Minutes - Planning Board - 7/10/2008 APPROVL:D ON ~3UGL~5`l' 7, 2008
CITY OF BOULDER
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
July 10, 2008
1777 Broadway, Council Chambers
A permanent set of these minutes and a tape recording (maintained for a period of seven yeazs)
are retained in Central Records (telephone: 303-441-3043). Minutes and streaming audio are also
available on the web at: http•//www.bouldercolorado.gov/
PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT:
K.C. Becker
Bill Holicky
Willa Johnson
Elise Jones
Andrew Shoemaker
Adrian Sopher
PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT:
Phil Shull, Chair
STAFF PRESENT:
Juliet Bonnell, Administrative Specialist
Chazles Ferro, Senior Planner
David Gehr, Deputy City Attorney
Brian Holmes, Zoning Administrator
Ruth McHeyser, Acting Planning Director
Elaine McLaughlin, Senior Planner
Chris Meschuk, Planner
Abbie Novak, Parks Business and Finance Manager
Robert Ray, Land Use Review Manager
Susan Richstone, Long Range Planning Manager
Jessica Vaughn, Planner
Stephany Westhusin, Transportation Project Coordinator
Bill Boyes, Acting Facilities and Fleet Manager
Robert Harberg, Utilities Planning and Projects Coordinator
1. CALL TO ORDER
A. Sopher, acting as Chair, declazed a quorum at 5:03 p.m. and the following business was
conducted.
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
No minutes were scheduled for approval.
3. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
Ford Brown, 922 Spruce Street expressed concern about the noise and traffic that Spud
Brothers (located at 2010 10`h Street) would add if their hours were extended.
Sandy Hale, 910 Spruce Street expressed the same concerns and supported staff's denial of
Spud Brothers' requeshto extend their hours.
1
Kim Westover, 6360 S. Federal Way, Boise, ID attended to represent the Spud Brothers. He
expressed appreciation for the city of Boulder and noted that Spud Brothers did not intend to
appeal staff's decision, but did want to fulfill the needs and desires of their customers.
4. DISCUSSION OF DISPOSITIONS, PLANNING BOARD CALL-UPS
Call-up items: 3059 6`" Street, 3945 Broadway, and 2010 10`h Street
The Planning Board did not call-up any of these items at this time.
5. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
A. Consideration of a recommendation to the City Council concerning the 2009-2014 Capital
Improvements Program (CIP).
Case Manager: Chris Meschuk
Staff Presentation
C. Meschuk presented the item to the board.
B. Holicky noted that he will need to recuse himself during any conversation about capital
improvements in the Transit Village Area Plan (TVAP) area.
Board Discussion (excluding discussion about TVAP area improvements)
A. Sopher questioned how the board can be most useful to staff in discussing this item. He
brought the board's attention to Attachment A of the memo which was the minutes from last
year's Planning Boazd discussion on C1P. Looking at this he questioned how much their
comments affected staff's direction on CIP. He recommended approaching this by going
through the memo section by section or by listing items that the board felt needed discussion.
W. Johnson thought CEAPS and TVAP needed discussion.
A. Sopher thought water issues and parks needed discussion.
E. Jones agreed that CEAPS needed additional discussion.
B. Holicky wanted to discuss CEAPS and design review.
A. Sopher questioned where funding comes from for newly developed parks.
Abbie Novak from the Parks Department answered A. Sopher's question regarding new park
development. She mentioned that maintenance dollars service what is developed in the park
system. Maintenance dollars will be identified to serve new pazk developments. Therefore,
maintenance dollars will be included in their operating funds for maintenance of Mesa Memorial
in 2009. In the 2009 CIP this is the only new development project that is planned.
K. Becker asked if the CEAP process is totally discretionary.
R. McHeyser replied that the CEAP process is a process that city departments go through when
they are proposing development on a parcel. The CEAP process is intended to provide an
analysis and assessment of alternatives.
K. Becker asked if there is a section of the code that requires the CEAP discretionary review
process.
C. Meschuk noted that in the code there is a section that talks about city projects. There is a
City Projects and Plans Handbook that is adopted by the City Council and outlines the process
for large public or city department projects.
K. Becker asked if the boazd will review the CEAPS for particular projects.
2
C. Meschuk replied that CEAPs would be reviewed by Planning Board if there is not a specific
advisory boazd related to the project and that all CEAP projects are subject to call-up by City
Council.
A. Sopher asked what the lead time is for completing a CEAP for a project.
C. Meschuk replied that on average CEAPs take at least 6 months to develop, but it depends on
the amount of public process and review and the size of the project.
R. McHeyser clarified that staff is asking the board to identify whether the projects included in
the CIP memo should go through the LEAP process.
W. Johnson clarified what a CEAP that has been noted as complete in the memo meant. She
also asked if the board would be reviewing projects emphasized with asterisks in the future.
C. Meschuk responded that the projects with asterisks aze ones that have been identified as
needed, but details about them have not been determined, including whether or not they should
go through the CEAP process. He noted that CEAPs characterized as complete have been
completed but they are still listed in the CIP because the entire project has not been completed
yet.
K. Becker asked how staff's CEAP list was developed.
C. Meschuk replied that a handbook with guidelines has been developed for determining the
projects that require the CEAP process. Basically, projects that require CEAPs are usually ones
that have enough of an impact on the community that community participation is necessary.
CEAP analysis includes neighborhood impacts.
K. Becker felt that it would be helpful to have a comprehensive list of the projects that did
require a CEAP versus the ones that didn't require a CEAP.
A. Sopher requested that references to page numbers of specific projects be included in CIP
documentation.
B. Holicky asked about the cost of doing a CEAP.
C. Meschuk responded that the cost is difficult to estimate. Consultants are often hired to
handle CEAPs or staff time is used to manage the CEAP process.
R. McHeyser agreed that the cost of a CEAP is difficult to estimate because each project is so
different.
B. Holicky expressed interest in doing acost/benefit analysis of CEAPs.
R. McHeyser replied that the cost may be greater for projects that go through the CEAP process
because these projects go through more rigorous analysis, but all projects go through some level
of analysis.
A. Sopher inquired about whether CEAP analysis had been done regarding East Boulder
Community Pazk.
A. Novak replied that a CEAP had been done for this project, but there will be a reassessment of
how the pazk is being used and how previous plans will be adjusted.
A. Sopher asked why CEAPs aze still on the CIP list if they aze marked as complete.
C. Meschuk clarified that items that are on the CIP list, but have completed CEAPs aze still on
the list because the projects they aze correlated with are still in the CIP process.
Design Review
W. Johnson inquired when the items with asterisks would be reviewed and by whom.
C. Meschuk replied that as the projects get closer to their funding yeaz and the scope of [he
projects gets narrowed down the design review process will become clearer. Staff's goal is to
identify the needs of a project before the project is initiated. Projects might need design review,
but only as the project progresses can this be definitely determined.
3
Transportation
A. Sopher inquired about what funds were allocated to the maintenance of roads. He wanted to
confirm that appropriate funds were allocated for this purpose whether or not they were included
in C1P funding.
Stephany Westhusin from the Transportation Department replied that there is transportation
funding available for essential, desirable, and discretionary purposes. All the maintenance
dollars are in the operating (essential) budget rather than the CIP. There aze also special projects
that are covered by maintenance money.
Public Hearing (excluding items related to TVAP)
No one spoke to this item.
Motion
On a motion by E Jones seconded by B. Holicky the Planning Boazd recommend approval (5-
0 PShull and A. Shoemaker absent) of the 2009-2014 Capital Improvements Program
(excluding issues related to TVAP) the list of CIP projects to undergo a Community and
Environmental Assessment Process as presented in Attachment F (excluding issues related to
TVAP) and the design review processes recommended by staff in Attachment G (excluding
issues related to TVAP) as recommended by the staff memorandum dated July 10, 2008.
B. Holicky recused himself for discussion on improvements within the TVAP at 5:55 p.m.
Board Discussion (related to TVAP)
W. Johnson asked for clarification about how the Transit Village improvements flow through
the CIP.
C. Meschuk replied that showing financing allocations is somewhat complicated. The public
improvements that would normally be paid for by developers of the project will be, but there aze
certain additional improvements that staff would like to do at the same time which would require
CIP funding.
A. Sopher asked how the timing of the stormwater plan for the area is related to the ability to
allow the rezoning and re-development to begin.
R. McHeyser replied that staff is working on the stormwater plan for this azea and its
implementation which is included in the CIP. Opportunities for certain properties to move
forward and be developed faster would be available if they were able to address stormwater
issues on-site. Once the plan for infrastructure is in place, those who are able to implement that
infrastructure could move forward. Rezoning could occur once the stormwater plan and
concurrency ordinance are in place.
W. Johnson inquired about undergrounding high frequency power lines. Since the CIP has no
funding for this, she wondered if this would still occur.
S. Westhusin replied that major overhead utility lines will not be undergrounded due to costs.
R. McHeyser elaborated that CIP money is not available to fund this project, but that funds may
be allocated from other sources.
A. Sopher would like more clear-cut information on costs of undergrounding power lines.
R. McHeyser replied that staff should be able to gather this information for the board.
Public Hearing
No one spoke to this item.
4
Motion
On a motion by E. cones, seconded by A. Sopher, the Planning Board recommend approval (4-
0, P. Shull and A. Shoemaker absent, B. Holicky recused) of the components of 2009-2014
Capital Improvements Program within the TVAP and requested staff to report back to the board
about costs and potential sources of funding for underQSOUndinQ power lines at a future date.
C. Meschuk noted that this item will be reviewed by City Council at their study session on July
29, 2008.
The board recessed at 6:09 p.m. and resumed at 6:15 p.m.
B. Holicky returned from recusal at 6:09 p.m.
A. Shoemaker arrived late to the meeting at 6:10 p.m.
D. Gehr joined the meeting for the Nitro Club item discussion.
B. Continuation of a public hearing and consideration of the Board of Zoning Adjustment
(BOZA) decision on Docket No. 2008-1: appeal of a use determination of the Zoning
Administrator for the Nitro Club operation at 1124 Pearl Street. (This item was continued
from the June 19 Planning Boazd meeting.)
Applicant /Owner: Michael Gross / Michae] Cobb
Case Manager: Brian Holmes
D. Gehr outlined the informal procedure with opportunities for cross-examination that would be
used for discussion of this item.
M. Gross mentioned that Planning Board does have jurisdiction over this item through call-up,
but he noted that according to his interpretation of the code, the boazd call-up is subject to a 14
day period, whereas only City Council call-ups can occur within 30 days. He noted that this item
was called up by Planning Boazd after the 14-days.
D. Gehr replied that according to the code, this item was subject to a 30 day call-up period
during which time Planning Board called it up.
The board made note of this and moved forward with the hearing.
Staff Presentation
B. Holmes presented the item to the boazd.
Applicant/Owner Presentation
M. Gross presented the item to the board.
A. Shoemaker asked the applicant, M. Cobb, if membership is required to attend the Nitro
Club. He also asked what the origin of the name "Nitro" Club was.
M. Cobb replied that membership is only required to keep liquor at the club. He replied that the
name referred to explosives and nitroglycerin and that it did not refer to the food that was served
there.
A. Shoemaker asked if the Nitro Club's advertising mazketed it as a restaurant and if the
applicant considered movie theaters that serve popcorn and food to be restaurants or theaters.
M. Cobb responded that the club was not specifically advertised as a restaurant and that he
would consider the movie theater a theater. He elaborated by saying that places like The
Foundry advertised entertainment despite the fact that they also served food and acted as a
restaurant. He responded to A. Shoemaker's question about food that is served in the restaurant
by citing fruit (used for drinks) and several different types of alcoholic and non-alcoholic drinks.
B. Holicky asked how many people typically attend the Nitro Club.
5
M. Cobb responded that it varies greatly, but typically 150-200 people attend during weeknights.
B. Holicky asked about how the hours and how attendance is distributed throughout the evening.
M. Cobb replied that their bar closes at 2 a.m. and the club stays open until 4 a.m. Customers
trickle in and out throughout the entire evening.
E. Jones inquired about the Bus Stop and its zoning use.
D. Gehr replied that it was annexed into the city in 1990 along with numerous other businesses.
The Bus Stop has not gone through Use Review.
B. Holicky asked if there was a use review for the Foundry.
B. Holmes replied that it didn't go through use review, but i[ did go through discretionary review
because of the rooftop deck.
A. Sopher asked what the Foundry has been established as.
B. Holmes replied that it has been established as a restaurant/tavern.
M. Cobb noted that on the Foundry's advertising there is nothing directly advertising it as a
restaurant, but there are references to its entertainment (billiards).
B. Holmes noted that billiards is an accessory component to the tavern. He didn't have
information on the Foundry's revenue sources (billiards vs. food/drinks).
A. Shoemaker inquired how this item was brought to the city's attention.
B. Holmes replied that complaints were filed. He noted that he was not awaze of any complaints
being filed against the Foundry. He did not know the nature or source of the complaints
regarding the Nitro Club.
A. Sopher asked about indoor amusement with membership (which is not in the code) vs. indoor
amusement without membership (which is in the code). He clarified that establishments with
indoor amusement (with membership) would be subject to the Planning Director's discretion.
Public Hearing
Elizabeth Allen, Boulder recommended that the Nitro Club go through Use Review.
Board Discussion
A. Sopher asked about the classification of the Boulder Dinner Theater.
B. Holmes replied that it was annexed into the city as apre-existing, non-conforming use.
A. Sopher inquired about the term nightclub.
B. Holmes replied that the term nightclub is not a defined term in the land use code. Often
nightclubs aze classified as taverns.
M. Gross asked if there is a classification of cabaret under the Boulder code.
B. Holmes replied that there is no classification of a cabazet in the Boulder code.
B. Holicky asked if coffee shops are classified as restaurants or other uses.
B. Holmes replied that it depends on the coffee shop. For example, the Laughing Goat would be
classified as a restaurant. Since it provides nightly entertainment, this would qualify as an
accessory use under the code.
A. Shoemaker asked if there is any time that [he Nitro Club is open when live entertainment is
not provided.
M. Cobb replied that it is not.
A. Sopher clarified that the only thing under question is whether restaurant is the correct
definition of the Nitro Club's use or whether staff's recommendation of the Nitro Club as
primarily an indoor amusement establishment is more accurate. A. Sopher introduced the
possibility that both of these uses could be classified as principle uses.
E. Jones clarified that if the board found that both uses were principle uses, the item would still
need to go through Use Review.
6
B. Holicky felt that from a planning perspective the most important thing to look at is the
anticipated impact of this establishment. He thought the board needed to determine which
classification most accurately depicted this businesses' anticipated impact. Based on the type of
activity, hours of operation, the way that people trickle in and out, etc. he felt this establishment
was most like a tavern.
A. Shoemaker felt that the primary use of this establishment can be determined by considering
the sales and marketing of the Nitro Club. He felt that the sales data provided wasn't that helpful
because of the manipulation that could occur by bundling items. The Nitro Club's marketing
proves that their main use is gentleman's entertainment. He used movie theaters as an example
of establishments with a primary use of indoor amusement and a secondary use of
restaurant/food service. He felt that the Nitro Club follows this pattern. He felt that gentleman's
entertainment fell under the category of indoor amusement. He noted that tonight the board does
not need to worry about consistency because these businesses have not been challenged and a
precedent is being set. Comparisons with the Foundry and the Boulder Dinner Theater are not
relevant since applicable data on these is unavailable.
A. Sopher felt that the sales data provided was useful. Since the money earned through drink
sales never exceeded 50% of the Nitro Club's income, a different use generated the majority of
their income. He felt that there was already a precedent set by businesses whose principle use
was defined as a restaurant.
E. Jones concur-ed with A. Shoemaker and A. Sopher's methods of analysis. She felt that
entertainment was the primary reason that people attend the Nitro Club- she didn't believe that
anyone went to the Nitro Club primarily for fnait, ice, or drinks.
W. Johnson agreed with E. Jones, A. Shoemaker, and A. Sopher.
K. Becker also agreed with E. Jones, A. Sopher, A. Shoemaker, and W. Johnson.
B. Holicky felt his fellow board members' interpretations on this item were inaccurate. He was
concerned about the precedent that they were setting. He emphasized that Land Use codes were
written to protect the community from harmful impacts and reiterated the fact that relative
impacts are the most important thing to consider in this case.
Motion
On a motion by W. Johnson, seconded by E. Jones, the Planning Board found (5-1, P. Shull
absents B. Holieky opposed) that the use of the Nitro Club at 1124 Pearl Street is most like that
of an "indoor amusement establishment" as defined within 9-16-1. "Definitions," BRC 1981,
incorporating the staff memorandum dated June 19. 2008 as findings of fact.
D. Gehr outlined the next steps that can be taken. The applicant may request that City Council
call-up the Planning Board's decision. If this item moves forward as a Use Review it is not
required to be a board decision, but it is possible for Planning Board to call-up staffls use review
decision.
The board recessed at 7:35 p.m. and resumed at 7:42 p.m.
A. Shoemaker left the meeting at 7:35 p.m. to catch a flight.
C. Consideration of Concept Plan Review and Comment application #LUR2007-00073,
Boulder Regional Fire Training Center (RFTC). The proposal is fora 10-acre RFTC
located at the east end of the Boulder Reservoir public land. The RFTC will provide training
opportunities for a variety of fire protection organizations throughout Boulder County and will
include three structures: an approximately 16,000- to 23,000-square foot Administration
7
Building, a three story Bum Building; and a 55-foot tall Drill Tower along with a driving
course and prop storage area.
ApplicanUProperty Owner: City of Boulder Facilities Asset Management
Case Manager: Elaine McLaughlin
Applicant Presentation
Frank Young, Deputy Fire Chief of the city of Boulder Fire Department, presented the item to
the board.
B. Holicky asked if Boulder currently has a fire training facility.
F. Young replied that Boulder does have one on Lee Hill Road west of Broadway.
B. Holicky asked if the same jurisdictions would use this fire training facility as the ones that use
the facility on Lee Hill Drive. He also asked why the facility is round.
F. Young replied that most of the same jurisdictions would use the new facility, but that some of
the jurisdictions closer to Longmont would probably use the new facility that has been built
there. The facility was designed in a circular manner to maximize opportunities for use. They
are considering building a roadway for fire truck driver training in this location during Phase 2.
E. Jones asked if concrete would be ]aid during Phase 2.
F. Young replied that it would.
K. Becker asked about potential impacts on recreational users of the levy.
Tom Warner replied that beyond 100 meters from the training facilities there would not be any
major olfactory or visual impacts.
K. Becker asked if the levy was within 100 meters of the facility and the impacts that it would
have on recreational users.
E. McLaughlin replied that it was 800 feet from the facility, but no studies have been done on
potential impacts.
A. Sopher asked about impacts caused by winds and smoke movement.
T. Warner replied that a wind study was done on the relatively weak winds from the east, but
that this needs to be combined with landscape information.
F. Young added that at their existing facility they have not received any complaints from
neighbors about flying embers, but they have had some complaints about sound and sprays of
water.
K. Becker asked if he anticipated closing the levy to recreational users during burn days.
F. Young answered that he did not.
A. Sopher asked if there was a prairie dog issue on this site.
Karen Meening, Walsh Environmental consultant, replied that there are some prairie dogs on
the site that would most likely need to be relocated.
B. Holicky asked if anything would prevent this site from being moved slightly to the southeast.
F. Young replied that it was intentionally placed in this location to minimize visual impacts for
people driving along the Diagonal Highway.
A. Sopher inquired if they had considered placing this facility closer to the water facility
property and swapping the land with open space.
F. Young replied that they have not specifically considered this. He noted that there are
sensitive ecological issues to the north.
W. Johnson asked if there are alternate site locations closer to 63`d Street.
F. Young replied that other sites have been considered (one close to Coot Lake, utilities, and
access), but it included burrowing owls, which precluded its use.
E. Jones asked about the orientation of buildings within the circle of this site and why they have
been designed this way.
8
Eric Jones, architect, replied that this shape and orientation was chosen in order to minimize
overall dimensions of the site and avoid sensitive wetland areas. The design is round to be a hub
of visibility allowing for surveillance of the entire site. It can't be moved south, east or north due
to surrounding wetlands. The burn building and tower are oriented to minimize icing in the
wintertime.
E. Jones felt that the orientation could be shifted in order to create more of a screen between the
buildings and the Diagonal Highway.
Eric Jones replied that the orientation was designed in order to minimize smoke impact.
F. Young mentioned that many materials have been burned at the existing facility. Within 100
feet of the facility there are numerous residences and they have not received any complaints from
neighbors in the 20 years they have been operating.
E. McLaughlin corrected an earlier statement with regard to the distance between the bum
building and the levy as being 400-feet.
F. Young noted that the studies performed by UCAR indicated that the smoke created a[ the
proposed facility would not impact neighbors. He noted that the site has been oriented this way
due to maximum grade issues (and not exceeding them with the fire trucks) and in the interest of
meeting LEED Silver certification requirements.
K. Becker inquired about why the secondazy, pazallel road is no longer being proposed.
F. Young responded that further discussion and research has led to the conclusion that a
secondary road is not necessary due to traffic volume and to allow for more flexibility. Only
emergency access would be necessary.
W. Johnson asked what would happen if CDOT changed their mind about the single road.
F. Young replied that this is something they would need to address
A. Sopher asked about the importance of north orientation of the outdoor
classroom/observation overhang area.
Eric Jones replied that this is a shaded azea during the summer, prevents icing during the winter,
and provides some shelter for people training outdoors.
Staff Presentation
E. McLaughlin presented the item to the board.
K. Becker inquired about the location of the wetlands on this site.
K. Meening replied that the wetlands are on the south and east end of where the facility is
proposed. She noted that there are additional wetlands north of the proposed site.
B. Holicky asked if sirens would only be used in emergency response situations and how
frequently that might happen.
F. Young replied that sirens might be used in emergency response situations one or two times a
year. Sirens are not used during trainings.
A. Sopher asked if the roof was fire engine red or a muted red.
The architect replied that it would be a rust red to be earthy and connect to the land.
Public Hearing
Bill Hollander, 5012Valhalla Dr. expressed approval of the need for and details of the fire
training center, but expressed great concern about the additional traffic that would occur on this
particular site.
Nancy DelaCroix, 4913 Valkyrie Dr. pointed out that the wetlands on the property are man-
made through seepage rather than naturally-occurring wetlands. She noted that the proposed
azea is already overused with events and expressed concern about the additional traffic that
would occur if the fire training center was placed here.
9
Stan Arnold, 5289 Odin Ave. also expressed concern about the additional traffic and disruption
of peaceful enjoyment of this area.
Jennifer Arnold, 5289 Odin Ave. expressed additional concern about the traffic and
augmenting it. She acknowledged the need for a fire training center, but suggested considering
an alternate location.
Charles de Bartolome, 4935 Valhalla Drive expressed concern about mixing the recreation at
the reservoir with the additional traffic that the fire training center would create. He would like
to see the proposed building heights lowered and the wildlife on the site left undisturbed.
John Crittenden, 4771 Valhalla Drive agreed that the fire training center is needed, but was
concerned about the traffic it would create and the impact it would have in this location.
Board Discussion
Traffic, Site Access, Park impacts
K. Becker understood the Fire Department's predicament, but she didn't understand how it
could site a training facility in a location with the amount of use and types of use that this site
has. It seems like many events in this location would conflict with the training center. She
expressed concern with the different types of users mixed with the fire truck usage.
W. Johnson agreed that the recreational use of the reservoir didn't seem to mix with the fire
training center. She found the access to the site to be awkward. She would prefer to see the fire
training center grouped more with the water treatment facility which is already impactful. She
agreed that a fire training center is important and necessary, but wasn't sure that this was a good
site for it.
E. Jones noted that there is not an ideal site for something like this but noted that having been
through the site selection process with the board that this is the only site that is possible for the
Fire Training Center to locate on within the city given the selection criteria. She also would have
liked to see it grouped with the water utility buildings. She asked if it would be possible to do
this.
F. Young replied that having it close to a water treatment facility would create security issues for
the water treatment facility. He also mentioned that there are topography issues on the water
facility site.
B. Holicky would prefer to mitigate impacts this would have on reservoir users rather than
drivers along 119.
F. Young noted that city and county transportation approached CDOT about access off of 119.
Bill Fox, Fox/Higgins Transportation Group consultant, mentioned that CDOT will not allow
access inbound off of 119 in anon-emergency situation.
A. Sopher asked about the parallel road off of 63rd.
B. Fox understood that this was not an alternative.
F. Young mentioned that open space, etc. said this wasn't possible and mentioned the grade
issues that this opened up.
B. Holicky asked if there was an alternate access point from 63`d and 119.
F. Young replied that these possibilities have been looked at, but none of them are viable
options.
A. Sopher stressed the importance of establishing an emergency egress.
W. Johnson and K. Becker agreed.
K. Becker didn't understand why the security/safety issues of the water treatment facility
trumped the safety issues concerned with this project.
E. Jones felt that any security measures that the water facility had in place could also be
implemented by the fire training facility attendants.
10
B. Holicky observed that the board can't make certain decisions, but that City Council can, so
the more streamlined they can make the project before it reaches council, the better for the
project and its success.
E. Jones noted that these conflicts should be addressed up front and the board urged the
applicant to explore other alternative access points. She wanted to avoid repeating the Valmont
Butte scenario. E. Jones asked if instead of a second access road, abike/pedestrian path funded
by the fire training center could be an option.
F. Young noted that they have already proposed bike/pedestrian access to minimize user
conflicts and have conversed with pazks about this.
A. Sopher asked if this has been considered along Sls` Street.
F. Young replied that it has only been considered on the reservoir property itself.
E. Jones agreed that the recreational opportunities of the reservoir are more important to
consider than the view from 119. She felt that the current orientation didn't protect anyone's
views. With attractive design of the administration building and a shift closer to 119 these views
might be improved.
W. Johnson noted that both uses (the reservoir and 119) are important, but that [he impacts on
reservoir users should be mitigated more.
Planning Boazd agreed that if forced to choose they would rather reduce impacts to reservoir
users than to drivers along 119.
The boazd recommended moving the administrative building closer to the Diagonal Highway and
using it as an attractive screen to the highway.
A. Sopher thought the orientation of these buildings could be altered.
B. Holicky didn't think the center needed to be round.
Height of the buildings
B. Holicky questioned why the building needs a roof and why it is as high as it is.
F. Young noted that the tower needs to be high in order to facilitate training for high building
fires and that the roof provides shade.
B. Holicky replied that as long as it wouldn't affect the practical use of the building, he'd like to
see it be a bit lower.
Architectural design of administration building
E. Jones felt that the design could be improved. She felt that the overhang made the building
larger than it needed to be for its use. The color of the roof should blend in with the surrounding
area.
B. Holicky was interested in opening up the south end of the building to make it more inviting.
He suggested tying the building into the land more through its design and maximizing the sun on
the south end.
W. Johnson agreed with B. Holicky's comments.
A. Sopher liked the simple approach that the applicant has taken, but he was unsure about the
overhanging roof. He expressed concern about the size of the roof.
W. Johnson inquired why such a large amount of parking would be necessary as the amount
proposed.
Eric Jones clarified that when shifting the orientation of the buildings, the goals are to move the
administration building away from the burn building and to screen the view of the secondary
buildings with the main building from 119.
A. Sopher noted that if functional requirements can be met and the design can be more
sculptural and attractive, then this screening would be less important.
11
F. Young noted that creative, attractive design is difficult to achieve without compromising the
utility and functionality of the building.
B. Holicky expressed appreciation to the applicant and respect for the difficulties they've
encountered.
Motion
No action by Planning Boazd is required.
6. MATTERS FROM THE PLANNING BOARD, PLANNING DIRECTOR,
AND CITY ATTORNEY
R. Ray provided the board with an update on Orchard Grove and the fact that City Council has
directed Planning Board to address the rezoning of Orchard Grove at its August 7, 2008 meeting.
E. Jones gave an update on the Pops and Scrapes process. She mentioned that al] of the
applications for the RFP were strong. There was an 80% consensus on Winter Consultants as the
first choice.
B. Holicky noted that they are working on contract negotiation. There will be one more
subcommittee meeting before this item goes to council. There will be enough flexibility in the
contract for Planning Board and council's feedback to be incorporated.
W. Johnson provided P. Shull's report on Valmont City Pazk Concept from City Council and
noted that it will return to Planning Boazd for Site Review.
R. Ray noted that 915 Pearl was called-up by City Council because of concerns about the height
and massing, the restaurant use, and parking.
D. Gehr noted that the city of Boulder lost the law suit by Thunderbird Burger against them.
The city appealed the district court's decision, but lost. The court concluded that the condition
was impermissible and provided feedback on how it should be done in the future. Timing is
important. He outlined the city's options moving forward.
7. DEBRIEF/AGENDA CHECK
8. ADJOURNMENT
The Planning Boazd adjourned the meeting at 10:08 p.m.
APPRO~D BY
Board C~~~ ~
DATE
12