Thread by @shayshinecastle

Hogan Pancost: It's 22 acres near Baseline, 55th, South Boulder Rd.
19 acres are west of 55th Street; 3 acres are east.

"As you well know, this property has a long and storied history," Brautigam said. In the decade before this, a number of proposals came forward for housing there. "I'm not sure any of them made it council, bc they went to planning board and were turned down or withdrawn"

Boulder bought it in April 2018 for $5M.
Staff brought forward possible uses in October. There were a lot, from parks and rec stuff to possible tiny houses or mobile homes.

Council asked staff to move forward with ecological use (restoration of 3 acres east of 55th Street) and flood mitigation.

"We are thinking that" a community garden "might be a good interim use for the property," Brautigam says.

Q from Weaver: Why would it need to be an interim use?
Brautigam: Bc it could be flooded.

Jeff Arthur, from utilities, up now. This property is part 2 of a three-phase flood plan for South Boulder Creek.
Phase 1 is CU South
Phase 2, Manhattan Middle School and/or Hogan Pancost
Phase III, Flatirons Golf Course

Detention at Hogan Pancost would protect 26 homes near Manhattan Middle School

Weaver: Would detention at Manhattan MS protect those same 26 homes, or more/different ones?

Phase II as a whole was 380+ dwelling units; this is just a piece of that. But we don't have a specific number for the Manhattan detention.

Detention would move here *instead* of being built at Manhattan MS. It's just a future plan; the city hasn't acquired an easement there. Hogan Pancost removes the need to do that.

The flood mitigation analysis is "really preliminary" Arthur says.

Hogan Pancost as a whole has been a "low priority" for open space; but these 3 acres have the "highest potential" bc it's next to existing city open space.

OSBT unanimously approved this approach in May.

This staff presentation includes NO cost information. Always frustrating.
Numbers shared in the council packet were $2-6M for flood detention; $10-$15K for open space restoration, plus ~$1K in annual maintenance.

Open space and utilities dept. would pay the general fund $182,000 combined for the acreage.

Morzel: If we designate this for flood mitigation, how permanent is that? Could council reconsider the land in the future for another use? Is there anything we could do to put on this land so it couldn't be disposed for housing?
Carr: No. Unless you make it open space or parks.

Carr: "Anything this council does, a subsequent council can change."

Weaver: If parks funds were used to acquire and maintain the property, then what? Can it still be used for flood detention?
Carr: We'd have to decide if that as a proper use for parks funds.

Brockett: We're talking about 14 acres for flood detention, 3 acres for open space. What about remaining 5 acres?
Arthur: The intent is that everything west of 55th would go to utilities; everything east would go to open space.

Jones: There are things we could do that would be of public interest, like light ag like Mountain Flower Goat Dairy, or beekeeping...

Brautigam: It would cost $550,00 (roughly) to prep the land for a community garden. It would come from the parks fund. We'd have to make priority decisions about what else doesn't get funded.

Concerns that there might need to be a parking lot, depending on the use, which costs $$ and burdens the land.

Jones: We could lease it to somebody who wants to do kids camps or something.
Weaver: Depending on what detention we use, there could be a significant amount of area left.

Carlisle: What you've suggested is great. The reason for it to go into parks is so that there won't be any talk of housing going here in the future.

Carlisle: I didn't realize that if the city determined this would go for flood mitigation and open space, it could still be open for development, and a council could do that.

Morzel: It would be zombie time again.

Everyone laughs. Hahaha! Isn't is great to take land off the table for housing?

UGH.

Suzanne DeLucia: We're approaching 30 years on this issue. In this time, and with good reason, no proposal for development has ever gotten past the planning board stage. Most are related to delicate hydrology of this area.

Forgot to say we're in public hearing. Two people showed up.

I'm really starting to wonder why I even do this, when no one shows up. C'mon people.

DeLucia: "Flood mitigation should preempt these uses. Please do not consider this area for housing. We're asking you to kill the zombie once and for all."

Morzel: Without this property be in open space or parks, there's always the possibility a future council could make it housing. You understand that, right, Suzanne?
Yes, Suzanne says.

Donna George: I'm here in support of having Hogan Pancost stay undeveloped as open space and flood mitigation. If that works out. If not: Park.

"If we keep developing on undeveloped land, how are we going to do carbon sequestration?"

Yeah, we only have 65K acres of open space. HOW in the WORLD will we EVER do carbon sequestration???

Morzel makes a motion, "having sat here for 20 years."
Moves to designate Hogan Pancost for flood mitigation (19 acres) under the parks and rec dept. and 3 acres to open space.

Young seconds before she even finishes her sentence.

"What's really important is that this does not go back" onto the table for development, Morzel says.

They're adding language to have the parks dept. own it, so that it can NEVER be used for housing.

People in the audience are clapping and laughing.

Carr: I'm not sure how to word it, bc until it actually gets improved with park funds, there's no restrictions (on what can go there).

Weaver: Why not have parks make the transfer of funds instead of utilities? That way it will be park land?

Jones: The intent is to have them pay for part of it (so it's completely precluded from being used as housing) but can't utilities pay for some?
Weaver suggests how that can be done. I kind of missed what he said. Sorry.

Yates: I'd urge caution about throwing it all into parks, since we don't know if flood mitigation counts as a parks use, or if we'd have to do a disposal.
Weaver: I'd hope that even when there's a detention structure, we'll be able to use some acreage for parks.

Brautigam: Why don't we pass this, and then come back and talk about how parks funds can be used for this?

Brautigam: We need to know if we even did a small improvement, if that encumbers the entire acreage or funds. I feel uncomfortable making a motion tonight when we don't know the answer.

Unanimous vote. Audience claps.

NOW THEY'RE GUSHING. (Jones words).

Brockett: We're getting benefit from moving flood mitigation away from Manhattan Middle School. We were all queasy about that.

Audience is clapping.

That's it for this one. CU South next.
@threadreaderapp please unroll.