7B - 47th/Jay/Kalmia Planning ProjectCITYOFBOULDER
S PARKS AND RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD AGENDA ITEM
MEETING DATE:
(Agenda Item Preparation Date: February 6, 2002)
AGENDA TITLE: 47`"/Jay/Kalmia Planninp Project
REQUESTING DEPARTMENT: Jan Geden, CPRP, Director of Parks and Recreation
Cate Bradle Planner
FISCAL IMPACT: None
PURPOSE:
The purpose of this item to provide the Pazks and Recreation Advisory Board members with
background informarion on the planning process currently underway for new residential
development in the Palo Park Subcommunity.
• BACKGROUND:
The Crty of Boulder Planning Department and the owners of properties located at 47'h Street and
Jay Road and m the area north of Kalnua Avenue have jointly hired Studio 2 Design, a local
planrung and design firrn, to develop wnceptual alternahves for new residenttal development m
these areas. (Attachment A, Plamm~g Process for the JaxRoad, 47~' Street, and Kalmia Avenue
Properties, includes more detuled background mformanon on the history of the plamm~g process
and includes a map showmg the prpperty locations J The owners of these parcels will be
requesttng annexahon and zomng and will be submitting plans for Concept Review tlus spring.
Concept Review is normally the first step in tha city's development review process. In this case,
a neighborhood plannmg process is precedmg the submittal of plans for Concept Review, in
order to incorporate and address the concems of residents in the ad~acent neighborhoods.
The three preliminary conceptual alternarives bemg developed show how different housing types
might fit on the sites, options for lower and higher housmg densities, alternative street networks,
possible pubhc or private park locations and the potential for non-residential development in
limited areas. The process to date has included a neighborhood meeting in November 2001 and
three meetmgs among neighborhood representaUves, property owners, city staff and Studio 2
Design to help formulate the designs. Another neighborhood meetmg is scheduled for February
26`~ to review the plans with area residents. Following that meeting, Studio 2 Design will
finalize the conceptual plans and will prepaze a report presenting the alternatives and the pros and
cons of each from the varymg perspechves of the participants m the process.
•
AGENDAITEM#VII-B PAGE 1
The report and conceptual plans will be presented to the Puks and Recreation Advisory Board ~
for review at their Mazch 18~' meedng, and Board comments and recommendations will be
conveyed to the Planning Boazd. The Plamm~g Board will review this information at their
meedng on March 21s` and will provide direction to the property owners as they prepare to
submit plans for Concept Review. The owners will use the feedback obtained from the
neighborhood planning process and the direchon of Planning Board to help shape the
development of their more detailed proposals.
As part of this neighborhood plannmg process, residents expressed the desire far the provision of
additional pazk land to serve existing and new residential development and have raised a number
of issues concernmg the impact of Pleasant View Fields on ad~acent neighborhoods. Please see
Attachment B, Park and Recreahon Issues in the Palo Park Subcommunitv, for a summary of the
issues relating to Pleasant View Fields and the staff response, and Attachment C, Park Services
m the Palo Park Subcommumtv, for a summary of informahon concerning neighborhood pazk
services.
ANALYSIS:
An analysis of the conceptual alternahves will be provided to the Board m the agenda item
presented on March 18~'.
PUBLIC COMMENT AND PROCESS:
This item is bemg heazd at tlus public meetmg, as advertised in the Daily Camera. Participants in •
the neighborhood planning process were mformed about ttus agenda item at their meeting on
February 5'".
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
None.
ATTACHMENTS:
A Planning Process for Jay Road, 47'" Street and Kalmia Avenue Properties
B Parks and Recreation Issues m the Palo Pazk Subcommunity
C. Pazk Services in the Palo Pazk Subcommunity
•
AGENDA ITEM # VII - B PAGE 2
Attachment A
Planning Process for the Jay Road, 47th Street, and Kalmia
Avenue Properties
• ProjectBackground
The properties outlined on the attached map are located in Unincorporated
Boulder County within the City of Boulde~'s Service Area (the area planned for
annexation to the city). The property owners of the parcels shown with the
cross hatch pattern are interested in annexing the properties into the city.
Approximately three years ago all of these property owners submitted
annexation petitions to the city. The annexation process did not go forward at
that time for a variety of reasons, and the property owners would now like to
move forward. The Calvary Bible Church, which is located on Kalmia Avenue, is
moving forward with an annexation proposal prior to the other properties due to
their need to connect to city water as soon as possible.
The city and property owners are jointly moving forward with a process to solicit
neighborhood input prior to preparation of plans for the development of the _
properties.
The Boulder Vailey Comprehensive Plan
The Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan is a ~oint plan of the City of Boulder and
Boulder County that provides the policy gwdance for planning and development
in the Boulder Valley. The properties proposed for annexation are located in
Area II of the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan, the area in which annexation
to the city may be considered. As part of the most recent update of the
+ comprehensive plan, several of these properties were proposed for density
increases from low density residential (two to six units per acre) to medium (six
to fourteen units per acre) and mixed density residential (up to twenty units per
acre).
The residents in the area opposed the proposed changes and identified many
concerns including traffic, incompatibdity with existing development, impacts to
wetlands, and the need for additional park space. In the end, only two areas
were approved for land use map changes• 5 acres at the corner of Jay Rd &
47th St. and 3 acres south of Four Mile Canyon Creek were approved for
medium density residential land use designations. The land use designations in
the comprehensive plan provide the guidance for the zoning of the properties at
annexation.
Purpose: Develop 2-4 alternative conceptual plans for development of the sites
that show land uses; housing densities and types including the percentage of
affordable housing to be included; access pomts and circulation patterns
including trail, pedestrian, and bikeway connections.
Process: The c~ty and landowners are jointly hinng a planning firm to develop
conceptual pians that attempt to address the concerns and ob~ectives of the city,
landowners, and neighborhood. The intent is to provide the oppo~turnty for
. neighborhood input pnor to the development and submittal of plans for the
property by the landowners.
AGFNDA 1TEM iI~L( --~ PAGE i
The process will consist of 3 small group meetings:
Decemb~r 20
•January 16 (dependent upon school district)
•February 5 •
The small group meetings will include representatives from the neighborhood,
landowners, and city, and wili consist of working with the planning consultant to
develop several preliminary alternatives.
A large neighborhood meeting has been tentatively scheduled for February 26 to
review and comment on the pians. A report on the alternatives will then be
prepared by the facilitator and planning consultant for presentation and
discussion at a Planning Board meeting scheduled for March 21. The report wiil
include a description of the process and the alternative plans, and will provide an
evaluation of the plans.
This process precedes the property owners' submittal of plans to the city. The
intent is that the property owners will use the results of this process and the
Planning Board comments to prepare a concept plan for submittal to the cit~C
At the time of submittal, the neighborhood wdl be notified and will have the
opportunity to review and comment on the development plans for the properties.
This process in no way precludes or replaces any of the required city application,
referral, and public hearing processes.
Roles
Facilitator (Jamie Harrison) - to help design and facilitate this process for pubiic •
input. Jamie will run the small group and large neighborhood meetings
Citv staff - to provide staff expertise, resources, and information as needed to
support the process, and to represent city policies and interests relating to
development of these properties
Landowners - The property owners include The Boulder Valley Schooi District,
Coast to Coast Development, Calvary Bible Church, Markel Homes, and Norm
Vojta. The property owners will represent their respective interests.
NeiQhborhood Representatives - to represent and provide input on
neighborhood concerns and interests relative to development of these
properties. The neighborhood representatives at the small group meetings are
requested to exercise their best efforts to consult with their constituency and to
represent the interests of the neighborhood as a whole.
Site Planner - to develop alternative conceptual plans for development of the
sites.
Objectives city will use to review alternatives
1 Land Use .
•Consistency with the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan - land use map and
policies
ArA,ImArt'~M# V//_ PAGE_L_,
•Approp~iate mix ef he~sing d?nsities and types that is compatible with
surrounding neighborhoods
•A significant amount of permanently affordable housing for moderate and
• middle income househoids consistent with city annexation and development
policies that is integrated throughout the development.
•Consistent with Airport InfluenFe Zone
•Provision of additional park land to serve existing underserved areas and areas
of new residential development; the decision as to whether or not to acquire and
develop additionai park acreage in this subcommunity will be made by the Parks
and Recreation Advisory Board.
z. Transportation
•Safe, low speed streets
•Neighborhood transportation connectivity - safe and convenient vehicular and/or
non-vehicular connectivity within neighborhoods and to the surrounding
transportation system
•Non-vehicular transportation options
•Mitigation of existing transportation problems and those potential problems
presented by new development
•Prevention or mitigation of weekday commuter cut-through traffic within
neighborhoods
Landowner Objectives
•Annex and develop the property
• •An economically feasible project
•
AGENDA 17'El~f # ~~/~- p~GE ~
~
Map of Jay Road, 47`h Street, and Kalmia Properties
~
~
, "'r~'11VIfA 117+M#~ ~+AGL+ ~
Attachment B
PARKS AND RECREATION ISSUES IN THE PALO PARK SUBCOMMUNITY
.
I. PARHING FOR PLEASANT VIEW FIELDS
Issues
Users of Pleasant View Fields aze pazking m neighborhoods and on 47th Street.
Parking in neighborhoods creates unwanted addrtional traffic on Kalmia and Palo
Pazkway.
Some people who pazk in the naighborhood have tailgate partaes with alcohol.
Information
• The National Recreation and Park Association standud for parking is 23-30
spaces per field. Pleasant View has 46 spaces per field.
• Alcohol is not allowed at Pleasant View Fields without a permit
Parks and Recreation Efforts to Date
• Athletics staff ineet with Pleasant View user groups four umes per year to discuss
the following.
• Staggered start times for games
• Carpooling
• Overflow parking locations (map of parking azeas mcluding church
parkmg lot, mdustrial parlung on Diagonal and 47th, legal spaces on
• Kalmia and Palo Parkway)
• Only one special event is allowed at a time to reduce parkmg impacts
• A fence was installed surrounding the fields that allows staff to open the gate to
the parking lot earlier on the weekends. This year we anticipate a reduction in
some of the neighborhood parking and traffic that occurred in the past
• Staff encourage residents to call police at (303) 441-3333 to report illegal parkmg
and alcohol abuse.
2002 Action Plan
• A parkmg study will be conducted for Pleasant View Fields and the surroundmg
neighborhoods
• Staff will research additional parking options.
• Gates will be opened earlier.
II. PRACTICE AT PALO PARK EAST
Issue
•
Soccer prachces are impinging upon Palo East Park.
~1P~NDA ITEM # ~ ~ PAGE r~
Information
• Shortage of soccer practice fields appears to be a system-wide issue for the .
Department of Parks and Recreation.
• Practices aze not allowed on Pleasant View Fields due to speciahzed mamtenance
requirements.
Parks and Recreation Efforts to Date
• The Parks and Recreation Department mitiated a needs assessment as part of the
Master Plan Update.
• A pubhc meeting will be held to discuss the results of the needs assessment in
May 2002.
2002 Action Plan
• Staff will encourage adult teams to find alternahve practice space.
• Staff will incorporate the results of the needs assessment mto the Parks and
Recreation Master Plan, w}uch sets priorities for the Capital Improvement
Program
III. P.A. SYSTEM
Issue
Nearby residents have expressed concerns regardmg the P.A. system at Pleasant •
View Fields.
Information
• In 1996, an agreement was made between the University of Colorado and the Ciry
of Boulder for the University's use of Pleasant View Fields. This agreement
entrtled the Umversity to use the field on a limited basis and the Ctty makes the
spectator field available to the Umversity for scheduled mtercollegiate
competition during its competition season. The University used a portable sound
system and scoreboazd from 1997-2001. On June 25, 2001 the Pazks and
Recreation Advisory Boazd unan~mously approved an amendment to the
agreement which would allow the University of Colorado to install a scoreboazd
and pubhc address system on the spectator field. On August Z, 2001, City
Council unanimously approved this amendment. The permanent structure was
constructed m Fall 2001 and use began immediately following completion.
• The amendment provides that the University shall make the system available to
other users of the spectator field, but each agreement between the Umversrty and
another user of the system is sub~ect to the City's approval.
• Noise complaints aze forwarded to the Environmental Enforcement Officers.
•
f~~E~~ rr~ n i,r. ~~,~E ~
• Parks and Recreation EfForts to Date
• Every year noise level readings are conducted Noise levels are below the code
approved decibellevel.
• Staff encourage residents with concerns to call Environmental Enforcement at
(303)441-3239
2002 Action Plan
• Staff will work with University of Colorado Associate Athletic Director to limit
the number of commercial announcements during games.
• Parks and Recrearion will litcut the addirional uses for the P.A. system to a
maximum of five special events/yeaz in addition to the twelve CU games (3 hours
each).
• The P.A. system will be used for a masimum of 27 days out of 210 scheduled
days (including the twelve CU games.)
•
.
~1GEIVV~A ITEM # V// PAQ'aL+ ~
Attachment C
PARK SERVICES IN THE PALO PARK SUBCONIMLJNITY
• Nei~hborhood Park Services and Standards
The Palo Park subcommunity (see attached map) is largely outside of the Boulder city hmrts,
although the Four Mile Creek subdivision is within the city limits. The City has provided
development and maintenance funding for the three public pazks serving the area:
• CentraUSouth Palo Park, 3.1 acres
• East Palo Park, 4 acres, including a playground
• North Palo Park, 2.8 acres including tennis courts
These pazks were acquired m the 1960's through an agreement with the developer of Palo Pazk,
prior to the establishment of the current park service standazds. The Four Mile Creek subdivision
was also approved pnor to the adophon of the current standazds.
According to the 1996 Parks and Recreation Master Plan, a"neighborhood pazk" should be a
mmimum of five acres in size, while a"pocket park" will be under five acres, but will generally
fall at the lower end of the range. The standards also state that "pazks between three and five
acres would generally be viewed as substandard size neighborhood parks." Thus the Palo Park
subcommumty is served by one pocket park and two sub-standard s~ze neighborhood parks, for a
total of 9 9 acres in the subcommumty.
Under the current standards approximately two-thirds or more of the exisring Four Mile Creek
• subdivision is served by Palo East and Palo North pazks, each wrth a one-quarter mile service
radms. The remaimng vacant parcels m the subcommunity are partially outside of the service
areas of the existing park sites. In the event of annexahon and additional residential development
in these areas, oprions for additional park acreage would be reviewed. The need for additional
parks m this subcommumty would be weighed against needs tn other areas of Boulder.
Depending on the proposed development, a full five acre park site may or may not be feasible.
Accordmg to the standards, "parks under the five acre standazd may be acquired to help meet
neighborhood pazk needs where no other suitable alternarives exist." The standards have not
functioned in the development review process to mandate the provision of a five acre park site in
everyinstance.
An additional park standard calls for 1 5 acres of neighborhood pazks/1000 population In the
Palo Park subcommunity (includmg Areas I& In the ratio is 2.85 acres/1000. Ttus area exceeds
the standard in terms of acres/1000 (9.9 total park acres; 3474 projected 2001 popularionJ From
another standpomt, only if there were more than 6600 people living in the subcommumty would
the acres/1000 standard not be met.
The Parks and Recreation Department has partnered with the BVSD on a number of projects and
would be open to discussing the possibility of developing a park in conjunchon with a school on
one of the vacant parcels, m the event that the BVSD decides to develop property in tlus area for
a school site
•
~~Q}F.A~--A PPEM $ ~~ " F!2~,.°+. ~ ~_,
Pleasant View Fields •
The Pleasant View Fields soccer/rugby complex is a specialized recreation facility similar to the
Stazio softball complex, the East Mapleton softball fields or the Flatirons Golf Course. The
Parks and Recreation DeparUnent has never categorized Pleasant View Fields as a neighborhood
park, nor was it counted towud meeting neighborhood park standuds for tlus subcommunity in
the 1996 Pazks and Recreation Master Plan. The fields are fenced but gates remain open to allow
public access.
The use of neighborhood parks for soccer practices is an issue throughout the pazk system, due to
a shortage of soccer practice fields. This is drop-in use which would be extremely difficult to
regulate. The Pazks and Recreation Department does not schedule any soccer practices or games
in these pazks. The Department is looking at developing additional temporary practice fields. A
needs assessment is being conducted to consider how many additional practice fields may be
needed and where they could be provided.
Parlang generated by users of Pleasant View Fields has impacted the nearby neighborhoods. To
try to address this issue, game starts have been staggered, special events aze hmited to use of four
fields at any one tame, and youth soccer league and tournament panc~ipants aze encouraged to
park at a satellite parking lot and walk to the fields. The new fencing wluch prevents vehicle
access to the fields has allowed the pazking lot gate to be opened earlier.
The City of Boulder zoning designation for all pazks and recreation sites is "P-E" or "pubhc •
established." No disrinchon is made between park sites and recreadonal facilihes in terms of
zoning.
Park Fundina
The Pazks and Recreation development excise taxes collected on new dwelling units go into the
Permanent Parks and Recrearion fund pool. These funds are used to support acquisidon,
development and renovat~on of park and recreation facilities. Funds aze not eannazked to serve a
specific development unless an agreement has been entered mto with a developer for dedication
of a public park site, as part of the city development review process. Funds from azeas of new
development aze typically not sufficient to fully fund acquisition and development of a park site.
The Permanent Park and Recreation funds aze used to support a variety of capital improvement
projects as reviewed and approved by the Parks and Recreation Advisory Boazd and City
Council. The construcdon of a new playground at East Palo Park is an example of tlus type of
project. Development of the Foothills Community Pazk wluch serves residents within a three
and one-half mile service radius would be another example, as would be improvements to
recreahon centers, pools, and athletic facihries which serve the enhre community Alternatively,
provision of a park within the Four Mile Creek subdivision could have been provided by the
developer as a pnvate Homeowner Association facility. The development of wetland mitigation
areas within the subdivision was not funded by the Parks and Recreation Department.
For further informarion or questions, contact Cate Bradley at 303/413-7226.
•
AGIIVDAITLM# %3 g~,~~~~
~
~
~
ae~°r~a ~~vt ~~ ~ a,~ ~ .~