Loading...
5 - Information ItemsTO: CENTRAL RECORDS FROM: l'~CY~Y.c~ ~~~a~v~,c, ~aa~cct~ (Name/ Bo rd Or Com ' sion) PLEASE add these items to Meeting Packet of: ~/"~'l% ~.c,~ ~s~- ~.s~aoo/ (Date of Meeting) From: "James Charlier" <jfc@charlier.org> To: <RutschR@ci.boulder.co.us> Date: 3/14/O1 3:57PM Subject: Steve Pomerance's Letter At your request I have studied Mr. Pomerance's comments and concerns about the transportation analysis. I will not have time to actually meet with Steve prior to the meeting tonight, so I'll offer written responses now in anticipation of a future opportunity to discuss these issues directly with him. I'm sure Steve would make himself available, but unfortunately my schedule is tight today. I will take the initiative to connect with Steve directly to work on these issues. I'll use Steve's headings to organize the responses: "The'replace jobs with housing' solution" I'll defer to staff on the question of how sites were selected and how proposed intensities were set. I believe that the transportation analyses ~t eazlier stages in this process may have resulted in decisions by staff to reduce the intensities at certain sites or to rethink the proposed land use changes. However, there was no specific feedback loop to set the intensities at levels "that would not cause traffic to increase too much." Basically, staff provided us with the proposed net increases and decreases in jobs and dwelling units site by site, and we estimated the impacts. I agree that, in general, increased development intensities will increase localized traffic, and this has to be evaluated in the context of the City's various objectives. The text quoted on the subject of the need for model updates is mine. I believe the City plans to pursue a model update in the next yeu or so. Again, the Board and Council will have to decide whether uncertainties about traffic modeling warrant delaying the Update process. My advice to staff has been that the model should be updated, but that the magnitude and direction of the impacts contained in the analysis are reasonably reliable at this time for this purpose. "The'TMP will solve it' solution" The last TMP Update did show that the City's transportation needs were under-funded by about $400 million (out of a total program of just over $1 billion) over the 25-year period. The lazgest category of under-funded need was the transit program, followed by vazious roadway improvement programs. This was a concern for Council at the time of adoption, and was specifically addressed in the Assumptions and Risks section (pp. 1-3 through 1-9) of the Update. Basically, the decision was that the "risks associated with not taking action" outweighed the "risks associated with the TMP Update." As reported in the materials for the January 23rd joint study session, the City has made steady progress towazd the TMP mode shaze and congestion objectives, and has avoided significant increases in daily VMT and daily traffic so faz. However, the report also indicated that continued robust growth in Boulder Valley employment does threaten achievement of the TMP objectives -1- over the next couple of decades. The City has been able to leverage significantly more transit service than was expected to be possible given practical funding limits. The City has also had considerable success bringing federai and state funds to beaz on roadway capital and bike/ped needs. However, it is true that achievement of the City's long-term transportation objectives continues to be challenged by funding limitations. "The'sufficient capacity' solution" It is correct that we did not include information about the forecast extent of congestion in the impact assessment. Perhaps we should have. The impact analysis has not emphasized this variable because the City has, in fact, been successful so far in containing congestion and is currently expected to achieve the TMP objective of keeping congested (level of service F) arterial lane miles at less than 20°/a of total lane miles. The relevant data follows: - 1993 Actual - 75 lane miles, 16% - 2020 TMP Goal -(no more than) 98 miles, 20% - 2020 Forecast based on "cunent policy" - 821ane miles, about 17% - 2020 forecast based on "proposed BVCP changes" - 82 ]ane miles, about 17%. We did not see significant differences in miles of congested roadways (measured by level of service letter grade F) between the various scenarios modeled for the impact analysis. My opinion is that, because most of the traffic increases (to date and in the forecasts) are occurring on the arterials coming into Boulder Va11ey as opposed to internal streets, the lane miles at LOS F are less than originally anticipated. This phenomenon was discussed at the January 23rd study session. However, none of this should be interpreted to suggest that increases in congestion are desirable or that the public is not concerned about this. In many cases, there could be increases in traffic levels at or near the various sites. This will be of concern to the public and should be taken into account by policy makers. "The'developers will pay' solution" I have not been involved in the drafting of the language Steve refers to, so I'm not sure what staff intent has been. The direction provided to me was to identify the type of improvements and actions that should be required from the developer at those sites where the impacts failed the "substantially mitigated" test. We did this to the extent possible given that we aze working with general intensity data rather than specific development proposals. "'Overview of Transportation Implications' paper" Boulder resident travel diary data does not support a conclusion that per capita or per household single-occupant vehicle (SOV) travel is increasing. The "trend" has been as follows: -2- Year SOV Trips/Capita 1990 2.49 1992 234 1994 2.37 1996 2.41 1998 2.28 Avg. Miles/SOV Trip 4.56 5.18 5.17 5.08 5.09 Avg. Miles/Day/Capita 1135 12.12 12.25 12.24 11.61 We do know that in-commuting has increased over the past several years and that the City has not been successful in shifting these trips away from SOV travel. This was an important part of our presentation on January 23rd and reflects the next great challenge for the City's transportation program, in my opinion. While certainly there are issues with data in the travel diaries, I believe the diaries provide usable trend data. DRCOG data is regional and we know for sure that Boulder resident travel behavior is not tracking regional trends. In any event, DRCOG regional travel behavior data is also based on travel diazies. Steve's letter also expresses concern about the need to reconcile a number of trends and sources of data which, taken together, might help us better understand actual travel and traffic trends. I completely agree with this and with the underlying sentiment that the City should always be skeptical about trends and conclusions and should test proposed conclusions against all available data. I would gently suggest that the January 23rd materials addressed these issues in a fairly "head-on" fashion, and did succeed at reconciling what are definitely multi-directional trends. "'Summary Analysis of Site-By-Site Transportation Impacts' paper" Concern is expressed about the lack of congestion data for the Crossroads site. The model output for relevant roadways is as follows: Street 5egment 28th St., Peazl to Canyon Arapahoe Ave, Folsom to 28th Arapahoe Ave, 30th to 33rd Pearl Ave., 28th to 30th 30th Street, Pearl to Walnut Current Policy Proposed BVCP Changes ADT L09 ADT LOS 36,000 F 35,600 F 25,000 F 24,800 F 28,700 C 29,000 C 23,400 D 23,400 D 34,600 F 34,000 F The reason that trips aze generally decreasing (slightly) in this area even though the proposed changes at the specific site would produce increased trips has to do with the overall decrease in trips throughout Boulder Valley resulting from a significant decrease in employment Valley-wide. Overall, the analysis predicts a slight decrease in total daily vehicle trips in Boulder Valley with the proposed BVCP changes. -3- a r r ~ ~ . . S. ~..L ~~ ~'.i a ;~~i ~ ~ r's, ' , .. . _ . . '_'~• ~ w.r__J -'//~ ___ D..li 1~R .1....... : ~. .. i f ii~ 4 i'.t S~ ~ N x .i t.. ~ .. .;,~~ .. ~ ~ ~. i ~ I 3 ~,~, 1 ) i, ~_; ~ ~i r `~ ~ s ~ ~ <i _ i ~.. MEMORANDUM DATE: 3-14-01 TO: City of Boulder Planning Board County of Boulder Planning Commission Boulder City Council Boulder County Commissioners Boulder City Manager RE; Proposed changes to Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map - Parcel No. 15a, 15b and 15c -(SE of East Boulder Recreation Center) AFFORDABLE HOUSINGNO MATTER HOW MUCH IT COSTS As part of the Boulder Va11ey Comprehensive Plan Year 2000 Update, the City's Planning Staff has proposed the re-designation o£ certain property (hereinafter the "Property") from low density residential to ~YR (mixed density residential), hereinafter referred to as the "Proposal". This Proposal should be withdrawn from consideration or, in the alternative, should be denied. SU~fARY: The following are the primary concerns and objections of the property owners who oppose the Proposal. These concerns and objections are explained in greater detail in the pages that follow, and we respectfully request that you review the entire document. This list should not, however, be deemed to be all-inclusive nor to limit the right of opponents to assert additional legal and/or other objections as they become apparent. 1. The Property (26 acres) is now, and has been for many years, designated low density residential, with rura( residential zoning. 2. The Proposal urges re-designation of 3 acres as Environmental Preservation, 5 acres as Low Density Residential, and 18 acres as Mixed Density Residential (18 units/acre). 3. The process by which the Proposal was developed is defective, and did not involve participation by the impacted property owners, primarily due to lack of notice. 4. The Proposal is not supported by the facts or by common sense. (See detai] below.) 5. The Proposal has a detrimental impact on existing neighborhoods in terms of traffic, pollution, congestion and quality of life. 6. The Proposal not only does not mitigate current traffic congestion, it exacerbates the problem. 7. The Proposal is not compatible with adjacent land uses. 1 The Proposal does not preserve or protect environmental resources. (Preble's Meadow Jumping Mouse, a rare orchid and wetlands.) 9. The Proposal paves the way for tripling the building density in an area the City considers a flood plain. (See cixrrent debate regarding University of Colorado expansion.) 10. The Proposal is adamantly opposed by all neighborhoods (Green Belt Meadows, Keewaydin Meadows} surrounding the Property. 11. There are prudent and productive altematives to the use of the land, such as e~ctension of e~cisting soccer fields, open space, and expansion of the East Boulder Recreation Center. A. The process ~ which the Proposal was developed is defective, and did not invoive participation by the impacted property owners. Although the Staff has apparently been working on this project for 2 years or more, this Proposal and its details were first brought to the attention of surrounding property owners just a few days prior to the public hearing 3-8-01, and then only because one of the adjacent property owners took the time and trouble to print his own notice and take it door-to-door. The "Public Outreach" section of tha documentation put together by the staff notwithstanding, the FACT is that almost no one in the surrounding neighborhoods received the various mailings alleged by the Staff to have been sent. Boulder is known for its aducated, interested and involved citizenry, yet the 100 or so property owners who attended the public hearing 3-S-O 1 uniformiy stated they were unaware of the meeting or of the Proposal until aleRed by a neighbor who ferreted out the details and wamed them of the impending action. B. The Proposa] is not supported by the facts or bv common sense Even though many of the statements in the Synopsis to the 3-8-01 meeting agenda are intended to support the Staft's obvious predisposition to favor the Proposal, many of those statements acknowledge the inappropriate nature of the Proposal. In addition, many of the statements are patently inaccurate. The Synopsis contains a table of Objectives and Criteria taken from BVCP Policies, "grading" them with a plus, a minus, a neutral or a "Not Applicable". The table acknowledges that the Proposai fails to meet the objectives of the BVCP in the followingtareas: 1. It is not within 1 mile of an employment center, and thus does not encourage housing in convenient locations close to jobs. 2. It does not respect e~tisting neighborhood character and does not encourage sensitivity to e~sting conte~. 3. It does not reflect existing neighborhood character (residential). 2 4. Adequate services and facilities are not available or planned with respect to vehicular access. 5. The Proposal does not preserve and protect environmental resources in terms of open space adjacency and access impacts. 6. The Proposal is not located in an area with a"rich mix of complementary land usas." 7. The Property is not in an area directly served by high frequency transit. 8. The Proposal will generate almost 1.200 ADDITIONAL DAILY VEHICLE TRII'S. 9. The vehicular traffic impact of this Pro~osal cannot be mitieated through strategies thai are part of the City's transportation plan. 10. The Property is not in a transit-oriented/pedestrian friendly area. In addition to the many negative features of the Proposal acknowledged by the staff, the table inaccurately grades several factors as a"+" u,hen those factors are clearl neeative: 1. The Property is NOT within'/a mile of convenience shopping. 2. The Proparty is NOT within I mile of a grocery store. 3, The Proposal does NOT show compatibility with adjacent land uses through transitions between land uses that vary in intensiry, nor is it compatible with adjacent land uses. The Property is sunounded on two sides by low density, single family residences, on the third side by a large community recreation center and land (with single family residential adjacent to that, and on the fourth side by open space. Even even the most ardent "diversitv" advocate cannot construe trinlina the density of this parcel as "compatible" with adjacent land uses. 4. The Proposal DOES IN FACT add vehicle trips to an arterial intersection that is (now or in the future) congested. The documents provided by the staff take inconsistent and mutually exclusive positions, as well as ignoring the facts. On the one hand, the staff suggests that adding 1,200 daily trips to and from this site does not add trips to an arterial intersection that is congested. The staff suggests earlier in the document that "unnecessary" traffic could be avoided on 55'~' Street by a"mode shift strategy" of routing it through other neighborhoods. (What this means is extending Kewanee, a small residential street that handles only locai traffia The City long ago promised not to extend Kewanee but to keep it a dead end serving otily the residents.) The question arises as to how "unnecessary" traffic on SSth Street miraculously becomes acceptabte or "necessary" when it is moved to another street. Rearrangin„ the deck chairs on the Titanic does not ke~ the boat afloat. 3 congested,dangerous and overburdened 5. The table states that the Proposal is positive in that it cares for wetlands, wildlife and species of concern. The fact is that those items are already adequately provided for under the current BVCP. The Proposal adds nothing to the mix. It is ludicrous to suggest that tripling the building density on land somehow protects and preserves environmental resources. 6. In a"statement" emblematic of the lengths to which the document will go to support this flawed and inappropriate scheme, the table rates the Proposai's impact on flood hazards as a"plus". For many months the City has conducted hearings, funded studies, conducted more hearings, funded more study, and in general pursued the expansion of the 100- year flood plain to include much of the land included in this Proposal. Wa now leam that this same City government has, apparently for over 2 years, been studying and supporting a Proposal to triple the building density on the same land. At a recent City Council meeting, a citizen described the simultaneous pursuit of these mutually contradictory and patently foolish ventures as appearing to be nzn by "Larry, Curly & Moe". He was far too charitable in his characterization. Finally, the table assumes that certain impacts or results of the Proposal are in and of themselves positive, while ignoring the actual impact on Yhe immediately adjacent neighborhoods. It suggests that increasing Boulder's housing diversity and affordability by adding higher density, "affordable° residentia] uses is not only positive, it is given a "double +" rating. In fact, the word "density" appears throughout the entire report. Again and again "density" is put forth as a panacea: Housing is too expensive: INCREASE DENSITY. We have too much traffic: INCREASE DENSITY. We have too many jobs: INCREASE DENSITY. The Report suggests that placing incompatible and much more intense land uses adjacent to parks, a recreation center and low density cesidential property is somehow justified because it benefits a nebulous, non-resident group the staff has deternuned is "willing" to trade off such amenities in order to liva in Boulder. It ignores that fact that many of us who already live in Boulder, and who have lived in Boulder for many years are NOT willing to have those amenities stripped away from us. There are certainly sites much closer to downtown Boulder that are compati6le with higher density uses, sites that could be utilized in such a way as to encourage the use of public transportation, decrease or slow the growth of traffic problems, and have little or no impact on the surrounding neighborhoods. The Property covered by this Proposal is not one of those sites. And remember, 4 If hiQher densitv is the answer to all problems, why do re ees from New York, ChicaQO, Los An~eles, etc., continue totlock to Colorado? C. The surrounding and adjacent neiehborhoods adamantly oppose the Proposal. Notwithstandin$ the lack of notice and information, 100 or more property owners attended the Planning Board Meeting Wednesday, 3-8-01, to voice their opposition to the ProposaL "Gived' until the ne~ct Monday by the chairman of the Board to submit additional written material, the neighborhood prepared a petition Yhat was signed by over 250 property owners, again in opposition to the Proposal. Fund-raising for possible legal challenges is underway. D. There are prudent and nroductive alternatives. 1. In a recent Parks and Recreation meeting, the need for additional soccer fields was once again discussed. This site, or a portion of it, would be ideal for expansion of the already e~sting soccer fields, and would have very little of impacY on the land or the adjacent homes. 2. The Property would also be ideal for the e~ansion of the East Boulder Rec Center, something that has also been mentioned at Parks and Rec. The City and County have made a conscious and very public decision to reduce the number of jobs in Boulder, yet the Proposal increases the housing and therefore the number of people. It is foolhardy, shortsighted, and nonsensical to spaak of reducing jobs while at the same time crowding more and more people on less and less land. ClosinE the front door while you build a bigger back door for a high-rise hotel doesn't solve the rop blem While we realize that the Proposal does not come before the Council, County Ptanning or the Board of County Commissioners at this point, we encourage you to discuss this matter with the City Planning Board and urge them to withdraw this Proposa] before additional time, money and effort are wasted. This is a Proposal that is not supported by the law bv the facts, or by common sense and it will be challenged at every step. as well as in the courts i£ necessarv. Boulder has many legitimate problems that require attention. No public interest is served by the unnecessary creation of yet another one. We respectfully and most intensely request you to vote NO on proposed changes to the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map - Parcel No. 15a, 15b and 15c -(SE of East Boulder Recreation Center) Respectfully Submitted: Keewaydin Meadows/Crreen Belt Meadows Neighborhood Action Committee 5 Response to Issues Raised at the March 8, 2001 Planning Board Public Hearing Propose~ Changes to BVCP Land Use Map March 14, 2001 General Please provide multi family housing price data, not just sing[e family 1990 -2000 Median Income and Median Home Prices 400000 350000 300000 - 250000 zooooo iwooo . 100000 50000 a 1990 1991 1992 1893 1994 1995 1998 1997 1998 1999 2000 Vear Note: BoukeYS ffifatlaCk hausNg programt ta~geR haseholtls prkretly eaminB ~y antl Isss of I~e Nrea Metllen hcoma. h Ma year 2000, for e 3 parson ~ousehoM, ihis'a 539,980; an a/fortlebb ~ousinp prke far ihs ~ousehokl b ebout 517P,000. SI[0 Q A member of the public (Char[ie Manlove) suggested that the existing HR land use designation in this area not be changed unti[ an area plan is completed Staff inet with Mr. Manlove to discuss his concerns and staff's rationale for the proposed changes (see below). He is supportive of the changes with the following modifications: • Site b(proposed change to PUB) - eliminate the western parcel. Even though this is owned by Community Hospital, it is currently designated MXR and zoned MXR-E. • Site c(proposed change to CB) - change to MUB to provide a better transition to adjacent residential, and to encourage mixed use along this strip, which is currently being redeveloped and will include housing. Additionally, Mr. Manlove felt it important to clarify that staff's proposal is that the area not proposed for a land use designation change (cuaently designated HR and zoned CB-E) would be rezoned to HR as part of comprehensive plan implementation. Median Single Famfly Home Price - -- -Affordabie-Price-forMed aHousehold~ ~-- AflorEebla Prica lor 60 % A e ian Altached Home Price 80%AMIIOr3Percon ~~1r 13 Area Median Income for 3 Person Rationale for Proposed Chan~e~. While an area plan had been contemplated for this area (see below), staff is concerned that if changes are not made at this time, more residential uses will be lost in this area. The trend has been toward demolishing existing residential structures and replacing them with office or retail uses. T'he zoning for the area, CB-E, conflicts with the goal of preserving the existing residential units in the area today. The proposed changes reflect the existing land use pattern and would be implemented through re-zoning portions of the area from CB-E to high density residential and transitional business. Communitv Hosnital/Communitv Plaza Area Plan: The Community Hospital/ Community Plaza area was among the areas identified as needing an area plan upon completion of the North Boulder Subcommunity Plan (the NoBo Plan) . Other areas included East Boulder, Crossroads, Whittier, and University Hill. After the NoBo Plan was completed, the Planning Deparhnent focused on the comprehensive rezoning, and the only area plan subsequently completed was the University Hill Plan. On December 17, 1998, Planning Board held a study session on the subcommunity and area planning program. The staff inemo listed the azeas that had been previously considered for area planning. Attachment A contains the summary of issues listed for the Community Hospital/ Community Plaza azea. The issue of the conflict between the existing land use designation and zoning was not identified. Site 7b First Christian Church on 28'" - testified that a High Density Residential designation wil[ hurt their plans for expansion of Golden WesG Issue: The First Christian Church has been in negotiations with Golden West Manor for a joint development proposal to add units by sharing some open space and parking between the properties. Both sites are currently zoned TB. City planning staffhas conducted a preliminary review with them to discuss the feasibility of this proposal. Without specific information regarding the number of existing units and how many aze proposed to be added, it is difficult to assess the implication of either TB or HR zoning. However, these uses aze allowed in both zones (religious assemblies aze a conditional use in HR, allowed by right in TB). The main concerns expressed in discussions with the architect working on the project is the open space requirement, which is 600 square feet in either TB-E or HR-E. Implementation of the staffls recommendation for land use change to HR could entail rezoning to HR or further analysis may warrant keeping the TB zoning. Staff pronosal and rationale: The staff proposal for a land use change from Arterial Business to High Density Residential (HR) for these properties is aimed at both preserving existing residential uses in the azea and encouraging redevelopment to residential uses on parcels that have non-residential uses today. A majority of the pazcels proposed to change to an HR land use designation already have residential uses. Other high density residential is located directly to the east of these properties. Since the proposed land use designation supports higher density, it should not affect the proposal to add units here. Site 10 Why isn't Branding Iron being considered for "Manufactured Housing" designation? This site is in the direct path of a flood mitigation project. As part of that project, almost all of the residents have been relocated and those few who remain will be relocated soon as part of the agreement that allowed the project to proceed. Part of the negotiations for the project contemplate that development proposals for projects other than manufactured housing projects will be reviewed and considered for parts of the site after flood mitigation measures are complete. Thus, it is the need for flood control -- and the attendant protection of our community -- that caused planning for this site to be treated differently than for those sites on which manufactured housing remains a viable and desirable option. Site 22a,b What other hearings took place on this property? Residential on north side ofArapahoe is not compatible and not near any other residentiaL Planning Board held a public hearing on a concept plan- site review for this site in September 2000. Two alternate site plans were presented by the applicant. One included industrial land use for both properties a and b. The other plan showed residential (13 dwelling units per acre) on the front part, or 22a. Several neighbors from Old Tale Road attended that hearing. Parcel 22a is an appropriate location for higher density residential land use. There is low density residential land use south of this site, and medium and high density residential land use approximately a mile to the west, west of the golf course. Residential land use is appropriate on Asapahoe Avenue; currently there are residential uses from Foothills Highway east (on the south side) and also east of Old Tale Road. Area II How was the Area II boundary determined? The Area II boundary was initially established in 1977. Initially, Area I(existing city boundaries) was identified and then the following criteria were used to define Area II: • areas with existing development • location of existing infrastructure: water, sewer, and roadways • logical boundaries (major streets and environmental features): US 36 and Jay Rd. the north, South Boulder Creek to the Southeast, mountain backdrop to the west. • land needs to accommodate projected population and employment growth for the yeaz planning period. • analyzed capital improvements program to determine needs and placed those that could be served in 3 year period in Area IIA. Pete Fogg, County Land Use, also provided the following information on Area II: On or about July 15, 1975 the City and County staffs prepared a memo describing a "...framework for the BVCP which will help to define the appropriate responsibilities of to 15 each entity in the land use decision making process. This framework can best be summarized as follows: The Boulder Valley shall be subdivided into three azea classifications... AREA II: TFus area would consist, first, of the azea where Ci .ty water and sewer extensions have been granted to existing Qr committed residential, commercial or industrial development. Second, potentially'active' development areas which are anticipated to be served within the next 15 years would be considered as Area II. Such designation would be based on the City of Boulder's planning, programming and financial capability to provide requisite services and facilities. Exisring development in this area, in conformance with the BVCP, woald be provided services and facilities at a level to be determined by the residents and the City at the time of annexation. These services and facilities, to the greatest extent feasible, will reflect acceptable health, safety and welfaze standards, as well as respecting local prevailing or proposed densities and/or mixture of uses. Area II is generally defined as being contiguous to the City, and possessing an adequate range of services and facilities, either provided or planned. It will be described by an interaction of maps and Capital Improvements Programs. Land use decisions within this area will be made by the governmental entity of jurisdiction. The County of Boulder will attempt, through its zoning and subdivision regulations, to ensure that the development will take place as part of an annexation to the City of Boulder in Area II." Site 13 Transnortation Is a median being put in on Katmia to block left hand turn out of Aspen Crove? No, there are currently no plans to install a median at this location nor is there a history of problems or accidents that would suggest that one is needed. How wil[ traffic from the proposed development be hand[ed? At this point there is no development proposed as the current action is a only a change in land use designation. Any actual development proposal will follow the city's development review process which will require a traffic impact report and specific mitigation measures of the development. The potential transportation impacts of all of the proposed changes were analyzed as part of the impact analysis prepared earlier this yeaz. The proposed land use change could potentially result in a 348 increase dwelling units in comparison to the current low density land use designation on this site, adding about 2,000 vehicle trips a day, which would access 28'" Street via Kalmia Avenue and Palo Parkway. Both of these roads join 28`h Street at signalized intersections operating at high levels of service with the exception of the west bound left turns. If additional development would degrade the operation of these intersections, the development would be expected to provide the improvements at these intersections to mitigate the impact. AIZ Site 13 is located within Airport Influence Zones (AIZ) 2 and 3. Development within the AIZ is subject to the provisions outlined in the Boulder Revised Code, Title 9, Chapter 11. New residential development is not allowed in Zone 2, which covers approximately 1/3 of the southern portion of the site. Although residential development is allowed in Zone 3, an avigation easement may be required from the landowners upon annexation to the city. Applications for development within Zone 3 would also be referred to the airport manager for review and comment. Site 15 Environmental Flooding concerns $ow can you say proposed development will have a positive impact on wetlands, etc? Preb[e's jumping mouse Flood issues The regulatory 100-year floodplain covers most of this parce] on the east side of 55'h St. (Attachment Bl. Taggart Engineering Associates, Inc. has been working on the South Boulder Creek floodplain study to evaluate mitigarion in this area. As part of this study, Taggart has estimated boundarias of ~looding that have not previously been mapped. (Attachment Cl The new information shows that a small portion along the west side of the site may also be in the 100-yeaz flood zone. At this point, the information provided in the flood study is approximate and has not been adopted as regulatory. The issue of flooding throughout this area is being addressed on a city-wide level in the South Boulder Creek Flood Study. Future development on the site within the city would be subject to floodplain regulations and any restrictions that would apply to properties in the 100-year flood zone. If mitigation along South Boulder Creek were to occur, it is possible this site might be removed from the floodplain. City regulations, however, do permit development activities in a 100-year floodplain as long as such areas are outside of the high hazard zone. Typical restrictions for residential development in the floodplain would be that structures are elevated a minimum 2 ft. above projected flood elevations. Wetlands City wetland records do not include complete information about wetlands on private land outside of Area I. Complete wetland mapping and evaluations would be required from the landowner at the time of annexation. Historic wetland maps from 1985 show that a few acres of isolated wetlands existed along the west portion of parcel I Sa - probably in association with the Dry Creek Ditch No.2 which runs along the west property line. To our knowledge, the wetlands on the western portion of the property were filled illegally in 1995 or 1996. A cursory field investigation confirmed that the wetlands west of 55`h St. probably no longer exist. If wetlands are remaining on the site, the landowner would be required to provide a map and evaluation of the wetlands and be subject to the city's wetlands protection ordinance upon annexation. However, the city would not protect wetlands within ditches through our regulations. (Site 15, continued) Groundwater Parcel 15 is located in an area which has very high groundwater levels. Historically, these high groundwater levels supported the wet meadow and riparian habitat of the South Boulder Creek floodplain. Development in this area has had significant impacts on the wet meadows in the South Boulder Creek floodplain by altering the underground hydrology which supports the wetlands. Although few if any wetlands occur on parcel 15a, underdraining of the site to protect basements or below-ground construction could impact the wetlands on the adjacent open space properties. The development of the East Boulder Recreation Center and the Greenbelt Meadows subdivision is known to have altered the wetland habitat in the area. This experience has raised the level of awareness in the city about impacts to groundwater and has prompted staff to propose stricter groundwater protection policies in this BVCP update. Impacts to groundwater would be addressed through site and drainage design if the properties were reviewed under the city's land use regulations. Endaneered and T'hreatened Species ` A portion of parcel 15 is affected by two species subject to protection under the federal Endangered Species Act. The Open Space property immadiately east of parcel 15 is known habitat for Preble's rneadow jumping mouse which is listed as threatened on the federal list. The area identified by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as mouse habitat is primarily located on the Open Space property and extends roughly 300 ft. west into parcels 15b and 15c. (Pazcels I Sb and 15c are proposed for an Environmental Preservation and Very Low Density Residential designations). Although the mouse habitat as identified by the federal government is approximate, it is based on the type of habitat which supports the mouse. The mouse lives in moist lowlands and wet meadows with diverse vegetation including dense shrubs, grasses and willows. Given the intense agricultural use and the amount of disturbance to the historic wetlands of the site, it is unlikely that the mouse would be found on parcel 15a. However, if the landowners of pazcels 15a, 15b, or 15c applied to the city for annexation or to the county for development of the sites, they would likely be required to survey the properiy for presence of the mouse and be subject to federal regulations under the Endangered Species Act. Spiranthes diluvialis (Ute ladies' tresses orchid) is also li§ted as threatened on the federal endangered species list. The plant occurs in the wet to mesic meadows in the Open Space and Mountain Pazks properties along South Boulder Creek. The intense use of parcel 15a would likely preclude finding the orchid west of 55'h St. Similaz to the situation with the Preble's meadow jumping mouse, development or annexation of the property would require survey and federal clearance for the orchid. Boulder Vallev Natural Ecosvstem MapBoulder Countv Environmental Conservation Area The BVCP Natural Ecosystem Map identifies a portion of 15b and 15c as a Group 1 Natural Ecosystem. The Natural Ecosystem designation is a broad, qualitative overview of (Site 15, continued) natural ecosystems in the Boulder Valley. Group I areas are defined as places that possess important ecological, biological, or geological values. The city's policy regarding this designation is to protect and restore significant ecosystems and habitats through a variety of means. The Natural Ecosystem designation is an overlay designation and does not preclude development or human use of a particulaz azea, but serves to identify environmental issues in the area. The Boulder County Comprehensive Plan shows approximately 2/3rds of the eastern portion of pazcel 15 within Environxnental Conservation Area #8. The map broadly identifies areas of ecological significance in order to provide guidance for halting habitat fragmentation at the landscape scale. The primary objective for lands within the ECAs is to maintain contiguous habitat for wide-ranging animal species, native plant communities and natural ecological processes. The strategy for implementing ECA policies is to identify the ecologically richest sites, protect them with adequate buffers, and establish corridors of habitat connecYivity. Decisions concerning new housing development are made within this framework. Similar to the BVCP Natural Ecosystem Map, an ECA designation does not preclude development but provides the county guidance in minimizing the impacts of development on the flora and fauna of the area. How can you say proposed development wil! have a positive impact on wetlands and other environmental resources? The Objectives and Criteria charts in each pazcel report is an assessment of the impacts of each land use proposal relative to the existing land use designation on the site. The known environmental resources on pazcel 15 are located east of 55`h St. {15b and 15c). The current land use designation on these parcels is low density residential. The proposal is to change the designation to Environmental Preservation and Very Low Density Residential land uses. In comparison to the existing land use, this change would have a positive impact on wetlands, floodplain, and Preble's meadow jumping mouse. Transportation How will the site be accessed? The site is currently accessed by 55`h and Kewanee Drive, and development on the site would most likely utilize both of these access points. However, the amount of traffic on each will be partially determined by the design and orientation of any development that is proposed and will be analyzed in the traffic impact report that would be required at the time of site development. Too much traffic will be p[aced on Manhattan Drive and 55'~, which is unsafe to cross now 55`" provides complete sidewalks and medians, which provide adequate protection for pedestrians. 55`h has adequate capacity to handle the traffic from future development. There is not a history of accidents in this area; although the neighborhood was one of the original applicants to the Neighborhood Tiaffic Mitigation Program. This program has recently been revised, and provides a structures and progressive program to address speeding issues. (Site 15, continued) Left onto South Boulder Road is impossible today. Any actual development proposal will follow the city's development review process and will require a traffic impact report and specific mitigation measures of the development. These measures could include improvements to facilitate left turns from 55`h if this is identified as an issue. How does this affect 55`" and Baseline- no access to 55'" and Baseline. Limited access to 55`h and Baseline exists through the parking lot of the East Boulder Recreation Center. While city plans have anticipated completing 55~' between South Boulder Road and Baseline as a wllector facility, this depends on private development constructing this section of 55`h. This development would need to occur on parcel 14d which is recommended for an Area II to Area III change due to environmenta] constraints, so this development is highly unlikely to happen. Transportation comments don't make sense, how can you mitigate? The transportation evaluation indicates that the vehicular traffic impact of this site cannot be substantially mitigated in terms of additional traffic, however there are not capacity issues with the adjacent roadways in terms of this additional traffic. The future high frequency transit service on South Boulder Road, the amenities and services provided by the East Boulder Recreation Center and Burbank Middle School, and the bike connections provided to the Meadows Shopping Center will reduce some of the expected vehicle traffic. Site la Why not MDR or straight HR7 The site contains many existing businesses that serve the surrounding residential neighborhoods. The staff proposal takes into account allowing these types of businesses to remain upon redevelopment. The existing businesses include: Village Coffee Shop J&R Hair Fashions Boulder Sign Co. Dutch Flower Market PC Express Boulder Travel Agency D Sabott Orthodontist • Highland Center Laundromat Dunkin Donuts Site le,lf Consider MXR or other residential designation south of al[ey to preserve housing and conversion of non-residentia[ uses to residentia[ over time. Based on what did you project I45 jobs - what were assumptions? Consider MXR The proposal to change the land use designation from General Business to Transitional Business is to preserve the existing scale and chazacter of the area. T'he character of the buildings and the current mix of uses work extremely well as a transition from the residential neighborhoods to the west to the higher intensity commercial uses along 28th Street and Pearl Street. Many of the nonresidential uses aze in converted single family buildings and the office buildings have a similar chazacter of multifamily residential buildings. The existing land use designation signals a desire for high intensity commercial uses, while the proposed designation matches the existing character. The intent would be to rezone the area to TB-E, which would impose a 0.5 FAR maximum and deter redevelopment of the existing single family houses to more intense office or commercial development. By preserving this scale, they could easily be converted back to residential uses in the future. A suggestion was made by the Planning Board to perhaps change part of 1 e to mixed density or another residential designation instead of transitional business. This would signal that the long term intent for the area is that upon redevelopment, these buildings and/or uses should convert back to residential. However, if the azea were rezoned to MXR-E, it wouid also make most of the existing businesses non-conforming and would allow little additional residential. Several concerns were raised by Mr. Russell, the owner of Toledo Glass at 2601 5pruce. The glass shop is currently allowed under the CB zoning; however it would become non- conforming if the zoning were changed to TB or any residential zoning. This would mean that this business could stay as it is and expand no more than 10%. This building is different from the other buildings on this block. Most of the others are single family houses that are converted to office uses. This building is a service industrial or service commercial building with bay type doors in the front. Staff has talked with the Russelis about this proposal, how it would affect their property and non-conforrning use rules if the area were rezoned in the future. JoU Proiections Projections for future jobs are done by estimating the additional squaze footage that is anticipated on a site and calculating future jobs from the additional square footage. For example, for the 1 f site, the total lot size is 135,040 squaze feet, which if redeveloped aY a 0.6 FAR, would yield a gross 81,024 square feet. This would yield a net additiona142,384 square feet when the 38,640 existing syuare footage is subtracted. This yields a projection of 145 additional jobs (285 sq, ft. per employee). Existing businesses in the area include: Boulder Real Estate Harlan Lyons & Assc. Lyons GG Realtor RPM Cycle & Fitness Strength & Grace Browse Hillary MD Om doy Ma Philips, Wayne MD PHD White Leigh Ann Toledo Auto Glass Atkinson & Assoc. Elements Design Group- Norms Heating & Supply Rocky Mountain Center Studies Dynamic Data Management Norris A DDS Boulder Warehouse Association Gremillion Surveying Industrial Research Land Leasing Co. Noyes, Robert C Rocky Mounts Schneider, Kenneth C Site 3a, lk Will anyone want to live next to rail lines? If we want a transit center here, why change to mixed use? Provide an update on discussions of this site as a potential transit center. 3a The most northern property in this parcel is Steelyards, a mixed use industrial development project adjacent to the rail lines, currently under construction and including 90 residential units. The residential units were designed with a buffer between the residential and the rail line by placing industrial uses closest to the rail, with the residential more in the center of the site. The owners have included in their contract a statement to confirm that people understand that the rail line is nearby so that they aze very forthright and cleaz with prospective buyers about that. There are numerous examples of residential mixed use being built as part of a rail station/stop development The staff team recently toured the southwest light rail line. In Denver, at the former Cinderella City in Englewood, approximately 500 high end residential rental units aze currently under construction adjacent to the station on the southwest light rail line. That line is similar to Boulder in that it also includes freight lines. Architectural and design considerations can help mitigate rail noise. At the Englawood station, a pazking structure is the buffer between the rail and residential, with the residential focused on the civic plaza areas. Mixed use with residential is currently being analyzed for a location at an end of the line station in Littleton. In Chicago, there are numerous developments directly adjacent to the El, and upscale town homes have been developed next to the rail line south of downtown. Portland has numerous examples of TOD's next to the light rail lines which travel at higher frequency than the commuter rail proposed for the US36 MIS. In Portland examples include Goose Hollow Station planning, Hillsboro Station Planning, and the City of Gresham. A useful website to refer to is: http://www.metrokc.gov/kcdodalts/tod/todportland.htm The Pollazd property is the largest property ownership piece in 3a, and although it is currently used as an auto dealership, the proposed land use change to mixed use industrial is proposed as a future land use, if and when the property redevelops. Residential live/work units could be designed to connect to the live/work units at Steelyazds. The US 36 major investment study (MIS) is recommending rail service on the existing lines as part of the future transportation solution for US 36 and a future transit center in the vicinity of Pearl and 30"' Street. A transit center is to include a rail and bus stop, as well as bike and pedestrian access and possible mixed use development including residential. The Intermodal Center Phase II site selection is proceeding with a multi-departmental staff team comprised of housing, planning, transportation, property acquisition and RTD. Carter- Burgess, a transportation consultant, and Tim Van Meter, architect with VMPG, have been hired to assist in site selection. Phase I site selection underwent significant public review as part of a two year long, 28th Street Comdor study and the US36 MIS. Cunently the city is researching sites in all four yuadrants surrounding the rail lines at Pearl and 30"' Streets to determine the technical feasibility for future rail and the transit station and possible TOD in order to recommend a preferred site(s). Once site selection is recommended, and the City Council approves, staff will proceed with ]and acquisition. We project that sites will be recommended in June with land acquisition commencing in summer. The concept is to proceed with a public planning process and design once the land has been acquired. An update can be provided at a future meeting in April. The other property in 3a is on the south side of Pearl Street which currently has many existing service industrial uses. Again, similaz to the Pollazd property, it is anticipated that residential would occur in the future if and when redeveiopment occurs. Existing uses include: Ace Auto Collision Repair Colorado Plastic Boulder 4-Play Earls' Saw Shop Diamond Contracting Rumi Home Furnishings National Construction U-Haul Boulder Radiator lk Other proposed land use changes to mixed use indusri-ial are being recommended for the west side of 30`h Street, across from Steelyards. Given that a mixed use industrial project, Steelyards, is under construction and will set the tone for a mixed use industrial neighborhood along 30`h beriveen Bluff and Pearl Street, these proposed changes reinforce each other. This neighborhood will create a transition between the industrial azeas to the east and the commercial areas to the west on 28'~ Street. S:~PLAN~dataUongrang\compplg~B VCP~2000PLAN~3801 pbhrgfollow-up.wpd Attachment A 6. Community HospitaU Community Plaza Previously Defined Issues This azea is within the Central Boulder Subcommunity. It was identified initially as being high on the priority list for the development of an area plan because of the imminence of change anticipated with the expansion of the Community. Hospital and the redevelopment of Community Plaza Shopping C'enter. Issues included: • What are some ways to reduce the impacts of traffic and parking on the neighborhoods adjacent to Community Hospital and Community Plaza Shopping Center? Are there opportunities for shazed pazking? • This is a major medical center for the region. In addition to the Hospital, medical offices continue to expand in this area. What is the long-term desire for scale and mix of inedical and neighborhood retail uses in the azea and how can we ensure that neighborhood edges aze maintained? • T'he neighborhoods adjacent to the Hospital and the Shopping Center have a special chazacter and scate. How can we allow for additions and modifications while still preserving this special chazacter? Issues Srnce Resolved Since that time, Community Hospital has expanded and built a parking structure, the Communiry Plaza shopping center has been revitalized, and some street improvements and traffic mitigation efforts have been completed. Dutstanding Issues While these efforts have generally had a positive effect on the azea, the question of what is expected or desired long-term for the mixture and scale of inedical and neighborhood service uses is still a question, and there is still a desire to look at opportunities for managing pazking. v.'~ ~ Preservation of neighborhood chazacter also remains an issue. `, \?' ~ , ~lY'` .~~v ' ~,~ 7. Whittier ~ ~~ ~~ ~ '' ~ .i'.' ~,V~ ~ V:~ ~ . Previously Defined Issues ~ This azea is also within the Central Boulder Subcommunity and was identified initially as being high on the priority 3ist for the development of an azea plan because of recurring problems related to: • Pazking • Traffic • Scale and amount of infill • Lack of neighborhood pazk • Noise/ restaurant and tavem impacts • Jtreet chazacter (large deciduous trees removed when Pine was widened)