bullock

An engineering drawing shows the layout of the proposed Fuller Subdivision on the northeast corner of Boulder, at the end of Second Avenue. 

Clarification: Following the publication of this story, and in reference to her quote about the subdivision application's compliance with city regulations, Planning Board Member Sue Pasini clarified in an email to The Monitor that "I did not imply I was against the entire subdivision; just concerned about the lack [of] more than one outlet for the potential residents." 


With a modest crowd in attendance but few public comments or questions, the Boulder Planning Board on Monday recommended that the City Council approve a proposed subdivision of 15 lots across 11.3 acres at the east end of East Second Avenue, southwest of the Boulder Cemetery. 

The subdivision, proposed by Chad Bullock and named the Fuller Subdivision, sits partially on land that was annexed into the city this summer in public process that was at times contentious and drew public comments opposing the project. Despite public opposition, the Planning Board, and ultimately the City Council, approved the annexation after finding that it met the city's requirements. 

On Monday night, after a public hearing that featured one public comment—opposition from local rancher Ed McCauley—the board recommended for the same reasons that the City Council approve the proposed subdivision. 

"If it’s in compliance with regulations, there’s nothing we can do," Board Member Sue Pasini said. 

Pasini was the only board member to question Jerry Grebenc, a contracted engineer from Great West Engineering who presented a staff report on the proposal at the meeting. She expressed concerns that Second Avenue was the only way to exit the subdivision in an emergency, and was concerned about stormwater runoff, water supply and park land required for the development. 

Grebenc said that the applicant paid cash in lieu of park land, "which is pretty common," and that the applicant will have to submit a stormwater management plan to the state Department of Environmental Quality. He said that city water rights and water supply for the subdivision were determined to be adequate by the city's contracted engineering firm, Morrison-Maierle. 

McCauley worried that, although the city's water system might be able to supply the subdivision, greater draw on the "alluvial flow basin" beneath the city could further jeopardize water for downstream ranches. 

"My family has been here for 150-plus years, and I hope they can continue to be here," he said. "There’s not a ranch down there that has water." 

McCauley said he believed that many opponents of the proposal felt ignored after the annexation process.

"Being as they’re not here tonight, I feel they feel like they kind of got dumped on," he said. "If you want to keep getting rid of ag land, well, I guess go ahead with this thing."

The board did not discuss the proposal after Pasini's questions for Grebenc and McCauley's comment, and members voted unanimously to recommend that the City Council approve the subdivision. 

The City Council will take public comments and consider the proposal on Oct. 18. 

(0) comments

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.