Loading...
Minutes - Planning Board - 5/15/2003APPROVED JUNE 26, 2003 CITY OF BOUI.DER PLANNING BOARD SUMMARY MINUTES May 15, 2003 Council Chambers Room, Municipal Building 1777 Broadway, 6:00 p.m. The following are the minutes of the May 15, 2003 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 Recards (telephone: 303-441-3043). BOARD PRESENT: Macon Cowles, Vice Chair Elise Jones Thom Krueger, Chair 5imon Mole Alan O'Hashi Beth Pommer BOARD ABSENT: John Spitzer STAFF PRESENT: Christine Andersen, Deputy City Manager for Environmental Services Jeff Arthur, DevelopmenY Review Bob Cole, Land Use Review Manager David Gehr, Assistant City Attorney Sue Ellen Harrison, City Attorney's Office Gary Kretschmer, Planning and Zoning Mary Lovrien, Board Secretary Peter Pollock, Planning Director 1. CALL TO ORDER Chair T. Krueger declared a quorum at 6:05 p.m., and the following business was conducted. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES March 20, 2003: On a motion by A. O'Hashi, seconded by B. Pommer, the Planning Board approved the minutes of March 20, 2003 as presented (6-0; J. Spitzer was absent). April 27, 2003: On a motion by M. Cowles, seconded by S. Mole, the Planning Board approved the minutes of Apri127, 2003 as presented (6-0; J. Spitzer was absent). 3. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION Premena, P.O. Box 1038: He asked for more minuYes to speak under the public hearing for the lighting ordinance so that he would have time to demonstrate different kinds of lights. T. Krueger granted him additional time when the hearing takes place. s:\plan\pb-items\minutes\May 15, 2003 City of Boulder Planning Board Minutes May 15, 2003 Page 2 4. DISCUSSION OF DISPOSTTIONS, PLANNING BOARD CALL-UPS M. Cowles asked for clarification about groundwater discharge in the Wonderland Creek wetland permit application. He thought that it should read groundwater recharge. P. Pollock explained that one of the functional values of a wetland is groundwater discharge (water from the ground that discharges in the creek in an overall drainage system). Groundwater recharge could be a standing wetland that would allow water to seep back into the groundwater tiable. The Planning Board had no comments on the Notice of Dispositions for the Inn at Gunbarrel and the START program. 5. ACTION ITEMS A. Public hearing and consideration of wetland permit application to allow mosquito control measures to reduce the threat of West Nile Virus. J. Arthur said that staff received an application from the city's Department of Environmental Affairs prepared by Greystone Consultants to test and potentially treat weClands in the city that may have larvae of the species of mosquito that transmits West Nile virus. Staff has weighed this approach against the city's standards for wetland permits and coneluded that the city should proceed with the proposed plan. The three wetland standards include: 1) whether the applicant demonstrated that all impacts on wetlands have been avoided through a reduction in the size, scope, or density of the project or a chauge of project configuration or design or that it is not feasible to do so; 2) whether the applicant has demonstrated that any impacC on a wetland has been minimized, will result in minimal impact or impairment to any wetland function, and will not jeopardize the continued existence of habitat far identified plant, animal, or other wildlife species; and 3) whether the applicant has demonstrated that the project is in the public interest, considering the public need, the functional values of the wetland that may be affected, the extent and permanence of any adverse effects, and the uniqueness and scarcity o f the wetlands that may be affected. C. Andersen said that at the end of last summer Colorado began to experience West Nile virus. With Chis in mind, the Boulder County HealYh Department contacted the communities in Boulder County to discuss a plan for managing the West Nile virus that was expected to be a problem this summer. The virus is carried and transmitted by a specific species of mosquito. The city of Boulder determined that the best approach was to develop its own plan for this problem that was focused on the Culex species of mosquito that is the transmitter of the virus in this area. This plan would balance the community goals of not being overly aggressive in controlling mosquitoes as a general population and limiting the impact. Jeff Aziak, Boulder County Health Department, said that the goal of the Boulder County Health Department is to make sure that adequate controi is done in a non-chemical way. The focus is first on natural control, then biological, and then on chemical. What was seen over the last three years of the emergence of this virus is thaY there are huge impacts to ecological cycles of birds. This plan also prepares the city and county very well for a Westem Equine Encephalitis outbreak. s:Aplan\pb-items\minutes~Ivlay 15, 2003 City of Boulder Plauning Board Minntes May I5, 2003 Page 3 Julie Handley, Boulder County Health Department, showed Uie occurrence of the epidemiology of West Nile virus in the United States. Colorado is concettted because the state is hit hard the year after the initial human cases of the virus are seen. She sl~owed a map that depicted where the virus has occurred in Colorado. It is expected that the occurrence of the virus will be influenced by Yhe weather-a severe drought will cause more cases to occur in the river areas. S. Mole asked about the threaY of the virus in subsequent years after the initial cases. J. Handley said that a year after thc cases are first seen in the state there is a large spike of cases the next year, aud after this year there is a decline in illnesses because resistance builds up. The next step is to develop an immunization--if the city can control cases oP illness as much as possible over the next two years until there is an immunization, it will give people a choice to protect themselves. A. O'H~shi asked about the percentage of disease that is barne by mosquito vectors versus the hLiman vectors (blood transfusion, organ transplantation, etc.). J. Handley said Chat the latter are very minimal-most cases will be from the mosquito. A. O'Hashi asked about whether residents in areas that ware impacted the most had been educated about irresponsible flood irrigation or agricultural practices that may have contributcd to the problcin. J. Handley said that private residences are being targetcd for educational purposes. Joe Malinowski, Coordinator for the Consumer Protection Program, said that the cases of the virus are concentrated in the drainage basins because of the drought last year. The two types of vectors for Chis disease include the Culex pipiens and Culex tarsalis, and the latter is more apt to bite a human. The county mosquito program includes education, surveillance, and control (98 percent of this control is through the use of larvecide or Bacillus thuringiensis-type (Bti) treatment, and only two percent includes adulticide or spraying). The county is working with people who use irrigation to try to get them to limit their irrigation or prevent standing water. It is important to iuclude city wetlands in the treatment program because many subdivisions abut open space lands--unless these wetlands on open space lands are treated, there will be a lot of people at risk far the virus. E. Jones asked about a study that showed that through muitiple years of use there were significant reductions in insect abundance and species richness. She asked if Boulder County had monitored populations that would reflect this concern. J. Malinowski said that Boulder County has not done any studies, but through other cases it has been determined that Bti is more specific to mosquitoes and is one of the most inert and biologically sound pesticides to use. S. Mole pointed out that the map presented represents mostly dry land rather than an aquatic sysCem. J. Malinowski said that the work done by the county is not just for wetlands; in fact, only 30 percent of the sites treated are wetlands. S. Mole said that since some of the ditches running through city property are not city-owned and this water would not be subject to the wetland permit, he was not certain that this would be an effective strategy since so much water would not be treated. s:\plan\pb-ifems\minutes~Ivtay 15, 2003 City of Bouldcr Plauniug Board Minutes May 15, 2003 Page 4 Ed Fleming, Greystone Environmental Consultants, said that the proposal is to map the breeding habitats within the city-owned lands within thc city limits as well as on some of the city Open Space lands, conduct surveillance far the two species of mosquitoes thaY transmit the West Nile virus, treat only areas where those two mosquitoes are identified, wark with the county on developing public education, contact landowners who have potential habitat regarding what they can do on their lands to control this mosquito, and conduct surveillance of adult mosquito populations. This permit would be for the city regulated wetlands. A. O'Hashi asked why the city would not control Western Equine Encephalitis in addition to Culex. C. Andersen said that the city is focused on the West Nile virus as the immediate concern for public health and l~as not developed a plan for Westein Equine Encephalitis. J. Malinowski said that Western Equine and St. Louis Encephalitis are cyclical, and these viruses are not expected to be seen this year. The important thing is that all these areas will be mapped so that the city will be able to better react to these different viruses that might emerge. S. Mole said that species diversity and abundance are factors that must be considered to balance the public interest. Also, the reference to a list of species of interest was not included in the packet so the Board does not know iP any of these species might be affected by the proposed plau. P. Pollock responded that the list of species is the same list adopted for the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan. E. Fleming said that there have been no studies that show that any of the species on the list or related to the ones on the lisY are significantly impacYed by application of Bti. The amount of habitat that will be treated is relatively minimal, and there will still be a lot of different kinds of mosquitoes or other insects for birds and animals that feed on them. A. O'Hashi asked if there is a way to difFerentiate a high level of larval incidence versus a place where it is being naturally controlled by fish or amphibians. E. Fleming said that this is part of the entire mapping process, but the proposal is to determine the presence or absence of Culex. In this case, the plan is to treat the area even though there might be more naturat controls. A. O'Hashi asked if there are plans to control the impact to the wetlands while mapping or treating the sites. E. Fleming said that impacts should be minimal because there will only be foot traffic. D. Gehr added that the city's Best Management Practices, which must be used, will address this issue. A. O'Haehi asked if the proposed plan would include the application of adulticides in the wetlands. C. Andersen said that the plan will use only a larvacidal approach, but staff will discuss with City Council in June a strategy to address adult populations of mosquitoes. M. Cowles asked if Greystone Environmental Consultants would be conducting the determination of whether the two target species were present and who would be treating the sites. E. Fleming said that Greystone would not only determine whether the two species were present but also treat the sites. C. Andersen said that the bulk of the $80,000-$100,000 contract is for monitoring, and the introduction of larvacide is a relatively modest aspect of the cost. The reasoning for using the same consultant for both aspects is it reduces the mimber of trips in the field and is more timely in treating the larvae. M. Cowles asked about the number of acres of land Yhis permit would cover. D. Gehr said that the permit would cover all city-owned regulated weYlands within the ciYy limits (approximately 3ll acres) and wetlands on city-owned Open Space lands outside the city limits. s:\plan\pb-items\mimrtes\May 15, 2003 City of Boulder Plam~ing Board Minutes May 15, 2003 Page 5 Public Participation: Thcre was no public participation. Retnrn to the Board: A. O'Hashi said that usually the steps are that a plan is adopted and then an implementation is determined. In order to have an integrated pest management program there needs to be community education first. M. Cowles said that although he thinks the applicant has met the first two criteria, he did noY think that the application bas met the third criteria which states that the applicant has demonstraYed that the project is in the public interest. The mortality from West Nile virus and the rate at which people are become sick are strikingly low in the world. The risk has not been shown thaY the city should impair the wetlands and spend $100,000 to treat this problem, with fewer than 4,000 reported cases and only a handful of deaths from the virus. S. Mole questioned why there was no request from Boulder County indicating concern about the WesY Nile virus. He was also concerned thaY a map was not available indicating Yhe Yarget areas. He said that he would not suppori this wetland permit for more than one year and suggested that the permit application be reworked for the next Board meeting. E. Jones agreed that the application could have been improved upon in some places, but since Yhis is a public health concern with a short time frame, it is irresponsible for the city not to plan ahead far something that may impact the public healtih. She appreciated the emphasis in the application in trying to use biological and natural controls and to avoid chemical spraying. If the city does not put such a plan in place at the larval stage and there is an outbreak in the city limits, we would be pressured to conduct chemical spraying of adult populations which would haue a much greater impact on wetlands and the environment. There is concern about the cumulative impacts if this procedure is done in multiple years but a one-year permit is acceptable. B. Pommer said that there is also a risk to the bird population because of West Nile virus, but this statistic is not in the permit because we are dwelling on the public health issue. M. Cowles responded that this was referenced in the packet materials, but there was no evidence presented or comments on what the literature had shown. A. O'Hashi wanted to be sure that this wetland permit would apply only Bti and would not allow spraying of adulticides into the Open Space or wetland areas. E. Fleming said that the consultant is agreeing to the plan prepared on April 21, 2003 that would only apply Bti. D. Gehr said that if any other Yreatment plan is requested a new permit would be required. C. Andersen said that staff believes that West Nile virus is a serious problem because of discussions that staff has had with the Boulder County Health Department and the approach that the state of Colorado has initiated. T. Krueger said that it is important to know what kinds of mosquitoes there are, how serious the impact might be, and whether Bti will wark well in confrolling the mosquito. This plan is the least invasive way of finding out tl~is information. s:\plan\pb-items\minulesVVlay 15, 2003 City of Uoulder Planning Board Minutes May 15, 2003 Page 6 MOTION: S. Mole made a motion that thc Planning Board recognizes that the plan is essentially already in progress aud that on a one-year only basis the application of Bti only should be approvcd; further, that this motion be tabled imtil Yhe meeting on May 22, 2003 to allow staff time to provide a properly documented application with summary maps, information on the Westi Nile vinis, information as Yo why the West Nile virus is a publie health hazard, and how the factors in the third criteria should be balanced. There was no second to this motion. S. Mole offered the following substitute motion. MOTION: S. Mole made a motion that the Planning Board approve the wetland permit application to allow mosquito control measures to reduce the threat of West Nile virus based on the testimony during the staff presentation of this issue, including the recommended conditions of approv~tl as outlined in the stafF memorandum dated May 15, 2003 (preparation date May 9, 2003) wiYh the addition of a fifth condition indicaYing that the permit shall be for one year only. A. O'Hashi seconded the motion. The Board discussed that the motion should include the staff report as findings of fact. A. O'Hnshi said that he would withdraw his second to the motion unless it included the staff inemorandum as findings of fact. S. Mole withdrew his motion. MOTION: On a motion by B. Pommer, seconded by A. O'Hashi, the Planning Board approved (6-0; J. Spitzer was absent) the wetland permit application as presented in the staff report dlted May 15, 2003 (preparation date May 9, 2003) adopting the staff report as findings of the Board, including the tesYimony presented by the applicant, and subject to the recommended conditions of approval as stated within the memorandum with the addition of a fifth condition stipulating a one year permit rlther than the three years as requested. A. O'Hashi suggested that in the future such applications be reviewed both by the Environmental Advisory Board and Uie Parks and Reareation Advisory Board before the Planning Board is asked Por a decision. B. Continuation of the April 3, 2003 Planning Board hearing regarding revisions to the outdoor lighting regulations of Section 9-3.3-17, B.R.C. 1981 which were previously considered and recommended for approval by the Planning Board on August 15, 2002. Public comment will be taken on those changes recommended by the Planning Board at the April 3, 2003 hearing. The changes include: Shortening the amortization period from 15 years to eight years; requiring the removal of existing unshielded mercury ~xtures in all zoning districts; and requiring several wording changes to the "Architectural Lighting of Building Facades" section of the proposed ordinance. G. Kretschmer said that one month ago staff made a presentation on the lighting ordinance. At that time the Board continued the meeting until staff could review several items, including four minor changes to the ordinance, a request to reduce the amortization period from 15 years to 8 years, and an exception for properties to go beyond the 8-year amortization period. StaPf also s:Aplan\pb-items\minutes\May 15, 2003 City of Boulder Planning Board Minutes May 15, 2003 Page 7 made several administrative modifications regarding terminology clarification, addition of one criterion to the variance criteria for occupational safety concerns, and a reorganization of the code. Staff is recommending that the 15-year amortization period be retained because shortening this period may resLilt in some substantial economic iinpacts to noY only the ciCy but to private property owners as well. Public Participation: Premena, P.O. Box 1038: He said that one of the major lighting problems that would be legal under this ordinance is residential glare from unshielded fixtures. He presented samples of the light from 6ve different bulbs that were all less than 900 lumens. He said that the luminance intensity is what will bother people, but this problem can be addressed by using shading so that the source of light cannot be seen directly. He suggested eliminating flagpole uplighting, and that there should be a curfew on holiday lighting. He agreed with the 8-ycar amortization provision and a curfew far energy consideration. Return to the Board: M. Cowles asked if the requirements under Section 9-3.3-17(c)(1) would mean that all residential, industrial, and commercial uses and redeveloping properties in all categories if they meet the criteria listed would be required to comply. G. Kretscl~mer said that this was correcY. M. Cowles said that the only difference in how new and redeveloping property would be handled is that residential would not have to submit a lighting plan at the time that they apply. G. Kretschmer agreed, but the charts provide an exception for residential properties of a maximum lumen rating for an unshielded light fixture. M. Cowles suggested discussing the Pollowing: 1) the amortization provision; 2) maximum light levels at the property line; 3) a requireinent for a residential lighting plan; 4) that possibly the re- aiming of light bulbs or fixtures could bring bulbs into compliance; 5) that the city manager can grant variances based upon evidence; and 6) that the permitted lighting for flagpoles is at the top pointed down. B. Pommer suggested discussing the variance process to include needs of the elderly. A. O'Hashi asked for discussion on the curTew. M. Cowles said that since it appears that in some new developments outside of Boulder along U.S. Highway 36 white or blue lights are already being used and the sYate of practice is moving in this direction, this ordinance will noC unduly restrict designers and engineers with respect to their lighting plans. Flagpoles: G. Kretschmer said that the availability of downlighted flagpoles is limiYed, they are extremely expensive, and they have high maintenance costs. He suggested that since the prevailing winds are from the west, the lighting could be placed on the east side of the pole at a lower wattage to illuminate the flag. The Board decided to leave this issue as recommended by staf£ s:\plan\pb-items\mim~tesVViay 15, 2003 City of' Boulder Planning Board Minutes May 15, 2003 Page 8 Variances and Exem tp ions: D. Gehr said that the suggestion that varianccs be based on evidence is not necessary. Any finding thaf is used to make a decision is presumed to be based on evicience already; otherwise, it would be au arbitrary and capricious act by government. B. Pommer suggested that 9-3.3-17(j)(2)(C) be cl~anged to read "Upon a finding by the city manager that outdoor lighting in specific areas of the community, that otherwise meets the requirements of this section is not adequate and additional lighting is necessary to improve safety or security for the property or its occupants." Amortization: B. Pommer said that given the high cost of conformance, the 15-year amortization period wouid be the best. M. Cowles agreed because of the current economic climate. The Board agreed that the amortization period should remain as 15 years. Sections 9- 3.3-17(k) and 9-33-17(k)(5) were changed to retlect the 15-year period. Replacement of Bulbs: M. Cowles suggested that re-aimiug bulbs or fxtures could be made to comply with the ordinance. The Board agreed to change the wording for 9-3.3-17(k)(5)(B) to read "Replacement or Re-aiming of Bulbs and Fixtures: To the extent that compliance with this section can be achieved by replacement of a light bulb or re-aiming a bulb or fixture, compliance shall occur on or befare (this date will be one year from the effective date of the ordinance)." Lighting Plans Re uq ired: M. Cowles suggested that single detached dwelling units be required to submit a lighting plan with any building permit application except that they would only be required to comply with the first six items on the lighting plan list as listed in 9-3.3-17(g). B. Cole said that individuals plan lighting on their properties apart from a building permit. If a decision is made to require such a lighting plan, this would require additional process for the individuals and for staff. A better process would be to require shielded exterior lights for single family dwelling units. The Board agreed to accept the staff recommendation. Maximum Light Standards: M. Cowles suggested that exterior lighting shali be designed such Yhat zero direct beam illumination leaves the property and that this provision apply to commercial and industrial areas as well. B. Cole said that another way of stating this is that a direct beam illumination cannot be visible from an adjacent property. B. Pammer suggested that people could have a choic~either have a higher lumen rating for a shielded light or a]ower lumen rating if the bulb is unshielded. M. Cowles said that this provision would not address glare from the unshielded lights even at a lower lumen rating. M. Cowles suggested that in Table A add a row that would state "Maximum lumen rating for a shielded light fixture." S. Mole suggested that the light bulb should not be seen from the street, and that frosted glass should be in front of the bulb. B. Cole said that the frosted glass does not make it a shielded fixture. T. Krueger said that even though a frosted 6xture is not shielded, the light can be seen but the bulb cannot. The Board agreed to change 9-3.3-17(fj(8) to read "Any lamp or bulb (except for seasonal displays and landscape ornamental lighting) visible beyond the property line." S. Mole suggested that fxtures that are currenYly installed with bare buibs be subject to the amortization period. s:\plan\pb-items\mimites\May 15, 2003 CiTy of Boulder Platwing Board Minutes May 15, 2003 Page 9 Curfew: M. Cowles said that he was persuaded by the Police Chief who is concerned that lighting curfews would impair the enforcement in commercial areas. The Board agreed that there not be a lighting curfew. MOTION: On a motion by M. Cowles, seconded by E. Jones, the Planning Board recommended (6-0; J. Spitzer was absent) approval of the revised ordinance to City Council as attached to the staff inemorandum dated May 15, 2003 (preparaCion date May 9, 2003) retaining the original recommended 15-year amortization period finding that a shorter period may result in economic hardship for both the city and private property owners in the current economic climate; and further, that the ordinance contain the Following amendments: 1. In Table A on page 14 of the staff inemorandum, in the row that deals with maximum lumen rating for an unshielded light fixture, add to the residenYial zoning district column "900, except that no lamp or bulb other than for seasonal displays and landscape ornamental lighting shall be visible beyond the property line." 2. Change the wording for 9-3.3-17(k)(5) to read "Special Amortization Requirements. Notwithstanding the fifteen year amortization period set forth above, the following types of Pixtures ar bulbs sl~all be replaced sooner, as follows." 3. Change the wording for 9-3.3-17(k)(5)(B) to read "Replacement ar Re-aiming of Bulbs and Fixtures: To the extent that compiiance with this section can be achieved by replacement of a light bulb or re-aiming a bulb or fixture, compliance shail occur on or before (staff will insert a date certain one year from the effective date of the ordinance)." 4. In Section 9-3.3-17(j)(2)(C) change Yo read "Upon a finding by the city manager thati outdoor lighting in specific areas of the community, that otherwise meets the requirements of this section is not adequate and additional lighting is necessary to improve safety or security far the property or its occupants." 5. In SecCion 9-3.3-17(k) change to read "Amortization: All exterior lighting fixtures which do not conform to the following standards shall be brought into conformance no later than fifteen years from the date of adoption of this ordinance." B. Pommer offered a friendly amendment to change Section 9-3.3-17(fl(8) to read "Any lamp or bulb not within a light fixture (except for seasonal displays and landscape ornamental lighting) visible beyond the property line on which it is located." M. Cowles and E. Jones accepted the friendly amendment. s:\plan\pb-items\minutes~Nlay 15, 2003 City of Boulder Planning Board Minutes May 15, 2003 Page 10 C. Continuance of pnblic hearing and consideration of amendments to Title 9, Land Use Regulations, to allow residential uses in industrial zones. Staff will provide a brief status report and request further cmrtinuance. B. Cole said that staff is askiug the Board for a continuance of this item to August 7, 2003. M. Cowles askcd what is meant by "clarify tlie increased open space recommendation in light oP a recent recommendation to reduce the required open space for the Gunbarrel town center." B. Cole said that staff needs to reexamine the open space requirement to make sure that it makes sense for this particular zone. Staff is trying to identify a reasonable residenYial open space requirement for industrial zones where open space requirements otherwise are not predicated on tihe assumption that we are going to have residential use. Information from the hearing suggested fhat we should be going to a lower number than was suggested by staff. M. Cowles asked if the service uses would include a retail establishment that would serve a local neighborhood. B. Cole agreed that this could include a small cafe, coffee shop, and other retail stores. Public Participation: There was no public participaCion. Return to the Board: MOTION: On a motion by B. Pommer, seconded by S. Mole, the Planning Board continued (6-0; J. Spitzer was absent) this item to the August 7, 2000 Planning Board meeting. 6. MATTERS FROM THE PLANNING BOARD, PLANNING DIRECTOR, AND CITY ATTORNEY M. Cowles asked about the rooftop mechanical screening for the development at 1301 Canyon. B. Cole said that screening is required for any mechanical equipment that would be visible from the surrounding areas. However, the code has a limitation on the amount of rooP area that can be enclosed by that screening and the maximum height of the screening. The screening at 1301 Canyon complies with the maximum height, but it appears that it exceeds the roof area limitation by a substantial amount. Staff is working to resolve this issue. T. Krueger suggested that when the Board is approving a building to 55 feet more detail is needed on how the developer expects to address Yhe mechanical equipment. B. Pommer reminded staff that she would like to add the code revisions for garages to Phase II of the Land Use Regulation revisions. T. Krueger said that he received a couple of inemos regarding the Comprehensive Draivage Utility Master Plan (CDUMP) update. He said that the group would like to have a representative from the Plalming Board. A. O'Hashi said that he was interested in becoming the Planning Board representative to this group. M. Cowles said that it is important that one or more of the citizens from South Boulder be included in this group because they have developed a lot of expertise regarding the South Boulder Creek. s:\plan\pb-items\minutes\May 15, 2003 City of Boulder Platming Boa~d Minutcs May 15, 2003 Page 11 T. Krueger pointed out the Greenways Advisory Capitial Improvement Program information that was included in the packet. He brought up the Wonderland Creek wetland permit application and asked what should be included in future applications in order to properly assess the substance of the memo without having to review the land use code. P. Polloclc said that on future wetland permits, the fiill language and a reduction of the plan will be included. Regarding the suggestion that the Environmental Advisory Board (EAB) review wetland permits, it would be appropriate for this board to review the wetland permit to permit mosquito control measures, but, in general, the EAB does not address land use or resource questions. He presented an update on the City Council discussion regarding the University of Colorado (CU South) site. The initial discussion centered on preserving a portion of the site for athletic fields and dedicating the area outsidc the berm as open space. The in-between area (about 130 acres) has not been acknowledged as either open space or as athletic fields. Two approaches inchide approving an agreement to address this issue later or looking at the idea of a land swap so that the 130 acres would be permanently preserved as open space. City Council has requested that the covversation continue and that a process be developed to allow the citizens to participate in the land swap discussion. He said that the Super Intergovernmental Agreement was revised by City Council. Councilmember Morzel noted that the map reflects that the Planning Reserve area is shown as a Rural Preservation Area and suggested that it is more appropriately characterized as a municipal influence area. The county has agreed to change the map accardingly. The mixed use debrief was held today to assist staff in leaming ways to apply mixed use to new zoning districts or mixed use development. Staff and developers discussed what was and was not working in the Land Use Regulations, the engineering standards, and in the building code. A summary of this discussion will be prepared and will be a part of an educational workshop. He distributed information about the request for additional resources to simpliFy the Land Use Regulations. The idea is not to deal with content of the code but just the way the code is presented and organized. This would affect the Phase II Land Use Regulation revisions that the Board approved. He asked Yhe Board to review this matter for discussion next week. M. Cowles said that the Downtown Design Advisory Board discussed Phase IV of One Boulder Plaza. The plan has changed so that the development will be extended farther to the west, aud the project will use all the development potential for this block. 7. DEBRIEF MEETING/CALENDAR CHECK The Planning Board debriefed the meeting. 8. ADJOURNMENT The Planning Board adjourned the meeting at 11:25 p.m. s:\plan\pb-items\minutes\May 15, 2003