Loading...
Minutes - Planning Board - 7/18/2002 (2)APPROVED SEPTEMBER 26, 2002 CITY OF BOULDER PLANNING BOARD MINUTES July 18, 2002 Council Chambers Room, Municipal Building 1777 Broadway, 6:00 p.m. Please note that these are partially verbatim minutes. Therefore, some portions are written in first person, and some are in third. The following are the minutes of the July t 8, 2002 city of Boulder Planning Board meeting. A permanent set of these minutes is kept in Central Records, and a verbatim tape recording of the meeting is maintained far a period of seven years in Central Records (telephone: 303-441-3043). BOARD PRESENT: Macon Cowles Thom Krueger, Vice Chair Simon Mole Tina Nielsen, Chair Alan O'Hashi Beth Pommer John Spitzer STAFF PRESENT: Bob Cole, Director of Land Use Review Jerry Gordon, Deputy City Attorney Nan Johnson, Associate Planner Sarah Myers, Board Secretary Alan Taylor, Development Review 1. CALL TO ORDER Chair, T. Nielsen, declared a quorum at 6:04 pm. and the following business was conducted. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The Board unanimously approved the minutes of the Apri14, 2002 and April 18, 2002. 3. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION Robert Sharp, 5995 Marshall Drive: He said that he is concemed about a berm off of 63rd Street near Valmont Butte; it is a bcautiful road, and the berm is getting too high and blocking the view. He asked if the Board was aware of this. The Board asked staff to check into the matter and get back to the Board. 4. DISCUSSION OF DISPOS[TIONS, PLANNING BOARD CALL-UPS The Board discussed the KFC/Taco Bell Site and Use Review that the Planning Deparhnent approved. S:\plan\pb-items~minute s\020718pbmin2 City of Boulder Planning Board Minutes July 18, 2002 Page 2 Mr. O'Hashi- leYs keep in mind the potential for mixed-use on this site for the comp-plan two year update. Mr. Cowles- don't like this architecture with a corporate logo. Mr. Cole- the code doesn't block this sart of design, and it happens a lot. The building only has to be compatible with surrounding context. Mr. O'Hashi- maybe give the Downtown Design Advisory Board an expanded role so they could have the chance to review projects like this. Ms. Pommer- I think staff interpreted it correctly, so I don't want to call it up. Maybe we could analyze it as a future `gateway' area if there are concerns about changing the context of the area. Mr. Cowles- wants to call it up but took a poll of other Board members and decided against it. 5. MATTERS FROM THE PLANNING BOARD, PLANNING DIRECTOR, AND CITY ATTORNEY (this item was addressed after the actlon items) The Board discussed difficulties in warking on the Gunbarrel Town Center project. 6. ACTION ITEMS A. Public hearing and consideration of a recommendation to City Council regarding the proposed adoption of changes in Boulder Revised Code 1981 Title 10-7 Energy Conservation and Insulation Code concerning a local amendment to the 2000 International Energy Conservation Code. The Board continued this item to August 22, 2002. B. Public hearing and consideration of the county referral of the 1041 State Interest Review of CU-Boulder South Tennis Court Replacement Project for the property located at 5278 Table Mesa Drive (outside city limits). The Board dectded to place this item first on the agenda sirece there were many people from the public who were present for it. Mr. Gordon- gave an explanation of the reasons why Planning Board is being included as a review body for this project, based on the HB1041 review criteria and the City and County of Boulder's inter-governmental agreement (IGA). He told the board members that they must decide if the project meets all of the HB 1040 criteria listed in Attachment A of their packets. Mr. Cole- went over the staff inemorandum and zoning for the property. s:\plan\pb-items~minutes\0207 I 8 pbmin2 City of Boulder Plamiing Board Minutes July 18, 2002 Page 3 Mr. Cowles- shared with the board an ex-parte contact he had at a family function with attorney David Eason whose firm represents CU. This man told Mr. Cowles that he had written a letter to the Boulder City Council stating he believes that the city govemment has no authority to review this project under the federal HB 1041 regulations. The Board had a number of procedura] questions for Mr. Gordon. Applicant Presentation Graham Billingsley, Land Use Director for Boulder County, explained why the County Land Use department feels the proposed tennis courts are acceptable. Jeffrey Lipton, Executive Director of Facilities Management at the Universitv of Colorado at Boulder (CUI, said the application for tennis courts meets all the requirements of HB1041. He gave a history of why the university has decided to move the tennis courts at this time. He explained that moving the courts to the CU South area will help reduce impacts on the city proper. Furthermore, the tennis court area is outside any floodhazard areas. The courts are not even in Boulder County's more conservative floodhazard area. If future studies show the area is within a floodplain, courts are still permitted there and will not cause harm to anyone. They are also outside other statewide interest areas. It is also an appropriate use by zoning, and there are not any wetlands, wildlife, or important habitat areas, as the Boulder County office stated in response to the CU application. Finally, traffic should be light most of the time. About four times a year there would be events that would increase traffic. Ed Perlmutter, legal counsel from the firm of Bernbaum, Weinshank, and Eason explained that the university has been referred to the City of Boulder Planning Board for review because of the US 36 Intergovernmental Agreement with Boulder County. The County Commissioners set a deadline of August 15 under a standstill agreement. The university is an applicant to Boulder County as Boulder County is to the city. The County HB1041 guidelines are, at times, excessive. The issue before the Planning Board is quite simple: are the county guidelines being met? As for the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan's definition of New Urbanism, the county guidelines are what will be used in making a final determination on this, not the BVCP of the city. Mr. Cowles to Mr. Perlmutter- which guidelines do you consider "excessive?" Mr. Perlmutter - Boulder County HB 1041 guidelines are the most aggressive in Colorado. The radius far the interchange area is quite big; protection of flora and fauna maybe go beyond what H.B. 1041 was meant to do in 1974; dust control is somewhat excessive; consideration of surface water qualiYy/visual quality is not in the statute; there is broader consideration of terrestrial and aquatic life; and delegating authority via the IGA to the city of Boulder is not within HB1041. s:\plan\pb-items\minutes\020718pbmin2 City of Boulder Planning Board Minutes July 18, 2002 Page 4 Mr. KrueQer- why did CU choose to straddle two zoning districts and go into open space- designated land? Mr. Lipton- the siting of the facility is being proposed based on our framework plan and conceptual land-use assessment that the university conducted last year. This is a framework that, taking a look at the larger issues surrounding this site and its opportunities and constraints and applying the goals of the university as well as the community- have come up with this framework plan. I'm surprised it's not part of the presentation. I have a board and I can talk about that a little bit if you'd like. In the plan, we outline areas where [he regents have generally agreed would make sense as wildlife habitat, areas where we believe we could accommodate as much as 800 acre-feet of flood starage that would protect from flood danger 1100 structures downstream from the property, and areas where we could also establish facilities in the long term, if approved by all the appropriate bodies, including the Colorado Commission on Higher Education. The location of the courts were determined by taking them out of where the flood storage would be, although we would see that as an opportunity for other types of athletic or recreational fields, and into an area that we consider to be developable for building sites, but we took it out of the floodplain and floodstorage area and actually put it on one of the future development sites as a way to decrease the impact from potential floodwaters. We didn't specifically take into account the county or city comprehensive plans, since, as a sovereign entity, the university does its own planning and takes its pianning through a different process than the local government, until we ran into the 1041 issues which we certainly do dispute, but we are trying to work cooperatively with the city and countyjusY Yo try to overlay our planning with the 1041 requirements. Mr. Linton showed the framework plan to the board members. Mr. Cowles- can we see wetlands on this framework plan? Mr. Lipton- they were researched and we plan to protect portions of them, but they are not shown on the plan. Mr. O'Hashi- what sort of tennis courts will they be? Mr. Lipton- they must be scheduled for use. They'll be for competitions only, maybe for high schools, tennis clubs, etc, and maybe far intramural sports. They'll meet the Big 12 requirements for court design. They are intended to be long-term courts but they may need revamping, or maybe would be moved down the road at some point. The Board discussed the zoning areas into which the courts fall. Mr. Billin s~ley- said these courts are allowed by-right. In addition, they are not in a floodplain or floodhazard area. s:\plan\pb-items~ninute s\020718pbmin2 City of IIoulder Planning IIoard Minutes July 18, 2002 Page 5 Ms. Nielsen opened the public hearing. Public Hearing John Wiener, 875 33'd Street- talked about hydraulic studies that are being done for this area now. If the soil permeability changes after construction it might change and perhaps raise the risk of flood. He also warned that because the University of Colorado has "Sovereign Immunity" it cannot be committed to any financial responsibility if a hazard happens. Therefore, the City of Boulder might be held accountable. Doug Yager, P.O. Box 3671 Boulder pointed to page 17e of the guidelines, and said the University of Colorado's plan violates riparian vegetation. This area is a recovering wetland, with two rare bird species which make it especially important. All parties are overlooking this. The berm is seeping because water comes into the area- more proof that this is a recovering wetland. He questioned whether CU really did a wetlands analysis. If they did, why did they dig drains to dry out the area? The Boulder County website shows sinuous fluvial deposits that go through the CU facilities. ThaYs evidence this is the tloodplain and the hazards might be very real. He reminded the Board that in 1997 there was a large flood at Colorado State University that cost millions of dollars and five lives because a railroad bed berm similar to the one on CU South failed near the campus, sending thousands of cf/s of water into an area behind a supposedly "protected" area. Ellen Willis, 2895 Lafavette Drive- said she is concerned about the process; the City maintains rights over the IGA. She wonders why the HB1041 guidelines are being used and she is concerned that the citizens azen't being represented properly. She mentioned a concern about traffic impact and would like to see more research on the ]eft-turn lane. She told the Planning Board that it must rule tonight, not just offer an opinion or referral. There is a need to test the importance of the IGA. If iYs not being used tonight, maybe it won't ever be. Alison Burchell, 1270 Chambers Drive (spoke far an additional three minutes with a donation of time from Don Glenn) brought some new research findings from the National Hazards Center annual workshop as reasons why the tennis courts should not be permitted. She said she spoke to several federal department heads, including Director Buckley of FEMA, and toured the pit and berm areas of the property with them. She read comments from these people, including: that it is a well-recovered former mining area and that it might be a potential flood zone. Also, the pit area was called "the ideal space" to store floodwaters to a large extent, and there was concem for the potentially adverse impact on the downstream neighbors of pulling any of this land out of the floodplain and crediting the berm. Director Buckley directed the S. Boulder Creek issue to be a "hot button priority issue" for the new Region 8 director. 5he mentioned a court case called Dercheff vs. Broomfield 1980, where the city of Broomfield was held liable in tort for its granting approval for a subdivision development whose storm runoff dumped water onto s:\plan\pb-items\minutes\02071 Spbmin2 City of Boulder Planning Board Minutes July 18, 2002 Page 6 downstream properties. She asked, "At what point do all the rules and regulations take precedence over the health, safety, and welfare of the citizens in this community? Mr. Tavlor- with respect to the floodplains, there hasn't been a federal Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) issued. The existing map boundaries are from a 1986 study and were put in place in 1996. An application to the federal government was made to certify the berm as a levy. The government says the berm itself ineets section 65-10 with respect to structural stability, but other areas of concern remain, including the need to do before-and-after floodplain analysis, and an interest in the new hydrology. Mr. Spitzer- should courts have waming signs on them explaining the purpose of the berm and the potential for flooding? Mr. Ta.~- if you think they will be wet, then iYs a good idea. Gilbert White, 624 Pearl Street, a retired CU professor agrees that the information provided by Mr. Taylor and Allison Burchell is accurate and helpful. He wants to emphasize that flood potential is going up nationally and more than half the flood damage is from floods larger than the 100 year flood. As a member of an independent review panel in Boulder from 3 years ago he believes the hydraulics on S. Boulder Creek have to be re-examined. We shouldn't use the present maps on floods because they may be changed dramatically. This is very concerning to households in nearby areas, but it's related to the whole matter of what all citizens of Boulder could be exposed to. Flood protection standards are changing, and are being seriously appraised and maybe changed. Signs would be useful, but more important is the safety of the homes. The hydrology advisory committee is working on determining how much water would flow, etc. so we don't yet have enough accurate information to make a decision. Mr. Mole asked Mr. White to predict the way water would flow if there was a flood. Mr. White guessed that the water would flow around the berm and under the bridge. Ms. Nielsen- what do you recommend as a location for the tennis courts? Mr. White- I can't say. I'd like to know where a 500 yr. flood frequency level would be and maybe in a year we'll know. I would it would be best to put off a decision on this property for a year until we had a much better view of the hydrology and hydraulics. If you tell me that under certain 1041 regulations you have to have a report in a certain number of days, I'd say that is too bad. You want to get what is the best judgement for the citizens of Boulder who are going to be affected. Mr. Cowles asked Mr. White whether the members of the hydrology advisory committee and the independent review panel represent particular organizations. s:\plan\pb-items~minutes\020718pbmin2 City of Boulder Planning Board Minutes July 18, 2002 Page 7 Mr. White- said that members of the Board do not represent organizations. They simply are experts in the field of hydrology. Robert Shar~, 5995 Marshall Drive (spoke for an additional three minutes with a time donation from Tom Gilligan)- argues that the tennis court area can't be "open space." This is an institution use and they are not permitted. Boulder County is mistaken when it refers to Yhis as a `private facility'. In his opinion, CU is an institution and they are planning to hold national competitions here. He believes it is also a"new urban use." He went to all the IGA meetings between 4-5 cities and their counties, and none of them contemplated permitting institutional recreational facilities in agricultural areas as a way of preserving agriculture lands and criteria. He asks the Planning Board to deny the tennis court proposal based on both of these points tonight. He asks the Board to also consider degradation of the environment, the energy used in commuting to the site, protecting the quiet, and jeopardizing the visual quality from US 36. He asked why gravel parking lots are allowed when paved drives are required elsewhere. The proposal will "create nuisance factors" (guideline #8) for the homes there. Lymi SegLal, 538 Dewey- this is pristine land in Boulder and how it was acquired, etc, was a messy process. Over the years, the renewing of the contract de-emphasized the purpose of keeping it a wetland. It is some of the last land and it must be preserved. The city must stand up for all that went into preserving this in the past. Further development in the area was never supposed to happen. Boulder County wasn't careful to see that the agreement was maintained. Legal ramifications are not a good reason to allow the courts to be built. Ms. Nielsen closed the public hearing. The Board took a 10 minute break. The Board discussed when to hear action items A and C. Board Questions Ms. Nielsen to Mr. Lipton- are you considering future floodplain studies? Mr. Lipton- we have been through the process and have met requirements for flood danger today. The university has worked with the city and county and they are willing to dedicate many acres to contain flood waters. The university cannot wait to expand into this area. We have been waiting and we have participated in studies. Reading from the Taggert Study, "Until the hydrology is re- done and the official flood insurance rate maps can be updated, the independent review panel suggests the city and county use the floodplain maps developed by the Taggert study as the basis for regulating any development or redevelopment." The proposal meets the ordinance requirements. The County Commissioners could move the line if they were concerned, but they haven't done so. You should consider the fact that the city is presently issuing building permits in that area. Why should CU be treated differently? The Board discussed procedural issues with Mr. Gordon. s:\plan\pb-items~minutes\020718pbmin2 City of Boulder Planning Board Minutes July 18, 2002 Page 8 Mr. Mole asked Gilbert White, "Are the courts protected by the berm, and are they subject to significant risks from the flood?" Mr. White- I recommend you be most concerned with what is downstream if the courts are developed. Mr. Cowles to Mr. Ta~- is there more than one way to mitigate the safety of downstream neighbors? Would the flood-control methods on the CU property cost about the same as another mitigation method? Mr. Tavlor- it depends. Creating improvements on the property might affect the cost and feasibility of flood control measures in the future. If you take a very simple view of the property, and consider just storing water behind US 36 with a dam of some form, and not making any other modifications to the ground, then the dam would be raised to 5270 feet, which would match the bridge on US36 that crosses South Boulder Creek. If you did that, the courts would be inundated. IF the university is willing to have that happen, then they are not necessarily a bad use for the floodplain. We might normally approve an open-recreational use like that. If there is consideration of an improvement that would be more permanent and would not be subject to inundation by water, then that would preclude the option of simply creating a raised barrier along US36. You would have to reconfigure your approach. Mr. Cowles to Mr. Lipton- why did you divert water on the property? Mr. Lipton- to collect drainage from the sloped area and funnel it into a drainage pond to sustain habitat in some areas. We went through all approving agencies before beginning this project. Today we might have had to do a 1041 review, but at that time we didn't have to. Mr. Cowles- how much land was affected by the diversion pipe? Mr. Lipton- we never measured, but this is not relevant to tonighYs decision. Board Discussion Ms. Nielsen- proposed that the board go through the HB1041 criteria one by one and take a quick poll to find out which criteria are of concern to boazd members. After that, there will be a discussion on each criteria in question. The board members agreed to this procedure. Mr. O'Hashi- concerned with item B14 under Attachment A of the memo, 1041 Review Standards Checklist: s: \plan\pb-items\minutes\020718pbmin2 City of Boulder Planning Board Minutes July I8, 2002 Page 9 B 14: The proposal is in accordance with die Boulder County Comprehensive Plan and any applicable intergovernmental agreement affecting land use and development, including but not limited to any applicable land use designations. In cases where a person who is not a service provider with a County approved service plan or service area, proposes a development within an approved service area, the Board shall not be compelled to consider the development be in compliance with the applicable adopted comprehensive plan or intergovernmental planning agreement simply by virtue of the fact that the development is located within, or is proposed to serve, an approved service area. Mr. S in tzer is concerned with B14 (above) and also with item B9, and J#3+4. These follow: Section B9: The proposal will not be subject to significant risk from floods, fires, earthquakes or other disasters or natural hazards. Section J: Additional standards for development in areas around interchanges involving state arterial highways J3- 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, or cultural significance. 74- The proposed development shall preserve desirable existing community patterns. Ms. Nielsen- concerned also with item B 10: The proposal or its associated transmission collector or distribution system will not create an undue financial burden on existing or future residents of Yhe County. Ms. Pommer- I want to keep in mind the scale of the proj ect: 6 acres of a 308 acre site. Mr. Mole- leYs pay attention to BVCP 4.12 for an agricultural-land discussion. Mr. Cowles- staff lists criteria for which there isn't enough evidence to determine whether CU meets it or not. These are: 3-having an adequate water supply, Se-degrade the quality of wetlands and riparian areas, Sf- degrade the quality of terrestrial and aquatic animal life, Sg- degrade the quality of terrestrial and aquatic plant life, 5h/i- degrade the quality of soils and geologic conditions. There has been no proof presented for any of these and therefore we cannot assume that the university has satisfied them. Mr. Mole- yes. I would expect to see the university supply us with letters from experts that prove it is meeting these criteria, but they didn't do so. This is not very credible in my opinion. s: \plan\pb-items~minutes\020718pbmin2 City of Boulder Planning Board Minutes 7uly 18, 2002 Page ]0 Mr. O'Hashi- this is New Urban Development (NiJD) based on the definition within the BVCP because the courts are to be used for competition and must be up to regulation [read from a CU webpage that is already assuming relocation of the Kittridge courts]. Mr. Cowles- it is New Urban Development (NUD) because of the sentence in policy of 1.2.2 that comes before a and b, "NLTD is defined to include..."it doesn't say it shall mean only a or b, implying that New Urban Development can be other things as well. To my knowledge, there's not another place in open space land or MXR-E or in ED zones of the county, where you can find a similar-sized parking lot, etc, without water or sewer services. City and County must taik about this annexation policy. CU is sidestepping this with port-o-potties, etc. Ms. Pommer- I did not interpret policy 1.1.2 as having such leeway. I do not think it is New Urban Development, and you can find ]arge parking lots in open space. Mr. Mole- I agree with Mr. Cowles. I don't see any mandatory language for what constitutes NUD. Parking lots, etc are NLJD. Ms. Nielsen- I don't think it constitutes NLJD. Many uses are allowed in these zones, and there is busy parking at many other open space lots. We can't use these reasons to say iYs NiJD. Ms. Pommer- we have to look at the tennis courts only- just 6 acres. These are not good agriculture lands that need to be protected (BVCP 4.12) Mr. Spitzer -I think the courts create a hazard for neighbors (4.16). Mr. KrueQer to Mr. Taylor- if the berm broke, would the courts flood? Mr. Tavlor- water might flow into site, but I wouldn't be sure it would cross the courts. I think the berm would withstand a 100 year flood. Ms. Nielsen- the map we are using says the area is okay and is not a floodplain, so it would be hard to prove that our decision was based on other -not yet determined- information. Mr. O'Hashi- I agree. CU does not want to see the courts be damaged. Mr. Mole- I agree that if floodplains are not mapped, we cannot use potential floodplains as findings of facts. Pd like to use the BVCP. Mr. Spitzer- Pm concerned about an increase in single occupancy vehicle traffic. Mr. Lipton- I can't say for sure how students would get out to the site. CU might provide a shuttle if there were many students. s:\plan\pb-items~minutes\020718pbmin2 Ciry of Boulder Planning Board Minutes July 18, 2002 Page 11 Mr. Billingslev- there have been many elaborate structures constructed on open space, including sports complexes, that don't have facilities. Therefare, I don't think it is NiJD. The university will have to come back iFthey want additional facilities. We need to use only the information we presently have in making a decision. Mr. Lipton- commented that the university won't need police, fire, or emergency services from the City of Boulder. Ms. Nielsen- although it is not a finding which I would use to deny the proposal, I would like to comment that I do not think CU is following the spirit of the law by going ahead with construction while there are so many unknowns about flood danger. There could be much better inforxnation soon, so it is unfortunate that CU isn't putting off the construction. They are, however, following the letter of the law. Mr. O'Hashi- I consider this to be NLJD because of city staff's description under the memo findings. I see it as full-blown development. Mr. Spitzer- I agree because of iYs size, professional quality, and its close proximity Yo the city. IYs not rural. Ms. Pommer- yes, but this doesn't preclude annexation of the property. Ms. Nielsen- at Walker ranch there are many people but no facilities. Mr. Mole- I think we are sending a strong message about how we will interpret the 1041 guidelines in the future. Our threshold seems to be these tennis courts. I wish that the university would be more honest, more kind, and more concerned about the citizens. Mr. Krueaer- since the county approved the project for both zoning and floodplain regulations, I'm not comfortable with developing a different definition ofNUD. Mr. Spitzer- I would support J3, but it is too general. Can we make conditions about maintaining a scenic view from US36? Mr. Cowles- putting an urban activity at a distance from the growth boundary is inconsistent with a J4, "preserving desirable existing community pattems ...." Ms. Pommer- I don't agree because there are churches that are allowed in similar locations. Mr. KrueQer- I agree with Mr. Cowles because it doesn't "preserve desirable existing community patterns." They could have put the courts elsewhere. s:\plan\pb-items~ninutes\02071 Spbmin2 City of Boulder Planning Board Minutes July 18, 2002 Page 12 Mr. Mole- I agree. They don't need to be in the middle of the fields. Mr. Gordon be careful with definitions of open space. There can be things built on it. Mr. Cowles yes, it certainly goes beyond the urban growth boundary. Mr. Spitzer- I want to refer to sections of the BVCP that talk about maintaining/containing city life because I believe the tennis courts will affect the entranceway to the city. Sections 2.28, 6.02, 6.08, 2.04, 2.06, 2.07 apply to this. Mr. Gordon- would the Board please think of which specific community patterns they feel are not being maintained? Mr. Mole- earlier in the discussion I hadn't been completely comfortable saying the project was New Urban Development, but now with these policies being sited, Pd vote the proposal down for the reasons Mr. Spitzer mentioned. What's most useful tonight is to go through the regulations carefully. Ms. Nielsen- I am not convinced. We need a better foundation for our decision. We have some work ahead of us. The proposal is not of the scale that I feel comfortable saying is an urban pattern outside of the desirable existing pattern. Mr. Cole- the Board might want to discuss further that this property might be annexed in future. In light of this use being allowed under county zoning, whether the fact that iYs area 2 precludes uses that are aliowed under county zoning that are not strictly niral uses. It sounds like you think we are fudging the edge of the city -not respecting this edge- because we are placing this use on land that is past the edge. So you should discusses whether or not the use is consistent with the area designation of eventual annexation and whether that precludes county uses. Ms. Nielsen- That's a good point. I don't agree that there is a"consistent urban pattern" to be followed here. The Gateway site is similar. I sympathize with the points made, and ideally I'd like to see the courts closer to the main campus, but I'm not happy to rest a denial on this criteria. I thinks it's too vague. Ms. Pommer- I agree with Ms. Nielsen and like the Gateway example. Things that concern me about voting down this proposal are: this site's proximity to the existing urban boundary, iYs area 2 designation, and the chance of it coming forth as annexation and the uses that could be allowed and services needed there. These 12 courts won't create signi6cant problems- they use just 6 acres and the use being proposed is an allowed use. J4 isn't something I can base a decision on. s:\plan\pb-items\minutes\0207 I Spbmin2 City of Boiilder Planning Board Minutes July 18, 2002 Page 13 Mr. O'Hashi- Gateway has had problems getting extended urban services. Businesses there tend to go out of business quickly. The tennis courts, which are anchored within an educational institution, are different from Gateway Park that will eventually "go away." Board Motion Mr. Spitzer's made a motion: not to approve the application because of the determination that this project would undercut desirable community patterns with regard to the City's commitment to a walkable city, a reduction of SOV,... No one offered a second to the motion at this time. Mr. Snitzer- I don't know that you need to include all those reasons. Just our testimony will show that a lot of other policies were discussed, too. Mr. Gordon- so I'll end at "patterns." Mr. Spitzer- well, maybe we do include those... Mr. Mole- most important, I want the process to be right. If we can't give our attorney good findings for court, I might flip the other way. So, we need to be explicit. Mr. Spitzer- okay, leYs not make those policies inclusive. Ms. Nielsen- I would argue that the "walkable city" policy doesn't work because this policy applies to the city only. So, I'm not confident with that. Friendly Amendment to the Motion, and Second of the Motion Mr. Krue~er- friendly amendment to suggest wording to Mr. Spitzer: Planning Board recommends the project not be approved, based on criterion J4, that the proposed development does not preserve desirable existing community patterns and as evidence the Board cites the £ollowing policies including but not limited to:... 2.04, 2.06, 2.07, 2.28, 6.02, 6.08. Mr. Snitzer- likes this suggestion. Mr. Cowles- seconds the motion. Mr. Snitzer read each of the six policies and commented that a section from 2.04, i.e.: "The City prefers redevelopment and infill as compared to development in an expanded service area in order to prevent urban sprawl and create a compact community," is the main gist of this policy. Ms. Pommer- I can't support the motion. Protecting "City Edges" doesn't work because, for example, tree planting could mark the gateway of the city. This is only 6 acres within 308, a s: \p lan\pb-items~ninutes\020718pbmin2 City of Boulder Planning Board Minutes 7u1y18,2002 Page14 small part of that entryway area. The "Walkable City" policy doesn't apply because there are altematives such as RTD and crosswalks, and convenient access from the major Table Mesa Park and Ride. Traffic impacts are minimal for these 6 acres of courts; studies show just 100 cars a day and, in addition, there is a condition to put in a turn lane. With other things on the site the cumulative effects might add up but we aren't dealing with cumulative tonight. We are only looking at the courts. Ms. Nielsen- as for policy 6.02, I agree with Ms. Pommer that concem about single occupancy vehicle impacts doesn't work because there are plenty of alternatives. CU also says they would provide a shuttle if needed. The new Bear Creek bike path from Williams Village is very easy to use in order to get to the courts. Ms. Pommer- in addition, I think the proposal to move the courts actually helps to maintain the overall idea for Boulder's layout because it keeps the law school closer to town. I'd prefer that the courts be far away rather than the law school. Mr. Cowles- what is the distance from Table Mesa Park and Ride to the courts? Mr. Linton- within about 1800 feet from Table Mesa you can reach the courts. Mr. Cole- why not have some more discussion about this issue and how it relates to other similar facilities where there are recreational uses on the edge of the city, like Valmont park which is a distance from downtown? Ms. Nielsen- yes, I think there are similarities to Valmont and North Boulder Community park. The difference is that they are in the annexed city. Mr. Krue~er- no, policies 6.02 and 6.08 are specific to say more than just reduce single occupancy vehicle traffic. Policy 6.08 says, "traffic impacts from a proposed development that cause unacceptable community impacts shall be mitigated." There is no proposal from CU to mitigate impacts. [Continuing to read] "...strategies to reduce the VMT generated by the development will include all modes of travel as well as travel management programs. The design of new development will especially focus on providing continuous modal systems throughout the development, on connecting those systems to those surrounding the development, and on providing connections between the modes." One policy specifically said "foot and pedestrian preferences." 2.04 lays out preferences in the way that the desirable community pattern should involve. [reading] "The City and County will, by implementing the BVCP, insure that development will take place in an orderly fashion which will take advantage of existing urban services and shall avoid leapfrog patterns, non-contiguous scattered development within the Boulder Valley. The city prefers redevelopment and infill as compared to development in an expanded service area." What is Area II? IYs an expanded service area. In order to prevent urban sprawl and areate a compact community, we have called out all of the policies that clearly s: \plan\pb-items~tninutes\020718 pbmin2 City of Boulder Planning Board Mimdes July 18, 2002 Page 15 support how this proposal does not preserve desirable existing community patterns as stated in the BVCP. Ms. Nielsen- having a mitigating traffic plan isn't one of the criteria we are looking at. Also, CU students get EcoPasses, and CU said they'il extend shuttle service if there is enough demand. Mr. Spitzer- I think Valmont Park is totally different. IYs an infill park, surrounded by houses with many more pedestrian passes. Mr. Cowles- maybe we should remove policy 2.07, because that speaks to major entryways and avoiding future strip-malls, eta These tennis courts, with the sketches we've seen from the university, don't seem to undercut this policy. Mr. Mole- as a compromise, I would like to keep the first sentence and get rid of the second in policy 2.07. I think this interchange onto US36 is a major entryway and we should preserve its natural setting and appearance. All we're doing is supporting J4 with things we can articulate on the basis of the plan. I agree that strip malls are unlikely here, but the first part of the policy we could use. Is our attorney, Mr. Gordon, comfortable with what the Board has given him as ammunition? Mr. Gordon- if you want to make this finding by referencing this policy, thaYs up to you, but you may want to be more clear about what community patterns you are talking about. Mr. Spitzer- accepts striking last sentence from this policy. Mr. Gordon- read back the motion, and said that if they wanted to start to take out portions of a policy, they might need to re-draft the wording because, as the motion is now, a number of policies were being noted under the catch phrase, "including but not limited to.." Mr. Krueeer- I want to offer a correction to make sure the motion reads "the proposed development does not preserve desirable existing community patterns." The criteria is stated in a very specific way, and it does not meet that criteria. I agree with Mr. Mole, and striking the last sentence of that policy would be okay. I agree this has been identified as a major entryway and it needs to be protected and enhanced in order to emphasize and preserve the natural setting and appearance of the community. I think thaYs a good finding and it clearly states something about a pattern that we're trying to maintain. The unfortunate reference to strip malls can be deleted by a friendly amendment. Mr. S~tzer- I don't know that this needs [o be part of the motion itsel£ Our testimony about strip malls is in the record. s:\p la n\pb-items~ninutes\020718pbmin2 City of Botilder Planning Board Minutes July 18, 2002 Page 16 Mr. Cowles- I don't want to cite sections of the BVCP in support of our motion, but at the same time excise portions of that, so I won't pursue a friendly amendment. Mr. Cowles to Mr. Gordon- if we had accepted the staff inemo, we would have been adopting many pages of findings of fact. We don't have time tonight to have you drafr findings of fact and come back to our next meeting with those and sYill get them to City Council on time. Mr. Gordon- true. I don't think you need to adopt all these findings of fact if they are not relevant.... I don't think you have to make findings about the others in particular. You can just tell me that you accept the staff's findings of fact accept as to criterion such and such, but as to this one we argue such and such. Mr. Spitzer- that will take a long time if we try to do it tonight. Mr. Gordon- the Planning Board recommends that the proposed development be denied because the proposed development does not preserve desirable existing community patterns, as required by J4, and as reflected in several BVCP policies including... Mr. Kreueer- if this goes into court on a 106 procedure, does the record of the testimony and discussion become part of the record upon which the court would make a decision? Mr. Gordon- yes I think so. Ms. Nielsen- shall we check to see if things are clear for motion wording, who made it, etc...? Mr. Gordon- repeated back that it was a motion by Mr. Spitzer, amended by Mr. Kreuger, and seconded by Mr. Cowles. The Board confirmed this. Mr. O'Hashi- for the record I'm not against tennis and I'm a strong proponent of sports, particularly at the collegiate level, and I don't have a problem with the location of the proposal, but I'm thinking that J4 gets as close to the notion of "New Urban DevelopmenY' as we can get within the context of what everyone can be comfortable with. I'll support the motion. Vote The Board voted 5-2 to support the motion, Ms. Pommer and Ms. Nielsen dissenting. Second Motion Mr. KrueQer- we could have avoided a lot of this if we had started discussions on an annexation agreement between the city and county of Boulder. IYs only going to get more and more difficult as proposals come forward. He wants to suggest, and see if there is Board support for, a s:\plan\pb-items\minutes\020718pbmin2 City of Boulder Plam~ing Board Minutes July 18, 2002 Page 17 recommendation to both CU and the CC that they start discussions on an annexation agreement for this parcel. Does the Board support this? Mr. O'Hashi- was encouraged to see the framewark plan that was brought forward. He hopes we have this process to move forward on this tennis court project or other projects on this site. Mr. Cowles- made a motion that Planning Board recommend to City Council and the University of Colorado Board of Regents that they enter into discussions right away aimed at forming an annexation agreement with respect to this property thaYs owned by the university. Mr. Lipton- asked iFhe could comment. Ms. Nielsen- said no. Mr. Spitzer- seconded the motion. Second Vote The Board voted 5-2 to support the motion, Ms. Pommer and Ms. Nielsen dissenting. Ms. Pommer- said she is not supporting the motion because she wants to have this discussion in another context, another frame of reference and at a more reasonable hour. C. Public hearing and consideration of a recommendation to City Council on the Boulder Valley Regional Center Transportation Connections Plan (BVRC TCP). The Board continued this item to August 8, 2002. 7. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 1225 a.m. on Friday, July 19, 2002. s:\plan\pb-items~ninutes\0207I Spbmin2