Loading...
2 - Draft Minutes - Planning Board - July 10, 2008 CITY OF BOULDER PLANNING 6OARD MINUTES July 10, 2008 1777 Broadway, Council Chambers A pernlanent set of these minutes and a tape recording (maintained for a period of seven years) are retained in Central Records (telephone: 303-441-3043). Minutes and streaming audio are also available on the web at: http://www.bouldercolorado.bau/ PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: K.C. Becker Bill Holicky Willa Johnson Elise Jones Andrew Shoemaker Adrian Sophcr PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Phil Shull, Chair STAFF PRESENT: Juliet I3onnel], Administrative Specialist Charles Ferro, Senior Planner David Gehr, Deputy City Attorney Brian I-Iolmcs, Zoning Administrator Ruth McHeyser, Acting Planning Director Elaine McLaughlin, Senior Planner Chris Meschuk, Planner Abbie Novak, Parks Business and Finance Manager Robert Ray, Land [.Jsc Review Manager Susan Richstone, Loeb Range Planning Manager Jessica Vaughn, Planner Stephany Wcsthusin, Transportation Project Coordinator Bill Boycs, Acting Facilities and fleet Manager lZ~bert Harberg, Utilities Planning and Projects Coordinator 1. CALL TO ORDER A. Sopher, acting as Chair, declared a quorum at 5:03 p.m. and the following business was conducted. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Vo minutes were scheduled for approval. 3. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION Ford Brown, 922 Spruce Street expressed concern about the noise and traffic that Spud E3rothers (located at 2U 10 l (l`~' Street) would add i f their hours were extended. Sandy Hale, 910 Spruce Street expressed the same concerns and supported staff's denial of Spud E3rothers' request to extend their hours. 1 Kim Westover, 6360 S. Federal Way, Boise, ID attended to represent the Spucf 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`x' 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 concez-zling the 2009-2014 Capital Improvements Program (CIP). Case Manager: Clu-is Meschuk Staff Presentation C. Meschuk presented the item to the board. B. Ilolicky noted that he will need t.o 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 Board discussion on CIP. Looking at this he questioned haw much their comments affected staff's direction on CIP. Ile 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. Ilolicky wanted to discuss CEAPS and desi~l 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 he identified to serve new park developments. Therefore, maintenance dollars will be included in their operating funds for maintenance of Mesa Memorial in 2009. In the 2009 C,IP this is the only new development project that is planned. K. Becker asked if the LEAP process is totally discretionary. R. Mclleyser replied that the CLAP process is a process that city departments go through when they arc proposing development on a parcel. The LEAP 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. 'T'here 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 board will review the CEAPS for particular projects. C. Meschuk replied that CEAPs would be reviewed by Planzzing Board if there is not a specific advisory board 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 far a project. C.1Vleschuk 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. McNeyser clarified that staff is asking the board to identify whether the projects included in the CIP memo should go through the CEAP process. 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 are 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 gzridelines has been developed for determining the projects that require the CEAP process. F3asically, projects that require CEAPs are usually ones that have enough of an impact an 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. Ilolicky 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. McNeyser agreed that the cost of a CEAP is difficult to estimate because each project is so different. B. Holicky expressed interest in doing a costlbenefit analysis of CEAPs. R. MclIeyscr replied that the cost maybe greater for projects that go through the CF,AP 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 I3oulder Community Park. A. Novak replied that a CEAP had been done for this project, but there will be a reassessment of how the park is being used and how previous plans will be adjusted. A. Sopher asked why CEAPs are still on the CIP list if they are marked as complete. C. Meschuk clarified that items that are on the CIP list, but have completed CEAPs are still on the list because the projects they are correlated with are still in the CIP process. Desi~,n Rcvicw_ 'VV. Johnson inquired when the items with asterisks would be reviewed and by whom. C. ~1~iesehuk replied that as the projects get closer to their funding year and the scope of the projects gets narrowed down the design review process will become clearer. Staff's goal is to identify the needs oI'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 CIP landing. Stephany Westhusin from the Transportation Department replied that there is transportation fimding available for essential, desirable, and discretionary purposes. All the maintenance dollars are in t11e operating (essential) budget rather than the CIP. There are also special projects that are covered by maintenance money. Public Hearing (excluding items related to TVAP) No one spoke to t11is item. Motion On a motion by C. Jones, seconded by B. Iloliclcy, the Planning Board recommen(1 approval 0, P. Shull and A. Shoemaker absent) ofthc 2009-2014 Capital Improvements I'ro~ram (e~(clu(lin~; issues relatc(1 to TVAP), the list of CIP pr(~ects to llndCl-go a Community anal )?111r'll'Olllnelltill ASSCSSI1lellt IPI.OCeSS f1S pl'CSCIItCCI lll Altacl]I11Cnt 1' (excluding issues relate(1 to "TVAP), anti the ciesi.~Il review processes reconllnencied by staff in Attachment G (excluding issues related to T'VAP), as recommended by the staff memorandum dated July 10, 2008. B. )Ilolicky recuseci himself for discussion on improvements within the TVAP at 5:55 p.m. Board lliscussion (related to TVAP) W. Johnson asked for clarification about how the Transit Village improvements flow through the C,1P. 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 are 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 stol7nwater plan for the area is related to the ability to allow the rezoning and rc-development to begin. R. McI-Ieyser replied that staf f is working on the stormwater plan for this area 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 stonnwater issues on-site. Unce 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 concul-rency ordinance are in place. W. Johnson inquired about undergn-ounding 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 undcrgrounded due to costs. K. Mclleyser elaborated that CII' money is not available to Fund this project, but that funds may be allocated frolll 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 Mvtion On a motion by E. Jones, seconded by A. Sopher, the Planning; Board recommend apt)roval (4- U, P. Shull and A. Shoemaker absent, 13. Iloliclcy recused) oi'thc comuanents oi'2OO9-2U14 Capital Impl'OVeI)lelltS I'1'O€;1"i1111 Wlt}7111 the rI~V/~P a11C1 I'eC~LleSted Stall to rel)ort back to tl)c board about costs alld potelltlal SOU1'CeS Oi tllildln~; tor' Lllldel'~1'OUnCllllg_poWe!' lln(:S at a future date. C. Meschuk noted that this item will be reviewed by City Council at their study session on July 29, 2008. T11e board recessed at 6:09 p.m. and resumed at 6:15 p.m. B. Holieky returned from recusal at 6:U9 p.m. A. Shoemaker arrived late to the meeting at b: ] 0 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 Zonu><g Adjustment (BOZA) decision on Docket No. 2008-1: appeal of a use determination of the 'Coning Administrator for the Nitro Club operation at 1124 Pearl Street. (This item was continued from the June 19 Planning Board meeting.) Applicant /Owner: Michael Gross /Michael Cobb Case Manager: Brian Holmes ll. 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 board call-up is subject to a 14 day period, whereas only City Council call-ups can occur within 3U days. He noted that this item was called up by Planning Board 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 )wade note of this and moved forward with the heaz"ing. Staff Presentation B. Holmes presented the item to the board. 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. I Ie 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 marketed 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. Holieky 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. Cobh replied that their bar closes at 2 a.m. and the chzb 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. ll. Gehr replied that it was annexed into the city in I990 along with numerous other businesses. The Bus Stop has not gone through Use Review. B. Ilolicky asked if there was a use review for the Foundry. B. Ilolmes replied that it didn't go through use review, but it did go through discretionary review because of the rooftop deck. A. Sopher asked what the Foundry has been established as. B. Ilolmes replied that it has been established as a restaurant/taven~. M. Cobb noted that on the Foundry's advertising there is nothing directly advertising it as a restauzant, 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/dz-inks). 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 aware of any complaints being tiled against the Foundry. He did not know the nature or source of the complaints regarding the Nitro Club. A. Sopher asked about indooz- 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 llixectoz's discretion. Public Dearing Eiirabeth Allen, Boulder recommended that the Nitro Club go through Use Review. Board Discussion A. Sopher asked about the; classification of the Boulder I3inner Theater. B. Holmes replied that it was annexed into the city as apre-existing, non-conforming use. A. Sopher inquired about the teen nightclub. B. Holmes replied that the term nightclub is not a defined term in the land use code. Often nightclubs are classified as taverns. VI. (Yross asked if there is a classification of cabaret under the Boulder code. B. Holmes replied that there is no classification ofa cabaret in the Boulder code. B. Ilolicky 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 the Nitro Club is open when live entertairunent is not provided. M. Cobb repficd that it is nat. A. Sopher clari fled 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. G B. Holicky felt that from a planning perspective the most important thing to lvok at is the anticipated impact of this establislunent. He thought the board needed to determine which classification most accurate}y 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 cstablislunent 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. I-Ie 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 entertaimnent fell under the category of indoor amusement. FIe noted that tonight the board does not need to worry about consistency with businesses in existence because a precedent is being set. Comparisons with the }~aundry 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 concurred 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 fruit, 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. Ilolicky 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 arc the most important thing to consider in this case. Motion On a motion by W. Johnson, seconded by E. Jones, the Planning E3oard found (5-1. P. Shull absent, B. Holicky opposed) that the use of the Nitro Club at 1 124 Pearl Strcct is most like that of an "indoor amusement establishment" as defined within. 9-} 6-1, "Definitions," BRC_19~1, incargoratin~ the stalhmemorandum dated June I~). 2008 as tindin~s 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 Bvard to call-up staff's 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. tv catch a flight. C. Consideration of Concept Plan Review and Comment application #LUR2007-00073, Boulder Regional hire Training Center (RFTC}. The proposal is fora 10-acre RFTC located at the east end of the Baulder Reservoir public land. The RFTC will provide training apportunities 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 Burn Building; and a 55-foot tall Drill 'Power along with a driving course and prop storage area. Applicant/Property Owner: City of Boulder Facilities Asset Management Case Manager: Elaine McLaughlin Applicant Presentation Frank Young, Deputy Fire Chief of the city of Boulder Firc Department, presented the item to the hoard. B. Ho}icky asked if Boulder currently has a fire training facility. F. Young replied that Boulder does have one on Lce I Iill Road west of Broadway. B. 1}olicky asked iCthe 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 jur7sdictions 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 laid during Phase 2. F. Younti 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. McLaugh}in replied that it was 80fJ feet from the facility, but no studies have been done on potential impacts. A. Sopher asked about impacts caused by winds and smoke movement. '(.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 auswcred 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. }3. Holicky asked if anything would prevent this site from bcirzg 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. Ile 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 izacluded 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, v-chitect, 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 he 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 mat.ez-ials have been buz-zled at the existing facility. Within 140 feet of the facility there are numerous residences and they have not received any complaints from neighbors in the 2U years they have been operating. E. McLaughlin corrected an earlier statement with regard to the distance between the burn building and the levy as being 400-feet. F. Young noted that the studies performed by UCAR indicated that the smoke created at 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 secondary, parallel road is nv 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 .Tones replied that this is a shaded area 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. Puhlic Itcaring Bill Iloilander, 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- madethrough seepage rather than naturally-occurring wetlands. She noted that the proposed area is already ovenised 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 concer-~~ 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. Beelcer 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 ofthe reset-voir didn't seem to mix with the fire training center. She found the access to the site to be awkward. She would prefer to sec 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. Shc 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. 1Iolicky 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/Higfrins 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 63T`~. 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. Holieky asked if there was an alternate; access point from 63`d and 119. T. Young replied that these possibilities have been looked at, but none of them are viable OptlO115. 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. F,. ,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. Ilolicky 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. Shc 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 parks about this. A. Sopher asked if this has been considered along 51" 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 1 l 9. She felt that the current orientation didn't protect anyone's views. With attractive design of the administration building and a shift closer to l 19 these views _ might be improved. W. Johnson noted that both uses (the reservoir and 119) are important, but that the impacts on reservoir users should he mitigated more. Planning Board agreed- that if forced to choose they would rather reduce impacts to reservoir users than to drivers along 119. The board 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 sec it be a bit lower. Architectural designn 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 maximising 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 buz•n 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 cliff cult to achieve without compromising the utility and functionality of the building. R. Ilolicky expressed appreciation to the applicant and respect for the difficulties they've encountered. Motion No action by Planning Board is required. 6. MATTERS FROM 'CITE 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 all of the applications for the RFP were strong. There was an 80% consensus on Winter Consultants as the first choice. B. Holieky 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 Park Concept from City Council and noted that it will return to Planning Board for Site Review. R. Ray noted that 915 Pearl was called-up by City Council because of concei-~is 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 nn how it should be done in the future. Timing is important. He outlined the city's options moving forward. 7. DF,BRIEI+/AGENDA CHECK 8. ADJOURNMENT' The Planning Board adjourned the meeting at ] 0:08 p.m. APPROVEll I3Y Board Chair DATE 12