot E ilt tl t ~ Ihi C d W tl th t h i ti b i tl I tl tl th t t av g processe must Oe su m e pnor o s e . un e S n a pu ear ngs or mee ng s may e requ re . un ers an a a c materials may be required as a resull ol wnsiCeronons w~ich may anse in Ne processing of this dockeL I unaerstantl lhat the roatl. school anA park tledicatlons may Oe required as a condilian ot approval. I understanE that I am consen6ng W allow the Counry SIaR involvetl in Ihis applicalion or Iheir Cesignees to emer onlo anC inspecl the su6ject pmpeM at any reasonable time, wit~out o6taining any prior consent. . SIGNATURE' OATE X SIGNAT , DATE '~ • PLE.45E REFER TO THE REGULATIONS AND APPLICATION SUBMITTAL PACKAGE FOR COMPLETE APPLICATION REOUIREMENTS • BUILDING PLANS/ELEVATION DRAWINGS/LANDSCAPE PLAN/SITE PLAN/ VICINI'fY MAP /y ~, - _ ._ _ .. _ _ . . _._. _ . _ .. .. , - =i.~ `~" S , ~ ~ ~ ' F i I• ~ •'I ~ . . ~ _ ~ ( . ~1 ~ ~.~..~ • -~ .' • .. . . \"` ~ I~i 'r . 1' h', .. • ` f- ~ { ~'' ~ • ~-~ .i '. ~ ~ ~ ~ '~ I'.. ^ ...I .1,. .. . , 1 ~f~~^ 1~ tl K , _.,~ I.~ ` r~ ~ , _ ~~` `` F11~IM0^,;'1 .' - '_ ~ . N4YBIIOiO~ ~~ , 4 . ;::~ `. ,.- _~,.- ~ -,y '~''1. Y.~ . ` . ~r , ; i },~ ~`• i._ . .''~ " ~ ~ `t, :: ~ ~ ~_ + ~ ~ ~ y~ I ~ . :'~ , ~ ~ '; ~ -:, ~ ~ ~., ~~ ", ' "~'; ' ~. ; i .` a`ti , . ~~ ~ .,~•,,, ~r~:~,~,m~r:.,... l' ;r ~ ,, . r ~-- , I ~ ~ i c...n..au. ~\~;.M~d,aa....~~ . ,I I :I . i - ~ I~ ~ ~- ~~ ' ! 6i6'~ , ~._ at'_ _'"' + t: - ~ ~ioR~~nl- . ~ : I . . ._r~^ ~ - ~ ~ ' I ,, ';,. ~_ , 4.• ,.oo,. ~ ; ~ ~ ~ e , , 6ryw.. G,n::; . _~_ .I "!~ - ~ . ~ i ~ ~~:, ;: • a: ~ '~""~a.~~ :: .. ; _ a ~ e , , . ~ . , = -. , n ~n~,Ev~r~ } ~~ .~ ~ ~- i ,L _ / :, ~~ ti L. `•. _ ~ ~ ...<_ _ _~,. - _ .. _ - . ~ ~ ~ ~, . 1 c~rExr ~nr~ ~.. :,.... _ _... _. _. Ia~ri~~M1-~'./~~S~~v~'YUJ'~.~~Y ~ ~~~ p~,~~~s RELOCATION ~F KITTREDGE TENNIS COURTS TO THE UNIVERSITY OF COLaRADO AT 80ULDER - 50UTH CAMPUS ~ ~SITE ~PL..AN ,.. `J " ' " , •~•y CONCEPTPLIW ~.w..>.r.:s.a.wo:~~~....ynv, A~ ~ ~ ~ ...,.,, ,.. r... : ~ °., _ :., ~ Y TIl~M'.".lu~ • . .e.'pC• ': . I . K(Ili Il.~ ..-.~'. 1 . . I~ . _... f ..w ..r ~ TS•.'.: f . A ~~'TfP~'\?Z~ . ... ~ S~'-]i~- 1 .g_ '~1 i i -"IJ E _ . t~' R "~ ~ . ~ ~ . .. - . . 3~ i. f..~( 11 Y ~. ~i. ~X' Y1~.;~'~.4 wrt, t5-. .~xt ~~njr-9Ri vHdo-,nuncr[4t kMNftultf . , . ~ ... , 1Mi00u1. "-"~MbfOSCYFX : YRMIY~R ~ IIytMl~C'E ~ I~ I- f~i~ ~ I I' I F-~l~i~ I I I f ~ 1~1~~ ~~ ~~~-A~ , :~~ : _- .~. ~,~~~A~ c ..xr. r :_ ~ rnnura~ Q[~C'd1~C011 ,_~... _.._ _..-..,.. _..: _ ,..... Snv~t Cot~tes Dett~ 35-.t:...__ ' • ..... - .: : .;: -:....': .s.' -~i . ,:.. .. :. .. .. ,~ , ' . ~. .. ~ 'v ^xi~ ~; ~ ' !hx A~.'2?w5J\'1 a +y~'i~aJ~ ~ r`n .L S[~~/~}i ~ ~ II . ~'j~~~ , :~:. ~, v . . u . . ~ . - ~ - ::. .. : -. 1 ... ...i 4.. . trMb10NNUMf/EMfF •. • . , .m+nr+ma~«~wm". -,r~oxawwwroce ~ ~ i ' _ ' ~ ' i ~-.___...L__....__"_.-i.~-G-~-_" ___._ ~ ; _f, • ~ uws~ . . ~, o~r~ : ~m.wu,m ~ „~rn~ars . _ . ~ ~ Ym15l9~~ ETE~tl[I! ~ QOSIL~IEWIi1d1Ut I... . . . . . -) ~ SECTION ~ ~,:. ~-...:... RELOCATION OF KffTREDGE TENNIS COURTS TO THE CONGEPT PLAN n~ ran ~waca~r.t ww•c ~e.e UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO AT BOULdER - SOUTH CAMPUS °"~"'~°°""°`""°'""""" /'1G ~arsar.xsax..wwr.SU NpILt7.'AC ~\ ~~ 'ER / / \ / , \ ` . ~--CNAW{MK1~q~VICEWIES , 1 ~ ~__~ ~_ ~-i rr__~~ rr___..~ ~~ 1~ ~I I~ ~I I~ II , II ~I I~ ~I i~ ~I I~ II ~ -II ~-_ _~ -r ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~ I rqrc~ra~tsRw~l , I ~-CONPACTEDGMVElB~SE~ I CM1NdRa(PIW~CYFfNLE wm~orwuESCnEw h Ea. 6'~0' E4. 14'-O' ~ ~ COA1YACiFD i ~ OMV0. WMIf iarwoxr~wu~e~ PORTABLE TOILET PLAN ~~~ 1 wu. w•.ro Su~tc Cor,~s D~~.ffs ti~rn~ w ~~ RELOCA710N OF KITTREDGE 7ENNIS COURTS TO THE UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO AT BOULDER - SOUTH CAMPUS w~-o~ : ELEVATION• 2 sc.u, w•..a CONCEPT PLAN uwawl~aranuouaeWtm ~n6~Im~IT/Om~llfW PWYI~2YO~R 'W AIYMONI~MYN~11~W'IVLW. A3 IIII I~~I III~I~~I I~~II~~I i~~ll I° I I"7"'~'"r cwcE °osr ia~wT~ l7'"'I-~ " I I LJ LJ LJIJ LJLJ LJJ CU-Boulder South 7ennis Court Relocation Project Executive Summary This application 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: As a part of the tennis court complex project, there will be twelve fenced courts, a temporary parking lot that will aliow up to 125 cars, and viewing sfands (which will be reiocated from the existing tennis court site on the Main Campus). Some grading will be required to construct levei pads for the courts and for the pa~lcing area. The new Law School, targeted to begin construction in 2002, will displace the existing Kittredge tennis courts. The twelve courts are a key facility for the University's competitive tennis programs. The courts are used daity 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 local community who may be able to schedule the courts for local tennis competitions. The intent of relocafing the proposed tennis facilifies 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 facilifies. The Main and East Campuses are closer to existing facilities and would require fewer additional infrastructure, utility, and transportation improvements. The proposed project does not contain water or sewage treatment activities or improvements. Screened portable toilets are incorporated into the design and participants 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 whote or in part within designated Natural Resource, Natural Hazard, or Historical a~d 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 fioodplain or tnitial Control Area. The proposed tennis courts location is in compliance with Boulder County Zoning. The site is located aPproximately haff in the "ED" Economic Development Zone, and hatf in the "A" Agriculture zone. Both of these zoning districts list recreational facilities, and specifically tennis facilities, as an appropriate use. /_5 a Traffic would 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 typicaliy 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 during the moming peak hour and eight trips during the afternoon peak hour. Tra~c peaks may increase to 350 vehicle trips per day with a maximum peak hour load of 150 trips during tennis exhibitions or toumaments, wFiich would typically occur approximately three to four times per year. No additional right-of-way or easements wouid be required for new or expanded transportation faci(ities There are no areas of su~face 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 spec~c areas of critical wildlife habitat or a livestock range that will be affected. The project is not anticipated to have any significant adverse impacts on air quality due to the fow number of vehicfe frips generafed and there should be no deteriorafion of the existing natural aesthetics as it relates to the current condition of the property. /~7.'7 RESPONSE TO ARTICLE 8 BOULDER LAND USE CODE ~5y UMVERSITY OF COLORADO - BOULDER TENNIS COURT RELOCATION PROJECT "RESPONSE TO ARTICLE 8- BOULbER LAND USE CODE" B. APPLICATIONREOUIItEMEIVTS l.b. Name of Proposed Development: Relocation of Tennis Court and associated facilities jrom ihe University of Colorado's Main Campus to a portion of the CU-Boulder South site. Total Number of Acres: Appro~mate[y 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 application (reduced size) include: l) CU-Boulder South Map indicating location and scale of twelve (Z2) Texnis courts, temporary parking for 125 automo6iles, viewing (Exhibit 1) 2) Flovdplain Map including delineatians for FEMA Regulatory Jioodplaix, Flood Hazard Initial Control Area and Existing Condilions Jloodp[ain. (Exhibit 2) 3) Map of Geo[ogic Hatard Areas located on the CU-Bou[der South Campus property. (Exhibit 3) 4) Boulder County Zoning Map (Exhibit 4) 5) Boulder County Land Use Map (Exhibit S) 6) Map of Surface Waters an the CU-Boulder Sautl: Property. (Exhibit 6). 7) Map oj Estimated Groundwater Contours and Depths jor tke CU- Bou[der South Campus Property. (Exhibit 7J. 8) Delineated we[lands on CU-Baulder South Property. (Exhibit 8) 9) Pbotas ojCU-Baulder Sauth raken jram variaus locations (Exhibu 9). l.d. Name, Address and Phone Nusnber of Applicant, Designer, Engineer, and other Consultants. Applicant: University of Colorado Board of Regents, a Body Corporate Agent: Je, f)`'rey S. Lipton, Executive Directar Department ojFaci[ittes Management Campus Box 453 Boulder, CO 80309-0453 303-492-2222 303-492-7186 - fax Email: 1~lonna colorado. edu /JJ Consultant: Love & Associates, Inc. 841 Front Street Louisville, CO 80027-I849 303-673-9795 303-673-9796 (jax) Email: nlove(a)lovearsociates.com Nancy Boudreau Love, C.E.O. - Consultant - Project Principa! Nanty Boudreau Love has a unique combination ojurban p[anning, pablic speaking, public process, business management, econo~nic and accounting experience arsd education. Nancy has worked in tke field oj water resource ' consulting jor more than twenty-eight years Her expertise ranges jram !he day-to-day planning and management oja projessional consalling business !a individual projeel maxagement, urban planning, public panicipation, regulatory agency coordination and approvals aad prajec! cos7 controL Her role at Love Qc .tssociales, Ina as Chiej Fxecutive O~cer, affords 6er the responsibility ojixterjacing with individual staff inembers, clienls, reviewing and regulatory agencia, contraclors, and the general pablic in order to insure thal each project underlaken by Love & Associales, Inc. is completed in 1he masl e~cfent, expeditious, and cos! eJfective manaer providing the highesl qua[ily ojproduc! while keeping 1he c(ieel and/or fhe public injormed as to i1s progress at aU times Nancy has a degree in Urban Planning jrom lhe Universi[y ojOk(ahoma (1972J aad kas takee extensive postgraduate work in water rights, Jloodplain management, and hydrolagy, ete David J. Love, P.E. -President -Principal Engi~:eer David Love has a degree in Engineering Physics jrom [he Colorado Schoo! Mines (1972) and is a/icensed Projess~'b'nal Engineer in the State ojColorado. Re has morelhan lhir!}wne (31) years ojerperieace in civi! and water resource engineering jor slate, municipal, indastriaG agricut~ural, and private sector clienu. His areas oj expertise indude Hydraulics, hydrnlagy, civil, storm drainage, Jload control, masler planning, recrea[ion ettgineering, environmental design, wdland mrligation design, in-stream water quality and habitat improvements, road design, water supply, sewerage, and subsurjace draixage David has been a guest lecturer al lhe University ojCo[orado a1 Boufder in !he coUeges ojCrvi! Engineering, Journalism and Environmentaf Design and has taught construction inspedion school fo Ciry oj Boulder Public Works employees Due to his unrque approack in jorging juxclional engineering solutions with environmental and aesthdic concerns, David has been a jeatured speaker at severa! projessiona[ conferences He also continues to update kis educaliort rhrough seminars, workshops and symposiums David is quafified in Federa/ Court as an experl witness in 1he areas aj drainageway masYer p[annirtg, fina! design, cost eslimaling and canstruction managemertt and has provided testimnny on multiple caurt cases overlhe past thirty one years. Consultants: Transportation - Fe[zburg, Holt, Ulevig - 7951 East Maplewood Avenue, Suile 200 Greenwood Vi[lage, CO 80111 303-721-1440 Jeff Rean~, P.E. Sn Transportatiou Engirreer /Slv JejjReam is a registered prajesaional exgiaeer witk terc years ojexperrertce in ~he fields oj (rajfic engineering and fransportation planniag. He graduated jrom 1ht Universily of Washington with a degree in civil engineering in 1992. He is an ape~ienced projecf manager jor engineering, plannirtg, and lrave! demand modeling projtcJS, and has warked in support roles on transit planning projects Xe has also been involved in the developreent oj quanti(ative service analysis ~xodels jor tra~c operalio'rts and has been involved in !he developmenl aj survey tools and mdhodo/ogies jor transportation-related da~a galhering. Mr. Ream has conducted tra~c impact analyses jor over !00 public and private developmen[s in fhe states oj Washington, Oregon, Nevada, and CoforaQo. These incfude haasing developments ranging fiom IS to 9,000 uni(s, rUail cem~ers, mixed-use commercia! cenfers, o~ce buildings, o~ce parks, indus~ria! parks, jreight jacilitiu, transit jacilities, sckoofs, goljcourses, and public parks Environmental - Wildlife: ERO Resources - 1842 Clarkson Street Denver, CO 80218 (303J 830-I188 Ronald D. Beane Mr. Beane is a ceiYified ecologis! and Research Associate with the Denver Museum ojNatural History. He has aver 22 years ojprojessiona( erperience as an ecalogisr and wi[dlije biolagist, specialiung in NEPA, environmental permiuing, environmeatal planning, threa~ened and endangered species, urban wrldlije, applied ecalogica/ studies, and ecological risk assessments. Mr. Beane has been invalved ln a wide range ojprojec7s inc(uding state and jedera! highways, lraxsmissian lines, jederal superjuxd sites, mililary inseallations, oi/ and gas pipelines, miding, open space planning, and nafaral iesources mapagemenL Hfs fields oj expeRise include: wild[iJe biology/ eco(ogy, Threatened and Endangered Species Assessmen~s, raptor biology, xatural resource planning, NEPA Compliaxee - bialogica! assessments and habitat resloration/management He is a cerlifred as an Ecologist by the Ecologica! Sociery.ojAmerican (1993) and ho(ds a Masters degree in biology jrom the Universiry ojColora4o (1996J. Environ[nental - Wetlands - Keammerer Eco(ogical 5858 Waodbourne Ho[low Boulder, CO 80301 303-530-I783 Dr. Warren Keammerer Dr. Warren Xeammerer is a Doctor oJ Philosophy in Botany and P/ant Ecology jrom North Dakota State University (1972) and has been working as an independent conSUltant in planr erofogy and vegetation studies since 1973. Ne has worked on over 250 dijferent studies in Colnrado, New Mexico, if'yomrng, Utah, Arizona, Calijornia, Nevada, Montana, NortG Dakota, Snurli Dakota; Nebraska and Oklahoma Studies have relat¢d ro mining, ski area, induslria( and park development. Dr. Xeammerer l~as provided rxperf (estimony in planr ecology. Dc Keammerer, over tlie years, has deve/oped specia[ expertise in moni~oring vege(ation cl~a~~ges and developed compuler soJnvare designed ro jaci(itate the organizalion and ana(~~sis oj vegetarioii ~'> ~ data. Dr. Keammerer has aathored more lhart 175 consul~ing reports over the last 15 years related to vegetalion studies. l.e. Ex6ibit/Drawing Tnfoanation: AU drawings, maps, etc incorporated as a part of this submiKal include the date lhe drawing was prepared, a revision box, an appropriate scale~ a graphic sca[e and a norlh arrow. Refer to each individua! drawing for this injormation. See Exhibit 1 jor Location of Property and Location oj Tennis Court Facilities wilhin the CU-Boulder South property. ' 2, The folIowing 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 inciuding the proposed system capacity and service azea plans and maps. c. A description of all existing or approved proposed domestic water or sewage treatment systems within the jurisdiction of the applicant as well as adjacent communities (incocporated and unincorporated). d, T[ie design capacity of each domestic water or sewage treatment system and the distribution or collection network identified in (3) above. e. A detailed invantory of total commitments akeady made for current water 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 unincorporated Boulder County anfl converted to provide the supply. Not applica6[e. Proposed project does not contain water and sewage trealment 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 azea to be served. '~ d. A description of the distribution network for the area proposed to be served. Not applicable. Proposed project does not contain major facilities af a public utilily. 3. The following requirements apply only to development located in whole or in part within designated Historical and Archeological Resotirce Areas of statewide importance. /SfS ..,., ........ ..,..,,.., C.U. BOULDER SOUTH X~~~~4 TENNIS COURT RELOCATION PROJECT ~`~°°°~-~°~ MARCH 7, 2002 ~ VICINI EXHIBIT 1 b. A state historical site survey form completed by a qualified professional acceptable to the State Historic Preservation Ofticer 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 applicable. Proposed project is not located in who[e or in pan within designated Historical and Archeo[ogica! Resource Areas of statewide imponanc~ 4. The following requirements apply only to development located in whole or in part within designated Natural Resource Areas of statewide importance. b. A survey of habitat of applicable specias by a qualified professionat. c. A plan of construction and operations, which shall contain an analysis of the effects of the proposed development upon wildlife species within the designated wildlife habitat. (8/13/98) Not applicab[e. Proposed projecf is not located in whole or in pan within designated Natural Resource Areas of statewide imporlance. 5. The following requirements apply only to developtnent located in whole or in part within designated Natural Hazard Areas of statewide importance. (I1/Ol/Ol) b. For development within a natural hazazd azea as set forth in Section 8-405 (E)(1): i. Application for a Floodplain Development Permit containing the informadon required in Article 4-407(B) of this Code. ii. A flood hazazd impact report that addresses the criteria for developing in a flood hazard azea, certified by a registered Colorado Professional. Engineer. iii. Maps or reports addressing flood hazard azeas must be prepazed 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 applicabfe. The site for the proposed tennis court complex is not located within any designated Natura! Hazard Area oj statewide importance. c. For development located within a naturat hazazd area which is a flood hazazd area contained withirt an Initial Control Area as set forth in 8-405 (E) (2): //oC i. Studies sufficiently detailed to allow the County Engineer, in consultation with the Colorado Water Conservation Board, to determine whether the development is within a flood hazazd area that should properly be mapped as a floodplain. ii. Upon receipt of the studies the County Engineer shall refer such studies to the Colorado Water Conservation Boazd. As part of this refecral, the applicant shall submit additional information that the Colorado Water Conservation Boazd may require to determine whether the devalopment or any part thereof lies within an azea that should properly be mapped as a floodplain. iii. If, following consultation with the Colorado Water Conservation $oard 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- 507D.6.a. Not applicable Tlie site jor the proposed tennis court complex is not locaYed within rhe Inifia! Contro! Area as set fortk in 8-405 (E) (2). (See Exhibit 2). d. For development within a flood natural hazazd azea, that is located in wholo or in part within an Initial Control Area (see subsection b., above), but is also located in part in a current 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 jar the proposed tennis court comp[eY is not [ocated within any currently nrapped floodplain under Article 4-402 of the Code, flood natural hatard area or Initial Control Area. (See Exhibit 1). e. For developments located within a natural hazard area which is a geologic hazazd area: i. A geology report documenting and assessing the nature and extent of the applicable geologic hazard, its impact on the proposed deve]opment, and proposed mitigation measures if any, prepared by either a member of the American Institute of Professional Geologists, a member of the Association of Engineering Geo[ogists, or an individua[ registerad as a geologist by a state. Not app[icab[e. The proposed project is not located within a designated Natural Hazard Area, w/tich is a geo[ogica! hazard. (See Exhlbil 3). /~ / FLOODPLAIN MAP ~ ~ ~ ;F ~ o~ 9gF ~S~ i~l{ ~ ~. ,~,~,,,,~. ~-~- , -, , ~ ----_~-~ , ~. ~ ~~ ~. ~~ . F~_„~ ~., ~ . ~ ~ ~ ~ . ~~~ ~ -- ~~..,~..~,.a.~. ~ r~ ' ~,~i ~~ ~~, ~ ~H ,, ~ ~ ~, `~ ~~.~ \ ; ~~`~..~.~,~ ~- _ FM1I~FSNO ~ ~ ~ 1EWWRIlM4p ~ ~~ ' ~~ `~ UNI~~'RSITY OF COLORADO AT BOIlLDEl~ ~~ r 1 ~ ~oorhn iaea ----'-- FE4~ REdMTdiY TAGGMT p[4NEAlED ~~-~ ~~m f00-YA ROODPI~iM FLpOp HAZARD RbifAL CRl7ROL ARE~ BOUNDARV GU - HUULUtK suuin EXHIBIT 1ENNIS CWRT RELOCA710N PROJECT Z ~EOLOGIC HAZARD AREAS ~ C,a I'~ i ,; . ~~,~i~' .0~ ;~::~: ~ -~'" ~~' ~:~ ~, ~ ~ ~ ~'`~ ~~ .s's Il.r '~ I~ . ~ 3 ~ ,,-~ -- _- .., - ., --_~ ~ ,.\ :~~; :: ~,~ mo~nr .~ ~eoua~xr .T. ___-_ _' •~:~ __ ~ i~~.- _ _ _ .~~ i S' ~~~~, .. f`; ~ ~' : ~ ~..a _ .. ___i ~~~ .,.~:;;;: ::::::::::::::::::. ~~ ~ ,.. ;i } ~'"'•:• ~~~•: `_x - c.°~.^• _ . ~ 1 _ Q ___ ~ I _ \ xd ms ga d Xp~ ~ • ace _ __ - , ,._ - F~;~ ~I IINIV~RSITY OF COLOR9D0 AT BOULII~'R .: : ~' :~ , ~~'~ I i ~~~~~~ ~ --- ------ ~ ~'"' ~~~ ~~: ~/~f~ ~ (MPRO%. LOCAl10uSJ ~ ~~ MODERAIE H~ZMD MOOERATE CONSTRAINT ~ ~.~ A1MOR CONSIRNNT ~ry~s~ luY: t' ~ s4 ~~~ CU - BOULDER-SOUTH- EXHIBIT ~ 1ENNI5 COURT RELOCATION PROJECT I 3 ~,~ sh~ 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 ttte azea to be served and the population to be served. ~ Tliis application proposes the relacation of !he University of Colorado Boulder's existing twelve-court Kinredge tennis cour~ cnmplex 1o a new facility a! CU-Boulder South. A new Law Schoo! building, targeted to begin construction in 2002, wi[l displace the exisling KitCredge tennis cour[s. The rivelve caarls are a key facility for the tennis programs in the Depanment oj Intercollegiate Athletics. The courts are used daily for practice and training and during bath the Fal[ and Spring seasons as a competition venue. It is critical jor Alhletics to have twelve new courts in place prior to the demolition of the existing courts. The facilities that support the current courts spectator seating, restroom jacilities, temporary parking, and security jencing will also be inc[uded as part ojthe replacementProjecG See Exhibit I for location of proposed Jacilities. The Campus Master Plan was adopled wit/rin tlre past year by 1he University's Board of Regents knd the Cblorado Commission on Higher Education. The Master Plan identified CU-Boulder South as the location for the replacement tennis couns as we11 as ather athle~ics and recreational fields and jacilities. ii. The predominant types of users or communities to be served by the proposal. The predominant users of [he proposed tennis courls will be the student athletes that compete in the intercollegiate athletic competitive tennis program. Other users wou[d include CU students tJiat compete in iniramura! ter:nis, students attending summer tennis ca»tps, and the loca! community w/io may be able to schedu[e tl:e courts jor local tennis competitions. iii. The percentage of the design capacity at which the current system is now operating. /~ y No1 applicable. iv. If the proposal is a new water or wastewater treatment system or public utility facility and that system exceeds a ten-yeaz projected increase in demand, a detailed explanation of the excess service capacity and the cost of the excess capacity. Not applicable. No new water or wastewater treatment system or public uti[ity facility is being proposed at this tennPs facility. v. The relationship of the proposal to the applicant's long-range planning and capital improvements programs. As mentioned above, the proposed development is consistent with the CU-Boulder Master Plan, which was approved by the University's Board ojRegents and the Colorado Commission on Higher Education. The intent of relocating the proposed tennis jacilities to CU-Boulder South is also consistent with the stated goal of relocating several existing ath/etic and recreational fields to CU-Boulder South in nrder to make land on ihe Main and East campuses available for more intense academic, research, and housing facilities since those lands are claser Yo existing facilities and would require fewer additional injrastruc~ure, utility, and transportation improvements. c. Environmental Impact Analysis ~' 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 si[e is located approximately half in the "ED" Economic Development Zone, and half in the "A"Agriculture zone. Both of these zoning districts list recreationa! facilities, and specifically tennis jacilities, as an appropriate use that can be permit~ed fallowing review. The zoning is an indication that the tennis facility is an appropriate use at this location. Taking a1! aspects of tl:e Boulder Yalley Compre/tensive Plan (BVCP) into consideralion, a reasonable co~iclusion is tka! this proposa! is in accord with the County's Comprehensive Land Use Plan. See Exhibit 5. /(0.5 ,~~~~,; ~ ~III _ ~ ;;~ ~ '°~ --~ °"~:".°°" •~~----~Cf Alu _ ICa ' _ 'vl..-i- - _' .:~.. w e~=--~ ~+il ', ff/ L` 1~ \ \ ~~v6~ ~l L1~ fr ~ ~ r ~ 3:. t~ ~ (.,~ \. i G ~-~U ~ ~~ , ~ '~ % ~ •' •~~ ?~ '-1a .~i ~ ~ i qry ~ n .~ 4?. rw -. . ~ 1 ~ / ~ . p ~~ jt s ».~ ~~ ~ 1~/ i( `~ `'. '\ r ~ ~~ Vr 7j ii ia.. ta~..ai~/~~._ ii \ .~\- ~~'+.._ I AND CDUNTY ZONING I I - ~~11V c~.~~7j~1 ;aff6 .-;fP~%~ i~ _ ~p~A` . ~~\\.._~i~~`~\~l_\ '~~ ~~~~ ruM7~~ .;~ ~ ~i ~ ' . ~ \ .. ~_ ~ ~.1 ~ : i t~ ~."~,`1 ~ ) ~ ~ ~, i, ~~ ~ d~"-'~ '' ~._ ~i ~ ', {P ~~~~`'~ f / i ~d ^---"•-/~~ ; ~ b -~ ~ t ` , j ~ .... 4 rr" ~ il i , l7 ~ t~1 ~~~ ~~ , ~---__- t ~ ~ " ~, .~V ~ `....t I~ ' _-.-_ .~ 'f ',' '~} ~ s _ ~ {{~~Y ~ ~ ~ ~ 7 `2 / ~!c~~ .'~~ ~~•: . -', : . Ii -~ r ~ ~ 4. ~i ~F~, ~, t~ i .,C . +~ ~ . . . ~i ,Mtt~t 1 ! ~.! ~.. . ~ ~ ~, . ;•, ~ ~w ~ - . .~ ~.~r5~; `.:.. - *z . _ ~'~ i/. w s ~ ~ et- «...... ._ \ ' ~ l ~ `i ~ ~ • ~ ~~ . „'d . ~ i~ '. - ~ ..amn .,,. t , ° ~1 '`~ `~41, \ 'V ':~ ~J; ,~, ~• ' ~ ~ ~ '~t a~ ~ ~~4 .i 11 ~~I ~\ '~ ,%;~ ~ ~,:: % •--~ ~ti. : '; ~ it 'I \~`._..~.,~.~_,.r. 1. ~ ~ / ~ ' ~ }' .` ~ ./ '~".•.,l ~'Jt.r77p.: ~..:~t J5'~ ••f ~ { ~ ~ri `~~ +`!r` :.4~ . ''/'~~~~~ _ ...,~.~. . ~ .. . ~'•` h ~ ''' _ !~ ~'~~~~3' 1';' ` ,.. 4 `4~ ~~~r ~ 1 F~'°.d~a"~`t~9 ~ U .....i~,~fr,~,'. ~:.. WWW i .. j~` 0 _ ~~ q ~l ~ ~ ~. h ~,~ `_,~~{ w. ~F1j~ f~7/^'"~".- - ` ~ ` V\ y / ~Jli ~ ~ ~ I~l ~ 0 4 ! ~~~~Y~,/ d er ~~ ,~V~~ U i~ Q, ~ ~~~'` ~ ,~ " Qo~~ 6 ~ ~,~ ~ ~~~~ •~, ~ , ~'; --~~~\~ v , I "< (,r~:~ ~ r , ~ ' ~~„ . 2o~nq ~. ~ ~, ~ ~ :'~'f'~\`t~~i r r ~ , o ~ ~5~~ . . a ~ R, ~ ctla~' t l~ i t::..~~ ~'5~~~ ++ i 0. - ',;~ ~~ '~c . i~ ~ ~~. - ~i m ~. ~'0 Qo' ~~ / , C • ~~ ; =`„ ;~ ~ ~ ts ;., ~ ~ ~ 5+ ~ r~r . _'~~."~., a °~G ~~~w . • ~ • ~. ~~ l~v~~3~~i5 ~ ~ . ~wA~~~ .r~~~i ~ ~~ ~~~ s5~ UNIY~'RSITY OF COLORADO AT BOIILJI~'R ~ ~dY I~I~ x ~Q ,.". -.~ : - ~ ~ u.w.~ a.~ r - se ~' - m+ae.ca..vzar~o n :_:~ =_ .. _ ~ ~~ ~..r ~ I~ W-Y~W~lIMM ~~ • • ~ ~~ ~.~~ ~ ~.~ P6~y CU - BOULDER SOU7H rEXHIBIT IENNIS CWRT RELOCA710N PROJECT I 4 a ~ ~ LAND USE LEGEND ! - - " ~ ~ ~ ... ...... a.r.. I - •+-~ ~ ..,~. ~ _ _"- ~ w ~ _, ; ~ _ ~.~ ,_,~ ,~ - Y,j 4 ~... .,i, rr.+~ i~ ~; ~ \ l ;,c.. _ , .,_. 1 ' r _(~ ~ ~_r~~ ,, ;, i . ~s _. .,~, ~ ~~ ~ ~lYL~!l~~i `~ -! f f A ~ •' ~~ ~ -~ s~ .. . ~ : ~-~i ==~ ,~~ - ~--f - ,~ s~ -- ---- ~ ~ ~ , .J 3 ~ ~~,, -. , ~ i ~ 38 , ~ s ~ --~. ~14F~ ~',s` ~~t~~--~--. _- /~i TJNIv~'l.1 ~'rTY OF COl,O.~~f1J0 AT AOIILIIE'I~ . ~ ~ .:i~!::' ~ ., COUMY LAND USE MAP :4~ilNll~w = j=f(~p~/~,,~" ~~~~a~. ~ , ~~. ~,,.,~„~ ~ ~`~f,~..~ ~t"2X ~3~~ "I'.1l~ '~1 CU - BOULDER SOU7H~~ EXHIBIT ~~~TENNIS COURT RELOCATION PROJECT 5 • The entire "CU-Boulder Sou1h" site is loca~ed within Area IIB, indicating tke site ultiraately wi!! become more urban and has the potential for future annexation into the Ciry ojBoulder. • Urban services, which are not yel available, are noe required for lennis couKs. • Transportation access is more lhan sufficient for the proposed tennis jaciliry use. • The CUproperty is divided into three BVCP land-use categories: medium-density residential, !ow-density residential, and open spac~ Tlie specific tennis jacility sile is on t/ie edge of the medium-density residentia[ designation, overlapping into the open space designation. Recreationa! facilities such as tennis courls are common in medium-density residential areas. In terms oj open space, the specific texnis court location does not have unique opex space characteristics (such as wetland, steep s[ope, unique flora or fauna, etc) to preserve. The site of the proposed tennis Jacilities ltas been previously grave! mined and re-vegetated with a native, non-irrigated pasture grass. No shrubs or lrees erist on !he proposed site of !he tennis facilities. The University has recextly surveyed such characteristics jor the entire property, and has identified other porlions of the site that cau[d potentially be preserved or designated as apen space. • Locating tennis courls as proposed will not disrupt the desirable averall panern ojcounty development II Detail the agricultural productivity capability of the land affected by the proposal (SCS classification). The proposed site for the tennis court jacilities is located within an area that was sand and grave! mined 1o wit/iin a few feet of t/te u~tderlying Pierre Sha[e formation. Upon completion ojthe grave! mining activities, ihe area was re-topsoiled and revegetated with an approved native, dry laud grass mix as parl of the reclamation process. The revegetatiar is relatively sparse, and the coversoil contains a considerable amount of rock, genera[lyll-inches or less i~: size. The coversoil ma[erial would not likely sustaii: or be conducive to agricultura[ productivity due to the i:ature oj the materials tkat have been utilized to fill a~rd topsoi! tlie site jol[owing tlre grave[ operations. Soils within t/ie project site were ge~:erally classified as Niwot soils (NRCS 1975). These soils formed a~ loiv terraces and /(~' ~' bottom[ands in loamy alluvium superimposed over sand and gravel. Currenlly the soi[s cansist oj mining fines intermixed with pebbles and small to large cob6le. 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 texnis program practice times, the proposed development is typically expected to 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 ~he peak hour of adjaceat street traffic. During the peak hour of adjacent street trajfic, the development wou/d typicaf[y generate five trips during [!te morning peak hour and eight trips during the aJternoon peak koua Traf'fic peaks may increase to 350 vehic[e trips per day with a maximum peak hour load oJ I50 Yrips during tennis exhibiYions or tournamenYS, which would typically occur approximately three to jour times per year. Additiona! traffic may occasionally occur fram scheduled public use. The traffic load from that use would fit into the peak Ioads described above. The f ndings of the traffic study for the site are as follows: The three intersections primarily affected by site traffic are tlie Table Mesa DrivPJUS 36 Wese Ramp, the Table Mesa Drivr/Faothills Parkway West Ramp, and the Saut/r Boulder Road/US 36 East Ramp. ~ In ZDOS, all three interseclions would operate at Leve! of Service "LOS" B or betler during the AM peak hour bnt/i wilhout and with the project. During the PM peak hour on a rypica! day, a[! three intersections would operate at LOS C ar better both without and wirh tlie project. During tlie PMpeak hour on a specia! event day, tJre iulersections would also operate at LOS C. In 2020, all three intersections would operate at LOS C or better duriirg tke AM peak hour. During ihe PM peak bour, all three iuterseciians operate at LOS D or betler during a typica! day, while duri~tg an event, t/ie US 36 /~ y West Ramp deteriorates to LOS E. With optimized signa! timings during the PM peak, a!! three intersections operate at LOS C or better on both a typical day and during a special event. The increased tra~c impacts jor these intersections wil! not be a junction of the tennis courts but rather from other background changes in trajfic volumes. The~ejore, in 2020, the signal limings at the three impacted intersections along Table Mesa Drive shou/d be re-optimized during the PMpeak to improve ira~c Jlow. Currently, the City of Boulder Signa[ Operations Engineer regularly monitors and optimizes the City's signal system. It is anticipated tkat the task of optimization will continue to be conducted by the Signa! Operatians Engineer in the future, and therejore anlicipated that the City would perform this re-optimization as part of their on- going moni~oring eJjons. III. Specify any additional right-of-way or easements for new or expanded transportation facilities. No additional right-of-way or easemenls would be required for new or expanded transportation facilities. However, as noted above, it is anticipaled thai the City's Signal Operations Engineer wi[! continue to manitor traffic flow along Table Mesa Drive and re-optimize the traffic signals when appropriate. Tkis represents a typical responsibility for that position. ii. Water resources: I. On the same, or another appropriate map, indicate any flood hazard azea associated with the proposal. Documentation of historical flooding activity on the pazcel where the activity or development will be located, and on other property affected by the activity or devclopment, should be included. Detail potential, adverse impacts related to the associated flood hazard uea. (11/01/01) Exhibit 2 indicates the proposed development in relation to t&e FEMA designated J[oodplain map. The proposed development is located outside any previously known areas oj liistorica! flood activity. Tlie developn:ent wi!! not have airy appreciable flood or drainage impacts on ot/ier properlies or tl:e balairce of !he CU-Boulder Soutlr property. As can be seen frons the ihree floodplains shown on ExJ:ibii 2, the [ocalion of the tennis facilities are clearly locafed outside a!! i7G known areas oJ Jlooding including the current FEMA regulatory floodplain, the updated existing conditions floodplain 4nd the Couxty's Flood tnitia! Control Area. II. Map and describe ail sucface waters, including applicable state water quality standards, to be affected by the projact. There are no areas of surface wa~er ihat will be affected by tke proposed tennis court complrx on the CU-Boulder South property. T/iere is minimal surface water on the CU-Bou[der South property. All areas oj surface water including irrigation ditches, stormwater drainages, and/orgrave! mined lakes are shown on Exktbit 6. Since no ezisting surjace water areas wi!! be affected by the development of the tennis cou-~ facillties, there are no applica6le state water quality standards that are required or affec[ed. III. Describe the immediate and long-term impact and net effects 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 tGat wil! be afjected by the development of the Yennis courl faci[ities, there will 6e no immediate and/or long-term impact or net effects generated by the construciion or opera~ion of these jaci[ities. Surface drainage/rainfall runojj jrom' tke tennis coun areas will be treated in grassy nr landscaped areas surrounding the tennis court complex and soak into the surrounding grassy areas. Additionally, tl:e l25 space temporary parking !ot will be grave[ and much ojthe rainjall on the parking area wi[! soak into the underlying soils. The parking area will be surrounded by grassed and/or landscaped areas, which should accommodate the runofJ`'jrom tlie parking area prior Yo saturating Che underlying soils. The rainfal! runojf generated by the impervious areas of the ten~ris courts wil! soak into ihe surrounding grassed areas. In the extreme case oj a large rainfal! event, runoff will travel tl:rough the surrounding grassed/landscaped areas and reacli the lake at 1he northeast corner of rhe properry and be detained. The volume of water generated by the impervious areas of tlte tennis courls, even in a large rainfall event, would not be e~rnugli tn cause an impac! tn tbe eristiug grave! lake or the drainage syslems internal to the CU-Bou(der Sout6 praperty. Tkere would be no long-term incpact ox tlre qum:tity a»d quality of surjace water under eid:er au average or ivarst- ~'~/ SURFACE WATERS ~--- __ ~ ~; ~ ik e~ ~ a ~ ~ xa: ~~~ ~f €~ ~: IfNIV~'RSITY OF COlORADO AT gOIlLD~'R "~A.,F \ ~ ~" ~~~--- , , .~. I~• , ~.~.__. -~ - _~- -~-__ --_- - , , ~:--..--..---_, ~ ~ __ _-- , ~ . ; -- -~ o -~ ~ ~ o ~ ~. ~-~ ~I cu - sou~utK souiH IEXHIBIT 7ENNI5 COURT RELOCATION PROJECT s Ti a `~ a?~~~~~ case condition as minimal addilional impervious area wi!! be added by this proposaL If! Map and dcscribe all ~oundwater, including any aquifers. Describe the impacts and, net effect of the activity on groundwater. The praposed development shou[d not have any impad on subsurJace aquifers. The area oj the proposed tennis court faci[ities has been sand and grave! mined to within a few jeet of b[ue shale and therefore xo groundwater or aquifers wi[l be affected by lhe development af this tennis court facility. There will be no wells or irrigations systems associated with the development Drainage and run-aff will be directed to existing ponds by using sheet JCow, grass swales and sha!!ow ditches. At a minimum, the description should include; a. Seasonal watar levels in each subdivision of the aquifer af~'ected by the activity. Since fhe proposed development wil! not have any impact on subsurface aquifers this information is not applicable. b. P.rtesian pressure in aquifers. Since the praposed development wi![ not have any impacl on subsurface agu Jers, there should be no impacts to artesian pressure, if any, in the underlying aquifers. c. Groundwater flow directions and levels. Groundwater Jlow directions and [evels have been mapped jor the overa[l CU-Boulder South site. See Exhibit 7. The groundwater information on this exliibit was generated by Western Mobile-Boulder, the sand and gravel mining company who mined the site, as we(1 as from specific pits dug to determine the elevation 10 groundwate~ at various locations across tlre entire CU- Boulder South site. ~ ~~ . d. Existing aquifer recharge rates and methodology used to calculate rechazge to the aquifer from any rechazge sources. Since the proposed development should not have any impad on subsurface aquijers, there sJiauld be no impacts to aquifer recharge ra[es. ~' 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 applicabl~ Aguifers are not proposed as parl of a water slorage 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 deve[opment wi[1 not have any impact on any subsurjace dam or at stream-aquifer interfaces, there should be no impacts to streams. g. Existing groundwater qn~ality and classification. Not Applicable. Groundwater is not proposed for use by thrs project h. Location of all water wells and their uses. There is currently anly one permitted water well on the CU-Boulder Soutk sit~ This groundwater wel! is located north and east oj the proposed tennis court facilities site, just nor[hwest of the existing building on the property. The water quality of this we!! is poor and has no1 been used by CU since purchasing the property. This well wil[ nat be utilized by the tennis courr facilities. / ~5' ~ ,~m: ~a.~,~ cL.~ TIMATED GROU WATER CONTOU~3,S_A[~ DEPTHS ~_ ~EGEND j ._~' ^• ~ 1 . / ° _ -'_~ _ "~,,, ___.r„~,.-~ '- o-! i.~ as aa e-io io-is ism ~.W1 (~d~Y ~.• ( :. . 1 "°w ~~~ "'TM-~ \~ FM1Feel FeM Fwt Foel Faol FaN v+J~ , ~ ~ ~ „~ - _ 'l~..~r,rla,`~I ~ ~~,~ I . ,:_ ~ ~~ ~~~~~..~ ~~~~ i~ fVl~'~ ~ V'::~ e, ' ) ~ ~ ~ ~` '~i IS~~ ~ ~ ~ ~u~~ ~~ 3 ~ p . .. _ . _ _ \ .\ '_ . ~-•. -a 'a~.,~~ , ~.` v \ ~ ~ ~~y~ r/ 1/ ~~ ~ ~ \`` . ~ ~~;~'~1~~i ' ~.~t~ '~ ~ ~ ~^~.• ~ -- ~ , , ,1 "~ ~ no~ ~ ~; ~~ ~ ~~ ~~~:~ ; ~ , ; ~ -~ ~G 7 ~"~~,.,,~~ ~ ~ t~~ f ; ? r , ~ ~ titi ~ ~' ~- ~(,~~ _~ --,..~.Y(t~. ".nw _ ~ ~a . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ l~ =-`~ ;a . ~:t ~S'->> ~f:'~S7 ,/i I ~.r'et ~,,.~* ~.,. . ./11 / \ ~i v~ ;r ~ _ ~ ~ ~ ..~/.~, ~~:;. . :,~:~ ~ ,f ~ R'' _ ~- „\e:: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ,~ j~ lr ~~~`b ~ts~"~ ~~p ~~~ ,Q ~ ~o ~ ~~ ~, ~ r:~ - ,%'%`~' ~ ~° ° °o ~~~ P~ , ~~~l ~~n o ~a'~3 ° ~'s~~::, ~ ~ ~~ a °\~ ~ ~ l U • Ea ` J~,.~q~ "m~~ D~ '%~y;;:y? t~ ;~ ~~ t . ,~ - ~o~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~i . ~ :~ ~~~ IIlNIi'~'RSITY OF COLORAIIO AT BOULD~'R i_i !E.{ • ~r ~~ _ ~ o ~ ~ .:~ . ~ .:_r;~ ~ i . ~~;=.,u i~-~.:~~`~ ~ r~ i € i " \~ ~ \ ~ ~ ~., ._.~`_.~\ „ ~ ~`"' "~~ ; , -_ \ - -~_ . ~ '.. ~~ ~~r_,~ , ~, CU - BOUIDER SOUTH EXHIBIT 7ENNI5 COURT RELOCAiION PROJECT 7 e; V. Describe the impacts and net effect of the activity on wetlands and riparian areas. Wetlands and riparian areas have been de[ineated on tkis site (September 1999). See Exhibit 8. Tl:ere are very jew areas oj jurisdictional wetlands on the CU-Boulder Souih property. There are no wetlands or riparian areas witkin the area af impact proposed by ihe eennis court faci[ities. a. Map and describe wetlands, and riparian azeas to be affected by the activity, including a description of each type of wetlands, species composition, and biomass. Wellands and riparian areas tkat currently exist on the CU-Bou[der Sauth property were delineated in September, 1999 and tke map has beert updated at [ocations where drainage improvements were made in the summer of 2001. See Exhibit 8. There are no jurisdictiona! wetlands and/or riparian areas thal wi![ be affected as a par~ oj ihe tennis coun facilities instal[ation ar us~ Vegetation on the entire CU Boulder site consists large[y oj re-seeded ~/asslands associated with the reclaimed gravel pit and scattered wet areas associated with drainage channels, retention ponds and groundwater seepage. Grassland areas have been re- seeded with a mixture of native grasses and jorbs including blue grama (Boute[oua gracifis), little bluestem (Schizachyrium scoparium), western wheatgrass (Pascopyrum smithii), prairie cardgrass (Spartina pectinata) and ather species. Much oj the area was seeded less than four years ago and the reclaimed grassland areas are sti[! 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 wellands i~: the vicinity aj the tennis court complex ~ror wi[[ ihere be any wet[and areas affected duri~ig construction or after tlie complex is completed, source of water iirteracti~:g to create olher wellands on the properry is immaterial. However, jor / ~~ DELINEATED WETLANDS , ~ ~ g a. § ~ ~ a ~~~2G ~53 ~~~~ ~ h :'. --- _ ~ ~ - ___ ~\ ~ ~ ~~~ ~ -- --~ ~~`--- ~ d ~ ~ -~ ~ , ,~.._ , ~ ~---- ----~ ~~ ~.~.~,~,.~ ~ FIGII~ESNID ~ hl~dMlf! ~IIOqO ~ ~ ~ ~ I ,. ,~ m ,%%%%'/ i ~~ ' ~ ~..~,~ - ~ , ~ ----------------~ € _.r _ ~ ~ ~1 ~ ~ ~ ; / - ~,~ 1 LEU@D NOTE: ~ ~~~ Delineation performed by Warren Keammerer during field site visit on August 7 k 8, 1999. ~Q ~~r~~ UNIY~'RSITY OF COLORAIIO AT BOIlL1I~'R cu - eou~utH sourH IEXHIBIT lENN15 COURT RELOCA710N pROJECT $ lhose areas on the CU-Boulder Sout1: property Ihat do conrain wetland vegetation, fhese wetlands are created either by groundwater Jrom drainage swales on the periphery of the floor ojthe mining pit or ponds which were created as a part of the mining operation. In some areas along the western edge of the property, there are some wetlands that have developed because ojsome side hi[! seeps. Again, none oj lhese wetlands are willtin close proximity to the tennis court complex. No eristing streams, creeks or drainages are located within or will be ajfected by the proposed site jor the tennis courl camplex b. 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 couK complex nor wi[l tliere be any wetland or riparian areas affected duri~:g construction or after the tennis courl 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 protect the aquatic environment; description of threatened or endangered animal species and their habitat. The majority oj the CU-Boulder Sauth property 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 willaw/cattail wetlands with a scattered plains cottonwood and Russian ofive overstory. The understory vegetalion l~as !ow species diversity and is dominated by toadflax (Linaria~ spp.) and Ballic rush (Juncus balticus) in various, scattered wet areas throughout the entire property. In r~,e v~c~»tty o,( tlie tennis court complex, sparse dryland grasses exist with no tree ar shrub overstory. The tennis court camplex area complete[y lacks any tree or shrub contponent that could provide [errestria! habitat or cover for rvildlije. A resident populalion of mu[e deer occurs ii: the ge~:era! area, hotivever, according ta wildlife habitat maps developed by ihe Colorada Division of Wildlife (Natura! Diversity Infarmatioi: Systen: - /'~~ NDISJ the te~:nis court conrplex contains no suitable ha6itat for mule deer, elk or other game species. Tke site l~as had li~tle time jor natura! ecologica! successioi: to provide the vegetatian and soil components necessa .ry. 1o suppori a diverse, functioning wild[ife community. Additionally lhe recei~t completion of aggregate mining, on tke site has provided little opportunity for rodents and olher wildlije to re- colonize tlie site Sparse vegetation and a lack ojvegetation structures provides [ittle habitat for non game grassland bird or mammal species. A few ground nesting songbirds, suck as western meadowlark or horned [arks may nest on the site; however, litt[e evidence ojuse ojthe area by breeding 6irds or burrowing mammals has been observed on tke tennis complex site. The tennis complex site contair~s no potenlial habitat for federa![y listed dtreatened or exdangered wildlije species. The site completely lacks any kabitat components jor the threatened Preble's meadow jumpiirg mouse (PMJM), particularly shrubs or low growil:g lrees that could provide potential day roost or hibernation habitat for the PMJM. During observations oJthe property over the past two to twa and half years, animals or anima[ signs o6served included raccoon (Procyon lotor), mule deer (Odocoileus /iemionus), white-tailed deer (O.virginianus), don:estic dogs (Canis domesticus) and cats (Felis domesticus). On 1he CU-Boulder Soutk propeKy, human activity including kistorical [ivestock graung (pre-minin~, gravef mining, and water diversion for irrigation (historically) have heavily impacted the arem Residenlial housing borders t/~e properry on tl:e west. Individuals access the entire property a~:d rvalk (a~:d run) domestic pets throughout the property on a daily basis. The Universiry's cross-country track is located on the property and is utilized for inter and intramural track meets as we[! as regular iraining. With afl of the human ac[ivities occurring o~: the CU-Boulder South property in ca~junction with minima[ groundcover, understory or overstory; previous • distur6a~:ce (aggregate mi~:ing); m:d proximiry of residential areas, limiled wild[ije activity occurs WIfII!!7 the levee acreages. Tlie lakes on the site are groundivaler jed aud will not be inrpacted by the construction of the te~vtis court canplex. Tlie lake levels,/luctuate tkrougleout the }~ear based upon the grou~:dwaler sysfem (lower i~i winter aiid higher in spring and summer due to flows ii: irrigation dilclies a~id Sou1h / 79 Bou[der Creek which are in close proximiry to tGe CU- Bou[der South property). 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. Tlie vast majority ojCU-Boulder South &as been mined with reclamation sti!! underway on 1he majoriry of the site. As a result, the property is largely disturbed and much of tl~e pre- existing wild[ije habitat is no longer represented According to maps developed by the Colorado Division oj Wild[ije, the site contains no migralion corridors, critical winter habitat or calving/jawning areas for mule, deer, elk or other economically important species. Only highly specific wi[d[ife studies (e.g. PMJM) have been completed since mining has occurred Some oj the most visible wildlife o~: the sife is Canada Geese. Tlrese birds can often be seen by the open water bodies and along sile drainages. Mammal species such as the PMJM and the b[ack tailed prairie dog have been presenis on areas adjacent to the CU-Boulder South property; however, neither ojthese species is documented to exist on this entire property. There are no specific areas oj critical wildlije habitat and livestock range that wi11 be affected 6y the construction of the proposed tennis court comp[ez on the CU-Boulder South property. The area an ihe CU-Boulder South property with i/ie mosl potential for development as a wi[dlije habital ox the property ezists a: the soutl: % oj tl:e properly outside and south of the Jlood levee. There are approximately four wet cells remaining on tlie property as a result of the gravel mining operation and a variety of species including sandbar willow/cattai! wetlands with scattered p[ains catta~wood and Russian olive overstory exist in this area. The understory vegetation has low species diversity and is dominated by toadflax (Linaria spp.) and Baltic rush (Jui:cus balticus) in various, scattered wet areas tliroughaut various isolated [ocation on the entire property. However, the locatia~ of tke proposed tennis court compfex might polentialfy provide for a summer or winter range area if catlle were to be moved to Hie properry. However, !he amount ojforage (grasses) available oir tl~is particular six acres (teunis court site) is sparse a~:d would not sustain a grazing aperaliai for more tliau a jew weeks. / b'J TII. Describe the impacts and net effect that the activity would have on terrestrial and aquatic animals, habitat and food chain. The tennis coun complex does not directly or indirectly impact any aquatic anlmals or aqualic habitats. The tennis complex n~ay impact a jew breeding terrestria[ birds; kowever the recent disturbance of the site has severely limited !he quantity and guality of any potentia! breeding sangbird habitat Wintering grassland birds, particularly Canada geese, may occasiona[!y jorage on ~be site, allhough food resources are extremely limited In its current condition tlie tennis complex site provides little to no liabitat jor breeding, migrant or wintering terreslrial animals and develnpment nj t/~e site would have a negligible impact on terrestrial or aquatic animals, habitat or the junclioning of r~,e surrounding ecosystem, including any joad web/foad chain interactions. iv. Terrestrial and Aquatic Plant Life I. Map and describe teaestrial and aquatic plant li£e including the type and density, and threatened or endangared plant species and habitat. Exhibit 8 is attached whic% identifes tlrose areas on the CU- Boulder SoutH property where wetlands (both jurisdictional and nonyurisdictionalJ occur'on the overall site. Terrestria! vegetation on the proposed site consists of reclaimed areas dominated by perennial grasses. Tfiere is no agualic vegetation on the proposed site. There are na Uereatened or endangered plant species or habitat wit/iin die acreages proposed for the tennis court complex nar in close proximity to the area and therefore construction or use of the tennis complex wi![ not affect identifted areas of welfands or threatened or endmrgered species. Durir:g tJie 1999 wetland delineation oj the entire property and again in tke summers oj2000 and Z001, those areas whicl~ have been identified to contain tlie e~:dangered Ute Ladies Tresses Orchid ' (Spirantkes diluvialis) have been investigated to determine wltether or not tl:e distribution of this species is expanding or contracting in tlre draiuage areas alarg the toe of ihe levee. The disiribution oJ Spiranthes l:as nol e.rpanded due lo encroacliraent by cattails withir: t/:is draii:age. TLe available habital for tl~is species niay be decreasiiig. T/~e locatiar of this e~:da~:gered species is several tl:ousand feet aivay fro~n the proposed tennis court site and there rvil[ be uo impact ou tliis species jrom tlie developaie~:t or operatia~ af d+e teunis % ~/ court con~plex. In the late summer oj 2000, a Preble's Meadow Jumping Mouse (Zapus lsudsonius preblei)(PMJM) survey was con:pleted for the entire CU-Boulder South property. Again in November, 2001 a second (more site specific) habital evaluation,was completed in order to idenl~ areas of both non-habitat and potential PMJM habitat within an area released from mining reclamation inside the levee of tke CU-Boulder Sout/i property. It was concluded by tlie wildlije biologisl (Ron Beane) conducting the survey and the US Fish and Wildije Service tl:al (excerpt from the USFWS letter dated 2/4/2002) "The subject area, whick was irtitially trapped jor Preble's in 2000 as pari oj a larger trapping ejfort Jor tke University aj Colorado South Campus area was re-assessed in IOOl jor potential suita6le Preble's habilat in tke event tha~ site conditions in !he subject area may have changeQ This assessment dMermined thct fhe subject area (praposed tenxis couK complex) does no1 contarn habi~at jo~ Preble's....The Service (USFWS) finds ~he repori acceptable and agrees lliar Preble's habita! is na( present witkia ~he subject area Thus the Service concludes [hal adrvilies on thrs srte should not have direct adverse eJjects to P~eble's... " II. Describe the impacts and net effect that the activity would have on teaestrial and aquatic plant life. Based upon the investigatio~~ performed to date on the CU- Boulder South property and the specific location identified jor tlse tennis cour! compler and that area required for construction and use of the tennis coun complex will not cause a~: impact on 1Ge terrestria! and aquatic plmit life thal does exist in other areas around tlae CU-Bou[der South property. v. Air quality: I. Detail how many average daily trips will ba generated by the proposal. During tlie regular tennis program practice tinies, the proposed development is typical[y expected to generate a maximum of 100 vehic[e trips per day with a peak lrour load of 25 trips. This peak /iour would typica![y oca~r outside oj the peak liour oj adjacent street traffic. During tke peak hour of adjacei:t street traffic, the developure~rf would typica[ly generate five trips durirrg t/re nroriri~rg peak hour aird eiglet trips duri~:g tlte afternoon peak liour. /•~~-~ TraJfic peaks may increase to 350 vehicle trips per day witls a maximum peak hour load of ISO trips during tennis exhibitions or tourxaments, which would typica!!y occur approximafely three to four times per year. Additional trcffic may occasionally occur jrom scheduled public us~ The tra~c load jrom that use woufd frt into the peak loads described above. II. Explain any other adverse impacts on air quality anticipated from the proposal. TJie project is not anticipated to liave adverse impacls on air qualily. III. ,Describe how any state or federal air quality standazds will be impacted and if the proposed transportation facility has been included in the region's air quality modals to verify conformity with the air quality plan. (8/13/98) Tlie project is not anticipated to have adverse impacts o~i air guality standards due to tl:e [ow number oj trips generated Tke project was not specifically included in t/:e region's air quality model because no additional transportation facilities are required and small projects such as t/iis one are included in t/ie background lrafftc grvr4th used in 1Ge modeL N. Describe the airsheds to be affected by the activity, including the seasonal pattern of air cuculation and microclimates. (I1/Ol/Ol) No airsheds are anticipated to be ajjected 6y tlre construclion and regular usage of the tennis court complex including the seasona! pattern of air circu[ation or microc[imales. V. Describe the impacts and net effect that the activity wou]d have on air quality during both conscruction and operation under both average and worst case conditions. (11/01/01) No impacls lo air quality are expected from the project During tl:e construction of the tennis court complex, there is ar~ticipated to be minor re-grading of the area affected by tke comple,~ Regular spraying of llte ~ disturbed soil (dust ca~tro[) during the catstruction activities wil! ~rrinimize dust particu.lales being introduced inlo the air. Anygrave[ or ~ron- fired paved (i.e. concrete or asphaltJ roads will be wetted an a / y,~ regular basis, as needed to control dust. Under narmal operation oj the tennrs courl complex, there should be no impact or net effect to air quality as the tennis couns are hard-surjaced and the parking areas wil! be graveled wi1l: enough gravel so as to protect the underlying soi[s. vi. Significant environmentally sensitive £actors: 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 potential natura! hazards at the lacation ojthe proposed tennis courl complex 2. Public outdoor recreation and open space areas. The area selected forlocating the tennis courl complex is an area that has recently been released from the Deepe Farm Pit mining permit. The area has been reclaimed with a native non-irrigated grass seed miz. T/:e area is located within a fenced area, which might be construed as open space but is not a public outdoor recreation area There is some joot traffic~vithin a close proximity ojthe tennis court complex site 6ut the site is not designed as public 3. Unique azeas of geologic, historic and archaeological importance. There are no unique areas of geologic, historic or archaeological imporlance as the site oj the tennis couK complez was completely mined for its under[ying sands ant~ gravels and Itas only recently been released from t/ee existing Deepe Farn: Pit mii:ing per~nit as being successfu[!y reclaimed. vii. Visual aesthetics and nuisance factors: I. Identify viewsheds, scenic vistas, unique landscapes or land foanations. (11/01/01) As a part of the recently completed "CU Bou[der South Laud Use Assessmenl", n visibility analysis, 6ased oir the eristing site co~~ditious was coutp[eted for the site. This aualysis %3~' i~tdicates the areas of (he site most visible from roadways adjacent to the site at grou~rd level. Points werc idenlified every 330 jee! along each adjacent ~oad and 33,000 poin~s were used from inside the site. The foreground, raiddle ground and background were also integra~ed into the study (i.e. foreground less than '/. mile, middle '/. mile -% mile, background greater than '/s mile). The result was that Yhe area of the tennis court complex is one of tlie lesser visib[e sites within the CU-Boulder Soutk properry. The jacilities to be conslructed as a parr of tlte tennis couK complex include a 12 joot high perimeter jence to protect tke Jacilities from vandalism and darnage. Tkis fencing is an integra! parl oj the tennis courl facilities. Individual court jencing will likely be set at a lower elevation. Due to the nature of ihe jacility being located within tlie pit floor of the previous mining operation, minimal visibility wi11 occur with the exceptioie of t/ae neighboring residences located to tke west of tlre CU- Bnu[der South property. Some of these residents wi!! have a view ojtbe praposed facili[ies from a distance. There is no facility lighting plm:ned for the Yennis court con:plex at tl:is time. In the evenings when the residents are iit tlieir hames, no lights will be on to draw attentia~i to tl:e complex. As far as viewsJreds, scenic vistas, unique landscapes or land formations, the property is iri tlie floor of a completed sand and grave! aperaYion and there are no unique landscapes or land formations. There are scenic views from the site ojthe proposed tennis caurt complex looking west to tlie Ffatiro~:s bu1 nat [ooking ii:to !he pit Jloor at the complex. See Exhibit 9 for the CU-Boulder Sauth Pboto Analysis. Tleis exhibit was take~: jrom the "CU-Boulder South Land Use ftssessmenl" prepared by Shapins .4ssociates in May, 2001 for tGe U~:iversity ojColorado. II. Identify any significant deterioration of existing natural aesthetics, creation of visual blight, noise pollution or obnoxious odors, which may stem from the proposal. Tkere should not be a~ry significm~t deterioralian of existing natural aesthetics, creation af visua! blight, noticeable pollutian or ab~iozious odars t/iat stenr jrorn dre proposed terriais court complex on tlie CU-$oulder Sa~~tle property. Tke proposed activiry is a substantia/ iniproveir~e~it ii~ a!! of ikese regards fro~n its prior aggregate niinirrg use. /:S'- ~ ~.U ~30ULUER ~OUTH PH1lTO ANALYSIS ~,~r~ ~ . ~,~,~. ; ~, : ~ ~~ ~.~~/lS~ ' ~ ti `~.} Y '7 ~ (.Sf~~IW ~+ry ~J~T Y+I~~J i' "'f~y~,~iy~'~' r ~i r ~ ''. i. -ti+'{•".. •r -~'FI~' . .. t± ~ lC~.~ . 1 9 E~`~~ f ~ r ~ .. I .•'~'a~,~,• ~wd'~.{d ~ \~ Y~~~Rv~~ f__ i _ ~ ..: ~ ..,3~ .~''~ i.da~y v~en ro seaY ~.~.a us. 9e . . rF 7"-.../Ir'.7 ; ...1tl~.~.r '..4~ . ..i ~ ... -'. a~j~ ~.~~ ~i~u d¢ 'yx-' "y£~7~+. `=~ A.!'~~k~V ~d' x y.i . . n4!r ~ - :a ~~ r ".r'~'~' ' ~ ~' ~ .~ N (~, 'r .g` t .~~y S .T.i 4 S .f:. . ` ~ ~~i ir... ~.~Y i~~Y T.,~~iJ~i-A~..C'~~~~)l6RA~~~ . mo e Slle r 11~ A n nl 115 J6 blxhmge ~ s ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ * ~' C . ~r7i.tf ;+!~~~I~GC'7 WrJi^.~r. ~ . '~~Yi,.-"r.. ~ \ - . ~ ~ I , . ... ~-`7~ S ~`:~ r r . ._^`".`,"'.~.~^,: w ~ - , r~ '~?..,~. °~:" L~~'~i e Hm6beo ~ ~A^"~ w..~ ' ~ ~~~;,~ . ~. ~~ ._ ;_:. ; . ,.,~ _. - ..~ „I{~ I - ~t 1 ... . ., r,~' . + !,1 '.l« _ . - ' ~ . ' ~ .~-e~rr - Ioo1m UrNe ~; Y t ~ ... . 't!!I :' ~u ~] y ;•...~ ~ ~~~~~'i~~ . .. ...'a~G`~`~~-~ . Yles1 Mm A1 imt~e ~ . `Y I~~ * ~~. ' . .._ .. ... . .-. -r~ `'-~:.. '~~ ~•`~ai`;"'k:<l.:~:s:~... . ~ .~y76~"¢' i-a: . ~„ +~ . y...~_ ~'~u _ W ~. .Y _;,,~ J ` r~ . V.~, y. . v~.'„`L7~ roo 11onL~ond Fosl kom Vla~ IIIA t~' CU 6ouldcr Sou.h r~, ""`~~ ~ awemaa.m ~~.+.r...r uar uiea~~u. . .... ..~. ............. v..s ~.w ~.~ .. . . ...~....~rr r~...~. EXHIBI 9 III. Identify and describe any structures, excavations and embankments that will be visible as a result of this project. (8/13/98) As a par! of tGe tennis courl complex project, tliere will be twelve fenced courts constructed along with a Yemporpry parking !ot thal wi!l a![ow jor parking of up to 125 cars, and viewing stands (which wi11 be relocated jrom the existing tennis court site on the Main Campus). Some grading wil! be reguired to construcf level pads jor the courts and jor the parking area These structures and embankments will l:ave minor visibi[ity as a very small part of a very large parce[ oj land viii. Transportation impacts: I. Describe what impacts the proposal will have upon transportation pattems in the area intended to be served or affected by the proposal through the submittal of a traffic impact analysis of the proposed transportation facilities. The traffic impact analysis should inciude but not be limited to the following: i. Identify the facilities required to support the existing and future land uses being served by ihe proposed transportation facility. Table Mesa Road would ckrry die majority of site traffic The three intersections primarily ajfected are t/ie Table Mesa DrivelUS 36 West Ramp, the Table Mesa Drive/Foothifls Parkway West Ramp, and tGe South Bnulder Road/US 36 East Ramp. In 2005, all tliree intersections would operate at LOS B or better during the AMpeak hour bolh withaut and wiUi die project. During the PM peak liour on a typical day, a!! three intersections would operate ¢t LOS C or better botli withaut and with fl:e project. During the PM peak hour on a specia! event day, the interseclions wou[d also operate at LOS C. In 2020, all tJtree interseclions would aperate at LOS C ar better during tlie AM peak hour. During the PM peak /:our, all rhree intersections operate a! LOS D or better during a rypical day, while during au event, !he US 36 West Ramp deteriorates to LOS E. WitG optiutized signal timings duriug tbe PM peak, a[! d~ree iittersecCions /~'% operate at LOS C or better on bolh a typica! day and during a special evexb The increased tra~c impacts for these interseclions wi[l not be a function of the tennis courts but ratker jrom other background changes in trajfic valumes. 2. Fumish the traffic model data verifying consistency with the DRCOG regional plan, the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) and the DRCOG Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). The projecl was not specifically identified in any aj the above programs; however, sma[I projects such as fhis one are included in the background tra~c growth used in ihe 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 Sauth Loop Road south oj Tab[e Mesa Drive, 70 daily vehic[e trips onto Tab1e Mesa Drive east of the US 36 West Ramp, and 30 daily irips onto Tab1e Mesa Drive tJest of the US 36 West Ramp. During specia! events, the tennis courls would add approximately 350 daily trips to South Loop Road south oj Table Mesa Drive, I00 daily trips onto Table Mesa Drive east of the US 36 West Ramp, and 150 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 the majority of site trajfiG The il~ree intersections primarily affected are the Tab[e Mesa DrivrlUS 36 West Ramp, t/:e Table Mesa DrivelFoothi[!s Parkway West Ramp, and the Soutl~ Boulder Road/US 36 Bast Ramp. Under ezisting condifions, a[[ three intersectio~ts operate at LOS B or better during both tlie AM and PM peak period. / ~"~ In 2005, all t/:ree intersections would operate at LOS B or 6etter during the AM peak hour botl~ without and with the project During the PMpeak hour on a typica! day, al! three intersections would operate at LOS C or better bolti wilhout and wilh tJ~e project These levels ojservire a~e maintained during a special event, as we11. In 2020, a![ three intersections would operate at LOS C or 6etter during tke AM peak hour. During the PM peak hour, a[[ tkree intersections operate at LOS D or beKer during a typical day, w/zile during an event, the US 36 West Ranrp deteriorates to LOS E. With optimized signal timings during the PM peak, all three intersections operate at LOS C or better on both a typical 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 soutk leg ojtlie US 36 West Ramp intersection. Therefore, na access revisions are p[anned for the road system. ,. 6. Submittal of a benefit/cost analysis of the proposed transportation improvements 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[ transportation improvements wou[d be required for the project so tlie cosl/Lenefit analysis is not applicab[e. The only transpoMation improvemenr identified is the potentia! re-aptimization ojTable Mesa Drive during ilte PMpeak hour in 2020. Currently, the City of Boulder Signal Operations Engineer regular[y monitors and optimizes lhe City's sig~ra[ system. It is anticipated tl:at Yhe task of aplimization wi!! continue to be conducted by t/re Signal Operatio~:s Engineer in tke fuYUre as part of the regular duties oJthat position. / S ~%