3 - Citizen ParticipationTO: CENTRAL RECORDS
FROM: ~ ~~.cn;~
(Name/ Bo i d Or Comn i sion)
PLEASE add these items to Meeting Packet of:
/-~~-n3
(Date of Meeting)
Lovrien - TEXT.htm
»> <RJSharette@aol.com> 01/18/03 06:02PM »>
Hello Susan,
Page 1
I sent this by snailmail, but also thought an electronic version might be handy for you to see. It was posted
to our message board today after input from a number of our residents and was snaiimailed with a cover
note to each board member.
I can't find Jeffs or Michael's (the developers) email anymore, so I couldn't forward it to them.
Rol Sharette
Parcel No. 3 Description: E. of 30th, N. of KaImia Ave., S. of Palo Parkway
Existin Neighborhood Responses are Included in Blue
Land Use Designation: Low Density Residential (LR}
Zoning: County -Rural Residential
,~' ._ ,
-. ;:
.. u.:,;
t~II '-- d*~?~~ -
u
~ ~~'~;1
_ ~I~~uM.Y~'
Applicant's Proposal
Land Use Designation: Medium Density Residential (MR)
Acreage: 22 acres
This plan indicates that all of the formerly "13C"
area is to be redesignated after nvo previous
considerations by the planning board resulting in
low density designations. The planning staff now
has majority support on the board.
Staff Recommendation
Land Use Designation: Medium Density Residential (MR)
Acreage: 11.0 acres
This staff "reduction" is no doubt intended to
assuage the hundreds of area residents that have
spoken clearly against this redesignation.
It will not do so.
Proposal and Recommendation
The property owners submitted an application requesting a change from Low Density Residential to Medium Density
Residential for 22 acres. Staff is recommending a land use change from Low Density Residential to Medium Density
Residential for a smaller area of 11 acres for the following reasons:
Note the reference to "owner application" for higher density. The owner-developers have been working on this
project for over ten years and they'll do absolutely anything the planning staff tells them to get planning board
(City Council) support. They are forced into this to make the city plan for affordable housing economically
feastble in the allowable space. They can also (and will) do this on 11 acres by further cheapening their
construction and increasing mulriple housing untts.
X to ensure a mixture of housing types; Diagrams show the worst kind ofgrid-locked strip housing with no
imagination for a relaxed land use plan or real pedestrian mobility.
X to provide compatibility with adjacent land uses; And will the hundreds of animals (deer, falcons, foxes, raccoons,
skunks and ... yes, prairie dogs) be welcomed in the tiny backyards?
X to provide for a significant amount of affordable housing. Far too "significant."
Aland use change for a smaller portion of the property will still provide consistency with the concept plan submitted earlier
this year, while at the same time indicating the city's intent for an average density in this area at the lower end of the
Medium Density Residential designation. A medium density designation on the entire area would indicate a potential
density much higher than that supported duripg the planning process that has occurred over the past year.
The current proposal bears NO resemblance to the "concept plan" designed by professional planners and
amended by destgps the neighborhood recommended. Members of the Parks Board suggested this plan should
be "dumped" and the applicants instructed to start over.
Site Description and Surrounding Context
X This is a vacant 22 acre parcel located in the Palo Park subcommunity north of the Calvary Bible Church on Kalmia
Ave., south of Palo Parkway, and west of the Pleasantview soccer fields. Immediately west of the property is a 10 acre
parcel with one home on it. Further west is Sale Lake subdivision and part of Palo Park, a county neighborhood with
low density single family homes (4.4 units/acre). Immediately north of the property is Palo Park Filing 4b, a medium
density single family neighborhood (8.2 units/acre) (This description makes no mention of the high and medium
density neighborhoods southwest on Kalmia which produce voh~mes of traffic on dead end Kalmia).and a vacant 3 acre
parcel (13D) owned by the Boulder Valley School District designated Medium Density Residential. So redesignated
in 2001 to compensate for the well considered 13C low density decision by that planning board.
X The site is accessed from Kalmia Ave. and Palo Parkway, both of which are dead-end streets accessed from 28'h
Street. High capacity transit service is provided by the BOUND just west of these parcels along Palo Parkway and
north 28'h Street. However, RTD stops in the area offer few amenities for riders. Amenities are not the issue, bttt
frequency would never encourage significant use, especially carrying children and groceries.
X The property is located in Airport Influence Zone 3 where residential development is permitted subject to
certain requirements including site plan review by the Airport Manager, height restrictions, and the grant of
an aviation easement to the city,
The Airport Manager has expressed concern to our neighborhood about this development directly under his
landing pattern, as well as disappointment that he was not brought into the considerations earlier.
X There is a small colony of prairie dogs on the Calvary Bible Church property -which is currently in the city limits.
There are no other environmental resources or hazards of concern on this site.
The stands of Cottonwood and conifers and the natural animal habitat are resources, at least part of which
should be preserved, and the airport landing approach pattern must obviously be considered a hazard,
especially after a1990s aircraft craft on this very site..
Analysis
This site was proposed for a land use change to a higher density as part of the Year 2000 Major Update to the Boulder
Valley Comprehensive Plan. At that time, Planning Board members felt that unless the landowners apply collectively for
annexation, higher densities on the parcels would not work within the context of the neighborhood. They did state that
higher densities should be considered for these parcels if the landowners apply as a group and if the potential impacts can
be mitigated.
This °Grot~p"application has now been tendered meaningless, since the church and BVSD are no longer part of the
planning, The defection of BVSD is especially problematic, since no one knows how it will decide to use tts parcel.
Since the major update to the BVCP, the city sponsored a joint planning effort with the landowners to solicit neighborhood
input and develop conceptual alternatives for development of the property. Three altemative plans were developed and
reviewed by the Planning Board in March 2002. The Planning Board indicated general support for the alternative with a
density in the low range of the Medium Density Residential land use designation (8,2 units/acre). The landowners then
submitted a concept plan that was reviewed by the Planning Board in September. The Planning Board generally supported
the proposed mixture of unit types, affordable housing component, and density (8.75 units/acre).
The March consideration was prior to BVSD backing out, which changed the entire concept of land use for the area.
Parks Board had looked favorably on use of this parcel to help increase recreation access. The 8.2 figure now becomes
a potential of 14 in the BVSD land and otherwise concentrated in a much smaller area. Who's fooling whom here?
The staff recommendation would add approximately 66 additional dwelling units (up to a maximum of 88) to the number
of units allowed by the current low density land use designation, and would allow a maximum average density on the 22
acres of 10 units per acre. The applicant's proposal would add approximately 132 additional dwelling units (up to a
maximum of 174), and would allow a maximum average density of 14 units per acre. Fuzzy math!?
The 22 acres at low density provides for l32 units. With 11 acres remaining at low density (77 units) and I I acres increased to
medium density (154 units), the plan provides for 231 units, which provide for 99 additional units or 10.5 units per acre.
The staff recommendation would be expected to generate approximately 400 additional daily vehicle trips in an area. The
applicant's proposal would be expected to generate approximately 790 additional daily vehicle trips.
A 2001 neighborhood Kalmia Avenue traffic survey concluded even higher impact based upon current unaccept-
abledelays and traffic backups. This is unsafe at any significant increase, espectally in emergency situations.
The vicinity of the site is somewhat remote from the main part of the city and commercial or retail services.
So remote that a minimum I-mile pedestrian or auto trip is required to reach commercial sites from parcel 13C
-unless one uses cemetery roads during the daylight hours it is open (obviously discouraged by the owners).
The site would be accessed from Palo Parkway and Kalmia. Existing traffic patterns and signal operation considerations
suggest that traffic resulting from additional development on this parcel will have an impact on the signalized intersection
of Palo Parkway and 28'" Street. However, this intersection operates at a high level of service with the exception of the
west bound left tum, which could be improved as needed by signal timing adjustments. A development proposal for the site
would follow the city's development review process, which will require a traffic impact report and specific mitigation
measures of the development. Inadequate information and biased opinion.
This study should be done and evaluated by the neighborhood prior to any further consideration of zoning redesignation.
No mention is made of the untenable traffic delays at Kalmia and 28`". Area residents (Palo Park. Sale Lake. Kalmia Court,
The Boulders) customarily cut through the Aspen Grove complex to bypass this stifled intersection.
If additional development would degrade the operation of these intersections, the development would be expected to
provide the improvements at these intersections to mitigate the impact.
Mitigation cannot be accomplished afrer the face. Boulder has been suffering for years from this kind of thinkine. Real
information must be assembled before these plans go any further. The only practical mitigation is to limit densirv here.
The best strategy for partially mitigating the traffic impact would be increased emphasis on encouraging ridership on the
BOUND through a Neighborhood EcoPass program.
Hogwash. Mothers with small children (read "affordable") cannot carry groceries and offspring onto an occasional public
bus to travel a mile. Automobiles will be the principal mode of transit for the foreseeable fitture.
Further mitigation could be accomplished by development of pedestrian connections along Palo Pazkway to the BOUND
bus stops and by ensuring the extension of local street grids from adjacent subdivisions directly into this site.
Walkways and paths must follow approximate "crow-flies" routes (a priority in our neighborhood's design) to ensure
maximum resident use. And they must be to points of interest (stores, services, main routes) to expect use, not to bus stops.
This site is served by two pazks: CentraUSouth Palo Pazk, 3.1 acres; and East Palo Pazk, 4 acres; for a total of 7.1 acres
serving the site. East Palo Park is considered a substandazd size neighborhood pazk. There is no such Parks designation;
nevertheless, note that the planning boazd waived any objections in the previous 4-Mile Creek development debacle.
CentraUSouth Palo Pazk is classified as a pocket pazk Thus, one pocket pazk and one sub-standazd size neighborhood park
serve the site. This "pocket park" is 1!3 covered with tennis courts; the East Pazk is lacking in any amenities associated
with a neighborhood park except play equipment. This staff assessment lacks credibility of any kind: note that it does not
come from the Pazks Boad.
Almost all of the azea proposed for a land use designation change lies within the standazd service azea radius of these pazks.
(which aze NOT neighborhood pazks) Although the majority of the site is served, a small portion of the southeast comer of
the site (less than 1 /6 of the site) along Kalmia is not within the service azea radius of the city pazks. (The staff recom-
mendation would exclude this portion of the site from the proposed change.) The Pazks and Recreation standazds would
indicate the need for some additional park acreage on or neaz this site primarily because of the size of the current pazks.
The Parks Board also recognized that existing southwest-situated residents have NO park services, a situation
that any reasonable development plan would seek to alleviate. Planning staff MUST take into consideration
existing deficiencies as well as planned-for requirements. Anything less makes planning standards valueless.
Although it would not technically meet the Parks and Recreation Master Plan standazds, the developer of the site is
proposing to build a 1 acre private park on the parcel to partially meet the pazk needs in this area.
This "private park" item is absurd in its inadequacy. If developed, it would serve a limited number of units with
no more than generous front yards (probably at premium sales pnces). Divide 1 acre by 231 units.
This subcommuniry is currently underserved by fire services (not within the response times of any of the current fire
stations). Additional housing units added under an MR land use designation are likely to increase the demand for services
in this area and place more demand on fire stations 3 and 5.
This comes at a time when conscious efforts should be made to correct, not exacerbate such inadequacies. Dead
end streets, drought conditions, traffic excesses and fuel usage all maybe added to the emergency response
concern. This only serves to further illustrate the frivolous nature of the planning staff recommendations.
Concerns raised by the public
The city hosted a neighborhood meeting on November 14, 2002 to inform residents about the proposal and gather input.
Approximately 30 people attended the meeting. The summarized comments and copies of a-mails received are included
following this report. Concerns included increased density, traffic, inadequate parkland, need for a buffer zone, and
lack of incorporation of residents' concerns. Some resident comments support increasing the density to accommodate
8.75 units per acre as proposed in the applicant's concept plan.
Other than developer/owner comments, it's inconceivable that neighbors to this proposed development would
support the recommended approach. It's likely all "in the reading" or lack of understanding about what's really
happening here. This statement destroys even further the staff's claim to ameliorating the applicant's proposal.
Planning Assumptions
Under existing_ Applicant's Staff
land use oronosal Recommendation
Future estimated dwelling units 132 264 198 ??
Future estimated jobs 0 0 0
Objectives and Criteria
Evaluation and Comments
OBJECTIVES (BVCP Policies) Positive (++ or +), Negative (-- or-), Neutral
Criteria for Measurement '(N), No[ A licable (NA)
Neighborhood Response in Blue:
A. LAND USE
1. Provides the opportunity for increasing Boulder's housing diversity and ++ * The city's abilih~ to manage this
affordabili includin ermanently affordable housin ca[e orv is far from raven.
a. Adds higher density affordable residential uses including 25% +adds 132 units; 61 perms-manently
permanently affordable units to low and moderate income affordable @ 50%
households and 25% permanently affordable units to middle income * The neighborhood does nut take issue
households. with affordable housing, onk with [he
density developers must apply to make it
feasible.
2. Encourages new housing in convenient locations close to jobs and shopping + * Inaccurate rating
* --
a. Within'/. mile of convenience shopping - * -- Both walking and auto route exceed 1
mile from develo ment a icenter.
b. Within 1 mile of racer store + * Not true by available routes.
c. Within l mile of em to ment center + * Countin minimum wa a em lovers onh•.
3. Improves jobs/housing balance + * How'?
a. Adds higher density affordable housing +adds 132 units
* Fuzz ~ math; 50% of 231?
b. Reduces jobs NA
4. Encourages the revitalization and economic viability of the city's NA
commercial areas and retail base (5.06, 5.08, 2,19
a. Adds a mix of residential and retail uses - * At planned density, why are retail needs
i oared?
5. Shows compatibility with adjacent land uses through transitions between + * 231 units right next to heavily used, noisy,
land uses that var in intensit (215 traffic ma net soccer facilih•?
a. Is compatible with adjacent land uses + * Compatible with foxes, birds, deer?
What "use" are vve talkie about here?
6. Respects existing neighborhood character and encourages sensitivity to + * planning board member said this
existing context consideration wasn't necessary because our
nei hborhood had no consistent "character."
a. Reflects existing neighborhood character (residential) + * --Grid plan, density, tract housing do
notre0ectthis nei~hborhood'scharacter,
7. Promotes a cam ac[ communih~ [hrou h redevelo meet and inlill
a. Is in area I NA
b. Is in area II Yes
B.LOCATIONAL/SERVICES
I. Ade uate services and facilities are available or tanned
a. Fire - * -- Decidedly nat.
b. Police + * -Limited access by emergency services
should be a factor in determinin density.
c. Vehicular access + * --Dead end streets; traffic backups; no
ood bicycle/ edestrian tannin .
d. Neighborhood park accessibility + (served) * --Completely untrue. Ask the
nei hborhood;askthe Parks Board.
e. School accessibility/ capacity + * How so? Where are these
schools/school bus access?
4
C.TRANSPORTATiON
1. Encourages increased use of alternative travel modes and avoids auto * -Encourages auto dependency due [o
dependency limited services and access.
a. In atransit-oriented/ pedestrian friendly area? - * --Quite the opposite the way as it is
b. In an area with a rich mix of complementary land uses?
- * -- As it is now•, yes; as proposed, no.
c. Directly served by high frequency transit? +* -Hardly high frequency.
e. How many net additional daily vehicle trips will be generated? Staff's proposal: 400
Applicant's proposal: 790
* At staff level, 700 is a conservative, and
more accurate estimate.
L Will this change add vehicle trips to an arterial intersection that is No * This is mind-boggling. has anyone
(now or in future) congested? (LOS F) waited for traffic signals at Kalmia that last 2
minutes with no cross-traffic?
g. Can the vehicular traffic impact of this site be readily mitigated Yes * NO! Transportation planners have made
through strategies that are part of the city's transportation plan? a mess of Boulder as is; perhaps [his situation
(TMP) won't be noticeable.
D. ENVIRONMENT
1. Preserves and protects environmental resources - * --This development has the opposite
effect.
a. Open space adjacency/ access impacts Neutral * See above.
b. Wetlands NA * --Drains and eddies will disappear.
c. Wildlife or native plant habitat/ natural ecosystem NA * --The natural ecosystem is clearly
present now. Have you looked closeh~?
d. Species ofconcern -less potential for protecting prairie dog
habitat. * --Are deer, wild birds not in the
zone of consideration?
e. Flood hazards NA * -Excessive development could affect
flood status.
f. Airport influence zone AIZ 3 * What does this comment mean?
Landing patterns are a sensitive and
demanding concern.
Date: Thursday, January 23, 2003
Memo To: Boulder Planning Commission
Subject: Spine Road Development in Gunbarrel
From:
Dave Walba Cassandra Geneson Carolyn Ramsey
303-492-6750 303-530-3648 303-735-5028
dwalba@maacom cgeneson@aol.com cbramsey@hotmail.com
Concerns and issues regarding high-density residential development:
• The height of proposed new structures should be consistent throughout Gunbarrel
(currently no structures in the area are more than three stories high -blocking the
beautiful views to the south, west, and north with height variances would remove one of
the primary reasons we chose to live in this part of Boulder)
• Dramatically increased traffic on Lookout Road and on 63rd
• Open space variances (the community values the current greenscape and pocket parks as
opposed to hardscape open space)
• Impact on the Gunbarrel North bike/walking paths
• Light pollution (currently the King Soopers parking lot and the Gunbarrel Shopping
Center already contribute to significant light pollution in the area)
• Increased demand for water resources
• Increased demand for fire and police resources
In addition, Gunbarrel North residents feel a local library would be highly desirable, as would a
transportation center connecting Boulder, Gunbarrel and Longmont by rail.
Lastly, Gunbarrel North residents would like to be kept informed about the subject
development's progress, and be allowed to comment at all stages of the development.
January 23, 2003
Re: Parcel No. 5, Foothills Parkway and Diagonal Highway, aka McKenzie
Junction
Request that the Boulder City Planning Department refuse Land Use
Designation change from TB (Transitional Business) to GB (General
Business) or CB (Community Business), by Rodger Ewy, Boulder resident.
Macon Cowles, in his message to Suzanne Richstone, dated 9/23/2002
(Page G-14, included in the testimony package), has stated, "It is hard to
imagine a better location in town for a big box, surrounded as it is by
highways."
Given the present disastrous state of the Crossroads Mall, it would seem
that Crossroads would, indeed be a better place fora "Big Box" anchor
store. Crossroads is central to Boulder, it has a long history of commercial
exploitation and is central to Boulder's shopping population. Other sites
infinitely better than McKenzie would include rezoned industrial and
commercial sites now being looked at for housing. A Big Box at this location
would, in addition, further exacerbate the dwindling sales at Crossroads. It
would likely hamper the successful redevelopment of Crossroads by
syphoning off trade that would otherwise go to a revitalized Crossroads.
The McKenzie site is totally unfit and inappropriate for commercial
exploitation. Its crippled access (highly dangerous and difficult access off of
either Foothills or the Diagonal), its location at a transportation choke point
(crossover of 47th and Diagonal), and its remote position from the center of
Boulder's population make it most unlikely to become a successful high-
traffic "Big Box" site.
What is perhaps the most outrageous aspect of planting a Big Box or other
high-traffic use at this site is this:
This site is astride the City's prime entry from the north east. Two linked four
-lane highways carry thousands of visitors into Boulder through this
intersection, offering them one of the most beautiful views of Boulder and
the Flatirons of all of Boulder's entries. It is flanked on the east side by
handsome City Open Space and on the west side by the extensive grass
soccer fields. The unobstructed entrance views would be ruined for all time.
In stark contrast to this open space would be the massive buildings, the
brightly lighted signs and the acres and acres of parked and circulating
vehicles that every commercial enterprise demands for success.
Can it be that this is the message that the Planning Board, our Council and
our County partners want to present to our visitors? I really think not. There
are too many Boulder citizens who have fought hard to save the beauty and
quality of this City to even contemplate the dumping this sort of low level use
at our primary entrances.
The Planning Department, in its wisdom, has chosen not to recommend
this change. I have quoted to you, chapter and verse (see pages G-10
through G-13) why this land use is contrary to our policy in the Boulder
Valley Comprehensive Plan. I would beg you, therefore, to not recommend
this change to either the Boulder City Council or to the representatives in the
County.
Thank you.
Rodger Ewy
4082 Old Westbury Ct.
Boulder, CO 80301
.,y„
From: "E. Cole" <es cole@yahoo.com>
To: <gatzaj@ci.boulder.co.us>
Date: 1115/03 9:OOAM
Subject: comp plan update -Gunbarrel
Good morning. As a resident of the Gunbarrel area, I have followed with interest the discussions I
proposed changes to land use designations in the areas near Lookout and Spine Roads. I wrote to the
Planning Board during discussions about the O'Connor Development to voice my concern that high
density residential development was being proposed 'prior" to any consideration of providing needed
infrastructure and service improvements for the area, Currently, there is only one way in and one way out
of the Gunbarrel area, which has led to traffic at urban levels, and because there are few service
establishments, all current residents must travel some distance for basic services. The proposed land use
change to include high density residential development at 5460-5490 Spine Road will only exacerbate the
problems identified by the Gunbarrel Copmmunity Association in discussions with the City.
My objection to these proposed land use changes is that they will have a direct and negative impact on an
area that is already stressed by lack of business, community, and transportation services. High density
residential development may be appropriate for this area in the future, but I don't believe that can be
determined without careful study and wholistic planning for the development of the entire area.
Thank you for your consideration of these comments and for sharing them with the members of the
Planning Board. I regret that due to a previous commitment, I will be unable to attend the 23 January
meeting on this item.
Estella Cole, 6194 Old Brompton Road, Boulder
Happiness is not adestination - it's a manner of traveling. LaoTsu
Do you Yahool?
Yahoo! Mail Plus -Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now
January 22, 2003
To:Boulder City Planning Board
RE: Foothills Parkway and Diagonal Highway
Proposed Land Use Designation Change
I am writing to reiterate strong opposition to changing the current TB land use
designation to GB or CB for the island parcel of land at Foothills Parkway and Diagonal
Highway, aka McKensie.
Thus I, affirm my support and that of many of my neighbors in the Four Mile Creek
Neighborhood for the Staff Recommendation of °No Change' in the Boulder Valley
Comprehensive Plan.
Staff correctly identifies the concerns about:
1) Creating unneeded retail `big box' competition with the redevelopment of
Crossroads (and I would add competition with the potential redevelopment west
of 28`h Street, south of the Diagonal-the current Albertsons site.) BVCP 5.08
2) Destroying a Major Entryway view corridor to Boulder. Is Super Walmart
surrounded by I S acres of parking your idea of preserving and enhancing the
Flatirons view and the Northeast gateway to Boulder? BVCP Policy 2.07
3) Doubling or tripling projected traffic flows around and to the isolated island on
high speed highway (Foothills and Diagonal), and a residential street, 47~h-all
adding to the congestion at Jay/Diagonal; 47`h/Diagonal, 47`h/Jay as well as traffic
noise, pollution and endangering pedestrians and bike rides on 47'h accessing the
Pleasantview Soccer Complex.
4) Additionally, redesignation to CB or GB violates BVCP Policy statements 2.14,
2.15, 2.22, 2.23, 2.24 2.30. Please read Roger Ewy's comments. I support totally.
S) Please do not compound a zoning error made more than 20 years ago zoning a site
that is so obviously flawed for development by virtue of being an island isolated
by two high speed highways.
Please accept and support the staff recommendation for no change.
Thank you,
Sincerely,
James C. Priby]
4664 S. Hampton Circle
City ofBoulder
Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan '
Regarding The Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan Amtual Update.
The following are cornments concerning the Kalmia Properties [a.k.a. Northfield
Commons) proposed zoning change from the cutTertt low density residential W medium
density residential in conjunction will[ the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan Annual
Update.
The proposed zoning change to Kalmia Properties (a.k.a. Northfield Commons) should
not be allowed.
This proposal violates many of the key Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan Policies.
1. Compatibility with adjacent land uses.
The Northfield Commons proposed gross density of 8.75 units per acre is out of balance
with surrounding neighborhoods.
2. Respect for existing neighborhood context.
Respect for this policy would mean keeping the housing density, units per acre to the
present level of 6 units per acre. Increasing the units per acre to 8.75 units per acre only
shows respect for the developer.
Any change to the zoning of the 3 ten acre parcels in this proposal, would most certainly
mean a zouing change, in the future to the remaining 10 acre parcel directly to the west of
the Northfield Commons Development and next to the Sale Lake neighborhood.
3. Ability to mitigate transportation impacts.
The projects ability to mitigate transportation impacts at 6 units per acre (180 total units)
will be much greater that at the proposed 8.75 units per acre (262 total units) that's $~
additional housing units generating transportation demands. This is especially troubling
considering the future impact of the remaining 10 acre parcel,
The neighborhoods immediately adjacent to the proposed Northfield Commons Project
will have the most immediate transportation impacts to deal with. There are also
neighborhoods not immediantly adjacent to We Northfield Commons Project that will
have a great deal of traffic impact from the project Specifically from the 28'" St.
intersection going west on Kalmia to 26'" St. to Linden Ave. or Meadow Ave. to 2l st St.
to Kalmia to 19"' St.
A look at the enclosed map of the area will illustrate the traffic flow.
From Kalmia to Palo Park east of 281° St. the shortest and the route of choice for driving
to Crestview Elementary School and the North Boulder Market area is the route outlined.
To further illustrate this point see the Ciry of Boulder Trafi tc study of Linden Ave. and
Meadow Ave.
From Iris north on 2Gs' st. where it dead-ends or toms on Jay Rd. to Highway 36 there are
only 2 routes going west from 26m to 19" Linden/Meadow and Norwood.
To illustrate this traffic Aow, going north on 2G° from Itis street by street.
juniper Ave. Dead-end does not go through.
Kaltnia Ave. Dead-end. From both 26° going west and 19i° going east, Kalmia Ave. is a
Cul de Sac.
Linden/Meadow Ave. Goes through to 19m. The most direct route between 26'" and 19".
Keller Farm. Cul de Sac.
Norwood Ave. Goes through to 19'" and on to Broadway. Norwood Ave. was
completely redesigned in 1998 to slow the speed of traffic.
Pampas Court. Cul de Sac
Premier Place. Cul de Sac
Agate Rd and Topaz Drive, Does not go through. Concrete Barriers in the street at the
corner of Topaz and Garnet prevent traffic from continuing through to Riverside and 19s'.
These temporary concrete barrios on Gametal Topaz now look likely to tom permanent
with neighborhood annexation to the city.
Sumac Court. Dead-end.
Tamarack Ave. Dead-end. No through traffic to Upland Ave, or 19"'. The parents in this
neighborhood who drive there children to Crestview Elementary School go south on 26"
to Norwood or Linden/Meadow to 19" then north to Crestview. Planning Brilliance.
Therefore, please do not force anymore traiTic on to Linden Ave., Meadow Ave. or
Norwood Ave. Our neigbborhood is in transition, new families are moving in with
children. Year proposed zoalae change for the Kalmia Crooerties / Northfield
Commons I?roiect means more tragic on our resideetlal streets and t6aNs not fair.
Respectfully
Linden/Meadow Neighborhood Residents
TRANSPORTATION
GOALS
• Encourage walking, biking, and transit
use by providing safe, comfortable and
convenient pedestrian and bicycle path
connections.
• Determine locations for future transit
centers. Determine methods to calm traffic
speeds on neighborhood streets.
• Design a stronger entry/ gateway to the
City at Broadway and U.S. 36.
OBJECTIVES
• Pursue aggressive strategies to reduce the
number and distance of car trips.
• Slow cars, especially on high-volume
residential streets near schools and
where cars consistently exceed speed
limits.
• Develop physical improvements, such as
narrowing existing streets.
• Consider increased speed limit
enforcement.
• Consider traffic slowing techniques on
North Boulder streets as part of the
Neighborhood Traffic Mitigation
Program, which will prioritize streets to
receive mitigation measures, based on
City-wide needs and cost/benefit
assessments. Provide recommendations to
the program for highest priority improve-
ments in North Boulder.
• Test mitigation solutions first with
temporary structures, before more
expensive, permanent solutions are
installed.
• Mitigate traffic noise when developing
traffic speed mitigation.
• Examine problems and issues associated
with poor east-west circulation in the
central part of the subcommunity, including
traffic flow and volumes, air quality, and
safety. Identify solutions that would be
most appropriate and effective. Consider
alternative solutions including:
• creating more street connections,
• improving pedestrian/bicycle system,
• calming traffic,
• encouraging school children to walk,
bike and take the bus to school, and
• locating any new school where traffic
will be reduced.
• Inter-connect the street network in new
neighborhoods, both internally and with
existing streets, so that the traffic load on
residential streets is equitable, car trip
distances are minimized, and walking and
bicycling are convenient.
• Increase opportunities for safe and efficient
pedestrian and bicycle travel throughout the
subcommunity by:
• developing long, continuous routes with-
in the subcommunity and connecting to
existing or future routes in adjacent sub-
communities (Central Boulder and Palo
Park);
• identifying and resolving missing links,
both on-street and off-street, so that
systems are complete;
• providing and enhancing bike lanes on
collector and arterial streets for cyclists
seeking direct, high-speed routes;
• installing sidewalks on school routes;
• not allowing future street closures or
right-of--way/ easement vacations in
areas where bicycle or pedestrian access
might be appropriate in the future.
.~20.~
• Make getting around liy bus a convenient
and attractive alternative to driving.
• Provide recommendations for extending
bus service to major new destinations
and established areas that lack service.
• Consider a frequent circulator
internal to the subcommunity,
providing service between residential
areas and subcommunity centers.
• Provide transit centers with shelter from
the elements, seating, covered bicycle
parking, schedule and fare information,
and newspaper racks. Additional
features could be: pay telephones, real
time bus video display, a snack and/ or
coffee shop, a convenience store, bicycle
storage lockers, a bank teller machine
and/or a dry cleaner.
• Elevate the quality of street design, so that
streets are more attractive and inviting for
pedestrians, bicyclists, bus riders, and
drivers.
• Strengthen the sense of entry by car into
the City at the north end of the
subcommunity.
BACKGROUND
Circulation
Streets are our most comprehensive network
of connections and one of our most land-inten-
sive and expensive public investments, so they
should be as comfortable, safe, convenient and
attractive for pedestrians and bicyclists as for
motorists. Redesigning streets to accommo-
date non-auto use will encourage walking, bik-
ing and using bus service as alternatives to dri-
ving. This means adding sidewalks, bike
lanes, safe crosswalks, landscaping, signage,
and street painting, as well as controlling traf-
fic speeds. To ensure continuous walking and
biking routes, more off-street paths comple-
menting on-street facilities are needed also.
East-West Connections
The area bounded by 19th and 28th, Iris and
Violet, has an incomplete street network, par-
ticularly east-west street connections.
Development in this area in the last ten years
occurred without a transportation plan at the
neighborhood level. New developments in
many areas occurred without east-west con-
nections while more existing east-west streets
were closed.
This lack of street connections negatively
impacts residents along the few east-west
through streets (Kalmia/Linden/Meadow and
Orchard/Oak/Norwood): These roads carry a
disproportionate load of traffic. Although traf-
fic volumes are well within the streets' capaci-
ty, the extra traffic unfairly burdens those resi-
dents:
Pedestrian and bicycle connections and safe
crossings between Broadway and 28th, Iris to
Violet Avenue, are critical because there is an
elementary school at 19th and Sumac
(Crestview) and a middle school on the 2200
block of Norwood (Centennial). Yet side-
walks, bike paths, and protected crossings are
inadequate, or non-existent. First, there are a
limited number of street connections, not only
east-west (between 19th and 26th), but also
north-south. Violet, Upland, Sumac,
Redwood, and Quince in particular have very
long blocks -- as long as 1500', whereas the
most walkable street networks have 300'
blocks. Funnelling north-south pedestrian and
bicycle travel onto l9th and 26th, which are
busy collectors, is less than desirable from the
perspective of the walker and cyclist, who
prefers quieter streets.
N. B. S. P. Repainted
August 2001
1 PLAN: Bicycle/Pedestrian
T
Improvements
Right-of-Way Plan
li
Si
~~~~
:'~
EXISTING CONDITIONS PROPOSED CONDITIONS
°°' '. On-Street Bike Route On•Sireet Bike Route
-^~~ On-Street Bike Lane ^ ~ - On-Sireet Bike Lene
SldewalWPath -Key Routes - -- SldewalWPath -Key Routes
°^ ~°'^ OH-Street Multi-Use Path ~~ ^~ ~ Off-street Multf-Use Path
"° ~ ` Off-Street Ped-Only Path ^ °° ° Ofl-Streel Ped•Only Path
~`"~~' Civic Site '~ "'~ Exacl Location undetermined
~"" Ped/Bike Underpass Ped/Bike Underpass
~ Improved 8ikelPed Crossing
* SubcommunNy Boundary ,
"
Proposed Roads
~' Conceptual Road Location per
Infrastructure Plan
Note: The existing multi-use paths east of Wonderland Lake shall remain as soft surfaced paths.
r ~~ •-7
N.B.S.P. Reprinted
August 2001