Loading...
Minutes - Planning Board - 7/25/2002APPROVED SEPTEMBER 5, 2002 CITY OF BOULDER PLANNING BOARD SUMMARY MINUTES July 25, 2002 Council Chambers Room, Municipal Building 1777 Broadway, 3:00 p.m. The following are the minutas of the July 25, 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 for 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 John Spitzer BOARD ABSENT: Beth Pommer STAFF PRESENT: Jean Gatza, Planner Jan Geden, Director of Parks and Racreation Bob Harberg, Public Works/Utilities Sam Hartman, Library Doug Hawthorne, Superintendent of Parks Mary Lovrien, Board Secretary Glenn Magee, Public Works/Facilities Ruth McHeyser, Director of Long Range Planning Annie Noble, Tributary Greenways Jim Reeder, Open Space and Mountain Parks Maureen Spitzer, Parks Planner Michael Sullivan, Open Space Stephany Westhusin, Public Works/Transportation CALL TO ORDER Chair T. Nie[sen declared a quorum at 320 p.m., and the following business was conducted. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES There were no minutes to approve. 3. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION There was no citizen participation. S:\plan\pb-items~ninutes~mi~utes.725 City of Boulder Planning Board Minutes July 25, 2002 Page 2 4. DISCUSSION OF DISPOSITIONS, PLANNING BOARD CALL-UPS J. Spitzer said that the construction of the Goose Creek underpass at Foothills Parkway and Goose Creek is an exciting location for such a projeck There were no other comments on the wetland disposition. 5. MATTERS FROM THE PLANNING BOARD, PLANNING DIRECTOR, AND CITY ATTORNEY (This item was discussed at the end of the meeting.) J. Spitzer pointed out conespondence from Tim Van Meter regarding the North Boulder Village Plan. He said that he thought that the Board had stated that the rasidential podium buildings should not look like a suburban housing project but rather like a town center. He said that Mr. Van Meter is proposing that the third floor along 14th Street would not be stepped back because the closest residents in the mobile home park would not see the height, and the drive-through for cars would be raised up rather than cutting off traFfic lanes. Although the Board members had concerns about access from the mobila home park to the site, the roofline of the buildings, and the buildings along Yarmouth and 13th Street, they did not wish to discuss the issue at this time but will review the information in the conespondence. The Board also asked staff to convey to the applicant that the Board is not bound by the information in this correspondence. T. Nielsen said that CU SouYh 1041 application will be on the City Council agenda on August 6 as a potential call-up item. She suggested that she and T. Krueger, who represents the majority vote of the Board, attend this meeting to answer questions. M. Cowles suggested that the two representatives emphasize the importance of an annexation agreement on this property. He said that there are some things that the city wants from the University which might be obtainable in an annexation agreement, such as asking the University to deal with traffic impacts by prohibiting freshmen and sophomores from bringing cars to the campus. J. Spitzer pointed out a discrepancy on the city's web page regarding the discussion of the open space requirement from 1,200 square feet to 600 square feet in the RB-D zone. T. Nielsen said that she, A. O'Hashi, and J. Spitzer have been attending the meetings on the Gunbarrel Town Center. She said that the perception of some Gunbarrel residents is that the number of units drives the open space, and what this reduction means is that the Board is enabling a certain density because the reduction is based on the number of units. She also said that staff has agreed to fund a market study which will inform the amount and diversity of commercial and retail uses and will help determine how much residential density might be acceptable on the site. She said that the residents think that the study will inform the open space reduction discussion and would like to see the study conducted prior to the Board discussion. She said that stafFwill bring some options for Board review to consider whether to keep the motion already made or whether to look at another option. s: \plan\pb-items\minutes\minutes.725 City of Boulder Planning Board Minutes July 25, 2002 Page 3 6. ACTION ITEMS A. Public hearing and consideration of the 2003-2008 Capital Improvements Program (CIP). This includes identi6cation of capital projects that will require review through the Community and Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP). J. Gatza gave a brief overview of the annual review of the six-year Capital Improvement Program (CIP). She said that some of the planning projections from last year have shifted somewhat due to the projected shortfalls in revenue. She explained that each department will give an overview of their CIP and how they have addressed the reductions. M. Cowles noted that last year the Board requested that there be a current look at the extent to which impact fees and development excise taxes are paying for the cost of new growth because the most recent study is five years out of date. R. McHeyser said that all the Board recommendations were forwuded to City Council as part of the budget packet, but there has not been any indication that a new study should be conducted. Although A. O'Hashi came to the meeting later in the evening, he had presented a list of written questions about various issues to be considered for Board discussion. PARKS AND RECREATION The Board and staff discussed the funding priorities for the neighborhood/pocket park development the plans for using drought resistant, low maintenance plant material in new park development; whether there will be testing of salt grass on park land, which is a grass that needs very little irrigation and little fertilization and can handle more foot traffic, and whether it poses a problem to native species because the grass might be genetically altered; the city's policy of not watering grass and plant material during the drought; the types and ages of trees that are more susceptible to drought damage; the city's program to identify and protect trees that are under extreme stress in the urban area; development of the department water reduction plan which was to attempt to reallocate the water based on need (athletic fields, newly planted turf, new landscaped areas); the fact that certain varieties of fescue grass are not appropriate for park azeas that receive a lot of wear and tear but might be appropriate in peripheral areas; and the need to maintain the water conservation plan for the department. Public Participation: There was no public participation. MOTION: On a motion by M. Cowles, seconded by T. Krueger, the Planning Board recommended (4-0; A. O'Hashi and S. Mole were not present far this item, and B. Pommer was absent} that City Council approve the 2003-2008 CIP as proposed for Parks and Recreation. Statements of Intention: The prudent approach is to take care of what we have, to develop what we have been able to acquire, and use as much of the acquisition funds to acquire the pocket parks. s: \plap\pb-items\minuCes\minutes.725 City of Boulder Planning Board Minutes Jiily 25, 2002 Page 4 Take care of all the trees in the city during this drought because the trees are irreplaceable and will take years to grow. TRIBUTARY GREENWAYS The Board and staff discussed the objectives and importance of the Greenways Program; the plan for Fourmile improvements from the Pleasantview soccer fields to 28th Street (habitat, restoration, and water quality improvements); the plan for improvements for Fourmile from 19th Street to 28th Street (this area incorporates street paths, particularly through Githens Acres); whether there is a plan for on-site stormwater treatment and detention for possible irrigation ar discharge to appropriate watarways to replace instream waterflow which may be converted to other higher uses (staff said that this is a water rights issue and needs clarification as to whether the water can be used for other purposes). Public Participation: There was no public participation. MOTION: On a motion by M. Cow-es, seconded by T. I{rueger, the Planning Board recommended (4-0; A. O'Hashi and S. Mole were not present for this item, and B. Pommer was absent) that City Council approve the 2003-2008 CIP as proposed for Tributary Greenways. LIBRARY The Board and staff discussed proposed funded and unfunded projects; the status and funding of the North Boulder Branch Library (there is negotiation with the developer on the adjacent parcel for the public improvements on the public parcel which could include the building of the core and shell of the library); the possibility of a Gunbarrel branch library and a special library district in the area (staff explained that a governmental entity cannot be separated to make a special ]ibrary district); how to approve a regional library (staff said that the most efficient way is to establish a library district, but in doing so the individual integrity of each library would not be praserved); the relocation of the Independent Living apartments to accommodate the expansion of the Main Library; the five-year computer replacement fund; how the Internet in private homes will affect the CIP and library operations (staff said that there is a demand for Internet services, research databases, and more computers in the libraries); the need to provide a more scholarly environment for library users; that the library bond issue has been pushed back to 2005; and the privacy of library patrons as to the books that they have checked out (the Library keeps a record of which books are checked out by a particular person only for the period of time that the materials are on loan. Once the materials are returned to the Library, the record associated with the patron and with the materials borrowed is destroyed). Public Participation: There was no public participation. MOTION: On a motion by T. Krueger, seconded by T. Nielsen, the Planning Board recommended (4-0; A. O'Hashi and S. Mole were not present for this item, and B. Pommer was absent) that City Council approve the 2003-2008 C1P as proposed for the Library. s:\plan\pb-itemsUninute s~ninute s.725 City of Boulder Planning Board Minutes July 25, 2002 Page 5 Statement of Intention: Encourage supporting a regional library philosophy. STORMWATER AND FLOOD MANAGEMENT UTILTTY The Board and staff discussed scaling back the Fourmile Canyon Creek issue (the Independent Review Panel has suggested that the city evaluate an alternative to providing containment of the spill flow of water from Fourmile Canyon into Wonderland Creek by floodproofing individual properties); making sure that the Wonderland Creek underpass at the Diagonal Highway is appropriately sized to accommodate waters from Fourmile Canyon Creek; and budgeting and evaluating all the proparties identifed in the high-hazard zone for pre-flood acquisition. The Board and staff further discussed cooperative funding regarding work on flood issues along South Boulder Creek; money budgeted for Crossroads redevelopment; the plans for another flood study of the hydrology and hydraulics along South Boulder Creek; the push by the federal government for a planning doctrine for the 500-year flood event instead of the 100-year flood event (staff said that this issue will be considered as part of the update to the Stormwater and Flood Management Utility Master Plan but was not certain that this will include the South Boulder Creek); budgat for South Boulder Creek improvements as an ongoing line item (since it is not known what the city will decide to do reguding South Boulder Creek, one approach is a non-containment policy which would require money only for acquiring properties at high risk); whether money from the pre-flood acquisition fund would be available to help purchase some of the University of Colorado property (CU South) if that was an option (staff said that the money rnight be available for such funding because it has not be designated for any particular araa); and how properties are disposed once they have been purchased for flood improvements and whether they can be deed restricted for affordable housing (staff said that in some cases the structure is removed because it is in a high-hazard area, but if the property is not in the high-hazard area, it is sold at market rate; some of the properties that are purchased are quite expensive, and those properties would have to be discounted significantly to make them affordable). Public Participation: There was no public participation. MOTION: On a motion by J. Spitzer, seconded by T. Krueger, the Planning Board recommended (4-0; A. O'Hashi and S. Mole were not present for this item, and B. Pommer was absent) that City Council approve the 2003-2008 CIP for the Stormwater and Flood Management Utility. T. Kraeger pointed out that the motion does include approval for the following projects: preflood acquisition, the Broadway storm sewer, transportation coordination, and Crossroads redevelopment. He said that the projects will not have a CEAP; those projects have public review other than the CEAP process. WATER UTILITY The Board and staff discussed water conservation in Boulder and surrounding communities (every gallon of water conserved translates to a gallon of water or more preserved in the high mountain lakes that would ba available for future use because it eliminates the 10 percent loss of s: \p lanlpb-items iminuteslminutes.725 City of Boulder Planning Board Minutes July 25, 2002 Page 6 water in the pipeline due to leaks); the seriousness if tha drought conYinues through next year and enfarcement of restrictions on watar, an explanation of how the expansion of the Boulder Reservoir is not growth related (the project will improve technology to address the highar standard for removal of harmful bacteria and to maximize the water received from the Colorado Big Thompson project}; how the bonds for the Setasso and Boulder Reservoir projects will be repaid (the bonds are basad upon revenue collected by the utility); the rate incrsases throughout the planning period to support these projects; the fixed amouut of water that Boulder has available for its existing residents, how this will affect growth, and whether water would be a constraint to the populaYion cap (the anticipated growth in residents and employeas in the city who live elsawhera has baen accounted for in the Treated Water Master Plan and will account for this inerease in the wastewater projections; the ]ack of water could either be a constraint on population or landscaping); and availability of public access to user water records (staff said that the city will not disclose individual uti~ity use statistics, like monthly consumption amounYs, although statistical analysis, like customer class averages, is disclosed). The Board and staff further discusssed the sale of Boulder water rights to adjacent communities at a time when Boulder is under severe water restrictions (staff said that the water rights that are being considered for sale are rights in the Winfly Gap project which was added on to the Colorado Big Thompson system to capture water from the Colorado Rivar during wet years; this year it did not yield any water. Another staraga reservoir is needed which would require a large sum of money. Tha money gained from the sale of water rights in Windy Gap would allow money to purchase other types of water rights, either from the CoIorado Big Thompson system or within the Boulder Creek watershed); a plan for water saving measures far landscaping (there is a rebate program for xeriscape ]andscaping and this issue will be evaluated in light of the drought); the use of the Boulder Reservoir for drinking water (a study wi11 be conducted evaluating water quality issues and water treahnent options related to the Boulder Reservoir and to the feeder canal that travels 30 miles from Carter Lake through agricuttural areas); the cost for the Boulder Reservoir improvements; the Iocation of the Nederland sewage disposal plant on the edge of Boulder's drinking water supply (there is an item in the Water Utility budget to address this issue); annexation of fringe properties and the impact created by additional users in the areas served by pump stations (tha pump stations serva the entire city and are not related to the fringe properties); if there is an adequate level of development excise taacing for water issues; and that the improvements to Kohler Reservoir would not require a CEAP (the leaks from Kohler Reservoir were supporting some wetland riparian vagetation near the reservoir and there was a concern about drying this area. Public Participation: There was no public participation. MOTION: On a motion by J. Spitzer, seconded by T. Krueger, the Planning Board recommended (4-0; A. O'Hashi and S. Mole were not present for this item, and B. Pommer was absent) that City Council approve the 2003-2008 CIP for the Water Utility. s;lplanlpb-iTemslminutes~minnCas.725 City of Boulder Planning Board Minutes July 25, 2002 WASTEWATER UTILITY Page 7 The Board and staff discussed the aeration process of the composting facility and how the composting might be used; the costs for the liquid stream improvements at the wastewater treatment plan based on the new discharge permit; the removal of some nutrients, such as ammonia nitrogen; the testing For drugs in the wastewater treatment facility (staff said that the city is mare concerned about testing for nitrogen and phosphorus); and the amount of phosphorus that is in the water from the de-icing for streets (staff said that phosphorus is not an issue along the Boulder Creek). Public Participation: There was no public participation. MOTION: On a motion by T. Krueger, seconded by M. Cowles, the Planning Board recommended (S-0; A. O'Hashi was not present for this item, and B. Pommer was absent) that City Council approve the 2003-2008 CIP for Wastewater Utility. TRANSPORTATION The Board and staff discussed new bus shelters that are better than Yhe glass enclosed shelters that RTD builds; and the definition of a que-lane that is only for buses that allows the buses to pull out without waiting for a line of cars to pass. Public Participation: There was no public participation. MOTION: On a motion by M. Cowles, seconded by T. Nielsen, the Planning Board recommended (6-0; B. Pommer was absent) that City Council approve the 2003-2008 CIP as proposed for Transportation. AIRPORT The Boazd and staff discussed the possibility of re-evaluating the Airport Influence Zone (AIZ) during the Airport Master Plan update or enforcing the AIZ; the high cost to prepara the Master Plan; and funding sources. Public Participation: There was no public participation. MOTION: On a motion by S. Mole, seconded by T. Krueger, the Planning Board recommended (6-0; B. Pommer was absent) that City Council approve zero financing for the 2003-2008 Airport CIP and that such level of funding should continue until the Airport Master Plan is completed. FACILITIES AND AS5ET MANAGEMENT The Board and staff discussed the proposed projects, including the high cost for building an outdoor firing range (staff said that if the firing range and classroom space for training are s:\plan\pb-items~minutes~ninutes.725 City of Boulder , Planning Board Minutes July 25, 2002 Page 8 constructed in conjunction with the Fire Training Center, there would probably be a use agreement that would include cost sharing); the proposal to use air conditioning rathar than an evaporative cooler in the Fire Station #2 remodel; the possibility of using in-house design architects (staff said that outside design consultants are hired for the larger projects that are in the public eye); the lack of a requirement for design review for Fire Station #4 (staff said that the renovation is only in the interior space); the relocation, removaI of asbestos and other hazardous materials, and reconstruction of the historical elements of tha Grandview Tenace bungalow; security upgrades to the city buildings; changes to the level of development excise taxes other than cost-of-living adjustments; and the reasoning for the name change from the Development Excise Tax (DET) to the Capital Development Fund three years ago (staff said that the name was changed to incorporate two other taxes and fees into one tax named the "Development Excise Tax" and keeping one of the component funds with the same name would be confusing). Public Participation: There was no public participation. MOTION: On a motion by J. Spitzer, seconded by T. Nielsen, the Planning Board recommended 6-0; B. Pommer was absent} that City Council approve the 2003-2008 Capital Development Fund CIP as proposed for Facilities and Asset Management. Statements of Intention: Encourage the use of available cost effective and energy efficient cooling systems. Explore opportunities for cost reduction and/or sharing of the $1,5 million firing range scheduled for fiscal year 2004-2005. OPEN SPACE The Board and staff discussed proposed projects, including the provision of access to and design for the Flagstaff Sunrise Circle Amphitheater to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act; the areas with parcels proposed for acquisition; the city's possible participation in the purchase of Level 3 open space; various ways to finance open space, including bridge loans or investor partnerships; the possibility of refinancing some of the debt to lower the yearly cost for debt service; water rights acquisition for Open Space properties; and the possibility of leasing land for row crops and bison in addition to grazing cattle (staff said that the city's Open Space program does not have much significant valuable agricultural land; the cost to graze bison is more expensive because of fencing, and ranchers lack the experience). Public Participation: There was no public participation. MOTION: On a motion by M. Cowles, seconded by T. Nielsen, the Planning Board recommended (6-0; B. Pommer was absent) that City Council approve the 2003-2008 CIP as proposed for Open Space. s: \plan\pb-iYems\minutes\minutes.725 City of Boulder Planning Board Minutes July 25, 2002 PROJECTS RECOMMENDED FOR A CEAP Page 9 The Board and staff discussed the reason why Kohler Reservoir repairs are not on the CEAP list (staff said that the work proposed is to fix the leak and not to change the wetland; a distinction is not made between wetlands that are created naturally versus unnaturally). MOTION: On a motion by T. Krueger, seconded by T. Nielsen, the Planning Board recommended (6-0; B. Pommer was absent) that City Council approve the 2003-2008 CIP for CEAP requirements as listed in Attachment E of the staff inemorandum. PROJECTS SUGGESTED FOR DESIGN REVIEW The Board and staff discussed making sure that the process for requiring design review for certain projects is maintained; and that all new construction of public buildings and major renovations of exteriar faqade should be subject to some kind of design review, including tha proposed storage facility. MOTION: On a motion by S. Mole, seconded by T. Krueger, the Planning Board recommended (6-0; B. Pommer was absent) that City Council approve the projects suggested for design review as listed in Attachment F of the staff inemorandum. J. Spitzer offered a friendly amendment to include transit stops that have not gone through a CEAP process for design review. S. Mole and T. Krueger accepted the friendly amendment. Statement of Intention: Require design review of the proposed construction of the general storage facility before funding is provided in 2006. ADDITIONAL MOTIONS MOTION: On a motion by S. Mole, seconded by J. Spitzer, the Planning Board directed staff for next year to create Attachment F as a list of all projects that are either new construction or changes to exterior designs with staff recommendations (6-0; B. Pommer was absent). MOTION: On a motion by T. Krueger, seconded by T. Nielsen, the Planning Board recommended (6-0; B. Pommer was absent) Yhat continued efforts should be made to assess drought related impacts and program those needs in future capital funding plans. T. Nielsen offered a friendly amendment to assess the drought impacts for master plans and O&M efforts. T. Krueger accepted the friendly amendment. Statements of Intention: There is a need for longer-term planning for our water resources, such as a re-evaluation of the Water Conservation Futures Study. Consider cyclical patterns of environmental change and not focus purely on water shortage. s:\p lan\pb-items~ninutes\minutes J25 City of Boulder Planning Boaxd Minutes July 25, 2002 Page 10 MOTION: On a motion by M. Cowles, seconded by S. Mole, the Planning Board recommended (6-0; B. Pommer was absent) that City Council consider that the Utility Division should review and update if necessary its Water Conservation Futures Study. MOTION: On a motion by T. Krueger, seconded by S. Mole, the Planning Board recommended (6-0; B. Pommer was absent) that City Council consider refraining from committing to any long-term (more than five years) improvement agreements or capital expenditures until the Airport Master Plan is completed. The Board further recommended that City Council analyze encumbrances which may be incurred if FAA funds are accepted far general maintenance expenses. MOTION: On a motion by T. Krueger, seconded by T, Nielsen, the Planning Board encouraged (6-0; B. Pommer was absent) the development of a comprehensive parking provision and usage plan for the Downtown and Civic Center area. Statement of Intention: The Planning Board recognizes that parking provision and usage plans are important in capital improvement decisions, and that a city-wide parking plan be developed in conjunction with the Downtown and Civic Center area comprehensive parking provision and usage plan. MOTION: On a motion by T. Krueger, seconded by A. O'Hashi, the Planning Board encouraged (6-0; B. Pommer was absent) continued efforts to develop a county-wide library usage plan. MOTION: On a motion by M. Cowles, seconded by A. O'Hashi, the Planning Board recommended (6-0; B. Pommer was absent) that City Council direct the Facilities and Asset Management Division to use the most energy efficient way of cooling city buildings that is effective, consistent with Comprehensive Plan sustainability policies 103 and 104; and further, that with any individual project, serious consideration should be given to evaporative cooling because of its low energy use relative to air conditioning. Additional Comments from the Planning Board: The Board expressed appreciation to Jean Gatza for the quality and arganization of the CIP materials presented to the Board and offered the following suggestions for improvement: . Provide an executive summary rather than a spreadsheet. . The memo should provide the context so that the Board does not approach the issue piece by piece but highlights the important projects. . The information in the introduction of the memorandum should be parallel as much as possible so that it is easy to scan. 7. ADJOURNMENT: The Planning Board adjourned the meeting at 9:40 p.m. s: \plan\pb-items\minutes\minutes.725