5 - Information items (5)*Central Records
Ik ~
Memo
TO: Planning Board
FROM: Mary Lovrien
SUBJECT: Planning Board Materials
DATE: March 13, 2001
Attached are additionalletters and information for the March 14, 2001 Planning Board meeting.
Attachments
C3-.:";-.i I k i'~ :~
Parcel # %~ g~~;
Year 2000 Major Update to the
Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan
Open House Feedback Form
March 1, 2001
Please use this form to provide input and feedback on the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan Update
,and the %!!,rormn!ien j.rom t~is open house. Thank I'nu!
PLEASE PROVIDE SPECIFIC COMMENTS IN THE BOX BELOW:
(Tell us why you sapport o object to the proposal.
Comments on proposaUissue: ~,~n' T~~ ~~DE.P.S~ ~ NE./~ '
,~lL=ASE ,i~E~p '~,.{/S 2~ ~C~G'~S `lJ~ Ti.'E fcX~oN/iNG.
!, J`~l,~~,~ ~Xi°~JN~'iO.t/ .
~' ~~~~~~ SOr~"~~ ~~EG,O~S " EX/ST/NG FACiC/T~/ tS O~JE~f'~/SEO,
3 il~coL~FE /~it'CS'ER/E,
7c~r~,e ~GUS ti/~N~/S ~~S/S' oN ~=r~~i ~r/ EN /5 Gd~
/. ~.f'~/~ /s FGdD,U f~iN -.l ~/.9Y~' ~SE'E~/ GY.~/T~iF' iPl/
A G~DOT L7EE/~ ,QC,t'D~S 7~N~ -Frd"T'N2c: %~~9 . DGtJNE.E'
~~Nrr~vu c`s To T c.c. G-au/ AREiJS TO cf~9NG~ ui~r~i4
z. a'~c.o~~f'~ ~/~ c~c-- v~-S~,eoy~, vF-~,~, ~o~, c'oyor~, ~
U,~~f? . i~ - Uc~s, ~FS~ .~ c nfo aCo~~E'~P ;~o'A~C,
How did you learn of tonight's open house? CDAICE".PNEl7 /(/Fi GH,~3~~2
Are you on the Comprehensive Plan mailing list? ^ yes rA no
If not, would you like to rec 've information by mail?
Name;, ~G7"Gj[ ,L . ~i~-/~1/
Street Address: f ~.[Z,~fAetlK/~7?'AN Dfc,
City, Zip: ~3!)iJG~JE~2 GO XD303
Phone: ~30.~ ~~i9 ~1~~3
E-mail: WGDL/N ~U /I'16N. ~'OM
~es ^ no
.
S;
Comments on proposallissue: D~~N .S~l~CG/~E'C,E'E~7i0~ ~.E'~'.4 ~~C.57"~L'~,~
c,'~n1s1dE.P~b ,~y~ %~.~'ES odE.t' ~"i~E ~;Q,t~S H.9l~~ GaNF ~Nr~
T'HE ~= U Np ,/~/o r.t/ .~U/.~rl i Ti~E~'G Ci`'/f/~ i~4XE5 G~ E'..O ~~~?
DPEN ~5"pAc%~L,P~i4Y/C~N, ~,/o ~/O,eG= .~OdS~-s ~Ul~i ~~s'
~} FLGYJll> ~A/~/.
~i~~h'/c ~ ~DG~dT/D~c/ ,~ir/O GDis~l'ESr'raa/ ~
~, CoNGESa'!DN ,~~"D,1! T~~~ic .9G,~L-'.9v~ ~ /~c~c3G~/'p.
J'D, /3D ~J c o~,E' tf'O f~U
/S
f
/NTG--/2SEG% /O /~/, 1/`f 3 HD t~GC YC~fi cG c T,E'!PS /T.E9r 1~D'.~
~ ~-iv,~E ~~ac~ ~«~ ~~-i~~cr JcH~o~s, T,~',~r-~c.~~~~ri~N
.~NO Ti~~~s Gd~lGG i,~c.~'~,cs~S~ 76 ~~~Ad,~r Sd~'idi,s~?~ ~C~c,i~ ~
/
f~G ~'E tl~~ G.29 Fi='i>/ , ~/v,~',/ .
.3 G~ d~ i,~/~' DcD~iP EST'.4r3cs,s~l~.o rf7ES D~iF/r3' ~-~~~ "
~r'NO Gs'r) ,SrJ/3Si1J/E
/~',~c L~.9/~F A~vO s1 ~G 1.~/~ h,c'/NrES .~T T.~~' ~.rJG'~X ~E`
o~ vs Gtr~o F1~1vc ,ac i~~~~.oy ,~,,~v r-,~c-i•P Gl~ S/. ___
~
%D~,/cL cl~i`D.~/ ~
S~,~i c E TNr S P,e~,~~,ers~ i-5' A1~J-i~C'Eh/~' ?c'~ r9 fA~'~ f~
~/02E ~~~J,vG ~ ~! ; c c Ore%G y G°~cJ.PSEN ~i~/S ~,PDl3GG-^~(.
~ .
If you leave your comments with us tonight, they will be forwarded to the Planning Board
prior to the March 8 public hearing. Written comments may be mailed to the City of
Boulder Planning Department P.O. Boz 791, Boulder, CO 80306, or faxed to
(303)441-3241.
/~,[~F D!/G-~iE'CfSG1J FO~ .SGL~Cvif' A/t/~ DTh~EiP ~S'.ODiP1"~'.
Page 1 of 2
BVCP2000 - Year 2000 Major Update ~yC/~-J7a,
Fram: "Don Borshny" <donnyb7@hotmail.com>
To: <bvcp2000@ci.boulder.co.us>
Date: Ol/27/20014:12 PM
SubJect: Year 2000 Major Updnte
Folks,
I think, by naw, that it would be plainfully obvious to anyone with a
brain that growth and traffic are THE issues concerning the majority of the
denizens of Boulder. Unfortunately the horse is already out of the barn
regarding the latter, since the City lacked the courage to mntch the
restrictions on residential growth (the wrongfully vilified Danish Plan,
remember?) with restrictions on industrial/commercial growth. The Daily
Camera led the chorge to put the kabosh on the Slow Growth Initiative and
the initiative that would have had growth FULLY pay its own way ("Don't kill
the goose that laid the golden egg", rememberl It was similar to, re:5tate
Amendment 24, "Too radical for Colorado"); recently The Camera had the gall
to ask, in a Sunday editorial regarding sprawl, "what went wrong?" I didn't
know whether to laugh, cry or puke.
Very simply, the denizens of Boulder want PHYSICAL growth, in whatever
form, ended in 8oulder. E'nough is enough. Cleverly worded plans to increase
density, tied to false concepts that such allowable growth would actually
LESSEN traffic (in the false hopes that high density growth would use public
transpartation & not use private vehicles) represent an insult to
intelligent people in the city, Additionally, proposals to increase
"affordable housing" that places the financial burden on those innocent of
unwanted growth and, in many cases, on those least able to pay those
regressive sales taxes, WILL CONTINUE TO FAIL; and that is regardless of
clever schemes to push such proposals past those intelligent enough to
recognize what is renlly going on.
The city and county both dropped the bnll on the Flatirons Property
(now blasphemously, the CU "South Campus")and continues to drop the ball. In
order to make CU happy, divert potential floodwaters away from CU's new
property (thank you Leslie Durgin & Tim Honey)and from the Kewaydin area
(thus allowing the City to get off the hook, having improerly allowed those
properties to be mapped OUT of the floodplain in 1986), the City is
unimaginably considering a large dom west of #93 (Brondway)which would
effectively wipe out innumerable dwellings, including a goodly number of
AFFORDABLE dwellings. Absurdl OutrageousT What do you think the odds are
AGAINST the proposal going through, and despite virulent opposition to it by
INFORMED citizens, as a resylt of the heavy political hitters pushing for
it?1
Boulder citizens let City Staffs and politicians know time and agoin
that they preferred something other than a hotel at 9th & Canyon; what are
the odds on a hotel being built there? Boulder citizens have sent in input
regarding the disposition of the Crossroads Mall again and again, but you
can be sure that the worst and least imaginative compromise will prevail
there --- all pushed by commercinl interests and the Chamber of Commerce.
And you ask for citizen input for the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan
file://C:\WINDOWS\TEMP\GW}00O11.HTM 03/08/2001
Page 2 of 2
Major Update. Why, so that it, too, will be gutted?
Sincerely,
Don Barshay, citizen
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http:llex~orer msn.com
file://C:\WINDOWS\TEMP\GW}00O11.HTM 03/08/2001
,.~~ ~ ~~ ~~ vv vA v~•JV AU•
rNx: NN~t
~~~C~~ ~~qv~
DOUGLAS G. MCKINNON MTOqNEY4TI.~W
MICHAELG.MCKINNON A7TORNE~ATI~W
5984 SOUTH PAINCE, SUIYE 703 • LIT7LE7CN, CO~OMpp • eo73p
TELEPNONE: (CW3)7BS2626
FAX; (903J 786/7B0
~z~~h a, zooi
City ofBoulder
Planning Department
Pazk Central Building
1739 Broadway, Third Floor
T'.O. Box ~91
Boulder, CO 80306-0791
Attn: Sw•.an Itichstone
Rc_ Comprehensirva Plan Change
Dcar Ms. Richstonc:
I am advised that a public hearing is set for tonight before the Planning
Commission conccrning a changa in the Bouldez Coznpzehenszve ~lan. I zepresent the
owner of real property located at 2285 ~28~~' Street in Bould~r, aad as you may know, an
automobile dealersliip has occupied the pxoperty for several yeots.
First, zay cli.en.C supports affordable housiag and applauds the Ciry For recognizing
the need for affordable housing fot families with ~uuiual incomes between $40,000.00 and .
$60,000.00. My client's concerns. wc bclicvc, azc rcasonablc and hopafally will be
addressed 'zaa whatevez action the Commission believes to be in the best intcrest of the
residents of thc community.
My client has the following concezzLS wiUi zespect to the pass2ge of the proposed
changes to the Comprehensive Plan:
(1) Will the affected pzopezty be rezoned ~t some future date which could malce thc
present use of my clienPs property a non-confosming use?
(Z) '~1z11 there be additional resuictions advezsely affeoting the operation of an auto
dea,lership such as lighting, traff'ic, adding on to the present irnprovemeizts and
other restrictions that will make the property less attractive for use as an auto
dealership?
(3) Will the present use be grandfathered in if the ptopercy is zezoned, and if so, what
, additional restriction~might adversely affect the use of the property as an auto
dealership?
n~.~ ~~v-~v~ ~v~ JJ VA V~ •JV AL'
rtix: PAGE
(4) Will p~ssage of the chan~;es to the Com~rehensive Plan reduce the value of my
client's real estate?
We appreciate the Couunission considering my clienf s concems. Thank you for
your considcrzittzon and coopcration in making this l~rter a part of the zecoTd of the publiC
hcaring. Your department, and particularly Ms. Gatza, have been most helpf~A to me by
providin~ information to our office.
Very truly youxs,
. ~~~~~~~~
~
Doug is G. MoTCinnon
T~ -T _,, - _. _ __ _ _____ ___ _
Mary Lovrien - Re. Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan correspondence _ _ Page 1
~VC~= /9~----
From: <Bcwatershed@aol.com>
To: <StraszewskiH@ci.boulder.co.us>
Date: 3/13/01 1:13PM
Subject: Re: Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan correspondence
Dear Ms. Straszewski;
Attached please find three Word 97 documents each with - 3 versions of the
"environmental effects of the current proposal". (Sounds like you already
have one of these as a FAX) Hope that they are of value to you.
Sincerely,
Jim Disinger
President
Boulder Creek Watershed Workgroup
1842 Canyon Blvd. #210
Boulder, CO 80302
(303)440-8022
BCWatershed@aol.com _
DATE: Saturday, May 06, 2000
TIME: 6:22:oi PM
PAGES: 1
FAX TO: Ciiy of Boulder Planning
COMPANY:
FAX NUMBER: 3034413241
FROM: Jim Disinger
COMPANY: Environmental TechnoVogies
VOICE: (303) 440-8022
FAX: (303) 440-8022
NOTE: Dear Mary; I still don't know if all of our FAXs
have come through. In general, we hope that
the pVanning board expands its "Area" of
influence to include all of the Boulder Creek
Watershed. We hope that they use this
influence to protect the air and water qualiiy of
this area for the benefit of its inhabitants.
Finally we hope that they use more accurate
estimates of the effects of land use changes.
Environmental Effects of Suggested Changes in the Boufder
Valley Comprehensive Plan
III. Transportation Effects ot Suggested Changes
Effect of a New Residential Dwelling Unit (Din
The travel implication estimate of the BVCP assumes 5.6 trips/1.9 people/ new household/day
Unfortunately this is based on faulty analysis of the 1998 travel diary study and:
Doesn't count people under 16 years old
Doesn't count public transportation
Doesn't count school bus trips
Although the trips/person/day increased 17% since the last count no increase was projected from
now through 2020.
Although the people/household has increased and we are begging for densification no increase
was projected through 2020
Also unfortunately this includes only those people, living in a household. The transportation
implication of building dwelling units in an empty field is many times greater than this. The
house, street, sidewalks, water and sewer pipes, electric lines, ca61e hook-ups and all services
must be built, requiring construction traffic. The street must be sanded and cleaned, house painted
and washed, trash removed and pipes repaired. New public transportation routes must be
provided and roads repaired. None of this associated construction and service traffic has been
added to the effect of a new dwelling unit on traffic, congestion or air quaiity.
Finally, of course, new residential populations attract new businesses. We may try to control
commercial growth here; but if we allow more residential development in north Boulder we will
have more commercial growth in north Boulder and a corresponding increase in traffic,
congestion and air pollution. This MUST be considered a direct effect of a new residential
subdivision.
Effects of a New Commercial Property Development
The travel implication estimate ofthe BVCP assumes 1.4 trips/ new job/day
Unfortunately this is based on faulty analysis of the 1997 employee surve,y and:
Doesn't count multiple occupancy vehicle trips
Doesn't count public transportation trips
Doesn't count other trips by new external workers while in Boulder(i.e. Lunch, Shopping)
Is actually lower than current recorded commuter estimates
Although the trips/worker/day is increasing, no increase was projected from now through 2020.
Also.unfortunately this includes only trips by the projected new employee. The transportation
implications of building commercial proper[ies in an empty field are many times greater than this.
The store, street, sidewalks, water and aewer pipes, electric lines, cable hook-ups and all services
must be built, requiring construction traffic. The atreet must be sanded'and cleaned, building
painted and washed, trash removed and pipes repaired. I3one of this associated construction and
service traffic has been added to the effect of a naw business on traffic, congestion or air quality.
Finally, new businesses attract new customers; hopefully thousands of new customers. Many
retail stores expect over 100 customers (or 200 new trips) lemployee/day. Stores, medical
facilities, Universities and other developments are not hoping to attract only people from the
neighborhood. They welcome customers from Denver, China or the Moon. Any increase in jobs
has a huge and corresponding increase in traffic, congestion and air pollution. This MUST be
considered a direct effect of any new commercial development.
We recommend that more accurate presentation of the environmental effects of
development be included when the Land Use Designation of a specific parcel is reviewed.
Comments on Specific Parcel Recommendations
Parcel No. 14a-d Description: E. of55th, S. oTBaseline
We appreciate the attempt to maintain this environmentally sensitive area but disagree with City
staff recommendations to remove property from the 100-year floodplain by filling and elevating
structures. Riparian areas are a valuable resource and the 110-year flood is more dangerous than
the 100 year flood.
Parcel No. 15 a-c Description: South of East Boulder Recreation Center
The City proposes placing 313 new dwelling units in the South Boulder Creek Floodplain
adjacent to the East Boulder Recreation Center. This land is currently vacant, open, space with a
historically si~nificant livestock corral and stable. It is adjacent to the educational wetlands and
lake and a prize piece of land for wildlife and recreational use.
Parcel No. 16 Description: E. of Cherryvale, S. of Arapahoe Rd.
The City proposes placing 78 new dwelling units directly adjacent to Sombrero Marsh, the City's
new educational wetlands and lake and a prize piece of land for wildlife use. The rural character
of this parcel has done much to protect the environmental quality of Sombrero Marsh until now.
The environmental impact of this rezoning may be unacceptable. Unlike City staff, we judge the
effect of this development on most of the BVCP objectives to be ne$ative. Like several of these
parcels, we would recommend that most of this parcel be removed to Area III-Rural Preservation
or designated for Open Space purchase.
Parcel 17 a-b Description: E. of Foothills Pkwy., N. of Arapahoe Ave.
This site especially environmentally sensitive and home to a number of threatened and
endangered species. Any construction on the site will again be threatening the local hydrology
and riparian community structure, Boulder Community Hospital proposes construction of a
420,000-sq. ft. building and adding, probably, over 1000 jobs to the site. With service and
additional facilities this may mean over 5000 additional trips/day and much, much hi$her impact
on the area than predicted.
Parcel 18 Description: Mobile Home Parks
This designation may also be applied to two other mobile home parks on Highway 93 south of
Boulder. Residents of both parks would appreciate the City's help in preserving their parks and
providing affordable housing in the community.
Parcel 21 Description: Urban and other Parks
Should all current parks be listed, mapped and described as belonging to this category?
Parcel 22 a-b Description: N. of Arapahoe Rd., W. of Cherryvale Rd.
The City proposes placing 57 new dwelling units and 161 new jobs in this floodplain property
containing wetlands and designating it High Density Residential and Light Industrial.
Protecting Environmental Quality
The Boulder Creek Watershed Workgroup
Increased traffic in the DenverBoulder area has produced the "Brown Cloud". This air pollution is
deposited in the snowpack near the Continental Divide causing acidification of high mountain lakes and the
production of carcinogens in our drinking waters. Population growttt in the area has caused habitat loss on
the plains, water quality degradation from stormwater runoff, and septic leaching into mountain streams.
These problems cannot be solved by individual local governments. Natural resource managers need to work
together to conquer these monsters. For most chemical or water resource problems, the solutions begin with
cooperative watershed-based management.
What is a Watershed?
Watersheds are nature's water management districts. The land eurface areas, atreams, lakes and wetlands that
drain into Boulder Creek are all part of our watershed. But our "Waterehed" is much more than the sum of
these parts.
Large amounts of water are moved into and out of the Boulder Creek by trans-basin diversions, atmospheric
deposition and ground water from outside of this surface-water watershed. Although on average 63,000 acre
ft of water per year is discharged by North and Middle Boulder Creeks; Over 19,000 acre ft of water per
year is pumped from the Colorado-Big Thompson River Project to Boulder Reservoir, enough to fill it 1.6
times. Also, much of the water in South Boulder Creek at Gross Reservoir has been pumped through the
Continental Divide and is removed from the creek and piped to Denver before reaching Eldorado Springs.
All of this imported water and the towns and cities that effect it become part of our "Watershed": an area that
we have to manage to insure the quality of water in lower Boulder Creek.
Where is the Boulder Creek Watershed?
The Boulder Creek Watershed totals over 440 square miles, dropping ftom 13,502 ft at North Arapahoe
Peak northwest of Nederland down to 4,920 ft at the confluence with the St. Vrain River near Longmont,
Colorado. The western boundary of our watershed is one of the most dramatic in the US, the easternmost
bend of the Continental Divide. Although Boulder Creek drains into the St. Vrain and South Platte rivers
flowing east, water falling 30 miles west of Boulder heads for the Colorado River and the Sea of Cortez,
Over 150,000 people within the watershed use about 30 million gallona of water per day. The City of
Boulder alone treats over twenty million gallons. Much of this is later discharged from the 75th Street
Wastewater Treatment Plant. During low stream flows, this wastewater makes up most of the flow in
Boulder Creek below the discharge point.
Boulder Creek is used for multiple and sometimes conflicting purposes, including power generation,
irrigation, recreation, habitat, and drinking water. A wide range of groups will have to cooperate to protect
it.
Why Watershed-hased Management?
Water quality management agencies are turning to watershed-based management as a means for achieving
greater results from their programs. Why? Because managing water quality protection programs on a
watershed-wide basis makes good sense -- environmentally, financially, and socially.
Better Environmental Results
Because watersheds are defined by natural hydrology, they represent the mo'st logical basis for managing
water resources. The resource becomes the focal point, and managers are able to gain a more complete
understanding of overall conditions and problems in the area.
Traditionally, water quality improvements have focused on specific sources of pollution such as sewage
discharges, or specific water resources such as a river segment or wetland. While this approach may be
successful in addressing specific problems, it often fails to address the more subtle and chronic problems
that contribute to a watershed's decline. For example, pollution from,a sewage treatment plant might be
reduced significantly after a new treatment process is installed, and yet the local stream or river may still
suffer if other factors in the watershed, such as habitat destruction or polluted runoff, go unaddressed.
Watershed-based planning can identify the real problems in an area and help determine what actions are
needed to protect or restore the resource.
Saves Time and Money
Besides the environmental pay-off, watershed approaches can have the added benefit of saving time and
money. For example, synchronizing sampling schedules so that all monitoring within a watershed occurs
within the same time frame can eliminate duplicate tripe and greatly reduce monitoring costs. Efficiency is
also increased once everyone begins to work together to improve conditions in a watershed. In its truest
sense, watershed protection approach strengthens teamwork between the public and private sectors at the
federal, state, and local level to achieve the greatest environmental improvements with the resources
available. All partners within a watershed, including researchers; public-interest groups and regulatory
agencies, by coordinating their efforts, can complement and reinforce each others' activities, avoid
duplication, and leverage resources to achieve each of their goals.
Data collection is one activity that particularly benefits from greater cooperation and coordination. For
example, a City or State can reduce their own monitoring costs by factoring in the monitoring activities of
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and the National Resource Conservation Service. In addition,
permittees and other stakeholders that generate amtiient monitoring data can form watershed-monitoring
consortiums to pool resources and provide greater consistency in collected data.
More Public Support
Watershed protection can also lead to greater awareness and support from the public. Once individuals ,
become aware of and interested in their watershed, they often become more involved in decision-making as
well as hands-on protection and restoration efforts. Through such involvement, watershed approaches build
a sense of community, help reduce conflicts, increase commitment to the actions necessary to meet
environmental goals, and ultimately, improve the likelihood of success for environmental programs.
The Watershed Approach -- An Introduction
The watershed protection approach involves a community-based environmental protection effort that uses
watershed or hydrologic boundaries to define the problem area. The major features of a watershed-based
management are: targeting priority problems, promoting a high level of stakeholder ittvolvement, integrated
solutions that make use of the expertise and authority of multiple groups and agencies, and measuring
success through monitoring and other data gathering.
. ,. . ~.,. .... . ~.y wu ~ .n ~ ury
The watershed approach is made up of three key components:
1. A Geographic Focus
Watersheds are nature's water management districYs. For mapping purposes, the surface area that drains into
Boulder Creek has been delineated by the USGS and NRCS using hydrologic unit codes that prov'tde a
common national framework of watershed boundaries. Although this watershed contains streams, lakes,
wetlands and ground water recharge areas, it is much more than that. It is all the land and water that drains
into Boulder Creek.
2. A 5cientific Focus
Sound scientific data, tools, and techniques are critical to infornt the process. Actions taken include
characterizing priority watershed problems and solutions, developing action plans and evaluating their
effectiveness within the watershed. Establishing environmental indicators helps guide activities toward
solving high priority problems and measuring success in making real world improvements rather than
simply meeting regulatory requirements. '
3. Partnerships / Stakeholder Involvement
Watersheds transcend political, social, and economic boundaries. Therefore, it is impor[ant to involve all the
affected interests in designing and implementing goals for the watershed. A watershed approach creates
opportunities for a broad range of stakeholders to play meaningful roles in management plan development
and implementation. Success depends on the pooled resources, energy, and regulatory authority of multiple
stakeholders. Stakeholders include all agencies, organizations and individuals that could be affected by
water quality management decisions. Representatives from all levels of government, public interest groups,
industry, academic institutions, private landowners, concerned citizens and others must be involved.
Stakeholder roles and responsibilities can include
Data and research sharing
Joint monitoring
Identification of maj or problems in the watershed
Priority setting
Public meetings for goal setting
Public outreach events such ae presentations or festivals
Reviewing management plans
Shared commitment of resources for plan implementation.
Individuals are more likely to negotiate when their knowledge of watershed problems is strong and they see
that all sources are being asked to make sacrifices and receive benefits from management decisions.
The $oulder Creek Watershed Workgroup
The Boulder Creek Watershed Workgroup is a blue ribbon panel of scientists and others that sponsors
stream restoration worl:, monitoring and a regular public forum on environmental issues facing the Boulder
Creek watershed. 'The purpose of the forum is to initiate a dialogue between researchers, govemment
officials, and the community with the objective of building community support to protect the Boulder Creek
Watershed. We need the support and input of all of these groups to accomplish our goal of regional
environmental quality.
Jim Disinger
President
Boulder Creek Watershed Workgroup
(303)~0-8022
(BCW atershed@AOL.com)
BOULDER CREEK WATERSHED WORKGROUP
PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE:
Year 2000 Major Update to the
Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan
Proposed Policy Changes
Approved by the Boulder City Council November 2000
Table of Contents
GENERAL POLICIES ....................................
General policies proposed for changes:
CONIMUNITY DESIGN ............................................................................................... 10
Community Design policies proposed for changes:
Preservation of Community Chazacter ......................................................... ...................... 14
Accessory Units ............................................................................................. ................... 14
Preservation of Existing Residential Uses ..................................................... ....................... 15
Mixed Use ...................................................................................................... .................. 16
Incentives for Mixed Use .............................................................................. .................... 16
Variery of Acrivity Centers ........................................................................... ..................... 17
Role of the Central Area ............................................................................... .................... 17
Boulder Creek and its Tributaries as Important Urban Design Features ....... ........................ 18
Community Sustainabiliry ............................................................................ ...................... 18
Preservation of Historical and Cultural Resources ........................................ ....................... 18
Leadership in Preservation: City and County Owned Resources ................. ........................ 19
Historic and Cu1Nra1 Preservation Plan ...............................:......................... ....................... 19
Eligible Historic Dish-icts and Landmarks .................................................... ........................ 19
Historic Preservation/Conservation Tools .................................................... ....................... 19
Preservation of Archaeological Sites and Cultural Landscapes .................... ......................... 20
FACILITIES AND SERVICES .................................................................................... 22
Facilities and Services policies proposed for changes:
Grourth to Pay Fair Share of New Facility Costs ................................................................ 23
The Arts ............................................................................................................................ 25
Aesthetic Elements at Public Projects .................................................................................. 26
Cultural Corridor .............................................................................................................. 26
EN V I RONMEN T .......................................................................................................... 27
Environment policies proposed for changes.•
Environmental Education ................................................................................................... 27
Natural Ecosystems .......................................................................................................... 27
Protection of Water Quality ............................................................................................. 30
Water Resource Planning ................................................................................................. 30
Drinking Water ................................................................................................................ 30
Storm Water ...................................................................................................................30
Minimum Flow Program .............................................................................30
Protection of AquiFer and Groundwater Recharge Areas .................................................. 31
Discouragement of Private Sewage Systems .................................................................... 31
Water Conservation ........................................................................................................ 33
City Leadarship in Resource Conservation Energy Efficiency ........................................... 33
ECONOMY ...................
Economy policies proposed for changes:
............................... 36
Balance of Employment and Housing .............................................................................. 36
Industrial Parks .............................................................................................................. 36
Industrial Zoning ............................................................................................................. 36
Educational Partnerships ................................................................................................ 37
Sustain a Vital and Productive Retail Base ....................................................................... 37
Develop An Economic Sustainability Strategic Plan ..............................................38
TRANSPORTATION ..................................
Transportation policies proposed for changes:
...........................39
All-mode Transportation System ................................................... ................................. 39
Reduction oF Single Occupancy Auto Trips .................................. ................................... 39
System Completion ....................................................... ..........................39
Multimodal Strategies ........................................................ ..........................40
Accessibility ................................................................................... ................................ 40
Multimodal Inveshnent .................................................... ...........................40
Congestion ........................................ . ......................... ..........................41
Transportation Impact .................................................... ...........................41
Mutimodal Development ................................................ ...........................41
Managing Parking Supply ............................................... ...........................42
Neighborhood Integration ............................................................... ................................ 42
Integrated Design ........................................................................... ................................ 43
Improving Air Quality .................................................................... ................................ 43
Noise Abatement ............................................................................ .............................. 43
HOUSING .................................................................................................................. 46
Housing policies proposed for changes:
Local Solutions to Low Income Affordable Housing ....................................................... 46
Integration of Low Income Permanently AFfordable Housing ........................................... 46
Preserve Existing Housing Stock .................................................................................... 46
Pernianently Affordable Housing ..................................................................47
Infill Development and Redevelopment .......................................................................... 47
Special Needs Population .............................................................................................. 47
Minimizing Displacement ................................................................................................ 47
Keeping Low and Moderate Income Workers in Boulder .............................................. 48
Suengthening Community Housing Partnerships ............................................................. 48
Preservation and Development of Manufactured Housing ................................................ 48
Jobs/IIousing Balance in the Community ........................................................................ 48
SOCIAL CONCERNS AND HUMAN SERVICES ..................................................49
APPENDIX ............................................................................................................A
Requests received from the pu6lic for changes to the Plan.•
Sustainabiliry .............................................................................................................A-1
Growth Requirements .............................................................................................. A-2, A-3
Growth to Pay Fair Share of New Facilities .............................................................. A-2,A-3
Balance of Employment and Housing ....................................................................... A-2, A-3
The Arts ..................................................................................................................A-4
Glider-towing at the Boulder Municipal Aitport ....................................................... A-5
Conservation Area to Prevent Lowering tlte Water Table in North Boulder ............. A-15
City of Boulder Designated and Potentially Eligible Historic Dish-icts Map ................ A-18
GENERAL POLICIES
We should re~ulated the overall amount of all types of development
We should use erowth limitation tools co urotect air and water aualicv
SCOPE AND APPLICATION OF THE BOULDER VALLEY COMPREHENSIVE PCAN
POLICY 1.01
JOINT CITY-COiJNTY PLAN ADOPTION AND IMPLEMENTATION. The structure,
administration, and implementation of the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan, hereafrer referred to as the
Comprehensive Plan, shail be based on specific and nonconflicting policies jointly adopted by Boulder
County and the City of Boulder. The Comprehensive Plan, consisting of a series of maps together with
explanatory statements, shall be derived to the maximum extent possible from the policies joindy adopted
by Boulder County and the Ciry of Boulder. iu cooneration with other azea eovernments and stakeliolders. f
POLICY 1.02
DEFINITION OF THE BOiJLDER CREEK WATERSHED ~ PLANNING AR~A. The
Comprehensive Plan shall generally encompass the Boulder Creek Watershed ""~- 'a~ which is defined as
those azeas that diain into Boulder Creek at or unstream of 95t1i St.
"°"°° °°°°-~~-~- -° ^"° °~~^" °°a as specifically delineated on the Comprehensive Plan Map. Tl~e Boulder
Creek Watershed
Rationa[e: Staff is proposing to slightly modify the Planning Area policy to better define the conceptual
boundaries.
NEW POLICY
PRINCIPLES OF SUSTAINABILITY. Sustainable develapment meets the needs af the present
without compromising the abilily of future generations to meet their own needs. The cily and county
adopt the following principles to interpret and guide the implementation of the Boulder Valley
Camprehensi've Plan:
• Renewable resources should not be used faster than they are recharged or replenished by the
enviranment
• Non-renewable resources, includine undeveloned lands. should be not be reduced or, if
necessarv. used with the greatest practical efficiency, and some of those should be used to
develop renewable replacements. "Greatest practical efficiency" means a use that is technically
and financially feasible with an outloolt to the t`ature.
• Waste should not be dumped into nature any faster than nature can absorb it. Toxics
radionudides and other substances that cannot be absorbed should not be dumged.
• The economy is a subsystem of the environment and depends upon the environment both as a
source of raw material inputs and a sink for waste outputs
POLICY 2.25 (moved from Chapter 2 to Chapter l with proposed changes)
COMMUNITY SUSTAINABILITY. The city and wunty recognize that the earth is a ciased system,
and that there are limits to the land and soil avai-able for food production, to available water, to
renewable resources such as trees, Gsh and wildlife, to industrial resources like oil and metals, and to
the ability of nature to absorb our waste. The Ciri and County recoenize that because of these
resouree limits there is a definite aooulation carrvine capacity far the Boulder Creek Watershed
which we have exceeded.
, The City and the County seek to maintain and enhance the
livability, health, and vitality of the Boulder Valley and ::°~~ the natural systems of which it is a
part now and in the long-terni future, Maintaining the long-term health of the natural environment and the
economy and community livability in the Boulder Valley and beyond are inextricably linked. The City and
the County seek to preserve choices for future generations and to anticipate and adapt to changing
community needs and extemal influences.
Rationale: The proposed changes clarify the definition ofsustainabiliry.
NEW POLICY
INDICATORS OF SUSTAINABII,ITY. The City A#B-and County shall work together
with other entities to develop indicators of sustainability specifc to the Boulder Valley. The
choice of indicators will be based on their ability to provide feedback that will support and
strengthen efforts taken to move the community to sustainability in a reasonable period of
time.
NEW POLICY (see request #l, on page A-1)
LEADERSHIP IN SUSTAINABILITY. The City and Countv will apply the principles of
sustainability to all its actions and decisions. The City and Countv will act as a-community leaders
and stewards oF our resources, serving as x-role models for others and strlving to create a community
which lives conscientiously as part of the ecosystem we inhabit. Through its policies and programs,
the City and Com~tv will take responsibility for a healthy and viable community for future
generations.
Rationa[e: This new policy reJlects some of the goals and objectives from the Gty Council Environmental
TaskForce and complements proposed changes to Polrcy 4.37.
POLICY 1.03
PLANNING TIME FItAME. The length of the planning period is approximately fifreen yeazs. This term
has been dete~xnined to be reasonable and has been anived at afrer weighing a combination of facts and
policy considerations: land use and land use projecrions, Service Area projections, the capacity of the City
to fund capital improvements, the growth rate, and the desires of the community in regard to
accommodating growth. Each 5-year review of the plan shall extend the planning period approximately five
years.
In addition, growth projections to the yeu 2020 will be used to evaluate long-term trends, analyze
problems and opportunities that could occur during this period, project long-term infrastructure needs, and
coordinate Boulder Valley growth projections with regional and counry-wide projections. I
POLICY 1.04 -
PLAN UPDATE. The Plan shall be reviewed at least every five yeazs for possible amendments to reflect
changes in circumstances and community desires.
POLICY 1.05
LAND USE PROJECTIONS. Projections of land use in the Comprehensive Plan are sufficiently detailed
to be defmitive and directional, although not limiting.
POLICY 1.06
PLAN INTEGRATION. A variety of community plans exists to guide day-to-day decision making in a
long-term context. The City is committed to achieve a high level of coordination and integration of plan
development and update processes, plan content and substance, and implementation of the Boulder Valley
Comprehensive Plan, subcommuniry plans, area plans, and functional master plans.
POLICY 1.07
REGIONAI. COOPERATION. Many of the most significant problems and opportunities faced by
Soulder and other jurisdictions, particularly air and water aualitv deeradat[un, afforda6le housing and
regional transportation, can only be dealt with effectively through regionai cooperation and solutions.
Therefore, the City and the County shall aggressively pursue joint planning and close cooperation with
each other and among other cities, unincorporated communities, the University of Colorado, the School
Districts, regional organizations, and other policy-making bodies (e.g., other Counties, the Regional
Transportation District (RTD), the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT), the County
Board of Health, utiliry and fue service entities). These entities should address issues of mutual concern,
in order to avoid conflicts, provide a means by which each entity may more fully benefit from a multi-
jurisdictional perspective, and achieve mutually beneficial solutions.
Rationale: In recent years, it has become clear that the lack ofaffordable housing is both a local and
regional issue. Additionally, our most recent transportation studies how that the biggest influence on
increased tra~c in Boulder is related ta in-commuting and growth in land use and tra~c in the region.
This policy re,~lects the need to cooperate regionally on these issues.
POLICY 1.08
DE VELOPMENT REFERRAL5 AND RESPONSES. Development refercals and responses of the Ciry
and the County shall be coordinated through the respective planning deparhnents according to a systern that
has been developed by the planning departments and approved by the legislative bodies of the City and the
County. The responses of each deparhnent shall specifically identify those requirements that a proposed
development meets, or fails to meet, under the Comprehensive Plan.,
POLICY 1.04
INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENTS. The City and the County may enter into
intergovemmental agreements with other municipalities and agencies when appropriate to foster
intergovemmental planning and cooperation.
POLICY 1.10
COMPLIANCE WITH LAND USE REGULATIONS. With regard to public facili[ies owned and
operated in the other's jurisdiction, the City and the County shall respect and abide by existing laad use
cegulations insofar as reasonable
POLICY 1.11
CITYAND COUN'TY'S ROLES IN MANAGING GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT. In order to
achieve community goals and policies, the City and Countv will implement growth management tools that
control the scale, location, type, intensity, and timing of new development and redevelopment. Where
appropriate, the Counry witl work with tlie Ciry in developing and implementing growth management tools.
POLICY 1.12
ADAPTING TO LIMITS ON PHYSICAL EXPANSION. As the community expands to its planned
physical boundaries, the City and the County will increasingly emphasize preservation and enhancement of
the physical, social, and economic assets of the community. Cooperative efforts and resources shall be
focused on maintaining and improving the qualiry of life within defined physical boundaries, with only
limited expansion of the city.
POLICY 1.13
GROWTH PROJECTIONS. In order to ensure that past and projected growth impacu can be better
mitigated or avoided, and to maintain a desirable community size, the City shall set projections for
popula6on, dwelline units, iobs. Vehicle Miles Traveied. and employment aftA-~ixgut}tte for the year
2020.
. Projected growth will
be limited unless sufficient progress is made in reducing the cumulative negative growth impacts to an
acceptable level and other significant community benefits can be achieved.
Rationale: Planning Board decided to remove specific numbers since projections will,#fHe~+cete uctaen[e
POLICY 1.14 (see reguest #2, on pages A-2 and A-3)
GROWTH REQUIREMENTS. The overall effect of urban growth must be to add significant value to the
community, improving quality of life. The City will require development and redevelopment as a whole to
provide significant community benefiu and to maintain or improve environmental quality as a pxecondition
for further housing and employment growth. In addition, the large growth in employment relative to
housing in recent years has led to a significant imbalance between jobs and housing in the
community and has resulted in increased in-commuting, increased traffic congestion, and increased
hqusing prices. Therefore, the city intends that new growth shall be strictlv limited while
redevcloament provide affordable housing and environmental aualitv as its highest priority
community bene6ts. The Cily shall do this by requirtng signiGcant environmental oreservation or
affordable houstng benefits from annexation, encouraging mized use redevelopment that includes
housing, and substituting affordable housirtg for non-residential'growth where possible.'Phe Citv
shail reduce future aroiected residentiai and emplovment arowth to realize the benef[ts oF a
sustainable communitv.
Bationale: This policy highiights the problems associated with the cities jobs: housing imbalance ttnd
reflects Planning Board and City Council's direction that affordable housing should be considered the
Ciry's highest prioriry communlry beneftt, and mised use development should 6e encouraged. A request
from the public for a change to this policy was also suggested and can be found on page A-3. Staffs
proposed change re,flects the direction we have received from Council and Planning Board, whereas the
public request would go farther, requiring that employment growth fully compensate citizens for its
impacts.
nnr r~~nv~~~
. ,
.~,.... u .i.:.. .....i:.... ~.......r, x............a ~...:..a..:. , .n„ ......:........ x,...~,.a ,.rr.,,..:..,. :.. .t,. c,..,..,..,~
~' , ,
POLICY 1.16
DEFINITION OF COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING AREAS I, II, AND III. The Boulder Valley
Planning Acea is divided into tlvee major areas. Area I is that azea within the City of Boulder which
has adequate urban facilities and seroices and is expected to
continue to accommodate urban development. Area II is the area now under County jurisdiction, where
annexation to the City can be considered consistent with Policies 1.12 and 1.14 & 1.20. New urban
development may only occur coincident with the availability of adequate facilities and services and not
otherwise. Deparhnental master plans project the provision of services to this area within the planning
period. Area IIA is thr area of immediate focus within the first three years, and Area IIB is available to
accommodate development within the halance of the glanning period. Area III is the remaining area in the
Boulder Valley, generally under Countyjurisdiction. Area III is divided into the Area III-Rural
Preservation Area, where the Ciry and the County intend to preserve existing rural land uses and character,
and the Area III-Planning Reserve Area, where the City and the County intend to maintain the option of
expanded urban development in the City beyond the time frame of the 15-year planning period (See Areas
I, II, III Map.)
Tha Boulder Creek Watersl~ed Plannine Area would hava similar area definitions but have boundaries
desiened to nmtect air, stream water, eroundwafer and drinkine water within the Citv of Boulder.
POLICY 1.17
PRECLUSION OF NEW INCORPORATED PLACES. The establishment of new incorporated
communities within the Boulder Valley shall be opposed.
POLICY 1.18
DEFINITION OF NEW URBAN DEVELOPMENT. It is intended that tluoughout [he Boulder Valley,
new urban development including all new development within the Ciry and those developments iegulated
in the unincorporated azeas of the Valley by Boulder County pursuant to CRS, as amended, Section 30-28-
133, not occur until and unless adequate urban facilities and services are available to serve the development
as set out in Section (II D) Urban Service Criteria aad Standards.
New ucban development is hereby defined to include:
(a) All:~ew-residential, commercial, and industrial development and redevelopment within the City; or
(b) The subdivision of land pursuant to CRS, as amended, Section 30-28-133, and the County's
subdivision
regulations; excepting those developments which could proceed under the County's non-urban planned
unit development processes; or
(c) Any proposed ', , ' development subject to Counry rezoning
to a zoning district of higher intensity (not including RC, rural community district, zoning.), eF
. ~
~
:•: ...,..na _ ......:...... i,,..ei ,.r.._~..,_ r ..:r.«:e.. .,..a ~e~.:..,.,, ..,.....i .,. ,.~ ,...o.,«o..w„« .~.,.~o aoc..va :«
' ~~
0
(d) ?.ny other proposed new development in Areas II or'r' ~.°:`" `"° °..°°°`:°.. ~`°'.' °"° °~`°° °'°..°~''
where the County deteimines that the proposed use:
i. generates traffic volumes in excess of 150 average daily trips per lot, as defined by the
Institute of Transportation Engineers; or
ii. has an occupant load greater than or equal to ~90-50 persons per lot; or
iii. has a wastewater flow greater than or equal to ~9991000 gallons per day per lot; or
iv. has a total floor area greater [han ~3~815000 squaze feet ('-,.`; `nn .,.. ....,. r e . :... ...........~
(e) My proposed increase in intensity of use to an existing development which is subject to the County's
Special Review process, provided the County determines that the proposed increase will exceed
the threshold Itmits set forth in criteria (d)i-' . Increases in intensity oFuse ~
will be considered cumulative over time and any newly proposed incremental increase in use will
constitute new urban development when the proposed increase, in combination with prior
incremental increases, -reaches the 59°~o trigger level as de6ned by thfs provision.
Rationale: . nunro.ctnfl7ias ~ronose~l thi,c chanee. The
definition of "new urban development" has remained unchanged since its initial adoption in May of
l978. While the intent remains valid and contiriues to be a keystone concept of the BVCP, staff believes
the definition is no longer suited ta the land use issues of today. When originally adopted, there was no
real plan or vision forArea Ili. Counry zoning and land use regulations would have stiU permitted
what could be called urban development - subdivisions like the older histortc ones a[ong the 6ase and
on the crest ofDavidson Mesa. More °uses by righY' requiring little review or approval criteria, such
as churches and schools, were avai7able in County zoning districts. Speciai service district formafion
was a continuing possibility. But now things have changed.
1) 1978 - the Boulder Counry Comprehensive Plan was adopted and called for a major rezoning, the
replacement of traditional subdivision with the Nonurban Planned Unit Development or NUPUD, the
preserva[ion of agricultural and rural lands, the [ocation of new urban development within or adjacent
to zristing urban areas, and the discouragement ofadditional specia[ district formation.
2) 1984/85 - the Commissioners completed a comprehensive rezoning that effectively eliminated the
potential for urban-rype development throughout most of the unincorporated counry.
3) 1992 - the Area III Planning Project, jointly undertaken by the City and County, concluded with a
comprehensive plan amendment designating most ofArea III as the "Rural Preservation Area" where
"...no new urban develapment will be allowed during the planning period ".
4) dvla};Mav 1993 - the Counry adopted its Site Plan Review regulations, authorizing review and I
conditioning of on and off-siie impacis associated with resideniial developmenf at ihe parce! byparce!
building permit level.
5) ~IeveznbefNovember 1993 - a County open space sales taic was approved which, among other ~
things, enabled the County to more actively pursue open space acquisitions in collaboration with the
Ciry.
6) 1993 - the City's Integrated Planning Project reaffirmed the precept that urban development
should be confined to only Area I and Area II.
7) 1994 - the County's Land Use Code was amended to add four "triggers" involving numbers of
vehicle trips per day, occupant load, wastewaterJlows, and Jtoor area, any one of which would require
a Use by Specia/ Review application and hearings before both the Planning Commission and County
Commissione~s. This app[ied to numerous land uses like churches and schools that were previous[y
treated as uses by right.
8) Of the approximately 45 Use by Special Review dockets within Area III that were processed
beriveen 1992 and today, most involved recognition of or expansion to existing facilities that could not
or would not appropriately be located or relocated in an urban setting...sand and grave! operations,
solid waste management operations, telecommunication facilities collocation sites,
additions/conversions ofchurch and educational facilities, and so forth. .
Given these and other actions over the past 22 years, we believe the proposed redefinition of "new
urban development" is more appropriate to now and the foreseeable future, and stil! maintains the
core urban shaping and service provision principles of the BVCP.
POLICY 1.19
CITY SERVICE PROVISION/LOCATION OF iIRBAN FACILITIES. The City is an adequate
provider of facilities and services. These facilities and services will continue to be supplied to Area I and
the City will make them available to Area II within the planning period pursuant to the Ciry's annexation
policies and Capital Improvements Program. Due to size, locational, and other unique requirements, some
City facilities that do not require the full range of urban services will be located in Areas II and III, subject
to County review.
POLICY 1.20
ANNEXATION. The policies in regard to annexation to be pursued by the Ciry are:
(a) Annexation will be required before adequate facilities and services are fumished;
(b) The City will actively pursue annexation of County enclaves, Area II properties along the
western boundary, and other fuily developed Area II properties. "County enclave" means an
unincorporated area of land entirely contained within the outer boundary of the city. Terms of
annexation will be based on the amount of development potential as described in (c) and (e) af this
policy. Until such Area II properties have been annexed to the city, the County shall app;ly the City's
development standards related to easement dedication, right -of-way dedication, and floodplain and
wetlands regulations.
(b)
.
> > ,
.
.
~(H}Annexation of existing substantially developed azeas will be offered in a manner and on terms and
conditions which respect existing lifestyles and densities, and the City will expect these areas to be brought
to Ciry standards only where necessary to protect the health and safety of the residents of the subject area or
of the City. The City, in developing annexation plans of reasonable cost, may phase new facilities and
services. The County, which now has jurisdicrion over these ueas, shall be a supportive pazmer with the
City in annexation efforts.
(d)~ In order to reduce the negative impacts o£new development in the Boulder Valley, the City shall
annex Area II land with significant development or redevelopment potential only on a very limited basis.
Such annexations will be supported only if the annexation provides a special opportunity or benefit to the
City.
For annexation considerations, the highest priority benetit to the City shall be the creation of
permanently affordable housing. Provision of the following may aiso be considered a special opportunity
or benefit: germanently affordable housing, receiving sites for transferaUle development dghts (TDRs),
reduction of future employment projecrions, land and/or facilities for public purposes over and above that
required by the Ciry's land use regulations, environmental preservation, or other amenities deterrnined by
the Ciry to be a special opportunity or benefit.
(e)(~ Annexation of substantially developed properties that allows for some additionat residential units or
commercial squaze footage will be required ro demonstrate community benefit commensurate wiUt their
impacts. Further, annexations that resolve an issue of public health without creating additional development
impacts should be encouraged.
(Q(e}There will be no annexation of areas outside the boundaries of the Boulder Valley Planning Area,
with the possible exceprion of annexation of acquired open space. ,
(g)(€~ Area II is anticipated to become part of the Ciry within Ute planning period. Area III is not anticipated
to become part of the City within the plarming period. However, publicly owned property located in Area
III and intended to remain in Area III may be annexed to the Ciry if the property requires less than a full
range of urban services or requires inclusion under Ciry jurisdiction for health, welfaze and safety reasons.
(h)(gj The Gunbarrel-Heatherwood Subcommunity, which is unique because of its size, developed at an
urban density with city water and sewer service. The commercial and industrial portion of Gunbarrel-
Heatherwood is annexed to the City, while much of the residential development is still unincorporated. The
Gunbarrel-Heatherwood Subcommunity is also unique because of the shared jurisdiction for planning and
service provision among the County, the City, the Gunbarrel General Improvement District, and other
special districts. Those areas annexed to the Ciry aze provided with Ciry services, although deficiencies
exist in developed park facilities and services. Tn the unincorporated area, a variety of arrangements for
service provision exist. Some services, such as road maintenance, flood control, and law enforcement, are
primazily provided by the County. Area residents now tax themselves, through the Gunbaa~el Genetal
Improvement District, to pay for open space acquisitions and possible pazk and major roadway
improvements. ' Boulder
Rural Pire District nrovides fire orotection to the unincorporated area. Although interest in voluntary
annexation has been limited, the Ciry and Counry continue to support the eventual annexation of
Gunbarrel-Heatherwood. If resident interest in annexation does occur in the future, the City and the County
will negotiate new terms of annexation with the residents.
Rationale: The proposed policy changes re,fiect direction from Planning Board and City Council
earlier this year.
Policy 1.20b: The overarching issues regarding the merits of annexing enclaves are d~erent
from other propertres. To address service provision r~ed~krxeereJcmduncv and other issues,
annexing enclaves is commonly thought to be something cities should do as a matter af course;
however, we typically wait for properties to anne~ on a site-by-site basis. This has become a
problem, particularly with the number offailingseptic systems that fail each year. At the City
Council study session on May 2, Chuck Stout, the County Health Director stated that the best
overall strate~ from a public health perspective would be for the city to unilaterally anne.r these
areas. In this way, the public health issues here would be addressed once and for all; property
owners would be treated equally; and neighborhoods would not be annexed in a piecemeal
fashion.
Policy 1.20d: The policy change reflects Planning Board's and Council's direction that the
highest priority community benefit should be far affordable housing.
POLICY 1.21
ANNUAL REVIEW OF ANNEXATIONS AND CAPITAI. IMPROVEMENTS. Progress by the City
on both annexation and capital improvements shall be reviewed annually by the City and the County, as
any substantial failure in performance shall be deemed cause for substantial amendment of the Plan by the
City and the Counry.
POLICY 1.22
CONSISTENCY OF LAND USE REGULATIONS WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. The
City and the County will each analyze and evaluate existing land use regulations and, considerin~ the rights
of afFected property owners, will make changes required to bring said regulations into compliance with the
Comprehensive Plan.
POLICY 1.23
ASSIMILATION OF SP~CIAL DISTRICT FACILITIES AND SERVICES. Where the
provider(s) of the facilities and services is (are) other than the City, the County and the City will
take all reasonable and legal steps to facilitate assimilation of facilities and services by the City
upon annexation.
POLICY 1.24
PROJECTIONS FOR TAX ASSESSMENT. The City and the County commit to aid the Counry
Assessor and proper[y owners by fiunishing Comprehensive Plan projections of service and timing of
development to the County Assessor for ad valorem tax purposes.
POLICY 1.25
CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT IN PLANNING. The City and the County shall recognize the rights of
cifizens to play a role in governmental decisions, especially those which affect their lives or property,
through continual efForts to maintain and improve open and public communication and conduct of business.
In addition, the City and the Counry shall continue to support adequa[e programs and provide opportunities
for citizen participation and neighborhood involvement.
POLICY 1.26
CITY/COLTNTY POLICY APPLICABILITY. For the purpose of policy construction: Where the
"County" alone is referred to within the policy text, said policy may be amended by the County, after
referral to the City. Where the "City" alone is referred to within the policy text, said policy may be
amended by the City, after refeiral to the County. All other policies shall be construed to be joint City and
County statements of policy, and aze to be amended by joint action. Where a particulaz "area" is not
specified in the policy text, the policy shall apply to all areas.
2. COMMUNITY DESIGN
POLICY 2.01
LJNIQUE CONIMUNITY IDENTITY. The unique and powerful community idenrity and sense of place
as recognized by the citizens of the Boulder Valley and characterized by its setting and history shall be
respected by policy decision makers.
POLICY 2.02
PHYSICAL SEPARATION OF COMMUNITIES. The City and'the County shall saive to maintain and
enhance an open land buffer that separates development in the Boulder Valley from surrounding
communities and contributes to a distinct community idenrity for the City.
POLICY 2.03
CONIMiJNITY/REGIONAL DESIGN. The City and the County support improved design of individual
urban azeas, rural azeas, and the region through design features such as: clear urban boundazies, open land
buffers sepazating compact communities, protected riroarian areas, vital activity centers, preservation of
critical natural azeas and vistas, appropriate connection of irail systems, efficient multi-modal travel
corridors, a balanced distribution of housing and job opportunities, provision of diverse housing, and
conservation of physica] and social resources.
POLICY 2.04
COMPACT LAND USE PATTERN. The City and the County will, by implementing [he Comprehensive
Plan, ensure that development will take place in an orderly fashion which will take advantage of existing
urban services and shall avoid, insofar as possible, pattems of leapfrog, noncontiguous, scattered
development within the Boulder Valley. The City prefers redevelopment and infill as compared to
development in an expanded Service Area, in order to prevent urban sprawl and create a compact
community.
POLICY 2.05
OPEN SPACE PRESERVATION. The City and the County will preserve ripurian areas and lands with I
unique natural features and characteristics as permanent open space by purchase of development rights, fee
simple gifts or purchases, and other measures as appropriate and financially feasible.
POLICY 2.06
DESIGN OF CONIMUNITY EDGES. Well-defined edges for the City's boundaries are important as they
support an understanding and appreciation of the City's image and create a cleaz sense of arrival and
departure. Natural features are most effecrive as edges, but public open land, major roadways or heavy tcee
planting also can function as community edges. As new azeas are developed, the definition of a community
edge shall be a design prioriry.
POLICY 2.07
DESIGN OF MAJOR ENTRYWAYS. Major enhyways into the Boulder Valley shall be identified,
protected and enhanced in order to emphasize and preserve the natural setting and appeazance of the
community. Future strip commercial development shall be discouraged.
POLICY 2.08
PRESERVATION OF RURAL AREAS AND AMENITIES. The City and the County shall attempt to
preserve existing rural land use and chazacter in and adjacent to the Boulder Valley where environmentally
sensitive areas, hazard areas, agriculturally significant lands, vistas, significant historic resources, and
established rural residenfial areas exist. A clear boundary between urban and rural areas at the periphery of
the City will be maintained, where possible. Existing tools and programs for rural preservation will be
strengthened, and new tools and programs will be put in place,
POLICY 2.09
DELINEATION OF RURAL LANDS. Area III consists of the rural lands in the Boulder
Valley, outside the Boulder Service Area. The Boulder Service Area includes urban lands in the
City and lands planned for future annexation and urban service provision. Within Area III, land is
placed within one of two classifications: the Area III-Rural Preservation Area (RPA) or the Area
III-Planning Reserve Area (PRA). The boundaries of these two areas are shown on the Area III-
Rural Preservation Area and Area III-Planning Reserve Area Classifications Map. This map
provides an overlay to the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan Map. The more specific Area III
land use designations on the BVCP Map indicaYe the type of non-urban land use that is desired, as
well as recognize those County developments that have or can still develop at other than rural
densities and uses, The Area III-Rural Preservation Area is intended to show the desired long-
term rural land use; the Area III-Planning Reserve Area is an interim classification until it is
decided whether or not ttus land should be placed in the Area III-Rural Preservation Area or in
the Service Area.
(a) Area III-Rural PreservaYion Area
The Area III-Rural Preservation Area is that portion of Area III where rural land uses and character will be
preserved through existing and new rural land use preservation techniques and no new urban development
wiil be allowed during the planning period. Rural land uses to be preserved to the greatest possible extent
include: rural townsites (Eldorado Springs, Matshall, and Valmont); existing County rural residential
subdivisions (primarily along Eldorado Springs Drive, on Davidson Mesa west of Louisville, adjacent to
Gunbarrel, and in proximity to Boulder Resarvoir); City and County acquired open space and parkland;
sensitive environmental azeas and hazard areas that aze unsuitable for urban development; significant
agricultural lands; and lands that are unsuitable for urban development because of a high cost of extending
urban services or scattered locations, which are not conducive to maintaining a compact community.
(b) Area III-Planning Reserve Area
The Area III-Planning Reserve Area (PRA) is that portion of Area III with rural land uses where the City
intends to maintain the option of limited Service Area expansion. The Area III-Planning Reserve Area
classification maintains both rural preservation and urban development options until the.City and the
County decide the ultimate desired land use. The location and characteristics of this land make it potentially
suitable for new urban development, based on the apparent lack of sensitive environmental areas, hazazd
azeas, and significant agricultural lands, the feasibility of efficient urban service axtension, and contiguity
to the existing Service Area which maintains a compact community. In the long term, City expansion into
the PRA may or may not be desirable depending on how well the community meets its long term goals and
depending on whether the benefits to the community outweigh the costs and negative impacts from new
urban development.
POLICY 2.10
RURAL DENSITY TRANSFER. The City and the County shall jointly determine criteria and areas for
transfer of development rights (TDRs) within or in proximiry to the Boulder Valley, in order to secure
conservation easements on valuable rural lands from which density may be transferred and shift those rural
residential densities to appropriate urban settings where the negative impacts of growth can be better
mitigated or avoided.
POLICY 2.11
NEIGHBORHOODS AS BUILDING BLOCKS. The City and the County will foster the role of
neighborhoods to establish community character, provide services needed on a day-to-day basis, foster
community interaction, and plan for urban design and amenities. All neighborhoods, whether residential
areas, business districts, or mixed land use areas, should offer unique physical elements oFneighborhood
character and identity, such as: distinctive development pattems or architecture; historic or cultura]
resources; ameniues such as views, open space, creeks, imgation ditches, and vazied topography; and
distinctive community facilities and business azeas.
POLICY 2.12
SUPPORT FOR RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBOREi00DS. In its community design planning, the City
shall support and strengthen iu residential neighborhoods. The City shall seek appropriate building scale
and compauble character oFnew development or redevelopment, desired public facilities and mixed
commercial uses, and sensitively designed and sized righu-of-way.
NEW POLICY
PRESERVATION OF CONIMUNTTY CIIARACTER. The City will encourage the preservation of
community character as reflected in the development pattern and relative affordability of the
existing housing stock in Boulder's varied neighborhoods by regulating demolitions and out of scale
new homes and additions.
Ratianale: As part of the Update to the BVCP process, in workshops and public meetings, the community
expressed concern about the loss of existing relatively affordable housing stock and the resulting change of
character in the older neighborhoods through pop-ups, or out ofscale additions, and scrape-offs, or the
demolition of existing houses, and their replacement with much larger houses. Except in historic districts,
the only regulations that the Ciry has to address mass and scale of residential buildings are setbacks,
height, and so[ar access requirements. There are many e.camples from around the country where
communities have successfully added other mass and scale regulations to address community concerns
about out ofscale additions and new homes, and demolitions. However, results of the BVCP surveys show
that the community is split on the issue ofregulating demolitions and out ofscale additions.
NEW POLICY
ACCESSORY iJNITS. Consistent with existing neighborhood character, accessory units
shall be encouraged in order to incre~se rental housing options in single family residenNal
neighborhoods. Regulations developed to implement this policy shall address potential
cumulafive negative impacts on the neighborhood includine VMTs and aoaulation increase.
~
Rationale: Accessory dwelling units provide additional income to help homeowners with their
mortgage payments; they also provide affordable rental housing dispersed in the neighborhoods.
The Comprehensive Housing Strategy (I/99) recommended expanding the number of accessory
dwelling units (ADUs~) currently allowed. Further discussion occurred at the public workshops I
held for the Update to the BVCP. Survey results showed more than half the respondents
supported "encouragingADUs in existing residential neighborhoo~0~(54%). This policy reflects
community discussions about a performance-based approach to regulating ADUs.
NEW POLICY
PRESERVATION OF EXISTING RESIDENTIAL USES.
,
~.,. a :................a .,..,,..... _. w...... .u...... :~ ., a...._ ti......r.. .._ .,.._..:,... ... .ti......:..ti~.,._~...,.a. EXISt111g~ 10g811y
established residential uses in non residenttal zones shall be preserved or replaced in-kind; non-
residential conversions in residential zoning districts shall be discouraged except where there is a
clear beneCt or service to the neighborhood. Accessory uniets shall be reviewed based on the
characteristics of the lot, including size, configuration, parking availabiltty, privacy and alley access
and t6eir effects on neiahborhood population increase and VMTs.
Rationale: Any reduction in the supply ofhousing worsens thejo6s to housing balance, and exacerbates
the housing affordabiliry issue. The communiry supports the preservatian ofexisting housing whenever
possible.
POLICY 2.13
PROTECTION OF RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS ADJACENT TO NON-RESIDENTIAL
ZONES. The City and the County shall take appropriate actions to ensure that the character and livability
of established residential neighborhoods will not be undermined by spill-over impacts from adjacent
regional or community business zones or by incremental expansion of business activities into residential
azeas. The City and the County shall protect residential neighborhoods from intrusion of non-residential
uses by protecting edges and regulating the impacts of these uses on neighborhoods.
POLICY 2.14
MIXTURE OF COMPLEMENTARY LAND USES. The City and the County shall strongly encourage,
consistent with other land use policies, a variety of land uses in new developments. In existing
neighborhoods, a mixture of land use types, housing sizes and lot sizes may be possible if properly
mitigated and respectful of neighborhood character. Wherever land uses are mixed, careful design will be
required in order [o ensure compatibility, accessibility and appropriate transitions between land uses that
vary in intensity and scale.
POLICY 2.15
COMPATIBILITY OF ADJACENT LAND USES. In order to avoid or minimize conflicts between
adjacent land uses that vary widely in use intensiry or other characteristics, the City will use tools, such as
interface zones, transitional areas, and cascading gradients of density in the design of subazeas and zoning
disuicts. With redevelopment, the transitional azea should be within the zone of more intense use,
POLICY 2.16
DESIGN OF NEWLY-DEVELOPING AREAS. The City shall encourage a neighborhood concept for
new development which includes a variety of residential densities, opportunities for shopping, neazby
support services and conveniently sited public facilities, including roads and pedestrian connections, parks,
libraries, and schools.
NEW POLICY
MIXED USE. ,
............... ...,.......e ..- ..rr..,f,...........,».......,~ .............6 ...,............».........,.,,~ ....,..6 ...,......,.,.~ ...... ...
The City will enwurage well desigiied-mizeddesiened mixed use redevelopment that incorporates a
substantial amount of affordable housing in approprIate locations, includ3ng commercial centers,
along corridors, and industrial areas. In reviewing mised-use projects, the City shall consider the
impacts to adjacent neighborhoods. The Citv shall not throueh this policv attenrot to increase the
total number of dwelline units or iobs within the ulannina area. •
Rationale: As part of the Update to the BVCP a series of workshops on mixed use were held to evaluate the
feasibiliry ofmixed use development in certain non-residential locations, i.e. commercial centers, induslrial
areas, commercial corridors. These /ocations have some or all of the following services: shopping, high
frequency transit service, parks, and employment centers. Locating housing adjacent to these services will
result in more affordable living, including the option of using transit instead ofan automobile. Housing
will6e relatively affordable since it will be higher densiry and more urban. Results of these workshops as
we[l as survey responses indicated both support and fensibiliry of mixed use in these locations.
NEW POLICY
INCENTIVES FOR MIXED USE. m~.., n:... ..~.__ a..~:.......:_....___,._a..«.. ~.......:..__ ~.._ a.~.._,....:....a
~
. The City shall provide incentlves and remove regulatory barriers for
mixed used development where and when appropriate. This could include public-private
partnerships for planning, design or development; density bonuses tied to affordable housing
and other zoning incentives; new zoning districts; the review and revision of floor area ratio,
open space and parking requirements.
Radonale: Two approaches the Ciry cou/d take to implement mixed use in nonresidential zoning districts
include:
provide incentive to develop housing, or require housing at these locations. The goal ofadding mized
use designations on the land use map is to get additional affordable housing opportunities at these
locations. Current thinking suggests that creating incentives for developers and property owners to
develop housing is the most effective way to reach the goa[. After mixed use [and use designations are
indicated on the BYCP [and use map, several implementation measures will occur in order to
accomplish mixed use development: area plans, public private partnerships for deve[opment, revisions
to zoning regulations to create incentives to develop mixed use, and educationa[ programs to inform
developers of all of these incentives available.
POLICY 2.17
SUBCOMMUNITIES AS BUILDING BLOCKS FOR PLANNING. Within the Boulder Valley
identifiable subcommunities, containing open space and support facilities which contribute to their
livability and enjoyment, shall be planned so that, in time, they can develop into azeas of recognizable
physioal and social idenGry.
POLICY 2.18
SUPPORT SERVICES FOR SUBCOMMUNITIES. In each of the subcommunities, the City and the
County shall encourage the development of shopping and community facilities, and associated programs,
~hich are tailored to the particulu needs of that subcommunity, such as child care, schools, pazks and
recreation, library, and uansit facilities and programs. The availability, location, accessibility, and design of
these facilities and programs will foster self-sufficiency in day-to-day support services.
POLICY 2.19
VARIETY OF ACTIVITY CENTERS. The City and the County support a variery of city-wide,
subcommunity, and neighborhood activity centers, where people congregate for a variery of activities such
as working shopping, going to school or day care, recreating, residing and for civic uses. Activity centers
must be located and designed to be compatible with surrounding land uses and intensity and the context and
chazacter of neighborhoods and business azeas. Good multi-modal connections to and from activiTy centers
will be encouraged.
~
~~ . > >
~ , , , , ,
~
POLICY 2.20
ROLE OF THE CENTRAL AREA. The Cenkal Area shall continue as the regional service center of the
Boulder Valley for office, retail, financial, governmental, medical, cultural, and university activities. As
such, it shall remain the primary activity center and focal point of the Boulder Valley. The Central Area
includes disrinct, interrelated activity centers such as the Downtown Business District, the University, the
Canyon Boulevard Cultural Corridor, and the Boulder Valley Regional Cenker Geesseesds-eres
, A variety of land uses surrounds these activity centers, and transportation
alternatives provide direct connections between them. a~~-eexxesta
POLICY 2.21
URBAN OPEN LANDS. Open lands within the fabric of the city provide recreational opportunities and
density relief from the confines of the city as well as protection of the environmental quality of the urban
epvironment. The City will seelFte-p~evi~e promote and maintain an urban open lands system to serve
the following functions: active and passive recreation, environmental protection, bike-pedestrian
connections, and enhancement of community character.
POLICY 2.22
BOULDER CREEK AND ITS TRIBUTARIES AS IMPORTANT URBAN DESIGN FEATURES-.
Boulder Creek and its tributaries shall serve as unifying urban design features for the community. Within
available appropriations, the City and the Counry shall support the preservation or reclamation of the creek
conidors for natural ecosystems, wildlife habitat, and cultural resources; for recreation or trails ; to
provide tlood management ; to improve air and water quality; and to provide a
contrast to urban development. ~keEan~lewe~l; Trail development shall be sensitive to the ecology, the
terrain, and the privacy of adjacent residents and surroundings.
Rationa[e: The changes are proposed to the policy to reflect the broad scope and integrated nature of the
Greenways program as expressed in the master plan update.
POLICY 2.23
CONIlI~IITMENT TO A WALKABLE CITY. The City and the County will promote the development of
a walkable city by designing neighborhoods and business azeas to provide easy and safe access by foot to
places such as neighborhood centers, community facilities, transit stops or centers, and shared public spaces
and amenities. I
POLICY 2.24
TRAIL CORRIDORS/LINKAGES. In the process of considering development proposals, the City and
the County shall encourage the development of trails and uail linkages for appropriate uses, such as hiking,
bicycling, or horseback riding, so as to provide a variety of alternative recreation and uansportation
opporiuniries. Implementation of this goal shall be achieved through the coordinated efforts of the private
and public sectors.
POLICY 2.26
PRESERVATION OF HISTORICAL AND Ci7LTU1tAL RESOURCES. Buildings, districts, and sites
of historical, architectural, azchaeological, or cultural significance shall be iden[ified and protected.
, , . The City and
County will encourage preservation of such resources through incentives programs, designation
of landmark buildings and districts, design review, public improvements, and other rools.
Protection wi11 be reqaired when A proposed action by a public entity involves a potentiat
important resource. Protection of important resources will also be sought when a proposal by the
private sector involves discretionary development review (e.g., site review, use review, rezoning).
Rationale: This policy addresses current practice for when preservation should be encouraged,
and when required. The city continues to develop incentives for preservation; however,
protection of significant resources should be required whenever projects involve discretionary
approval or city-owned resources.
NEW POLICY
LEADERSHIP IN PRESERVATION: CITY AND COLTNTY OWNED RESOURCES. The City and
County shall evaluate the3r publicly owned propertles to determine their historical,
architectural, archaeological, or cultural significance. Eligible resources shall be protected
through local designation. Secondary structures that are part of and convey the cultural
significance of a s3te such as a farm complex and alley structure, should be retained/ preserved as
well.
Rationale: This policy addresses cunent practice for when preservation should be encouraged, and when
required. The city continues to develop incentives for preservation; however, protection ofsignificant
resources should be required whenever projects involve discretionary approva! or city-owned resources.
POLICY 2.27
HISTOItIC AND CULTURAI. PRESERVATION PLAN. The City and the County shall develop a
Boulder Valley-wide preservation plan in order to integrate historic preservation issues into the
Comprehensive Plan, to ensure coordination between preservation goals and zoning, land use, growth
management, transportation, and housing goals, and to ensure consistency among governmental policies
that aFfect the wmmuniry's historic, archeological, and cultural resources. Preservation plans shall be
developed with citizen and landowner participat3on.
NEW POLICY
ELIGIBLE HISTORIC DISTRICTS AND LANDMARKS. The City has identified areas that may
have the potential to be designated as historic districts. Figure X on page x(see page A-IS) shows
areas with designation potential along with areas that are already deslgnated as historic districts.
There are also many individual buildings of landmark quality both with3n and outside oP these
eligible areas [not shown]. The City shall continue to identify additional individual properties and
areas of historical, architectural, archaeologlcal, and/or cultural significance, and additional historic
district and landmark designation shall be encouraged.
Rationa[e: In the past few years, the city has completed surveys for a11 buildings over Sp years of age, and
potential landmarks and districts are better understood. This map informs property owners and planners af
areas that may have historic signt,ficance at dhe national, state, ar loca!level.
POLICY 2.28
HI5TORIC PRESERVATION/CONSERVATION TOOLS. The City shall develop a variery of tools
that address preservation and conservation objectives within the community, Specific tools that address
historic preservation and conservation objectives will be matched to the unique needs of specific areas.
Conservation districts-, easements, and other tools may be applied in areas that may not qualify as local
historic dishicts , ' but contain features that contribute to the quality of
the neighborhood or communiry.
NEW POLICY
PRESERVATION OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES AND CULTURAI. LANDSCAPES . The City
shall develop a framework tor identification, designation, and protection of archaeological and
cultural landscape resources, such as open ditches, street and ^',.~allev capes, railroad rights-of-
way, and designed landscapes.
Rarionale: Most of the Citery's protected resources are 6uildings, but cultura! and archaeological
resources are important to protect as well, yet we do not have a jrameworkfor identifyrng and protecting
them. This policy would put this in motion.
POLICY 2.29
TREE CONSERVATION. Urban trees are important far supportSng wildlife habitat, conserving
water, and enhancing the overall quality of the urban envtrunmenG The City shall continue with an
aggressive native tree-planting program. Efforts shall be made to save existing hees in the development of
new areas and in the redevelopment and rehabilitation of older structures and neighborhoods. Preservation
of mature trees and the planting of new trees are also important considerations in the planning and design
of public improvements and private developmenu.
POLICY 2.30
DESIGN THAT RESPECTS EXISTING CIIARACTER. Residential, commercial, and
industrial development and redevelopment shall be encouraged to follow sound and innovative
land use planning. The goals are to provide a livable built environment and, through the judicious
use of landscaping, materials and human scale, to respect the character of the surrounding area.
POLICY 2.31
SENSITIVE INFILL AND REDEVELOPMENT. Overall, infill and redevelopment shall be
expected to provide significant benefits to the community and the neighborhoods. The City shall
develop tools such as neighborhood design guidelines to promote sensitive infill and
redevelopment. The City will work with neighborhoods to protect and enhance neighborhood
character and livability. In order to avoid or adequately mitigate negative impacts, and enhance
the beneFits, of additional infill and redevelopment, subcommunity and subarea planning and
other efforts will be geared to define the acceptable amount of infill and redevelopment and
standards for design quality.
POLICY 232
APPROPRIATE CONTEXT AND SCALE FOR REDEVELOPMENT. The City shall continue to
develop and implement strategies that preserve the human scale and the historical and architectural
chazacter of the City's otder neighborhoods and business areas. When redevelopment is proposed,
sensitivity to the existing context will be required, and preservation of historic resources will be encouraged
or required. Many of these residenrial neighborhoods and busineas areas aze adjacent to each other. Special
attention will be given to protect and enhance the quality of these intetface areas.
POLICY 2.33
QUALITY RESIDENTIAL SITE DESIGN. Incentives shall be provided to encourage all types of
housing, increase variety in site design, provide for functional open space, achieve variery in housing
choice and price, encourage alternative uansportation modes, and promote attractive and low-water
landscaping.
POLICY 2.34
PHYSICAL DESIGN FOR CITIZEN NEEDS. The City and the County shall take all reasonable steps to
ensure that new development and redevelopment, public as well as private, be designed in a manner which
is sensi[ive to social, physical and emotional needs. Broadly defined, this shall include factors such as
accessibility to those with limited mobility; provision of coordinated facilities for pedestrians, bicyclists,
and bus-riders; provision of functional landscaping and open space; and the appropriate scale and massing
of buildings related to neighborhood context.
POLICY 2.35
DESIGN EXCELLENCE TOR PUBLIC PROJECTS. Public projects bear a special responsibiliry to
exhibit design excellence. The City and the County shall work to assure that new capital projects are
positive additions to the community's architectural and urban design heritage.
POLICY 2.36
ENHANCED DESIGN FOR BUILT ENVIRONMENT. Through its policies and programs, the City
shall encourage or require private sector efforts towazd.quality architecture and urban design. Design
guidelines will be developed as a tool for new development and redevelopment. The desired context and
character of existing neighborhoods and business districts will be considered.
3. FACILITIES AND SERVICES
POLICY 3.01
PROVISION OF URBAN SERVICES IN THE BOULDER VALLEY. The City and the County intend
that new urban development not occur until adequate urban facilities and services are auailable to serve the
development. The County experience indicates thatprovision of the full ran~e of urban facilities and
services by a municipality is preferable to provision of urban facilities and services by special districts and
private groups in part because municipalities have politically accountable leadership, general police power
and the ability to coordinate provision of adequate urban facilities and services. Therefore it is hereby
presumed that adequate facilities and services can be provided only by the City of Boulder. The City shall
extend, fumish or provide such services at such time as it can provide them all as provided under Paragraph
3.02~ below and the urban service criteria and standards section of this plan. However, it is not the intent
to preclude the development and use of altemative faciIities and service systems for new urhan
development so long as they are adequate as provided under Paragraph 3.02~ and the Urban Service
Criteria & Standards section of this plan.
POLICY 3.02
DEFINITION OF ADEQUATE URBAN FACILITIES AND SERVICES.
(a) "Adequate facilities and services" for new urban residential development means the availability of
public water, public sewer, flood control and drainage, urban fire protection and emergency medical
caze, urban polica protection, urban transportation, developed urban puks, and schools based upon the
criteria set forth in subparagraph c. below.
(b) "Adequate facilities and services" for new urban industrial and commercial development means
the availability of public water, public sewer, flood control and drainage, urban fire protection and
emergency medical caze, urban police protection, and urban transportation, based upon the criteria set
forth in subparagraph c, below.
(c) The availability and adequacy of urban facitities and services as set foith in subparagraphs a. and
b. above shall be determined based upon the following criteria and as further defined in the Urban
Service Criteria and Standards section of this plan. Determinations of facilities and services adequacy
shall be based upon the following criteria:
i. Responsiveness to public objectives;
ii. Sufficiency and dependability of fmancing;
iii. Operational effectiveness;
iv. Adequacy of equipment and facilities; and
v. Proficiency of personnel.
POLICY 3.03
PHASED EXTENSION OF URBAN SERVICES/CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS
PROGRAM.
(a) The City and the County agree that extensions, fumishing, or provision of less than adequate
facilities and services for new urban development is contrary to the objectives and intent of the
Comprehensive Plan and would be injurious to the public health, safety and welfare because it would
seriously impair the efforts of the County, which has govemmental authority and jurisdiction regarding
land use control and development in the unincotporated areas of the county, to implement the
Comprehensive Plan through reasonable tand use regulations.
(b) The County requests that the City accompany any extension of facilities and services to urban
development outside the boundaries of the City with concurrent annexation to the City of the land
served. The City agrees not to extend or furnish faciliries and services to new urban development
outside the boundazies of the City ' ,
:..,1:,...a..,] :.. D,.1:.... ] 1 1
(c) The City and the County recognize that certain properties within the Boulder Valley have filed for
subdivision approval with Boulder County prior to June 13, 1977, the date on which the County
approved amendments to its subdivision regularions which requue compatibility of applicants for
subdivision approval with the Comprehensive Plan, and have previously been granted water and sewer
by the City. The development of these particular properties may be permitted to occur without full
compliance with Policies 3.01 and 3A2 provided that such development is otherwise in accordance
with the Comprehensive Plan and existing Boulder County tand use regulations at the tune of
submission of the application.
(d) The Ciry's Capital Improvements Program (CIP) is a major program for funding an adequate range of
urban services and facilities to Area II as annexation occws during the planning period. The Capital
Improvements Program, within the Hamework of a responsible budget of balanced revenues and
expenditures, schedules the necessary capital projects to ensure maintenance of an adequate range of
urban services within Area I and to provide urban facilities and services to Area II tluough annexation
on a phased and orderly basis over the planning period. The CIP is a tool to direct the location and
timing of growth by coordinating and targeting public capital expenditures.
POLICY 3.04
CHANNELING DEVELOPMENT TO AREAS WITH ADEQUATE INFRASTRUCTURE. In order
to protect and use past investments in capital improvements, new development-and redevelopment shall be
located in areas where adequate public services and facilities presently exist or aze planned to be provided
under the City's Capital Improvements Program.
POLICY 3.05 (see request #l, on pages A-2 and A-3)
GROWTH TO PAY FAIR SIIARE OF NEW FACILITY COSTS. Since the public costs of annexing
and developing several areas concurrently could prove excessive, the City shall l'unit said costs to those that
can reasonably be accommodated within the Capital Improvements Program, and are compatible with
anticipated revenues. When permitting additional development, the city shall consider whether public
Facilities are adequate
ar~innAeqttnEe to reasonab-y maintain current levels of service or service standards given the
impacts of such additlonal development, uNess wmmitted funding sources for such adequate
facilities are sufficient to ensure their provision in a timely fashion. ~r.E; growth will be
expected to pay its own way, with the requirement that new development pay the cost of providing needed
facilities and an equitable share of services and to mitigate negative impacts.
Rationale: Members of the public (Steve Pomerance and Crndy Carlisde, see page A-3)
recommended this policy change. The first portion of the change strengthens a core tenet of the
comprehensive plan--that adequate public facilities must be available concurrent with new
development. The second portion of the proposed change would be new policy direction, but
reflects the Housin~ Task Force recommendation to increase the excise taxes on non-residential
development. If Council does not move forward with changes to the excise tax or alternative
affordable housing funding, the City may not wish to adopt this policy. Staff does not support the
proposal that citizens be wmpensated for past investments in facilities. This was discussed at the
time of the adjustment to the development ezcise taxes based on the Tischler report. and the
increases to the excise tax to the leveds that would accomplish this were not supported by
Council.
POLICY 3.06
ADJACENCY OF OPEN SPACE/UTILITY IMPACTS. The City and the County shall consider the
impacts of open space management and utility installation on abutting property.
POLICY 3.07
Mi1LTI-PURPOSE USE OF PUBLIC LANDS. Multi-purpose use of public lands, facilities, and
personnel services shall be emphasized. However, in consideration of potential use of parks and open space
lands, only activities consistent with the original intent of acquisition shall be considared.
POLICY 3.08
CONSISTENCY OF UTILITY EXTENSIONS WITH COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. The installation
and extension of all utilities shaA be consistent with the provisions of the Comprehensive Plan and with the
responsibilities of the respective utility providers. I
POLICY 3.09
EFFICIENT EXTENSION OF UTILITIES. Nothing within the Comprehensive Plan shall prohibit the
City from denying khe provision of utility services to any property within the Boulder Valley for utility-
r~lated reasons.
POLICY 3.10
UTILITY PROVISION TO IMPLEMENT COMM[JNITY GOAI,S. The City shall consider the
importance of the other objectives of the Comprehensive Plan in the planning and operation of the water,
wastewater and flood controVdrainage utilities. These other objectives include in-stream flow maintenance,
enhancement of recreational opportunities, water quality management, preservation of natural ecosystems,
open space and imgated agricultural land, and implementation of desired timing and location of growth
pattems.
POLICY 3.11
OUT-OF-CITY UTILITP SERVICE. In furtherance of policies 2.01, 2.02, 2.04, 3.06, 3.1Q and 3.13,
and not withstanding policy 3.03, the Ciry and the County agree that it is appropriate for the City to:
(a) Decline support for utiliry provision in Area III and Area II when its provision would defeat
Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan goals.
(b) Extend limited utility service in Area III and Area II in circumstances that further the BVCP goals.
(c) Evaluate opportunities for cooperation with other utility service providers, in concert with the
County, to further BVCP goals.
POLICY 3.12
PARKS AND RECREATION. Pazk facilities and services of the City or other service entities shall
provide an adequate range of recreational opportunities. Such faciliries and services shall be designed in a
manner that responds to the needs of the intended users. City pazk and recreational facilities will provide a
variety of landscape rypes as amenities and recreational resources for urban dwellers, including irrigated
green spaces, lower water-need plantings, and nahual vegetation areas.
POLICY 3.13
TRAIL FiTNCTIONS AND LOCATIONS. Trails serve a variety of functions such as recreation,
uansportation, educarion and/or environmental protection. Trails should be designed and managed to
minimize conflicts among trail users. Trailheads should be located so they are convenient and safe For those
arriving by alternate modes of transportation as well as autos. In order to provide environmental protection,
informal trails and user widening of trails should be discouraged by ensuring that formal trails are well
designed, monitored, and adequately maintained. Trail and trailhead locations and alignmems should avoid
environmentally sensirive areas.
POLICY 3.14
TRAIL NETWORK. The City and the County will coordinate with other trail providers in trail system
planning, conshuction, management, and maintenance. Where compatible wi[h environmental preservation
goals, trail connections will be developed to enhance the overall functioning of the trail network.
POLICY 3.15
LIBRARIES, Library facilities and services of the Boulder Valley shall provide an adequate range of
informational, educational, and intellectual oppor[unities for all residents.
POLICY 3.16
PERFORMING AND VISUAL ARTS. The City, recognizing [he need to enhance the personal
development of citizens and to build a sense of cammunity by providing for culmral needs, shall encourage
the provision of facilities for the performing and visual ar[s and the provision of art in public buildings and
spaces.
NEW POLICY (see request #3, on page A-4)
THE ARTS. The City and County of Boulder recognize that the arts: are central to the cultural life
for youth and adults of the Boulder Community; are a clean industry that contributes significantly to
the Boulder economy; are integral to the enhancement and attraction of the Boulder community;
present significant quality oF life advantages to the Boulder community through education,
entertainment and the aesthetic environment; provide a vehicle to bring together peop[e of all walks
of life and diverse ages, genders, religions, opinions, races, classes, and economic means for better
communication and mutual understanding.
NEW POLICY (see request #3, on page A-4)
AESTHETIC ELEMENTS IN PUBLIC PROJECTS. The City and County shall incorporate
aesthetic elements in all public projects whenever possible.
NEW POLICY (see request #3, on page A-4)
CANYONBOULEVARD CULTURAL CORRIDOR. The City and Counry shall encourage all
projects within the cultural corridor along Canyon Boulevard to have an arts focus and to
incorporate public art.
Rationa[e: The qrts p/ay a key role for Boulder residen[s and visitors. These policies were recommended by
ahe Ards Commission, who feed it is important to delineate ald of the advantages that the arts brings m the
community, particularly the positive impact on Boulder's economy.
POLICY 3.17 (see request #4, on pages A-S through A-14)
M[JNICIPAL AIRPORT. The Boulder Municipal AirpoR shall continue as a small-scale general aviation
airport. The City shall seek to mitigate noise, safety and other impacts of airport operation while assuring
that new development in proxunity will be compatible with existing and planned use oFthe airport,
Ratianale: Proposed changes to this policy were submitted together with a land use map change to the
Boulder Municipa! Airport, which was removed from consideration in April. Staff has not proposed
changes to the current policy, because we believe it is appropriately strong already. Many af the issues
raised m the request shown on page A-5 were in relation to enforcement, which is the purview of the Public
Works Department, and are not relevant at the comprehensive planning level.
POLICY 3.18
PLANNING FOR SCAOOL SITES AND FACILITIES. The City and the County shall assist [he
Boulder Valley School District in obtaining usable sites for new schools in advance of needs. The City
and the County shall consider current and projected school enrollment and avaitable school capaoities
when approving the type, scale, and timing of residential development. The City shall work with the
Boulder Valley School District when practicabie, to cooperatively plan for joint facilities and shared
use of pazkland, recreation and outdoor facilities, meeting rooms and classrooms, branch libraries, and
other facilities.
POLICY 3.19
ACCESSIBILITY TO SCHOOLS. The City and the County shall work with the Boulder Valley School
District to develop safe, convenient pedeshian, bicycle, and transit access for studenYS to existing and new
schools. New school facilities will be located so those school-aee children can have I
the opporlunity to arrive safely on their own.
NEW POLICY
SUPPORT FOR COMMUNITY FACILITIES. The City and County recognize the importance of the
health caze, social service and nonprofit communiry agencies that provide vital services to residents of the
Boulder Valley and shall work collaboratively with these agencies to reasonably accommodate their facility
needs. I
4. ENVIRONMENT
POLICY 4.01
INCORPORATING ECOLOGICAL SYSTEMS INTp PLANNING. Planning and policy decisions in
the Boulder Valley shall be approached through an ecosystem framework, in which natural regions like
airsheds and watersheds are incoiporated into planning, and an appropriate relationship hetween the built
environment and air, water, and land quality is considered.
POLICY 4.02 ~
REGIONAL OUTREACH. The Ciry and the County shall take a regiona] approach to environmental
planning and resource management, support consideration of environmental impacts in local and regional
decisions, work in cooperation with tUe Boulder Creek Watershed Workerouu. and work with
governmental entities outside the Boulder Creek Watershed ~~tlley-on issues of common concem.
POLICY 4.03
ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION. The City and County shall promote public education about issues of
local and regional enduonmental concem, meet required elements of state and federal regulations,
and seek to engage all citizens in the goal of protecting the quality of the natural and build
environment. The City and County shall increase communtty awareness of programs and
practices that prevent pollution, reduce waste and increase efficiency through community
education and outreach.
Rationale: Educational elements are required by new regulations governing drinking water and storm
water.
POLICY 4.04
ASSESSMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS. The community and 'environm~ntal effects of
public and private projects shall be considered in the public decision making process. Local, state, and
federal environmental review processes shall be followed when appropriate.
POLICY 4.05
MONITORING AND TRACKING. The City and the County shall continue to improve monitoring and
evaluation of land, air, and water quality, and shall track progress made in maintaining and enhancing
environmental quality in the Boulder Valley.
POLICY 4.06
NATURAI. ECOSYSTEMS. The City and the County shall protect and restore significant ecosystems
and habitats for native plant and animal species on public and private lands through acquisition, land use
planning, development review, conservatIon easements, and public land management practices.
Promotion of biological diversity and protection of federal endangered and threatened species, and state,
county, and local species of concern and their associated habitat will be emphasized. Degraded habitat
may be restored and selected extupated species may be reintroduced as a means of enhancing native flora
and fauna in the Boulder Valley. Natural areas (as designated in the Boulder County Comprehensive Plan
and by the Colorado State Natural Areas Program) that are within the Boulder Valley, shall be
managed in a manner that is consistent with the Natural Areas Goals and Policies of the Boulder County
Comprehensive Plan.
Rationale: The City's interest in protecting wildlife species extends beyond federally endangered species as
indicated by the recent Council resolution on prairie dogs. A loca! species ofconcern list will be developed
to coincide with this policy change.
POLICY 4.07
ECOSYSTEM CONNECTIONS AND BUFFERS• The City and the County recognize the biological
importance of preserving large azeas of unfragmented habitat. The City and Counry will work together to
preserve, enhance, and restore undeveloped lands critical for providing ecosystem connections and buffers
for joining significant ecosystems,particularlv rinarian corridors. These areas are important for sustaining I
biological diversity and viable habitats for narive species and for minimizing impacts from developed
lands.
POLICY 4.08
MAINTAIN AND RESTORE ECOLOGICAL PROCESSES, Recognizing that ecological change is an
integral part of the functioning of natural systems, the City and the County shall work to ensure that, when
appropriate precautions have been taken For human safety and walfaze, natural processes will be utilized or
mimicked to sustain, protect and enhance ecosystems.
POLICY 4.09
WETLAND PROTECTION. Natural and human-made wetlands are valuable for their ecological and,
where appropriate, their recreational functions including their ability to enhance water and air quality.
Wetlands also function as important wildlife habitat, especially for raze, threatened, and endangered plants
and wildlife. The Ciry and the County will continue to develop programs to protect and enhance wetlands
in the Bouldec Valley. The City shall discourage the deshuction of wetlands, but in the raze cases when
development is permitted and the filling of wetlands cannot be avoided, [hey shall be restored or replaced.
POLICY A.10
PUBLIC ACCESS TO PUBLIC LANDS. Certain City- and County-owned or managed lands provide a
means for educating citizens on the importance of the natural environment. Public lands may include areas
for recreation, preservation of agricultural use, unique nawral features, and wildlife and plant habitat.
Public access to public lands shall be provided for except where necessary to protect such azeas from
unacceptable degradation, unacceptable unpact to habitat and wildlife, or for public safety.
POLICY 4.11
MANAGEMENT OF WILDLIFE-HUMA,N CONFLICTS. When a wildlife species is determined to be
a nuisance or a public health hazazd, a full range of altemative wildlife management techniques may be
considered by the City and the County in order to mitigate the problem in a manner that is humane,
effective, economical, and ecologically responsible.
POLICY 4.12
AGRICULTURAL LAND. The City and the Cou~Ity shall encourage the preservation and sustainable
use of agricultural lands as a current and future £xH~re tene~vtHlesource of both food and fuel and for their
contribution to cultural, environmental, and economic diversity. Agricultural lands with national, state and
local significance have been identified. The City and the County will encourage the protection of
significant agricultural azeas and related water supplies and facilities, including the historic and existing
ditch systems, through a variety of ineans, which may include public acquisition, land use planning, and
sale or lease of water for agricultural use. Tl~e Citv and Countv recoenize the aienificant value of this ditch
svsfem to the areas aualitv of life a~~d ecosvstem I~ealth and shall encouraee the public nrotection of this
resource.
POLICY 4.13
LTNIQUE GEOLOGICAL FEATURES. Due to its location at the foot of the Rocky Mountains,
the Boulder Valley has a number of significant or unique geological features, which have been
identified. The City and the County shall attempt to protect these features from alteration or
destruction through a variety of ineans, such as public acquisition, land use planning and
regulation, and density transfer within a particular site.
POLICY 4.14
N~IINEI2AL DEPOSITS. Deposits of sand, gravel, coal, and similar Fmite resource azeas shall be
delineated and managed, consistent with state and federal laws. Mineral deposits and other
nonrenewable resources shall not be used or, if necessarv, be used with the greatest practical
efficiency.
POLICY 4.15
i7RBAN ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY. To the extent possible, the City and the County wiil seek to
protect the environmental quality oFareas under significant human influence, such as agricultural and urban
lands, and wilt balance human needs and public safery with environmental protection. The City will
develop community-wide programs and standazds for new development and redevelopment so that negative
environmental impacts will be mitigated and overall enviro~unental quality of the urban environment will
not worsen and may improve.
POLICY416
IIAZARDOUS AREAS. Hazardous areas which present danger to life and property from flood, forast fire,
stcep slopes, erosion, unstable soil, subsidence, or similar geological development constraints shall be
delineated, and development in such areas carefully controlled or prohibited.
POLICY 4.17
HILLSIDE PROTECTION. Hillside and ridge-line development shall be carried out in a manner which,
to the extent possible, avoids both negative environmental consequences to the immediate and surrounding
area, as well as the degrading of views and vistas from and of public areas.
POLICY 4.18
WILDFIRE PROTECTION AND MANAGEMENT. The City and the County will require on-site and
off-site measures to guard against the danger of fue in developments adjacent to forests or grasslands.
Recognizing that fire is a widely accepted means of managing ecosystems, the City and the County will
integrate ecosystam management principles with wildfire hazard mitigation planning and urban design.
POLICY 4.19
PROTECTION OF WATER QUALITY. Water quality is a critical health, economic and aesthetic
concern. The Ciry and the County shall protect, maintain and improve water qualiry within the Boulder
Creek Watershed, as a necessary component of existing ecosystems
and as a critical resource for the human community. The City and County shall seek to establisli
comprehensive goals for water quality, to maintain full compliance with federal and state water
quality standards and to reduce point and nonpoint sources of pollutants. Special emphasis shall be
placed on regional efforts such as watershed planning and protection. Efforts wi31 shall be made to
take an integrated approach to the protection tl~e-c}xnlif}~ of groundwater, surface water, and storm water,
and to plan for future needs.
Rationale: Federal and state approaches to water qua/ity regulation increasingly point to the need for an
integrated approach that considers whole watersystems.
POLICY 4.20
WATER RESOURCE PLANNING. The Ciry and the County shall work together and with other
governmental agencies to develop and implement appropriate water quality standards, water resource
allocations, and water quality protection programs. Water resource planning efforts shsll include such
things as: water quality master planning, ' ,
surface and ground water conservation, and evaluation of pollutant sources. The City shall integrate
water quality into other planning processes such as air quality, transportation, and land use
planning. Land use patterns that reduce water pollution shall be encouraged. Local and regional
development plans shall be reviewed for their impact on water quality.
Rationa/e: Decisions in other planning areas affect water qualiry. This policy emphasizes the need for an
integrated approach to water qualiry management.
POL• ICY 4.21
DRINHING WATER. The City and County shall protect the quality oF its water sources, and shall meet
all Colorado Primary Drinking Water Standazds and source water protection requirements. It is also the
goal of the Ciry to meet Secondary Drinking Water Standards established by the United States
Environmental Protection Agency and to evaluate additional voluntary standards as appropriate. The
~ity and Counri w't}} shall work with other water and land use interests, esneciallv tl~ose within ttic
I3oulder Creek Watershed. as-neectec~to assure the integrity and quality of its drinking water supplies.
Rationa/e: Source wpter protection has been added to federal and state drinking water regulations.
NEW POLICY
STORM WATER. The City and County shall protect the quality of its surface waters, meet all state
and federal requirements for storm water quality, and evaluate additional voluntary standards as
appropriate. Tlie Citv and Countv ivil} shall work with otlier water and land use interests as needed to
assure khe inteeritv and cLualitv of all surface waters within the Roulder Creek watershed.
Rationa/e: Federal and state storm water regulations will affect both the Ciry and Counry.
POLICY 4.22
""~^"~.~n.~""T~,"r STR~AM FLOW PROGRAM. The City shall pursue expansion ofthe existing in-sheam I
~ix~ flow program and manage stream flows to protect riparian and aquatic ecosystems within the
Boulder Creek watershed.
Rationa[e: Stream Jlow affects riparian as wel! as aquatic ecosystems. Protection of these resources
e.ztends beyond protection ofminimum stream,Jlow and into the management of entire stream flow
processes such asJlooding, sedimentation, and s[ream migration.
POLICY 4.23 (see request #S, on pages A-1 S through A-17)
GROiTNDWATER. The Ciry and County shall continue to evaluate aquifers, groundwater recharge and
discharge azeas, and sources of groundwater pollution within the Boulder Creek watersheds and
formulate appropriate ryellut€ea a~~d-source protection programs. Impacts to groundwater shall be
considered in land use plarming, development review, and public land management practices.
Rationale: The public application request ouUines concerns with groundwater depletion in Narth Boulder
and a recommendation to establish a conservation zone for groundwater protection. Although staff
acknowledges the problems with development impacts to groundwater supplies and water quality, the issue
is very complicated and can not be addressed fully in the comprehensive plan update. Stafffeels that
groundwater depletion issues occur throughout the ciry and a conservation zone over North Boulder would
be di~cult ta justify without extensive groundwater studies. This proposed policy recognrzes the City's
interest in considering impacts to groundwaterfrom urban development. Staffwill continue ro e,rplore
specific regulatory so[utions to the probJem with the applicant.
POLICY 4.24
WATER POLLUTION CONTROL. The City and the County shall seek to control both point and non-
point sources of water through pollution prevention, environmental educatiov and outreach, cooneration
with watershed stakeholder erouns. conuol of sources of deleterious atmosnheiic denosition, improved land
use configwauons, use of wetland detention areas, standazds to control degradation of streams and lakes
caused by storm runoff in urban and rural azeas, and control and monitoring of direct sources of discharge,
including those of gravel extraction, septic sysfems and other wastewater treatrnent facilities.
POLICY 4.25
WASTE WATER. The City shall meet all requirements tor wastewater treatment under its National
Pollution Discharge Elimination System Permit and evaluate additional voluntary standards as
appropriate. The Ciry and County support the Counry Board of Health's policy discouraging the
installation of private sewage disposal systems where municipal collection systems are available, or where
a potential pollution or health hazard would be created. The City and the County tvill shall support the
development of programs to monitor and reduce the effects of oroblems associated with failing septic I
systems.
Rationale: Federal +~te-~a~rier~~u,rtewuter regulations affect the City.
POLICY 4.26
FLOOD MANAGEMENT. The functional and aesthetic qualities of drainage courses and
waterways shall be preserved and enhanced. A noncontainntent approach to flood management
shall be used on Boulder Creek. A generally non-structural approach to flood control that
emphasizes an ewlo ig callv functional rigariau area and a natural appearance shall be used on all
major water courses and drainageways. In some cases a structural solution may be used,
consistent with adopted master plans.
POLICY 4.27
DRAINAGE UTILITY PLANS. The Ciry shall ptepare and maintain drainage utility plans that define
maintenance needs, priorities for improvements, funding requirements, the chazacter of necessary structural
improvements, and water quality issues.
POLICY 4.28
PROTECTION OF AIGH IIAZARD AREAS. The Ciry shall prevent redevelopment of signi6cantly
flood-damaged properties in high hazazd or ecologicallv imporlant riparian areas. The City shall prepare a
plan for property acquisition of flood-damaged and undeveloped land in flood high hazard areas.
Undeveloped flood high hazazd areas will be retained in theic natural state whenever possible. Compatible
uses of riparian corridors, such as na[ural ecosystems, wildlife habitat, and wetlands shall be encoura~ed
wherever appropriate. Trails or other open recreational facilides may be feasible in certain areas.
POLTCY 4.29
PROT~CTION OF AIR QUAI.ITY. Air quality is a critical health, economic, and aesthetic concem. The
City and the County will °°°'-~~maintain full compliance with federal a'v quality standards and 1e ~
teduce stationary and mobile sowce emissions of pollutants. Special emphasis will be placed on local and
regional efforts to reduce pollutants that cause adverse health effects and impair visibiliry.
POLICY 4.30
INTEGRATION OF AIR QUALITY/TRriNSPORTATION PLANNING. The City and the County
will integrate au quality planning into the hansportation planning and traffic management processes. The
City and Countv will work to decrease total area vehicle emissions bv w+l~ promotin e transpoRation
strategies that encourage alternatives ro travel in single-occupant vehicles.
POLICY 4.31
INTEGRATION OF AIR QUALITY/LAND USE PLANNING. The City and the County will integrate
air quality planning into the landuse p(anning process. Landuse patterns that reduce travel and air emissions
will be encouraged. Local development plans will be reviewed for their anpacu on air quality, with special
emphasis on their effects on area Vehicle Miles Traveled. stabilization of soils, appropriate moniroring of I
construction and mining operations, and minimizing exposure to both mobile and stationary sources of air
pollution.
POLICY 4.32
POLLUTION PREVENTION. The City and the County will promote business and residential pollution
prevention education and technical ouueach to protect against human and natural resource exposure to
haxmful pollutants.
POLICY 4.33
RESOURCE PLANNING. The Ciry and the Counry shall seek to incorporate short- and long-term
environmental cosu into resource planning decisions, to maximize the efficiency of resource use in the
Boulder Valley and to encourage the use of renewable resources.
POLICY 4.34
WATER CONSERVATION. The City and the County shall promote the conservation of water resources
through water quality protection, public education and policies which promote appropriate water usage.
Low-water use landscaping compatihle with vegetation types native to the Boulder Valley and the use of
natural rainwater for irrigarion, consistent with state water law, shall be encouraged. The City shall
pursue a water conservation program designed to minimize water waste and reduce water use during peak
demand periods. Recycling techniques, water pricing, improved plumbing methods and fixtures, and
efficient site design will also be encouraged.
Rationale: The use ofgraywater for irrigation purposes is strictly regulated by the state. Recycling of
rainwater is often inconsistent with state water law.
POLICY 4.35
ENERGY CONSERVATION. The objective of City energy programs is to limit growth in the use of all
non-renewable energy resources, accommodating new growth by an overall per capita decrease in energy
use. The Ciry and Countv shall set goals for the use of non-renewable energy that aze consistent with an
orderly transition to a sustainable energy economy in order to preserve fossil fuels for future generations.
POLICY 4.36
ENCOURAGEMENT OF ENERGY ALTERNATIVES. The Ciry shall implement golicies and
programs that enhance opportunities for individuals, businesses, and public organizations to conserve
energy and convert to renewable resources. The City shall support conservation in buildings and processes
by developing improved standazds and providing information about techniques for energy efficiency. The
City shall support private decisions to use renewable energy, shall publicly develop local renewable energy
resources where economical, and shall preserve future options for renewable energy so that they may be
developed when they become cost effective..
POLICY 4.37
CITY LEADERSHIP IN RESOURCE CONSERVATION . The City
government shall ~ilk serve as an example by continuing to improve resource wnservation practices
~,~:o:.~ in all city
€ensil3le, The City shall integrate environmental impact considerations in decision making for all City
services, processes and facilities. The City organization shall comply fully with environmental Iaws
and regulat3ans, and implement programs and procedures to strengthen compliance. Strict
compliance with environmental standards shall be a key factor in employee training, performance
review, and program evaluation. Emphasis shall be placed on periodic monitoring of internal
environmenta- practices to cantinually improve the City's effectiveness. The City shall provide
appropriate environmental training and educate employees to be environmentally responsib-e.
Rationale: One of the Ciry Counci! goals this year is for the city to become a nationwide environmental
leader among communities, and for the City departments to be a role inode! of exemplary environmental
practices. This policy summarizes dra,Jt environmental management system principles that are being
developed by the taskforce.
POLICY 4.38
ENERGY-EFFICIENT LANDUSE. The City and the County shall encourage the conservation of energy
through Iand use policies and regulations governing placement, orientation, and clustaring of development,
and through housing policies and regulations. The conservation of energy is served by the development of
more intense land use patterns, Ute provision of recreation, employment and essential services in proximity
to housing, the development of mass hansit corridors, efficient transportation, and resource conservation
measures in all demolition and construction projects.
POLICY 4.39
ENERGY-EFPICIENT BUILDING DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION. The City shall continue its
ef£orts to upgrade the energy efficiency of [he City's existing buildings, many of which were built in an era
of abundant and inexpensive energy. The City shall continue and improve programs assuring energy
efficiency in new construction. City energy conservation programs shall be sensitive to [he unique
problems of low-income homeowners and renters and shall assure that programs assisting these groups are
continued.
POLICY 4.40
WASTE MINIMIZATION AND RECYCLING. The City and the County will actively pursue and
support programs and activities that reduce the amount of waste which must be landfilled. Policies will
emphasize source reduction, reuse, composting, recycling, and the use oFinaterials with recycled content. It
is a goal of the City to reduce solid waste produced in the Boulder Valley in 19941evels by 42% by the
year 2000 and by 50% by 2005. Only as a last resort should a waste be buried or bumed.
NEW POLICY
WA5TE MINIMIZATION AND RECYCLING OF CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS. The City
shall encourage renovation of existing buildings over demolition and shall develop new policies and
programs to promote the reuse of construction denielisl~ecl-materials~n~Hwel~pfne~r6-u~x{
POLICY 4.41
PROMOTING THE USE OF RECYCLED MATERIALS. To encourage recycling and waste reduction
opportunities, the City and the County shall promote markets for recycled commodities; encourage the use
of products and services which are durable, repairable, reusable, recyclable, or otherwise represent a low-
waste solution; promote composting; and serve as an example by purchasing recycled products for
government use where feasible.
POLICY 4.42
REDUCTION OF USE AND SAFE DISPOSAL OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. The City and the
County shall work together to reduce use and ensure safe disposal of hazardous materials in City and
County operations, residences and businessea Informarion shatl be provided fe~to businesses and
households about non-toxic alternatives, pollution prevention, and responsible use and disposal of
hazardous materials. Use of a~euseheld-hazazdous waste collection facility shall be made available to all
area busii~esses and residents.
POLICY 4.43
INTEGRATED PEST MANAGEMENT. The City and the Counry shall encourage efforts, both public
and private, to reduce the use of chemical herbicides, pesticides, and fungicides. In its own practices, the
City commits to use of integrated pest management, which emphasizes the selection of the most
environmentally-sound approach to pest management, with the overall goal of reducing, and where possible
eliminating the dependence on chemical pest conhol strategies.
POLICY 4.44
NOISE ABATEMENT. Noise abatement shall be a continuing environmental concem which shall be
implemented through improved land use relationships, as well as by ordinance, with particular attention
being given to the impact of transportation and industrial facilities and proper acoustical design.
POLICY 4.45
OUTDOOR LIGHTING/LIGHT POLLUTION. The CiTy and the County shall encourage ihe efficient
use of outdoor lighting to reduce light pollution and conserve energy while providing for public safety.
Measures such as using more energy-efficient lights, ensuring that the level and timing of outdoor lighting
are appropriate to the application, minimizing glaze, and using shielding techniques to direct light
downward shall be required.
5. ECONOMY
POLICY 5.01
DIVERSIFIED EMPLOYMENT BASE. The City and [he County shall support nin+ntennneean~
ex~nsie~e€ a reasennbly diversified employment base within the Boulder Valley, reflecting manpower
and labor force capabilities and recognizing amenities for emphasizing scientifiq technological, and related
industries.
NEW POLICY
SUPPORT FOR LOCAL BUSINESS. The City and County recognize the significant contribution oF
existing businesses in the local economy. The City shall support the retention and expansion of
existing local businesses.
POLICY 5.02 (see request # 3 on page A-3)
BALANCE OF EMI'LOYMENT AND HOUSING. The City and the Counry cecognize that there is an
imbalance between population and employment in the Boulder Valley, with jobs significantly exceeding
the workforce residing in the Valley. Projections of future growth in the Boulder Valley indicate an
increasing imbalance between population and employmenk In order to reduce the magnitude of this
i~balance in the future, the City intends to further reduce potential non-residential development while
maintaining the City's economic ' base, ''
. It is the City's intent to accomplish this through a combination of changes to
the Comprehensive Plan land use map, possible land acquisi[ions, and the creation of regulatory
incentives to develop housing in non-residBntial zoning districts; possible revisions to the City's non-
rasidential zoning categories, and rezoning appropriate areas.
Rafionale: The comprehensive rezoning in 1997 implemenfed the portions of this palicy that are proposed
for removal. That effort focused on regulatory changes. The focus now is on further reducing potentia! non-
residential development through incentives that would produce more hausing instead ofmore jobs. Staff
has not included a proposa/ outlined in the public application section (see page A-3) which would stipulate
that new non-residential development cauld only occur if the development provided adequate affordable
housing to accommodate the workers requrred by the new development. This is not consistent with the
direction that we have received from Planning Board and Ciry Council to focus on incentives at this time,
since our previous efforts focused on regulatory changes.
POLICY 5.03
EMPLOYMENT OPPORTiJNITIES. The City and the County shall encourage local employers, to the
maximum extent feasible, to provide employment opportunities for the local unemployed and
underemployed work force, and to implement affirmative action programs in cooperation with various
agencies providing employxnent assistance programs.
Rationale: It is now more appropriate far business or rndustry [o loca[e in a varrety of locations, i~rcluding
in mired use centers, notjust in industrialparks.
POLICY 5.05
INDUSTRIAL ZONING. Industlial zoning under the Comprehensive Plan shall provide the opportunity
for the location of industries of various types and usas, including those uses considered essential to the
Boulder Valley population from a service standpoint. The zoning ordinance will be updated periodically
to assure it is adequately accommodating the existing and future needs of a rapidly changing and
technolagicatly oriented industrial and serv3ces employment base. Where appropriate, mLxed-use
development wlll be encouraged, incorporating residential uses and support services for the
employment base.
Rqtionale: When the industrial zoning districts were revised during the comprehensive rezoning in 1997,
the zoning code was updated to re,Jlect what we heard from businesses about how changes in technology
had effected the way they do business and utilize land. At that time, the City agreed to review the zoning
code on a regular basis to keep pace with advancing technology. Additionally, this policy change reflects
the desire to encourage residential uses rn traditionally non-residentia! locations, such as industrial zones.
POLICY 5.06
UPGRADE EXISTING COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL AREAS. The City will
cooperate with the private sector to upgrade existing industrial and commercial areas. This
cooperation may include but is not limited to shared provision of needed infrastructure
improvements when part of an officially adopted plan.
NEW POLICY
EDUCATIONAL PARTNERSHIPS. One ot the greatest challenges facing the Boulder economy is
• the need for a qualified work force. The need for ongoing training of workers and life long
learning for all citizens is present within the Boulder Valley. The City and County shall
encourage and support dedicated efforts of the public school system as well as the variety of post-
secondary educational instltutions to offer quality continuing education and vocat3onal training.
RaNanale: This policy is self-erplanatory and reJlects an issue that has been raised by the business
community.
NEW POLICY
S~JS~rH~r4 VITAL AND PRODUCTIVE RETAIL BASE.
,
. ,
~
, With
Boulder's retail role in the region changing, the City and County recognize the need for the City to be
proactive in supporting en~-uflg~xAi~-g its retail base.
a) The City wlll update its land use regulateons to encourage and facildtate private
reinvestment and moderniZation of its retail centers. PaMicu[ar emphasis wi[[ be focused on
creating opportunities for mixed-use centers, incorporating retail, entertainment, office and
residential uses served by transit, within a coordinated land use plan.
b) The City will coordinate its capital improvement program in a manner whereby public
infrastructure investments may be completed in conjunction with approved City adopted plans as
incentives to encourage such private investments to occur.
c) The City will support {~ieFit+ze-t'ee~ coordinated public/private initiatives at the city-wide
activity centers, including Downtown Boulder and the Boulder V alley Regional Center. It wi11 also
consider, depending upon speciflic circumstances and opportunities/needs, initiatives designed to
facilitate redevelopment and mued use located at established community retail centers where
appropriate.
d) The City will monitor and evaluate, through market studies and other analysis, the retail
mix in the City to assist in the identification of gaps or opportunities. In doing so, the City shall
promote a healthy mtx of retail establishments that provide a well-rounded shopping experience in
the City.
Rationale: Developing and maintaining Boulder's economic base was one of Counci!'s goals this year. This
poJicy reftects ways to address the increased competition for sales tax in the region.
NEW POLICY
DEVELOP AN ECONOMIC SUSTAINABILITY STRATEGIC PLAN. T~^.~~r'~~
~.vuu......ua ...ar v..mmru.oJ ~jvr.o »u~ eu.....vw.~ vu~..... »b~ r va.....d .......N.......... .......... .~J ..~.
s.°a °.°':*-. °°--^°°° °°- °° °:':°°~° The City shall develop a strategic plan for economic
sustainability in 2001 following a benchmark analysis. The strategic plan will identify
barriers, opportuuities and strategies for achieving the community's vision of economic
sustainability. Based on that plan, the City will propose specific new policies for the
comprehensive plan.
Rationale: The City Council taskforce that is working on economic goals has recommended that
an economic sustainability strategic plan be developed for the City, This policy outlines the
benefits of such a plan, and addresses how the plan could be used.
6. TRANSPORTATION
(This replaces the current Chapter 6- existing policles are included.)
POLICY 6.01
ALL-MODE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM. The Boulder Valley will be served by an integrated
all-mode transportatian system. The City and the County shall work together to develop a
balanced transportation system including completed networks for each mode and safe and
convenient connections between modes.
The nehvork of public rights-of-ways and easements that create trave- corrfdors are the primary
infrastructure for all modes and will be managed and expanded to balance their use among all
modes. The pedestrian is the primary mode of travel and the basis for ail other modes of travel.
Improvements to the travel corridors network will be made in a marmer that preserves or
improves the capacity or efGciency of the ndn-automotive modes.
Rationale: The city of Boulder is a mature communiry, lazgely developed and is surrounded by
purchased open space. Consequently, the abiliry to expand the road system is very limited by physical,
envrronmental qnd fiscal constraints. Therefore, the accommodation of additiona! travel will have to
/argely occur within the existing road system. Developing complete systems for al! modes allows jor a
greater choice in transportation and the selection of mode to match trip purpose and length. Choices
that are safe and convenient will reduce the demand on the road system for vehicle travel. The
proposed policies reflect the policy dir•ection of the Transportation Master P/an (TMP) and will result
in a greaterfocus on the non-automotive mode systems unti! they are completed.
POLICY 6.02
REDUCTION OF SINGLE OCCUPANCY AUTO TRIPS. The city and the county will pursue the
quality of life goals of residents by promoting greater use of alternatives to single occupancy
automobile travel, with the objectIve of achieving no long-term growth in traffic thrau~h the
year 2020 within the Boulder Valley while providing for increased mobility.
Rationale: Through numerous surveys, Boulder residents have identified congestion and the increase in
traffic as one of their biggest concerns. Maintaining vehicle havel at 19941evels is consistent the
citizen desires for their quality of life in Bouldec This is a challenging goa] givan increased desire for
travel by Boulder residents and the increase in travel into Boulder from outside the ciry. The TMP
identifies that a 19 percent mode shift &om single occupant vehicles is needed to achieve this goal.
POLICY 6.03
SYSTEM COMPLETION. The city and the county will strive to make bicycling, walking,
and transit more convenient and safe by completing the systems for these modes and
providing seamless connections between the systems develaped in the city and the wunty.
The city will provide a combination of on-street and off-street bicycle and pedestrian
facilities to accommodate a variety of user types and to provfde users with a choice of the
type of environment in which to walk or bike.
The city and RTD will cooperate to incrementally increase the community-based high-
frequency transit system in the designated multimodal corridors.
The city, the county and RTD will cooperate to develop high quality, high frequency transit
service between the communities of the region and between centers of employment and
housing.
Ratianale: To function effectively, all transpartation systems need to be connected and
coordinated. Given increasing trrp distances and the large increase in long distance trips by
employees into the city, high frequency transit service offers the best alternative to single occupant
vehicle travel. Increase cooperation will be needed behveen the ciry and the county to develop
seamless and connected non-automotive mode systems.
POLICY 6.04
MiJI.TIMODAL STRATEGIES. The city and county will work cooperatively with
neighboring commu--ities and other entities such as the University af Colorado, the
Boulder Valley School District, and private employers to design collaborative
multimodal strategies for achieving the desired objective of limiring traffic growth
while accommodating increases in anticipated travel. The city will work
cooperatively with neighboriug communities and other entities such as the
University of Colorado, the Boulder Valley School District, and private employers to
develop and implement travel demand management programs reflecting an
integrated approach 3ncluding marketing, education, pass programs, improved
facilities and new services.
As part of the City's strategy for growth to pay its own way, uew developments wi11
be required to consider and iuclude travel demaud management approaches such as
the Eco Pass in their efforts to reduce the Vehide Miles of Travel (VMT) produced
by the development.
Rationale: Trave! demand management and increased cooperation with other entities are needed
to change individua! habiu and support the investments made in non-automotive mode systems.
The combination ofmarketing, incentives, pass programs, pricing and improvedfacilities have
proven successful rn achieving modal sh~ in Boulder residents. Travel demand management
reguires a more active management of and intervention in the transportation system and the basis
of transportation decisions. This is a change from previous practice and is threatening to some
people. Trave/ demand management programs are also more challenging to successfully
implement with non-resident employees
NLW POLICY
CI'I'Y AND COUN'1'Y LEADERSHIP IN ALTERNATIVE TRANSPORI'ATION
Citu and Countv emnlovees will be encouraeed to use altemative transportaNon and to renort nroblems
with the svstem as a nolicv and nroerzm feedback.
POLICY 6.05
ACCESSIBILITY. The city and county will develop a balanced all mode transportation
system that provides transpartation choices, services and facilities for mobility-impaired
persons, as well as youth, elderly, and low-income persans.
Rationale: A balanced transportation system is better able to accommodate a variety of trip rypes and the
mobility needs of all segments of the population. A balanced transportation system is more able to serve the
one-third of the populatdon that does not drive.
POLICY 6.06
MULTIMODAL INVESTMENT. To protect previous investments and ensure efficient use of
existing travel corridors, fhe city and the county shall prioritfze their investment first to maintenance
and safety improvements of the existing modal systems. Second priority is given to capacity additions
for the non-automotive modes and efficiency improvements for existing road facilities such as adding
signals, turn lanes, and signage that 3ncrease levels of service without adding through-lanes.
The city will focus its efficiency and capacity investment within the identified multimodal corridors
of the TMP and this plan.
The city will work cooperatively with the county and neighboring communities to create multimodal
wrridors linking the communities and linking Boulder County to the region.
Rationale: The esisting transportation system represents a high investment while increasing amounts of it
are nearing the end ofits expectedlife. Increasing the usefulness ofthe current system and adequate
maintenance are the most cost-effective use offunds. Completion of the non-automotive mode systems will
also maximize their usefulness to users and their contribution toward meeting the ciry's modal shift
objective. There will be limited construction of new roads within the Boulder Valley.
POLICY 6.07
CONGESTION. The city will increase the efficiency of the travel corridors system, develop the non-
sutomotive mode systems, promote innovative strategies and implement travel demand
management strategies to limft fhe increase in congestion while accommodating the expected
Increase in travel.
The city and the county shall ^..-°..° •~° °°°':'-. °61:°° °°°'° °P-°°:a°°'°'-.. --°--°':°° promote
the greater use of alternatives to single occupancy automobile travel with the objective oF
Iimiting the extent and duration of congestion to 20 percent ot the roadway system withtn the
Boatder Valley while providing for increased mobility.
Ratioqale: The transportation system needs to serve a varrety of community goals in addition to
functioning effectively. The LOS standard is one measure that fails to reflect the desires of this community
for the lransportation system to serve a variety of communiry goals. Given the limitations of the road
system, increased travel will result in increasrng congestion unless additiona! trave/ is accommodated
through the non-automotive mode systems. The LOS D standard is not achievable under any reasonable
scenario and was not achieved at the time this policy was origina!!y adopted. The clty will continue to have
some level on congestion 6ut the increase in congestion can be limited by the suggested strategies.
POLICY 6.08
TRANSPORTATION IMPACT. Traf~c impacts from a proposed development that cause
unacceptable communtty or environmental3mpacts are required to be mitigated by the
developer. All development wtll include strategles to reduce the vehicle miles traveled (VMT)
generated by the development.
New development will be designed and built to be multimodal and pedestrian oriented. One
aspect of being pedestrian oriented is to make the development wheelchair accessible. Strategies
to reduce the VMT generated by new development wi113nclude all modes of travel as well as
travel management programs such as the Eco Pass. The design of new development will
especially focus on redncinQ total area trips and VM1'. providing continuous modal systems
through the development, on connecting these systems to those surrounding the development and
on providing connectlons between the modes.
Rationale: This policy is consistent with the City's general policy that growth should pay its own way and
expects that all new development should be designed to limits its tra~c impacts. There wil/ be additiona!
costs for new development but reduced long-term costs for the ciry and its citizens. Strategies to reduce
VMT will also support the use af non-automotive modes.
POLICY 6.09
MiJLTIMODAL DEVELOPMENT. The transportation system will accommodate the planned land
use pattern, which includes higher densities and mixed-use in the core area and activity centers,
a variety oF densities in the fringe areas, compact community size, and the possibility of one or
more city auto-free zones in the future.
Three inter-modal centers will be developed or maintained in the downtown, the Boulder Valley
Regional Center, and on the University's main campus to anchor these three activity centers to
regional transit wnnections and to serve as hubs for connecting pedeshian, bicycle and local
transit to regional services.
The land along multimodal corridors will be designated as multimodal transportation zones
when transit service is provided on that corridor. Properties under the multimodal
transportation zone will have parking maximums and are expected to provide a higher level of
design, accommodation for non-automotive modes and travel management programs such as the
Eco Pass in exchange for parking requirement reductions and incentives for mixed use
development.
Rationa[e: Transportation and land use patterns are closely connected. The transportation system should
serve the desired land use pattern of the ciry rather than driving land use decisions. Use of the multimoda!
corridor designation will more closely link the land use design elements to the transportation investments
on the corridor. The transportation system needs to be moreJlc~ible and diverse to accommodate the
different types of land use of the communiry. A balanced transportation system composed of all modes is
best able to do this. Parking will be reduced in the multimodal corridor areas but access to non-automotive
modes improved.
POLICY 6.10
MANAGING PARKING SUPPLY. The city wlll actively manage parking supply in the community
consistent with the desire to reduce single occupant vehicle travel and Itmit congestion. Parking
needs will be accommodated in the most efficient way possible with the least number of new
parking spacea The city wlll promote parking reductions through parking maximums, shared
use, parking districts and parking management programs.
Rationale: Transportation and land use patterns are closely connected, with the over provision ofparking
both encouraging e,rcessive automobi[e use and having significant impacts on urban design and the
convenient utilization of the non-automotive modes. Parking is a significant part of the transportation
system and is generally managed in urban environments. The city's parking needs to be actively managed
to support both transportation and land use goals. A balanced transportation system needs to
accommodates all modes of travel with a balancing of the needs of each. Actively managing parking
provision wi/l result in the parking supply becoming more diverse and e~cient and with the total parking
supply being reduced in some areas but access to the non-automotive modes improved.
POLICY 6.11
NEIGHBORHOOD INTEGRATION. The Ci 's eiti99999s and Cow~ 's eex~tt90099s-transportation I
planning will recognize and contribute to neighborhood identity and integrity by protecting and
improving the quality of life within neighborhoods while at the same time facilitating the movement
of vehicular, bike, and pedestrian traffic. Improving accessibility and protecting and improving the
quality of life within neighborhoods by controlling vehicle speeds will be given priority over vehicle
mobility.
Transportation actions will not be implemented to only shift a problem or impact from one location
to another. Virtually any transportation action wtll produce bath beneRts and impacts.
Consequently, nelghborhood needs and goals will be balanced against the community benefit of a
transportation impravement.
Rationale: These policies recognize that all transportation decisions involve a variery of trnde-offs and
impacts. The transportation system is a shared resource for the community that produces a set of impacts
that must also be shared. Reducing the growth in vehicle VMT is the most effective way to reduce the
impact of transportation, however there may also be a need to control vehicle speeds for safety and qualiry
oflife reasons. Tra~c mitigation devices may be installed where education and enforcement efforts have
rrot 6een successful in controlling ve/ricle speeds. Speed reduction will need to Ge 6alanced against delays
in emergency vehicle response.
POLICY 6.12
INTEGRATED DESIGN. The city and the county shall design all transportation facilities to
contribute to a positive and attractive visual image and the desired community character.
Rationa[e: Transportation facilities should be an asset to the community and reflect the communiry's pride
and concern for its environment There may be some cost increase due to additional design features.
POLICY 6.13
IMPROVING AIR QUALITY. The city will develop a highly connected and cont3nuous
transportation system for all modes, including a grid based transportation pattern altowing for
convenient and efficient travel by all modes.
The city will look for opportunities to complete missing links of the current transportation grid
through the use of area transportation plans and at the time of parcel redevelopment.
The city and the county shall design the transportation system to minimize air pollution by
promoting the use of non-automotive transportation modes, reducing auto tratfic, maintaining
acceptable tratfic 11ow, ahd siting facilities so they do not block air drainage corridors.
The city and the county will cooperate with other entities that make transportation decisions to
achieve these ends.
Rationale: Little change from the current policy. A well-connected transportation system reduces
trip length and allows for the choice of modes. These strategies will contribute to meeting the
City's air quality goals.
POLICY 6.14
NOISE ABATEMENT. The city and the county shall design and construct new transportation
tacilities so as to minimize noise levels.
Rationale: Noise conhol can best be achieved by limiting the growth in the number of vehicles and vehicle
speed. Expenditures that are solely for quality of life issues such as noise are given a low priority in the
TMP. The ciry is unlikely to fund noise mitigation efforts on eristing faci/ities.
HOUSING
POLICY 7.01
MIXTiIRE OF HOUSING TYPES. The City and the County through their land use regulations and
iacentive programs, shall encourage the grivate sector to provide a mixture of housing types with varied
price ranges and densities, which attempt to meet the needs of all elements of the Boulder Valley
population.
POLICY 7.02
LOCAL SOLUTIONS TO' ^"'~-.,-n:^~n'~ AFFORDABLE HOUSING. The Ciry and the Counry shall
place greater emphasis than in the past on locally developed solutions to meet the housing needs of their
low and moderate income gepulafien households, includingthose who work in Boulder County.
4°..'-'°- ^°..°'-. °,°-',°-°. The City and the County further recognize that such needs may not be met
solely.through private development. To facilitate availability of housing for this segment of the population,
appropriate federal, state, and local programs and resources will be utilized.
Radona[e: This reJlects the Camprehensive Housing Strategy's 6roader income range, focusing on low
through moderate incomes.
POLICY 7.03
INTEGRATION OF I~A~K-EV~9A4I's PERMANENTLY AFFORDABLE HOUSING. Housing for
low income families as well as elderly and disabled households Permanently affordable housing, whether
publicly, privately or jointly financed, shall be designed as to be compatible, dispersed, and integrated with
housing throughout the community.
POLICY 7.04
ENCOURAGE CONSTRUCTION OF AFFORDABLE HOUSINC. There is a growing concem about
the availability of affordable housing for low and moderate income families in the Valley. Where
appropriate, incentives and regulations shall be employed to encourage consiruction of affordable housing.
The Ciry shall continually monitor its policies which affect land cost, development fees, and other
associated development costs to ensure that these costs are compatible with the overall goal of aFfordable
housing.
POLICY 7.05
PRESERVE EXISTING HOUSING STOCR The City and the County, recognizing the value of their
existing housing stock, shall encourage its preservation and rehabilitation. Special efforts shall be made to
preserve and rehabilitate existing low and moderate income units., '
Rationale: This re/lects the Comprehensive Housing Strategy's broader income range, focusing on low
through moderate incomes as well as the fact that the private and non profit sectors also provrde
affordable housing in Boulder.
POLICY 7.06
BALANCING HOUSING SUPPLY WITH EMPLOYMENT BASE. Consistent with the City's growth
management system, expansion of the Boulder Valley housing supply should reflect to the extent possible,
current employer locations, projected industriaUcommercial development sites, and the demand such
developments bring for housing employees. Key considerations include housing type, mix, and
affordability required to house the employee base of current and anticipated employers.
POLICY 7.07
PERMANENTLY AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
. The City
shall attempt to increase the proportion of permanently afFordable housing units to an overall goal of at
least 10 percent of the total existing housing stock through regulations, financial subsidies and other
incentives . City resources shall also be directed toward
maintaining existing permanently affordable housing units''''~° `"~«. ~w..n ~oo,. « .......:.....:.. ...o,o..e,
' and securing replacements t~xits~kaEttre for ~esFte
eseitganey-Hy~low and very low income units ~exsekel~s:
Rationale: This po[icy change clarifies and emphasizes the 10% goal, the rype ofresources to 6e used to
reuch the goal as well as the commitment to maintain permanently affordable housing once it is created.
Rationale: This subject is covered in another land use policy section.
Rationale• Tlie City should not be considerin~ exnansion of die nnmber of jobs or rasidences a~ainst the
wishes of the citizens.
POLICY 7.10
SPECIAL NEEDS POPULATIONS. The City and the County shall encourage development of housing
for special needs populations including facilities for the elderly, the disabled and other populations
requiring group homes or other specialized facilities where appropriate. The location of such housing
should be in proximity to shopping, medical services, entertainment, and public transportation. Every effort
shall be made to avoid concentration of these homes in one area.
Rationale: This change recognizes that special populations may reguire other types of housing besides
group homes.
POLICY 7.11
bIINIMIZING DISPLACEMENT. The City shall evaluate its policies and regulations in order seelFto
minimize the negative effects of displacement on low income persons when housing sites are redeveloped
by the private sector. A variety of mitigation requirements may be considered and available e€
Relocation assistance options in the community will continue to be offered to displaced low income
persons. ~.
Rationa[e: The purpose of this change is to be specific about what the City can do with respect to
minrmizing disp[acement of low income persons and establish a basis for considering private sector
mirigation of the effec[s of redevelopment on low income households.
NEW POLICY
KEEPING LOW AND MODERATE INCOME WORKERS IN BOULDER. The City shall explore
policies and programs to increase housing for low and moderate income Boulder workers by
fostering housing opportunities through miaced use and multifamily redevelopment, develeAeiien~ e€
^°--°^^^•,. °OP°-a..'~'°'.°°°:°,• °° °°°°°' °-,' -^a„°°,°°°'~'° °:"°°, by considering the conversion of
commercially and industrially zoned ^-.,.~~ig;.:.~'Rland to residential use, and providing preferences
within city-subsidized projects For housing Boulder workers.
Rafionale: This change would incorporate the keeping the moderate-income worker in Boulder goa[ of the
Comprehensive Housdng Strategy. It is nnt the dntent o1'this policv tn create new iobs or dive(ling tm~ts
rovithin therlanninQ urea nor to co~avert currentlv npen svace to dwelline units or commercin! nronerh~.
NEW POLICY
STRENGTHENING COMMLJNITY HOUSING PARTNERSHIPS. The City shall praviAe-Eeehnient
lieusixg-needs: create and preserve partnerships dedicated to the community's housing needs by
providing technical assistance, periodtcally reviewing and revising it regulations and, where
appropriate, approving public funding. The City shall facilitate partnerships wlth community
employers in order to encourage the creation of employee housing, support private and non
pro5t agencies [hat create and maintain permanently atfordable housing in the community and ;
foster non pro~t and private partnerships ^~a ~..~~~~• ~"~ ~,~:...~°:'-, :° :~° °r•,...'°',.:°^~^..°^ "...
Rationale: The purpose of this change is to incorporate the "strengthening partnerships°~goal of the
Comprehensive Housing Strategy and not to inerease the total ponulation or numher of dwelline units
within the nlannin~! area.:
NEW POLICY
PRESERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT OF MANUFACTURED HOUSING. Recognizing the
importance of manufactured ixekile-kexie housing as an optian for low income households, the Cily
and County shall encourage the preservation of existing mobile home parks
., including increasing opportunities for resident owned parks.
. ,
>
.,.ti:~.. ~ ........ .. ..:... :.. ..... .. ..... .. ...~..._ .. ;...,. ...
Rationa[e: This policy would provide a po[icy basis for protecting and preserving a uniquely vulnerable
rype of existing low income housing
NEW POLICY
mnc ivnrrenvn n ~ t ~ w.~c rw. mu~ nriw,m,rr.w.rmv r.. ,...a.... «,. .. ,...~ .. .. ..s ~~...
CONVERSION OF RESIDENTIAL USES IN THE COMMUNITY _The City shall evaluate and
revise its land use regulatlons to reduce the opportunities for the conversion of residential uses to
non-residential uses
....:..45.... A ......:.... .... 4H.. ..............:.... ..i .. ......:.I....K..1 ...... 4.. ...... ......,.In..Hnl ..nnn
Rationa/e: The jobs: housing imbalance is worsened whenever residential units are converted to non-
residendia/ uses. Il is nol the intention ofthis pollcv to,siniu/taneoush~ innrease !he »untber ofiobs nnd tha
n~nulation widrin the plnnr:ine area.
8. SOCIAL CONCERNS AND HUMAN SERVICES
:o ~u u, u~:~ar auLCOn iau~iYaY-YUic p.i
~ B v e P- /9y '
Brad Sutton
Attornev at Law
11 S Iroquois Drtve, Baulder. CO 80303, tef (303)194-0456, jax I94-4012; 6suHo~.a caLnrg
City Council Chambers Municipal Building
Planning Departrnent
1777 Broadway
Boulder, Colorado
Fax: (303) 441-3241
SENT VIA FAX -
To Whom It May Concern: ~/~-~ ~~~$l~~ ~~~'s~~~'
Like many of my neighbors, I was terribly distressed to leam of the changes to the
Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan neaz the East Boulder Recreation Center. The
uaffic is already heavy in this area and it is one of the most environmentally sensitive
areas within the city limits. When I purchased my home here 14 yeazs ago, I enjoyed the
acea and expected that this type of development would not occur here. Please DO NOT
allow it!
~i~/t~lt :C~ i _/ /10,7`5`"l1/ ~~
C~~~- -~-'u,
Brad 5utton
nar ua ui Ub:Ubp naiman Gompanies f3031893-9712 p.l
B vC,~- ~ 9 S~
The Robert L. Naiman Company,LLC
~ ~,~~ °~~
March 8, 2001
City of Boulder Planning Department
Attn. Mury Lovrien
1739 Broadway, Third Floor
P.O. Box 991
Boulder, Colorado 80306-0791 Via Facsimile (303) 441-3241
Re: Proposcd Changes To The Boudder 1/a/dey Comyrehensfve Plan And Conceytual Desigre
Of 28th Street, Mapleton To Spruce, Boulder, CO
Gentlemen:
The undersigned objecte to your proposed changes to the Boulder Velley Comprehensive Plan insofar as
it would change the land use map designation from General Business to Mixed Use Business, and the
conceptual design of 28th Street insofar as it would interfere with our full use of the property and that of
ourtenanfi.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me at (303) 534-5929.
Sincerely,
2163 28TH STREET ASSOCIATES
i ~ f ~ ~-
Robert L. Naiman, Partner
RLN:dI
ec: Jules Ornstein, Esq.
Commercial Real Estate Acquisitions, Development & Management
910 Sixteenth Street • Suite 500 • Denver • Colorado • 80202 •(303) 5345929
$rcP- /9~
T0: Planning Board
FROM: Citizens for Housing Opportunities
DATE: March 8, 2001
Citizens for Housing Opportunities is a grassroots
organization of affordable housing advocates working
collaboratively with private, non-profit, and third-sector
housing providers to achieve the goal of 10$ permanently
affordable housing stock in the City of Boulder. We would like
to express our support for the proposed changes to the Boulder
Valley Comprehensive Plan, and encourage the planning board
to move forward with the changes to the Land Use Map. The
package of proposed changes will have a positive effect in what
still remains a daunting challenge in achievinq our goal.
In the past, we here in Boulder have focused our efforts
on the supply of affordable housing. This update continues
that strategy by encouraging density increases where appropriate,
annexing a modest amount of additional land to the city with
significant percentages of affordable housing as the condition
of annexation, and creating mixed-use housing which more
efficiently utilizes our resources.
In addition, this Comp Plan update begins to address the
very serious issue of excess demand pressure on the housing
market, which has been a major cause of housing price increases.
At present, the onlv strategy on the table to deal with that
issue is mixed-use development, and as such, it is essential
to approve this designation in order to signal our resolve
in dealing with this side of the equation. Mixed use, by
converting or adding urban forms of transit-oriented, residential
uses to commercial land needs to be part of the vision we have
today for Boulder's future.
And yet more needs to be done. Even with the changes
proposed to the Comp Plan, we will fall short of our affordable
housing goal by 2 or 3 percentage points. We will be exceeding
our VMT goals in the TMP by 14 or 15 percent. And, as those
of us who work on the affordable housing issue know, if our
resolve fails we will rapidly lose qround as opportunities are
lost.
Please move us forward with a commitment to our vision
of a future for Boulder which includes all the proposed changes
to the Comp Plan Land Use Map. It will make our work just a
little bit easier.
on behalf of Citizens for Housing Opportunities,
Thom Krueger
_ . .~~ ~v~~ Jv~W/ ~l lYU~ r1aV9 C~VV1/VVl
BO(ILDER WEST FII`IANCIAL SERVICES, I1~IC. ~VC p_~9T
Boulder paily Camera Readers' Choice Ibames@
"BSST MORTG~iGE SERVICES" www.boulderwest.com
To: Mary Lovrien, By fax 303-441-3241
Date: 3-8-01
Re: Parcel iSA, Comp P1an Revision
Dear Mary,
wk~iJ.e I understand the need ~or mose affordah7.e
housing, and the need to redress the extreme imbaJ.aaae
between jobs and housing in Houlder, and 2 undezstand the
shortage of money to incorpora~e 15A into the East Soulder
Community Park, and I understaz~d that 15A's neighbors should
not assume they can enjoy open-space-by-accident forever...
1. Twelve units per acre on this site ie a grotesque abuse
oi ~he surroundinq neighborhood.
2. The Planning Aepartment's rosy view of traffic impact
from 200+ units on 15A is an irresponsible breach of the
public trust. The only three ways out of 15A are loaded with
pedestrian and cycling ki.ds, many headed to middle school,
and more going to the BBCP and op~n space trails. Two of the
three routes, the ones headed to SSt'", dwmp inta either the
EBCP parking traffic or the 5. Houlder Road morning az~d
evening qridlock. "Mode shift strategy" is a self-deception
at best. You will have caxs, lots of cars, more than you can
imagine.
3. While not as importa~t as 1 6 2~bove, if pou build 15A
at ANY density and study tkxe forork habits of resideA,ts 'two
years after conetruction, you wi11 find more than half
working OUTSIpE Hou.lder, taking advantage of the easy
comznute to the jobs in the Turnpike corridoz.
My residence is 5441 T11ini Way, among the very least
impacted by your 15A proposal. I wri.te in frustration at the
City-wide effort to jam additional housing at absurd
densities into inappro~siate in-~ill sites. You should be
ze-zoning commercial land to residential, with density
properly qraduated to nearby residential neighboxhoods.
Best regaxde, / _
(~Z~.
Louis S. Barnes, II
cc: Dan Corson
Matt Applebaum
2120 13th St., Boulder, CO 80302 phone: (303) 443-9424 fax (303) 443-0555
BvcP- i9B
Alan and Nancy Giehl 5390 Illini Way Boulder, CO 80303
Phone (303) 494-7735 F~ (720)304-3638 email :: , . _ ! ' . ! : ~ : „
City of Boulder, Flanning Department
Fax (303) 441-3211
ATTN: Mary Lovrien
To the City of Boulder Planning Board:
We would like to register our concern at the proposal to build over 200 dwelling units in
the small parcel of land adjacent to the East Boulder Recreation Center Park. As parents
of three children we are e~ctremely concerned about the increase in daily traffic through
our neighborhood to the tune of 1200 additional daily trips. There are already problems
with people speeding along Manhattan and running through the 4-way and 3-way stops.
The intentionally vague wording in the analysis that "mode shift strategies" by ensuring
"good street connections" means to us that you will open up the entrance to Kewanee
from the property and flow additional traffic through our neighborhood. Just because
Baseline and South Boulder Road could handle more traffic does not mean that small
family neighborhoods can! Furthermore, we are bai~led that the city would want to place
high-density housing in an area with limited access to public transportation.
The South Boulder Creek Trail and East Boulder Recreation Center are already heavily
used. On the weekends the park and fields are in constant use. We already have an
additional influx of traffic through our neighborhoods after school and on weekends for
soccer games during the spring and fall. There has also been an increase in traffic due to
open enrollment in the Burbank Core Know e ge Program.
Where will al] the arkin be for these new units? If there are 213 uniYs and each unit
represents a couple with two cars, where are t e 426 cars going to go along with
attendant service vehicles and other people comi g~'to it the development?
Furthermore how catt the cit com lain CU buildi in the flo tain on the south
side of US36 n then have no problem buildin~ hish densit sing in the floo p am
on t ie north side?
` -
In our view, an ideal use of that land would be to add more open park/field space for
Boulder's burgeoning recreational needs. We fail to see how the planning commission's
analysis can conclu that adding 213 housing units will have a positiveimn ~n
we an s, w ~ e,~e local ecosystem and will preserve and nrotect the environment.
mgly encourage ou to turn down this re for rezoning of Parcel 15A. It is
our ne~e or ood. "'
Respectfully, C~1 , . .
~
~~v~ ~ rQ~w
~ ~
C~~,~ ~~ph~
BvcP- ~99 l4~coC~e.v~,~ ~~Q
COMMENTS ON PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS
MARCH S, 2001
1. Some general policies have changed or evolved in the five years since the last major
update, but some have stayed intact.
City has become concerned about the imbalance between jobs and housing.
Along with this concern, city is making a concerted effort to increase the stock of
affordable housing. ,
Both are important issues for the iong-range quality of life in Boulder.
2. Policies that have not changed, and should not be sacrificed in order to achieve a
bettar mix of housing supply andjobs:
Protecting the integrity of existing neighborhoods: Policies 2.11 through 2.15 are
aimed at, among other things, preserving unique neighborhood character and
identity and promoting compatible character of new development.
Housing opportunities should be located in areas where amenities are available,
including transit, recreation, and shopping.
Creation of additional housing should not overload available infrastructure and
should not cause adverse impac[s on existing neighborhoods.
The proposed changes for Parcel .16 should be analyzed both in [he abstract and
with reference to the proposal that went through concept review. The proposal that
went through concept review may not ultimately come to fruition, and so the
maximum amount of impact from the'site under the proposed comprehensive plan
designation must be considered.
4. Planning staff comments do not do justice to the issues associated with changing [he
designation on this site.
Cherryvale between Baseline and Arapahoe is characterized by low-density rura]
housing.
It is unincorporated Boulder County.
The area in extremely unlikely to be redeveloped or change significantly in
character, It will remain low density, rural residential for the foreseeable future.
The neighborhood is unique with its own character, defined by the large lots, rural
pattern of development, animals kept on the premises, and lack of unified
development pattems.
Placing medium density residential on Arapahoe on Parcel 16a would allow up to
a maximum of 14 dwelling units per acre in an area that is typified more by one
acre lots.
5. The parcel on the corner of Charryvale and Arapahoe is zoned Estate Residential.
Although a development proposal is pending, under which that parcel would be used
for community uses, the existing zoning requires 15,000 square feet per dwelling - a
maximum of approximately three units per acre. The proposed MR designation on
Parcel 16a would aflow almost five times that density with no transition between
them.
6. Speci6c problems with the staff analysis of whether the new designation achieves
BVCP policies: -
A.1. Staff notes 78 dwelling units. The potential for 6.5 acres at the maximum of
14 units per acre is 91. Although this adds to the opportunity for housing
diversity and affordable housing, the cost in terms of traffic impacts, impacts on
neighborhoods, and environmental impacts do not justify the change. Many of
the BVCP objectives could also be achieved with a low density residential
designation without the impacts to the neighborhood.
A.2. Staff notes correctly that the new housing will not be convenient to
shopping, which indicates that the change increases housing but in the wrone
location. There is no shopping nearby. There are employment centers within one
mile, but the traffic would have to navigate through one of Boulder's most
overburdened intersections to get there.
A.3.a. Staff concludes that the change improves the jobs/housing balance. This
improvement is illusory. The proposal that has instigated this change is for senior
housing. The housing will not house potential or existing workers.
A.S. Staff concludes that the changes is compatible with adjacent land uses based
on the simple notion that residential next to residential is compatible. High
density attached units next to nzral homes are not compatible. There is no
transition. Were Yhis housing proposed as infil] development adjacent to a lower
density neighborhood, this conclusion may be warranted because neighborhoods
closer to the core of the city are surrounded by a more urban environment. On
Parcel 16, a high-density neighborhood would be surrounded by very rural land
uses that are not planned to be converted to more intense uses.
A.6. Staff concludes that the change reflects existing neighborhood character.
Again, this is based on nothing other than the fact that both uses are residential.
The conclusion does not respect the drastically different nature of the residential
uses.
A.7. Staff notes that the change does not promote compact community design.
This is significant, since redevelopment and infill development would make use
of existing infrastructure ancl amenities. The negative conclusion on this
category indicates that Parcel 16 is the wrong location to address the shortage of
housing.
B, I.c. There is vehicular access only in the sense that that there are existing
roads. The staff analysis of the pending development proposal during concept
plan review suggests that there is no readily available solution to the probiems at
Cherryvale and Arapahoe. Adding 78 to 91 units on this site will exacerbate that
problem. On the other hand, the lack of nearby shopping and park facilities will
promote even more traffic.
C.1 This is not a transit-orientedLpedestrian friendly area. It is a relatively
remote, rura] location in which future residents will rely almost exclusively on
single occupancy vehicles. The availability of the Jump is not likely to change
this basic pattern since the Jump would not generally be used by the senior
citizens in the current proposal, or by families under a generic proposal for their
basic household needs. The shopping and other services are too spread out and
remote for transit to be feasible. In addition, the Jump does not go to the
neighborhood schools.
C.I.e. Although there may be a net decrease in vehicle trips, the decrease is very
insignificant at only 89 trips per day. The question still remains as to whether
more housing density at an already congested intersection is appropriate.
D.1. Staff notes that there will be negative impacts on adjacent open space.
Unfortunately, staff disregards the impact to wetlands [hat it identified in the
Analysis portion of the comments. High-density housing will cause runoff from
impervious surfaces into the ditch and the marsh. Residents will inevitably use
the area for recreation, dog walking, etc. The efforts to preserve Sombrero Marsh
may be for naught with the amount of potential population next to it.
CONCLUSION: The only thing this change accomplishes is additional housing. New
housing at any cost to existing neighborhoods is not consistent with the BVCP policies.
New housing in the wrong location is not consistent with the BVCP policies. If the
parcel is actually developed with senior housing, the new housing will do nothing to
address the jobs housing imbalance. Staff has discounted or disregarded the significant
negative impacts that to the envirorunent and to neighborhood character that would result.
The location is not served by any shopping centers, medical facilities, recreational
facilities, or pedestrian opportunities. Additiona] housing opportunities should be located
in proximity to transit, shopping centers, services, and pedestrian opportunities.
~/~jai
$YGP- Z0~0
Members ofthe Planning Board:
Helio. I'm JuIia Chase. I Iive at 3803 Angelovic Court located north of Parcel 13C. I
speak tonight soley as a concerned member of the Palo Pazk community. I oppose the
proposed land use redesingation of Parcels 13a-d. My reasons include:
1) Significant amount of new traffic in an area not prepared for an additiona12,000
vehicle trips per day over the 1,000 already approved under the existing Low Density
designation;
2) Incompatibility of Mixed Density designation with its potential of 18 units per acre in
an azea with low density neighborhoods to the north and south.
3) Ne~ative environment impacts to the wildlife corridor between Sale Lake and 4 Mile
Creek.
The current low density designation in this area would allow for approximately 40
affordable housing units (20% of 195). I ask that the Board carefully weigh the
significant negative impacts of increasing the density beyond what would be considered a
healthy balance. -
It is a major tr~c concern that this area is somewhat remote from the main part of the
City and currently does not have the infrastructure to support a major increase such as
what is proposed. The change would significantly increase traffic at the intersections of
both Kalmia and Palo Pkwy at 28~h Street. 28~' Street, which is narrowed to one ]ane
between Kalmia and Palo, is already causing major traffic congestion for the community.
Adding up to 2,000 additional vehicle trips to these intersections would only add to the
negative conditions which already exist. Under the "Objectives and Criteria" portion of
the chart which addresses Transportation, item C.l .a indicates that the current
infrastructure is not transit-oriented/pedestrian friendly. In my mind, that should iranslate
to a"double negative" in the column. Also, I think a correction could be made to item
C.Lf because the proposed change certainly would "add vehicle trips to an arterial
intersection that is now congested."
The change is not compatible with neighborhoods to the north and west which have been
developed at low density. Currently, people enjoy some open area and the historic farm
owned on Parcel 13C. Through the years, I've enjoyed watching this agricultural use and
I would ask that Planning Boazd consider the possible historic nature of this f~. I
believe Items 5 and Sa on the Objectives and Criteria matrix should be changed to
negatives: the proposed change is not compatible with adjacent land uses. I aspecially
feel this way about the mixed density proposal for Parcel 13A which is in the Airport
Influence Zone-3. Although level3 allows for dwellings units, it would be much better
to keep the density lower in case of emergency landings and noise problems. In the late
1980s, my husband witnessed a plane go down in this area. Luckily, there were not
"third party injuries", but that might have been a different story had there been mixed
used density dwellings on Parce113A. We are awaze of airplanes flying very low over
our house, but the difference is our house is already built. What is the logic of increasing
density in a potentially dangerous and problematic area?
Lastly, I ask why the staffreport identifies the environmental concerns as "not applicable
in Section D of the Objectives and Criteria. The column Item D.l.c certainly deserves a
"double negative" because animal life would have a much tougher time co-habitating
with people in a Mixed or Medium density as opposed to the current low density. We
have seen deer, raccoons and fox in this azea:
In closing, the existing Comp Plan low density designation allows for up to 195 dwelling
units and this would allow for at least 40 affordable housing units. The City needs to
create more affordable housing, but not by cramming people into an area not prepazed to
handle traffic overload, problems due to the Airport Influence Zone, incompatibility with
surrounding neighborhood uses, and by negatively impacting the environment. It would
be contrary to the quality of life the current Palo Park community enjoys and the future
residents in Pazce113 a-d deserve. Thank you.
~~~~~ ~/~/i
n~RP ) nf2
8yc~''Zo~
Mary Lovrien - Comments on Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan Update - Parcel 15a
From: "Lynn E. Johnson" <Ijohnson@carbon.cudenver.edu>
To: <lovrienm@ci.boulder.co.us>
Date: 03/09/2001 9:45 AM
Subject: Comments on Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan Update - Parcel 15a
Date: March 9, 2001
To: City of Boulder Planning Board
From: Lynn E. Johnson
465 Oneida Street
Boulder, CO 80303
303-499-5056
Lynn.Johnson@cudenver.edu
Subject: Year 2000 Uptlate to Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan
Parcel No. 15a, 15b, 15c - South of East Boulder Recreation Center
I offer the following comments on the proposed changes to the Comprehensive Plan.
• The mixed use residential designation seems to be a"pack it in" sort of densification of development.
Placing the kind of densities proposed will urbanize a medium density residential neighborhood and
fundamentally change its character for the worse. Why do we need to have such dense development ?
• The mixed use residential density is not compatible with the surrounding residential development. It is
perhaps three times the density of single family residential. The definition provided says that mixed use
would permit a reduction in parking and open space requirements. It seems like the result will be like
pl~cing a slum in our neighborhood and will result in a decrease in the value of my property.
• I disagree with the economics suggested for "permanently affordable" housing. Regardless of the type
of development there seems to be an insatiable demand for housing in Boulder Valley. Even with the
low income housing proposed with the mixed use designation, market forces w111 cause escalation of
prices and only higher income earners will be able to afford the housing. I don't have any solution in
mind for this dilemma but the proposed changes to mixed use residential designation is not he answer
because it won't work and will only cause negative impacts on our neighborhood.
. Development of Parcel 15a as dense mixed use residential will have negative off-site environmental
impacts. Environmental impacts include the increase of people adjacent to open space.
o With the proposed mixed used residential density there will be no on-site environmental
amenities possible and the people will spill onto open space as their only aiternative. As noted in
the Comprehensive Plan Notebook, the mixed use designation permits a reduction in on-site
parking and open space requirements. The site development should incorporate adequate on-
site parking and open space elements.
o The Bobolink Trail and South Boulder Creek riparian vicinity is already over stressed with
negative impacts on wildlife and ecosystems.
o The Parcel 15a site is arguably a wetland and surreptitious filling has been conducted from time
to time. It seems to me that the filling has been iliegal and the property owners should not be
allowed to benefit from their illegal acts. If developed the wetland functions of the property should
be re-established on-site.
file://C:\WINDOWS\TEMP\GW } OOOlO.HTM 03/04/2001
Page 2 of 2
o I strongly disagree with the Notebook assessment that the Parcel 15a mixed density residential
designation will have positive effects on the environment !
Development of Parcel 15a as dense mixed use residential will have negative off-site impacts on local
drainage and flood threat.
o The parcel is poorly drained (i.e., it is a wetland !) as is the entire neighborhood. This is the crux
of the currently on-going flood mitigation study on South Boulder Creek. Additional high density
development will only aggravate the neighborhood flood threat situation.
o Any development should incorporate on-site reteMion of storm waters. The tactic of routing flood
waters off site and onto other properties should not be permitted. Specifically the South Boulder
Flood Mitigation Study has identified the Dry Ditch as having very limited flood flow carrying
capacity; it was designed for irrigation flows not for flood drainage. This ditch runs right behind my
house and any increases i~ flood flows from local development will i~crease the flood threat to
my home.
o I strongly disagree with the Notebook assessment that the Parcel 15a mixed density residential
designation will positive effects on flood hazards.
Development of Parcel 15a as dense mixed use residential will have negative off-site impacts on locaf
traffic and transportation.
o The Parcel 15a assessment sheet says the site development will generate about 1200 additional
daily vehicle trips. It does not say that these trips will pass on local streets in order to get to South
Bouider Road and Baseline Road. It seems likefy that my street, Oneida Street, will become a
local thoroughfare for that traffic. This increased traffic would be a strong negative impact on my
home.
o Currently 55ih Street is effectively a dead end for through traffic between Baseline Road and
South Boulder Road due to the roufing of iraffic ihrough ihe East Boufder Recreation Center
parking lot. However, some drivers persist in passing through the parking fot at relatively high
speeds in order to avoid traffic jams on Foothilis Parkway. Development of the Parcel 15a as the
dense mixed use residentiai will likely require that 55~h Street be made an open thoroughfare.
W hen the East Boulder Recreation Center was developed this topic came up and we were
assured that this would "not happen", but that was then. If that happens then the estimates of
traffic increases of 1200 trips would be grossly too low, as 55ih Street would then become a very
high traffic thoroughfare for regional commuters going north and south.
o I think the potential traffic impacts of the proposed dense mixed use residentiat would be very
large. A less dense development would not require the opening of 55th Street.
Thank you for consdering my views on the proposed change of designation for Parcel 15a.
file://C:\WINDOWS\TEMP\GW} OOOlO.HTM 03/09/2001
Page 1 of 1
Mary Lovrien -(no subject) ~ y(,~. QQ Z,,,
From: <~Ca1313@aol.com>
To: ~<Lovrienm@ci.boulder.co.us>
Date: 03/08/2001 523 PM
Subject: (no subject)
We want ro register our opposition m the plan to zone ihe area next to the
8ast Doulder Community Center, off SSth SL, as high density. I Believe that
the construction of ~he 270 housing units on the 18 acre site is simply too
much for the area, and the neighborhood. The added thousand plus daily
vehicle trips represents a significant increase to iraffic onto SSth St. (a
"nomtlxough" road). Will cars be permit[ed to wencl their way Ihrough tlie
EBCC
parking lot, or will all cars have to exit onto South Boulder Rd. via 5§th?
Or, will all north bound traffic sent on an extended Kewanee Dr. and routed
past the school on Manhattan?
Any~vay, we simply wan[ [o place or names in opposition to the proposed
high density zoning proposal on the record.
Thank you,
12ichard and Mila Kalish, 90 Manhattan Dr. Boulder 80303 (Ihis is my
fourth Iry) _
file://C:\WINDO WS\TEMP\GW } OOOlO.HTM 03/09/200]
HOMEOWNERS AND RESIDENTS IN THE KALMIA AVENUE AREA
PETITION: The City of Boulder Planning Commission. a~/GP~ZQ~
Date: March 8, 2001
The unde~signed residents and homeowners in the area directly affected by pending proposals to
rezone 42 acres along Kalmia Avenue and Palo Parkway (Land Use Designation 13a, b, c and d) wish
to express our great dissatisfaction with the changes as described and displayed in materiat recently
made available for our inspection. In particular, and after due consideration, we believe the proposed
action not to be a responsible approach to land use, traffic and transportation considerations and other
supporting services in the area indicated in these plannin~ proposals. We substantiate our position with
the followin~ information:
1. Existing traffic loads seriously overburden access to and travel upon Kalmia Avanue east of 28`~
Street, a dead end street of severely limited right-of-way, heavily used by residents, church
attendees, private school attendees, cemetery visitors, bicyclists, hikers and pedestrians, which use
already presses the limits of its safe utilization to the maximum. Three thousand additional vehicle
trips each day, along with obvious increases in other categories mentioned above, is nM a
responsible level of use for this street, which has virtuaily no options for increased capacity.
2. Traffic loads on Palo Parkway, althou~h ameliorated by its more substantial right-of-way, will
also be pressed to carry projected increases, and 28'~ Street in this area, destined to be subjected to
at least a 10% increase in traffic, will be severely overburdened by flte anticipated growth. The
staff zoning evaluations use traffic study data that does not reflect the potentiai of the 578 iuiits
which would be made possible, making obvious the need for further investigation.
3. Without supporting services within easy reach (the nearest grocery is close to a mile from the
proposed area by walking routes), the projected new residents would drive to bauks, food outlets,
medical, entertainment, personal and laundry services. Contrary to staffevaluations in your
materials, "neighborhood parks" are not existent or planned, the "extension of local street grids" is
virtually impossible and the impact of inedium and mixed density development in fliis area will
certainly negatively impact a natural ecosystem now thriving in the area.
4. The mixed density plan for over half of the area, unsupported by convenient commercial services
and inaccessible by other than two residential streets, is especially irresponsible. If previous
plamiing and development had foreseen more than low density use, it surely would have provided
access that did not include dead eud streets. We believe it is too late, without major land
reorganization, to consider increased street access, nor has the planning staff proposed this.
These are our principal concerns, and without further options and new planning information, we feel
the Plannin~ Commission has no altemative but to continue the current designation of "low density
residentiaC' for the properties included in the proposal now before you. We expect the Commissiou
will agree after consideration of all the above factors and other contravening information available.
~~q~8 ~~,,,~a~,~,~~ ~~,.Ro3c~1
~~~ ~~ ~./ll'm~ P ~ ' ~f .2 I ~l/.7h. ~/?'J ~ l
~^- ~lv~~ ~~~a ~ /3 /~0~ ~a3~ ~
a`( 3 k ~Grk~n,,,a- ~/`I `~o~ ~o~ 8o3u I
i~
~~ i~ ~/_ Ir
f/ i ( iy j~ (' '/
,~'q ~,~T ;%' ~~r~ ~ ~'-~~ ~I i ~ ~ , r' ~ ~us~l
,~ ~y G lC~,.~,. G-~-e ~~`f ~
KpME~~'~'N~K° "~.,.. -- ission.
e City of Boulder Planning Comm
pETITiON: '~ ending pTaPosals ~ Wish
March 8, 2001 affected bY P b, c and d)
Date~. ers in the area ditect~~ Use Designan~~ ~ 3a,
~e undersign and displayed in matscial ~ ronosed
ed resideirts ~d homeown eS as descnbed we believe the p P
Kalmia Avenue ~ae changT~ay ~ d otl~er i
rezone 42 acres along i due consideration, nsidetations an
reat dissatisfactton with t1~ and atte tion co ositton w~~`
to express our g e~~on. In Particular, t~~~ ~dtransPoT~ substantiate our p ~
made available for ~U ons b~e apploach to land usela~~g propasals. We
indtcated in ~g$e p 'b
action not to be a resp e area venue east of 28
supporting serv«es in ~ d travel upon Kalm~a A church
the followix~8 infoTmation: h~vily used by r~~de"ts, ~yhich use
trafRa loads seriously overburden acce{~ Way hikers and pedestnans,
1 Existing re~ of sevexely 1+m~ed rig1 ~ b~oyclists, additional vehicle
a dead end st cemetery v~sitors, ~Tee thousand is not a
gtreet, rivate school attend~s,
att.endees, p eT ~tegories mentioned above, acity.
e limits of its safe utilization to the max~mu
akeadp presses th ~ua~~y no options fox increased ~aP ~ill
trips each daY, along with obvious ync ~h ch has ~ tial rigUt-of-waY~
its ~o~ts abes~ ec[ed to
responsible level of usa for dtis s~ree > ameliorated by destined to be subj
althauP,h and 2g`~ Stre~ tici ated gr~`~'th' T~e
Palo Par oa~ed in~reases, b~~ an P $~$ units
2, TraffiC ~oads °nto carry P~ overburdened y ential of ~e
also ha pressed ~ ~vill be severely nQt reflecC ~te ~°t ation.
o crease in trafH . c~udy ~~ ~at does foT ~~er invest~S
at least a 1 ~/o in obvious the neea mile from the
~ ff~n~g evaluations use tra ~ak~g is c~ose to a
E ossibte, ~e neacesti grocery 5 food outlets,
which would be mad P ithin easY reach t ~dents would drrve to bta~ s ~~ yQUr
3
orting services w ~e pro~ected new Te CorrtrarY to staff evalua rids" ~s
Without supP walking jout~), services.
proposed area by ersona] and IaundrY lan~ed~ ~e e}d ensio ~e i° n~is area wi11
med~cat, entertall~~1ent, p arks" are not sxistent or Q
materials, "neighborhood p o f inedium and mlxed density develop
~e impact now ~n"mg in the area.
virtually impossible and a natural ecosY~em
atively impact us~supP°~d by eottvenient eonuner e~ ous~ces
cert~~tY neg irrespQnsible. If p io~~ded
lan for over ha Yf~ denti a streets. is especiallY tt surely would have p
Tlle mixed deilsity p denstty use, or land
other than two Wi~out mal
and inaccessible by ment had foceseen mor~~ b 1 eve it is too `anni~~ ~ff Prop~Sed t1~is.
planning and develop noT has the P ~ye feel
access that d'd "°~ "'clude deaa end stTe S' ation of "tow densitY
tions and new p1~'t'g !nfarmation,
reorganization,to considerincreased streetaccess,
and without furtl1eY °p rrent design ission
a] concerns> inue the ca we g~e~ ~e Commlable.
These are our p~~lF lternative but to ~om before you tion a
CQmmission has no a rfl osal nQ~` informa
the P~~nn~~ ro erties included in dia P p ~~~
residentittT' £or ~e p deTation of all the above fact~$ i~the~ ~~ enmg
... _..,.e ~Aer Cons
3g ~ ~ ~T
~ ~ ~~ c~-
S ~ -~a~ m ~rr
C~•
'~
~~ `j ~W '
~ I~ C'--r
3 gn ~~~
~tSQ+~ {~2a
4
HOMEOWNERS AND RESIDENTS IN THE KALMIA AVENUE AREA
PETITION: The City of Boulder Planning Commission.
Date: March 8, 2001
The undersigned residents and homeowners in the area diredly affected by pending proposals to rezone
42 acres along Kalmia Avenue and Palo Parkway (Land Use Designation 13a, b, c and d) wish to e~cpress
our great dissatisfaction with the changes described and displayed in material recently made available for
our inspection. After due consideration, we believe the proposed action not to be a responsible approach
to land use, traffic and transportation considerations and other supporting services in the area indicated in
these planning proposals. We substantiate our position with the following information:
l. Existing traffic loads seriously overburden access to and travel on Kalmia Avenue east of 28'" Street,
a dead end straet of severely limited right-of-way, heavily used by residents, church attendees, private
school attendees, cemetery visitors, bicyclists, hikers and pedestrians, which use already presses the
limits of its safe utilization to the maximum. Three thousand additionai vehicle trips each day, along
with obvious increases in other categories mentioned above, is not a responsible level of use for this
street, which has virtually no opUons for increased capacity.
2. Traffic loads on Palo Pazkway, although ameliorated by its more substantial right-of-way, will also be
pressed to carry projected increases, and 28'h Street in this area, destined to be subjected to at least a
10% increase in traffic, will be severely overburdened by the anticipated growth. The staff zoning
evaluations have use traffic study data that does not reflect the potential of the 578 units which would
be made possible, making obvious the need for further investigation.
3. Without supporting services within easy reach (the nearest grocery is close to a mile from the proposed
area by wallcing routes), the projected new residents would drive to banks, food outlets, medical,
entertainment, personal and laundry services. Contrary to staff evaluations in your materials,
"neighborhood parks" are not existent or planned, the "extension of local street grids" is virtually
impossible and the impact of inedium and mixed density development in this area wil] certainly
negatively impact a natural ecosystem now thriving in the area.
4. The mixed density plan for over half of the area, unsupported by convenient commercial services and
inaccessible by other than two residential streets, is especially inesponsi6le. If previous planning and
development had foreseen more than low density use, it surely would have provided access that did
»ot include dead end streets. We believe it is too late, without major land reorganization, to consider
increased street access, nor has the planning staffproposed this.
These are our principal concems, and without further options and new planning information, we feel the
Planning Commission has no alternative but to continue the current designation of "low density
residentiaC' for the properties included in the proposal now before you. We e~cpect the Commission will
agree after consideration of all the above factors and other contravening information available.
Address:
~&~0 ~awe ~
K.C
~
' .- /~t iz~
,
~ ~~.a~1
, ~~~A~ ~
~'S ~ r3 '~v w c (-t
3~~.5 dulP
~~ ~ ~ 4l~- ~.r)t./I~T
~E~S~-I ~e~'~~r~
3~3, fi~eGJSL ~' '~
3`~ l L 1~ c,_..~ c.~' ~
3 ~ !v -~e- ~
HOMEOWNERS AND RESIDENTS IN THE KALMIA AVENUE AREA
PETITTON: The City of Boulder Planning Commission.
Date: March 8, 2001
T1ie undersigned residents and homeowners in the area directly affected by pending proposals to
razone 42 acres atong Kalmia Avenue and Palo Parkway (Land Use Designadon 13a, b, c and d) wish
to express our great dissatisfaction with the changes as described and displayed in matarial recently
made availabla for our inspection. In particular, and after due consideration, we believe the proposed
action not to be a responsible approach to land use, traffic and transportation considerations and other
supporting services in the area indicated in these planning proposals. We substantiate our position with
the following ntformation:
1. Existing traffic loads seriously overburden access to and travel upon Kalmia Avenue east of 28ih
Street, a dead end street of severely limited right-of-way, heavily used by residents, church
attendees, private school attendees, cemetery visitors, bicyclists, hikers and pedestrians, which use
already presses the limifs of its safe utilization to the maximum. Three thousand additional vehicle
trips each day, along with obvious increases in other categories mentioned above, is not a
responsible level of use for this street, which has virtually no options for increased capacity.
2. Traffic loads on Palo Parkway, although ameliorated by its more substantial right-of-way, will
also be pressed to carry projecCed increases, and 28`" Street in this area, destined to be subjected to
at least a 10% increase in traffic, wiil be severely overburdened by the anticipated growth. The
staff zoning evaluations use traffic study data that does not reflect the potential of the 578 units
which would be made possible, making obvious the need for further investigation.
3. Without supporting services within easy reach {the nearest grocery is close to a mile from the
proposed area by walking routes), the projected new residents would drive to banks, food outlets,
medical, entertainment, personal and laundry services. Contrary to staff evaluations in your
materials, "neighborhood parks" are not existent or planned, the "e~ctension of local street grids" is
virtuaAy impossible and the impact of inedium and mixed density development in diis area will
eeRainly negatively impact a natural ecosystem now thriving in the area.
4. The mixed density pla~~ for over haif of the area, unsupported by convenient commercial services
and inaccessible by other than two residentia] streets, is especially irresponsible. If previous
planning and development had foreseen more than low density use, it surely would have provided
access Yhat did not include dead end sfreefs. Wa believe if is too late, wifBout major land
reorganization, to consider increased street access, nor has the planning staff proposed this.
These aze our principal concems, and without further options and new planning inforniation, we feel
fhe Planning Commission has no alternative but to continue the current designation of "low density
residentiaC' for the properties included in the proposal now before you. We expect the Commission
will agree after wnsideration of alt the above factors and other contravening information available.
~.q38 ISn~r~.ir~f1V.~ '~~2
~6 Z /L'r~.i c,r ~A '~g
l~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~
~ ~S4 K.~.a~ ~+IC ~ ~9~'.~
a 3s ctPr~;~.~, Rv~, ~ ~,tr
~Z ~1 '~' i~ ~i ' ' ~ ~~.~
~~ 9 ~-~-(r~~(,~, ,~.~ ~~ ~7
' r~•
3~y;c/ , ~~~. ~-~
HOMEOWNERS AND RESIDENTS IN THE KALMIA AVENUE AREA
PETITION: The City of Boulder Planning Commission.
Date: March 8, 2001
The undersigned residents and homeowners in the area directly affected by pending proposals to
rezone 42 acres along Kalmia Avenue and Palo Parkway (Land Use Uesrgnation 13a, b, c and d) wish
to express our great dissatisfaction with the changes as described and displayed in material recently
made available for our inspection. In particular, and after due consideration, we believe the proposed
action not to be a responsible approach to land use, traffic and transportation considerations and other
supporting services in the area indicated in these planning proposals. We su6stantiate our position with
the following information:
1. Existing traffic loads seriously overburden access to and travel upon Kalmia Avenue east of 28th
Street, a dead end street of severely limited right-of-way, heavily used by residents, church
attendees, private school attendees, cemetery visitors, bicyclists, hikers and pedestrians, which use
already presses the limits of its safe utilization to the maximum. Three thousand additionat vehicle
trips each day, along with obvious increases in other categories mentioned above, is not a
responsible level of use £or this street, which has virtually no options for increased capacity.
2. Traffic loads on Palo Parkway, although ameliorated by its more substantial right-of-way, will
also be pressed to carry projected increasas, and 28`" Street in this area, destined to be subjected to
at least a 10% increase in traffic, will be severely overburdened by the anticipated growth. The
staff zoning evaluations use traffic study data that does not reflect the potential of the 578 units
which would be made possible, making obvious the need for further investigation.
3. Without supporting services within easy reach (the nearest grocery is close to a mile from the
proposed area by walking routes), the projected new residents would clrive to banks, food outlets,
medical, entertainment, personal and laundry services. Contrary to staff evaluations in your
materials, "neighborhood parks" are not existent or planned, the "extension of local street grids" is
virtually impossible and the impact of inedium and mixed density development in this area will
certainly negatively impact a natural ecosystem now thriving in the area.
4. The mixed density plan for over half of the area, unsupported by convenient commercial services
and inaccessible by other than two residential streets, is especially irresponsible. If previous
planning and development had foreseen more dian low density use, it surely would have provided
access that did not include dead end streets. We believe it is too late, without major land
reorganization, to consider increased street access, nor has the planning staff proposed this.
These are our principal concems, and without further options aud new planning information, we feel
the Planning Commission has no altemative but to continue the current designation of "low density
residentia[" for the properties included in the proposal now before you. We expect the Commissiou
actors and other contravening information available.
a 9~ ~- ~u>i~- C'T~ ~ °~/
1
3~:~I ~A,~= ~ :.
~:Ci°-l~~;.~-~ C'-~
~ ~~Z ~~~>>~~~~.- C7"
38'03 Q,r~~~ ~
:~ ~~ ~ ~~,~,1~„~~ G~-
3~i `_~1~,~-~~-~-~- ,L'~'
.?9sy~!afm;a ve.#3~
HOMEOWNERS AND RESIDENTS IN THE KALMIA AVENUE AREA
PETITION: The City of Boulder Planning Commission.
Date: March 8, 2001
The undersigned residents and homeowners in the area directly affected by pending proposals to
rezone 42 acres along Kalmia Avenue and Palo Parkway (Land Use Designadon 13a, b, c and d) wish
to express our great dissatisfaction with the changes as described and displayed in material recently
made available for our inspection. In particular, and after due consideration, we believe the proposed
action not to be a responsible approach to land use, traffic and transportation considerations and other
supporting services in the area indicated in tl~ese planning proposals. We substantiate our position with
the following information:
1. Existing traffic loads seriously overburden access to and travel upon Kalmia Avenue east of 28'~
Street, a dead end street of severely limited right-of-way, heavily used by residents, church
attendees, private school attendees, cemetery visitors, bicyclists, hikers and pedestrians, which use
already presses the limits of its safe utilization to the maximum. Three thousand additional vehicle
trips each day, along with obvious increases in other categories mentioned above, is not a
responsible level of use for this street, which has virtually no options for increased capacity.
2. Traffic loads on Palo Parkway, although ameliorated by its more substantial right-of-way, will
also be pressed to carry projected increases, and 28'" Street in this area, destined to be subjected to
at least a 10% increase in traffic, will be severely overburdened by the anticipated growth. The
staff zoning evaluations use traffic study data that does not reflect the potential of the 578 units
which would be made possible, making obvious the need for further investigation.
3. Without supporting services within easy reach (the nearest grocery is close to a mile from the
proposed area by walking routes), the projected new residents would drrve to banks, food outlets,
medical, entertainment, personal and laundry services. Contrary to staff evaluations in your
materials, "neighborhood parks" are not existent or planned, the "e3ctension of local street grids" is
virtually impossible and the impact of inedium and mixed density development iu this area will
certainly negatively impact a natural ecosystem now thriving in the area.
4. The mixed density plan for over half of the area, unsupported by convenieut commercial services
and inaccessible by other than two residential streets, is especially irresponsible. If previous
planning and deve(opment had foreseen more than low density use, it surely would have provided
access that did not include dead end streets. We believe it is too late, without major land
reorganization, to consider increased street access, nor has the planning staff proposed this.
These are our principal concerns, and without further options and new planning information, we feel
the Planning Commission has no alternative but to continue the current designation of `Yow density
residential" for the properties included in the proposal now before you. We e~cpect the Commission
will agree after consi n of all the above factors and other contravenin~ information available.
~
~ -~,~, #s`I o79S~~ .~~~~iu~ ,~~~, ~
__ ,,~~_C. ~'C _ . ~_., , ,
~t~- !~~~?~- .~l3~ l'/ 2~1~C ~>~a> ~~:~ ~~~, l' r~ ~~.
C~ ! ~' t~' "Y2 i/~'uAi ~~INV~- .~cN,~2~~ ` C~
2 `~~~ ~~~; ~~.~~~. „ ~~G!Q
a~ 3~ ~s~, ~ ~~ .~
Z ~3&/~.,~k,:~ ,~v,. . S
Z 9~8 1Cr~~t ~`v~ ,~ ~,~ '~ r~
HOMEOWNERS AND RESIDENTS IN THE KALMIA AVENLIE AREA
TO: The City of Boulder Planning Commission.
Date: March 8, 2001
The undersigned residents and homeowners in the area directly affected by pending proposals to
rezone 42 acres along Kalmia Avenue and Palo Parkway (Land Use Desigvation 13a, b, c and d) wish
to express our great dissatisfaction with the chan~es as described and displayed in material recently
made available for our inspection. In particular, and after due consideration, we believe the proposed
action not to be a responsible approach to land use, traffic and transportation considerations and other
supporting services in the area indicated in these planning proposals. We substantiate our position with
the following information:
1. Existing traffic loads seriously overburden access to and travel upon Kalmia Avenue east of 28ie
Street, a dead end street of severely limited right-of-way, heavily used by residents, church
attendees, private school attendees, cemetery visitors, bicyclists, hikers and pedestrians, which use
atready presses the limits of its safe utilization to the maximum. Three thousand additional vehicle
trips each day, along with obvious increases in other categories mentioned above, is not a
responsible level of use for this street, whicli has virtualty no options for increased capacity.
2. Traffic loads on Palo Parkway, althougl~ ameliorated by its more substantial riglrt-of-way, will
also be pressed to carry projected increases, and 28`~ Street in this area, destined to be subjected to
at least a 10% increase in traffic, will be severely overburdened by the anticipated growth. The
staff zoning evaluations use traffic study data that does not reflect the potential of the 578 units
which would be made possible, making obvious the need for fizrther investigation.
3. Without supporting services within easy reach (the closest grocery is close to a mile from the
proposed area by walking routes), the projected new eesidents would drive to banks, food outlets,
medical, entertainment, personal and lawidry services. Contrary to staff evaluations in your
materials, "neighborhood parks" are not existent or planned, the "e3ctension of local street ~;rids" is
virtually impossible and the impact of inedium and mixed density development in this area will
certainly negatively impact a natural ecosystem now thriving iu the area.
4. The mixed deusity plan for over half of the area, unsupported by convenieut corumercial services
and inaccessible by other than two residential streets, is especially irresponsible. If previous
plannnig and development had foreseen more than low density use, it surely would have provided
access that didn't include dead end streets. We believe it is too late, without major land
reorganization, to consider increased street access, nor has the plannin~ staff proposed such.
These are our principal concems, and without further options and new planning information, we feel
the Plannin~; Commission has no altemative but to continue the current designation of "low density
residentiaP' for the properties included in the proposal now before you. We e~cpect the Commission
actors and other contravening information available.
Z 13~ ~~1~~~ A~~~-~i ~
aG6~ /~~~~ ~..,~ L~d
2 5G Z ~it~c~i,~„~'a, .4v~ -# 3~
~~~ ~ ~~~.~. ~L
°``!`3S r`~4~M i~G ~ I ~
,~~~ ~~ ~~~ ~~.
7_53 Y I<<~(~'~-.i` ,/~v~ ~J
~~38'~~~~~~~
HOMEOWNERS AND RESIDENTS IN THE KALMIA AVENUE AREA
PETITION: The City of Boulder Planning Commission.
Date: March 8, 2001
17~e undersigned residents and homeowners in the area directly affected by pending proposals to rezone
42 acres along Kalmia Avenue and Palo Parkway (Land Use Designadon 13a, b, c and d) wish to express
our great dissatisfaction with the changes described and displayed in material recently made available for
our inspection. After due consideration, we believe the proposed action not.to be a responsible approach
to land use, traffic and transportation considerations and other supporting services in the area indicated in
these planning proposals. We substantiate our position with the following information:
1. Existing traffic loads seriously overburden access to and travel on Kalmia Avenue east of 28'~ Street,
a dead end street of severely limited right-of-way, heavily used by residents, church attendees, private
school attendees, cemetery visitors, bicyclists, hikers and pedestrians, which use already presses the
limits of its safe utilization to the maximum. Three thousand additional vehicle trips each day, along
with obvious increases in other categories mentioned above, is nat a responsible level of use for this
street, which has virtually no options for increased capacity.
2. Traffic loads on Palo Pazkway, akhough ameliorated by its more substantial right-of-way, will also be
pressed to carry projected increases, and 28'" Street in this area, destined to be subjected to at least a
10% increase in traffic, will be severely overburdened by the anticipated growth. The staff zoning
evaluations have use traffic study data that does not reflect the potential of the 578 units which would
be made possible, making obvious the need for further investigation.
3. Without supporting services within easy reach (the nearest grocery is close to a mile from the proposed
area by walking routes), the projected new residents would drive to banks, food outlets, medical,
entertainment, personal and laundry services. Contrary to staff evaluations in your materials,
"neighborhood parks" are not existent or planned, the "extension of local street grids° is virtually
impossible and the impact of inedium and mixed density development in this area will certainly
negatively impact a natural ecosystem now thriving in the area.
4. The mixed density plan for over half of the area, unsupported by convenient commercial services and
inaccessible by other than two residential streets, is especially irresponsible. If previous planning and
development had foreseen more than low density use, it surely would have provided access that did
not include dead end streets. We believe it is too late, without major ]and reorganization, to consider
increased street access, nor has the planning staff proposed this.
These are our principal concems, and without further options and new planning information, we feel the
Planning Commission has no altemative but to continue the current designation of "low densiry
residentiaC' for the properties included in the proposal now before you. We expect the Commission will
agree after consideration of all the above factors and other contravening information available.
Address:
a9$~f~Yfi.~~rsa~ ~~7
02938 ~cz~m,'a ~ve. ~/~
~295y ~,'a~n;a ,~ 3S'
~T u~ ~ •, #S'3
4 ~
~
i- tf
~
i
$.
t«s
7
~
)
M1'J
~P .
~ ~,,~
Ja~ .
~"~
_"~ w~::~
~~ :.
~ `~~
~ay
;;~t
iaM;
~~h11NG CHANGES THIS WEEK COULD MEAN 3,000
ADD/TIONAL VEHICLE TRIPS PER DAY IN KALMIA AREA!
Proposed changes likely to impact property values and
~erv~ces also! Your~ ~nvolvement cr~t-cal to prevent th~s
°I'HIS IS NOT CONJECTURE!
This is 'in the works' right now.
578 units could be built in this area,
including about 175 densely built afford-
able housing units.
Traffic is our major concern with the
potential of a loop road west of the
soccer fields, residential (not ours)
community facilities off Kalmia and
parking adjacent to the soccer fields.
This plan will substantially change the
Character of our neighborhood with
over 1,000 new residents and no new
services to ameliorate traffic.
Yov need to voice your concerns!
A public hearing is scheduted.
Thursday, March 8 at 6pm
City Council Chamber
Broadway at Canyon
This is not responsible planning and
must be realistically revised. Join your
neighbors in speaking up about it!
Acres under * Note that Zoning modifications don'i
zoning consi- necessarily follow property lines; in
deration: 42 this case Airport Impact Zones prevail,
HOMEOWNERS AND RESIDENTS IN THE KALMIA AVENUE AREA
PETITION: The City of Boulder Planning Commission.
Date: March 8, 2001
The undersi~ned residents and homeowners in the area directly affected by pending proposals to
rezone 42 acres along Kalmia Avenue and Palo Parkway (Land Use Designadon 13a, b, c and d) wisli
to express our great dissatisfaction with the changes as described and displayed in material recently
made available for our inspection. In particular, and after due consideration, we believe the proposed
action not to be a responsible approach to land use, traffic and transportation considerations and otl~er
supporting services in the area indicated in these planning proposals. We substantiate our position with
the following information:
l. E~cisting traffic loads seriously overburden access to and travel upon Kalmia Avenue east of 28'h
Street, a dead end street of severely limited right-of-way, heavily used by residents, church
attendees, private school attendees, cemetery visitors, bicyclists, hikers and pedestrians, which use
already presses the limits of its safe utilization to the ma~cimum. Three thousand additional vehicle
trips each day, along with obvious increases in other categories mentioned above, is not a
responsible level of use for this street, whicl~ has viRualty no options for increased capacity.
2. Traffic loads on Palo Parkway, akttough ameliorated by its more substantial riglrt-of-way, will
also be pressed to carry projected increases, and 28`~ Street in this area, destined to be subjected to
at least a 10% increase in trafE`iq will be severely overburdened by tlie anticipated growth. The
staff zoning evaluations use traffic study data that does not reflect the potential of the 578 units
which would be made possible, making obvious the need for further investigation.
3. Without supporting services within easy reach (the nearest grocery is close to a mile from flie
proposed area by walking routes), the projected new residents would drive to banks, food outtets,
medical, entertainment, personal and laundry services. Contrary to stafF evaluations in your
materials, "neighborhood parks" are not existent or planned, the "e~ctension of local street grids" is
virtually impossible and the impact of inedium and mixed density development in d~is area will
certainly negatively impact a natural ecosystem now thriving in the area.
4. Tl~e mixed density plan for over l~alf of the area, unsupported by convenient commercial services
and inaccessible by other than two residential streets, is especially irresponsible. If previous
planning and development had foreseen more than low density use, it surely would have provided
access that did not include dead end streets. We believe it is too late, without major land
reorganization, to consider increased street access, nor has Uie planning staff proposed this.
These are our principal wncerns, and without further options and new planning information, we feel
the Planning Commission has no altemative but to continue the current designation of "low density
residentiaP' for the properties included in the proposal now before you. We expect the Commission
wil ree after considerat n of all ove factors and other contravening information available.
c
Subj: Re: Zoning Change
Date: 3/S/2001 9:12:15 AM Mountain Standard Time
From: jchris9999@earthlink.net (Jo-Ann Christian)
To: ASPENGROVEt@aol.com
Dear Shanna:
Here are my comments on the proposed zoning changes.
From what information has been presented to us so tar, I ha~,e graee concems
about the proposed zoning changes.
One pf the reasons that I mowd to BoLlder was because this city appeared to
haee made inteiligent decisions about restricting excess growth and urban
sprawi, creating a liwble community. In fhe three years since moHrtg to
Boulder, I ha~,e li~ed at Aspen Groee Condominiums. The quality of life has
already deteriorated in just three years, due to the increased air pollution
and noise le~els from traific on 28th Street and the intersecting roads. I
can't imagine adding the amount of traffic that the new housing units would
impose. PLEASE reject these proposed zoning changes, which will only
exacerbate an already unpleasant situation. -
Jo-Ann Christian
2800 Kalmia A~enue, Ap't. B-210
Boulder, CO 80301-1578
- Original Message -
From: <ASPENGROVE1@aol.com>
To: <aejeff@earthlink.net>; <abunin@creatioeconsulting.com>;
<arynharris@hotmaii.com>; <bridgettchacon@yahoo.com>;
<jchris9999@earthlink.net>; <kurt_vandenboogaard@email.msn.com>;
<Jillc99@mindspring.com>; <JACookePC@aol.com>
Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2001 2:02 PM
Subject: Zoning Change
> I spoke with Mr. Rol Sharette this morning. Mr. Sharette is the gentlemen
> who held the neighborhood meeting Monday eeening regarding this zoning
issue.
>
> Mr. Sharette has suggested that if you cannot attend the Planning Board
> meeting tomorrow night, that you take a minute to write your
> comments/cancems. If you would like to e-mail this information to me in
a
> format ready to be deli~,ered to the Planning Board, 1 will print out your
> response and take it to the meeeting.
>
> Shanna
BrcP-2oy
Headers
Retum-Path: <jchris9999@earthlink.net>
Recei~ed: from rly-xc05.mx.aol.com (rly-xc05.mail,aol.com [172.20.105.138]) by air-xc03.mail.aol.com (v77_r1.21) with
ESMTP; Thu, 08 Mar 2001 11:12:15 -0500
Receieed: from swan.prod.itd.earthlink.net (swan.prod.itd.earthlink.net [207.217.120.123]) by rly-xc05.mx.aol.com (v77_r1.21)
Thuntlay,MercnaB,3007 AmeAesOnllna:pBPENOROVE7 Paga: 1
%~~ 7, 2.00 ~
Bvc,P- 2oS
`~.e, ; %c~i-~`,c~ ~lcv~,~%v~-~, ~i'icr,r~h ~, ~v ~ ~., ~2-%'-°'.~-~.
,~'~i0~~, cla,rn,~' ~/,~, ~f~- %'~Q,,,,,r~, ~v~ - ~c,t.Qa ~/cw~
~OJ .
~ c~~~,.~ ca~~,
~,c~ .~ ~ .~~ ~, ~ ~~ ~~,~,
~ ~ ~~o~~s e~ ~~O~in-~, c.~u~~
~ 0 t~toc~~ (~ ~w.'' `~cl.Pqyu-csu - ~G~a ~Glr I~wGi.~,
~,~ a-
o~-~ ~ ~~a., ~p-a-a-e-7~ .~a~~ e4( G'r~ ,~r
C~#ccc~/w~~ ,
~
4~~~~1tlL~ ~[~4~c,v ~ ~,,,~. C,o'~t~.c.~ex.7t.~-8~t_.~ (/J~ M'l~~
0 ~'Yl~t~it..
~~ ~~~
a ~ov
~o~~, ~'
303-'~`/~ ~/°j~
~~~- ~ A az oi
~03a/
T -n„-r ~ ~ T ---~ - ~---~
Mary' Lovnen - TEXT htm
BvGP-20(o
Dear Ms. Lovrien: I am writing to express my concerns about the proposal to, add 230 swelling units to
the parcel southwest of the East Boulder Recreation Center. I am unable to attend this evening's meeting
as this evening Is the beginning of the Jewish holiday of Purim. 1. I am outraged by the lack of notice to
neighbors and the scheduling of a single meeting. I am also disappointed that the only meeting has been
scheduled on a Jewish holiday. 2. No development of any type should be considered unless and until a
mitigation plan for the potential 100 year flood plain is adopted. The South Boulder Creek Floodplain
Mitigation Study predicts that in the event of a large flood (100 year), lives will be lost, and 1400 homes,
businesses, and other structures will be damaged with an estimated cost of hundreds of millions of
dollars. In 1969 a much smaller flood inundated large sections of what is now the eastern portion of the
city. It would be unconscionable for the Ciry to allow development without adopting a reasonable plan for
mitigation. 3. I am very concerned that the streets will not accommodate the additional traffic that would
result from the proposed development. Any possible development should be less dense. The best option
of all would be to continue use of space as horse pasture or recreational use by the City. Regarding traffic,
adding a bus route on 55th North to Valmont might help a Iittle. 4. Development should not be allowed to
adversely affect protected wetlands. Thank you for presenting these comments at the meeting.
Sincerely, Beth Omstein 556 Aztec Dr. Boulder, CO 80303 303-499-2317 *"'"*'""*«+_,«.......»,«.....
Beth Ornstein
bethna mediationnow.com
Page_1_
...~...~ ...J.~ .. u~u~u~~ ~1~~•'~~V ILJl ~.10.1 11 va a.. ..
Y I ~• ~vI
Attn: Maxy Lovrien and Vanessa Bomiler;
Thank you for requasting I send my t4-oughts about the proposed developmenc un
the Pancust-Hogan property in the Keewaydin amd Greenbelt Meadows area.
1 chink we already havc a divcrse area with 3 good deal of traffic, both on 55`"
Street and Manhat[an Drive. Entering on Manhattan from Baseline, you have two solid
blocks of condos, apartments and low-cost housing. For the next biock, Santa Clara Place
has four-plexes and tri-plexes, and these aze tri-plexas also on Manhattan itsclf. Burbank
Core Schooi has one of the busiest athlatic fic(ds- they have soccer, football, baseball and
frisbee competitions for all ages on the week-ends as well as ihe scho0l use durin~ the
week and it is salid cars on both Tenino and Manhattan during these activities. At the
corner of Manhattan and South Bouldet, we have a large motel adjacont tv an oflicc
buildit~ wivch has ot~ street parking, but daes ganccatc a largc amounL of [rafftc.
The east side of ow subdivision has 55~' St whiah C~rries a heavy amount oF traf~`ic
going to the East Boulder Rec aztd 5enior Cez~ter. They also have lazee soocer $alds in
that area as well as their hand-hall courts, tennis courts and space to fly remote-controlled
airplanes.
T really believe Yhe Planning Board should reconsider the location and the number
of housing unit5 wh1Ch T am iold is 300 plus, and the added congestion and traffic
problems they would bring to the area. T hopc I havc addressed [he pt'obiem from my
viewpoint but am availa6le if you wiSh to contact me.
Thank ynu for listening.
Donna Grulke
4$0 Oneida St
Boulder, CO 80303
303-494-7019
Page 1 of 2
Mary Lovrien - Objection to proposed rezoning to High Density residential BY~P• ZQg
From: ' Ray Hedberg <hedberg@attglobal.net>
To: Andria Jacob <ajacob@esource.com>, Beth Pommer <pommerco@aol.com>, Alan
O'Hashi <ado-ecos@indra.com>, A1 Gunter <algunter@home.com>, Tina Nielsen
<tinan@qwest.net>, Maty Lovrien <LovrienM@ci.boulder.co.us>, Mark Ruzzin
<mruzzin@igc.org>, Brent Bean <beanb rr ci.boulder.co.us>, Judy Renfroe
<Judrenfroe@aol.com>
Date: 03/12/2001 4:59 PM
Subject: Objection to proposed rezoning to High Density residential
CC: Judy Renfroe <Judrenfroe@aol.com>, Connie Ekrem <csprecher@juno.com>, Porsche
Young <porsche@learningpow.com>
Reference: Planning Board meeting this week considering the rezoning of an 8-9 acre site North of
Arapahoe adjacent to South Boulder Creek .
I have been a resident of Old tale Road for almost 33 years and strongiy object to the proposed
rezoning of this property to High density residential. My reasons are:
1. The existing South Boulder Creek Flood plan is now being reviewed and any proposed rezoning
should not be allowed until the results of this review are completed, public review has been
made and completed and the revised Flood Plain map approved I am concerned that possible
construction on that site could affect or cause flooding on my home and property.
2. The plans for high density residential construction that have been discussed indicate probable
below grade parking facilities. Any construcCion which includes any excavation that close to the
waterway of South Boulder Creek will change the water table level and may affect my house water
well. Ali of the homes on Old Tale Road are on private water wells and the water table level is
critical since these wells are all shallow wells (less than 30 feet deep). Boulder City legal staff has not
considered the implications of destroying the water availability from my and my neighbors
adjudicated wells.
3. The traffic implications of such a rezoning are not known. Where is the study which shows the
impact to the residential neighbor hoods on Old Tale Road, Cherryvale, and the surrounds? A recent
study of traffic patterns in the area did NOT include the effects of a 9 acre high density development
at that site. There are serious traffic issues already in this area and clearly multiple stop lights will be
required in close proximity to the ones already at Cherryvale.
4. It makes NO SENSE to put 8-9 acres of high density apartment 1.5 miles from the nearest
park, 2.5 miles from the nearest shopping, and 2.5 miles from the nearest elementary school.
5. Attempts by the Planning Commission to provide low incoma (= high density) housing should be
addressed as a complete plan not a one parcel at a time plan. The City Council has not reviewed with
the public nor adopted any overall low income housing plan. What is the city's overall plan7 Why not
use the vacant crossroads site as the ]ow income housing area if the citizens of Boulder want such?
Do the majority of the citizens of the city of Boulder want to have low income housing within its city
limits? I suspect not! This rezoning should not be allowed to proceed without public voter support
for a city/county wide low income housing plan. Certainly this 8-9 acre parcel cannot house all the
file://C:\WINDOW S\TEMP\GW } 00O11.HTM 03/13/2001
Page 2 of 2
low income workers that the city of Boulder utilizes. Today these low income workers live in the
surrounding suburbs of Erie, Lafayette, etc. Is that not OK? Why does Boulder need low income
housing? Do the voters agree with your support of low income housing rezoning such as this
proposal? I think Boulder is a special city and not ordinary. I earned the right to live in Boulder and I
like it without high density housing for a large population of low income residents. I think the City of
Boulder does not need any significant high density housing and the undesirable neighborhood effects
which come with low income population within the city limits.
Ray Hedberg
1310 Old Tale Road
Boulder, CO 80303
file://C:\WINDOWS\TEMP\GW } 00O11.HTM 03/13/2001
Page 1 of 1
Mary Lovrien ~j//L~~ ,~~9
...~
From: "Paul W Dopp" <dopp@us.ibm.com>
To: <]ovrienm@ci.boulder.co.us>
Date: 03/12/2001 4:48 PM
CC: <mendy@arcadea.com>
To Whom it may concem,
I just found out that the city of Boulder is considering changing zoning to
allow devclopment of 500 uni[s in Ihe Palo Park area. AI[hough I dodt
have all the information yet (I'm still researching), I wanced ro express
my outrage at such an idea. This area can not support such dense housing
and would become an overcrowded eyesore. As a resident oFthe Palo Park
area 1 am very diSMrbed by Ihis. I[ seems as Boulder has reversed i[s
position on growth. I think Ihis is a serious mistake. Please contact me
ro discuss this further.
Thank you
Paul
Paul Dopp
IBM Data Management Solulions For Sun Solaris
IBM SoIlware Group
Office: 720-565-1000
Cell: 303-641-112G
e-mail: dopp@us.ibm.com
file://C:\WINDOWS\TEMP\GW}OOOlO.HTM 03/13/2001
Page 1 of 1
Mary Lovrien -15 A Comments ~ ~,~~~~. ~ ~~;
From: "Brad Udall° <budall@evlt.org>
To: <lovrienm@ci.boulder.co.us>
Date: 03/12/2001 3:22 PM
Subject: 15 A Comments
O]OO,Ol00,O100Times New RomanTo Whom If May Concem: I am writing in opposition b Ihe proposed re-zoning for parccl I SA near the East I3oulder
Recrealion Center. I have been a homeowner in Greenbelt Meadows for ftve years. 1 am a thiriy-year Boulder residen~, having gradua~ed trom Fairview
High School in t975. I also have an unusual perspective about land use decisions - for the Iast 4 years-I have been the executive director o1'the Gagle
Valley Land Trust, the only or~anization in Eagle County devo[ed [o open space. 1 am now living back in Boulder and my wife and 1 will be living in our
house shortly. If Pve Ieamed anything about growth issues in the last four years, it is Ihat the local planning commission and the elected goveming
body-be it a to~m council or county commissioners -- have to have, and stick with, a community master plan. Future Land Use Maps and
comprehensive plans are critical if communities are to maintain their quality of life. Changes ro ihese plans should not be under[aken Iightly. Iast year's
failed grow[h amendment appeared in large parl because citizens felt Ihat such plans were not being made, and those that did exisf were bei~g changecl
willy-nilly to suit developers' needs wi[hou[ adequa[ely considering [he impacts of those changes. The proposed re-zoning uf 15A, as 1 understand it,
involves a quick change to a long-standing Boulder master plan. This is wrong. Besides [his issue, my o[her issues wi[h ~he rezoning include: outl. SSth
Street as currentty configure~ is not designed to handle significant additional traffic onto South Boulder Road. A Ieft tum at this inrersection is
downrigh[ dangerous a[ cerlain times of [he day. ou~2. Planning Commission documents indicate such rezoning will have positive impacts under ~he
heading of "Preserves and Protects Emironmental Resources". In particular the documents imply thnt wildlife, tlood hazards, specics of concem, and
wetlands will all be posi[ively impacted. I fail to see how any of this is [rue. All of these i[ems will 6e negatively impacted by the rezoning. out3. The
setting is no[ suitable for a mixed density residential; this is a single family neighborhood at the edge of to~m with poor puUlic transpor[ation. out4. I am
adamantly opposed to the idea tliat we can solve our affordable housing problems by building more units. (Prom what 1 can rell, affordable housing
appears [o be a significnnt component of this project J If Boulder wan[s lo solve its affordable housing problem, a highly laudable goal, it should be
buying ezis[ing uni[s on Ihe marke[ and re-selling [hem wi[h deed restric[ions much as the Town of Vail is doing. Affordablc hoosing uni[s should be
in[egrated into [he community, not made par[ of a stand-alone enclave. Over Ihe years, Roulder has done an inereJible job protecting i~s open space by
purchasing lands on the open market an~ we should be doing the same with affordable housing. Other communities approve developments in exchange
for open space, a terrible quid pro quo. II appears, however, we are engaging in a similar, and just as bad, airangemen[ with this project. Approving a bad
project that goes against [he master plan just because it promises [o help our affordable housing problem is an aw(ul idea.'(o repeat, we should buy our
affordable housing not ex~et it Gom developers in a bad bargain. out5. ~inally, Boulder is already big enough. 1 say this despite the feelings of some,
who while beiieving that oaturc has a carrying capacity, refuse ro appty these same principais to human communities. Every additional development
degrades our quality of life. Brad Udall ( HYPERLINK "mailro:budall@indra.com" }OOOO,OOOO,FFOObudall@indra.comOl00,010Q0100 123 Mineola
Court Doulder, CO 80303 303.442.0118 ~ Brad Udall Executive Director Eagle Valley Land
Trust 970-827-4171 PO Box 295 FAX 970-827-4175 Mintum, CO 81645 h[tp://www.evltorg email: budall@evlt.org
file://C:\WINDOWS\TEMP\GW } OOOlO.HTM 03/13/2001
Page 1 of 1
Mary Lovrien - FW: Kalmia and Palo Parkway area. j~l~(~,j~ -,2~
o.~«. v~._ '
From: "Paul Heiman" <pheiman@woridnet.att.net>
To: dovrienm@ci.boulder.co.us>
Date: 03/12/2001 1:34 PM
Subject: FW: Kalmia and Palo Parkway area.
Hello, we are concernd residents that live in the Kalmia and Palo Parkway area. We received a flyer
informing us that there is a possibility of a zoning change in the area. We are aware that the city is
considering re-zoning 42 acres of mostly open land for residential dwellings.
We live on Kalmia Avenue east of 28~h street. Our knowledge of the traffic on Kalmia Avenue is great. From
working from home to riding bicycles to running and walking on Kalmia Avenue, we can assure you that the
traffic on Kalmia Avenue is pressing the limits of its safe utilization to the maximum. Residents, church
attendees, private school attendees, cemetery visitors, bicyclist, hikers and pedestrians heavily travel Kalmia
Avenue every day. On Sundays', the church attendees must have a Police Officer at the intersection of
Kalmia Avenue and 28th Street to stop traffic due to the amount of vehicles traveling to and from the church.
During the spring and summer there are vehicles parked illegally up and down both sides of Kalmia Avenue
due to the amount people at the soccer games. Any additional vehicles traveling on Kalmia Avenue would not
be a responsible safe level use of the street. Already, we have a great problem with speeding vehicles on
Kalmia Avenue.
We thank you for your time.
Paul Sean Heiman & Paige Moore Coker, CCIM
2962 Kalmia Avenue # 32
Boulder, CO 80301
303.448.9151
file://C:\WINDOWS\TEMP\GW}00O11.HTM 03/13/2001
_ 2l~~'
15A
~ent5 an ~~...,- ..~--
o`,r~en - co~ ~
~th~~~obiostaT.con'>
Ma ~' kinsC,
„ cd h~p _~-
~ -~'
, kins
„pebbit HoP ]dex.eo.us> __--~~
~YO~n: pci,bou _`-~':
<lovrienmC~ AM ~-~
TO' 0311212~~ j0:08 acce115A~~=
pate: antsonTezonmg~r ~a
p~dder for 0 Y p~ a
~~~ council• ~~a°ks~
_ nam Y
SUb~ect. _ _.. and citY . '
n anin
boatd }1~a~11v~ in 9
~! 13ntttuS v~sion, y have not ctianbed.
lsontotNeF eddnWSSUlidi ~ g .
1e are encioach~~ ~'n a
~31127P1 ~nen - Teer~beltM" thin8%tl'attrank
~ NIaeY, could You please SowaTd inY ~~m Gity Council'. nla Court, in the ~+NaVe Sg'nemanY ~e daYs wfie[e PeoP to the
case
goacd ai~d , 6 Mina ulders credit, p
C pter. The itr
atl0 ga ofct~;5it
lannin8 ~ te~idiPS gat co itats. "fo~ e
MemUeis of ihe ~oulder eT of aaulde , e~esP. ttafi~C o~, ~~tdlife hab otcN.
~ccel ISA, near d~e F~ast 6aulder R
a residcndhon~eo`vm a lot afa` °and ptestvation theit baok D
o en sP , ~ exam tes of eacb~ isturbed i~.
~ a"' t time have ssen te, is sittinY °~ nd devc1aP+ng ~ ,
a~u a~ 5 commit~nen~bY a"near,lor e;catt~P xoning a ~uitl P~~Vide au~el.l havebeCn t~»~Y a p~~~~ rea o{St
pabiTats, Ai~d wand~ Yebhle5 M N~h ~st d 5 un ~.s
tet 1~n
EXT~'M8 ~VctY w~`~ ~ devastating, a~d l
eced, suah as diea d~h~n~~65 aa
s ~y last 2 sua
to be an aL~
to exPTess mY Qnd ~~ prot~ me eodan~ a piere ~~ ~
1 amw~itinB ~he com++~unitY• so on, i.e. cedirectiaB landed on the p d
ent, and man~mals l~nd enti a5 3 years a@ and o ola4ion, Lo il~i ~
~~~ oq bieds as tecentlY S t6at {lew in the mesquito P p ~1n ~ even en}oY aw
Cnvirenm ~ ap im~~cUOUS iniGN ths kic15 in dw~
t ificiellY sed t~~ crane'~E iRCrense in oi this a~e
a HU 12esidtnts o~ to me~tion ~itec~
~.Fitst,tbee°Q1elands WithmanYs ,vhataaSSC~MBY tenr.5P~ a»hYl
tland<area, haa~eon ~d~~ses~ sieeves.N
ven
_ the a+'ea is a W few Yeats that e a g i~npaci o4 the ecwe ~ ihzre m i lw~ ant5 tNe rr~umP~ ehinB
nsec'~We~Tp an
ad
the last ~ ha4.e Uad b~ ~,enter ifl tland ( onge~°enQ~ axard fr° ~
,5~ yn t~e oPen
fi~d ove~~ ears ~he R~c. yls> heattl~ h zllent an looked like she a~ke~
mit
tinued to ~vAlk a{f
of there, aPP ~hs `"`oid oilm~h tflese anim ted a teal e59uito rep infant h
fast CroSSSlc+nB andPresen ~vithm encedtNatmY s P
ople con nrtanee to,sn
atlif~- ~ walkm~Path (d06w
~.TdA~Ct11S ~ste.lY ~~uC 9paliiy to spraY ~u{$elveg clo,e often comm s~la ^ c14 P~ .~
have been commpaeisd ¢ and Pe~e ~ in&Nlouse, a~ a th~t ~ is of otitical im
ntinY,
zr1Y , v~itUOU~ having eUent-, mu~~ity tor cre
bles 3un
n the on
it ~~as sev walk TeaUY sale m5ecttep Que com y
eT evtNnE ivil ~n the l1ab~~t ~~ tl~e 4~~
ouhle stanJard to $0. °
~,;~ndl ~5
s°~~m veo t a~ Y ~ dovm hc` aCiing
ern htS
area'thete~ WereimP eyteald
t
NOU ~e wuter tVbie is v
ceD~TmW~thatwe ldq'tth~sbolliec~~SA)"
mdiu Nouses i
er 04e'° BPa xea. So, often, for that c y reaso , ms ~,
rt~~t put
- Th~ F3ouldM~adow's. The conecrn w that a but notthe and ~~~~ S
trclt be closed oS d~e etesk e da, Sy pcoPertY aet to lhe en
UT~" atcess Would sidz ement, W l p
itaTable
f~~ a~~cia ~
p~ths, ouT rouct tht habital on one ir ~eir bas 4elopi ~
and P Ahas a sumV p ob eoted to CU de &
lal tor l1oadin and the
mris~~ trave1vin& °T
ac~ess floodin8'~ hds 1
on PieP"~~` oundin8 ~11n. Houlde[ sider real Wten b
a,ined.
tin tast
pqi0.TiP~~ ~ a
2. In~pa~c h~u~ ~n tha atta s~ n~~oodl~ ` ou ~o con mu~h tess im om~n$ u bigk vaY 6 .
everi reaan ous~nG.lu~B~Y tia> >
- neadY µ~~tlands a not Qvei~ "p~~~ tk (~n e~$ecti ana`~'~ &
fielcls.noth G~,Wa 1tUePlan ~n~~~
onsideced a IaYinB t imP&et, K~~h gtreet is alreadY e cro. ~ntione
tNe ~n
ident also ~oAd in
i3C ~ainsV ~.~isiS~Te°~ ~~ildcen.~ gythatih
eecotmn 100 ~ ultinS'~ QW5 ~vith Y~ung to ~r~ss
e~s fes ht 4ucn onta dte~ ~
se.ments t ha~~la it. AnetNe~' ie3
oiu~in on the p~'pheTY
a6T~'a otentialdan8 eriMead edest~ans~+Y~'?'~ M1i~i,~C)Rtig @
Et lll Olli C2f3 ?ria
~n gouidet
tr[tific ~nd ~fa~nilies in G«enb St ~~veC Yieldii~g to P r~~ds ~ le to n~akt • , t BuildinSmoreh
m g ~p~al tta~ffio
a alm~ MAnhattan. The oasib lo5n'~e';' ~ ~ a aha
3. lnerel5zd e~~ ~anY 55tH and ll.5 alnwst in~t' e of emtl W el e
ie a S~ ed lin~its~ an ~ b y ve me+
P~~'
ens~
~ thec 5 af the Pasted s{~ in nafHo on '~ iteewaY~ to thtir Vlao icea ~i,e, shoP
ease A
e~Y{"'~ ~o ptivtlY~
the ittC iease d~ag b~ cocne : te5+de nts cim6 ~ T{ Se(~
d1h~Y EC4h d
at~ v
exces yd ~t~out Raa or g6p~$~ ~taflic wd l onl Y ~nGT , Pe
pa GunbaRel tes
autder LS~wi111ocate work, eciallYattheelre
~,opcem' 0iat S. n 1a~eS °t ated. e live. T~'
ousin~ ~n theit P 211y loc t$ not the sotutiun, ~to ~aork wh ~ LonSmp°~ a
es
TUursdaY n~ cbat h~~~e closet w pPT centtihe ciry iiti p
ee.vi t h the sta~e oa ~~0.t~ u u ldec aldee$ S ol wi t h le oPP°h ve c mute i~ t~ com+~+m~itY
q.1 disa&T NO.~, ~n my p Tne East 8 on the outs k ih ~ mP o com ~~ beoeFi4 m t hecommunity
M lbath
;~~ Wi11 ~o do.v~~lav+~' ore hous~~'~ h~s YT°vided e~.) a. ue
s~ace, day~ t 6ou and ten6 ust dc~sn t add ~~P over this ~ssue. 0 uT ~otm~~nts
wotk, t~ ~~e ets warse eveN ~ ld saY tba My husb this P~an j s1ceF~ tonyide~ o
i5 no tteat.lt g tHern~pLei l wish ceu r Q~~ afe hirin~~ san, ~n7' becaose I s ab~~egplease ;xriai the ti~cts and raactin8 in
Proposin8• rn ~~ulder, and~z „t WFoTtunities~
~ i~asons stated
m n rrasonab tn m re cou~i~~h?s"~ette ~
si 0
~ompanie's aUle eP~P~oY~ tor tPe verY
a city P~ann~t, ~a ~. l sm taking ed dQ,~~ alctadY Ed. realistic residett~s that are loo'~t
to nnd raason ~~ed it to He. Con
zt~ot bgen veN ~esi& 3 ou
~ile l'n ye a it Nas ~4'~ e are eoncam h~bitat tbat children.lnste~d, ~n. Sh~ Y 9 or~tipn,
tY wou12~ hu8 ~L . znd ~
U Y ~'ob5 ublic
ot "mi.m.b.Y" co~nPlaint~s. W P
protec~Edw'etlands .~ 1at1
l~i ,umma .' Qca1 mo{e than on oyal. e ~ > p
r~.n
our resic~ents, 4a'~~
ar d~e anvtton~~° p~ t abuneh acts of this PTOP ~yin the
pasCouS~tthisP y~saTen exce~tentlo~atio
We a~e n0a~ible imp d iet tNis &n,14 ~n~ hazn~as 1a n ithas an
und objectiQi~s~ teal and h p.ln5fea ~ eetin~'..
ef ta tbe n p~V ~~OdinB) and to inereased N TbursdaY S m
~lisheli ~pNk AN roPertY ~ nu oudined itt' av~d over)~
pLEr~S~ DPa v~e in ~~t to ouT Ma~l fm~ the PU~°ros ertY Cand i4s alteadY P
tl+el~ugeneg Crassmaa~ueruseSa~thatp P
~onsider d~'CO°pan, {inag+n~
shoPP~n6~ and congide~ation~ 1
fot Y~w t~int Q3~13~'Z
T1~nky~
1p6~M~~e laCourt
_ tYh'AA --
Page 1 of 2
Mary Lovrien - Boulder valley Comprehensive Plan ~y'~~/-~- t-~ /;~
From: Joan Cardone <oanie_2753@yahoo.com>
To: ~ <bvcp2000@ci.boulder.co.us>, <lovrienm@ci.bouldecco.us>
Date: 03/12/2001 9:12 AM
Subject: Boulder valley Comprehensive Plan
CC: todd alexander <tda@mcstain.com>, john goodman <goodman@frii.com>, blake peterson
.com>
March 12, 2001
Re: Bouldcr Valley Comprehensive Plan, consideration
of rezoning and development of parcels 15A.
This is in regards ro the proposed change ro the land
area use map for Boulder Valley. I attended the
hearing and spokc before the planning board on March
8, 200I and came away utlerly dismayed at [he lack of
respect shown to the citizens.of Boulder. The
planning board seemed totelly disin~eres~ed in [he 3
hours or more of sta[ements being made by Ihe general
population with respect to the changes being proposed
in tlieir neighbm~hoods. 1 came away not sure whether
any banrd member was truly listening. The mnjorily of
[he ci[izens a~ere [here to implare [he board not to
change the designation of area 15 (in particular 15A)
from environmental pro[ec[ion [o high-density
development.
1 am to~ally against any development along this
particular area, as I will explain 6elow. Area I S is
a parcel of land, right now part of the county. The
owners have previousty requested annexation inm the
city of Doulder in order to allow development on Ihis
parcel. II was denied at [ha[ lime Q 995) due ~o
environment impact and no known benefit to thc
surroundin6 neighborhonds. I[ is on Ihe edge of [own,
s[iII very much in a rural selting. It sits 6e[ween
Greenbel[ Meadows su6division [o the sou[h and
Keewaydn [o [he Wes~ and the East Boulder Community
Center to [he Nor[h. II is othervnse surtaunded by
open space. This open space area is one of the last
riparian wetlands still i~ existence in the entire
COUNTRY, not city, no[ county, not sta[e, bu[ COUNTRY.
Adding 313 dwellings lu 23 acres oS land is
unimaginable and mtally reckless. 1 question the
validity of Ihe emironmen[al study Iha[ would show
one side of the street ro be wetlands and across ihe
street a differenl Aesignation. The Preebles Jumping
Mouse and the Ute Lady's Tresses Orchid (on the
endangered species list and govemment protected),
popula[e [his area. 1 cadt believe ~hat Ihe mouse
stays to only one side of the street and we in fact in
oursubdivision have Cound these mice within ournrea
even on the west side.
In addi~ion, om' area has been added to Ihe flood
plain and it is irresponsible ro sugges~ ihat CU not
build at the sou~h campus due [o [his designa[ion and
the board would recommend building on the t5A site.
V/hat could you be possibly ~hinking?
1 have lived in this wonderful city for 23years in
many different locals. 1 chose Greenbel~ Meadows for
its ruralness. Now you are telling me 1 can't
maintain this dream. And Why. Because we need
afforAable housing. Now I understand the good
intentions of our city to try and add more affordable
housing. But I'm sony. 1[hink BouWer missed its
opporlunity and it should no~ punish areas around ~he
file://C:\WINDOWS\TEMP\GW}OOOlO.HTM 03/13/2001
Page 2 of 2
city tha~ wcre designated for lav density development
ro rectify iCs mistake. Boulder cannot be all things
ro all people. Boulder is almost entirely built out
and it should not iry to loca[e high-density housing
in arcas tha[ make no sense. ISA is on the edge of
~he city. II is not on Ihoroughfares or close [o
amenities that would keep people from driving. The
impact on our neighborhood s[reets of more than 700
cars would be a nightmare, not a mention the danger
caused by added traf~c to this quiet neighborhood
community.
I implore you to reconsider your reCOmmendation to
Ihis parcel of land. Recommend it for open space
designation. Let it become part of the Sou[h Boulder
creek trail area and let our animal companions have
ihis one small parcel of Boulder ihat belonged to them
in [he first place, a place Ihey can be safe and
admired by the community that surtounds it.
Sincerely,
Joanie Cardone
84 Huron Court
BoulAer, CO 80303
303-494-6492
file://C:\WINDOWS\TEMP\GW}OOOlO.HTM 03/13/2001
__ _ ,
_. _
_. . _ _ __ .
Mary Lovnen - PBd commentsBVCP3-8-01.wpd Pa e 1
_-- --- -~`~ ___ 9 ~
~~'L'~' ~~/~/
MEMORANDUM RE
COMPREHENSNE PLAN LAND USE MAP CHANGES
TO: City of Boulder Planning Board
DATE: March 11, 2001
FROM: Juditl~ Renfroe (Cherryvale area)
I have a few general comments and questions which will then be followed by specific
comments on the proposals for parcels 16a and 16b, and 22a and 22b. Unfortunately, mucU of
the information supplied by staff regarding these pucels is either in enor or involves conclusions
not supported by fact or logic, and contrary to conclusions made based on the same facts just a
few years ago. I would also like to point out that I was unable to get a copy of any of the site
analysis last Monday when I picked up the memo. I insisted there must be more and was told
that 35 page memo was all there was.
General Comments:
First I appreciate your time reading and considering the following comments regarding
the proposed land use changes and staff's analysis. Who can be against affordable l~ousing! But
that goal should not justify sacrificing neighborhoods anywhere, including any of those in Area
II. This is what will happen in our Cherryvale area, as well as those areas near parcels 13 and 15.
The detriment far exceeds tHe gain.
I am also confused by the numbers offered regarding the increase in the population of
Boulder. Earlier in the process I raised the issue of conflicting or inconsistent numbers of
increased population. It was explained to me that the increase was about 10,000 in Area I, aud
tl~at the 25,000 increase was taking into account Area II parcels that would be annexed and
developed. So whicl~ numbers are represented on Exhibit B? If it is just the increase in the
present Area I, then iY is not realistic, because the overall impact is wl~at is relevant. If it is tl~e
total, then why is so much medium and high density being proposed for Area II parcels'?
The comparison of overall numbers and summary of impacts on Attacl~ment B(Summary
of Impacts by Factor) indicates very [ittle improvement in noise from traffic, VMT, carbon
monoxide and particulate emissions.
Regarding housing, the gain relative to the present plan for 2020 is 13%, or roughly 800
permanently affordable low and moderate income units.
The costs (other than impacts on existing neighborhoods and site specific traffic impacts)
include: increased water use, lower parkland to resident ratio, highest costs for police and fire
services, increased demand For library services, increase in demand for human services. There is
no explanation as to how revenue from an increase in the number of lower income residents will
cover additional operating expenses at current service levels. Tl~is conclusion does not seem
~
~
_ .~_--_ . _. _ ~..
:
~ Mary Lovnen - PBd commentsBVCP3 8 01.wpd
logical. And clearly the parkland to people ratio is not covered.
4 Page 2
Other s~atements such as the current policy will increase demand for daycare - more than
a greater population would increase it - are simply not logical. Likewise, it is not explained how
adding more residents, instead of morejobs, will result in fire response times being decreased,
when the daytime population differs by only about one percent (between current policy and
proposec7 changes), and the night time population would obviously be greater than under current
policies!
I feel it is important to provide housing that is permanenUy affordable to middle income
families, as well as low and moderate income families and singles, and I don't really see, or at
least understand, how these proposed changes insure that, even tl~ough the summary of impacts
suggests an additional 1200 middle income units. I assume they are classified as middle in come
units because at those densities, the selling price would be self limiting. There is nothing which
suggests they would be attractive to middle in~ome families, perhaps otl~er than newlyweds.
Comments re¢ardine Parcels 16a and 16b:
We feel that this zoning is all wrong. It is not appropriate for this area It is not
compatible with the existing residential or with Sombrero Marsl~. It will be extremely
detrimental to both. Staff reco~iized tl~ose facts 5 years ago. Staff recognized those facts a year
ago, and in 1999 the original analysis of this site said so. Their original proposal was for Low
Density Residential. For some mysterious reason, the conclusions and "facts" all changed when
it became the goal to put as much housing as possible in Boulder. Also not that the potential
numbers of units are not as staff says in its site analysis unless specific limitations are imposed
by annexation contract.
This proposal must be analyzed both in geveral and as it migl~t pertain to the Jewish
Community proposal. See below.
The traffic situation on the comer of Cherryvale and Arapahoe is already very difficult
during peak hours. The traffic from the potential number of units this zoning would generate
would require some drastic changes. Cherryvale and the intersection at Arapahoe simply cannot
handle it. In other words, the site specific vehicular traffic impacts would be drastic.
I personally believe this proposal is intended by some to set a precedent and intended to
lead to redevelopment or pressure to redevelop Cherryvale.
Tl:e Opeie Space Board of Trustees kas voted iuinitinrously to object to tlie needi~em
densiry rlesignrstio~i a~td m request the lowest possible density reside~:tial, presumrsbly Low
Deiesiry, on this site. Staff kns neglected to inform you of tliat.
Nothing has changed in terms of the facts pertaining to this parcet, or other parcels in the
neighborhood, since the last BVCP update or since the Issues Identifications hearings (before the
Community Review Group) 5 or 6 years ago. There are still insufficient urban services in this
_ , ~
I Mary Lovnen _PBd commentsBVCP3 8 01.wpd
-- - - _
Page 3
area to meet the needs of people in medium and/or high density developments. All that has
changed is the desire to put housing at the highest density wherever possible, regardless of tl~e
present availability of those services, and regardless of the impact on the adjacent neighborhoods.
The proposal by staff (or whomever) to put medium density in tl~is location makes the
policies regarding preservation and respect of existing neighborl~oods meaningless, disingenuous,
lip service when it suits their purpose to do oYherwise.
A. The following are inaccuracies or omissions in the staff inemo and the site
analysis for parcel 16a:
1. First, this parcel is NOT near Arapahoe and 55tb as the memo states (page 1-16). It is
east of Cherryvale and close to the eastern edge of the City. Tl~is boundary is not likely to
change for many years, if ever, due to the topography of the land.
2. The map indicates that parcel 16B will be changed to "Open Space - Other.° The
"Other" is not defined or even commented on. I am concerned about what it might be. I think
we need something specific before any vote is taken even on 16b.
3. The actual size of this parcel (16a and 16b) has varied slightly from one applicant to
another, but only on the staff inemo has it ever been as small as 16.5 acres. Most likely it is just
under 17 acres. The area north of the irrigation lateral which separates the Open Space/Marsh
drainage area from the developable land may be closer to 7 acres. This, in itself, is not an issue.
4. The projected number of units for 6.5 acres, at 14 units per acre, would be 91 not 78 as
stated by staff. (It would be 98 if it is 7 acres). In addition, you don't have single family,
duplexes and triplexes at this density.
4a. FurUiermore, staffhas told me tliat tJ:ey kave alrendy decirlerf that tGcy will give
tlre developer, whoever it is, credit for dee xu~nber of units cnlculated based oie the entire 17
acreparcel, but ofcourse notper~nit anythi~:g to be built ou tke open spaceportioii. (Thnt
could resu[t in 238 unrts, or up to 306 units under MXR zoning.) Tkey claim they rslways do
Hiat as n geiieral policy, particularly iu exchauge for n donation or preservation of ope~i space.
Therefore, this would have the same result as calling the whole thing medium density. (My
neighbors apparenUy tried to explain this, without success.)
4b. If you consider the potential number of residential units, this medium density could
easily generate more traffic than 376 jobs.
4c. Even with a Low Density designation, this site would yield 49 units, or 119 units if
credit is given for the unusable open space area as staff has said they will do, and at 5.6 daily
trips per unit, the vehicular impact exceeds that of 376 jobs.
5. Medium density on this land is adjacent within a few feet of a 2 acre lot (the back
corner of mine). There is iio transition between lnnd uses that vrsry in intensity.
~~ ~ ~___ . _ . ~
~ Mary Lovnen PBd comments8VCP3 8 01~.wpd~
6. Medium density residentiR[ is absolutely NOT conrpatible wit/i adjacent laud uses -
either with the large lot, very low density rural residential or with the Marsh. It does not respect
or reflect existing neighborhood character nor is it sensitive to the existing context. These
statements are contrary to fact.
7. The rural residential development to the south and southwest is all Very Low Density.
The Reserve is only 1.5 units per acre. Everything else to the south and west is even less dense.
Tl~e on[y parcel that is Low Density is the vacant parcel on the corner of Cherryvale and
Arapahoe that was recently zoned ER-E, and one area east of tl~e marsh.
8. The claim that this preserves and protects environmental resources is not explained.
The Marsh is a Federally protected wetland. No one can develop it anyway. Medium density
would certainly degrade it as there is no way to protect it from the additional human and animal
impact, noise, and pollution if inedium density were developed adjacent to it.
9. Regarding vehicular access, it might be adequate if a main entrance were constructed
on Arapahoe, but we are repeatedly told that tl~e main entrance must be througl~ the corner ER-E
property onto Cherryvale. This access also is far closer to the intersection than desirable, and the
congestion and traffic on Cherryvale is already a major problem, particularly at this intersection
and at peak traffic hours.
10. The estimate of vehicle trips generated per unit, at only 5.6, is higlily questionable.
11. The claim that the vehicular traffic impact could be readily mitigated, and tl~at such
strategies are already a part of the city's transportation plan, is news to those of us who live there,
and nothing was mentioned about that at the concept plau review for this site in Decembec If the
plan is to widen or 4-lane Cherryvale, we don't know about it, and we certainly will oppose that.
12. School accessibility is very poor, certainly not a plus. It is in the
Douglas/Platt/Fairview attendance areas. Douglas Elementary is on tl~e corner of Baseline and
75'h. The school and its many after scliool activities are accessible only by car. Platt is a mile and
walking on Cherryvale is risky. Fairview involves at least one bus transfer.
13. Bus service is neither of adequate frequency or adequately convenient. There is now
service to east county, but how does this support housing here? It only helps people living here
get to work in east county. That is not our goal. On the other hand, getting anywhere in Boulder
other than somewhere on Arapahoe, involves at least one bus transfer. Transfers invoive waiting
and extra time which most people will not take if a car is available. And the addition of kids,
groceries, diaper bags for the baby sitter, briefcases, etc., make it all the more difficult.
B. Staff admits the following negatives:
1. It is not close to convenience shopping or within 1 mile of a grocery store.
Page 4
-2. It does not promote a compact community.
_ __ _ r.~
LMary Lovrien - PBd commentsBVCP3 8 01.wpd _ ~
Page 5
-3. There is no neighborhood park accessibility.
-4. It does not encourage use of altemative transit. It is not a transit oriented or
pedestrian friendly area (especially for kids - my comment). There is not ricl~ complement of
land uses.
-5.. There would be impacts to the neighborhood to flie west and to the wildlife in
Sombrero Marsh, and that there are species of concem.
C. What would be the difference between Low Density und Medinm Density on the Jewish
Community proposal?
1. I would suggest very little - oYher than the overall intensity of what they will argue
they ought to be allowed. But, as Planning Board seemed to indicate in the Concept Review and
Comment, tlie intensity is of concern to the Board as well as to the neigl~bors. Low Density land
use and zoning seems to be the best way to go.
2. The Synagogues are allowed under either. The private school and public recreation
center require a use review under either.
3. Attached housing would be allowed on the parcel under consideration here if it were
zoned LR-D, under a Low Density Comp. Plan designation. Tl~e 6.5 to 7 acres would allow 46 to
49 units. And if the entire 17 acres were permitted to be counted in order to determine the
number of units - as staff has already said they intend to do - a total of 119 units would be
possible - more than twice what they have requested.
Comments reeardina narcels 22a and 22b:
I was horrified when I saw this proposal far High Density Residential tlie first time in the
newspaper.
This land is almost on Cherryvale, and is also nowhere near 55"', as indicated somewhere
in a staff inemo.
I recall that at the Concept Review and Comment Planning Board indicated they would
not want to zone even a couple of acres Medium Density, but allow the housing by a special
ordinance, for tl~at specific proposal only. The neigl~borhood does not thiuk even a couple of
acras of Medium Density is OK.
The concerns are off-site impacts, traffic, the precedent it will set for other high density
zoning, and the failure to respect neighborhood character and adhere to the plaruiing principals in
use at least a few years ago.
Nearly all of the comments I have made above (re 16a) in regard to this being an
_ __. , _,___ V,. m
~Ma Lovnen PBd commentsBVCP3 8 01 w_ d T~~ __ Page 6
I ~' ~~_.~_~_. . ,...: --_... Pv_~::_.~_~,-~-„,
inappropriate location for medium density housing apply to this parcel as well.
A. Additional Comments re statements in memo and site analysis for 22a:
1. No mention has been made of the small wetland on the rear of the property, or the
riparian corridor on South Boulder Creek which runs tUrough tl~ese parcels, botl~ of which would
be heavily impacted by people.
2. The staff inemo does not mention the traffic impact on Cherryvale.
3. As before, this does not respect the existing residential south of Arapahoe, etc.
4. There are some mistakes or misstatements regarding tl~e number of units that could
happen here under High Density, and the number of vehicle trips this site would generate.
4a. This entire site - 22a and 22b combined - is 14.8 acres. That information is taken
from the Re}niolds concept plan review memo, and other souroes. It is obvious tl~at 22a is
slightly larger than 22b. Therefore it must be at least 7.5 to 8 acres, not 5.8 acres. Perhaps tl~at is
a typo and 22a is 8.5 acres. Some o£this parcel is not developable, due to the wetlands and the
corridor along South Boulder Creek, but if that acreage is counted as staff has said is the policy,
the result is the same. It is my understanding d~at 9.7 of the 14.8 acres total is developable.
4b. At 19 units per acre for High Aensity zoning, this site (assuming it is 8 acres) could
generate 152 units, not 57 units. The difference in impact is significant.
4c. At only 5.6 trips per day, the residential units on 22a would generate (152 x 5.6) 851
trips per day. That is in addition to the trips generated by parce122b. This will certainly add
trips to an arteria] intersection that is already congested.
In Conclusion:
Unless the intent is to redevelop our area and provide the missing urban amenities,
standard planning principals, at least those in use a few years ago, would never suggest placing a
few units of inedium or high density residential in the Cherryvale area. And of course, we object
vehemently to any plans for further medium or high density development in this area.
Judy Renfroe
judrenfroe(c~aol com
Wonderview Court (Cl~erryvale area)
P. O. Box 17100
Boulder, CO 80308-0100
(303)443-4005
Page 1 of 2
Mary Lovrien - Comments for the Planning board
From: "JeffMcWhirter"<effmc@infocetera.com> ~1~L~~ ~~~
To: <lovrienm~n ci.boulder.co.us>
Date: 03/09/2001 1:55 PM
Subject: Comments for the Planning board
~i;,
Ruth McHeyser @ave mc your ~mail and said you could
see that thc Planning Board receives Ihese comments
about parcel 15A.
Thanks,
]effMcWhir[er
I am concerned wi[h tlte curren[ proposed changes to parcel 15A
of the Boulder Valley Comprehensivc Plan. I attended the March 8
meeting 6ut, duc ro time constrainis, did not get n chance to speak.
First of all I need to point out that most (if no[ all) of the
attendees at Ihe March 8 meeting who spoke out against this proposed
change were under ~he assump[ion [hn[ [he proposal en[ailed 213
dwelli~g uiiits, mt Ihe actual 313 units. This misunderstanding
was the result of the confusing site overview documen[s that list,
under impacts, 2I3 units where this is in actuality the additional units
proposed on top of Ihe original 100 units in [he plan.
There was also some misunderstandings abou[ why some of Ihe overall
impacts were rated posi[ive: e.g.,
5. Shows compatability wi[h adjacen[ Iand uses Ihrough
Iransitions between land uses that vnry in in[ensity. +
EnvironmenC
l.b Wetlands +
l.c Wildlite +
l.d Species of concem +
l.e Flood hazards +
I believe Ihis is n result of looking at all 3 parcels in aggregate.
Since paroels 15b and 15c are going to be (defacto) oyen space [hen
o~ average one could come up with such a ra[ing. However, in light
of the huge difference between the parcels (313 units vs. open space)
I feel that lumping these parcels together verges on MALFEASANCE.
I strongly urge Ihe Planning Board nnd [he Planning staff ~o
seperate the evaluation of these three parcels to allow a Jecision
to be based on the merits (or lack thero~ of the changes proposed
for each parccl.
I am shocked at [he ex[ent of ~he proposed change to parcel 15A.
The idea of adding 313 dwelling units to this defncto wetland is
inconceivable. There are MAJOR issues conceming vehicle access,
wildlife and wetlands, Oooding and the characrer of Ihe neighborhood.
Vehicle access: Based on the estimated Sb Irips per day per unit
there will be npproximadey 1700 daily vehicle trips. There are
only two possible road accesses: Kewanee and SSth. Kewanee is
a quiet neighborhood slreet. SSth bisects my neighbofiood and is
already a problem with Iraffic and speeding cars. Furthermore,
there are a large number of children in Ihe neighborhood that cross
SSth to access a park on Ihe east side of SSth and a pool on the west.
Wildlife and wetlands: This is an area rich in wildlife. We see hawks,
owls,
fox and coyote on a regular basis. Furthermore, the general area
is ground zero for the Prebles Jumping mouse and the Ute Lady's Tress
orchid. Parcel I SA is also a defacto wetland. It is laced with
irrigation di~ches and in Ihe spring holds large areas of standing
file://C:\WINDOWS\TEMP\GW } OOOl O.HTM 03/13/2001
Page 2 of 2•
watec There is even a marsh with cattails on the Bowman property to
the south.
Flooding: As pointed out by many at [he March 8 meeting the ground
water level is very high in ~his area. Furthermore, ihe onguing
readjustment of the South Boulder creek Ooodplain will make
official the defacto reality that this area is in the flood plain.
Any development on this parcel will exacerbate both ground water
flooding and Ihe 100 year ilood projections.
Neighborhood: The proposed chenge would entail a density THREE times
the density of Greenbelt Meadows (which seems rather dense as it is)
and perhaps a higher ratio for Keewaydin. With Ihis densiity
how can there possibily be compatibility with adjacent land uses?
At the March 8 meeting the Planning Board repeatedly said that many
of Ihese issues (e.g., traffic, charac[er, flooding) would be
addressed later in the zoning and annexation process. However,
isn't Ihe point of the planning map to give generel ouNines
as to appropriate development and dodt all of these (very serious)
issues affect the appropria[eness of the development?
Why even have the planning process if you don'1 base your planning
on the very real issues Ihat this proposal brings up?
1 urge you to take a very close look at these issues and Ihis Iand.
Thank you for your time,
Jeffand MaryAnn McWhirter
5435Illini Way
Boulder CO
80303
file://C:\WINDOWS\TEMP\GW}OOOlO.HTM 03/13/2001
Page 1 of 1
Mary Lovrien - Attention: Mary Lovrien -
From: <T'apJulie@aol.com>
To: <lovrienm@ci.boulder.co.us>
Date: 03/09/2001 3:23 PM
Subject: Attention: Mary Lovrien
NOTE: I attempted several times ro faz this letter m the Planning
Department yesterday (March Sth), hut their phones were down because of
consiructian.
To Whom I[ May Concem: 03/O8/Ol
I am a I S year resident of 5390 Kewanee Drive in Keewayden Meadows and a
lifelong residen[ of Boulder. I was no[ at all happy to hear of Ihe upcoming
hearing tonight, regarding Ihe possibiliry of building "permanently
afforclable" housing right next to my house! The number of houses proposed
is totalty ridiculous to begin with and putting low income housing here wiil
make nur properry values plummet! 1 have seen many chnnges in I3oulder since
1961 and while many have been positive, Ihis proposal is not. Boulder has
become so crowded and [he Iraffic problems are already bad enough wi~hout
adding ro it. It seems m me the planning comminee could find a much
be[ter idea for Ihe use of this land, such as buying i[ as Open Space.
There are endangered species in [hat field and in addition [o ~hose mentiuned
in today's edi[orial in Ihe Boulder Daily Camera, I often see geese, ducks,
coyotes, snakes and o[her wonderful wildlife. We need to value the
environment and Ihe wonderful city we live in and NOT build 230 homes crammed
into a space of only 18 acres!
Unfortuna~ely I canno[ atlend [he hearing this evening, as 1 was not given
ample notice to make changes i~ my plans. So, I am writing to ask you m
please consider o[her options when making [his decision!
'fhank you,
Julie Hale
5390 Kewanee Drive
Bouldcr, CO 80303
~/'C'/'"~-~/('
file://C:\WINDOWS\TEMP\GW}OOOlO.HTM 03/13/2001
Page 1 of"1
Mary Lovrien - SSth Street Property
L~Y~'/'-- ~l ~
From: Jill Slater <islater@du.edu>
To: "'lovrienm@ci.bouldecco.us"' <lovrienm@ci.bouldet.w.us>
Date: 03/11/2001 11:06 AM
Subject: SSth Street Property
Dear Mary,
Please let us introduce ourselves. We are Steve and Jill Slarer, 5453
Illini Way,(303)494A13~.
We are wri[ing to express our concern over the proposed devclopmenl of the
SSth street property. The aaffic on Manhattan, South I3oulder Road and SSth
street is already heavy. A 313-unit development would generate an
intolerable increase in hafftc noise, pollu[ion, and congestion. The
environmental impac[s in Ihis area would be significant as Ihe proposed
development borders an environmentally sensitive wetlands.
Tfie Ilood plain is an issue as well. Thc map Gom Urban Drainage and Ftood
Control District dated April 2000 shows this parcel abuts the flood plain.
ThereCore, any construction on this parcel could have unpredic[able effects
on the flood plain in this area.
Please record our dissent on this proposal!
Thank you,
Jill nnd Steve Slater
file://C:\WINDOWS\TEMP\GW } OOOlO.HTM 03/13/2001
Page 1 of 1
Mary Lovrien - Re: SSth Street development
From: "Carol Watkins° <tcwatkins@qwest.nev ~`/L7~ `~~~
To: ~"Mary Lovrien" <lovrienm@ci.boulder.co.us>
Date: 03/11/2001 1:08 PM
Subject: Re: SSth Street development
_ __ __ -- - _ -
I am writing in regard to the development planned at SSth St behveen Sou1h
Doulder Road and Baseline.
Pirst, I am very much in favor of the inf II concept. I support building in
developed areas over sprawling all over the landscapc.
1 support u[ilizing Hie propcrty under discussion for mixed use residential
IP, If i1 is not in a flood plain (as I have heard it is) I~, IF it will not
causc ilooding in the homes atready devcloped. ~
These issues are importanc I do not believc filling in wetlands should be
supported by the Planning Board and Council and I expect proper studies and
mitiga[ion programs for the curtent homeowners.
Also, I understand you are considering 313 homes on [hal property. This
seems like an extmordinarily large number of homes for tha[ piece of land.
This development will be [hree times larger Ihan Greenbelt Meadows which
seems quite dense. Even if the first hvo concems I brought up are
resolved, I bclieve it will be useful m balance Ihe number o(homes with
[raf6c concems, projec[ed school enrollment, etc.
1 would like [o be kep[ apprised of the development of this projec4 You
may use e-mail or snail mail to keep in touch.
Carol Wa[kins
103 Mineola Cour[
Bouldcr, CO 80303
303 494 5894
carohvatkins@mac. cum
file://C:\WINDOWS\TEM P\GW } 00O11.HTM 03/13/2001
Page 1 of 2
Mary Lovrien
From: Richard T Laxson <~arsonrl@juno.com> ~~Ly~- `~~ /
To: <lovrienm@ci.boulder.co.us>
Date: 03/11/2001 9:01 PM
Memo to: Boulder Planning Board
We are following with dismay Ihe proposed changes to the Boulder
comprehensive plan, in parlicular the ama designated 15a.
We fail to understand wliy you believe it is reasonable lo exacerbate the
already execrable traffic problems un Manhattan Drive in order to
accommoda[e people who are not residents, havc not paid [axes, are
comple[cly unknown to us and have not contributed to Boulder in any
manner of which we are awara At the risk of appearing politically
incoirect, Ihe shor[age oC affordable housing is not a primary concem
for us. While [he citizens of Doulder may support such in ihe abs[ruct,
anA we don't necessarily aceep[ that premise, we no[ed a clear lack of
support when a[ax to provide it was vuted do~m.
The proposed density may make sense in do~~no~m Douldec Check your map
ngain and you will see that the parccl is several miles from do~mtown
Boulder, is virtually rural and [hnt Ihere is no like densiry anywhere -
ncarby. I[ appears Ihat in your zeal to provide "affordable" housing, you
will dump high density housing on any space available regarAless of the
impact on sun~ounding areas.
You propose to change [he designation of an area cun~ently zoned rural
residential to something which will ultima[ety resemble a rabbil warten.
Your claim that ~he parccl be proposed for multi density residential can
be integrateA in a manner which will blend wiih the adjacent land uses is
ludicrous.'I'he surroundings are recreational land, very low density
residen~ial, low densiry residential and environmental preservalion. Do
you seriously believe your proposal is able to be blended with the
surtounding areas or ure you 6linded in your drive to provide affordaUlc
housing?
The nearby residen[s are es[ablished, have contribuled to Boulder for
years (35 in some cases) and have donc no[hing to descrve ~his assault on
their lifestyle. Boulder's quality of life has been degraded
subs[an[ially since we movul here. Il appears that you wish to finish it
ofY. The city has done nothing lo curbjob growth which is Hie real
problem. This proposal regarding parcel I Sa, while Aestroying KeewayJin
Meadows and Greenbelt Meadows, will have a negligible effect on
redressingthejob/housingimbalance.
You indica[e [ha[ Bnseline and Sou[h Boulder Roads are adequate [o handle
the inerease in treffic. Perhaps you shoud give some thought to how Hie
traffic will get Ihere. An already overburdened Manhadan Drive and SSth
Street appear, to us, ~o be tlie only wuys to access Ihose Ihoroughfares.
Presumubly none of you live on those s[reets or you would be giving
somewhat more Ihought to Ihis scheme.
You say that you would extend local street grids from adjacent
subdivisions ta avoid unnecessmy lowl traffic on SSth. Wake up! There
is one street to extend, Kewanee, and i[ will go directly lo Manhat[an
Drive, the only uudet Trom Keewaydin. Do you remember that 55[h was
originally planned as a major Aaseline-ro-South Boulder Road connec~ion?
Do you remem6er that ihe city tumed it into a worthless, meandering
parkway thus dumping additional iraffic on Manhaf[an? Still, $Sih could
handle Iraffic from parcel I Sa if ~he connection were made. Is Ihere some
reuso~ ~o avoid [raffic on SSth and ins[ead mute it to ManhaUan Dr.? Do
people in a position m exert inFluence in ~he planning process live on
55[h or in Greenbelt Meadows? We have always believed ~hat ~he manner in
which the SSth Street plans were changed was highly suspect.
The area in question is in [he middle of the ilood plain. How do you
jus[iCy tearing down housing on Wes[ Arapahoe because of the flood danger
and Ihen propose to loca[e 313 housing unils in an altemative Oood
file://C:\WINDOWS\TEMP\GW } OOOlO.HTM 03/13/2001
Page 2 of 2
prone area? Are you required [o main[ain a minimum number of flood prone
dwelling units? That could have been done less expensively by leaving the
units on Arapahoe. Giving yourselves a+ for tlood hazards leads us to
resurrect and paraphrase a Clinronism,'7Ps the flood hazard, s~upid".
You indicate that the MXR designation is suitable in two types of areas:
l. Older, downtown areas - no, thaPs clearly not where I Sa is located.
2. Developing areas - no, thaPs not it either. The adjacent areas, which
wili be heavity negativety impacted, have been established for over 35
years.
You give yourselves a+ for preserving environmental tesources apparently
by designating 15c environmental preservation but are willing to destroy
a much larger parcel containing Ihe same environmental elemen[s;
weHands, wildlife and species of roncem.
Richard T. Iarson & Marilyn J. Larson
GBTINTERNETACCESSFROMJUNO!
Juno ofters FREE or PREMNM lntemet access for less!
Join Juno roday! Por your FREE soIIware, visit:
h[t~://dl,~vw_ n~ juno.c4m~cVtagj,
file://C:\WINDOWS\TEMP\GW } OOOlO.HTM 03/13/2001
,~ YL'l°-„?~0
PETITION
DATE: 3-11-01
TO: City of Boulder Planning Board
RE: Proposed changes to Boulder Valley
Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map
- Parcel No. 15a, 15b and 15c -(SE ofEast Boulder Recreation Center)
The undersigned, as residents of Keewaydin Meadows, Green Beh Meadows and/or
clients of East Boulder Recreation Center, bring to the attention of the Board the
following information concerning the proposed re-designation of the above property from
low density residential to MXR (mixed density residential), hereinafter referred to as the
"Proposal":
Notice of the Proposal was either NOT conveyed to property owners impacted by
the Proposal, or was conveyed in such a manner as to minimize the possibility of
actual receipt of the information. The letter of the faw may or may not have been
complied with; the spirit of encouraging full notice and participation clearly was
not.
The Proposal was conceived without concern for or input from the citizens most
directly and negatively impacted bv its consequences.
The Proposal is based on the faulty premise that "density" and "diversity" are
ends in and of themselves.
The Proposal is also deficient in the following particulars:
a. The property is not within the apparently acceptable 1-mile radius of an
employment center.
b. The Proposal does not respect existing neighborhood character or
encourage "sensitivity to existing context."
c. The Proposal does not reflect existing neighborhood character.
d. The property does not have adequate services and facilities for vehicular
access, either available or planned.
e. The property is not in an area with a mix of comp(imentary land uses.
£ The Pronosal does not show compatibility with adjacent land uses. The
property is surrounded 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. Tripling the density of this parcel cannot be construed bv
even the most ardent "diversity" advocate as compatible with the adjacent
land.
g. The Proposal does not encourage increased use of alternative travel modes
or avoid auto dependency. To the contrary, this parcel is not in a transit-
oriented/pedestrian friendly azea, and is not served by high frequency
transit. This means, as the Report itself acknowledses, an increase of
almost 1,200 daily vehic(e trips. Not only does this not help with
Boulder's traffic problem, it exacerbates it.
1 ~{ 2~v
2~/l1'1.•.~{ure:
h. Despite the inaccurate wmment in the Synopsis, the Proposal cloes add
vehicle trips to an arterial intersection that is now con,~ested. The
intersections of South Boulder Road at Manhattan and 55`~' street are
congested, dangerous and overburdened. Lnplementation of the Proposal
will clearly make them much worse.
i. Creating high-density residential use from low dens'tty residential land
does not preserve and protect environmental resources. It destroys them.
The "+'s" under Environrnent in the Synopsis are inaccurate and
deceiving. Destruction of wetlands is not a nlus Destruction of wildlife
and/or native plant habita4 is not a plus. Buildin~ in an existin€= or planned
flood plain is not a plus.
j. The Proposal strips away from a neighborhood amenities that long-time
residents have enjoyed and financed for years, for the purpose of
benefiting a nebulous, non-resident group the staff has determined is
"willing" to trade off such amenities in order to live in Boulder. It ignores
that fact that many of us who have lived in Boulder for many years are
NOT willing to have those amenities stolen from us.
k The Proposal ignores the gross inconsistencv of having one group in Citv
Administration pushing flood plain desienation for an area (thereby
increasin~ insurance costs and restrictin~ renovation and remodelin~
alternatives for longtime residentsl WHILE AT THE SAME TIME
another arm of administration is proposing to TRIPLE the allowable
buildin dg ensity in the same zone.
L The Report itself acknowledees. "the vehicular traffic impact of this site
cannot be miti ag ted,~er the Report. (There is some implication that the
traffic could be mitigated by a"mode shift strategy". The "strategy" is to
extend Kewanee east. This is shortsighted and offensive. The owners who
originally purchased in this area were assured by the City that Kewanee
would not be extended. It is a narrow, residential street that carries almost
exclusively local tratFic, with the occasional delivery or service vehicle. If
the deck chairs on the Titanic does not keep the boat afloat. Current
euphemistic "plan speak" calls it a mode shift strategy: IT IS IN FACT
CREATING A PROBLEM AND THEN DIJMPING IT ON ADJACENT
PROPERTY OWNERS.
m. The Proposal does not take into account the increase in crime rate almost
certain to follow with increased density. The neighborhood is now almost
crime-free. The Proposat ignores this impact.
There are prudent and nroductive alternatives. In a recent Parks/Recreation meeting, the
need for additional soccer fields was mentioned. This site, or a portion of it, would be
ideal for expansion of the already e~tisting soccer fields, and would have very little of the
impact on the land or the adjacent homes that the Proposal promises. The land wou(d also
be ideal for the exnansion of the East Boulder Rec center, something that has also been
mentioned at Parks and Rec.
Perhaps the word that best summarizes the many pages of the Report is "density". Again
and again higher density is uttered as the answer to a host of problems. That is a fau(ty
premise. If higher densitv rs the aitswer, whv do ref'r~gees from New York. ChicaQO I.o,s
Ange%s, etc., conti~tt~e to f7ock to Colorado ~
The City and County have made a conscious and very public decisiqn 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 speak of reducing jobs
while at the same time crowding more and more people on to less and less land. Closine
the front door while vou buiid a bigger back door for a hi~h-rise hotel doesdt solve the
rop blem,
We respectfully and most vigorously petition you to vote NO on proposed changes to
Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map - Parcel No. 15a, i5b and 15c -
(SG of East Boulder Recreation Center)
3
Petition to City of Boulder Planning Board
Opposition to Re-designation of Parcel 15 (a), (b) &(c)
Signature Page
NAME ADDRESS PHONE (o tionall EMAIL (optional)
~Aa.o~J sc~N-~ry~- yYa aNErnR sr.- ~3-~/9y~s/~t~Z S~P~p~f~'~u~fy,~.~
1~~ Gmrn~2m~ ~, 3o3-~Fq~-~,i~-~ YC.ru~c~@4weic~~,.~
C ~
,~~'~ ti t~b J
3~3-y9S ~~~~E ~
;,`e~• ~'"Cp,.
~ct,~r~,~. ~C •~p-r ~,OD C~-aMaro 3D3- ~44~568 davewor~"' aa~. co~;.
/~,~ ~~<GC~~'~T^z Us'rr~~~/~ ~
L~Z'.~~-~~ ,// ~~',~ /D,i a~~~l.~ :~~'~-j°~1~~/'~""~~~ ~9
~
Ga~~~-T~ ~ ,
,~„~/~ ~ y,~ ~
~ ais ~
.~ ~7
-303~~9~'~6~
a 3~ ~lrrn~u.arv n~w-~ 3(S 3_ SS~ ~
l~oQy~svL~.
!`~~'~v~Cl~ 5 /%c.'. .~IG CNFr'!N ~~77'r:£T % '~~''~~~~-~G'lti, Y~'aT1`'1.~4~L~co" /
, / ,
~ :.,~~ ;~ ,~i.1 ;~' .. ;; t ~' . . :? .
i (lA- ~' . ~3o315S~{.-d72~7 SY-qU~ ~eY~ OSIn1~.S-~.Y1~;
3?~ L7v~ia'~ S~} . /303~ S
~-
Petition to City of Boulder Planning Board
Opposition to Re-designation of Parcel 15 (a), (b) &(c)
Signature Page
----- - - -- ----- - -
a,3J ~-»+~no-<_~ru.J Je a n wc~-r~ ~
~~~I~ r~ttr..~ (-~u.~~0 ~03Q~ ~03- ~Q~[-~,J~9 ~`S wesfi, cti2Jt.
~ ~, ,
~ ~ '~,~ ~t t i l~ ~ i~~ // 'i
' '~ . //s /,'i'~~Frkrz.4,c~~~ ~~d~ -y~r~~-7~Go
. %/C ~l~x--
~ `~-~.~-~~-~-- C~,~~~~~~~ .~'~~3-Y~~ 7l~ ~
~ !~ /~(. ~t.~rSfc
~ ~~w-f 3~.7 YqY-3G9Y ibl,.._~.;~~@q~w:~l-.~~~
~~'~i~'.~,~;.~,/~f~9,/ 33t ~,~;~~~p,Q ,S%, f~a~v~ 3U 3 • ~9¢-~Gs'9/
_ ,
~jYtuY~l ~Y`hhG 5y-6'lo Sc'v~ec~pl. Q~c.~3o3 3v5.4~t~i~ 1~'~~}
~ekti,D~~;~'P,Ir~~~t~~~.y~cj S5(o ~`Iz~~c-~k. ~3~~;)~I~~~-a31~ he~l.•,~,~n^n?~i~t~i~n,r.a~n~~n~m
~C eJ~tf l; ~/
•N~h~'~- ~~~'~ie~~ _S~~v ~Z~ec ~r ~y~-8yoy~ cdy~heo.coM
~ ~~-~ ~- A~s~ S "39U ~P~,.;anee D~- ~Ia~{ • I ~i~l~~
V[(,~.~~c~., (if. /~!~z..~ J~.~~£.~ l)EcJCc~ee ~~i"'. y~~/ -ld'~3(c fripjtc.(~~~(
`~titil~ti~-c,c~ S~I~~% (~~ti~~~G~~ E~l ~xvk~ev ~~~1,~~~~~ , I~
i QP ~. ~f"~
~~+Sln , ccYs
5
Petition to City of Boulder Planning Board
Opposition to Re-designation of Parcel 15 (a), (b) &(c)
Signature Page
NAME ADDRESS PHONE (o tional) EMAIL (optionalL
~~.~.~'~'I. ~~'1~~~„e~, .5~~ ~l~~hQ~k~ ~3-y~/-.~ ,~.~,ti~,~ ~dh
~. u'~i / ~ vt P '~ S ~}S~~ l~-~1~.Gta..,,lt- 1~~( `5c~ 3~ ~99 ~ ~rg~
~ .~' //,~.<,~ ~r G~ S~_~,.~,~ ~`;:'~ .3c~ ~ ~~
9 V ~~~ ~,~~r
~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~oa~~,~ -
~~ ~ /~~ ~ ~
~_ `l~11(,l/(C ~ ~F ~/i %( ~' ~C%C~ /~l~C1L~Cr,fi~ C2.~~' `I_J/l SC`i .. c~ ~ 3 ~ 1 ~~`~
__ ~
- - .
. Go~=.
{~(~ '/ /~~~ ~44`! •LH~/`~d- y~ /1
`~'YIA+t~ Cianr,W~l~._ b~ f{.u.~'M l7C ~`~.~ ' 3i7~'E J ~ OL~M.~ L.~L-hl'~Gl,~p~li~, ~d.=
~~
~
P/~Y~GCa, ~ l o~rCC„ C'r~''t~l v+ k'.
__a ~~2.. Y~'lineola. Ct. ~03`55`i-R~~S ~TS2A~~ ne-t
+~a~~9~x~h~- iso Ma„l~atl~+„ Ar. 3o3-~Y4'
a 17r 3n3-~-f6'y ~37/
~
3m3 - s`~3 - /`tL p
~~~ -2-C3 U Mr~y1/r;sq~,~,V ~'. A,0jT~9+V~C~.aENt~eS2 . Fi.Qsr
Petition to City oP Boulder Planning Board
Opposition to Re-designation of Parcel 15 (a), (b) &(c)
Signature Page
NAME ADDRESS PHONE ~optionall EMAIL (optionall
~ ~.y q _4~6s-
~v' ~'. ,
/. r:~'~.
~ /~.~
~~., 1 ~
~~~~~~~
~~~ /~~ MaN~IR~77-i~ 3v3- ~9.~-95(,
, ~y ~ ~/,
~I ~`-~C c-L
~a~ y ~y~z ~7
~ /.
~ a~ - ~~r- ~:~~~
~ _ ~~ C -=i7~ v ~~~~y9 ~y~
s
" , ~
i ~-%~ ' ~ ~~--~~~~,~-~~~~ 3~~ __ yy~! 3,~y/
LG~anc~ 5~.~ I'(rj
/75
,J f~~t . _~0.4 - ~ % f -
-~~~IZIT/1~ ~ ltiLtA>~'i ~,~/r S li/~iSzi~/~f' ~>~i~ c3D ~'~ 5~9~~~-~1~f
~*-ti~~ ~-~as~a~~ • a''a.76 ~~~? u i-f~r~ l~, ~3~ ~j ° ~l ~ v} sr'~ti S~.
~~
anl,a'f7Gw ~'~3-• _~r. 303- N9y-
..3c~3 - `!~% -
z3~/~I~+~i(~;~a~/~ie. 3a ~~-~y9- 9~Gz
Z 3 5 ~//~,/NA~-s~n/ ~2 . 3 v 3- 5~ 99- ~'G G~i
7
Petition to City of Boulder Planning Board
Opposition to Re-designation of Parcel 15 (a), (b) &(c)
Signature Page
NAME ADDRESS PHONE (optionall EMAII., ~optional~
~ Z~S,
~~ ~~
303-`f91 ~6?/ S~{~enne~~v/.Lo~
y~~ -
'cd 5
. ~
z ~ s ~lc~,.6~..
y~4 -79zs
-U
15 n~a~ha(f~.n Dr. ~-l 9~-l -o~l 3
9
~~~~ ~6S ~~~~ ~.~,., 494 - 7~ZS
Petition to City of Boulder Planning Board
Opposition to Re-designation of Parcel 15 (a), (b) &(c)
~ Signature Page
NAME ADDRESS PHONE ~optionaD EMAIL ~optionall
, 8 c~`3 a 3
li~r. ~ Q vri L S ~ t/ o/r] A n~ ra {~A r/ ~/ ~ o u ~ p~i2 C ~~
Ft ii ~n~ ~ 5
' ' ~1j _~ , l,c7 ~ ~~ w'v~ ~(T,~
~ v~'t~~
~~5.~//~1~_ N~~iN`~ . _ . _ . . . - -
~a( ~
Ya~~° ~
m
~7C Li.l, ~~ J/v~ ~y,
~ ~ ' ~
f9~J ~i ~ ~ ;r.-i~
/ ),t'l,/~'~liL G''zc~-.c~ 2L-~-} `~~ ~-~w~~¢d`/"'~- . ~~n,,,~~~L~'`
U
v~ /
°n~e?!Jc~ ~"-GL~,L /LLL ~ '3-5 ~j Z~L /L~2 Q. ZZ G[~ rL -~/
~/ ~ '~% y - 5~-1 `~
_ ., ~ _ ..
,-~t`ti,~GL£i'u O 0~7~'Q_t
tinern l-~+'~~c~, colar~~~(--
~~=
-~~~~~ ~. ~ ~,~~ <,-~ _ ;~~ ~~~~~ ~>>ro ~(~:~, l ~~{~: ., ~: s ~:~ ~~ - ~..~~4 -z~~6~i
3~k~., i~~i~er (9a rh a~N~+rT M~ 3c~`(5'9~a-~~ ~u%N~~t~'erpAoc,car•,
I~le.~~S~r~ k~~~~ i46l~la.~~-tc~~r 303 ~-YQ9-gas' ~
F.
1~~.~. 1~ . n,,~v~o..~. 1'~^„~ a~la ~a.~,~o,,, ~r:~Q ~,,,.~,fh f~'3~> ~,y.zu%-
Petition to City of Boulder Planning Board
Opposition to Re-designation of Parcel 15 (a), (b) &(c)
Signature Page
NAME ADDRESS PHONE ~optional) EMAIL Loptional~
~.}l-~'.,u_~F~i7~~ ZS~S /L~a,.,~ic-~~s~, ~~rn,w 303~`f91~~d7~ S~/~enne~
~~ °~~ ~ a~-.~~ ~,~-~-.-~ y~~ -~~1~ ,~
v
~ ~ua ~-~, l~ I Z ~ s ~-tc~.~. ~~a~, `I ~i4 -79 zs
l.~ n~c~ r~ ha l-~~ n~r
ti qN -o~l 3
0~, ~U/Y
, ~5
~Qr~
9
`~w~..,d SrN~-tt! ~.65 /~,,,~a~a,.,. Dti, 494 - '~9zS"
Petition to City of Boulder Planning Board
Opposition to Re-designation of Parcel 15 (a), (b) &(c)
Signature Page
NAME ADDRESS PHONE (optionall EMAIL (optionall
<.,/!
~ 1.~..t_;~/'~^-~,1 I(~> rJ1 n h~,«~Fu ~~~~ ~,s y y~/ -y~ ~~~,~
~ D .-r ,~ i i
'~. ~l) ~
03 -
/d
Petition to City of Boulder Planning Board
Opposition to Re-designation of Parcel 15 (a), (b) &(c)
Signature Page
NAME ADDRESS PHONE (optional) EMAIL (optional)
~,~(~~C-S l/i NI~( J `~`~~ ~3/~c~h~~~~(: (303) `~~~ -ss6o
~
5~7~ ~
„ ;
/ ~ 1 '~
%ti~ l_j~ <1ti.n.~,/~ ~~~i
Z2
~
?~ ~ - 4~`i l ~ ~.. ~ C ~
~VU~h`ah l~~~w,~f~e,-~ $48~ /3~ac,(c~,aw~C R~1 303 S4 3 OS ~ID
~~ i v~ GU~.k. ~tla~ ~M ~~~.e,,~ ~ 4~~ ~a c~ (~c~-~,Jlc ~e,Q ~ o~ ~ 4 3 o S"l o
aF ~f~Y.unR ~'foN'~ ~•¢g2. g~A~.K~}9~WK ~ ~d3-5~3-9A~5
..SS~/7'~- f~~-c~~~-,~ ~ -~f5'9 P1~~5
'9$
0
!~~ ~~1u->z~~z'~"~ .tL~,. ~~3-'~9y-G,~/D
>i
~ `~a t/~l~'-~ ~oC~ s~~l~ ii i~
Petition to City of Boulder Planning Board
Opposition to Re-designation of Parcel 15 (a), (b) &(c)
Signature Page
NAME ADDRESS PHONE ~optionall EMAIL~ontional)
SY}a ~.~i..,..-4„ ~~,~~,(tik-5o:,~- ~~~~..K,,: c~i,:.t~.
;'J ~ti ~t. v~.l•s%v '7 ~{ ~ 2
- ".1 ..- ---~
,.-/ . Li..:._._-i-~ ~~~~..~r~,W-yc~~7
.._~L ... ~~~~.....` :.til ._.. ~ J~ ~~.~~~L
'L'~-______. Ey .S '7 ~'~ACIC~cv.,; (C ~c 3 `I `t~ l - 4 U ~ -1
n ; ~~~f-i3;'3
,;.+.-~.~.. c.:~-c.~-~ ~.. _..~. 5 `~ ~- ~ ~. ~7 e ~. r I ~I ~uG~ -~ ~, :~ =< r
i~~ . /~--~' J / ~/~~ .~ /
/r`~%1!" Jc. , . ~\l'~~'J'i -] % ~ ,~L,(~-/,''/iU!l,~/< ~ ,~~1~} . r~=,~;~~ I~;~C~ ~(i~;'/% LFV':~~,cs ~/IGiriE..
/ G~ ,
ti
,' ~ r~~ ~ - ~ ~ ~,. ~ i> - ~ ,., . )
.
~ _:~~. ~ ~~ _. ~~~°~ .Jt.;~. i-'.C'_~i ~'::-L. ~~.~ ~'%-~r~l~,.~J~l , ~.I(C,:w./`~.+.C_f~~.~~~1'v"7;.:',~~;ti'
~ G
Petition to City of Boulder Planning Board
Opposition to Re-designation of Parcel 15 (a), (b) &(c)
Signature Page
NAME ADDRESS PHONE~optional) EMAII., (optional)
G`~id~ \. ~nNYL~.h..~~ ~Z~ V~ C~. lJ~-~~U 1J~~
~~ l~: vz ~~, ',!i,( f`~~ ~{C `~ l~~l r~F~ 3~~ -~~~1 ~5 l
,
_._.~ ,
;'-,,.. f.. ~~.~t-,...y~,L J~SJ C~:! e 1 ei c( ~ f~, _ y 9 y'Z. ~ C1l
c,.~ - //
~~~, ,~, ,~li,~ ~~~ ~~ s O~~ ~~ ~,~ ~- 4~4~~~~ ~ 3
! ~~
%~'~~ ~ '. ~~~~,G' - ~/~/5~ ~~~.~<~w- 30 3 -~l ~r4-7Gv~
f~~~ti !~ ~~-Cc,,. Sr~. 7' G S" ~ J.r`a< ~^- 3c> 3 Y 5 5 ~~c ~-Z..
l3
Petition to City of Boulder Planning Board
Opposition to Rc-designation of Parcel 15 (a), (b) &(c)
Signature Page
NAME ADDRESS PHONE ~tional) EMAIL (optionall
.1 n ~ ~ ~~. ~~
~h Ltl'i!!~ti ~`^° ~ ^'d'~'1 ~~ ") 7 ~.l ~ h ~:L
i )
4~ ~ ~ -\ . . ~~~s~~ ~1'~ ~ ~~-1:, , ~>i
~~. l.: ~4 \ ~! t ~
,
r ~ : j~.,
} . , i ~ o" y.
% ic
Petition to City of Boulder Planning Board
Opposition to Re-designation of Parcel IS (a), (b) &(c)
Signature Page
NAME ADDRESS PHONE (optionall EMAIL (optional~_
~/,Liti,,,ti;,,~ _ ~~r g ~'~ ~:~,/~.~e ~~~, ~0 3 _ y~,~ ~,~-fis
~ J~~~
~a o
-I- O Un, .~rl~cC.~ sc. y~ 5_ l~i a~i~ ~. 303
~
~
~~~ 3
/5
Petition to City of Boulder Planning Board
Opposition to Re-designation of Parcel 15 (a), (b) &(c)
Signature Page
~ ~~
~
~~o ?ic
, ~~~
L!/'~~ ~~ 3 ' ! I ~ ' ~~O l ~-~ ~~ _ L,r_ „ .~ L~ ~~~~
.., Il " ~S~
~
C,<.' /,, '~.L~ ~- y 7 U- 9y/ l
~
~C>~-
Z= Z_
5
_ zjy9_
i~
Petition to City of Boulder Planning Board
Opposition to Re-designation of Parcel 15 (a), (b) &(c)
Signature Page
NAME ADDRESS PHONE (optional) EMAIL (optionalL_
L~ M.. -~ L_ Sw ;-~"~ S 343 /~ ~ l ti Y~~
~~V~i =-., ~.ti J~~i~~t Y l.~ ~~~' ~~-~c~ Q~,
c~_ s~~~~ SC~iX . he~«,:~..~,..
~ a , ,~ : , ,i~,., ~~ /1
,
` l l~~~ .,
~L~, ((:l `~ ~ ~'t~
~ i / , .,.
Vf,'! ~/.L.~;n,.,, /~ C G.'. L~:~... c. 5- ~~'Y,.p. C IY`
`~ r ' ~',';°~, Tj. yL~~( ~I4`~~;
• ~, ~.'r,. ~ , % ~ -~ " :
.
'~j, y. /~
C~~~~~~ `~'C ~~Z'/c.~ C.~,~~~ ~~~.~. ~ )
,` c_ l ...i''
~~ ~ ?tl~ `~ ' ~,~~ I /~i./ ~' ", //.L' ~ ;@~ ,~ (U, f~ ~ c.'J i ~~'> - T ~73 ~
/ '~
/f /~ :- ,~J
~l~;v~, ~'~ C"_~r,e...~-~~l / ~ ~ 7~~ ~`~r~- ~ 9 9_ S ~1~7~
~. c.c~~v ~ ~r..~~-.-~ ~ ~9~' J , ~3~ ~ 9~-`0 ' ,~-
J ,.
- ~,,.,,~... ~_~ .~~'C~ ~~,~ _ _ ~~~ ~ ~ ~~~ /S"~lC
,~;~,w-_.
~~
Petition to City of Boulder Planning Board
Opposition to Re-designation of Parcel 15 (a), (b) &(c)
Signature Page
NAME ADDRESS PHONE~optional) EMAIL (optional~
/~'J.~t, ~ v/~,~,- •„ o ss.~~ c ~. r ~L
~JA-4
:G
~L~(~i~',PI~~Q~ ~.-~~,`~'~ 5~-~- ~. ~/ic~c~','`7-~i,
.:?; =>a. ,, -l~ ~~ ~1~1 ~F7~1 ~cntca l.
;~
~ ,
~~`~; ~f . ~ -~ _ `~ ` - - - - -
` ~ ~'' ~~+7 ~ ~>,~,~A J~ _
~ ~ ~ ~~
c, ~ ~- :
~~ t.`~~~~~.c~ ~~ "f~~~ ~ r~1-r: ~~.t~ '~-~=-~ , st+s ~ S e h~ «-. P I.
~ ,,
.
~>%~ ~ i ~ ~ ~
- ~ _~!y~~,,,,__j~~,.~,L, 5~5~v Ser~c~s~ PI
, c: LL ~ ~
(~a~,~- V~ 5H G 6 Se ~~ ~4 Pk~~e
`~22~ P 5~7~ ~~~ ~l'~
~ ~ .~~~/ ~7~ s.~. P.1Z.~
- ~~ ~,~ ~ s~,r. T~
~
~---z __-. _ ;~w~rt ~~„_. ._ ,.~
,~
~ (l~'_,
~ \~
~~%~~
Petition to City of Boulder Planning Board ~
Opposition to Re-designation of Parcel 15 (a), (b) &(c)
Signature Page
- . G%
~;,. ~
: :~ ~ L~/[. e4 7 .~,d/e c.~t
/
i. n
ti : i
~ ~'t ~
~ ~
~-~ ~ti~ ~~~r:~:~~, .5 ~8z ~~~ti.,
~ ~..
~ '~~ '~~ ~'l
~~,U . ~._ , ,~;;Izti~~~, _sy~ ~ G , . ~~~:,
W~GG~a--~ ~~~ S'~~3/ D/~//~ilq ~~ "_ ~-/°I9 ~%G3n
1~ 1 " J'lJ V h V '/ `~ '/V
~
`~.-~:'~~• ~l /l~ll.CJ ~`' `5 ~ f-/ l,~ YY! ~~ n~' aC(' ~ f~~ - 7 a a ~
~- •I~.,~.~%L.. ._~~ -~c:>~... J~"i3 ~ ~ ..^,.-..._.~, {'~-..~ ,.%~ ~`.~ ~ti -C,.'_Cs~i
~'~~~ ~~ ~~B~J ~I'~f~/~" QL/}C..L, ?7o7i ~G1 ~vZ~oq
~G
~~'` ~1~U~-~'i;~.~'1 / ~' ~~ L I,~l~
Petition to City of Boulder Planning Board
Opposition to Re-designation of Parcel IS (a), (b) 8z (c)
Signature Page
tda~~ L, tSu.2~-`Cl ~Sc~~ l~e~, C~ SS"~3 0~
f
~~7~-~. ~ ~~~~ S~ i~2~%J ~~i ~2.J ~.~/ 3c~~ `~l ~j`-l ~"12
t3q• L~~~~ ~° /?~•~// ~ ~~u ~~~~1'~ ~''d3~ 3
,/~ .- ~ ,/ /~
~_ l.iTi~~ ~r ~ ~/~.~~ ~P~/~cEn~~~~7 /~/z 7al/~.i~7j~ ,~J~~CJ
7
.._~~~ r ~ c ~~- ! /. /l /w ~i ~v u ~~t i'' C~a ~" ~~3d 3
~`"/4~.~~ e~ ~~ l c' /`1a ~ li c. /~r ~,~ ~ ~' ~ a~ --~` ~ r- l_~ ! c~
(~~~ v~"_ _ ~ ~/"~ ~~'o.~G3
; . ~ ~~ ~ < . ~ ~ ~~ ~ 9~ ~~~"~~- ~~3- ~r y~ /~~~
Petition to City of Boulder Planning Board
Opposition to Re-designation of Parcel 15 (a), (b) &(c)
Signature Page
1 ~o~,
~~P~
~ ~~
~hi
J. ,
~~,~{~ /
~
v, .~~D ~'Z'{~c J.~'I v~P ~Gtl~Cc~
- ~a~~,~ 303-~9~-zS'~z
,~~~ sa6 zfecb.. 30.3-~l9y~y~1a c~
~ GoocQh,`c~i
'3u~7 rc (;
a,..'~ j~, •,,.~ ~.s ~ i S-1 3 n L~-~ ~,-,: }~/ ~~ J v
~.._. -.a u~/ckF L /
,~ C~l~~..c ~~.,~
'(J
~
~b ~~ w~-t,~ve~
vw~s~, ~~
~'23 ~z:~- Ea l~ l~, ~330.3 ~9 ~9/G I
l;~~w.ed ~Rtkm
,~lt~i~i`` ~-~~~~tC~l~ti
~ 6 ,1f-3~~c d~v ~ ~(e~e~- la ~A ~~s~o.~d~(v ~o`
~E ~ f~~-~c ,~1"i ~w,;,~~,.2,~~ °~1;3~ "~~
S~3 ~i-z~. ~- ~ '°~ c.r~ ~3~3
~•
~'~ ~; Lt, ~D ~ Il ~v~ Cri~l
h C z, ,4-~ ~ ~
~~, go3o3
.~. r . J7'.7~C~~
/'N Xv-7V
~ ~
'~~ G~o~~,a`J~,
~ ~~6~i /U~~s~~u.lvs~~ ~t
! 2
~~. L//IA~IVU~III `LMTTIA.~ ~4J..7 C`^'\IWII,W~-~. I1~, 3~3-99~~IOJ1 ~N~/1~l~nGOC~~QII~C~W/
.~
~`f~ ,~~~~v~~~~ ~l~ ~
5~3 A~-{ e~ D r 1-~3vc~~' ~-. c~ 8 oac~3
5 lvv ~ ~' .- • ,
~~a~ ~s~
~,
~~'~ ~ ~/n S7Q ~ n ~ .
~~ ~ s s6 ~~: f~~ 3~3-Y~9- a 5/~ ~~~,~~,~L~C;~,.,o~,~~-,
Petition to City of Boulder Planning Board
Opposition to Re-designation of Parcel 15 (a), (b) &(c)
Signature Page
NAME ADDRESS PHONE (optional) EMAIL (~tional
• '
~~
~
~07 ~.1"OmQI~ Q~ ~?~~49~
/ • L~~' . `~y~
~sriv~~'
~--C.-x,QU-o-a~ ~- . ~.q-5~> c..w~-~s~~ C-~. c.~ .~6~...
n7LG ~h~.~el~~.
( a ~ ~ ~ee. C~ 3 oK-353~_ ~s ~ .~~-=
( ~~b ~~
~ Z ~~ ~> i..o C'o ~^F- C C l~ /'I'G i
K~1~ Mac~/Ze~~~„
l~-~i ~.?~rG~iiGr G~- Sy~ ~sz ~, /u 5~ . c~~~~a. .~L,
~f ~~r -is~t~
~~ ~~~~
f~a €> ww ~,h~n .
c~,
~
~,L
~
0~ 6e~see c-~. 303-
z2
Petition to City of Boulder Planning Board
Opposition to Re-designation of Parcel 15 (a), (b) &(c)
Signature Page
NAME ADDRESS PHONE {optional) EMAIL (o tu ional)
~ ;~,~ r-"~i,~zc,/ti ~f 3v~ -
;~.,,.~.c ~L~,ncJVnC c~ -z ~
~ ~`l Q ~~ ~~G c~c~Yn~ ~-~/Yr. ccvn
~--
, S~3
lj~c.~ I ~~ ~~ ~ 1,~~: ~11M'~ ~Lsf- ~ ..(-~ Z2-78` _ ~ra~ko -'~60.//. ~.n.~t
~~S lO~ M~ncol
303
C~ y~l ~ - y~l ;
_ . 3~ 3 -
'~~ ~~
co~-,
, ~ .~
~
~~~ ~'/i~ev~ `7
l 2 2/12L,~ e~ C~. ~`(
2~iL~~4~ ~. 1 p ~..- 1/liu~/I.t~~,P.~-
V ~ /• C G n-~
~ h ~~ ~~d~,
, ~
~~_ t~~~
C~ c..eas.e-~-~c_ . ~
o /ma, h+~ ~
ca., io~
~~'~.
- nii
1Q7
~Y
23
-J~~ivt f7a~i~r~r~ ~.L /j?rneo~a. ~% 3a3- ~F~'~'- 3.g"~ 3 ~~h
Petition to City of Boulder Planning Board
Opposition to Re-designation of Parcel 15 (a), (b) &(c)
Signature Page
NAME ADDRESS PHONE (optional) EMAII.. (o tio onal~
.. ` ~ //, ,~leee
r~G.
zz~
~~rppeau~nUVne_COV~
r~/ ~~
~ f L • ~~~ ~ j~di Zl~ ~ L~ n,n •r <~ti GLr., ~l~Gy 'S~ 3 ~ ~/~I~1-DZZ ~j'
~.'' /~
~
~ ~~ i/ ii ~~
l ~~ .~r
, i
~
`i ~/~
~~3Q
' S 3~ ~ ~~-~c~~ ~~ ~ ~ 5 1 ~ /~ / ~'
~ ~lP~p~Q (~ab~cct.,
f
~ `'~='S~ /.~?~~.~~~,~r, `~ay YS3~
~~,.Cc~, ,~L~~.~,~~ 538~ ~/w~:Ka~~~r~. y~~/ YS ~~
~,
~ ~ 4 ~..~'~(
~ ~~
~ ~~~ 1
c"X/` ;.~2'~-GTi~ cza,'!~-..C~ Ci,e~ • Lc'T1.
,~/~?~ ~/9~/-U~~/<
~~
~~ . - ~ r
~ :.-~ .~P„~ .:.~;~ . _-.~,~ ~ s ~/v.?I.,.~,~,.~,
~0~1 i,2~,~0~, ,5 755 ~w'a-.,w. D ~ `~ 9~- I ~ y~
i
Petition to City of Boulder Planning Board
Opposition to Re-designation of Parcel 15 (a), (b) &(c)
Signature Page
~
~~~'~
.53 9S ;
~/~ (~d~~ 494 ~~'~s6 6idr~~li~n` ~s~!~~,
~3~3~ ~f9`~'S7S6 ~, /d r~« //er~~Ynsn,c~,
r~
~ . JvlnnS~=~ 'Z[/~ ~;.+~vlara.,
~
'-~=yvrtvll ~y~~ ~ ~ D ~°/vrrlr
:30:?Sy,'~~0/~ G~'tPic~l,.~sv,,,G~%?'1~,.lCo.+
'~ RWl l NGL UL~ nOV .L-,lTi
C-,~ Wo„~ 3a~ .--y9~1- (vl ~~
, ~~ l~ ~R~l~j~u n/N,~~'s ~ ~"~i'
?~~~ ,~o~ -~9f"~~9~'
r-
~Lm~.~ ~v ~~.~-~PY-9~~
'08
;
a~.~a+
.~ s ss K.w~r~-e~¢ ~~-t 30 3-~~! ~' -' ~- Z I
~~~5 ~,~,~
~, ~~ ~,~.,,,.,~.-,
/~ ~a3 -U~'i~~ c~i 2 r
3~ 3 ~- ~F- ~ ~ - _z._r ~t-7
25}
Petition to City of Boulder Planning Board
Opposition to Re-designation of Parcel 15 (a), (b) &(c)
Signature Page
~
~u~lc~P~/ ~u 3 ~ s
~~7 ~ ~%ti/./I ~1C ~
-,5'6 ~'! ~So u~..
~A-- ~ U ~ ~f~3~~~3~`13! -'ls'i
~ 3o~z~t,~ ~3
~A~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~m~3 ~ ~,~ :
,,, 8'~~ds_.~~~s
2~,-.
Petition to City of Boulder Planning Board
Opposition to Re-designation of Parcel 15 (a), (b) &(c)
Signature Page
NAME ADDRESS PHONE (,optional~ EMAIL (optionalL
..~
;~ ~-- S' l ~-~ ~`1~~~~i~I ~~ 3~3 y~i-3~3 z
,
,: aza ~.~ ~ c~ o ~~- 3a
~
.. =~ .--'/r i-" rrf-2 9 a =, ° v o
Ot~~cCc~... d~/aC~ 3v3-~~l~l-D(o ~
~q U~ C~ha~ ~4 3 9-q~i `(+'1 L~I
'' l
~,,o " /
~''" : ~ L, " ~.~.`~~~ ~ !-~LL ~ , ~~ ii v ;x ` ~ ~ ~
~ i
i' i
Page 1 of 2
BVCP2000 - No to Incrensed Density on Pnrcel 15 - EI5 needed
From~ <Blake_A_PetersonC~leasetec.com>
To: <bvcp2000@ci.boulder.co.us>
Dcte: 03/09/2001 8:00 AM
SubJect: No to Increosed Density on Parcel 15 - EIS needed
March 9, 2001
Re: Boulder Volley Comprehensive Plan, consideration of rezoning and
development of parcels 15a and 14d
Thank you for ihe opportunity to comment on the draft Boulder Vnlley
Comprehensive Plnn (BVCP). We have reviewed the document and generally
support the gouls and concepts put forth in the document. However, we
strongly disagree with the re-zoning proposal of parcel 15a and 14d as
suggested in the BVCP draft currently being considered by the City of
Boulder's Planning Commission.
If this densification process does not stop, we will enlist the support
of the Legal Defense Fund and the Sierra Club to take legal nction and
force a full Environmental Impact Statement. This is an unnecessary
cost to the community. Please stop now.
The reasons we disagree include;
* The standard practice of concentrating higher density residential
development near the center of a city, so that sound transportation,
commercial and employment infrastructure support the development. Following
this practice, residential densities would become lower towards the
outskirts of the city where parcels 15a and 14d lie.
" The incangruity of locating higher-density development adjacent to
open space. There are few, if any services (including transportation
infrastructure) to support such development. As well, the resulting impacts
on wildlife would b¢ very high. In essence, you would be crenting an island
of higher density deve~opment surrounded by Open Spoce and low-density
residentia~ development.
* The 1999 amendment of the Boulder County Comprehensive Plan included
parcels 15a ond 14d as part of an Environmental Conservation area, We
believe this designntion to be appropriate and significant, especially
considering the number of red fox, coyote, owl, hawk, eagle and oth¢r
important wildlife that move through this area on a year 'round basis
(parcel 15a, in purticular).
In addition to these issues, we would like you to address the following
regarding the proposed re-zoning:
* What would the traffic impacts be to 55th Street and intersections
at South Boulder Rood and Baseline Road~ We were told by City Planners when
55th Street wos put through to the East Boulder Community Center that it
would remain a low-volume road ns it cuts directly trough the Green Belt
Meadows neighborhood.
* What wauld the resulting flood impncts be to existing development if
parcel 15n were developedl How would these be mitigated? The water table
is already very high and the areo is prone to flooding. We don't see how
the land in parcel 15A could be raised in such a way as to support
~ v~P - aal
file://C:\WINDOWS\TEMP\GW}00016.HTM 03/13/2001
Page 2 bf 2
development without negatively impacting the existing development. A recent
proposal to add fill to parcel 15a was, in fnct, denied primarily due to the
flooding impacts to existing development.
* The endangered species Preebles Jumping Mouse and Ute Lady's Tresses
Orchid have been found near site 15a. Have any recent investigations been
done here? What impact do these findings have on the proposed rezoning and
developmentl
While we support the concept of mixed-use development and affordable
housing, we don't believe sites 15a or 14d support this. We believe these
uses would be more appropriately included as part of infill redevelopment
pro jects in areas such as the Crossronds, BaseMar, and Table Mesa Shopping
Centers as well as neighborhoods located close to the center of the City.
Effective multi-modal transportation systems and a mix of commercial, retail
and employment infrastructure necessary to support mixed-use development and
affordable housing already support such sites. With some attention, these
arens could become much more effective at meeting the needs of our growing
and diverse residential population.
At what point do we say, "enough is enough" in terms of our impnct on the
natural environment? How much natural habitat do we have to sacrifice
before we realize we made some bad choices? The Ivnd currently zoned as
Area II along 55th Street between Baseline and South Boulder Road serves as
a buffer between existing development and the natural environment. We
believe that is an impartant role for that land, and ask you to preserve it
as an open area.
Sincerely,
Blake and Ellen Peterson
102 Mineola Ct.
Boulder, C0. 80303
file:/!C:\WINDOWS\TEMP\GW } 00016.HTM ~3(13(20Q 1
Page 1 of 2
!~b'C` f~ ~ ~7~a
Mary Lovrien - Parce115
From: <alleykatz@uswest.net>
To: <lovrienm@ci.boulder.co.us>
Date: 03/13/2001 9:59 AM
Subject: ParcellS
May this cpmmunication serve as a protest ro the
contempla[ed construction of 313 units in parcel I5. This,
particularly in [he light of [he Fl~wed inadequate notice,
either by design or neglect, of the public meeting, as well
as the failure to fully inform those persons and property
o~mers affected by the proposed changes. In Ihe same spirit
[he handout reflecting [he changes was woefully inaccurate
and insufficient and failed to disclose the 6asis or
research that composed the conclusions stated. It does not
seem that anyone in Greenbel[ Meadows during the [wo year
research was ever contacted for their inpusL Rather one
might suspec[ [hat the developer or agents were the source
of [he handout. Had such contact been made you would have
kno~m lhe following:
I.The property is in the Floodplain
2. The property is in the 100 year flood
3. 7'hree c(forts by builders ro construct multihousing at
Ihe site have been rejected. (Was any cffort made by [hc
staff [o dc[ertnine why?)
4.Homes in Greenbelt meadows have periodically been Oooded
5. The area is emironmentally sensitive;orChids;jumping
mouse;eagles;herons;foxes;coyotes;em.
G. 7'he introduction of such housing will exacerbate
ilooding, not oniy to the existing homes ,but flooding as to
contemplated construction
7. The contemplated consimction creates unaweptable
hazards ro the health and safety of persons, children, Ihe
elderlyon Manhatten, SSth st. and the East Boulder Rec.
Center.
a. With respect to SSth., Ihat stree[ bisects
Greenbelt., separating homes and Ihe playground and
swwimming pool from each othec Sueh crossings with
increased traffe constituted obvious dandger.
6. While the map distri6uted depicts SSth as
termina[ing a[ [he property Ihe fact is [he[ it con[inues [o
the Rec center and on to Manahatren. This means that the
traffic generated by the new construction will invade thc
Rec center createing hazards to users of the facility which
easilly will result in injuies or death.
c.The introduction of minimally 650 vehicles plus
visitors would substancially create havoc onto South Doulder
rd, already overburdened with commuters to and Gom
Layfayette and Louisville. This [ra(fte at 55[h in a
short distance interseets with Foothilis Parkway nnd Route
36 creating funher gridlack.
d. The additional ~mffic would constu[e o grave
hazaid to ~he children an users of ~he bur6ank School.
8. The environmental impac[ review in[he report is so out of
touch with reality, the any reader would opine [hat [he
en[ire report and its conclusion the the pareel should be
remapped for multihousing is so flawed as ro 6e unworthy of
consideration.
In conclusion, if it is the purpose of this Board, in ihe
name of affordab(e housing, to exclude every o[her standard
the has made Boulder a great place to live, Iet it say so.
If it is the intention of this Board to exclude
consideration of the qualiry of life,
the safety of its inhabitants, the envirionment, the
reverance to open space in the name of affordable housing,
Ihen let it say so. Otherwise, let it expunge parcel 15 for
i~s agenda or at the very leas[ defer consideration until an
file://C:\WINDOWS\TEMP\GW } OOOlO.HTM 03/13/2001
Page 2 of 2
adequa[e review be made
and all of the issues be ventilated in public.
Alan D. Katz
103 Genesee Ct.
Boulder,Co.80303
file://C:\WINDOWS\TEMP\GW}OOOI O.HTM 03/13/2001