5A - Proposed changes to the BVCP as part of the 2002-2003 Annual UpdateCITY OF BOULDER
PLANNING BOARD AGENDA ITEM
MEETING DATE: January 23, 2003
(Agenda Item Preparation Date: January 10, 2003)
AGENDA TITLE:
Public hearing and action on proposed changes to the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan
(BVCP) as part of the 2002-2003 Annual Update.
REQUESTING DEPARTMENT:
Planning Department
Peter Pollock, Planning Director
Ruth McHeyser, I.ong Range Planning Manager
Susan Richstone, Senior Planner
Jean Gatza, Presenter
Bev Johnson, Planner
Michelle Allen, Planner
Chad Ricklefs, Intern
OVERVIEW:
The purpose of this item is to review and consider proposed changes to the Boulder Valley
Comprehensive Plan as part of the 2002-2003 Annual Review.
I.BACKGROUND
At the October 17, 2002 Planning Board meeting, the board compiled a list of proposed changes to
be considered during the 2002-2003 Annual Update to the comprehensive plan. This list was sent
to the City Council and the County Commissioners as an information item with an option for the list
to be put on an agenda to make changes. Neither body exercised the option to make changes, The
County Planning Commission reviewed the list as compiled by the Plarming Board at their
November 2002 meeting. No changes were made to the list.
Both the city Planning Board and the county Planning Commission raised some questions about the
lack of clarity related to the procedures for the annual review process. Staff suggests that the
procedures be reviewed at the initiation of the next major update to see if changes are needed.
Attachment A contains information on the procedures for the Annual Review from the plan.
Agenda Item #~_ page #~_
Proposed changes to the plan must be adopted by all four approval bodies in duly noticed public
hearings. The following dates are tentatively scheduled for the public hearings and action by the
other approval bodies.
City Council February 18, 2003
County Planning Commission March 19, 2003
County Commissioners March 27, 2003
II. PROPOSED CHANGES AND STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS
As part of the 2002-2003 BVCP annual update, staff has provided analysis on five requests for
]and use designation changes in Areas I and II, and one request to change the service area
boundary. In addition, city staff are proposing various map and text changes as summarized
below.
A. Proposed Changes to the Land Use Map
The following sites have been proposed for land use designation changes as a part of the BVCP
2002-2003 annual review. Attachment B includes a map showing the locations of these sites.
Arapahoe Avenue and Lincoln Place. Land use designation change from Mixed Density
Residential to High Density Residential. (Analysis and recommendation in Attachment C)
Staff Recommendation: Approval of the proposed change.
2. 5460-5490 Spine Road. Land use designation change from Performance Industrial to Mixed Use
Industrial and High Density Residential (Analysis and recommendation in Attachment D)
Staff Recommendation: No change to the land use designation at this time. The proposed
change should be assessed as part of Gunbarrel Area Planning Process.
3. 3035-3345 Kalmia Avenue. Land use designation change from Low Density Residential to
Medium Density Residential. (Analysis and recommendation in Attachment E)
Staff Recommendation: Approval of the proposed change.
4. 0 Linden Avenue. Land use designation change from Open Space - Other to Very I.ow Density
Residential (Analysis and recommendation in Attachment F)
Staff Recommendation: Approval of the proposed change only for a portion of the parcel. Staff
does not recommend change of the Open Space - Other designation on the western portion of
the property.
5. Foothills Parkway and Dia onal Highway (McKenzie Junctionl. Land use designation change
from Transitional Business to General and Community Business. (Analysis and recommendation
in Attachment G)
Staff Recommendation: No change.
Agenda Item #~ Page # ~~
B. Proposed Change to the Service Area Boundary
1. Area III to II minor boundarv adjustment change at 3532 Diaeonal Highw~. Proposed by County
Land Use staff as a minor correction. (Analysis and recommendation in Attachment H)
Staff Recommendation: Approval of the proposed change.
C. Land Use Designation Changes in Area III
Staff is recommending various changes to the Open Space designation to reflect recent purchases,
map corrections and removal of the Open Space designation from a portion of the property at Hwy
119 and N. 55`h Street. These changes are shown on the map in Attachment I.
The proposed changes include new Open Space and Mountain Parks acquisitions since the Year
2000 Major Update. There are five additions under Open Space, Acquired and four additions under
Open Space, Development Rights. None of these properties cunently have an Open 5pace land use
designation.
The proposed changes also include a change to the adopted BVCP Land Use Map for the Gunbarrel
Veterinary Clinic property located on the northwest side of the Diagonal Highway at North 55`h
Street. The northerly half of the property would remain designated as Open Space and the Open
Space designation on the southerly 2.5 acres of the property would be removed. A veterinary clinic
has existed on the approximately 5 acre site for 32 years on the southern portion of the propeRy.
Staff recommends removing the Open Space land use designation on the portion of the property
containing the existing buildings. The remainder of the site would continue to be designated Open
Space. The use as a veterinary clinic and kennel is consistent with other uses in Area III and is
allowed in a rural preservation area.
D. Staff Initiated Changes
The staff initiated changes were either identified in the five year update or are items normally
evaluated and revised during the annual update. Those identified as needed changes during the five
year update are: changes to the economic policies, creation of a species of concern list, development
of trails map changes criteria and process and changes to the Inventoried Wetlands Map. Other items
that aze normally reviewed and updated during the comprehensive plan annual review aze the master
plan and program summaries, the Open Space and Parks Map and the Trails Map.
Changes to the Economic Policies
Staff is proposing various changes to the economic policies as described in Attachment J.
Since the completion of the Year 2000 Major Update to the Comprehansive Plan, the Boulder
Healthy Economy Strategic Plan has been completed. Policy 5.09 "Develop an Economic
Sustainability Strategic Plan" was adopted during the major update and called for incorporating the
recommendations of the plan into the policies of the BVCP.
5.09 Develop an Economic Sustainability Strategic Plan.
Agenda Item # ~ f~ Page # ~3
The city shall develop a strategic plan for economic sustainability in 2001, following a
benchmark analysis. The strategic plan will identify barriers, oppartunities and strategies
for achieving the communiry's vision of economic sustainability. Based on that plm:, the city
will propose specific new policies for the Comprehensive Plan.
This policy identifies the need to propose specific new policies based on the Strategic Plan.
Attachment J contains an analysis of the 10 major goals of the Boulder Healthy Economy Strategic
Plan in comparison to the existing BVCP economic policies. Based on input from the City Council
Economic Task Force, staff proposes adding 2 policies in the economic section of the comprehensive
plan and revising policies 1.11 Regional Cooperation and 5.06 Upgrade Existing Commercial and
Industrial Areas, to address the goals of the economic strategic plan. Attachment J contains a red-line
version of the economic section with all of the proposed changes.
Staff Recommendation: Approval of the proposed changes to the economic policies as shown in
Attachment J.
Trails Man Pro¢ram Summary_
Staff is proposing changes to the Trails Map Program Summary as shown in Attachment K.
During the Year 2000 BVCP Major Update, an issue arose regarding a proposed change to the
BVCP Trails Map. The city Open Space Boazd of Trustees (OSBT) considered a revised trails
map and recommended adoption of the map, provided that the Union Pacific Railroad conceptual
trail be removed from the map. The OSBT suggested an alternate alignment be found that would
not affect the highly sensitive wetland and habitat resources in the vicinity of Boulder Creek and
the White Rocks area. The Planning Board considered the OSBT recommendation and did not
feel there was enough information to make a decision to delete the proposed Union Pacific trail.
The Planning Board directed staff to clazify definitions and criteria for making changes to the
trails map at the next BVCP annual update. The expanded text is intended to provide more clarity
for: definitions of trail designation categories; the process for adding, deleting, and modifying the
trail designations; and the process for resolving conflicts when city and county agencies differ on
trail designation issues. The proposed changes to the BVCP Trails Map text is contained in
Attachment K. An interdepartmental staff group consisting of staff from Planning, Parks and
Recreation, Open Space and Mountain Parks, Water Quality, Transportation and county staff,
worked together to develop the proposed text.
The intent of the new text is to ensure the cooperative involvement of all affected departments in
developing and evaluating trail proposals. It requires t6at all proposed BVCP Trails Map changes
be reviewed and evaluated by the affected departments and that agreement amon$ departments
on the suitability of the trai] and trail alignment be sought as part of an interdepartmental review
process. If there are unresolved issues, the group will recommend deferral of a decision until a
study and assessment of alternatives is completed. The Planning Department will facilitate the
interdepartmental effort to resolve outstanding issues and develop a joint recommendation, if
possible, for further board consideration.
Agenda Item # ,~ /~ Page #~
The current BVCP Trails Map contains conceptual and proposed trail alignments around which there
are impasses. Examples include: the missing trail link between Boulder and Gunbanel (at the
confluence of Boulder Creek and South Boulder Creek), the pro~osed Boulder Feeder Canal Trail
between Boulder and Lyons, and the proposed Union Pacific railroad right-of-way from Boulder to
Erie. Unresolved environmental issues are part of all three of these trail impasses. The Boulder-
Gunbarrel confluence trail link, included in the Boulder Creek Confluence Plan, is currently being
addressed by an interdepartmental group led by the Planning Department. Proposed revisions to the
BVCP Action Plan include issue resolution processes, lead by the Planning Department, for the
conceptua7 trail along the Union Pacific Railroad Iane and for the conceptual trail along the Boulder
Feeder Canal.
Staff Rewmmendation: Approval of the Trails Map Program Summary as shown in Attachment
K.
Master Plan and Pro~ram Summaries
Staff is proposing changes to vazious master plan and program summaries as shown in
Attachment L. Several master plans and programs have sufficiently changed to warrant revisions
in the annual update. These programs include: Open Space and Mountain Parks, Parks and
Recreation, Fire and Emergency Medical Service, Library Master Plan, Environmental Program,
and the Greenways Program. The changes to the master plan and program summaries are minor,
clarifying revisions. They do not represent major changes to any of the programs or services.
Attachment L contains red-lined versions of the master plan and program summaries proposed
for change.
Staff Recommendation: Approval of the Master Plan and Program Summaries as shown in
Attachment L.
Snecies of Local Concern list
Staff is proposing the addition of a Species of L,ocal Concern List as shown in Attachment M.
Planning staff has been working with the Open Space and Mountain Parks Department to develop
a local species of concern list for the BVCP. The purpose of the list is to: 1) refine and prioritize
global, federal, state, and county lists of species of concern to reflect the uniqueness of lands in the
Boulder Valley; and 2) provide a guide for making citywide policy, land use, and regulatory
decisions.
Staff Recommendation: Approval of the text and List of Species of Local Concern as shown in
Attachment M.
Inventoried Wetlands Map chan~es
Staff is proposing changes to the Inventoried Wetlands Map as shown in Attachment N. The
adopted BVCP map was last updated in 1996. Since the last major update, several wetlands either
have been destroyed or created due to development. The wedands map will be revised to reflect
current wetland boundaries. The following changes have been made on the BVCP wetlands map:
Agenda Item # _SfI _ Page #_~
Votje property at 47`~ and Jay Rd.: Staff is proposing to remove the wetlands shown
on this property. The applicant for annexation of this property has submitted a
wetland report for this site with the annexation application. The report states that
wetlands no longer exist on this site. Staff has accepted this conclusion.
2. Boulder Community Ho~ital site at Foothills Pkwy. and Arapahoe Rd.: Proposed
changes to the map reflect the wetland delineation that was approved with annexation
of this property.
StafF Recommendation: Approval of the Inventoried Wetlands Map as shown in Attachment N.
Open Space / Mountain Parks and Parks Map (BVCP Map 9)
Staff is proposing changes to the Open Space and Parks Map to reflect the changes listed above
for newly acquired open space properties. The map changes include: newly acquired open space,
new development rights as well as map corrections. The new Open Space / Mountain Parks and
Parks Map is included in Attachment O.
Staff Recommendation: Approval of the Open Space ! Mountain Parks and Parks Map as shown
in Attachment O.
Trails Mao Refinements and Corrections
Staff is proposing minor changes to the BVCP Trails Map as shown on the map in Attachment P.
These changes include updating proposed trail alignments that have been recenUy built and
conecting map errors based on new trails data. The changes also include a change to the
proposed trail alignment along the Boulder Feeder Canal from a specific alignment to a
conceptual alignment (bubbles). This trail proposal has unsolved issues and the specific
alignment that was shown may not be the final alignment. Until issues are resolved and trail
planning is further along, the trail connection should be shown on the trails map as conceptual.
Staff Recommendation: Approval of the BVCP Trails Map as shown in Attachment P.
IV. PUBLIC COMMENT AND PROCESS
The opportunity for landowners and the general public to submit requests for changes to the plan was
advertised in the Daily Camera in August and September. Additionally, staff contacted property
owners who had recently expressed interest in ]and use designation changes. There was a direct
mailing to all property owners whose property would be affected by a proposed change in land use
designation or boundary changes prior to the Planning Board's hearing and action compiling the list
of items to be included in the 2002-2003 Annual Review.
A map indicating where the proposed changes are located and a description of each change will be
published in the Daily Camera on January 12, 2003, prior to the Planning Board public hearing. A
map will be published prior to all public hearings on the BVCP 2002-2003 Annual Review.
Agenda Item # J ~ Page # ~
Informational neighborhood meetings were held for all the proposed land use designation changes
to garner public input prior to the analysis of the proposed changes. Summaries of these meetings
are included in the parcel analysis for each site
As outlined in the procedures for amending the comprehensive plan, (see Attachment A), the Open
Space Board of Trustees shall review requests for changes to the Comprehensive Plan that affect an
azea desigriated Open Space. The OSBT reviewed the new Boulder Valley Species of Local Concem
List, Trails Map Program Summary, staff's recommendation for a partial land use designation
change at 0 Linden Avenue, land use designation change for a portion of the Area III property at
Hwy 119 and N. SS~h Street, addition of acquired Open Space and Mountain Parks properties to the
land use map, and land use map corrections pertaining to open space. The OSBT supported the staff
recommendations as described in the all the following analysis.
RECOMMENDED PLANNING BOARD ACTION
Staff recommends that the Planning Board approve the changes to the Boulder Valley
Comprehensive Plan listed below.
Land use designation changes:
#1 Arapahoe Avenue & Lincoln Place,
#3 3035-3345 Kalmia Avenue,
#4 0 Linden Avenue,
Open Space designations in Area III for newly acquired properties and corrections
Service area boundary changes:
#6 3532 Diagonal Highway.
Changes to Policies:
Economic Policies
Changes to Master Plan and Program Summaries:
Trails Map Program Summary
Open Space and Mountain Parks Program Summary
Parks and Recreation Master Plan Summary
Fire and Emergency Medical Service Master Plan Summary
Library Master Plan Summary
Environmental Program Summary
Greenways Master Plan Summary
Changes to the Background and Supporting Documentation:
New Species of Local Concern
Changes to Maps :
Inventoried Wetlands Map
Open Space and Parks Map
Agenda Item # .5~ Page #~_
Trails Map
Approved By:
~
Peter Pollock, Director
Planning Department
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: Annual Review Changes (excerpt from the BVCP)
Attachment B: Map of proposed changes
Attachment C: Analysis for the proposed change at Arapahoe Avenue and Lincoln
Place. (pazcel report, map of area, neighborhood context, notes from
the public meeting, correspondence received, application)
Attachment D: Analysis for the proposed change at Spine Road. ( parcel report, map
of azea, neighborhood context, notes from the public meeting,
conespondence received, application)
Attachment E: Analysis for the proposed change at Kalmia Avenue. (parcel report,
map of area, neighborhood context, notes from the public meeting,
correspondence received, application)
Attachment F: Analysis for the proposed change at 0 Linden Avenue. (parcel report,
map of area, neighborhood context, notes from the public meeting,
memo to OSBTs, correspondence received, application)
Attachment G: Analysis for the proposed change at Foothills Parkway and Diagonal
Highway (McKenzie Junction). (parcel report, map of area,
neighborhood context, notes from the public meeting, correspondence
received, application )
Attachment H: Analysis for the proposed Area III to II change. (parcel report, map of
area, neighborhood context, notes from the public meeting,
correspondence received, application)
Attachment I: Map of Open Space designation changes.
Attachment J: Analysis and proposed BVCP Economic Policies
Agenda Item # _~ fj Page # ~~
Attachment K: Proposed BVCP Trails Map Program Summary
Attachment L: Proposed Master Plan and Program Summaries
Attachment M: Proposed Species of Local Concern List
Attachment N: Proposed changes to the BVCP Inventoried Wetlands Map
Attachment O: Proposed BVCP Open Space / Mountain Parks and Parks Map
Attachment P: Proposed changes to the BVCP Trails Map
Agenda Item # ,~ Page #_~
ATTACHMENT A
2. ANNUAL REVIEW CHANGES
Changes considered during the annual review require a public hearing and approval by each of
the four signatory bodies: the City Planning Board and CiYy Council, and the Boulder County
Planning Commission and Boulder County Commissioners.
a. Types of changes that may be considered as part of the annual review:
• Changes in Land Use
• Changes to the road designation map
• Changes to the Subcommunity and Area Plans section
• Changes Yo the Master Plan and Program Summartes
• Changes to the Background and Supporting Documentation
• Changes to the Comprehensive Plan Implementation section
• Changes to the Comprehensive Plan Map Designation section
• Text changes and changes to functional maps
• Minor additions or clarifications to the Policy section
• Minor Service Area boundary changes subject to the criteria set forth below
• Boulder Valley Planning Area expansions an@ contractions, i.e., changes to Yhe Area III
outer boundary (subject to the criteria set forth below)
b. Criteria for minor service area boundary changes and Boulder Valley Planning Area
expansions and contractions:
(1) Minor adjustments to the service area boundary
Minor adjushnents to the service area boundary are small, incremental service area
expansions that create mare logical service area boundaries. Changes in designation of land
from Area III to Area II may be approved as a minor service azea boundary adjustment based
on the following criteria:
(a) Maximum size: The total size of the area must be no lazger than ten acres.
(b) Minimum wntiguity: The azea must have a minimum contiguity with the existing
service area of at least 1/6 of the total perimeter of the area.
(c) Logical service area boundary: The resulting service area boundary must provide a
more logical service area boundary (Area III/II) , as determined by factors such as: more
efficient service provision, a more identifiable edge to the urbanized area or
neighborhood, a more functional boundary based on property ownership parcel lines or
defining natural features.
(d) Compatibility with the surrounding area and the Comprehensive Plan: The
proposed change of Area III to II must be compatible with the surrounding area as well
\\COBCLUSTER_SHARE SERVER\SHARE~PLAN~data\(ongrang\compplg~BVCP\02 annual update~Plan
Board\1-23-03PBbvcpannupdt.doc
Agenda Item #~_ Page # /} - /
as the policies and overall intent of the Comprehensive Plan.
(e) No major negative impacts: It must be demonstrated that no major negative impacts on
transportation, environment, services, facilities, or budget will result from an expansion
of the service area.
(~ Minimal effect on land use and growth projections: The proposed change of Area III
to II change does not materially affect the land use and growth projections that were the
basis of the Comprehensive Plan.
(g) Minimal Effect on 5ervice Provision: The proposed change of Area III to II does not
materially affect the adequacy or availability of urban facilities and services to the
immediate area or the overall service azea of the city of Boulder.
(h) Minimal Effect on the City's Capital Improvements Program: The proposed Area III
to II change does not materially affect the adopted Capital Improvements Program of the
city of Boulder.
(i) Appropriate Timing: The proposed Area III to II change will not prematurely open up
development potential for land that logically should be considered as part of a larger
service area expansion.
(2) Boulder Valley Planning Area expansions or contractions
An Area III outer boundary change may be initiated by the City or the County and shall be
approved only if it is demonstrated that either expansion or contraction of the planning area
is needed due to changed circumstances or past error in determining the boundary.
c. Procedures for changes that may be considered as part of the annual review:
1) The city Planning Department and the county Land Use Deparhnent shall establish a process
and schedule for landowners and the general public to submit requests for changes to the plan
as part of the Annual Review. All proposed changes will be reviewed by the city Planning
Department, which will prepaze a recommendation in consultation with the county Land Use
Deparhnent on whether to include each proposed change in that year's annual review.
2) The city Planning Board will consider all requests for changes together with the staff
recommendations at a public hearing, and will compile a list of proposed changes to be
considered during that year's annual review.
3) The County Planning Commission, City Council, and County Commissioners may review
the city Planning Board's direction on the changes to be considered as part of the annual
review and may add or delete items.
4) Requests for changes to the Comprehensive Plan that affect an area designated Open Space
\\COBCLUSTER_SHARE SERVER\SHARE~PLAN~data\longrang\compplg~BVCP\02 annual update~Plan
Board\1-23-03PBbvcpannupdt.doc
Agenda Item # .S/~ Page # ~--o?
shall be reviewed by the city Open Space Board of Trustees and the county Parks and Open
Space Advisory Committee. The Board of Trustees will make a recommendation prior to
any action on that change.
5) After a list of proposed changes to be considered during that year's review has been
determined, the city Planning Deparhnent and county Land Use Deparhnent will study, seek
appropriate public input, and make recommendations concerning proposed changes. The city
Planning Board will then initiate the hearings on whether or not to approve any of the
proposed changes
\\COBCLUSTER_SHARE SERVER\SHARE~PLAN~data\longrang\compplg~BVCP\02 annual update~Plan
Boazd\ 1-23-03 PBbvcpannupdt.doc
Agenda Item #~_ page # /~-.3
Proposed Land Use Designation Changes in Areas I& II
1~ Arapahoe Avenue and
Lincoln Place from Mixed
Density Residential to High
Density Residential
^2 5460-5490 Spine Road from
Performance Industrial to
Mixed Use Industrial and
High Density Residential
3^ 3035-3345 Kalmia Avenue
from Low Density
Residential to Medium
Density Residential
~ 4~ Linden Avenue from Open
~ Space - Other to Very Low
~ Densiry Residential
~ ^5 Foothills Parkway and
~ Diagonal Highway from
Transitional Business to
;J-~ General or Community
~ Business
~d
~ ' ~~~ • ~
~
~ .: ~
~
I~
i
6~ 3532 Diagonal Highway
Y
H
H
n
x
~.
l~7
z
y
tC
ATTACHMENT C
Parcel No. 1 Description: Arapahoe Avenue and Lincoln Place
Existina
Land Use Designation: Mixed Density Residentiai (MXR)
Zoning: City - Mixed Density Residential Developing (MXR-D}
''~~ Prouosed
~. - '~ Land Use Designation(s): High
~~~ I, Density Residential.
~ati~~g ,~
~ Acreage: 1.3 acres
~-
1
I
M
~
: «-
...
~ .....
__-~ ..,
~
0
~
^
_^--.
ringst ~ . -
.
~
~.,\._
-
Proposal and Recommendation
The applicant has requested a land use designation change from mixed density residential to high
density residential. Staff supports tha proposal for the following reasons:
• The change adds housing in a Iocation with access to jobs and services; and
• It fits with the neighboring context and surrounding land uses.
Site Description and Surrounding Context
• The azea includes 5 parcels at the corner of Arapahoe Avenue and Lincoln Place. There are
13 existing residences in 5 buildings; three are single family homes and two are multi-family
buildings. Two of the single family homes potentially contribute to a neighborhood historic
district (see analysis below regarding historic preservation value).
• The block immediately to the east of this site is currently designated (and zoned) for high
density residential. The sunounding neighborhoods to the south and west have a mix of
multi-family buildings and single family units. The density of the site is approximately 10
units per acre. The density of the entire block is 15 units per acre (56 units on 3.7 acres).
• The West Senior Center is directly across Arapahoe from the site to the north.
• High frequency transit is provided by the JUMP along Arapahoe. HOP and SKIP services are
available on Broadway, two blocks to the east.
Concerns raised by the public
The city hosted a neighborhood meeting on November 20, 2002 to inform residents about the
proposal and gather input. Approximately 6 people attended the meeting. The summarized
comments are included following this report, In additi,on to a presentation on the proposed BVCP
land use designation change, the applicants (Cindy Brown from Boulder Housing Partners and
Warren Rovetch) provided information on their specific development proposal for affordable
housing on this site. In general, people were supportive of the proposal to increase affordabie
Agenda Item #~ Page # C',~_
housing in this location. Parking and preservation of the fish hat~hery across Lincoln Place were
the primary concerns of the residents.
Analysis
Staff supports the change to high density residential on the parcels identified in the application.
This change is appropriate for this site because it adds housing in a location that is walking
distance to employment, retail, civic sites and other services. The change would be an
appropriate extension of the existing higher density housing that borders this site.
The proposed change furthers the comprehensive plan's goal of increasing affordable housing in
a location where there is close proximity to jobs, shopping, high frequency transit and other
services. The site is a short distance from the downtown, directly across the street from a senior
center and the main library and is two blocks from a grocery store. Pedestrian and high frequency
transit access aze ideal on this site.
This area was designated and zoned high density residential prior to the 1997 comprehansive
rezoning, when the ]and use designation and zoning were changed to mixed density residential
(MXR). The purpose of the change was to preserve the interesting mix of single family homes
interspersed with multi-family buildings in many neighborhoods surrounding the central
downtown area. Redevelopment to higher densities in these areas was changing the mixed
neighborhood character and the mixed density land use designation was created to preserve the
existing character of these neighborhoods.
While the existing development on these parcels is a mixture of single family and multi-family
buitdings that was identified in the 1997 process as worthy of protection, staff believes that
because of the specific location of this site with the access to services and transit that are
available, the importance of increasing the amount of housing in Boulder, and its location at the
edge of the MSR designation adjacent to HR uses, a land use designation change to add housing
at this location is appropriafe.
The properties at 1617 and 1625 Lincoln are more than SO years old and are therefore subject to
Landmarks review for demolition or relocation under Sec. 10-13-23, B.R.C. 1981. The
Landmarks design review committee held a conceptual review for demolition of these properties
on March 27, 2002, and January 8, 2003. The committee determined that the properties do not
meet the significance criteria for individual landmark designation. However, the properties are
located in the potential Highland Lawn historic district, shown in the comprehensive plan.
Landmarks planning staff believes that recent demolitions, additions and incompatible alterations
to properties in the potential Highland Lawn historic district may have diminished the area's
historical and architectural integrity. As such, Landmarks staff recommends that the Landmarks
Board reconsider the boundaries of the potential Highland Lawn district and amend the
comprehensive plan map as appropriate. Tn doing so, the Landmarks Board may find that the
properties located at ] 617 and 1625 Lincoln do not eontribute to a potential historic district, and
may therefore be demolished without a significant impact to the city's historic resources.
Agenda Item # .~l~ Page # C -a
Planning Assumptions
Future estimated dwelling units
Future estimated jobs
Under existine land use
13
0
Under uroaosed land use
26
0
Ob.iectives and Criteria
OBJECTIVES (BVCP Policies) Positive (++ or +),
Criteria for Measurement Negative (-- or-), Neutral
(N), Not Applicable (NA)
A. LAND USE
1. Provides the opportunity for increasing Boulder's housing diversity and +
affordability including permanently affordable housing.
a. Adds higher density affordable residential uses including 25% +
permanently affordable units to low and moderate income households and adds 13 units (3 affordable
25% permanently affordable units to middle income households. units)
2. Encourages new housing in convenient locations close to jobs and shopping ++
a. Within 1/a mile of convenience shopping ++
b. Within 1 mile of grocery store ++
c. Within 1 mile of employment center ++
3. Improves jobs/housing balance +
a. Adds higher density affordable housing ++
adds 13 units *
b. Reduces jobs NA
4. Encourages the revitalization and economic viability of the city's commercial
areas and retail base (5.06, 5.08, 2.19) NA
a. Adds a mix of residential and retail uses -
5. Shows compatibility with adjacent land uses through transitions between land
uses that vary in intensity {2.15) +
a. Is compntible with adjacent land uses +
6. Respects existing neighborhood character and encourages sensitivity to existing
context +
a. Reflects existing neighborhood character (residential) +
7. Promotes a compact community through redevetopment and in811 +
a. Is in area I Yes
b. Is in area II NA
B. LOCATIONAL / SERVICES
Agenda Item #~_ Page # C- 3
1. Adequate services and facilities are available or planned +
a. Fire +
b. Police +
c. Vehicular access +
d. Neighborhood park accessibility +
(served)
e. School accessibility/ capncity +
2. Impacts to the city's operating budget Neutral
C.TRANSPORTATION
1. Encourages increased use of alternative travel modes and avoids auto
dependency
a. In a transit-oriented/ pedestrian friendly area?
++
b. In an area with a rich mix of complementary land uses? ++
c. DirecUy served by high frequency transit? ++
e. How many net additional daily vehicle trips will be generated? 65
E Wi11 this change add vehicle trips to an arterial intersection that is (now
or in future) congested? (LOS F) No
g. Can the vehicular traft"ic impact of this aite be readily mitigated
through strategies lhat are part of the city's transportation plan? (TMP) Yes
D. ENVIRONMENT
1. Preserves and protects environmental resources NA
a. Open space adjacency/ access impacts NA
b. Wetlands NA
c. Wi1dISe or native plant habitad natural ecosystem NA
d. Species of concern NA
e. Flood hazards NA
E Airport influence zone NA
*In addition to current comprehensive plan projections.
S:~PLA1V~dataVongrang\compplg~BVCP\02 annual update~Parcel Data~Arapahoe and Lincoln.doc
Agenda Item # _~ F} Page # C_~{
Site ##1
938, 944, ~~~ ~~~ahoe Avenue & 1617,1625 Lincoln Place
r~~-- ~ :, ~:, ~
,~ ; ~ { ~
t ~ . . ~ ~~~ Zk . ~ .. ~
j.. . . ~ ~ ~. ~. .. ~ ~....-~ .
( .~~ . ..': ~~ ~ :.
. ~:, . .. ~ ~. .~ ~. . ~ .. .
1 t
,~^
•~ ~ . :, : .. 4 _
{t .:~ fc- ~ -:. ~ t . . ~ : , ~ ~?k.
v ~ ~
1 ~
1 . . . . .. . . e .
...r'.`e ~ . ' . .
- '
p . $ '. , ... ~. ' ~ . ' .
i .- ~~ .. _ ~ . .
. ; ~ .. . . ~ . .' . . .
f
~
...a:°.
.. ..~_
~ : . ~
~ ` ~ ~~~~~~y~
.,
i • •dw.~~
,
S
.._~+.v.~l ` +~
' y
~ _ ~ ; ~„=~, ~,:~,..--._---'"°'"..°
f ~ ~~ ~ ~' ' ~~
~ ~ ~ ° ~e .-> ~ F ~ z"+~"~ ~'7'~- ..y~;~:
~:.. b . . . ' ~...: '
~ i
~ ,
T "~ .. ~ ... _
Current
Resident~al
~I~~ 4 ~
t~~ ~ ~
i q ~ ~{ . .": ~ ~ ~~..
~ ~. 5 3
..-~ _ t y
%
~"'
3 ~t . ~ ~ . ~^ ~ :~+
LEGEND
Mixed aensitv Residentiat
N
1:1425
~
b
~
~
~ ~~
ti
~ y
~ ~
~
Maplink
_ City of Boulder
~
'Sbc iafor.narioa depicud on [h"ss map is
provid d as g~a~..fur~l ~epxeacnration onty.
' 'Ibc Ci.ry of Saulder pzacidcs ao wamnry,
c~ressed or anplicd. ss m die xcuiacy
aad/or compkt:scss of thc iafomution
cvn~ce hac~n. __
Boulder Valley Comp Plan
Arapahoe Meeting
November 20, 2002
Attendance: 6
MOLLY T.~6YER ''
Project Managar Jean Gatza opened the meeting at 6:30 with a presentation. Jean provided an
overview of the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP) and the application process for
changes. Jean then showed a map of the parcel in discussion and furned the presentation over to
Boulder Housing Purtners Director Cindy Brown and applicant Warren Rovetch.
Cindy Brown introduced Boulder Housing Partners (BHP) and explained that the organization is
the development arm of Boulder's Housing Authority. Cindy briefly reviewed the legal authority
of the Housing Authority. A number of photo-boards were provided the audience to demonsvate
BHP developments constructed and in process. Cindy explained that this development would
both address current housing needs for low-income and special needs people and replace the
supply of this housing directly across Arapahoe, in the (likeiy) future event that the Main Library
expandad.
Wanen provided site maps and reviewed the characteristics of the site.
C~uestions (?) and Comments (C) from Audience;
?: How do vehicles and parking fit on site?
Onsite parking
Car share program
?: Number of parking spaces?
• 50 to 80
• May create a deck
C/?: Lots of development. How does it "contribute" to lraffic - on streets if (WATS?) shop
moves... how is it accessed'?
C: Lots of students up hill from this site. Parking is a concern for the blight it may create
C: Fishpond needs to stay. Hope this development will not affect their operation.
?: Who would rent here? can you assure us you will not fitl up with coltege students?
• Managed by Housing Partners
• 100% affordable
Agenda Item #.~ fj Page # C- (v
?: Will storm water runoff go to Boulder Creek?
• As required by city code, run-off would be mitigated.
?: What happens if people fall in love with this concept... but the proposal/ concept doesn't
happen, or work. What (then) might this higher density Ue used to create?
• SiYe is 1.3 acres
• Tend to look at HD
• Allows for approximately 18 units per acre
?: What protection do other numbers have that whole area doesn't become one mass big
development and impacts on neighboring land?
C: Four lots on Arapahoe, adjacent, owned by Presbyterian Church, are in HR zoned area. There
are houses there now, but this may change.
C: Need to make land use trade-offs and create well-designed high-use zones (inside the city) to
balance with open space
?: Parking concerns: is underground parking potential?
?: (I think we should) Increase density downtowv. This pazcel makes sense.
?: Being downtown great for retirees.
S:~PLAMda[aVongrang\compplg~BVCP\02 annua] update~Public Mee[ingsWrapahoe\l 1-20-02 flip chaR notes.doc
Agenda Item # ~~ Page # C- ~
V6'ARREN ROVETCH & ASSOCIAT~S
57UI3ighlundAvenue Boulder,Coloradu80362 303/dJ0-0057 Fx.c303/a~D-9J16 na~w~.Nyrrcnrovetrha~mm.cum
AUgllSI ?6, 2OO?
Chad Rickfels
I.ong Rar.;e Planrins;
Bo~uider Planningl~apartmel,~
P.O. Box 791
F3oiduer. CO 403t)o~07~1
T)ear Chad:
~ ft'r1i7~C Vfitl fQ('n't)ldl' }lt'~(7 IT: ?': S'I,;'L1'il'/~~ $Ll~.~ll?7.SS;t.~i2 ~E<)l.f'it~:Yilt'.[1~i Etl~' R ~~?fiC~ ~.1):' ~'1f?1C'.tl~iTl~ilt tJ'f
Y~1;:ti0ll;i~,~.'.!'~•rtl.~~:°.Ct~i:;iii`~:';:i:.'.:i.l(ii,: ~~ilii. .
r'til;i0:>:,C~ ~it-°Q ".. ~.-:I~;[ 1'I':; 1~~)(14Ci`t~~Cl fUf 1~7'~li.ltll Zti.vn'ISII?ti ..~a ! 111C'17:IVIl -C;, ~- •~.,~ ~~:: SII1: i?t i1':~~
CiLC14f ~~N-,.::I:it54: _i ~a. 1: i ttt c~.l l{J 1llUi~1`.S' Oi SUj)~ijt,:Tlld~ll~ 111i3 flf~(~~I.~lii;il'i , t S~ibil~., .~.'~~;-{ tS-' Cji~ SU
Ct115 ttit;c~+. 1. 1VOlill1 SYI:i":I(:f;: E1rJE1i'Cti.'~IttIr 1[ ii tiCli l'Oliiti ft'.~vi~.~4- i~1C; iij:'j)j1~111Jii ti:i f:l'L`177i;;.~ v~.:~•
['i0~'Sl'C)~ ~.
,~?';~~ t"." ~',
.=4.-~ '~1.~'; ~. ._.
~~u~i niiwll 1~4'w8i,~11
;'1v;. (~1511T°
Agenda Item # .SR Page # C-~
j ~
:. .-
\~ /
:,~1,~~~:~,~~:
!V:,ir,,: 64arran Pavetc
~~:In~:,~~ _ ~ HigY~~.? ar~d Ave. , P,
Yitutr=: ~03-4n0-•0057
~,.y ~, ~~~~,,:,r,-
.,%~'~~'~=~-~`
'~ ~
~
Ci) 80;U'~
,, ~-- 938 P.r~na2lot: St~van Har.rison> P.O.?oz E071,
Bou'_cl~r, CO R0;(;6; 303-652..77~i
~___.".._~!. i.-sr~~8. ~'~ILi~3'('. G1F171~ .~"~_~ i'1?~1 - ~_,.. __..
''~~aS.y.r~,~~y~.r ~,-G.S6i ~~C;U~.=iAT'i l;U ii~~Ji)~i ~_~.-Jf_-. ~iJ~~'-'y
! F i~ ~.~C~~_ T.lf?n01~:1^k't! ~•.._" ~':i1=1 J'/~~:33, ~i11~' i~!2i[~? ~C~:)It :-`.VE. ,
,_,. ~_..'7.. _~.7 80?Qy~ -,,r ~ _.,-L=- 0'
,. . .....~u , ..; t: ,a,...~ i:
;;:,;.. „ar..r-:, ~-,vet:,ci~
rii i,~_ ~. . . , ..,.~
,~i ~l~ ~t.nd '4~;~~-., ~otcae~, f:'G ~ ~
;" I:CJ?, vJ .._
. ~.,.._ _ii~G~_~in,~
t_ PPI.1;6[E.'t"1':',L (l~;l'(„Z.`~[A'1'I(l1 'l~t) ISl?, SS;iS!1;1'1'7'L;l> P;1"t'i.( :11'1'1.iCA'1'!U\
~~i.~,:~~~ udd.ea',~n~ dr .~i,,~rii_- of th~ p~;,po,:,a rin~~,~~dr~enr. iaclu~h;i~ .~ ti;:~ ~s ir ,f.~_::t,:~r~ tc~
~::'~.~;~..~.il, its relationship tu th: goals, prlicies, el~air~c;us, and amen.:mt~~u crueritr of [h:: Bcti!tlcr
..,~,.. C urnoreheusice Plan.
_, L~_,:,.i:Ul'. i;ldlO dliJullil~ $l"Z.C IIfld Cc:~d1I101'1S}71~ OF l~'Id i1CCA PI'O~U1C(~ IDl' ililiJil~fllcllL [U Sllll'vLllil~I1V}~
......__ _ ~„~ll:~ ::::'.i i;l;lplld~ ~illlCi ~IS2a, ^FILUCa~ IcdClil''JJ, E)CC~CIII ~.Ull!f)I~lICI1Sl'e'C ~ltlll UCJI~il:il!Ut15,
,.__a ~,"'x 1I"inapaui~ubleforpho[ocopying.
1~.~..,~I~..~i rnup (lurgcr s~ale than locu~ioi~ m~~p) ol' site sl~uwing topographic con~ours, strucnires or
l;r,p; ~: ~~n~~ants, phy~sicul teatures, etc., if rzyuired; 8'h" x 11" map suitable for photocopyin~.
~. '~:u:,. ol person who prepared submittal informauon.
...J::~~~~;d infon~iu~ion or coFies of submittal materials may be requimd.
Agenda Item #~ Page # C ~/O
~~ ~i;uE ~ Ro~-~:rct~ s~ .associ~~r~s
- ii„u1.~nJ:~~cuuc ii~,w~i.r.ColoraJn8U3{13 3J3raaU-(IU$' .,a30.S~d~IU-9Jih ,:~.~...,,:~.r:cmu~.~clrr.n~~n.r~~u:
:-~:i= `_;I ~7, 1~Ui
i u l.ong Raii~e Planning
Li.)UIdi,C }~ ~CiR1'll11~~ ~E:(,'l3IY:llCi!l
i i:('t. .. bGlli~(?Il ~:i1~;~TJh
,..- Ft~>uluer Vali::}~ L'omprehensiv~ I'ian
4ppiicatior. for AYmual, R.eviaw
,)~_:i:i;~;~ziilti;t 1'i)~' ~`t'r_r,OS:ii
._ . . . . ,_ .~ . .1:_. __ .
~ „~„
~ ~~i ~,~~ .0.4~','~5'ii.`ti~(~;f1:~ii~.:;fCli01'il: .7.':,. ~,~..Y}S 'rt-.~le., '~_~'...:,rl~ ~ .,',~l i ~_.. ~
i
; ~ ~ ;t` -* 1'1 - ~= j •t } . ,~ 1--,
_ _ ~~ ., C~ ,U ,_ ~ L ~iL ~L ~~-: ~'..iPJtt:`, Lil~ ~ ci ~.i;TS ~t I~l~ t'r~L: _ ~ 'r111:.'.
_ .. ~:G'::~Ii::~1S;~',~ :'~kkC:
• :~~~ecd t~~~: a~ford.ible honsin, in a cenCr~l city lo::utiori wi[h ~~oou accws~ t~:~ puhii~
„ansrr,~~tati~~.n anci io'b~.
. ,~mrni?ir;cir- t~; ~il~°r~ity of ;;t;u~in_?.
~ ~:nc~~~::~~:~i~.~~~n~;.~r~,~!_:;; cornpactcontinuo.i~: d.~v: ~~n~nen?.
" .-fP::0:1C:[_~?IC.li~i s i l~l,~i~~ '~C'tiC~0~iT1C'il~ t15 Ofi~!)~i~Cj [0 ~~7:i1~'•;1.
~ .-~I11~i.iCi ~8i1~ ~lft~t`„T47 i0 p?li):17ll1G:; liSZ (i?~~;ItifIt7P, I.1P~i<q S.Cl'1C:;:;.
~ -.r~n with ad~yttate ini'rastruc[ur;.
• . 1d~L~ ile`~Ifle_ Cil~; ~_1}JCrti"~95C',RI01~ ~.1~{.1~T Ilcl4~~li:'OCI?OOu !(1 II U031I11Z ;`;: ~.
- i~:4infore? dcv,~uu~,~~n d~~~~eiopmer,t.
=~_or.to;i~s pi~t~~~tial use~ to ~};at of thr block to th~ e~ut.
;u a~.i:iition to ci~caging tl~ie site specif ed in this preposal, tii~hick~~ cuti•ars appro;.irr;ately~ t~~~o-thirds
ut~ tti.~blocl: bet~~,~~,;n Lincoln Place and 9~' ,Street, it i~iay be u.5;.•ful to consider c6an,~in~ th4
~.;rn~~.re hlock to Hreli Deyisl[v Resiclcntral.
Agenda Item # ~ ~ Page # C -11 _
~.- _ __ ..~-..r-,,~~~,.^ _". _~~~ 1~1~~A~ ~~ ~~ „~ ~~. ~~ ~~ ~ ' ~
^ 1 `t "i~1 `//J111 ~11`1~ ~\~~\ ~~I 11 ~!'~! `1 ' ' ,1
~ ~~ ~ -- ' ~ ~„~~~j'1. ~ ~~` ~~~~' ~ ~~ _ c' ~rY~ -~~I '~ ~ ~ ~ ~
- - ~ L ~ ' "` /l ~ - ~1~/ ~ /~~~~ . ~i ~ ~, V • '~ . - -
. . , ".~ ~ ~~.,..- ,~~-"",;._ ,~ ~ \1 , ~ ~ `~-. ~ ~, ~.
~ , -~ ~-r- ~
~ - ~ ~ ~1_ ~,,~..__, ., ~
a , - ~ ,- ;
` Y . , ~ ' ~~h t ~ ~ i i \ "~ ~ . ~ , _ _
,~, ~ tfV -'" ~1 ,~. ~ , % ~ _ ~ .-lC~~ ~ f ' ~~ \'' 1, ~~ .. ~
. / i ~ ~ \ i - ~, . '
" ~ ~ ~~1~ ~ ' . . - i
~ ~ ...>" . `~ .
i ~ , . ~ ~-„"' .
/ ~ ' ~ I
~~t ' ~
' ~ .~.r..w," ~} ~1_ /J . . , ,
_, . yw, ^"' ~ ~1 ' l ~ ..~'(~% / Jy , ~ . ' ' ` ' . ~.
~
~ t_ ~ ~ ,
. . i~, . ~... .-._. " ~„~i ..,~.' ' . ' .
_.
~ ~, ~,. , ~,. J ~ . , , 1 , ~
~~ , ~ - , ~t ~ , ~` ~~
- I ~~ r, r,:'~"~ ' ,i
j , .-~ ~ , ~
~., % ~ r ~ _ a ~ r°~..
~ ~t ~ . -°,. ' /' 1~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ," ' ~ ~ ~
' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ -.-^' 1 ~ n
~ ~ ~ ~ j.- ~ , ~ ~ , ~ , ~'f, . . ~;y,
; .
. . ~ ~ ' ti ~~,. ~.
~ ~ ~ _:"
~ `~ , y ~
~ ~-~ ~ . , ti~'~ ~!~ L.-~
~ ~~4 _ ~ ,~: . ~ ~ i ~ ~ ':~~~ ,,.y. ~ A ~.d
_, ~ J .. , 1 ` A ~.r
~
r~ ,
. - . ` ~ _ _ , . -.r'F.` ~ . , a.:"'
~. ~ ~~ ~ ~ ' ; , , , .
p r( .Y"
~ ~ ~ ~ !'+ ~ ~ ~ / ' ~' r,.r+Y"+/ 1 ~ ~ l ~ .: ~-~ ~ .
` ,.
/,~~°".~.P ~ ~-- ~ .
' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~.~,,~'°~" ~~ ~ ~ ~ A , , ~ ~~ ~, ~ ~
~ i (
~ ~~~ ~, ~Y t "~ ~ ~ .-- ~ ~ l , ~
. ~ Yl .. ~ ~ ..1 l~ ~ ~ ~
~ , ~ ~. ` -y `~ . .. .
. . '1 ~ .~ `t ~ ,,:J- ... ~t' 7' ~ '. " " -
~~x„~
---. +~'1 ~ ~~ ~' ~" ~ ~;/ ~C 1 .. ~~ ~ ' ~~ ~~-~"`.-~
; „ ~~ 1 ~'' ~ `~ %~~ _.~~ )
~ ;,1 . ,..• ~
-'' " ~ ~ ; , `. ~ ~~ .~' % ` ~ ~~'
.._ .. -- . _. v~ ~~'~~ ~ ~~~ 'yi ~~ ,,,~..,c"'~ .,. A ~ ~,. ' „~~-t ~. i .,~
. . ~~,. "-2~ ~ _ ~ ~~ '" ~ ~ "~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ _
_ . --~ / ..-+' ~ ,-,,.,.".: i.:%' ! ~ ~ . ~
~ ~ j ~.r-'`"i~ ...r.""" ~, ., ~~~--~ ~ ~ . ~ ~, -
. . . `. ~, ~. ~„ ,~ ~f,-'. t, y ~:~ . ~ \ 1 ~~ ,~ /-. ~.
._....•"t--~..r- I ~-"` ~ t ! i - 'i~ ` , .
~ -. l~ ~ ~ ,~ ~~,.ji (i/~/, ~f, ~ ~',k. ~ a~,
~ __ .~.._.~r~".-. .l ..~~~,~~ryFS ~ ~~.
~ C .--it' ~ ~ ~ >~'~; /~~ ~~~~/~i ' ~ ~ ~'~ . ~
~ ' . ~ ..~~ I~i ~ ~1 ~~, 'i. ,~,`l; %~c..IJ.J;~)~ ~` ~ , .i ~ I .
. ,. ~ ~ ~`"^`-~.~~ `~ ~ ~~. ~ ~ ~j ~ ._1 i ~ ~ . y/ ~~~ `, 1 \ ~ . .' _..,` _
~ * 'J /' '' ...,-~ - ..
~,'_ . // / / l. 1 1
. '~.Y ~..~~ -- ..`\ .'~ /i ' `. ~.r' .. -,
, . _:~. , _;~____-~ _y~ V' _ '4_^ - ', 1 '- - !,. i
'\..Ji' -~ ~' ~~ "="_~~ ~,.~-~"x- _..-
_ ., ,1 '
_ ~ % ,
( - - - ~1 i ~. .a ,- ~~.
_.. . . i ~ ~~ ~ ~ _~ ., ~ ~~~ ~ ~~~.~ ~~,~!~~'.•-'~~^`~ l ~, ~`,~- - ., ~~, ./' i,-
. ,. . / i ``1 ~ ~I fyi,l' ,.1 ~ . ~r ~ ~', ~~•-
~ a ~ i - ~., ~` ' ,,.~-,~' '..H-~'~.. , °
~ ~, , ,
~ ~ ~ .,~. ; ~' ~ ' " ~, . c
'" , ~.' -..~ , . . ~,, . .
--
- •--- •- --=-- ~ ~ ~ "T"' Agenda Item #~ Page # C-/,?
#1 Site Cantext
938 Arapahoe
944 Arapahoe
~ingle-Family
Single-Family
Single-Family
ltem # '~I~ Page # (' / ~;
#1 Surroundin~ Area Context
932 Arapahoe
Single-Family
1648 9th
Sin~le-Family
964 Arapahae
6 Units
5 Units
Agenda Item # '>, ~/3 Page # (_~` I `l
Single-Family
902 Marine
3 Units
932 Marine
Sin~le-Family
949 Marine
28 Units
955 Marine
9Q5 Marine ~_
ATTACHMENT D
Parcel No. 2 Descrintion: 5460-5490 Snine Road
Staff Recommendation
~ No Change at this time - consider
~ the proposal as part of the
Gunbarrel area plan.
Prouosal
\ Land Use Designation(s):
Mixed Use Ltdustrial (MUn and
High Density Residentia] (HR)
~ Existine
Land Use Designation:
/~
Performance Industrial (Pn
Acreage: 8.5 acres
~ 7.nninue (:rnPral Tnrinctrial
Proposal and Recommendation
The property owner has requested a land use designation change from performance industrial to
one that would allow residential, private education, and technical office use.
Staff is recommending that this request be considered in conjunction with the Gunbarrel area
planning process for the following reasons:
. The area plan will assess the overall demand and feasibility for additional housing in the
Gunbanel commercial and industrial zones.
. The area plan is designed to comprehensively determine appropriate land uses in the
Gunbarrel core commercial and industrial zones.
. The area plan will be completed in May of this year, and should not significantly delay this
application. Following completion of the area plan, this request would be included with other
properties for comprehensive rezoning as part of the Job/Housing project. As part of that
process the land use map change and rezoning should be completed in October 2003.
As part of the Gunbarrel area planning process staff supports and recommends consideration of a
combination of mixed use industrial (MUn land use designation on the two southern parcels and
high density residential (HR) on the two northern parcels for the following reasons:
. To reduce potential industrial job growth;
. to allow housing;
. to provide affordable housing;
. to allow for the continuation of Front Range Community College or a private school;
. to provide compatibi~ity with adjacent land uses and;
. to provide a transition between the housing and the industrial uses.
Agenda Item # ` ~ Page # 0 _ !
The proposal furthers city goals of encouraging mixed use, limiting future job growth and adding
housing in the industrial areas where feasible. Severat factors make this site appropriate for the
addition of housing: an adjacent residential zone, close proximity to retail and services, and the
size of the site, w4ich allows for enough density to create a residential node. The proposal would
add approximately 132 dwelling units. The private school proposed by the applicant could reduce
that number by approximately 30 units. The reduction of industrial potential and addition of
housing would result in a net decrease in potential traffic impacts were the site to develop under
current zoning.
Issues that should be addressed during the area planning process include: how to integrate
residential with the fabric of the area and how to resolve any potential conflicts with adjacent
industrial uses.
Site Description and Surrounding Context
. This 8.5 acre triangular shaped site is composed of four parcels located in the Gunbarrel
subcommunity. The four parcels surround the cul-de-sac terminus of Spine Road. Three of
the pazcels are vacant one has an 18,700 sq. ft. single story building cunently leased by Front
Range Community College. The southern portion of the site is cuttently used as parking for
the adjacent College. .
The existing land use designation in the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan is Performance
Industrial (Pn and the zoning is General Industrial - Developing (IG-D). General Industrial
zoning allows for a wide range of light industrial uses including administrative and technical
offices, research and devalopment, manufacturing, and service industrial uses. There is a
maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 0.5:1. Live-work dwelling units are permitted by use
review; attached dwelling units are prohibited. The existing adult education use, less than
20,000 square feet, is a permitted use. The proposed private school use is prohibited in all
industrial zones including IG-D.
The adjacent residentiat neighborhood to the east is zoned medium density and developed at
approximately 9-6 units per acre. These residential properties, single-family homes primazily
three-story, are above and separated from the site by an approximately 30 foot high berm.
Along the top of the berm two ditches and a supply canal run parallel to each other (Boulder
White Rock and I.eft Hand ditches and a water supply canal that originates at Carter Lake.)
Properties to the south and west are developed consistent with general industrial zoning with
the exception of one vacant parcel to the south.
The site is accessed from L.ookout Road along Spine Road one tenth of a mile through an
area bounded by properties zoned parformance industrial. The proposed mixed-use gunbarrel
town center will be within easy walking distance, less than an eighth of a mile, to the south.
The town center is proposed for a mix of retail and service retai] uses and housing.
It is estimated that Front Range Community College currently generates approximately 350
daily vehicle trips. Standard RTD bus service is provided by the 205 route on I.ookout road
approximately one tenth of a mile to the south. RTD stops in the area offer few amenities for
ridars.
A regulated wetland runs along the northwestern edge of the site. The wetland area is approx.
95 feet wide with dry creek [ditch] running through the center.
Agenda Item # ~ /-) Page # ~ ~- 02
A small prairie dog colony is located on the site. The prairie dogs have recently moved on to
the site after the landowner cleared the site of vegetation. Boulder city code prohibits
poisoning of prairie dogs and also prevents destruction of active burrows.
Concerns raised by the public
The city hosted a neighborhood meeting on November 21, 2002 to inform residents about the
proposal and gather input. Approximately 15 people attended the meeting. The summarized
comments are included following this report. The applicant provided information on his specific
development proposal on this site. In general, people were supportive of adding housing to this
site. Protection of the view corridor to the west and improved access from the residential
properties north of the site to the proposed commercial center south of the site (Gunbarrel town
center) were the primary concerns of the residents.
Analysis
Staff analyzed four alternative land use designations for the site: high density residential (HR),
medium density residential (MR), mixed use industrial (MUn, and a split of high-density
residential and mixed-use industrial.
Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan policies 2.20 and 2.21 encourage the city to develop, where
appropriate, mixed use residential oppoRunities in industrial areas. Several factors make this site
appropriate for the addition of residential uses: an adjacent residential zone, close proximity to
retail and services (Gunbarrel town center), and the size of the site, which allows for enough .
density to create a residential node. The primary problem with residential use is possible conflict
with the adjacent industrial uses to the south. Access for residential uses through an industrial
area would normally be of concern but for this site the distance is not significant.
A pure residential land use designation would allow the highest number of housing units but
would result in a difficult and abrupt transifion on the south side of the site where the adjacent
land uses are industrial. Mixed use industrial is a more appropriate transition between the
industrial sites to the south and the proposed residential neighborhood. Mixed use industrial
would not allow the existing adult education use or the proposed private school use.
Mixed use industrial land use designation would most likely result in industrial main street (IMS)
zoning. This zoning category is a mixed use zone for industrial and residential uses. It allows
limited neighborhood-serving restaurants in a pedestrian oriented pattern with buildings located
close to the street and parking the rear. The concept for the zone is a place where artists, crafts
persons, and small industrial business owners can live and work within close proximity,
potentially in the same buildi~g. This zone is seen as a transition between established industrial
neighborhoods and full-service retail /office centers. Although this is not exactly the case here -
the proximity of retail and industrial does lend itself to this concept.
Currently Lookout Road is a minor arterial that carries about 10,500 vehicles per day. This
volume is typical for a minor arterial road. Much of the weekday traffic on I.ookout Road is
commuter traffic entering or exiting the city. The signalized intersection at Lookout Road and
Spine Road currently operates effectively with existing traffic.
Agenda Item # `~ f} Pag~ # ~-~.~
A development proposal for the site would follow the city's development review process, which
requires a traffic impact report and specific mitigation measures for the development. If
additional development would degrade the operation of these intersections, the development
would be expected to provide improvements at these locations to mitigate the impact.,
The best strategies for partially mitigating the traffic impact would be to provide an aggressive
alternative transportation program aimed at employees and students. This would involve
employee and student transpoRation coordinators to promote transportation options and the use
of Eco-passes. An effective strategy to help mitigate residential, student and employee traffic
would be to improve pedestrian connections in the area including one along the irrigation canal
on the east side of the site. A Neighborhood Eco-pass program may be an effective strategy,
however it is unclear if a large enough neighborhood would be available in the immediate
vicinity. High density residential designation would allow for 153 residential units (18 per acre)
on the site, producing approximately 190 fewer daily vehicle trips than would be expected the
expected at full developmen[ with the current zoning.
Planning Assumptions
Under existine land use Under nrouosed land use
Future estimated dwelling units 0 132
Future estimated jobs 369 91
Ob'ectives and Criteria for Staff ro osal
OBJECTIVES (BVCP Policies) Positive (++ or +),
Criteria for Measurement Negative (-- or-), Neutral
(N), Not Applicable (NA)
A. LAND USE
1. Provides the opportunity for increasing Boulder's housing diversity and +
affordability inctuding permanenHy affordable housing.
a. Adds higher density affordable residenUal uses including 25% +
permanently affordable units to low and moderate ineome households and adds 132 units; 26
25% permanendy affordable units to middle income households. permanently affordable @
20% '"
2. Encourages new housing in convenient locations close to jobs and shopping +
a. Within I/a mile of convenience shopping +
b. Within 1 mile of grocery store +
c. Within 1 mile of employment center +
3. Improves jobs/housing balance +
a. Adds higher density affordable housing +
adds 26 units *
Agenda Item #_5 A Page # n' ~
b. Reducesjobs I +
4. Encourages the revitalization and economic viability of the city's commercial NA
areas and retail base (5.06, 5.08, 2.19)
a. Adds a mix of residenUal and retail uses ' N/A
5. Shows compatibility with ac~jacent land uses through transitions between land
uses that vary in intensity (2.15) +
a. Is compatible with adjacent land uses +
6. Respects existing neighborhood character and encourages sensitivity to e~eisting
context +
a. Reflects exisGng neighborhood character (residential) N/A
7. Promotes a compact community through redevelopment and i~ll +
a. Is in area I Yea
b. Is in area II No
B. LOCATIONAL / SERVICES
1. Adequate services and facilities are available or planned +
a. Fire +
b. Police +
c. Vehicular access +
d. Neighborhood park accessibility
( not served)
e. School accessibility/ capacity +
2. Impacts to the city's operating budget Neutral
C.TRANSPORTATION
1. Encourages increased use of alternative travel modes and avoids auto
dependency
a. In a transit-oriented/ pedestrian friendly area? -
b. In an area with a rich mix of complementary land uses? -
c. Directly served by high frequency transit? -
e. How many net additional daily vehicle trips will be generated? (190 ) compared with
buildout under ex. zoning
E Will this change add vehicle trips to an arterial intersection that is (now
or in future) congested? (LOS F) No
g. Can the vehicular traffic impact af this site be readily mitigated Yes
Agenda Item # ~~} Page # fl-~
through strategies that are part of the city's transportation plan? (TMP)
D. ENVIRONMENT
1. Preserves and protects environmental resources
a. Open space adjacency/ access impacts Neutral
(Good access to Open
Space but no difference
from elcisNng zoning)
b. Wetlands
(Adding residential use to
the site may have impact
on the existing wetland
habitat)
c. Wildlife or native plant habitad natural ecosystem Neutral
d. Species of concern Neutral
(No difference in impact
to prairie dogs between
e~tisting zoning and a
residential zoning)
e. Flood hazards NA
£ Airport influence zone NA
1/9/2003
S:~PLA1V~dataVongrang\compplg~BVCP~02 annual update~Parcel Data~Spine.doc
Agenda Item # '~~ Page # n- ~
_---- _ -- -._-_u __.
_ __ _- - -
Site ##2 5465-5490 Spine Road ~
LEGEND
N
1:4908
~~~~
~
Maplink
City of 8ouider
n,~ ia~~o~mu~n acpia~a on du5 map ss
pmvidcd v gaphinl rcpirsrnndoa only.
Z}ee Ciry of Boulder provides no marcmry
cxprascd or miplicd, u<o the acc~mc7
~rac comptctaxss oe d,e ;ntorm~von
Boulder Valley Comp Plan Updafe
Spine Meeting
November 21, 2002
Attendanca: 12 - not including applicant and family
MOLLY T~bYER `~
Project Manager Jean Gatza, who provided an overview oY'the Boulder Valley Comprehensive
Plan and the update process, opened the meeting at 6:40.
Planning Director Peter Pollock spoke briefly to the Planning departmenPs recognition of
Gunbarrel residents burgeoning concern for changes to the ]and-use in the area and the resultant
impacts of proposed changes. Peter offered that he had met with local neighborhood
organization and bvsinass organization representativas and is considering setting up department
resources to develop a sub-area plan for Gunbarrel. This would allow the residents to work with
planing staff ro look at the Craffie, environmental considerations and other development impacts
n~ore holistically.
The applicant, Mike Tagliola reviewed both the proposed concept and some of the characteristics
of the site he hopes to use in the design work. The applicant's family owns the parcel and has
held it for many years. The parents were on-hand for the discussion.
Questions (?) and Comments (C) from the discussion;
?: Do you have plans to build structures greater than two stories?
• No plans to date
• Would like to build at two to three stories to realize economies of scale and accommodate
affordable housing needs.
C: (Numbar o fl homeowners in Gunbarrel are concerned with the raising of profile of building
height.
Open to mix of heights. 3ite has always has been mixed,
Height concern for views within the development had been noted.
?: 11 sites/ requests for changes - what are others?
• Staff reviewed the Planning Board process for the audience.
?: If city plan says yes to ]and use change, how long until zoning change?
• Depends on the applicant
• City may be initiatipg some Comp Plan and zoning changes for area while working on
other planning processes.
Agenda Item #~ Page # ~-8~
?: Can you help explain Jobs/ Housing study?
•(Boulder) Area has more jobs than housing
• Challenge and thinking asks: Can we re-shape by Iowering job growth add more housing
nearjobs?
?: Use existing Front Range Community College (FRCC) building? Is there some way to keep
them here?
?: How high is FRCC building?
?: What about grade considerations?
Applicant to group: how much of a view would you liked preserved?
• Grade drops - N. + W slight ,
• Three story - build up to 40 feet
C/?: Boulder supply canal runs adjacent/through. Biscuss use; 6as anyone thought of "piping"
ditch... create a bike path?
Peter: There is some new discussion in city utilities - to product water resource
C: (Bike path would be a) greaY Pacility link in Twin Lakes. Do not want high structures next to
the path .
C: (Canal) could work well with trail on top - it sort of "wants to be trail"
Applicant question to group: do neighbors of site hear traffic?
Few people spoke up, those who did, said they did not.
C: Would like new alternative mode facilities (in Gunbarrel). Would not like more cars zooming
around. Not interested in street connections (between onr neighborhood and site.)
C: Need to build bike/ pedestrian connection from Twin Lakes - plus bus transit center would be
good for elementary school and field trips taken on bikes.
?: What kind of zoning will this get?
C: (Would like to see) consideration far the school. Cou1d work with FRCC to meet their needs.
There is a group looking to site a new school for the gifted child in area. Could have school
complex.
C: Like having FRCC students shopping in Gunbarrel. Should work to develop new transit
options.
C: (Gunbarrel suffers from lot ofj traffic from jobs... today
Agenda Item #-.`-i A Page # D~- y
?: Ever consider senior community use? The market is here - average age is +10 to Boulder
Applicant: open to this - will be sensitive to adjacent neighbors - will use local planners
input - very open design process - would like comrnuriity support - great opportunity for
Gunbarrel
C: Interestiu green space,landscape and soft-scape use. More sale-able with green instead of
hardscape.
Applicant: we're not there yet
C: Thanks for this meeting - tfiis is a site where high density would not worry me like the Town
Center. May require more retail sarvices at Town Center. Rethink (own Center) with broader
area needsin mind,
C: Applicant's mont: This is a big change - have lived here since 1968. When we had an
opportunity to pur~hase this site - we thought about how little undeveloped land is left...
Change is hard... We want to share these wetlands with the rest of Gunbarrel community -
make this feature an important amenity of any development here.
\\COBCLUSTER_SHARE_SERVER\SHAREIPLANIdata~ongrangicompplg\BVCP102 annual updatelPublic
Meetings\SpineU 1-21-02 flip chart notes.doc
Agenda Ttem # Si~ Page # n-/D
5460-5490 Spine Road
Do you have any comments on the praposal.a
• Yes, thanks for seeking community input! - Carolyn Ramsey
. I urge the developer, Mr. Tagliola, to reconsider his plnn to have buildings toller than
two stories, as such buildings may block mountain views from homes in Gunbarrel
North (especially Bear Mountain and Drew Ranch Lanes). - Cnrolyn Ramsey
• Pleqse find a way to make vehicle p4rking and vehicle ingress unobtrusive to residents
of Gunbarrel North. - Carolyn Ramsey
• I have a problem with the land use redesignation. -PQUI Klamer
• Excellent proposal -Mike Walsh
• Thunks to city planning staff and the developers (Mike and Chuck) for sharing
ideas/concepts. -Mike Walsh
. Appreciate the open attitude. -Mike Walsh
As staff proceeds to analyze the praposal, are there specific issues ar concerns that you
think should be addressed.~
• Connect Twin Lnkes to Gunbarrel by pedestrian and bike -Ron Smaron
• Overpass 6unbarre) to reservoir by bike and foot, including bus stop, Park N Ride
• High profile buildings (i.e. taller than two-story) are incompatible with the Gunbarrei
community aesthetic, which is not urban. Such buildings would be anomalous. - Carolyn
Ramsey
• Need to reduce traffic on Lookout Road. - Cnrolyn Ramsey
• The site should make use of greenspuce/open spuce to reduce negative aspects of
high-density housing. Buildings should not be packed tightly into hardscnpe. - Carolyn
Ramsey
• Please consider the need of Gunbarrel residents for small-scale retuil and gathering
spots like coffee houses/bookstores. Such retail establishments are much more
desircable to Gunbarrel residents thnn supermarkets, gas stations, or other services
like that (which we already have). - Carolyn Ramsey
• I think thaf Gunbarrel North residents would generally support the change to "mixed
use" or "residential" from industrial, as long as our concerns about building height,
density nnd traffic are met. - Carolyn Ramsey
• Must be synergistic with developing area plan and Gunbarrel Town Center -Paul
Klamer
• Needs to t4ke into account Boulder Federnl Canal becoming major pedestrion access
into town center. -Paul Klamer.
• Heights shouldn't interfere with Gunbarrel North hausing -Paul Klamer
• Consider adult or senior housing -Paul Klamer
• This is an ideal site for dense housing -Mike Walsh
• An area plan would be most helpful - Mike Walsh
Agenda Item # 5/3 Page # I~ -/I
~ -
fiEC€iVED SEP 2 0 Z(i02
G~~V ~t Bo~~ae~
~~~y~~
' ~ ~
~
BOULDER VALLEY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
APPLICATION FOR ANNUAL REVISION
Tvne of Amendment fcheck ail that apptv)
~~. Land Use Amendment Other Map Amendment
_ Minor Service Area Boundary Change _ Othcr Text Amendment
Policy Amendment
Please nrovide the followinQ information
I3rief description of the proposed amendmenC
To rezone parczl from pure IG-D t~ zoning that supporrs the developmeru of « sirigle
"resirlential/industrial mized-iise" nzasle~plan specificalIy composed of residentiai,
educational, and technical office uses. Appropriate zoning could be either specific to this
site/proj~ct or a combtnation of one/some of the follotiving: IG/D, ISM,~X, HR/D or
HR/X.
Brief reason orjustifica[ion of proposed amendrnent __ _ __
• To add residential opportunities while decreasing future job opportiinities adjacent to
the Gunbarrel Subcommunity Center
• 1~o adopt and apply "mixed-use" to richeu and improve the physical/built character of
the Gunba~rel Subcommunity Cent~~r
+ To shape, support and advance the sustainability and economics of the Gimbarrel
Subcommunify Canter
If mtip amendment:
Map(s) proposed for amendment:
Brief description of location of proposed amendment
, ~--`"
Size of parreL ~ ~ ~
;ecuun:
` Twnshp: Ranoe:
' ~ ! f_`l . ~r~ (5
Does applicnnt have a developroent applica[ion or some interest in property that in any manner would be
aFfected by this amendment proposal? (If yes, please explain):
Yes. 1 will be ttte general/managing partner of the Greens Industrial Park LLC which
intends to purchase and develop this parce(. Rezoning for "residential/industrial mixed-
use" increases the F:~R for the parcel ~vhich increases the utility of the parcel which
inereases the potential for financial gain by devaloping the parcel. -
Agenda Item #~_ Page #~~-/o?
G~\y ~I BOU/ry@r
,~,~~s:,,
~ ~
~
Appiicant:
Name: 1 1 ~ G N L~E.~ I/'1G! !.- I~....~
Address: !/~ ~ c: ~U ~-^^'C'J7'~~s?~ ~ ~ ~o ~4c, c~ ~ V l f _~ -.a
d'~e~
Phone: ~ G? ~. :J ~ ~ . ~ ~ .~'t~-. +~
Owner: ~fl~tL...ICwhi..f~, ~~c.Y'~"t6t..`~i' T~t.I~::T l._..l..l..l~
~ Name: _ "~' ./~ ` ; S ~Jl'~.__ i.d~,~ ~~E'~/'c :.! I~ k.`•l ~ Tir~~..) ~:eT
Address:
G> ~ ~' ~ ~ (
Phone: "'~'~'G ~~ ~ ~~- ~ ~""' ~ ~
l ..
a„-~
RepresenCative/Contact:
Name: 1~ 1 ~ G N~~~. I l~r`.! t...-1 C>t--/"C - -
( _~~ iC ~,,~. ~
Address: _~~~s~~ F~~JJ kr'>v~ ~~t,i _ 1~--~ o l~~ ,_.~
~~ i
,~- ,_._. ,...y ~ 2-? 5
Phone: '~'::', ~~ `'_~ ^=C~-'~ ~ --
SUPPLENIENT'AL INFORNIATION TO B~ SUBMITTED WIT'H APPL[CATION
~ L Narrative addressing the details of the proposed ameudmeni including reason or justification f~r
proposal, i[s relatiunship to Ihe goals, policies, elemeiits, and amenclment cri~erin of the $oulder
Valley Comprehensive Plan.
~ 2. Location map showing size and relationship of the area proposed !or amendment [o surrounding ~
roads, existing and planned land uses, na[ural features, present Comprehensive Plan designations,
etc., 8 1/2" x I 1" map suitable for photocopying. .- --~- ~Ul....L.. ~v ~:•~rk-:. ,/ Q~ %~"' '~-
/~`~`~ ~ i'Yi ~JVGPvft%{L1~ Jl ~/!~/(~~ /~t~
3. Detailed map parger scale than location m1p) of site showing topographic contours, structures or
improvements, physical features, etc., if required; 8~/i' x t I" map suitable for photocopying.
4. Name of person who prepared submittal infonnation, ~~~' ~~~,~ ~f~fq (,., ; ~ L- M
5. Addition.tl infurmation or copies of submittal materials may be required.
~ L ~ f~. :a~ <~. ~.1,._ (..- ~~ k~ ~~ ~ ~ : i i I ~'` r ~~ f~ L.. G C~ !.-t~ ! ::..
Agenda Item #~ Page # ~) - /3 (_,,,`
il r' f'~ ~ n~ t r^ ..- ,_, ./. I 1 n~.~ A'~ C°.k'~.~T'" .
Project Details (Proposed Uses / SF Quantities)
This proposed Land Use Amendment would encourage and support the forntulation of a
"residential/industrial mixed-use" masterplan that would combine and blend three types
of uses in roughly the following qnantities:
. 20p,000 SF of Apartm°nts/Condominiums (to include Affordable Housing)
• 2Q000 SF of Technical Office
• 35,000 SF of Educational 3pace (Pre-Sold Out/currently non-binding agreements)
25,OOOSF reserved by the Rocky Mountain School for the Gifted and Creati~~e
10,000SF to be reserved by The Rolf Institute for Stnictural Integration
Overall FAR target for entire parcel: 0.65 to OJS
...piease see attached spreadsheet for a first pass at SF quantities and anticipated parking
requirements...also listed here is parking for fonner and current proposal: Boulder
County Educational Cantpus
Project Concept:
A"residentia]lindush-ial mixed-use" Village contprisad of two and tku•ee stoiy buildings
principally convened arotmd the cul-de-sac shaping a centralizing pedestrian plaza. The
north end of Spine Road, interwoven architecturally into the plaza, would continue to
work as a dead-end, serving as a turnaround for RTD and a drop off area for other
vehicl~s. Pm•king/vel~icular eirculation would be directed toward the back of the cul-de-
sac with vehicles entering/exiting the site at the southern edge turning east/wesf. So for
users, this proposed Village would adjust inward, toward the plaza, at ground level; 1nd
htrn outward, toward the mountains and surroundin~ open space, on second and third
story levels.
Justi~cation for Land Ilse Amendment
The justification for seeking this Land Use Amendment rasts principally on the two
notable themes and the one co~ispicuous issue identified during the 2000 Update to the
Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan:
Theme One: Increase Affordable Housing Opportunities
Theme Two: Enhance Overall Character and Urban Form oPthe Community
Issue One: Address Jobs to Housing Imbalance
Agenda Item # 5/~ Page # n~-~y
How does this proposed Land Use Amencfinent meet these salient themes and issues?
Rezoning from pure IG-D to "residential/industrial mixed-use", with an emphasis on
educational as the principal industrial use, creates multiple opportunities:
- to increase housing in/near the Gunbanel Subcommunity Center
- to increase affordable housing in/near the Gunbarrel Subcommunity Center
to decrease the potential for future job growth in/near the Gunbarrel
Subcommunity Center
to employ "mixed-use" to shape, and to fix pern~anently, the north edge of the
urban form of the Gunbazrel S~ibcommuni'ty Center
to exercise "mixed-use" to improve the character of the Gunbairel Subcomrnuniry
Center by increasing the pedestrian opportunity within the area
Project Relationship to Goals, Policies, Elemenis and Afnendment Criteria of the
Roulder Valley Compreheusive Plan
Amendment Criteria
This proposed "residential/industrial mixed-use" Village would require a Land Use
Amendment so that the regulatory framework exists to activate development. Changes in
Land Use are expected to be considered during the Annual Review/Revision process.
The Four Elements
The same four elements that empo~ver and invigorate Boulder's "sense of place" will be
leveraged and embraced and expected to enliven and substantiate the marketability and
financial feasibility of this proposed "residential/industrial mixed-use" Village:
+ Feature views and enhance consciousness of mountain backdrop and surrounding
open space
• Tie proposed Village into Boulder's "mobility grid" by creating connections to
naarby bikeways and paths and negotiating with RTD to bring Route 205 to site
• Practice "mixed-use" to animate and articulate the presence of the Gunbanel
Subcommunity Center
Agenda Item #~ Page # n _,s
Remain cognizant of the proximity of the Diagonal Highway (37,000 cars/day) as an
opportunity for the Village to work as a poster for the "mixed-use" character and
liveliness of the Gunbarrel Subcommunity Center
Congruence Between Prouosed Project and the Boulder County Comprehensive Plan
This proposed "residential/industrial mixed-use" Village aims to advance specifically the
following Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan Policies:
General Folicies
1.16 Adapting to Limits on Physical Expansion
Community Design
2.03 Community/Regional Design
2.04 Compact Land Use Pattern
2.06 Design of Community Edges
2.11 Neighborhoods as Building Blocks
2.15 Protection of ResidenYial Neighborhoods Adjacent to Non-Residential 'Lones
2.17 Mixture of Complementary Land Uses
2,18 Compatibility of Adjacent Land Uses
2.20 Mixed Use
2.21 Incentives for Mixed Use
2.22 Snbcommunities as Building Blocks for Planning
2.23 Suppart Services for Subcommunities
2.24 Variety of Activity Centers
2.28 Commitment to a Walkable CiCy
2.29 Trail Con~iclors/Linkages
2.37 Design that Respects Existing Character
2.38 5ensitive Infill and Redevelopment
2.39 Appropriate Context and Scate for Redevelopment
2.40 Quality Residential Site Design
2.41 Physical Design for Citizen Needs
2.43 Enhanced Design for Built Environment
Facilities and Services
3.01 Provision of Urban Services in the Boulder Valley
3.04 Channeling Development to Areas with Adequate Infrastructure
3.14 Trails Network
Environment
4.09 Wetland Protection
435 Water Conservation
4.39 Energy-Efficient Land Use
4.40 Energy-Efficient Building Design and Construction
4.42 Waste Minimization and Recycling of Construction Materials
4.46 Noise Abatement
Agenda Item # ."i f~ Page # I~-- /lc
4.47 Outdoor Lighting/Light Pollution
Economy
5.03 Balance of Employment and Housing
5.05 Industrial Zoning
5.07 Educational Partnerships
Transportation
6.04 Multimodal Strategies
6.07 Congestion
6.08 Transportation Impact
6.09 Multimodal Development
6.11 Neighborhood Integration
Housing
7.01 Mixture of Housittg Types
7.02 Local Solutions to Affordable Housing
7.03 Integration of Affordahle Housing
7.04 Encourage Construction of Affordable Housing
7.06 Balancing Housing Supply with Employment Base
7.07 Permanently Affordable ~Iousino
7.11 Keeping Low/Moderate Workers in Boulder
Socia] Concerns and Human Services
8.11 Support of Children, Youth and Families
Agenda Item # .~ Page #~
T~-^---Stata 8 Fcderol Highways
PTD Fleglonal & Local Bus Routes
~~ ~~~ 8icycle Paths ~ Lanes
Agend~ Item # .~~ ~ Page # ~•- /~
S
Greens industrial Park
East Lots
West Lots
Total Masterpian
Mixed tJse ~AR
East Lots SF
West Lots SF
Total Masterplan SF
Masterplan Quantities
152598 SF 89730
21$210 SF 999322
370808 SF
0.60 0.65 0.70
91558.80 99188.70 106818.60
130926.00 141836.50 152747.00
222484.80 24102520 259565.60
P kin
62868 234 Boulder County Educational Campus
98888 2Q8 Boulder Couniy Educational Campus
442 Boulder County Educational Campus
0.75 0.80 0.85 0.90 0.95 1.00
114448.50 122078.40 129708.30 13733820 144968.10 152598.00
163657.50 174568.00 185478.50 196389.00 207299.50 218210.00
278106.00 296646.40 315186.80 333727.20 352267.60 370808.00
~
d
00
~
?,
~
+r,
~
~
d
~
~
~
G
d
oU
d'
Parkina Ratio (Spaces/1000) SF%
Educational 35000 175 5I 14.00%
TechnicalOffice 20000 50 2.5 8.OOqo
Residential 195000 195 VARIED 78.00%
250000.00~ 420~ ~ ~ 0.67~Project FAR
#2 Site and Surround~n~ Area Context
~~ ~~.>,;. ~~,~ ~ . ~~.
~,~~ ~,,..
~ :~- i ~~ ~;
~ ,~;"
A ~,^ :
` e ~ ~~ ,r.~~
~^ "Y,y',y~n '~`' .,.;~_ ~
~____ --- - ~-~-'^ ~ ~ .
6405 Odell Place
Warehouses/Storage Units
5455 Spine Road
Manufacturin~/ Processing
6636 Bean Mt Lane
Single-Family
6595 ~dell Place
Manufacturing/Processing
65b5 Odell Place Agen~la Item #~,~~ Page #-~-,~C
Offices
5490 Spine Road
Educational Facility
A'1'1'ACHM~N'1' k;
Parcel No. 5 Description: E. of 30th, N. of Kalmia Ave., S. of Palo Parkway
Existin
Land Use Designation: I.ow Density Residentia] (LR)
Zoning: County - Rural Residential
socc.r
~~I"
go~~.~
6
Proposal and Recommendation
Annlicant's Prouosal
Land Clse Designation: Medium Density
Residantial (MR)
Acreage: 22 acres
Staff Recommendation
Land Use Designation: Medium Density
Residential (MR)
Acreage: 1 ].0 acres
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:
to ensure a mixture of housing types;
to provide compaYibility with adjacent land uses and;
to provide for a significant amount of affordable housing
A land 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 during the planning process that has occutted over the past year.
Site Description and Surrounding Context
• This is a vacant 22 acre parcel located in the Palo Park subcommunity noRh of the Calvary
Bible Church on Kalmia Ave., south of Palo Parkway, and west of the Pleasantview soccer
Agenda Item #~_ Page # ~' - /
fields. Immediately west of the property is a 10 acre parcel with one home on it. Further west
is part of Palo Park, a county neighborhood with low density single family homes (4.4
units/acre). Immediately north of the propeRy is Palo Park Filing 4b, a medium density
single family neighborhood (8.2 units/acre) and a vacant 3 acre pazcel owned by the Boulder
Valley School District that is designated Medium Density Residetttial.
The site is accessed from Kalmia Ave. and Palo Parkway, both of which are dead-end streets
accessed from 28"' Stree[. High capacity transit service is provided by the BOUND just west
of these parcels along Palo Parkway and north 28`n Street. However, RTD stops in the area
offer few amenities for riders.
The property is located in Airport Influence Zone 3 where residential davelopment is
permitted subject to certain requirements including site plan review by the Airport Manager,
height restrictions, and the grant of an avigation easement to the city.
There is a smal] colony of prairie dogs on the Calvary Bible Church property - which is
cureently in the city limits. There are no other environmental resources or hazards of concern
on this site.
Analysis
This site was proposed for a]and 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 ]andowners apply collectively for annexation, higher densities on the parcels
would not work within the context of the neighborhood. They did, however, state that higher
densities should be considered for these parcels if the tandowners apply as a group and if the
potential impacts can be mitigated.
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 alternative plans for this property were developed and then reviewed by the
Planning Board in March of 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 prepared and submitted a concept plan tha[
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 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 ma~cimum 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.
The staff recommendation would be expected to generate approximately 400 additional daily
vehicle trips in an area. The applicanYs proposal would be expected to generate approximately
790 additional daily vehicle trips. The vicinity of the site is somewhat remote from the main part
of the city and commercial or retail services. The site would be accessed from Palo Parkway and
Kalmia. Existing traffic patterns and signal operation considerations suggest that traffic resulfing '
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 turn, 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. If additional development would degrade the operation of these intersections, the
development would be expected to provide the improvements at these intersections to mitigate
Agenda Item # .~ Page # /_ -~
the impact.
The best strategy for partially mitigating the traffic impact would be increased emphasis on
encouraging ridership on the BOUND through a Neighborhood EcoPass program. Further
mitigation could be accomplished by development of pedestrian connections along Palo Parkway
to the BOUND bus stops and by ensuring the extension of local street grids from adjacent
subdivisions directly into this site.
This site is served by two puks: Central/South Palo Park, 3.1 acres; and East Palo Park, 4 acres;
for a total of 7.1 acres serving the site. East Palo Pazk is considered a substandard size
neighborhood park. Central/South Palo Park is classified as a pocket park. Thus, one pocket
park and one sub-standard size neighborhood park serve the site. Almost all of the area proposed
for a land use designation change lies within the standard service area radius of these parks.
Although the majority of the site is served, a small portion of the southeast corner of the site (less
than 1/6 of the site) along Kalmia is not within the service area radius of the city parks. (The
staff recommendation would exclude this portion of the site from the proposed change.) The
Parks and Recreation standards would indicate the need for some additional park acreage on or
near this site primarily because of the size of the current parks. Although it would not technically
meet the Parks and Recreatio~ Master Plan standards, the developer of the site is proposing to
build a 1 acre private park on the parcel to partially meet the park needs in this area.
This subcommanity 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 is likely to increase the demand for services in this area and place more demand on
fire stations 3 and 5.
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 e-mails received are includad following this report, Concerns included
increasad density, traffic, inadequate park land, need for a buffer zone, and lack of incorporation
of residents' concerns. Some residents comments support increasing the density to accommodate
8.75 units per acre as proposed in the applicant's concept plan.
Planning Assumptions
Under existin~ Applicant's Staff
land use nroaosal Recommendation
Future astimated dwelling units 132 264 198
Future estimated jobs 0 0 0
Agenda Item # ..~_ Page # F_ -3
Ob,jectives and Criteria
OBJECTIVES (BVCP Policies) Positive (++or+),
Criteria for Measurement Negative (-- or-), Neutral
(N), Not Applicable (NA)
A. LAND USE
1. Provides the opportunity For increasing Boulder's hoasing diversity and ++
affordability including permanently affordable housing.
a. Adds higher density affordable residential uses including 25% +
permanently affardable units to low and moderate income households and adds 132 units; 61
25 %a permanently affordable units to middle income households, permanenHy affordable @
cnq *
2. Encourages new housing in convenient locations close to jobs and shopping +
a. Within'/a mile of convenience shopping -
b. Within 1 mile of grocery store +
c. Within 1 mile of employment center +
3. Improves jobs/housing balance +
a. Adds higher density affordable housing +
adds 132 units *
b. Reduces jobs NA
4. Encourages the revitalization and economic viability of the city's commercial
areas and retail base (5.06, 5.08, 2.19) NA
a. Adds a mix of residential and retail uses -
5. Shows compatibility with ac~jacent land uses through transitions between -and
uses that vary in intensity (2.15) +
a. Is compatible with adjacent land uses +
6. Respects existing neighborhood character and encourages sensitivity to existing
context +
a. Reflects exisfing neighborhood characfer (residential) +
7. Promotes a compact community through redevelopment and int'ill -
a. Is in area I NA
b. Is in area II Yes
B. LOCATIONAL / SERVICES
1. Adequate services and facilities are available or planned
a. Fire
b. Police +
c. Vehiwlar access +
d. Neighborhood park accessibility + (served)
e. School accessibility/ capacity +
Agenda Item # S/-~ Page # i= -~f
C. TRANSPORTATION
1. Encoutages increased use of alternative travel modes and avoids auto
dependency
a. In a transit-oriented/ pedestrian friendly area? -
b. In an area with a rich mix of complementary land uses? -
c. Directly served by high frequency transit? +
e. How many net additional daily vehicle trips will be generated? Staff's proposal: 400
Applicant's proposal: 790
f. Will this change add vehicle trips to an arterial intersection that is (now
or in future) congested? (LOS F) No
g. Can the vehicular traff'ic impact of this aite be readily mitigated
through strategies that are part of the city's transportation plan? (TMP) Yes
D. ENVIRONMENT
1. Preserves and protects environmental resources -
a, Open space adjacency/ access impacts Neutral
b. Wetlands NA
c. Wildlife or native plant habitaU natural ecosystem NA
d, Species of concern -
less potential for
protecting prairie dog
habitat compared to
current land use
e. Flood hazards NA
f. Airport influence zone AIZ 3
*In addition to current comprehensive plan projections
S:~PLAN~dataVongrang\compplg~BVCP~02 annual update~Parcel Data\Kalmiaparcel2.doc
Agenda Item # . -~, /~ _ Page # L -5
LEGEND
.~
~
~~
~
a~
aa
~
a
~
~i
~
E
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
d
N
1:5894
~~~~~ ~
~
Map{ink
City of Boulder
:h~ ~~~na~~~a ~a a,~ ~ u
prowuFcd u graphual zcp~esca~t?on onlY-
T e Gty of Bo~ildes providcs uo ~usznry,
ccpresscd oc snplitd, u to ch~ xnxnry
avdjox co~Ieuaas of thc iaformadoa
Kulmia Properties
Do you have any comments on the proposal.~
• Markel and Coast to Coast have not worked with residents to come to an agreeable
solution to problems this development will create, even though they say they hnve.
Density and tratfic that wil! result on Palo Parkwqy from the density, can not be
mitigated. Residents in this areu don't want this development. -Victoria Tepley
• Raising density to medium, with the condition that densrty not exceed 8.75 seems
reasonable and I support. However, more park space must be required must be
required given shortage of parks and rec. land (Plensantview is not open to the public).
-James Pribyl
• I am (we nre} concerned that this proposa! as it stands would have a very negative
impact on the local traffic on PQIo Parkway, on the existing property values, on the
existing park space in nearby neighborhoods. We do not need such high density of new
housing. Water shortages? -Nelen and Akir4 Shirai
• This plan, i.e. change from LR to MR, violates the spirit of, if not the details of, the
plan. This plan doesn't respect the existing neighborhood context, doesn't mitigate
transportation impact, and ndversely affects the adequacy of city services (education
and water). -David Giarracco
As staff proceeds ta anoly2e the proposal, are there specific issues ar concerns that you
think should be addressed.~
• I am concerned about the lack of regard by the Planning Board of our, the residents,
stated concerns regarding this development. That you are moving forward, so far,
ignoring our suggestions presented at previous meetings. -Victoria Tepley
• Traffic, pQrk space ratio to population - access, quality of development. -7ames
Pribyl
• Is the current low-density zoning a viable option when considering affordable housing
developrnent on this land? -Helen and Akira Shirai
• If the designation is changed from LR to MR then developer can increase the density
from 8.75 du/ac to 14 du/ac (whatever the maximum is?) -David Giarracco
• There isn't a demonstrated analysis that includes the effect upon the school system
by adding these units. -David Giarracco
Additional Comments
• If the zoning is changes, then what density wilf the Harper property get? HR?
-David Giarrncco
• The proposed land use designation change from Low Density Residentia) to Medium
Density Residential conflicts in several respects with the Boulder Vnlley
Comprehensive Plan policies and objectives. The Plnn h4s as a general purpose, "...the
promotion of health, safety, morals, order, convenience, prosperity and general
welfare..,
~genda Item # -SfI Page ~ ~- ~'
a. The propased density is far too high to provide a healthful and happy environment
for its residents. The proposed yard sizes, the one-acre "park/drainage basin,"
the constricted street system (not a"grid" system with the concomitant street-
end access boasted by the developer) nre not adequate. The living spaces
proposed are cramped and inner-urban in quality but Ictcking inner-urban
compensations.
b. The grossly inndequate park/drainage basin with the minimal yard sizes will
guarantee that the many children who will live here will end up seeking recreation
and activity and companionship on the streets of the community. There is no viable
park or recreation space within City-standard limits. These crowded youngsters
will inevitably spill into neighboring residenti4l areas with the usunl inner-city
conflicts and crime level.
c. It is the City's intent to crowd as many as possible residents on this property in
order to increase the stock of "affordable housing" in the City. Inasmuch as the
City finds itself very short of develop4ble residential property, it is attempting to
concentrate this so-cailed nffordnble housing in the only places left open to
residential development, those in North Boulder, significantly, those on the
absolute periphery of the City, where the dwellers have commute distances
comparable to many County dwellers.
d. The crowding of "affordable housing" into such sites as the Kalmia properties is
contrary to the general welfare of its residents in that it requires ail of them to
travel principally by car and completely through existing neighborhoods. It would
impose unfair loads on existing neighborhood facilities, limited though they may be
(Palo Park is already overloaded with spillover soccer players from the soccer
fields to the eust of this property).
e. The concept of "affordable housing" is already beginning to show its unworkability.
As those who have been favored with such units are finding, it takes little to buy
out of the "afford4ble" agreements and to return the housing units to the
marketplace at market prices. In other cases units are being surreptitiousiy used
as rental property. Qualifying parents appear to be selling to chiidren, keeping the
bonus value within the family. In a few years these densely packed units will, in all
likelihood, be thrown into the marketplace as rental units with all the deleterious
effects that mnny concentrnted rental units bring to adjoining neighborhoods.
-Rodger Ewy
Agenda Item # Sf~ Page # ~-b~
E-Mnils Received
In response to the 2002-2003 Annual Review of the BVCP November 14, 2002, North Fieid
Commons Land Use Re-designation.
I oppose changing the (and designation from Low Density Residentinl to Medium Density
Residential. This development should not be allowed to. be as dense as planned. Even though
this property is designated low density, Coast to Coast Development designed the housing to
fit within medium density criteria. Why???
Low density is two to six units per acre, medium density is six to fourteen units per acre.
Right now the property is designed for, I think, eight and three quarters units per acre; just
slightly over low density, just enough so it has to be re-designated to medium density. If
medium density is approved, there will be nothing to stop the developers and the city from
deciding to increase the number of units per acre. And I'm sorry, but your intention not to
do so, as stated in last nights meeting, isn't enough assurance far me.
The BVCP states: Ability to mitigate transportation impacts.
Not with the current design, you won't. Reducing Palo Purkw4y by 40% (or any % for that
matter) ond adding 190 units and all the traffic that brings, then putting two entrance/exits
onto Palo Parkway next to the planned eight-plex dwellings so most of the traffic is
encouraged to use Palo Parkwoy and not Kalmia, will create traffic problems no one can
mitigate. But after speaking with numerous fire, sheriff, nnd police officials about this plan, I
understand now that the city itself doesn't care about the safety issues involved, even
though they sny they do. I guess if there is a fire, the trucks will just have to wait until all
the residents have left the area before getting in, because with the one lane of traffic use
that will be left after you narrow our street there will not be room for two way traffic. Oh,
and don't forget that Palo Parkway only empties to the West.
But this concern has been expressed over and again by many of the residents along with many
other valid concerns. You ask for comments yet proceed without incorporating any of them.
You encourage people to move to Boulder, encourage our comments as if they matter, and
then disregard anything we hqve to say thqt doesn't fit with your agendq. You approved this
development as it was presented by M4rkel und Cocast to Coast at your lust planning board
meeting without including any of our many pleas to change the troubling aspects of this ill fit
development. Will we send in our comments, yet agnin, to have them fnll on deaf ears, numb
hearts, and tied hands?
Leave this development designation LOW DENSITY and figure out how to make it work!
Victoria Tepley
3813 Abeyta Ct.
Boulder, CO 80301
Agenda Item #_SA Page # c_ y
Dear Plcanning Department~
T nttended the Nov 14 meeting last night qt Cnlvary Baptist Church.
First, I commend your st4ff for remaining calm, helpful and focused in the face of several
cranky neighbors expressing their views in a(sometimes) less than polite manner.
Second, here are my comments on the proposal to change Northfield Commons (the dev. next
to the soccer fields) from low to medium density:
- There are a number of good things about this proposed development: alley-loading garages,
grid street layout, mix of housing types, single family units along the Qdjoining existing (single
family unit) neighborhood, access from both Kulmia and Palo Parkway, and a new pathway along
Kalmia. It will be refreshing to have some new, modest homes in the area. Hence, I'm in
favor of changing from low to medium density to accommodate this dev's 8.75/acre unity
density.
- Having snid that, ideally I think it would be best to tie this change in density designation to
this specific dev. plan. That is, if the density is changed to medium, and this dev, proposal
goes away (for whatever renson), the density designation goes back to low. I don't know if
that is possible. If it is possible in any wqy, I think it would be a good PR move, if nothing
else. Many neighbors sound irate as it is. T can only imagine how cranky meetings will be if
the density designation changes to medium, and n new dev. proposal with 14 units/acre
density appears on the drawing board.
- I am disappointed to keep reading that alternative transportation in this area is "not
viable". Stop having such n bnd attitude nbout this! The developer(s) and city should be
touting the fact that this new neighborhood is steps --- not several blocks --- away from the
high-frequency Bound route, a terrific route with many easy connections to other high-
frequency routes. This new neighborhood wauld also have easy bike/walk access to the
pnthways along the soccer fields, the 4-Mile Creek trailway, bike lanes on 47th, the nearby
bike path nlong Foothills Parkway, and the Wonderland Creek trnilway. What a grent
opport~nity to push alternative transportation!
Th4nk you,
Amy SchlotthQUer
3309 Barbados Place
Agenda Item # 1~/~ Page # i= -/0
Thunk you for informing us of the proposed Iand use changes near our neighborhood. We have
a house at 3814 Fredricks Court. We were already devastated by the proposal of Markel
homes to build 190+ houses ad jacent to Palo Parkway with little open space and the major
points of egress and access onto Pctlo Parkway as opposed to leQVing the many trees that
stand there as a buffer. Instead, there seems to be the perception that it is all right to
invnde the piece and quiet of a pre-existing neighborhood by introducing a minimum of 380
more cnr trips per day by our houses, not to mention the noise of a prolonged and massive
construction project adjacent to our homes. Now there is another proposal to change the
density north of Kalmia from low to medium. We would like to register that we are
emphnticqlly against this for the same reqsons as stated above.
If you are going to allow large building projects to be built tangentinl to pre-existing
neighborhoods, will you please consider making the developer donate a buffer zone around
the property so that there is some relief to neighbors from the increqsed traffic qnd noise?
Tn the case of Palo Parkway adjacent to the existing pcttio homes, why not run a road parallel
to the Parkway within the development and leave the trees as n buffer? Routing most of the
traffic directly onto Palo Purkway is a direct rassault on our quality of life and the values of
our homes. We nlso strongly recommend that the developer donnte at least 10% of the
praperty to open space as the trails used by our community and the Four Mile Creek
properties are alrendy fairly populated and the soccer field as designated use does not
qualify as open space for all of us to utilize.
We bought a house in Boulder because there used to be concern with open spuce and buffer
zones and respect for pre-existing communities, Now it suddenly seems that the greater
number of units the better and dmm~ the poor idiots who happen to live nearby. A great
example of this kind of attitude is evident in the Dakot4 Ridge development. What n hideous
example of poor planning -- houses sitting on top of each other overlooking the highwcty and
cramming townhouses and condominiums nearby, every house and building unit a different
style and different color. The northern entrnnce to Boulder used to be idyllic with fields.
Now it looks more like Jefferson County with a miniature Rock Creek at our portal, We
realize that Boulder is attempting to creute more affordable housing and this is to be lauded,
however, 600-700K houses like those at Dakota Ridge benefit no one but the pockets of the
developer and once again, the privileged.
So we implore you to please consider carefully how you allow development south of our homes.
By the way, the patio homes that we own are a great example of law cost housing, among the
lowest in Boulder. Why not use our quiet, low key cul-de-sacs with ten patio homes on each
street as a model for developing more affordable housing as opposed to the developer's
extravaganzalike Dakota Ridge?
Thank you for allowing us to comment.
Susan and Roger Peirce
Boulder, Colorado
Agenda Item #_,5~ Page # G-//
Planners: The proposal to increase density on Kalmia Ave is extremely upsetting. The road
network is already overtaxed. A far better use of this parcel is for future expansion of the
Pleasant View complex- one of the more successful improvements in our community. Open
space, as well, is a more attractive use. Stop listening to special interests and listen to the
homeowners in the neighborhood. Thank you.
David C. Turner
2860 Links Drive
Agenda Item # .:Sf~ Page # /= -/
~~,.~,~~~~ .v:Gi ~n~75410hy
~DULDER VA,~.LEY C4MYI~EHENSIVE PLAN
APPLICATT~N ~OR ANIVZTAL ItE'VxSIpN
Tvpp Ot A~endment (check all !h t ano1V1
~ Land Uso Amendment
_ _ Other Map AmendmenE
Miaor Service Area Soundaty Change
Policy Amendmenc
Othes Text Amendment
pleace prov(de the~f uqwine i formajjgg
Brief descripcion of the proposed amendment; ~,~ ~ lZ°~~~i~ GL .,1~"1Q~"'~(°,
If msp amendsneat;
bfap(s) proposed for amcndment:
Bnef descri~t ~o¢ o locarion_o,P}proposed emendmene~ p Q Q~ ~~
~C~'(~ ~,~G.~~ 1`lU{'~+ O~' ~ca`YV~i
~Sectlo~ Twnshp: Rang~
Siza 4fparcet: ~ t . ~ ~/ ~n°~:
Does applicani bave ~ dcvelnpment applicatinn or somo inurest in property that in any mannzr would be affecied
bv this amendmenc nrooosa!? (If ves, nlease exnlainl~
Agenda Item # !~ A Page # F-/_3
Brief reason vc jus[ification of proposed emandment:~_~~~.v~G`~ ~.~ ~~t~'
~ s
09/1B/2002 14:07
Applica-~
Owner:
Nazne:
3035541569'
Phone: .7 i'
C~1 Ver~
ltepresentative/Contact;
~~
~~ ~<
SIIPPLEMENTALINFORhLATION'!~'O $E SUByY1TTED WITH APPLICATION
1. Nanativa addressing ehe decails of [he proposed amendment including r~ason or justi8cation for proposal, Sts
relatioaship to the goaGv, poltcies, elements, andamendnient ertterta of tha Bauider Uallay Comprehensiv¢ Platt.
2. Location map showing slze and relarionship of' ~he azea pxoposed for amendment to surcounding roads, existing
and planaad laad uses, nalurat features, present Comprehensive Plan desigcatioas, etc., 8 1/2" x 11"map suia
able forphorocopying,
3. Detailed map (larger scale tban location map) ef site showing wpo~raphic contovrs, savclures or impro~e-
ments, physical features, etc„ if required; 8_" x 11" map suitable for photocopylag.
4. Name o£ person who prepazed submittal in£ormatiou.
i. AdditionaI iu+Yormation or coptes of submittat materiais may be required.
Agenda Item # ,5A Page # ~ -/
Phone; ~~7 .~~ ~F"' ~<~C~~
Phone~ ~_s~ _,~L,~ - 1 ~ '^~ f
uoiaor~nnz iv:bl 3035541569
appucane:
Namc:
Owner:
I~Tame;
Phone: ~ ~ ~` 1 ~ {,~t~{~(
RepresentativeJContact:
Name:
A,ddress:
Phone~ ~~ '~-t~~ - t~~~~
SL~PLEMENTALlYF012MATI0IV TO B& SUBMTI7ED WIxH APPLTCATION
i. Namadve addressing the detatls of the proposed ame¢dment inoludinm reason or justification for proposal, its
relarionship to chc goals,poficies, e(em¢nrs, andamendmerst criteria ofthe Boulder Valley Comprehemsive Plan.
2. Locadon map showing size aad reladonship af the area Aroposed for amendment to sucrounding roads, exis~iag
and plumed land usee, natuxal features, present Compreheneive Plan designaNons, etc., 8 1/2" x 1[" map suit-
eb2e for photocopying.
3. Detailed map (]azg~r scale than locn:iun map) oF site showing topographic contours, sttuctures or improve-
ments, physical featwea, ete., if xsquired; B_" x 11" map suitable for phaocopying.
a. Name of person who prepazed su6mittal information.
s. Additlonal inforn~ation or copies oF submittal matedals may be rcquired.
Agenda Item # S~~ Page # C--/S
Phonc: c~.~~ ~'T'Z y ~7~
.q,cpress;
09/18/2002 14:07 3935541569
Propasal .
13a: is proposed for a medium density zesidential use fox the followin~ reasons;
• to ensure a mixtuxe of.hons~ng types;
• to pxovide compatibility with adjacent land uses and;
• to ensure sosne affor~able housin~.
Agenda Item # , y/3 Page # ~ -/!o
#3 Site and Surround~n~ Area Context
3$12 Howe Court
Single-Family
3017 Kalmia Ave
Single-Family
3245 Kalmia Ave
Chapel
0 Kalmia Avenue
Vacant
City Parks and
Recreation
Agenda Item #~~f~ Page # c/ i
ATTACHMENT F
Parcel No. 4 Description: 0 Linden Avenue
Existine
Land Use Designation: Open Space-Other (OS)
Zoning: County - Rural Residential
Acreage: 2.96 acres
Proposed
Land Use Designation(s):
Very Low Density Residential
(VLR)
Staff Recommendation
'~ ~ ~ Land Use Designation: Split
~ ~ Designation - Very I.ow Density
Residential (VLR) on the eastern
~ ~ ~ portion of the parcel (approx.
65,000 square feet) and no change
O
to the Open Space -
ther
~ designation on the western
, i, portion of the pucel
~ (approximately 64,000 square
feet)
Low ~ensitv Residential
II ~ I~
m
Proposal and Recommendation
Representatives for the property owner submitted an application requesting a change from Open
Space - Other to Very Low Density Residential for the entire 2.9 acre parcel. Staff is
recommending a land use change on a portion of the parcel for the following reasons:
• To provide direction for development of the property
• To ensure devalopment in the city to avoid a septic system above the Silver Lake Ditch
• To protect the open space values and view corridor
Agenda item # 5A Page # ~ - /
Site Description and Surrounding Context •
• The property at 0 Linden Avenue is a privately-owned vacant 2.9 acre parcel located south of
Linden Avenue and west of the 4`h Street bike path. The property is in Area II. The blue line
lies approximately 200 feet from the western edge of the property.
• The adjacent neighborhood to the east is designated very low density and zoned rural
residential. Tbe area to the west of the parce] is owned by the city far open space. The
property to the south (Jeff White property) 6as an Open 5pace - Other land use designation
and is developed with one large estate home. It is annexed to the city.
• The site is accessed from Linden. The property does not reach 4`~ Street. The nearest transit
service is on Broadway, approximately ~/z mile away.
• Two social trails cross the property at 0 Linden Avenue and provide unof£icial access to the
open space trails to the southwest of the property. A third trail, on city-owned open space
land immediately west of the property, also provides access to the open space.
• A small portion of the northeast corner of the property is in the flood conveyance zone of
Twomile Canyon Creek. Approximately 1/3 of the site is in the 100-year flood zone of the
creek. The Silver Lake Ditch runs adjacent to the east boundary of the property.
• The site is important in terms of preserving the view corridors both entering and exiting the
city and of the mountain backdrop.
• There is a change in topography of approximately 30 ft. from the east to the west edge of the
site. The most noticeable break in the topography of the site is about halfway between the
east and west edges of the site.
Concerns raised by the public
The city hosted a neighborhood meeting on November 18, 2002 to inform residents about the
proposal and gather input. Approximately 30 people attended the meeting. The summarized
comments are included following this report. In general, access to open space, potential
development density, and transportation impacts were the primary concems of the neighborhood,
Most of the people at the meeting were concerned about the possibility that more than one unit
would be built on the site. Even though they preferred that the city purchase the property as open
space, most people understood that one house could be built under county jurisdiction.
Analysis
An "Open Space-Other" designation refers to "other public and private land designated prtor to
1981 which the city and county would like to preserve through various preservation methods
including but not limited to intergovernmental agreements, dedications, or acquisitions." There
also is a BVCP Natural Ecosystem Overlay designation on the property. The Natural Ecosystem
Overlay denotes lands with natural resource importance and does not necessarily preclude
development or human use of an area.
A representative of the landowner met with city planning staff in April 2001 to discuss the
potential for annexation as part of the city's pre-application process. The landowner expressed
interest in subdividing the property to allow for 2-3 lots of at least 30,000 square feet each (under
a Rural Residential zoning designation). Planning staff advised the landowner that they would be
required to request a land use designation change through the annual BVCP update process if
more than one unit is proposed for the site. Staff advised the landowner to request a land use
designation change on the property before seeking annexation in order to get guidance from the
city on the preferred density and use of the site.
Agenda Item # Sfl Page # -F-a
The property is in Araa II and under the rural residential zoning, one unit could be approved for
development in the county. Staff feels that it is appropriate to change the designation for part of
the property to provide more direction to the landowner on future development potential of the
site while retaining the open space designation on the remainder of the site to protect the open
space values. The city's interests would be to limit densify on the site to a maximum of 2 units to
protect the resource values. Staff believes development in the city through the annexation process
will provide more ability to negotiate protection of the open space values.
Under this proposal, approximately 65,000 square feet on the eastside of the property would be
developable in the city. The remaining 64,000 square feet on the western portion of the property
would remain with an Open Space -Other designation and would not be developable under an
annexation agreement. The annexation agreement could include an open space conservation
easement agreement that would preclude future grading or other disturbance to this portion of the
site. The VLR designation over 65,000 square feet would allow up to two residential units on the
site outside of the flood conveyance zone. The protection strategy for the western portion of the
property with the OS designation would be negotiated in the annexation discussions.
Over the past year, planning staff has been involved in a project to clarify the city's annexation
policy. As part of that project, a study was conducted to ascertain the cost to the landowner of
annexing to the city relative to the cost of remaining in the county. This study looked primarily
at mostly developed residentia] properties, however, conclusions from the study showed that a
landowner typically does not benefit financially from annexing to the city unless there is
significant developmant potential on the site.
The property owner of 0 Linden Avenue would potentially benefit more from annexation than an
owner of a developed residential property, however, city annexation policies on community
benefit might level the playing field iF only one unit were allowed. The city's BVCP annexation
policy (1.25) states that properties that allow for more residential development will be required to
demonstrate community benefit commensurate with their impacts. Emphasis is typically given to
the benefits of permanently affordable housing, however, community benefit can also be in the
form of land dedication or preservation.
Staff considered a split land use designation that would allow one unit to be developed in the
city. This option, however, would not provide the landowner with enough incentive to annex to
the city. The landowner would likely choose to develop in the county where fewer restrictions
would apply. The consequences (to the city) of developing in the county are: a) ]ess certainty of
open space protection, b) ]ess control over house location and size, and c) septic field adjacent to
the Silver Lake Ditch.
The new units would be expected to produce approximately 10 additional daily vehicle trips. The
site would be accessed from Linden Avenue. Linden Avenue is designated as a collector street
which carries about 3,000 vehicles per day, which is a typical volume for such a street. A
significant downhill grade approaching this property exists to the north of the site, and vehicle
speeds heading southbound toward the site regularly exceed the speed limit. Looking north from
the site, no sight distance obstructions occur, and therefore it is expected that access to the site
would not be an issue despite higher than posted speeds occurring on Linden. Expectations
regarding the safety of proposed access to this lot would be similar to the Spring Hill Drive
intersection located on the north side of Linden. The Spring Hill Drive intersection does not
Agenda Item # ~/3 Page #~~
hava a significant accident history in this location that would be consistent with the type of
crashes caused be either access to a high-speed road or poor visibility. A development proposal
for the site would Follow the city's development review process, which would take into
consideration sight distance and safe access to the site.
Map of Conveyance and FEMA 100 Year Flood Zone
~: ~.
~
0
Review by the Open Space Board of Trustees (OSBT)
On December 11, 2002 and January 8, 2003 the OSBT reviewed the request by the land owner to
change the designation on the property from Open Space to Very Low Density Residential. The
OSBT initially made a recommendation to Planning Boud not to change the designation of 0
Linden Avenue to a residential designation at this time. They felt that portions of the property
could serve open space purposes of enhancing the visual corridor along Linden. The OSBT also
discussed the possibility of considering a land use designation change if the landowner were to
make a specific development proposal for the site.
Planning and Open Space staff conducted fuRher analysis oF the proposal after the Dec. 11 OSBT
meeting and joinfly developed the recommendaeion in this report. Staff returned to the OSBT on
January 8, 2003 for a reconsideration of the recommendation on the land use designation change
for this property. The OSBT made a recommendation to Planning Board in support of the staff
recommendation to change the land use designation on the eastern portion of the property to Very
Low Density Residential and keep the Open Space - Other designation on the western portion of
the property. The Board understood the importance of providing direction in the comprehensive
plan for future development of the property, so that regardless if the development were to happen
in the county or the city, there is an indication of where development should occur and where the
environmental and view corridor resources should be preserved.
Planning Assumptions
Future estimated dwelling units
Under existine land use Under aroposed land use
1 2
Agenda Item # 5f} Page #~r - y
Future estimated jobs
0
Objectives and Criteria
*This chart compares the staff recommendation with the current land use of the site. Staff
assumes that under the current land use, one unit would be developed on the site under the
county land use regulatians (since there is no proposal to acquire the property as open space).
OBJECTIVES (BVCP Policies)
Criteria for Measurement Positive (++or+),
Negative (-• or-), Neutral
(N), Not Applicable (NA)
A. LAND USE
1. Provides the apportunity for increasing Boulder's housing diversity and
affordability including permanently affordable housing. +(one additional unit)
a. Adds higher density affordable residential uses including 25%
permanently affordable units to -ow and moderate income households and
25% permanently affordable units to middle income households. -
(possibly $$ for affordable
housing through
annexation akreement)
2. Encourages new housing in convenient locations close to jobs and shopping -
a. Within'/a mile of convenience shopping -
b. Within 1 mile of grocery store ~
c. Within 1 mile of employment center -
3. Improves jobs/housing balance +
a. Adds higher density affordable housing -
b. Reduces jobs NA
4. Encourages the revitalization and economic viability of the city's commercial
areas and retail base (5.06, 5.08, 2.19) NA
a. Adds a mix of residential and retail uses -
5. Shows compatibility with adjacent land uses through transitions between land
uses that vary in intensity (2.15)
a. Is compatible wifh adjacent land uses +
6. Respects e~eisting neighborhood character and encourages sensitivity to existing
context +
a. Retiects e~eisting neighborhood character (residential) +
7. Promotes a compact community through redevelopment and inCll -
a. Is in area I NA
b. Is in area II Yes
B. LOCATIONAL / SERVICES
1. Adequate services and facilities are availabte or planned
Agenda Item # _S~9 Page # ~-.S
a. Fire Yes
b. Police Yes
c. Vehicular access Yes
d. Neighborhood park accessibility Yes
e. School accessibility/ capacity Yes
2. Impacts to the city's operating budget Neutral
C.TRANSPORTATION
1. Encourages increased use of alternative travel modes and avoids auto
dependency
a. In a transit-oriented/ pedestrian friendly area? No
b. In an area with a rich mix of complementary land uses? No
c. Directly served by high frequency transit? No
e. How many net additional daily vehicle trips will be generated? 50 vpd
E Will this change add vehicle trips to an arterial intersection that is (now
or in future) congested? (LOS F) No
g. Can the vehicular traftic impact of this site be readily mitigated
through strategies that are part of the city's transportation plan? (TMP) Yes
D. ENVIRONMENT
1. Preserves and protects environmental resources
** lmpacts from the staff-proposed land use change are compared to development
potential in the counly under exisHng land use designation
a. Open space adjacency/ access impacts Neutral
b. Wetlands NA
c. Wildlife or native plant habitaU natural ecosystem +
d. Species of concern NA
e. Flood hazards
Neutral
E View corridors +
E Airport influence zone NA
g. Ground water quality +
(would prevent septic
system on edge of city)
*In addition to current comprehensive plan projections.
S:~PLA1V~dataUongrang\compplg~BVCP~02 annual update~Parcel Data~Linden.doc
Agenda Item # .5~/- Page #~ - ~
LEGEND
O ~ \
4
Low Densitv Residential
Public
Low Densitv Residential
Low Densi Residential
:......
a ~
~
0
~ Open Space, Other ~ Current LU; Open Space :::~~
~ Proposed LU: Residential
~ ~ ; > _ 1 E, ~ ~ :~::: ~A ~
~ ° .~
~ ~ ~ ~
: AV ::€:: ::;:
o~ ::
0
.JIYIbfd'll
~
N
1:3869
~~~~
'~
Maplink
City of Boulder
xu~m~o a~~~ ~~ ~ ~.
~~ss~t~d:~p,~eaw~g
'm~ cay er mdda p.o.tdo m~on
cp~ o~ m~pu+i, ss m rAe aa.wcy
avd/e mmplcimas of tl~e mfo~mvdw
mv~rd La~.
Boulder Valley Comp Plan-Update
Linden Avenue Meeting
November 18, 2002
AYtendance: Approximately 30
MOLLY T~bYER ~
The meeting opened at 6:30. Project Manager Jean Gatza reviewed the Boulder Valley Comp
Plan (BVCP) and provided the amendment process and schedule.
The applicant, Mr. Snyder, reviewed the history of his family's ownership of the property. Mr.
Snyder asked the meeting participants and neighbors to think through all of the changes that have
transpired in Boulder during the past 40 years. He offered that he would be sensitive to the
neighborhood interests, but wants to be able to develop the parcel.
Ft~cilitator's Comment:
The audience for this parcel discussion wanted to note to Planning Board the anxiety and
frustration they felt in this meeting. You will see this in Yheir comments, but to summarize two
salient points:
• Participants were very confused by the land-use designation as "Open Space." Many
people attending the meeting told staff that when they see a city map that has a shaded
parcel that reads "Open Space," that is what they believe it to be. This added to the
frustration and impeded the neighbors and other meeting participants ability to "suspend
their beliefs" and discuss a development option. This aiso was noted as a problem by the
landowner and his development consultants who expressed that they are experiencing a
disadvantage due to the misperception about the status of the land. The applicant's
development consultant also stated that there is "pressure" on them to make it a gift to the
city for open space. (ClariFied that this did not mean a donation aC no cost; but perhaps a
sale to the city at reduced cost.)
. Meeting participants noted that they would have preferred to look at some sort of site
plan and have a more candid discussion. They felt that they were unable to provide good
input regarding impacts without a better understanding of the true development plan.
They also used the lack of this information to question the honesty of the applicant,
Given the expressed confusion about the difference between (what is a Comp Plan
designation" and "what is zoning,") participants stated that they were somewhat confused
as to what they were directing comments. Haviug a proposed development orally
presented, buf then having this exptained as only a proposed change to the Comp Pla~
caused tha audience a little dissonance and anger. -mt
Questions (?) and Comments (C) from the audience:
From developer presentation:
?: How many homes?
• Three to four. Need to look at what the topography of land will a11ow.
Agenda Item # ~ Page # {-S
?? Is it Open Space?
• Designated in Comp Plan
• Not owned by the City of Boulder.
?: Who owns the property?
• Snyder family
• In development review process with RE company
?: Why isn't this going to the coanty?
• Comp Plan changes are administered by the city. This agreement is established in the
IGA between the City and the County to administer the BVCP.
General Discussion:
?: What is in it for the city?
• Staff Jutcl no resporase to this question. Hoped the audience would provide their f'eedback
so that stnff would be better able to address this application.
Why don't they go ahead and build one house vs. three or four houses?
• This question prompted the neighbor, Mr. White, to share his experience froni the
development of his home and consequent annexarion. Mr. White's discussion mid
atlditio'ns from the RE developer suggested that the property is surrounded by
incorporated city property and city open space.
C: This property is adjaeent to city land not sunounded by city, as some of the county enclaves.
?: Can the owner build one house in the county?
• Staff.• Yes
?: (In Jean's Presentation, indicated there are 11 proposed changes in review...} How were the
11 proposed changes in review chosen?
• Planning Board chose list. They want more analysis on a few of these properties for
consideration.
C/?: Three concerns:
1) Has Open Space use (been addressed)?
2) Access - keep 4`h Street dead-ended. Should keep from opening: provisions in annexation
3) What about access? West on hi21- Linden is steep: suggest access to neighbors through (this)
land.
C: (Area needs) more access for bikers and walkers
C: There are speedy drivers on Linden. Dangerous curve.
?: Raises the question... How will people get in and out from the property?
Agenda Item #~ Page #~
C/?: Annexation for White property: there was an agreement to allow no through connection to
4`h Street. Would you create connection?
Developer responded that the property doesn't touch 4`h Street.
C/?: Approximately 450 honies in Pinebrook Hills - and lots of traffic. I have concern for how
driveways would be set up?
?: What would it be changed to? LU-D?
• Very Low Density land use designation
• Zoning would not change - county zoning is Rural Residential - would not change uniess
annexed
?: How does the floodplain map show this site?
• 100 year
• Parts of property serves flood conveyance
C: (Neighbor) Mr. Stone wanted to show a video to city/ property owner of flood in mid-90's.
Was not allowed to bring to meeting.
• Jean had explained tl~at the agenda was very full, she did nat kiiow if there would be a
VCR on hcand, uncl offerecl that Mr. Stone could share his tape with Plaianing, Mr. Siiyder
and neighbors at another meeting.
?: Can you build in ] 00-year flood zone?
• Sometirnes; with fill or proper flood mitigation applications.
C: Water would be needed for the site. Developer would need to hook up to city water.
C: Because oF proximity to Open Space, people have been using it for egress and ingress to
Open Space. Access to recreation
C: Wildlife: concern for impacts
?/C: Relationship to Blue Line: City won't supply water above Blue Line. If they don'f annex
Chey don't get waCer
?: Why can't city just provide wacer without annexing? For one house?
?: Exit on to Linden is suicide - too many cars now
C: IP city annexes, Yhey need to be responsible from the on-set. We should nol have to "learn
from their new mistakes."
?: Comparables for Open Space to look at purchase?
• Staff offered to get these. Need to learn from Open Space staff
Agenda Item #~_ page # f -/G
?: What is attraction (for the City) for annexation? What is the community benefit?
• Staff.• We have to look at this when this happens - when they apply to annex.
?: If it was purchased for Open Space would it need to be annexed?
C: Don't think that developer could get four houses on the parcel
C: Wouid like to see a site plan before any land use designations are changed
Developer: could contribute to affordable housing funds - help work on community benefit
?: Has anyone ever applied for change from Open Space to Residential?
• Not in staff memory
?: If four houses are developed with children - school bus pick-up on north - how will children
get to bus? Another crosswalk?
?: How does annexation affect zoning. What are the next steps?
C: This parcel currently serves as a wildlife access and crossing zone. It is the only area left...
White property left easement when they developed.
The group took an infornaal vote:
C: Sixteen people in meeting would ]ike property to remain Open Space designation
Developer raised the specter that the city could force the property owner to sell or donate (sell
below fair• market value to the City Ope~a Space prograni. Indicated that they laave f'elt such
pressure.
C: Twenty people in meeting would like to see the land purchased by Open Space - not "taken"
but fair value
C: Developer: There is "silent intimidation" by OSBT to get dte owner to relinquish properry.
(Pointed to the map and "designation" of Open Space for site: "the green dotted line doesn't
make it so."
C: Difficult to comment on land use without ultimately knowiug the plan. It feels like the
owner is not being straight with us
Developer: we don't know what we can do yet
?: Can't the applicant apply to annex and then change land use designation while in annexation
process?
C: The developers know what they have today: you can build one house
C: The designation as "Open Space" is confusing - should be re-titled
Agenda Item # 5 Page # ~- //
C: Neighbors need landowner to tell us what they wand intend ASAP - be forthright soon
Apply for change in land use asks public to give up something before we know what to
expect.
Audience wanted to knaw more about the process for the parcel:
Proposal goes to Open Space Board of Trustees Meeting on December 11
S:~PLAN\datauongrang\compplgU3VCP\02 annual update~P~blic MeetingsU_indcn\l 1-18-02 flip chart notns.doc
Agenda Item # ,5f~ Page # f _/o?
Linden Avenue
Do you have any comments on the proposo%~
• Since this ctrea is marked "IIA" on the 1997 Comprehensive Plan, development is
projected - but the aren above Silver Lake Ditch is also designated "Open Space" - is
there a conflict? -Kurt Gerstle
• Egress/ingress has been legally established over time by use without obstruction from
south approach to property as or natural extension of the existing open space trails by
many including "us" for over 24 yenrs. -Jim MacKenzie
. Why apply for use designation before applying for nnnexation? -Jim MacKenzie
• Leave ns low-density county: one lot, one house -Richard Griffin
. We need to see specific proposals Qs to the number of houses plunned, access route,
traffic, parking, etc, before supporting and change in land use. The only reason for
this proposed change is to pave the way for a zoning chnnge Qnd annexation. Let's look
at the whole picture. -Stan White
• I am not for it. -Cecilia Bloomer
• I would like the city and Ictndowner to consider improving access to the open space
adjacent to the property. Until recently safe access to open space was available
through the property to 41h Street. Property owner hqs blocked this access. The
remaining access is onto Linden Ave. on a blind corner with little or no shoulder, very
unsnfe. Options include providing access through the deve(oped property or widening
shoulder/adding bike/running path. -Ted Santos
. The loss of the hiking path is a great loss. Going out to Linden to walk is dangerous.
Could he (the developer) nt least keep the path for now? Also, the five-six houses
under very low density is too dense for the neighborhood. Also, access road onto
Linden is illegal under existing law. Also, we were told at the time of the Postel
development attempt (which we stopped) th4t this parcel was not developable.
-Bob and Michelle Wells
As staff proceeds to analyze the proposcrl, are there specific issues or concerns that you
think shou/d be addressed~
• 4'h Street must remain closed to Linden Avenue - any traffic connection would disrupt
a sizeable residential neighborhood by Pinebrook Hills traffic - it would become an
"arterial" connector -Kurt Gerstle
• Access to ~akota (first) Ridge Open Space must be provided for foot traffic.
-Kurt Gerstle
• It is a possible open space parcel with a natural access flow to open spctce across
Linden. Staff should continue their past wisdom and continue with open space.
-Jim MacKenzie
. The impact on existing wildlife hnbitat; foxes, marmots, coyotes, deer...
-Jim MacKenzie
• If Qllowed more houses traffic d4ngers increase. Wildlife diverted to cross Linden ut
dangerous point. School children at risk crossing Linden -Richard Griffin
• No city maintenance, no snow removal - highly dangerous -Richard Griffin
Agenda Item # _~ Page # ~ - ~ 3
Safety issues: access into property from Linden will pose hazard because of heavy
traffic and steep hill. Bicycle and pedestrian traffic have no room due to lack of
shoulder and sidewalks. The development wiA incr~ease aN traffic. There needs to be
trctilhead access to open spnce (west of property) within the development. Linden has
no room for parking. -Stan White
As I see it, the obvious solution to both parties' (the owner, the neighbor) "problem"
with this property is to encournge open space to purchase if at all possible. The owner
is struggling with wnter, egress, "disgruntled neighbors" issues ond the neighborhood
is struggling with infill, loss of visual buffer, wildlife corridor issue of open land (more
and more of a variety), traffic egress dangers, etc. The owner has tried to sell it for
1.2 million and no one wants to touch it because it is fraught with expensive issues to
resolve. He needs to make it a profit, obviously, but probably would be willing to work
with Open Space on a price. I think Open Space should definitely consider looking into
it further. This piece of property is on Open Space's "wish list". There was
considerable confusion over the terminology "designated open space". Mr. Snyder
owns it still. This has everyone's tempers up a bit at the outset. "Wish list" is much
de4rer. Thanks for having the meeting. I thought more th4n "60" peopie should have
been notified or Mr. Snyder's intent for this land. Many people use this are4 for
walking - if some relief, in an increasingly crowded Boulder. -Cecilia Bloomer
Additionul Comments
Jenn Gotza, Planner November 23, 2002
RE: The application for an amendment to the BVCP for the property located at 0 Linden
Avenue (from Open Space to Residential Innd use).
We live at 3712 Wonderland Hill Ave, about 100 yards from the property in question.
We are f00% opposed to this proposed amendment.
This is an are4 that wild life depend on (deer, fox, etc) because they migrate through this
space.
It is an areq th4t has several hiking trails that are used by the humans in the neighborhood
on a multi times daily basis. If a residence was built on this property, both humans and
animals would be forced to cross Linden at a much more dangerous place.
Putting even one house in this area would make the traffic situation horrendous, if, the
traffic exited onto Linden. Traffic coming down Linden from Pine Brooks Hills is often going
very f4st und there has already been one fatal accident on the stretch of Linden adjacent to
the property in question plus multiple non-fatal rollover accidents.
If multiple dwellings ure built here you can count on someone being killed, and these dwellings
would be totally out of context with the existing neighborhood.
Agenda Item # .S/~ Page # f-/N
The best solution is to hnve the Open Space Commission purchuse the Innd from the owner at
4 fair price. If that is not possibie would be in favor u the building of a single residence
comparabie to the residence built by the neighbor to the south, Jeff White.
David Nibbard, M.D.
Christine Hibbard, Ph. D.
3712 Wonderland Hill Ave
Boulder I CO &0304
303-444-5478
E-mails Received
November 15, 2002
Dear City of Boulder
Planning and Development Services
RE: Land Use Change 0 Linden Avenue
I want to register my opposition to changing the land use designation of this parcel of IQnd. i
feel Boulder is allowing too much encroachment on Open Space, which is the characteristic
which most distinguishes Boulder from the suburbqn sprawl defacing the Front Range. We
must stop building into the foothilis.
The area in question is home to ct lot of wildlife (foxe, deer, raccoon,etc.) that use that
parcel as a means of connecting their urban habitat with their wild habitat in the Open
Space, The semi rural/suburban feel of the neighborhood has nlready been compromised by
the construction of Inrge houses which encroach into what should remain Open Spnce.
In my opinion the parcel should be left as Open Space or at worst, designated VLR to
preserve the feeling and density of this stiii uncrowded part of Bouider. Under no
circumstonce should it be designated to any higher density construction.
Thank you.
Marco Mazzei
3716 Wonderlnnd Hill Cr.
Boulder, CO 80304
cell. 303 589 4289
home. 303 443 4374
fax. 303 442 2851
Marcomazzei@bigfoot.com
Agenda Item # .5fj Page # ~-/5
November 15, 2002
Dear City of Boulder
Pl4nning and Development Services
RE: Land Use Change 0 Linden Avenue
I want to register my opposition to changing the land use designation of this porcel of land. I
feel Boulder is allowing too much encroachment on Open Space, which is the characteristic
which most distinguishes Boulder from the suburban sprawl defucing the Front Range. We
must stop building into the foothills.
The area in question is home to a lot of wildlife (fox, deer, raccoon, etc.) that use that
parcel as a means of connecting their urban hcabitat with their wild habitat in the Open
Space. The semi rural/suburban feel of the neighborhood has nlready been compromised by
the construction of inrge houses which encronch into what should remain Open Space.
Enough is enough. The market is already glutted w/ houses which are not selling, why further
congest our city unnecessnrily w/ yet more houses?
In my opinion the pnrcel shoufd be left as Open Space or at worst, designated VLR to
preserve the feeling and density of this still relatively less crowded part of Boulder. Under
no circumstQnce should it be designated to any higher density construction. The increase in
traffic on Linden Avenue, which is already a hazard because of speeders cand the great
number of animals, cyclists, dog wQikers and runners crossing the ro4d must also be
considered.
Thank you.
Cynthia C. Mazzei
3716 Wonderlnnd Hill Cr.
Boulder, CO 80304
cell. 303 589 4289
home. 303 443 4374
f4x. 303 442 2851
Ci ndyMazzei C~ biafoot.com
Agenda Item # _.Sl~ Page # f-/!o
Ms Gatzn;
Unfortunately we will be out of town for the 11/18 meeting so I am submitting my comments
via this email.
First, I respect nny existing development rights for anyone. I do not however bel ieve an
Qmendment that increases density benefits anyone other thun the developer. Rarely is the
developer impacted as the inhabitants (people and wildlife) of the area are,
With regard to this propos4l specifically, I honestly do not know what the existing zoning and
density is, but I beiieve any increase in that density would adversely affect the quality of life
for all the "inhabitants" of the immedictte Qrea. In addition it would create a safety concern
for those livrng in the Pine Brook subdivisions that use Linden for access..
Because of existing development and densities, 0 Linden Ave is one of the only remaining
major access corridors for wildlife in this area. Fox, deer, coyote, bear and even a colony of
marmots live in or move through this property regularly.
While T have no data to support it I believe Linden avenue won't support a density increase.
From our home 3725 Spring Valley Estates (see the pie shaped property in your 10-31-02
letter) we see nnd hear numerous auto nccidents and auto deer accidents each year.
Our daughter catches the school bus at Spring Vniley Road und Linden Ave. In the winter we
watch daily as the cQrs streaming down from Pine Brook try to stop when the bus is loading
and unloading. I believe the curve on linden wns poorly designed and is Actuaily banked in the
wrong direction.
Tf you have access to the information it should be interesting to see how many accident
reports have been filed over the years for that stretch of Linden.
Tn summary, I wouid defend the property owners existing development rights but would
strongly oppose nny amendment, variance or adjustment that would create additional density
Qnd stress on this property.
Thank You,
Richard & Jil 6odesiQbois
Agenda ltem # _SA Page #~
PINE BROOK HILLS
HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION
50 Wildwood Lane
Boulder, Colorado 80304
303-786-7586
December 18, 2002
Ms. Jean Gatza
Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan
1739 Broadway
Boulder. Colorado 80306
Re: Change of Land Use Designation
Location~ Linden Avenue
Dear Ms. 6atza:
I am responding to your request for input on behulf of the Pine Brook Hills community. We
believe that the current ability for the owner to build a single home on the Linden property is
sutficient. Reclassifyrng the land to "very low density residential" only exasperates the
dangerous traffic problem th4t already exists on Linden.
Linden is essentially the only access to the 400 homes in Pine Brook Hills. This stretch of
road is dangerous enough without ndding multiple houses accessing the road at the base of
the hill just as you come around the corner. If access to the land could come off 4th street
we would not be as concerned.
We hope that the County will consider the safety of our residents and not reclassify the
land.
Sincerely,
James W. Eyster, President
Agenda Item # jf~ Page # ~-/~
CITY OF BOULDER
OPEN SPACE BOARD OF TRUSTEES
MEETING DATE: January S, 2003
(Agenda Item Preparation Date: January 10, 2003 )
AGENDA TITLE: Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan 2002-2003 Annual Update: Public
hearing and discussion of a proposed change to the open space designation at 0 Linden
Avenue.
REQUESTING DEPARTMENT: Michael D. Patton, Director,
Open Space and Mountain Parks
Delani Wheeler, Central Services Division Manager,
Ann Goodhart, Real Estate Services Division
Manager, and
Jean Gatza. Plannine Denartment. Presenter
II FISCAL IMPACT: None II
PURPOSE
The purpose of the discussion on January 8, is for the Open 5pace Board of Trustees
(OSBT) to review a staff recommendation to change the Boulder Valley Comprehensive
Plan (BVCP) open space land use designation on the property at 0 Linden Avenue to a
split designation of "Open Space-Other" and "Very Low Density Residential." Staff is
returning to the OSBT with a recommendation after considering public input and
previous OSBT comments.
Question to the Board
Does the OSBT support the removal of the "Open Space-Other" land use designation
from a portion of the property at 0 Linden Avenue as proposed by staff (Attachment
B)?
BACKGROUND
In September 2001, the city of Boulder (City) and Boulder County (County) completed
the Year 2000 Major Update to the BVCP. The BVCP guides land use and development
in the Boulder Valley. The BVCP is updated periodically to respond to changed
circumstances or community needs. As part of the annual update, requests for changes to
the BVCP are solicited. The Planning Board reviews these requests and compiles a list of
proposed changes to be considered during the annual update.
The property at 0 Linden Avenue is a privately-owned 2.9-acre parcel located south of
Linden Avenue and west of the 4`h Street bike path. The property is located below the
Blue Line and in Area II. Area II is defined in the B VCP as the area under county
jurisdiction where annexation to the City can be considered, consistent with BVCP
policies. The current land use designation on the property is "Open Space-Other."
Linden0108
Agenda Item # 5/~ Page # f' /`/
An "Open Space-Other" designation refers to "other public and private land designated
prior to 1981 which the City and County would like to preserve through various
preservation methods including but not limited to intergovernmental agreements,
dedications, or acquisitions: ' There also is a BVCP Natural Ecosystem Overlay
designation on the property. The Natural Ecosystem Overlay denotes lands with natural
resource importance and does not necessarily preclude development or human use of an
area.
Two social trails cross the property at 0 Linden Avenue and provide unofficial access to
the open space trails to the southwest of the property. A third trail, on City-owned open
space ]and immediately west of the property, also provides access to the open space. The
neighborhood has expressed concern about losing access to open space with the
development of this property.
A small portion of the northeast corner of the property is in the flood conveyance zone of
Twomile Canyon Creek. Approximately 1/3 of the site is in the 100-year flood zone of
the creek. The Silver Lake Ditch runs adjacent to the east boundary of the property.
A representative of the landowner met with City planning staff in Apri12001 to discuss
the potential for annexation as part of the City's pre-application process. The landowner
expressed interest in subdividing the property to allow for 2-3 lots of at least 30,000
square feet each (under a Rural Residential zoning designation). Planning staff advised
the landowner of the requirement to request a land use designation change through the
annual BVCP update process if more than one unit is proposed for the site.
The property owner is now requesting that the current "Open Space-Other" designation
be changed to a residential land use designation for the entire site through the annual
BVCP update process. The applicant has expressed interest in annexing to the City and
would like guidance on the density of development that would be allowed in the City.
The packet from December i l, 2002 OSBT meeting contains a map of the current BVCP
land use designations for the area and the application for annua] review.
Planning staff held a public meeting on November 18, 2002 to inform residents about the
proposal and gather input. Approximately 30 people attended the meeting. Staff
summarized their comments and included them in the December 11, 2002 OSBT agenda
packet. In general, access to open space and potential development density were the
primary concerns of the neighborhood. Most of the people at the meeting were
concerned about the possibility that more than one unit would be built on the site. Even
though they prefened that the City purchase the property as open space, most people
understood that one house could be built under county jurisdiction.
On December 11, 2002, the OSBT reviewed the initial request by the landowner to
change the designation on the property from open space to very low density residential.
The OSBT made a recommendation to Planning Board not to change the designation of 0
Linden Avenue to a residential designation at this time. The OSBT felt that portions of
the property could serve open space purposes of enhancing the visual corridor along
Linden0108
Agenda Item # S/~ Page # f_o?D
Linden. The OSBT also discussed the possibility of considering a land use designation
change if the landowner were to make a specific development proposal for the site.
Staff is raturning to the O5BT to ask for a reconsideration of its recommendation on the
land use designation change at 0 Linden Avenue. Staff has completed its analysis of the
property and is providing the OSBT with more information than was avaitable at the
December 11, 2002 OSBT meeting.
DISCUSSION
The current land use designation on the property at 0 Linden Avenue is "Open Space-
Other" (Attachment A). This designation gives the landowner two options for
development:
1. Develop one unit on the property in the County or;
2. Annex to the City.
One of the primary purposes of the BVCP is to provide a framework for annexation and
urban service provision in the Boulder Valley. Area II is the area under county
jurisdiction that is eligible for annexation to the city within the time frame of the BVCP.
The City policy is to encourage annexation of properties in Area II where new urban
development may occur. The BVCP land use map provides a sketch plan of the desired
land uses and densities on properties throughout areas I and II. The land use map
provides the guidance to the City for applying the appropriate zoning category to a
property. The land use map also provides clazity to the landowner about the potential
interests of the City in annexation.
The landowner has approached the City and would like to develop the property in the
City. Planning Department staff advised the landowner to request a land use designation
change on the property before seeking annexation in order to get guidance from the City
on the preferred density and use of the site.
The OSBT was previously asked to make a recommendation on whether or not an "Open
Space-Other" land use designation is still appropriate for the entire property. Staff's
understanding is that the OSBT does not wish to acquire the property but that there are
open space values on the site, Thesa values include view corridor protection, and
protection of the natural slope and mountain backdrop. Staff feels that it is appropriate to
change the designation for part of the property to provide more direction to the landowner
on future development potential of the site while retaining the open space designatioa on
the remainder of the site to protect the open space values.
Planning staff has taken into consideration all public and OSBT input on this request and
is proposing that the designation be changed to a split "Open Space-Other"/ "Very Low
Density Residential" (VLR) land use designation to encourage development in the City
while protecting the open space values of the site (Attachment B). Under this proposal,
approximately 65,000 square feet on the east side of the property would be developable
in the City. The remaining 64,000 square feet on the western portion of the property
would remain with an "Open Space-Other" designation and would not be developable
Linden0108 Agenda Item # 5~ Page #~'v?/
under an annexation agreement. The annexation agreement could include an open space
conservation easement agreement which would preclude future grading or other
disturbance to this portion of the site. The VLR designation over 65,000 square feet
would allow up to two residential units on the site outside of the flood conveyance zone.
The protection strategy for the western portion of the property with the Open Space
designation would be negotiated in the annexation discussions.
Staff is proposing a change to the land use designation at 0 Linden Avenue for the
following reasons:
1) Development of the site should occur in the City.
The foundation of the BVCP is to limit urban development in the Boulder Valley to
Area I where urban services are available and to discourage additional development
on the edge of the City. The property at 0 Linden Avenue is contiguous to the City
and in Area II and should develop with City services.
2) Annexation of the property to the City would provide the most opportunity for
protecting resources on the siYe.
A large portion of the site has resource protection value to the community. Protection
of the view corridors and slope are City goals as expressed in the BVCP. The City's
interests would be to limit density on the site to protect these resource values. While
the property would be eligible for only one single family dwelling unit in the County;
tl~e City would have more ability to negotiate protection of the open space values
through the annexation process. The County's site plan review process allows some
discretion for the County to direct the development and protect the resources on the
site. The City, however, would potentially be able to negotiate more permanent
restrictions on the property through the annexation agreement in exchange for
increasing the density from that allowed by-right in the County.
3) Annexation would prevent development oF another septic system on the edge of
the City.
The City and the Boulder County Health Department have been working in concert to
encourage annexation of enclave and edge properties to address health and
environmental concerns associated with septic systems in an urbanized area. The site
is directly up-slope from the Silver Lake Ditch. A septic system on this site could be
a potential water quality hazard in the future.
4) A split designation that allows a maximum of two units on the east portion of the
property woald create incentive for the landowner to annex while meeting
BVCP goals of protecting the open space backdrop.
Over the past year, planning staff has been involved in a project to clarify the City's
annexation policy. As part of that project, a study was conducted to ascertain the cost
to the landowner of annexing to the City relative to the cost of remaining in the
Linden0108 g ~ g ~
A enda item # /~ Pa e# v7
County. This study looked primarily at mostly developed residential properties;
however, conclusions from the study showed that a landowner typically does not
benefit financially from annexing to the City unless there is significant development
potantial on the site.
The property owner of 0 Linden Avenue would potentially benefit more from
annexation than an owner of a developed residential property; however, City
annexation policies on community benefit might level the playing field if only one
unit were allowed. The City's BVCP annexation policy (Policy 1.25) states that
properties that allow for more residential development will be required to
demonstrate community benefit commensurate with their impacts. Emphasis is
typically given to the benefits of pernlanently affordable housing; however,
community benefit can also be in the form of land dedication or preservation.
Staff considered a split land use designation that would allow one unit to be
developed in the City. This option, however, would not provide the landowner with
enough incentive to annex to the City. The ]andowner would likely choose to develop
in the County where fewer restrictions would apply. The consequences (to the City)
of the property developing in the County are: a) less certainty of open space
protection, b) ]ess control over house ]ocation and size, and c) a septic field adjacent
to Yhe Silver Lake Ditch.
PUBLIC COMMENT AND PROCE55
This item is being heard at this public meeting, advertised in the Daily Camera.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the OSBT recommend to Planning Board and City Council that
the land use designation on 0 Linden Avenue be changed to "Open Space-Other" on the
western portion of the site and "Very Low Density Residential" on the eastern portion of
the site (Attachment B).
Submitted by:
Michael D. Patton, Director
Delani Wheeler, Division Manager
ATTACHMENTS:
A. 0 Linden Avenue BVCP map.
B. Proposed change to the BVCP land use designation for 0 Linden Avenue.
Linde~oios Agenda Item #_~f~ Page #~-a 3
ATTACHMENT A:
0 Linden Avenue Current BVCP Land Use Designation
~
va
~
~
a
~
~.
~
~
3
~
:f~
"d
m
oc9
A
~
I~;
~C1
~
~inden0108
_ r 1 i i ^
~
UQ
A
~
G
~
~
~
~
~
.3i
b
~
~
A
~
c,I~
N
vl
xcwes.awo•...
n.~ b..caw.
~[ 6N[~wHCs
N~Ti~ 4tla~ m~~i
N^~~
G ~
~~........;w:.
p oo..e+a .,..i:
1: aw.~
p ae.u.a
~
N
1:1200
-~~~
u.omk
Citqof Bouider
~ ATTACEiMENTB: ProposedSVCP Land Use Drsignation for 0 LindenAveaue
G\~y ot Bou/ae~
~~~
/
. ,;,~~~~'-
~
BOULD~R VALLEY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
APPLICATION FOR ANNUAL REVISION
Type of Amendment (cl~eck all tfiat applv)
X Land Use Amendment Other Map Amendment
Minor Service Area Boundary Change Other Text Amendment
Policy Amendment
Pleasc provide ftie Pullowine informafro~~
Brief description of the proposed amendmenr.
See Attachment
Brief reason orjustification of propused amendment;
See Attachment
If map amendment:
Map(s) proposed for amendment:
Brief description of location of proposed amepdment:
3ize of parcel:
Section: Twnshp: Range:
Does applicant have a development application or some interest in propeRy that in any manner would be
affected by this amendment proposal? (If yes, please explain):
See Attachment
r ;
~\
'C ~l '~I~i~~t.
Agenda Item # S~ Page # f_a~(o
G~~y ~, ~ ~,~er
,,,~~i;%
~~ ~
~
Applicant:
Name: StanEor.d Real Es[ate,LLC
355i Stanford Road, Su3te 204
Address:
Ft. Collins, CO 80525
Phona: 970-226-1414
Owner:
Name: Jim
Address: PO Box 459
Boulder, CO 80306
Phone:
Rep resen tative/Contact:
Name:
Pletemeyer & Lee Associates
Address: 2505 Walnut Street, Suite 200
Boulder, CO 80302
Phona: 303-443-375Q
SUPPLEMF,NTAL INFORNIATION TO BE SUBMITTED WITH APPLICAT[UN
I. Narrative addressing the details of the proposed arnendment incfuding reason or justification for
proposal, its rela[ionship to [he goals, policies, elements, and anaendrnent crlterin of the Boulder
Valley Comprehensive Plan.
2. Location map showing size and relationship of the area proposed for amendment to surrounding
roads, existing and planned land uses, natural features, present Comprehensive Plan designations,
etc., 8 1/2" x 11" map suitable fot phorocopying.
3. Detailed map (larger scale than location map) of site showing topographic contours, structures or
improvaments, physical features, eta, if required; 8'/z" x 11" map suitable for photocopying.
4. IVame of person who prepared submittal information.
5. Additional information or copies of submittal materials may be required.
Agenda Item #~ page # f-,~ ~
Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan
Application for Annual Revision
Type of amendment: Land Use Amendmettt
Please provide the following information: Z? ~--4'~-°~'"`' '~` ~
Brief Description of the_proposed amendment: We are requesting a land use designation
change for the approximately 2.959 acres land parcel, in Section 24, JTIN, R71 W,
eligible for designation as building lot by Boulder County. This land parcel is presently
identified by Assessor ID 33611 and by Assassor Parcel Number 146124200002. It is
described on Warranty Deed record OS/28/70 at reception number 944277. Under the
current Comprehensive Plan, a major portion of this tand is currently designated as
"Open Space". We are requesting that this "Open Space" Designation be removed
and the lot given a"Residential" Status.
Brief reasou or iustification of pro_posed amendment: We are requesting this land use
designation change for several reasons. Within in the next year, we anticipate the
submission of an application for annesation of the property into the City of Boulder.
Accarding to the current Comp. Plan, this iot is designated on the "A" list of properties
anticipated to be annexed by the City. However, we have been told that current "Open
Space" desiguation would preclude the success of any such attempt to obtain an
annexation to the City. Additionally we have concerns regarding the develop-ability of
the lot given the restrictions of the "Open Space" stipuiatious. Further more, we have
been in contact with Open Space Officials, whom have given little if any indication that
they would be interesfed in purchasing the land.
If map amendment: NA
Does apolicant have a development application or some interest in the propertv that in
anv manner would be affected by this amendment groposal? (If yes, please explainl: As
stated above, the Owners of this property are interested in pursuing an annexation of this
property, and subsequent Site Review for the purpose of subdividing and developing this
land parcel. None of these applications can proceed successfully without the land use
designation change.
Agenda Item #~ Page # -~ -a~
Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan
Application for Annual Revision
Continued
Applicant:
Name: Stanford Real EsYate, LLC
Address: 3555 Stanford Road, Suite 204
Fort Collins, CO, 80525
Phone: 970-226-1414
Owner:
Name: Jim Snydar
Address: PO Box 459
Boulder, 80306
Phone:
Representative/Contact:
Name: Fletemeyer & Lee Associates
Address: 250~ Walnut Street, Suite 200
Boulder, CO 80302
Phone: 303-443-3750
Supplemental Information To Be Submitted with Application
2.
3.
4.
5.
Narrative: Accarding to the Comprehensive Plan, this lancl parcel is already being
considered for annexation to the City. Additionally, the lot is surrounded on three
sides by lots designated as Rural Residential. Within the county, this lot would be
eligible for the construction of a single residential unit. However, we feel that given
the location of the lot and its proximity to the City, a single residential unit on this 2.9
acre lot would be out of place, and inconsistent with the surrounding developments.
To date, we have participated in two pre-application meetings with the City of
Boulder StaFf (with Don Durso acting as the primary City representative).
Location Maps: If there are specific maps or plans that would be helpful in
addressing this proposal, please let us know and we will submit information as
requested.
Detailed Maps: If there are specific maps or plans that would be helpful in
addressing this proposal, please let us know and we will submit information as
requested.
Name of person who prepared submittal information: Chad Fletemeyer
Additional information or copies of submittal materials may be required. If
additional information is required, or there is a naed to discuss the extent of the
designation change, please contact either Chad Fletemeyer (303-443-3750) or
Stephen Greenlee(970-226-1414).
Agenda Item # .-`~~f} Page # ~-a~~j
#4 Site and Surroundin~ Area Context
0 Linden Avenue
Vacant
3663 4th Street
Single-Family
Single-Family
3650 4th Street
Single-Family
City of Boulder
Public Land Agenda ltem #~ Page #-~ ~~!
~1 3700 Wonderland Hill Avenue
ATTACHMENT G
Parcel No. 5 Description: Foothills Parkwav and Diagonal Highwav
Existine
Land Use Designation: Transitional $usiness (TB)
Zoning: Transitional Business Developing (TB-D)
Acreage: 20 acres
Staff Recommendation
i No change
i
_ a-:. Proposal
' ~ ^- ~ Land Use Designation(s):
~ General Business (GB) or
Pleasantriew
9occerFields
j
I
I
i
i
Community Business (CB)
,.........~ ........... .
-
'•,r,p.'
r t.:
.' e:;
...
~
~ ~Y
~
Proposal and Recommendation
The city of Boulder Planning Board requested this site ba considered for a]and use designation
change from Transitional Business (TB) to a commercial land use that would allow retail uses.
Staff is recommending no change to the land use designation at this time for the following
reasons:
• Due to the location of this site at the periphery of the city, it does not fit very well into the
city's well defined pattern for the location of retail areas.
• Redevelopment of the Crossroads Mall is a top city priority, and it would be important to
understand the relationship of potential retail development at this site to Crossroads prior to
aIlowing retail uses at this ]ocation.
• The landowner plans to submit a site review in the naar future consistent with the concept
plan reviewed in December 2001 for a mix of office and residential uses.
Staff recognizes that the proposed change was suggested to support BVCP policies related to
ensuring a vital and productiva retail base in the community and that it could potentially reduce
projected future jobs. We believe this is an issue that may be appropriate to revisit in the future if
the landowner does not proceed with development of the site and once the redevelopment of
Crossroads occurs.
Site Description and Surrounding Context
• This vacant 20 acre property was annexed and zoned Transitional Business-Developing
(TB-D) in 1981. Approximately 17 acres of the site are developable, the major constraints
being the shape of the property and a historic landmark located on the site. The site is
bordered by city-owned open space property to the north and east, small scale commercia]
businesses (gas station, car rental facility) to the south across Kalmia Avenue, the
Agenda Item #~ Page #~r~
Pleasantview soccer fields to the west across the Diagonal Highway and 47~' Street.
• Four roadways surround this site. State Highway 119 (Diagonal Highway) and State Highway
157 (Foothills Parkway) lie along most of the perimeter of the site. The southern end of the
site is bordered by Kalmia Avenue, and 47`h Street is located west of the site.
• The property is almost entirely located in Airport Influence Zone 4. Owners of property
within this zone may be required to sign an avigation easement with the city as a condition
for obtaining a building permit. In addition, the site is subject to certain requirements
including a site plan review by the Airport Manager, and height restrictions.
• The Boulder Oil Field's McKenzie Well located on this site was designated as an individual
landmark under the city of Boulder Historic Preservation Code. This designation would be a
factor in any site review, including practical issues such as access to the well and building
separation requirements.
• The previous history for this property, formerly known as the "Gateway" site, includes an
issue identification review in 1995 and a concept plan review in 1998 for an office and hotel
development. The applicant submitted but did not complete a site review application in 2000
for five office buildings. A voluntary concept plan was submitted for Planning Board review
in December 2001. The mixed-use plan included 135,000 squaze feet of commercial space
and approximately 140 dwelling units in eleven buildings.
Analysis
The Transitional Business (TB) land use designation is generally located along certain major
streets and usually zoned for less intensive business uses than in the General Business areas,
often providing a transition to residential azeas. General Business areas are located, for the most
part, at junctions of major arterials of the city where intensive commercial uses have already been
allowed. Some examples of existing areas with General Business land use designations include:
the east side of 30`h Street between Arapahoe and Pearl, east and west sides of 28`h Street north of
Valmont, and the north side of Pearl Street between Folsom and 30`n Street. Community
Business areas are the focal point for commercial activity serving a subcommunity or collection
of neighborhoods. These aze designated to serve the daily convenience shopping and service
needs of the local population. Some examples of existing Community Business areas: the
Meadows, Basemar, and Table Mesa shopping centers.
Boulder's urban form includes a clear hierarchy of activity centers, with the downtown having
the most intense activity, followed by the Boulder Valley Regional Center and University Hill. A
variety of smaller neighborhood centers form focal points within or adjacent to established
residential neighborhoods. The city was planned in a manner that locates these various activity
centers in relatively compact azeas, central to the surrounding areas they serve, as opposed to
locations on the periphery. Of the three land uses summarized above, the current designation,
which is intended to provide a transition between more and less intense land uses, is the most
appropriate designation of the three for this site.
BVCP Policy 5.08 Vital and Productive Retail Base, paragraph (c) states: "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
mix of retail establishments that provide a well-rounded shopping experience in the city."
Marilee Utter, a market consultant with Citiventure Associate LLC, reviewed the site from a
market perspective to assess if the site is viable for retail uses (see attached letter). Marilee's
Agenda Item # ,~_ Page # G - ~
analysis indicates that the site is a viable site for retail uses. Th~ market study prepared for the
Bouldar Valley Regional Center a few years ago indicated that there is not a need for additional
retail square footage in Boulder. Therefore, until the redevelopment of Crossroads Mall is
resolvad, it would not be advisable to add additional retail space that could potentially compete
with or diffuse the redevelopment opportunities as Crossroads.
Policy 2.07 Design of Major Entryways states that "Major entryways into the Boulder Valley
shall be identified, protected and enhanced in order to emphasize and preserve the natural setting
and appearance of the community. Future strip commercial development shall be discouraged."
Staff believes that the current designation provides a better transition from Area III and a better
opportanity for high quality urban design at this gateway to the city.
Transportation - The existing designation and zoning could potentially generate 4,500 new
vehicle trips per day when developed. The jobs created would be primarily associated with
employees, therefore the traffic would generally be associated with morning and evening peak
travel times. With the proposed land use designation change, the site could potentially generate
11,000 new vehicles per day when developed. These vehicle trips would primarily be retail
customer trips spread throughout the day with approximately 10% occuning during the evening
peak hour of traffic.
The surrounding roadways are all major arterial state highways with high speeds. This condition
enables a large volume of vehicular traffic to come to the vicinity of the site, however limits the
options for actually accessing the site, The actual traffic that could be generated by this site is
directly influenced by the site's access challenges. Depending on the origins, destinations, and
the time distribution of generated traffic, the amount of development on this site could be
limited, particularly for large traffic-generating land uses such as intensive retail. In terms of
road capacities in the vicinity of this site, the most heavily impacted intersection from peak-hour
traffic is the Jay Road/Diagonal Highway intersection. This intersection has congested
conditions in the evening peak hour for traffic east-bound Jay Road to northeast-bound Diagonal
Highway. The overall intersection is expected to operate at or near capacity (LOS E) by 2020.
These conditions are caused primarily by commuter traffic entering and exiting the city.
The fact that this site is sunounded on all sides by high speed arterial highways isolates it from
the standpoint of pedestrian access. The Four Mile Creek Greenway trail is planned to pass
through the northeast porCion of this site and then connect under the railroad east of the site to the
Cottonwood Trail. This trail can be accessed from the McKenzie Junction site, however this
connection requires an expensive underpass under a ramp separating the larger ponion of this site
from the trail system.
The 205, J and M transit routes pass by this site and offer regional and local transit options for
transportation. The 205 has been identified as a route that could be upgraded to a high-frequency
route in the future. An effective traffic mitigation effort that would benefit this site would be to
promote transit through an aggressive Employee Transportation Coordinator (ETC) including the
provision of Employee Eco-passes for all eligible employees.
Environment - Portions of the site are located in the Four Mile Creek floodplain. The "triangular
area" north of the Foothills Parkway off ramp is primarily located in the conveyance and high
Agenda Item # 5~ Page # G-3
hazard zones, and development in these areas will be restricted in accordance with city floodplain
regulations. A small area of the site south of the Foothills Highway off-ramp is also in the 100-
year floodplain, and partially located in the high hazazd and conveyance zones.
Concerns raised by the public
The city hosted a neighborhood meeting on November 14, 2002 to inform residents about the
proposal and gather input. The summarized comments and copies of e-mails and letters received
are included following this report. The majority of the public comments expressed concems
about transportation impacts, loss of existing "character", lack of compatibility with adjacent
]and uses, and the potential loss of a"gateway" entrance to the city resulting from development
of the site.
Planning Assumptions
Future estimated dwelling units
Future estimated jobs
Under existine land use
0
1501
Under nrouosed land use
0
814
and Criteria
OBJECTIVES (BVCP Policies)
Criteria for Measurement
A. LAND USE
Positive (++ or +),
Negative (-- or-), Neutra-
(N), Not Applicable (NA)
1. Provides the opportunity for increasing Boulder's housing diversity and NA
affordability including permanently affordable housing.
a. Adds higher density affordable residential uses including 25% -
permanently affordable units to low and moderate income households and
25% permanently affordable units to middle income households.
2. Encourages new housing in convenient locations close to jobs and shopping NA
a. Within 1/a mile of convenience shopping -
b. Within 1 mile of grocery store -
c. Within 1 mile of employment center -
3. Improves jobs/housing balance
a. Adds higher density affordable housing NA
b. Reducesjob projections +
reduces 687 projectedjobs
4. Encourages the revitalization and economic viability of the city's commercial Needs further analysis
areas and retail base (5.06, 5.08, 2.19)
a. Adds a mix of residential and retail uses
adds ret»il only
Agenda Item #~ Page # C- _ ~-l
5. Shows compatibility with adjacent land uses through transitions between land
uses that vary in intensity (2.15) -
a. Is compatible with adjacent land uses -
6. Respects e~eisting neighborhood character and encourages sensitivity to existing
context -
a. Reflects existing neighborhood character (residential) NA
7. Promotes a compact community through redevelopment and infill
a. Is in area I Yes
b. Is in area II No
B. LOCATIONAL / SERVICES
1. Adequate services and facilities are available or planned
a. Fire -
b. Police Yes
a Vehicular access Yes
d. Neighborhood park accessibility NA
e. School accessibility/ capacity NA
C.TRANSPORTATION
1. Encourages increased use of alternative travel modes and avoids auto
dependency
a. In a transit-oriented/ pedestrian friendly area? No
b. In an area with a rich mix oF complementary land uses? No
c. Directly served by high frequency transit? Potential future route
e. How many net additional daily vehicle trips will be generated? 6,500 (assumes no access
limiEations)
f. Will this change add vehicle trips to an arterial intersection that is (now
or in future) congested? (LOS F) No
g. Can the vehicular traffic impact of this site be readily mitigated
through strategiea that are part of the city's transportation plan? (TMP) Yes
D. ENVIRONMENT
1. Preserves and protects environmental resources
a. Open space adjacency/ access impacts Neutral
b. Wetlands Neutral
c. Wildlife or native plant habitaU natural ecosystem Neutral
i i ~
Agenda Item # S/~ Page # G-~-r"
d. Species of concern NA
e. Flood hazards Neutral
£ Airportinfluence zone AIZ 4
S:~PLA1V~dataVongrang\compplg~BVCP\02 annual update~Parcel DataU~IcKenzie.doc
Agenda Item # ,7 /~ Page # G - ~
tr a i•a~vuuua rainway d1lU Ll"d~U11iLL 111~11W's4y `lV-~:11C111.1C JL1111.t1lJil~ I
~~ t:u;l ;;~ ~ ~ :: ;.: .: i. _ . __ _ _ i ` "
;~ _ M- ST JOHNS AV
_._..--------__--._... .--- ---_---- _ _ - - - --.-_-..~_....------- -
- - --
~ .. N- SAVANNAH CT
. . ~ ~ ... .. ' .
f::a 7 i~
:: : .
` ~~ " ' ~~ ~ 0- NEW HAVEN C7
•• „ .. . t .. ;: ~~ :: k:, ~ ~ - . .
" ~~O-_. .._ - - -.h _-- --- d .. :; E' ~_ :' .: ~~ :s~ eS. P- ST PETERS6URG CT
-`""~`~ {~ [: °::I i: q- E_ Gl- MONTCLAIRE LN
~ `""~ -~ , a3 ~' R- OLD WESTBURY CT
~+ lL
s ~.. :: .~ .;; ... ~:' ~ ~;j ,~ ~ .. 'E ~~'e_'i ~i ~ S- S HAMPTON CR
S. . • ... ~~...
~ / •'-`a ~
~
_"- .__. '_'_" _
~ [ O en S ace, ~-c uired
~ Medium Densi Residential
;, 3~ ~ a..~
~~ ~~ . -!
~`.~'.1 ~ ~`` ' `
-- _ _ __._..._- --_ _. ___ _
_. ~ ~i ~ -°- ---- flr~on Cnn~+o h4hor~_:_,
/ Current LU: Transitional Business
Proposed LU: Commercial
~~
_ _ ~~~rl `'
~nal Business
/
__ .
; 'i I, ` F ~~
~ ~
r ~er~ _' __...i. '
~i
./~~~,,,~"~~
~
1: G482 Cfly oMBoutder GIS
The infotmation depictui on ~hie map ia
N provided a~ graphical repruenwtion only.
~ T7u City of BouWei providu no wuranry,
~ esp:eaied at Gnplied u to the ucuncy
, Agenda Item # ~Sl~ Page # G - ~ '°
.. .~ , , ., .. .. . ~ . ., ~ ~, , . ~ ~ . .. ., .. ~ , ..., ., ., ,. .. ...... ~ ,
January 10, 2003
Ms. Susan Richstone
City of Bouider
Planning and Development Services
PO Box 791
Boulder, Co 80306-0791
Uear Susan,
CITIVENT
assoctarES i..i.,c.
You asked me to consider the retaii market feasibility of the McKensie\ Gateway
site to help in your zoning deliberations. Located on the Diagonal at 47~h and
Independence where Foothiils Parkway merges, it is fundamenfally an exceilent
retail location. After several industry inquiries and site visits, I find the subject
parcei to indeed be a viable retail site from a market point of view.
As evidence of this, several nearby sites have been pursued by retail
users/developers over the years. Qemographics and density in the market areas
are very good, and the visibility offered by this particular location is superb.
While in one sense an "island" between two highways, at 20 acres the parcel is
large enough to establish its own identity and support many types of commercial
activity. Moreover, the grade separation of the road generally protects the
westerly neighborhoods from development traffic or noise. Road access is the
obvious concern and while not ideal, is not a deal breaker. Road access from
either direction is surprisingly intuitive off Kalmia, and not as difficult as expected.
Any other access points that can be procured will be of substantial benefit as
well.
As Crossroads redevelops, it will undoubtedly present more competition to
Gateway, 6ut in the end, the two sites are very separate. A Crossroads location
is perceived to be in-town and part of a greater "place". The Gateway site is set
apa~t by its isolation, unusual visibility and dramatic westerly backdrop. It is truly
an "entrance site" as you come off the Diagonal, which is what makes it so
attractive and valuable for development. Given this visibility, design guidelines
should be carefully drawn to protect the quality of whatever development is
ultimately allowed.
ln summary, while there are many factors that play into your zoning deliberations,
from a market perspective alone, retail uses are quite feasible and should not be
precluded from long term consideration on the McKensie/Gateway site.
Agenda Item # j/3 Page # C>-51'
~ noo ~nr,,,..,, c.,.,,.,r e~r . no.,,,a~ r,.io~~d~ Cnaro .'re~~„~,....... an~ is¢n ecan .~..i~a..-. vna icnn cevn . c..,..:i, ,,....~,.,..~...,.n....i ....._
Jan 10 03 12:35p Marilee R. Utter 803-534-6630 p.2,
Should you have any additional questions as you go forward, please don't
hesitate to ask.
Sincerely,
~
G~ ,.~ r.
Marilee A. Utter
President
Agenda Item #.SR Page # CT - v
Foothills Parkway and Diagonal Highway
Do you have any comments on the proposal,~
• As has been true of past Gateway nnd McKenzie Proposals, the difficulties of
develaping this site remain. an island isolated by high speed two lane highways with
limited, dangerous access, zoned in an ili-conceived process to TRB. I find nothing in
the BVCP Plan principles that support changing designations to either community or
general or residentiai business designation. Therefore, I oppose the designntion,
-James Pribyl
• James McBride (owner), Whitaker Oil, Inc. (tennnt) or property Qt 3365 Diagonal
Highway (Sincluir) are in agreement with the above proposal, however we strongly
request the applrcation/proposal be amended to include our property at 3365 Diqgonal
Highway. -S.E. Whitaker
As staff proceeds to analyze the proposal, are there specific issues or concerns that you
think should be addressed.~
• Review proposed designation change against standards of BVCP sections 2.07, 2.08,
2.14, 2.15, 2.22, 2.23, 2,24, 2.30 and more. More dense or intense use of this site is
totally uncomputible with all above BVCP objectives. Big box retctil or auto dealership
is worse than previous proposals. -James Pribyl
• Amend proposal to add (our) property at 3365 Diagonal Highway - change from
Trans'rtional 8usiness District to Commercial Land Use -S.E. Whitaker
Additionnl Comments
Comment Form: 11/19/2002
FOOTHILLS PARKWAY AND DIAGONAl. HIGHWAY (also known as McKenzie Junction ar
6ateway)
(Relative to the proposal to change Comp Plan to permit Commercial and Retail uses)
The City of Boulder and its officials often cite the importance of following the guidelines
of the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan. The following citations from the Boulder Valley
Comprehensive Plan show how poorly, in fnct, fihe land-use proposal does f oilow the BVCP .
The uuthor finds the Comp Plan changes proposed fail to meet many of the requirements of
the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Pl4n. Here are listed some substantive violations of the
BVCP: (BVCP is quoted first, comments follow)
Bouider Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP text shown in quotution marks}
"The BVCP is the "Policy document that sets the community's vision for the future:' Tt
"Tncludes policies to guide development, design, protection of the environment,
transportation facilities, economic development, affordable housing, culture and the arts,
neighborhood character, and fihe provision of public improvements."
Agenda Item # _S/~ Page # G -/0
BVCP citations:
BVCP 2.07 "Design of Major Entryways. Major entryways ..shull be identified, protected
and enhanced in order to emphasize and preserve the naturul setting and
appearance of the community. Future strip commercial development shali be
discouraged."
Comment This site is at the major northeust entry to Boulder. The isolated site is
bounded by major four-lane highways (Foothills and the Diagonal). Its purpose
and location violate the letter and spirit of the Comp Plan. The commercial use
of this site would degrade and negatively impact this spectucular ond major
entry to the City of Boulder.
BVCP 2.08 "Preservation of Rural Areas and Amenities. ...preserve existing rural land use
...where environmentally sensitive arens, hazard areas, ...vistas ...exist......... A
ciear boundary between urban and rurai areas and the periphery of the city wili
be maintained ..."
Comment This north-east entry into Boulder provides one of the finest vistas in Boulder.
A commercial/retail project would dominate this view with its city-quniity
construction. It would blur and mar this entry. The buildings would be entirely
separctted fram the city: the site thrusts northeast between designated open
space and open sport fields. Aerial hnzards exist. Land is in flood-sensitive
area.
BVCP 2.14 "Mixture of Complementary Land Uses. ...Wherever Innd uses are mixed,
careful design will be required in order to ensure compatibility, accessability
and appropriate transitions between land uses ..."
Comment The site and structures would be completely at odds with the surrounding open
space. The scale and mass of commercial and retail with requisite parking
structures ure of a nature that belong in center city, not cat the rural fringe.
There is no appropriate transition.
BVCP 2.15 "Compatibility of Adjacent Land Uses. In order to avoid or minimize conflicts
between adjacent land uses thnt vary widely in use intensity or other
chnracteristics, the City will use tools, such as interface zones, transitionnl
areas, and cascading gradients of density in the design of sub4reas and zoning
districts..: "
Comment There is no "use transition. " This site, as commercial and retail, would usurp
and take opportunistic advantage of the open space, the view and the sports
fields to set itself apart from the urban environment. It hns little possibility to
provide safe useful pedestrian access, bicycle access or mass transit access.
The structures and parking areas would hqve an almost-nure automobile
Agenda Item #~ Page # G - ~/
orientation with only token pedestrian/bikeways on the periphery of the site
close to interurban traffic at its maximum, along with rts attendant noise and
Qir pollution. Its awkwnrd entries nnd massive trctffic will jam the
transportation choke point to its south-west and will badly aftect the
residential streets and sports field access to its north and west.
BVCP 2.22 "Boulder Creek nnd its Tributuries as Important Design Features. Boulder
Creek and its tributaries shall serve as unifying urban design features for the
community... the City and County shall support the preservation or reclamation
of the creek corridors for natural ecosystems or trqils, to improve wildlife
habitat and to provide a contrast to urban development".
(see Map #19, BVCP)
Comment This site needs to use Four Mile Creek for its snow and rainwater runoff
A 100-yeQr flood will cause great damage downstream because of this use. (see
Map #18, Wetlands, & Map #20, 100 year Floodplain). The runoff will be ,
accelerated and polluted to a high degree from retaii and commercial uses.
Downstream, in the county, are homes and agricultural uses that would suffer
considerably.
BVCP 2.23 "Committment to a Walkable City. City and County wifl promote the
development of a walkable city by designing neighborhoods and business areas
to provide easy and safe access by foot..."
Comment "There is no safe access to the site by either pedestrians or cyclists. There is
only a short streetside access from a ten-yard stretch of 47th Street, from u
side where there is no sidewalk or other protective umenity. A long, steep
embnnkment of the 47th St. overpass makes even this access difficult. The
only path crossing is on the north site (Outlot A), which is separated from the
building site by a busy high-speed ramp off of Foothills Highway (55mph). This
rqmp wiil become even busier with the commercial and retail use of this site
since it will feed traffic to the east-side entry.
BVCP 2.24 "Traii Corridors/Linkages. ...the City shafl encourage the development of trails
and trail linkages for appropriate uses, such as hiking, bicycling, ...to provide a
variety of Qiternative recreation and transportation opportunities."
Comment The isolated transportation design of the site is completely subservient to the
use of motor vehicles. There in no link or continuity to the existing ped/bike
path to the north. There is no comprehensive on-site design which separates
cnrs from peds and bikes. Intern4l cross streets qnd wnik design provide the
lea'st safety and comfort of non-vehicular trnffic. There are no protected
storage sheds for cycles.
Agenda Item # _~ Page # G '%~
BVCP 2.30 "Design that Respects Existing Character. ...commercial...development... shall be
encournged to follow sound and innovative land use planning ...to respect the
churacter of the surrounding Qrea."
Comment The character of the surrounding nrea is open space, green sports fields and
residential to the near north. The massing of the buildings, the auto-dominated
site design and the minimnl IQndscaping are not sensitive to the potential of the
extr4ordinary site.
The Author believes that to chqnge the land-use designation of this site to Commercial and
retail would be very inappropriate and harmful to the City and the County. In4smuch as the
site land-use chnnges would violate the spirit and the letter of the Boulder Valley
Comprehensive Plon, I strongly request that this change not be permitted by any of the four
bodies.
Thank you.
Rodger Ewy
4082 Old Westbury Gt.
Boulder, GO 80301
303-449-8049 FAX:303-449-2554
Agenda Item #.S~ Page # G r/
Chad Ricklefs - Rezoning--Comp Plan Update
From: Macon Cowles <Macon@SEEDColorado.org>
To: Susan Richstone <RichstoneS@ci.boulder.co.us>
Date: 9/23/2002 9:37 AM
Subject: Rezoning--Comp Plan Update
Susan, you have asked us for suggestions about any areas
that should be considered for rezoning in the Comp Plan
update. Here are two ideas.
I think that the east side of Broadway between Ba(sam and
Cedar should be upzoned so as to permit higher density
residential than is allowed by the current HR-E. Currently, two
properties that would make excellent higher density housing
sites (and which are adjacent to or across the street from
higher density sites) are the Herschleb (single family) dentist
office and the green U-shaped one story units immediately to
the north of the Herschleb property. Current zoning would
permit five units on the 9,300 square foot Herschleb site, but
would not permit the higher density that would support
underground parking and mixed use.
Further, T think that the Mackenzie Junction property should
be rezoned to Commercial from its current TB-D. It is hard to
imagine a better location in town for a big box, surrounded as
it is by highways.
Also, I do not understand the TB-D zoning on both sides of
30th between Mapleton and Valmont. It seems to me that this
area should be mixed use residential and retail, perhaps also
commercial, because of its proximity to the rail station. Is the
purpose of this to protect the service industries there?
Agenda Item # 5~ Page # G- /
#5 Site and Surroundin~ Area Context
4584 South Hampton
Single-Family
3800 Kalmia Avenue
Educational Facility
3365 Diagonal Highw~~~
Car Rental Facility
Open Space-Acquired
Item # ~/~ Page # C~--/`~
ATTACHMENT H
Proposal and Recommendation
Boulder County Land Use staff submitted a request for a minor service area boundary change to
expand the Area II service area boundary to include this site. The proposal meets the critaria for a
minor service area boundary change (see the analysis below) and staff recommends approval of
this proposed change.
Site Description and Surrounding Context
• This is a 1.13 acre parcel located east oF the Diagonal Highway, and south of Independence
Road. Boulder County purchased the property and existing building in 2001 with the
intention of remodeling the structure for use by Boulder Emergency Squad, a non-profit
emergency service provider in the process of moving from its former headquarters adjacent to
the City of Boulder Fleet Service Center. Once the remodel is completed, Boulder County
will transfer ownership of the property to Boulder Emergency Squad. In January 2002, the
Boulder County Commissioners granted a special use approval for this use.
• The areas adjacent Co the property to Cha south and southeast are locaCed in Area I(within the
Boulder City limits). The adjacent parcal to the south has a two-story office building located
on the site, and located on the adjacent parcel to the southeast is the University Corporation
for Atmospheric Research facility. To the northwest across the Diagonal Highway, is a parcel
that is located within Area I and the city limits that has several commercial businesses located
on the property. The remaining areas adjacent to the property to the east are in the Area III-
Rural Preservation Area, and are designated as Open 5pace-Acquired.
• The property is located in Airport Influence Zone 3 where 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.
Agenda Item #~ Page # /~ - J
Analysis
The proposed minor service area boundary change serves two purposes: 1) it corrects what both
city and county staff believe to be an Area IIA/Area III mapping error committed between 1983
and 1985 BVCP Updates; and 2) it positions the property for future annexation and the provision
of urban services. The city and county had reached an agreement on annexation and service
provision earlier in 2002, but the process was put on hold due to fiscal constraints identified by
the Boulder Emergency Squad.
At the city-sponsored public meeting, several attendees raised concerns associated with the
intended use of the site as an emergency response center. Some of the concerns raised included:
exterior lighting; use of emergency sirens; suitable location; and type of training activities
performed at this facility. Below are the responses to these issues that were provided by Boulder
Emergency Squad.
1. Exterior lighting: Includes ten down throw lights which cast light on the walls only,
primarily located on walls which are adjacent to the railroad and 75`h Street and Diagonal
Parkway. Three forward throw lights located on northwest wrner of parcel, which face
the entrance from the Diagonal and the parking lot. Five forward throw lights are located
over the garage doors on the north and west walls, providing light for the parking areas.
2. Use of emergency sirens: Boulder Emergency Squad does respond with sirens and lights
to some types of requests for emergency services. Typically, 50-60% of the requests are
considered emergencies.
3. Is this the best location for Boulder Emergency Squad? During the search process
approximately thirteen sites were reviewed. Three of these sites received a second review,
and ultimately this site was chosen as the best location for this type of service. Some of
the criteria used for selecting the appropriate site were access, surrounding area impact,
location, and cost.
4. Type of training performed at this site and the associated impacts: Training sessions at
this location take place during the night and day time. However, many of these training
sessions are done inside the building, providing no impacts to the area. During training
sessions, there will be approximately twelve to fifteen vehicles parked at this location. No
emergency lights or sirens are used during the training exercises. When the training is
held outside, it will be conducted at the north end of the facility and will be lit when
training occurs after dark. No odors are created during the exercises, and the impacts are
limited to twelve to fifteen people working with equipment. Any noise created will be the
result of powered rescue equipment, which produces sounds similar to those created by
lawn mowers.
Criteria For Approval
This proposal falls under the category of a minor adjustment to the service area boundary. These
types of adjustments are small, incremental service area expansions that create more logical
service area boundaries. Changes in designation of land from Area III to Area II may be approved
as minor service area boundary adjustments. A minor service area boundary change must meet all
of the following criteria from BVCP Section II.B.2.b.1. Below are the criteria and results of
staff's analysis of these criteria:
1. Maximum size: The total size of the area must be no ]arger than ten acres.
Agenda Item # . S/3 Page # /f -.,?
The area proposed for change is 1.13 acres.
2. Minimum contiguity: The area must have a minimum contiguity with the existing service
area of at least 1/6 of the total perimeter of the area.
Approximately 2/3 of the perimeter of the reques[ area is contiguous with the existing
service area.
3. Logical extension oF the Service Area: The resulting service area boundary must provide a
more logical service area boundary (Area IIUII), as determined by factors such as: more
efficient service provision, a more identifiable edge to the urbanized area or neighborhood, a
more functional boundary based on property ownership parcel lines or defining natural
features.
The proposed change in the boundary will provide a more functional edge based on
properry ownership lines and will also provide a more identifiable edge to the existing
commercial area. This lot's use is similar to that of the adjacent properties fourul to the
south, southeast, and northwest of the property. A more logical service area boundary is
created since this parcel is already developed at an urban level, and it is also adjacent to
the city limits.
4. Compatibility with the surrounding area and Comprehensive Plan: The proposed change
of Area III to Area II must be compatible with the surrounding area and the policies and
overall intent of the Comprehensive Plan.
This parcel is compatible with the existing and historic commercial character and
intensity of use of the adjacent parcels to the south, southeast, and northwest. The change
is consistent with policies and intent of the BVCP, which is to include in Area II land
under county jurisdiction where annexation into the city can be considered appropriate.
Changing this site's designation to Area II is more appropriate because it is an existing
urban use contiguous to the city and other urban uses. The proposed change furthers the
goals of the BVCP by preserving the city's abiliry to provide facilities and services. The
addition of this site to Area II will provide a logical service area bourzdary expansion for
the provisian of city services. The intent of the service area concept is for new urban
development to be located in the city and have adequate services. This site is already
developed at an urban level, therefore, the provision of adequate services to this site
could be initiated through this proposed change and future annexation into Area L The
city has also previously shown support for an out of city sewer pernzit for this site.
5. No major negative impacts: It must be demonstrated that no major negative impacts on
transportation, environment, services, facilities, or budget will result from an expansion of
the service area.
The proposed change in the service area will not result in any major negative impacts.
The area under consideration for change is currently developed.
Agenda Item # _5/3 Page # /f-,3
6. Minimal effect on land use and growth projections: The proposed change of Area III to II
does not materially effect the land use and growth projections that were the basis of the
Comprehensive Plan.
This minor service area boundary change does not materially affect the BVCP's land use
or growth projections.
7. Minimal effect on service provisions: The proposed change of Area III to II does not
materially effect the adequacy or availability of urban services to the immediate area or the
overall service area of the city.
Based on the initial annexation review for this site, the proposed change does not
materially affect the adequacy or availability of urban facilities and services to the
immediate area and the overall service area.
8. Minimal effect on the city's capital improvements program: The proposed Area III to lI
changes does not materially effect the adopted Capital Improvements Program of the city.
The proposed change does not affect the adopted CIP.
9. Appropriate timing for annexation and development: The proposed Area III to II change
wil] not prematurely open up development potential for land that logically should be
considered as part of a larger service area expansion.
The proposed change does not open up land for development; the area proposed for
change is currently developed.
Agenda Item # ~~ Page # /~- ~
h
~
`
Y~t
~ ..~ \
~ '1
f~ 4~
4 ~
Y ~
i'~i
~ a
tl ~,
3
TO:
FROM
DATE:
RE:
. ' .. .'..,'~ ~ .'~'. .'. , ~ (. ~ ~ . ' -.. . . .
-
~ t
~ ~
} l. ~ K'i' A I
<!
5 i_- ~ ~~ ~{ S i
1q
j ~i-. W~ A Yl >
.a . x i .. H. .. ~ a, .
~ ~mv . ~
3 i( £ s.; N 2 7 k
~
. , , ' . . . i , ", . . *, ~ . . .]'._ .. . _ . - , ~
Ciry of Bo~~ldcr Planning Dcpariment
I3oulder C'ounty Land Use Depaiiment
Septen~bes 18, 2002
.r\pplication for Annual BVCP Revision
Att~ched please find materials for an 1Uea III to Aren Ii Minor Serviee Area Boundary Change for
County-owned property at 3532 Diagonal Highway. ~Ve trust the application is cnmplete. Please contact
me ut (3031 =141-39:30 or at pltlu ~c;co.l~oulder.co.us if you need further clarification or inform~tion.
Regards,
~~ ~v') ;" ~"~'~~
1J
Petar L. Pog~
~~Lanager, Long Range Pia~~nirig Division
F
~
Agenda Item #.`> l~ Page # N-S
G\~y ot Boulpe~
~
,~',~'~y,.~.~~
. ~
~
BOULDER VALLEY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
APPLICATION FOR ANNUAL REViSION
Landowners and the general public may submit requests for changes to the Boulder Valley
Comprehensive Plan (BVCP) as part of the Annual Review. The fol(owing changes may be
considered 1s part of the Anmial Review:
^ Land Use Amendment
3~ Mino~ Service fli~ea Buunda~y Change
^ Policy Aniendment
^ Other Ntap Amendment
^ Other Text AmendntenC
TYiese change; reyuire a public hearing and approval by each of the following fi~ur UoJies: Uie
City Plaruiing Board, Citq Conncil, C~unty 1'lanning Commission, and County Commissioners.
The deadline for sitbmittiug an application f'or proposed changes to the Boiilder Valle}~
Comprehensive Plan is S~PTE~IBER 20, 2002 at 5 p.m. Completed applications shoufd be
returned to the city of Boulder Planning Department, 1739 Broadway, 3`d Floor.
Application forms and information regarding Annual Review procedures can be obtained from
the city of' Boulder Planning Department, 1739 Broadway, 3rd Floor, and Boulder County
Land Use Dep:~rtment 2045 13`h Street, or by visiting our web site ~t
htm 'iww~v ci houlder co us/pllmlin~v~'index l~tm. To have an application mailed or faxed to you,
or for additional information, contact Chad Ricklefs at the city of Boulder Planning Department
(303) 441-3274, email: RicklefsC@ci.boulder,co.us, or contact Pete Fogg from the Boulder
County Land lJse Department (303) 441-3930.
Thank you For your interest in tiiis process.
Agenda Item #~5/9 Page # f~- G~
Gby ot 6ou~pP~
~
~,~~'~~'~
. ~
BOULDER VALLF,Y COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
APPLICATION ~'OR ANNUAL REVISION
'CVUe of Amendment (check all that applv)
I.and Use Amendment
_ ~X_ Minor Service Area $oimdary Change
Other Map Amendment
Other Text Amendment
Policy Amendment
Please urnvicle tUe tbllowine informatim~
Brief description oFthe proposed amendment: Expar.
include a 1.13 acre pa.rcel at 3532 D
Buildinq") located in Area III. The
Commercial in Boulder Countv and des
on the 2001 BVCP L~an3 Use Map.
the Area II Service
erty is current
ted as Transiti
to
Business
Briefreasonorjusti;icationofproposedamendmenCThe proposal confox-m.~ to all
criteria for an Area III-II Minor Service Area Boundary Change
(section zz a. z. [b7 [i~, zool avcP>. sotn city ana county staff
b=lieve the property is situated in Area III due to a mapping error.
It cvas shown to be in Area ZIA frum 1979 - 1983, the.n in Area III from
1965 forwax'd, yet a search of BVCP records did not unearth any tnap
amettdments o-r requests for Service Area amendments for this parcel.
The change occurred at the same time the adjacent Revnolds propert~
open space (acquired in 1977 by the city) was "moved" from an Area IIA
designation to Area III. Given the small size of tha subject parcel,
its irre~ular shape and location scrueezed between the SH 119 and BN&SF
Railroad rights-of-ways, and proximity to the western edge of the
Reynolds open space, it is reasonable to conclude that a mapping error
occurred between 1983 and 1985 durinq a BVCP updatE.
If map amendment
Map(s) proposed for amendment: 2001 BVCP Area I Area II and Area III Map
I3riefdescriptionoflocationofproposedamendment:3532 Diagonal Hi9hway
Section: 15 Twnshp: 1N Range: 70 W
Size of parcel: 1.13 acres
Does applicant have a development application or some interest in property that in any manner would be
affected by this amendment proposal? (If yes, please explain):
Agenda Item #,59 Page # t}- 2
G\~`1 ot Bou/ae~
: . , - . ,~i-i, f!ed~;~,~ /~
~
, ~ r ~F`r
t~'
Yes. Boulder County purchased the property and existing buildinq in
2001 with the intention of remodelinq the structure for use by Boulder
Emergency Squad (BES1, a non-profit emergency services provider in the
process of moving from its former hea3quarters adjacent to the City of
Boulder Fleet Service Ceiiter at SOo4 East Pearl Street. Funds for this
purchase and for emergency vehicl.°s/equipment were approved in 1998 by
a voter referendum and special tax. Once the remodel is completed
Boulder County will transfer ownership of the property to BES. A
special use approval was granted for the BES relocation by the Boulder
County Commissioners on January 24, 2002 (SU/SSDP - O1-14).
Applicuut:
Name: Boulder County
Address: FO Box 471
Boulder. CO 80306
Phone:(303) 441-3930
Owner:
Name: Boulder County
Address: PO Box 471
Boulder, CO 8030'
Phone; (303) 441-3930
Representative/C'ontact:
Name: Peter L. Fogg - Manager, Long Range Planning
Division,Boulder Countv Land Use Department
Address: FO Box 471
Boulder, CO f30305
Phone:(303) 441-3930
SUPFLEIViENTAL INFORitiIATION'TO B~ SL'BMITTED WITH APPLICATION
Narrative addressing the details of the proposed amendment including reason or justification for
proposal, its relationship to the goals, policies, elements, and amendment criteria of the Boulder
Valley Comprehensive Plan. The proposed Minor Service Area Boundary Change
serves two purposes: 1) it corrects what both city and county staff
believe to be an Area IIA/Area III mapping error committed between
the 1983 and 1985 HVCP Updates; and 2) it positions the property for
future annexation and full urban services provisions when that
becomes fiscally practical and doable. In fact the city and county
Agenda Item # ti/~ Page #_ /~~- ~
G\\~ pf Boulq~r
~
,r
, ~,
: . , . ,,,,~~t:'
~ j !~'
had reached an agreement on an annexation and services provision
scYledule earlier this year (reference attached memo dated July 29, 2002
from Peter Pollock, Planning Director, to Peter Fogg, Manager of the
county Long Range Planning Division), buC had to put the proC2se on
hold due to fiecal constraints identified by BES. The intended use
as an emergency response facility center is of both community and
county-caide value, and provides the type of benefi~ as described in
AVCP Policy 1.25 (d) that make it ultimate]y eligible for
annexation.
The property is presently zoned Commercial with a PVCP land use
clesignation of Tranwitional Business, described on the BVCP Land Use
Map as areas along cext~in major streets of the Valley that
anticipate a zoning foi- less intensive business uses than in the
General Bueinese areas. The BES operation meets that descri.ption
because it wili generate lzss traffic than the pi.-evious machining
company tenant and mrill be occupied only inte?-mittently e.g. with
t:ao personnel on weekends and for equipment maintenance and training
at other times, typicall~; on Monday evenings and two Saturdays per
month.
tihe cri.ceria £or a Mi.ior ~~r~~ice Area Boundary Cnange (Section II.
B. [z] [b~ [1], avcP) ,re fu11y mee:
* th2 total size is 1.13 acr2s, well below the ten acre maximum
permitted f.or this type of BVCP amendment;
* the property has greater than SC°s contiguity with the city
limits;
* inclusion into Area II rectifies a mapping error and is a
logical boundary extension;
* the use is consistent with the Transitional Business BvCP
designation and is compatible with surrounding land uses, which
are highuray and railroad rights-of-ways on two side and an
office bu=lding on the third;
* no neg~tive impacts of any kind have been identified;
* there will be no effect on land use and growth projectionu
since the existing building footprint and size will remain
the same and because BES is not a for-profit employment/growth
generating op=ration;
* there wi11 be no material effect on service provisions ncw or
in the futuie since the facility currently has a septic system
and Lefthand Water, and any future annexation will be
contingent upon the city's Einding of no significant impacts to
its services capabilities;
* there will be no m~terial effect on the city's CIP as noted
in the preceding comments;and
* the appropriateness of timing is sound given the Annual Update
SChedule, the relocation of BES to the site, and the correction
of a previous mapping error.
Agenda Item # ~~_ Page # h-~v
Gdy oS Boulae
` ~
~~'s:~,,,r
~
Location map showing size and relationship of the area proposed for amendment to surrounding
roads, existing and planned land uses, natural featttres, present Comprehensive Plan designations,
etc., 8 1/2" x 1 P' map suitable for photocopying.
Attached
2. Detailed map (Iarger scale than location map) of site Showing topographic contaurs, shuetures or
improvements, physical features, etc., if required; 8%z" x 1 I" map suitable for photocopying.
Attached - topography not shown aince structure, footprint, parking
and drainage facilities are in place; no changes are proposed
3. Name ofperson who prepared sLtbmittal informatiot~.
Peter Foga - Long Range Division, County Land Use Department
Seff Callahan - Re~ources Conservation Division, County Land Use
Department
a. Additional information or copies of submittal maCerials may be required.
Provided upon reque~t.
ATTACHMENTS
«TTACHMENT A: Assessor/ArcView Parcel Data
FTTACHMENT E and C: Location Maps
ATTACHMENT -: Surrounding I,and Uses (aerial)
ATTACHMENT E: Areas I, II and ITI Locations
A'I'TACHMENT F: July 29., 2002 Memo from City to County re: Annexation
ATTACHMENT G: Improvement Location Certificate
Agenda Item #~_ ~'age # ff-IU
A.
ASR ID 0030009 suftix pl Parce~ No 146321000015 City Cd gp Nbr ld 195
Tax Area Id 4256
street Address 3532 DIAGONAL HY
suedivision TR, 194•198 COMMERC
Sub Lot Sub Block S~T~R Ql•1(~•~0
~e~a; Description TRACT 2557•A 21•1N-70 PER DEED 1019813 12/21/89 BCR PROPERTY ADDRESS: 003532
DIAGONAL HY B OULDER
Owner Name GOUNTY OP BOULDER
In Care Of
Gwner Address p0 BOX 471
City, State Zip BOULDER, CO 80603
Land Class Code 9131 Bld~ Class Code 9231
Rooms Q OesignCod C YearBuilt 1963
Bedrooms Q Half Ba[hs ~ 3/4 Baths (J Full Baths Q
Rrst FI Fin Sqft Q First Fl Tot Sqft Q
Above F~n Sqft Q Above Tot Sq(t p
Bsrnn: Fin Sqft Q Bsmnt Tot Sqit Q
Garage Fin Sqft Q Garage Tot Sqft Q
Other Fin Sqtt p Other Tot Sqft p
Land Act `Jal $ 416, 000 eldg Aci Val ~ 974, 400
Land Asd Val $ 120, 640 eldg Asd Val $ z$Q, 580
Deedl No 2147467 Ueedl Dt 09•MAY-Ol Deedl Fee $ 11D.00
D=ed2 No 1663801 Deed2 Dt 12•DEG96 Deed2 Fae $ 52.50
Deed3 Na Deed3 Dt Deed3 Fee $ ,00
Geed4 No Deed4 Dt Deed4 Fee $ 00
The Parcel at 3532 DIAGONAL HY Unit has Assessor ID 30009 and Par
cel Number 146321000015.
Zt is owned by:
SOUNTY G? HOVi,DER
PO BGR 471
DOi7LDnR, l:0 80603
County Zoning, or Municipality, at the selected poir.t is C, F1oodF1
ain Overlay = NO.
The selected point is in Township T1N, Range R70, Section 521, Quar
ter .
The selecte3 ooint is in BouldeY Vall=v Comp Plan IGA(sl
The Assessor shows the land area as 44000 5.
The digitized area of the POLYGON chosen, possibly not the entire p
arcel, is 49459.5 square feet, 1.13543 acres.
Assessor Database shows the following deed R>ception Numb~r~ and Da
tes:
Numbe: 2147467 recorded MAY 09, 2001
Number 1663861 recorded DEC 12, 1996
Number recorded ,
Number recorded ,
Land Class Code 9131 Building Class Code 9231
and 0 total aquare feet of structure, built in 1963
The following itema are in the Impact AP Database for this parcel:
~~necial Use Review 9U-O1-14 -
HOULDER EMERGENCY SQUAD SU/SSDP Planner: Grea OxenPeld
The following Huilding Permite are in the database for this parcel:
ap-2-eze Agenda Item # 5A Page #!f -/1
for ADDITION - DECK & INTERIOR REMOD.
~
~
~
~
d
on
~
a
s;
~
E
~
w
~
~
~
c
~
on
d
i ~
~
~R 1
i '
~
tx
r
F.~.~. 4r~~ ~
t
;.
-
. .
; ~.,
.
' „ k.. r ,
~ ,.
'
~~
~~
F
~
-
Y ~
n~
' Y
1'
,
p~
~ ~ ~Y~ ~,' ~y
/~ . .
~ { ~
~ u .
yT ~ 7' r ~"'Yf
° k i~r ^rf~
~~'
" ~
s. _
.
~
• _g'f~4.t' '' .
~aa:
~ ~'. ,~qu
a i ~4'+v ~`'V'E & . . .
.
P i tX.y~ .+v~~- i.~_ , .~
x
~; ~ ~
~
z
l
~ '~ :
•
r ?L'A w i. ,F2 ra•r: ~ ~
l
F a
~.a~ ~ [ ~ ~. "~ . ~ _ ~ I
,
. _
" _ _ .
~ ;
~ ,
yv~~
~ , ~ .5; ~ ~ ~ 7; .
~ . ~i~S1 R 'i
` ~ ~ T^ ' _ - °' ~ ~
.
~~ .,
. . ~ ~+~ . ..
' .... ,....._. .
. .ro. x * . .
l~tM~etkl4k~1
A..::..wa w.wrtaS'G7 . v
~
~~
'
'
~ '` . ~ ' ~.
' . ' _
. .
.. .
,
'
~~ ~ -s.
' .. '.
. ' , ~ ~ ~,
~
' ~ . .. ~~~ . ,
I i ~ 7;
I i
~
~
" ~*
~ } }
. . ~ n:q,
`4~
~~
~~~ ,
!
'
~ '. ~,~+, .
~ ~1~iMj`.
!
\ . . ~ p .
~ . ~~ ~~Mr' ~
~
~
, ~ .~ ' .. ~ W ~.~~~I I
~
I
I
~,`. ' /~ II
. W
N
d ~
r..
~
t
O ~
~
~ ~~ ~~~ ~ 4~
~ ~
Agenda Item #~_ Page # N - ~~
w
~
w
N
Agenda Item # ..~/~ Page # -/~
. __ r. . _..._.,..n...r. ,.i.~ia.r~o~c
~ r-m-r j
~ti
~
;-_
~
~~~.:~
~
~
~
~
~rea i
Area 1
~~
~
~~
~.
,,,,~v~~ %~-~'
~ ~
~
CITY OF BOULDER
Planning and Development Services
1739 Broadway, Third Floor • P.O. Box 791, Boulder, Colorado 80306-0791
phone 303-441-1880 • fax 3Q3-44i-3241 • email plandeveiop@ci.bouider.co.us
www.ci.boulder.co.us/pwplan/
P:,. v ~ .. ~~~~~ .~,
.. . , .-'.. .
, ..,- : .
July 29, 2002
Pete Fogg
Boulder County Land Use Department
2045 14~h Street
Boulder, CO 80304
Subject: Sewer connection for the Boulder Emergency Squad, 3532 Diagonal Hwy
Dear Pete:
I would like to cfarify the city staff comments on the 8ES out of city sewer application (DRC comments
dated July 21), We support providing an immediate sewer connection to this property, along with
simultaneous initiation of the annexation process to provide the best long term solution. Unfortunately, our
codes don't permit an out of city sewer connecfion to this property, We can, however, initiate a special
ordinance to permit the immediate sewer connection, if the county is willing to simultaneously initiate the
annexation process. If the county is interesied in pursuing this approach, the ordinance could be approved
in eariy Septembec
To reiterate our specific findings in the DRC comments:
1. The application was found not to comply with'the city's criteria for granting an out of city permit.
2. The parcel is contiguous to the city limits, and, upon annexation, eligible for all city services.
However, the process of annexation may take several months to complete.
3. The city staff believes that the proposed Boulder Emergency Squad service is a critical and
necessary function of great public benefit and that every option to provide utility services should
be explored.
4. Under these circumstances the city staff supports and proposes to initiate as soon as possible a
speciai ordinance that would authorize the issuance of the out of city sewer permit, with
simultaneous initiation of annexation by the county.
lf the county is interested in pursuing this cooperative approach, please contact me or the case manager,
Mike Randall (x4919), at your earliest convenience.
,5incerely,
.
--~; ~ ":7
~ ,,
f 1;,:-' ~ r..~t,;, ~
6
Peter Pollock
Planning Director
Agenda Item # 5f3 Page # ~ -~~
3532 Diagonal Ftighway
Do you have any camments on the proposal.~
• I support -Jnmes Pribyl
• Yes. Use is appropriate, but please note that this begins the diagonal corridor strip
development. How soon do we give up open space for "necessnry" development?
-Rodger Ewy
As staff proceeds to onalyze the proposal, ore there specific issues or concerns that you
think should be addressed.~
• Hus anyone performed an unalysis of where the EMT groups calls for emergency
response are located? The question is posed to determine whether this geographic
locntion is indeed an advantage? -David Giarrocco
Agenda Item # _~A Page #~
3532 Diagonal Highway
Emergency Respflnse Facility
3434 47th Street
Offices
#6 Site and Surround~n~ Area Context
~450 Mitchell Lane
Research Faciliry
Agenda Item #
33b5 Diagonal Highway
Car Rental Facility
Open Space-Acquired
~~/? Page # /f- !;~,
~ e y r _~i
s~ . n '" °' 0 , ~ ~'
~ ~' .~FY~ 4eek ~~ ~
L ~ - k ~-~
~_ ___~.x.~ w - ' ~ ~~~ y P - -, - ~ ~-----
-~u°'-°~~ ~ ~ : , ~
w~e. x~ fj I= " ra~. im ~ '~-~. _...~
sirrwc+~ `~.i-«un y ` ~o
Rs ~ Hp~arohNa~ a~\~ +o N µ'!~~/ ~y
\
j ~'' _ _ ` ~y li.S ~ Cid_~Lu
G1`~~ann ~..wM dS 0 N F ~ .f
~ ", .ia \
6 ! ~i5
\~ C f' 4~ ne..i~,i Y ` J S
~ ~ ~'--% ~ ~ -~~
~ a'n„W vaA~o~ f' - - --- - - - - -
~ `.;' ~ ~, f
q• /'
N~ilY1S~~ ~ J~ ~
<f
~ ~` e
~ S ,
~ ~w~,~ ~ ~~~.a.wo.wn v
i <
RsuwY
_.~.., .'~^ v+.dw. ~
__, `~ ~
J. ~~-_ ~~..,, ( r - - _ _ _ . _ -
/~-
p /C~
)J '~~~ ~ Z ~d • W ~~
_~_ . _ o ~,y . ,; l ~ ~
J ~ .., ,,. ;~~-.r ~" _,
~ ~.J - ' _ tw~rerorreo.~~u+ ~'
~ ~ ~
,g ~~ L ~:.} _ _ ~ - ~ ~~..,~ - -
.s~ . ~~_; ~-------- a -
:~i~,'~-~, ~ ' .. ~`~~ ~;i ~ ,__ ~
, ~ ~ ~ A , ~ ,.~ ~ -- ~: i
~j
i `~ •~~ ~
~~. ~"a. ~dqa • <~ ~~ ~!~
~,~~a l1 1 ~ _ ,
~~ ~,.~ ~' ~ ', ~ .
'~~; ~~ ~•. ~ ~~ c,
c~
y
'~. _ ~ „J ~„w ,,...~. - U~~ °~ C) >:~`~~ ~'' - -- ~ -~, -, '_' i~ ~ ~ ~ u /~i'
~ ,.,w~. / ~. ~~ ~ . .- o~
~~ k ~ w~~., „~~~d a ~ a tl ~ ~ y~~ Z„~•3~.
Yy A \ ~ k r ~~ ` ~
_ ~-,_.
'? \ ~:~,,,, w ~"^'y" °°o. ~ - 4; ; Y~- ~e~ A ~~ "f d
i iFN~wel I Mo
~ ~ ~u ~ ` ' ~.l~~ ~ ~ > c~' ~
._ ' "_ _ ~ ~ .. w.~ - _ - _F.. . , \}~ ~ 4,~ , ./r~~.
"- . ~ rF(W~ \ . ~ ~ - ` wk.
- , ~w ___.. a \,..Y. 1 _ / . . , ,~ a ~-
~y ~ ~ d ,~ ~~Jj. 1 '~ ~ ~'-~ (", ~ ~ , v.~ a ~, ~,',' ~ a .., o
i
~
_ ~~~.~ c~
e^°^"~ 4 ( 1 ~
VW fli # ~ vwva ud \.. . '~ 1 ~ -.
~ _
~. «,~,.~ ,r ~ ~
_ .
--- ~ - _ -----
~ _ .. ""~~ w"._..~ .- ~ ~ ~ J" MWnNN RafdYwr
c~. x y ' ~ o
- ~ '~, ! r~~a~y,U _J . _ _ _.. ./~,
~ ~, ~ _ ,+a_u-.\, __. --~,~ ~ N06N1V ~ ~ C3 \
,.._/
<2 µ~ h~ M ` ~ 1 ...`. ~ ~ ( i'nUer
~
~ I~ ti ~a ~. Idk10lfLW0 'I ` nAn
. ~ _
~~ ,~ -' 4 /
ci j ~
~~ / ~ILJ ...
i~ /~_/ ._ n.,~~ .. w+ ~ hM+ewl ,
Y-~I~ ~~W - ~.._. .._.__ ~ - _. _._.__ ___-
~ / j /~~Y ~, ... ~,u \ T: 'd ~ ~ ~1 ` '1
.. ~_!1 `-' _-_ ~~ '$ ,, ~l'l~d Cl ~ a ffi
~ S!N-L~L '" - ~ -....._ U \ =~Mn~li ~ ~e •
v ~ `y ' ~ .
y - o c,..w /
'~m~„a (~ ~( ` " s r a
N J M ~ I~ E
w~,. ~.,~ ^""M ~f ~~ ~ 46 =-~-~ ,f : m
~ < !, J 4P~ / -'- ~
. -__ __'"._.,__.~~ _. ,.-~'._..4~._- j\
j i G" $ , 3~ ~ Latwo7Uro ~~ Od ` IJRes~awY
~ S Y ~ lidStNV<YI U M /
~, .`f ~., ~ , k
~ ~ ,o Z~_.~
~,,,~ y ,,~ ~- ~,' .,~„y c~
•y ~
~ 1 ~ r:; - " - --- - --- = ~~~- -
/. . t~i.b w_n - _ _ . . . _ u A ~_.. .
.~ a. _ ('~ ' ;
_ ~~~ e.1 ~~l i.~J~.~;} .~.1f<<S, 1-
` .}~ /~ ^* ~`J ' . . .., ,N~ l -
~~ sswreu \ ~/ ' ~ ~~ ~ e~ g ..._ , ~ ~.,,al ~~/
~.:/' \_. ~ N
v+"~ 1
~~ ~, awk~ ~ ~~~"~ ~ ~~e+.~u,ey ~ ~ ~ . D -, ~ ~~~ : ,-_ ~_ I-
~_L , c.fi ~` r ~~ . i
\i ~
- . . ___ .. ~;ryJ ~ ,~
~ ~ ~,~..~
q~l
~
~ ~ ~ ~ ' ~°' - , ~ku ~ ~ .,~
~ ~ o , --- - -- --__ _
~~-` ' °'"~°,o. Ho Z ° ~ f ~
--~ ~ :'~ r ~
t ~. ~ ~.o ~ ~; s~..,~~u
" "~ ~~
- ~~~ M1t.uslg1UL44e .~ ~ ,
t ` r . ~ ~ , ,~
8i " a 4 ' ° G~
'~ °`~,w. ~`°~ J ' ~~/ ~ o v ' J ~d("_r./
~"" ~r- ~ ~
riodwo,.~~,ur~
~~ ~~ B~,^"i~°~' ., R~ „~~.,. r ~~s
~~ ~ k,~„~~„ .,
No 1
~ ~~, \ ~ f . ^ .( ~ C]
,~ ~
Sl' `~ U _ _ ~~ , r. _ ~J ~
~~~'l~ i-~ __.1° ~~ A~.,~R.,«,a,
/ t / . _ e~~a,
~_/ J} ~, ~.f ~ RaMwNNa 3 f~`~-M ~y
~ ~ , cwf_..r~.r"i J . 4
i~~ pd1~Ja'
t~ ~ , o ~ ~ u
R~
~ ~` ~¢ '
V,~S
II
a ,,. f
" ~~__-
.c~
e . .. /'
° a ,~ ~ - ~
f-_f a
~ CHANGE - Change from OS-A to Open Space Development Rights nN~
~a
~
r Added Open Space Acquired
-
Change from OS-O to Open Space Acquired ~ -~f
~ - Added Open Space Development Rights ~
Change from OS-O to Open Space Development Rights <~I'"
~
~
~ ~ ~ : ~.,..,,
?%~;; Boundary Correction
<<:;-,,,=.~ -,::
Ma is not to scale
De-designated OS-O to No Landuse Designation p~ ~
y
ti
~
~
y
~
C~
x
~
~
z
y
~
ATTACHMENT J
Goals of the Healthy Economy Strategic Plan
Goal 1: Ensure that Boulder's future fiscal revenues per capita at a minimum keep pace
with inflation to maintain public services, and grow in real terms so that Boulder can
improve public services.
Not addressed in BVCP Economic Policies
Recommendation: add a policy based on Economic Sustainability Task Force Goal. "Consistent
with community goals and character, encourage a strong sustainable economy to fund quality
city services for all citizens."
Goal 2: Provide a variety of retail outlets and services to ensure that household needs for
all income groups are served, consumers have competitive options, and boulder's unique
shopping districts are supported. Encourage retail outlets that increase Boulder's capture
of sales generated by its local market population and close gaps that retailers outside
Boulder currently fill.
Addressed in BVCP 5.08.
5.08 Vital and Productive Retail Base.
With Boulder's retail role in the region changing, tha city and county recognize the need for the
city to be proactive in supporting its retail base.
(a) The city will update its land use regulations to encourage and facilitate private reinvestment
and modernization of its retail centers. Particular emphasis will be focused on creating
oppoRUnities for mixed-use centers incorporating retail, entertainment, office and residential uses
served by tcansit.
(b) The city will coordinate its capital improvement program in a manner where public
infrastructure investments may be completed in conjunction with approved city adopted plans as
incentives to encourage private investments to occur.
(c) The city will support coordinated public/private initiativas at ihe citywide activity centers,
including downtown Boulder and the Boulder Valley Regional Center. It will also consider,
depending upon specific circumstances and opportunities/needs, initiatives designed to facilitate
mixed-use development at 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, tha city shall promote a
healthy mix of retail establishments that provide a well-rounded shopping experience in the city.
Goal 3: Support a diverse economic base that generates and fosters start-up independent
businesses so that Boulder remains a unique city. Encourage entrepreneurship and the
continual regeneration of new companies in Boulder.
Concepts are addressed in BVCP 5.01, 5.02 and 5.05.
5.01 Diversified Employment Base.
Agenda Item #~_ Page # J- /
Tha city and county shall support a diversi~ed employment base within the Boulder Valley,
reflecting manpower and labor force capabilities and recognizing amenities for emphasizing
scientific, technological and related industries.
5.02 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.
5.05 Industrial Zoning.
Industr'tal zoning under the Comprehensive Plan shall provide the opportunity for the location of
industries of various types and uses, 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 changi~g and
technolo$ically-oriented industrial and services employment base. Where appropriate, mixed-use
development will be encouraged, incorporating residential uses and support services for the
employment base.
Goa14: Within the non-retail sectors, recruit and encourage a higher proportion of
industries and businesses that provide relatively high value-added goods and services.
These basic industries can support the higher rents that are prevalent in Boulder, can more
likely afford to maintain quality public facilities and mitigation costs, and generate fewer
jobs and population growth per $1 million of outpuf~ Encourage a higher proportion of
non-retail industries and businesses that provide quality jobs and increase overall average
wages so that household incomes are more consistent with local home prices, support
higher retail sales per square foot, and can afford quality public services and facilities.
Matching jobs to housing or high value industry to high rents is somewhat covered in jobs:
housing policies 5.03 (see below) and 7.06. Concept of supporting higher retail sales to fund
public services is addressed in recommended new policy described under goal i.
7.06 Ba]ancing 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, cunent employer locations, projected
industriaUcommercial development sites, and the demand such developments bring for housing
employees. Key considerations include housing type, mix, and affordabi]ity required to house the
employee base of current and anticipated employers. (See Policy 1.19 Jobs:Population Balance
and Policy 5.03 Balance of Employment and Housing)
Goal 5: Recruit industries and businesses that generate net fiscal surpluses from sales tax,
use tax, accommodation-tax, and property tax to support services for Boulder residents.
Concept wil] be addressed in recommended new policy described under goal 1.
Goal 6: capture more induced and indirect economic impacts, inereasing "the multiplier
effecN' within the Boulder economy.
Concept will be addressed in recommended new policy described under goal 1.
Agenda Item # SH Page #:r- a
Goal 7: Provide more affordable housing for Boulder's workers and improve the jobs /
housing balance in the city.
Addressed in BVCP 5.03
5.03 Balance of Employment and Housing.
The city and county recognize that there is an imbalance between population and employment in
the Boulder Valley, with jobs significanUy exceeding the workforce residing in the Valiey.
Projections of fumre growth in the Boulder Valley indicate an increasing imbalance between
population and employment. In order to reduce the magnitude of this imbalanee in the future, the
city intends to reduce potential nonresidential 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 acquisitions, regulatory incentives to develop
housing in non-residential zoning districts, possible revisions to the city's nonresidential zoning
categories, and rezoning appropriate azeas. (See Policy 1.19 Jobs:Population Balance and Policy
7.06 Balancing Hovsing Supply with Employment Base)
Goal 8: Improve Boulder's ability to capture destination tourism and its fiscal beneCts,
while minimizing community wide impacts.
Not addressed in the BVCP Policies.
Recommendation: Add a policy refening to tourism master planning efforts.
Goa19: Target support to industries and businesses that have minimal impacts to
Boulder's infrastructure, and mitigate any harm to the local and regional environment.
Target support especially to those that produce net environmental gains, such as re-use and
recycling.
Principles of sustainability are addressed in BVCP policies 1.03 - 1.06. Promotion of recycled
materials is addressed in BVCP policy 4.43.
4.43 Promoting the Use of Recycled Materials. To encourage recycling and waste reduction
opportunities, the city and county shall promote markets for recycled commodities; encourage the
use of products and services which aze 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.
Goal 10: Coordinate and cooperate with regional jurisdictions and private organizations to
address the economic and planning issues affecting the region. Forge partnerships among
the city, the county, the University of Colorado, the Boulder Valley School District, and
other governmental and private entities to regularly address local economic issues and
pursue economic opportunities.
Not addressed in BVCP economic policies.
Recommendation: add "the economy" to the list of issue areas for regional governmental
cooperation listed in BVCP Policy 1.11.
1.11 Regional Cooperation.
Agenda Item # 5/~ Page # ,T - ~
Many of the most significant probtems and opportunities faced by Boulder and other
jurisdictions, particularly affordable housing, the jobs-housing balance, THE ECONOMY,
regional transportation, and growth management can only be dealt with effectively through
regional cooperation and solutions. Therefore, the city and 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
po]icy-making bodies (e.g., other counties, the Regional Transportation District (RTD), the
Colorado Department of TranspoRation (CDOT), the county Board of Health, utility and fire
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,
Other Recommendations:
- Revise policy 5.06 to provide more substance and address work on the `toolkit' for fostering
community revitalization in commercial centers.
Existing 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, shazed provision of needed infrastructure
improvemants when part of an officially adopted plan.
Recommended Policy: 5.06 Upgrade Existing Commercial and Industrial Areas.
The city will cooperate with the private sector to foster the revitalization of commercial centers in
order to enhance retail oppoRUnities and where appropriate, add housing and create transit-friendly
developments. A variety of tools should be considered to create public/private partnerships that lead
to successful redevelopment. These tools may includa but aze not limited to area planning,
infrastructure improvements, changes ro zoning or development regulations and economic incentives.
- Eliminate policy 5.09. This policy was a placeholder for the work of incorporating the goals
of the plan into the comprehensive plan policies.
5.09 Develop an Economic Sustainability Strategic Plan.
The city shall davelop a strategic plan for economic sustainability in 2001, following a benchmark
analysis. The strategic plan will idantify barriers, opportunities and strategies for achieving the
community's vision of economic sastainability. Based on that plan, the city will propose specific new
policies for the Comprehensive Plan.
Agenda Item #~ Page # ,J-'~
BVCP Section 5. Ecopomy
The city and county shall encourage a viable and balanced economic structure and employment
base within the pazameters of established land use, environmental and growth policies. The city
and county recognize that a healthy, adaptable local economy is vital to the community's ability
to provide a highly desirable quality of life, high levels of services and amenities, The city and
county recognize the critical interrelationship between the long-term health of the natural
environment, the economy, and the liveability of the community. The city and county shall seek
to ensure that current needs are met without compromising the ability of future generations to
meet their needs.
Boulder's economy is based on innovation, entrepreneurship, quality and service. These
chazacteristics apply to Boulder's for-profit, non-profit, and government sectors, all of which are
important contributors to Boulder's economic health. Boulder has historically served as the
regional employment center of the county. Synergy exists between the university and the
scientific, research and technology sectors, which all reinforce one another and create a strong
job base. The private-sector employment base is most focused in services, primazily research,
technology and scientific occupations. Retail and manufacturing play strong roles within the
Boulder economy, as does tourism. Many jobs are in the public sector: the University of
Colorado, the federal laboratories, city and county of Boulder, and the Boulder Valley School
District. This substantial role of the public sector within the Boulder economy further contributes
to a stable economic environment,
Boulder is fortunate to serve as the home of the University of Colorado as well as several other
institutions of higher learning such as Naropa University and Front Range Community College.
These bodies are critical contributors to the overall economy, add positively to the research, high
technical and scientific employment niche of the community, and provide important continuing
education opportunities to post-graduates and ttaining for the existing local labor force.
While these institutions add considerable value to the Boulder economy, they also have
significant impacts related to demand for community services, affordable housing, traffic and
growth pressures. The Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan provides opportunities to coordinate
and integrate long-range master planning efforts on the part of the individua] educational
institutions and the community at lazge.
Boulder's role within the broader region is undergoing dramatic change. Economic development
in nearby communities has increased significantly, at much faster rates than in the more stable
and mature city of Boulder. Consequently, Boulder's share of the regional market is shrinking.
The challenge will be to redefine a market niche for Boulder's retail and commercial areas that
will create a sustainable economic base and provide sufficient shopping opportunities to meet the
needs of residents.
Boulder's regional role within Boulder Coun[y, combined with approximately 30 years of growth
management policies focused principally on limiting residential sprawl and acquiring ]arge
buffers of permanent open space, have had many beneficial effects. These have, however, also
Agenda Item #~ Page # 1-.S
contributed to a jobs/housing imbalance where the number of the jobs in the community is about
equal to the total population and considerably greater than the resident work force.
This has led to a critica] need for more affordable housing for Boulder workers. Other policies in
the comprehensive plan encourage additional housing and mixed-use development that
incorporates affordable housing. Mixed use development serves several positive functions: more
vibrant and interesting developments, opportunities for live/work arrangements, raduced
transponation and parking requirements, and an expanded housing supply.
POLICIES
5.01 Diversified Employment $ase.
The city and counry shall support a diversified employment base within the Boulder Valley,
reflecting manpower and labor force capabilities and recognizing amenities for emphasizing
scientific, technological and related industries.
5.02 Support for Local Business.
The city and county recognize the significant contribution of existing businesses in the local
economy. Tha city shall support the retention and expansion of existing local businesses.
5.03 Balance of Employment and Housing.
The city and county recognize 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 Bouldar Valley indicate an increasing imbalance between
population and employment. In order to reduce the magnitude of this imbalance in the future, the
city intends to reduce potential nonresidential 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 acquisitions, regulatory incentives to develop
housing in non-residential zoning districts, possible revisions to the city's nonresidential zoning
categories, and rezoning appropriate areas. (See Policy 1.19 Jobs:Population Balance and Policy
7.06 Balancing Housing Supply with Employment Base)
5.04 Employment Opportunities.
The city and county shal] encourage local employers, to the maximum extent feasible, to provide
employment opportunities for the loca2 unemployed and underemployed work force, and to
implement affirmative action programs in cooperation with various agencies providing
employment assistance programs.
5.05 Industrial Zoning.
Industrial zoning under the Comprehensive Plan shall provide the opportunity for the location of
industries of various types and uses, 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
technologically-oriented industrial and services employment base. Where appropriate, mixed-use
development will be encouraged, incorporating residential uses and support services for the
employment base.
Agenda Item # ~~i f~ Page # 3°!o
5.06 Upgrade Existing Commercial and Industrial Areas.
The city will cooperate with the private sector to foster the revitalization of commercial centers
in order to enhance retail opportunities and where appronriate. add housing and create transit-
friendiv develonments. ~. -'° ° ~°"~^°'°~'~~^'~'^' °^a ~ '°' ° A variety of tools
.s~hpo~u~l,d,,~be considered to create public/private nartnerships that lead to successful redevelopment.
TtftSSffepe~Hee-These tools may include, but is-are not limited to, ~:°°°~' ~~~..;°:..° ~P ~°~-'°a
«F..rir~°ii „t•• ~ ~«ro . l.e ...a ..F ., ..Cf:.. ,.11. ..A;.«t„A ..1,.
~ ° area planning,infrastructure
imorovements, chanees to zoning or development standards and economic incentives.
5.07 Educational Partnerships.
The city and county shall encourage and support dedicated efforts of the public school system as
well as the variety of post-secondary educational institutions to offer quality continuing
education and vocational training.
5.08 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 its retail base.
(a) The city will update its land use regulations to encourage and facilitate private reinvestment
and modernization of its retail centers. Particular emphasis will be focused on creating
oppoRunities for mixed-use centers incorporating retail, entertainment, office and residential
uses served by transit.
(b) The city will coordinate its capital improvement program in a manner where public
infrastructure investments may be completed in conjunction with approved city adopted plans as
incentives to encourage private investments to occur.
(c) The city will support coordinated public/private initiatives at the citywide activity centars,
including downtown Boulder and the Boulder Valley Regional Center. It will also consider,
depending upon speci5c circumstances and opportunities/needs, initiatives designed to facilitate
mixed-use development at community retail centers where appropriate.
(d) The city will monitor aad evaluate, through market studies and other analysis, the retai] mix
in the city to assist in the identification of gaps or opportunities. In doing so, the city shall
promote a healthy mix of retail establishments that provide a well-rounded shopping experience
in the city.
...., .,..~ ,,,..... ,..,.....,t, ., ....»~.,b.., r ..... .... ................ ............»,,....~ ... _...,., -~ .........o ..
, ,
NEW POLICY
Consistent with communit~~oals and character, encourage a strong sustainable economy to fund
aualitv citv services for all citizens.
Agenda Item #~ Page # ~T_ ~
NEW POLICY
Recoenizing the uniqpe character of $oulder, the cit will support on- oing efforts to creace a
tourism masterplan, studv the existin¢ role of tourism in the economv and tract the imkact of
tourism on the economv.
1.11 Regional Cooperation.
Many of the most significant problems and opportunities faced by Boulder and other
jurisdictions, particulazly affordable housing, the jobs-housing balance,-the economv. regiona]
transportation, and growt6 management can only be dealt with effectively through regional
cooperation and solutions. Therefore, the city and 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, utility and fire 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.
Agenda Item # .~ Page # ~J - f~
ATTACHMENT K
18. Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan Trail Maps
The Boulder Valle~Comprehensive BVCP) Trails Ma~is a comprehensive uig de for
existin~ and~roposed trails and trail connections for the entire Boulder Valley. Tt shows
proposed trails that have been planned through departmental mas[er olannino or area
plannin~orocesses as well as trail connections that aze important links in the Boulder
Vall~ and regional trails svstems.
Trails~lannin~ in_the Boulder Vallev involves balancinQ environmental, communitv and
mobility goals as well as resolvin or mitigatine trail im~acts. The following BVCP
policies euide trailsplanning_
2.27 Boufder Creek and its Tributaries as Im_poRant Urban Desi€n Features
2.29 Trail Corridors / Linkaees
3.13 Trail Functions and Locations
3.14 Trails Network
4.04 Assessment of Environmental Impacts
The BVCP Trails Map and Bicycle Trails Map
show existing and proposed trails in the Boulder Valley that are or will be administered
by the city of Boulder Parks and Recreation, Open Space and Mountain Pazks
Department, and Transportation Departments, the Greenways Program and/or Boulder
County Parks and Open Space and Transportation Departments. These maps are used by
the city, the county, Boulder Valley citizens and other concerned parties to understand,
maintain and advance the network of trails that the city, the county and other public
agencies now provide and hope to provide in the future. These maps shouldn~a
te be used as system planning tools.
Individual depaRments develop more specific policies and management programs to
fulfill their unique missions. These departmental missions sometimes result in different,
even conflictingpolicies or recommendations for new trails. Each department -a~-El~e~
generates more detailed maps to meet their own needs and those of trails users t{3eiF
~ Other maps (such as master plans or specific area plans) are used to show
complete systems.
The Trails Map includes designated unpaved off-street paths, paved off-street paths,
multi-use paths that are paved and separated from but parallel to a road, and short, paved
off-street paths that connect to a larger trail or bike network and are part of an adopted
ped/bike system plan. It does not include sidewalks, on-street bike lane:~ or bike routes,
paved road shoulders or low volume streets serving as bike lanes, routes, or internal
walkways. D. ,,.,, ~ :, ..,: ...;. ..,, ..«...,~ ... ;~ .«e, ~ti, e , ...~..
Trails plannine and implementation occur at several steps that eet nro¢ressively more
Agenda Item #_ Sf~ Page # K_ l
connection ma~ginate with the publia staff, or decisionmaking bodies durine master
planning (or they mav orieinace independentl~during BVCP u dn atesl•
In [he second ste~a conceqtual alisnment or a more sqecific ali~nment for a provosed
trail will be identified and considered for inclusion in various plans. Pronosals generated
by individual deoartments will be coordinated with other affected deparhnents prior to
consideration for inclusion in departmental master_plans. If adopted in the master olan,
the trail will be pronosed for indusion in the Boulder Vallev Comprehensive Plan and in
the Boulder County Comprehensive Plan if a~~licable.
In the third step, a snecific tr~ail uro~ect adopted in relevant p]ans will be included in a
denartmenYs six~ear Capital Improvement Program (CIP) and will work itself u~ in
priority for fundi~ in the current year's budget. 3ome trails projects will require review
and approval thro, u~a.h the Communitv and Environmental Assessment Pz•ocess lCEAPI.
These ~rojects are identified during the annual CIP and bud et approval process. After
the proiect is approved for funding in the annual bud e~ t, the project plannin~ and desien
phase be~ins. Durin tg hiti phase of trails plannin ,~ conceptual alternatives are developed
and a CEAP is conducted if required. Once the CEAP is reviewed and approved bv the
departmental advisory board, theproiect is ready for more detailed design and
eneineerine. At this step, specific decisions are made on how to desian and aneineer the
trail, how to deal with implementation_problems or opportunities, and how to address anv
concerns that the land owners, community, or neighborhood mav have with the specific
trail design and alienment. Various forms of public involvement occur at each of these
three steps,
The fourth and final sC~ is actual constiuction of the trail proiect.
To the extent that issues of opportunity, feasibility, or acce tability need to be dealt with
at eacl~ of these steQs, these issues will be addressed bv the relevant departments ar public
entities. Issues may include such factors as: different departmental eoals: notential
benefits and costs; ph,~ical constraints like topoeraphy and human-made barriers; land
ownership; absence/presence analysis for threatened and endangered species; source
water Q•otection; potentia] impacts on the environment; and potential impacts on
surroundin~ land uses. As pronosals for trails move forward in the trails plannin¢ and
implementation process, any unresolved issues from aprevious step in the process or new
issues that arise will be carried forward and resolved at the appropriate level of
decisionmakine.
Two kinds of trai] desi~ nations are included on the BVCP Trail Map-conceptua] trail
alienments andproaosed trails. The primary difference relates to the de~ree that the trail
has been studied and whether or not a specific tr~ti) alignment has been worked out.
Specific definitions include:
Conceptual Trail Ali~nments. These trails are represented ~ bubbles or circles on the
BVCP Trails Map. These bubbles show the need or desire for the trail located in a
conc~tual trail corridar. The specific ali¢nment has not yet been selected, often because
Agenda Item # __S~/- Page # K_.~2
there are still issues that need to be resolved. These iscues may involve the need for
further studv or public process and usuallv reduire resolution of environmental
ownership, neiehborhood, or other concerns However the concept for the trail is
supported by the sienatories of the BVCP.
Proposed Trails. These trails are represented bv solid lines on the BVCP Trails M~.
These lines show the trail need or desire, but thev also show a more definite trail
alignment accepted b~he public entities involved. There may still be issues to be
worked out at the ~roject lannin~st~, but the trail alignment is more certain.
The Bicycle Trails Map shows specific information on existing bike facilities including:
contra-flow bike lanes, designated bike routes, streets with bike lanes, multi-use paths,
roads with paved shoulders, and soft surface paths. The map also shows primazy and
secondary bike corridors. Specific new improvements are not shown on this map, but on
the bicycle masCer plan.
Process for chanees to the BVCP Trails Maa
At each annual or ma~or update to the BVCP, an interdenartmental staff crou~will assess
the need to update the BVCP Trails Map. If chanees are warranted, staff will analyze the
map and com.pile a list of recommended chan¢es to be included in the Comprehensive
Plan u.pdate process. Chanees to the map mav occur when there has been new
inforniation or chan~ed circumstances re~ardin¢ a prooosed trail or when an alternatives
analvsis and,public process have occurred at the master ~lannin or area ~lannin l~ evel
and new trails plans have been adouted. Minor chan~es can be incorporated into the
BVCP Trails Map at any time without board adoption. These minor map chan eg s are
limited to chan~es in factual information. which include map coirections and chan e@ s in
designation from pronosed to existing trails (i.e., built). These minor ma~chan es wili
be identified for the boards at the BVCP annual update process.
Any member of the public mav progose c4anges to the BVCP Trails Map at an annual or
major update to the Boulder Vallev Comprehensive Plan. These requests should be made
in the application process established for the undate. Staff will analvze these proposals
and a recommendation will be ~esented to the four adoptine bodies alongwith other
apulications. Changes to the Trails Map will be forwarded to the followine advisorv
boards for review and comment: Open Space and Mountain Parks Board of Trustees,
Greenwavs Advisorv Committee, Transportation Advisory Board, Parks and Recreation
AdvisoryBoard, and the County Parks and Open Space Advisorv Committee. Chan e~ s to
the Trails Mag may also be forwarded to other advisory boards de~endinQ on issues
associated with a trail nronosal. Recommandations and comments will be forwarded to
the adoptine bodies, Changes to the Trails Map must be adopted by the city Plannine
Board. City Council, the Countv Planning Commission, and the County Commissioners.
All recommendations for changes to the BVCP Trails Map will be evaluated by each of
the department5 involved AgreemenY by affected departments on the suitabilit oy f the
trail and trail alignment will be sought as part of the interdepartmental review process. If
Agenda Item #.`~ fj Page # K- _~
there are unresolved issues amon~partments in their recommendation on a specific
change to the SVCP Trails Map, then the interde~aRmental staff grouu will recommend
that consideration of the specific BVCP Trails Ma,p chanee be deferred until an effort is
made to resolve specific issues. In this case, the interdepartmental staff group will
recommend that the roposed BVCP Trails Ma~change be added to the BVCP Action
Plan for further studv and alternatives assessment. The Plannine Department will
facilitate the interdepartmental effort to resolve outstanding issues and develoo a ioint
recommendation, if possible, for further board consideration.
The Trails Map was last adopted in -1-9992003.
p r ,
i~ ..
Agenda Item #~ Page #~~
ATTACHMENT L
1. Open Space and Mountain Parks Program Summary
Background Information
Boulder's Open Space and Mountain Parks Program began in 1898 when citizens pushed
for land acquisition at Chautauqua Park and on the east slope of Flagstaff Mountain 'for
the protection of the trees.' Subsequent purchases of land along the mountain backdrop,
from the federal government and other landowners, as well as land donations by citizans,
formed the city's 'Mountain Parks.' In 1963, Boulder citizens voted to tax themselves to
purchase land in the Enchanted Mesa azea to pcotect it from development. In 1995, a 10-
year tax initiative was passed to acquire additional mountain parks land.
Established separate from the Mountain Parks system, the Open Space Program was set
up to acquire, preserve, protect, and manage the open space that Boulder was buying on
behalf of its citizens. As a result of a 1967 municipal election, Boulder became the first
city in the country to tax itself specifically for the acquisition, management and
maintenance of open space. The measure to add a four-tenths of one cent sales tax
passed by a 57 percent majority, an overwhelming demonstration of support in an era of
citizen tax concern. Shortly after that election, the city manager and City Council
appointed an Advisory Committee on Open Space, and in 1973, Council created the
Open Space Board of Trustees to set policies and priorities for acquisition of greenbelt
]ands. In 1986, a charter amendment providing more perrnanent protection for open
space lands was adopted by 79 percant of the voters. In 1989, three-tenths of one cent
was added to the sales tax for a period of 15 years to accelerate opan space preservation.
The citizens extended this tax in 1997 through 2018.
The year 2001 •~•~',.~ marked the combining of the Open Space and Mountain Pazks
systems into one program. The lands in this combined system ivi~l~kie are referred to as
open space lands. Unique facilities and uses that have traditionally taken place in
portions of the Mountain Parks system have been accepted under the Open Space Charter
by the Open Space Board of Trustees.
The Open Space Charter defines the purposes of open space. Open space land shall be
acquired, maintained, preserved, retained and used only for the following purposes:
1. Preservation or restoration of natural areas characterized by or including terrain,
geologic formations, flora or fauna that are unusual, spectaculaz, historically important
scientifically valuable or unique, or that represent outstanding or rare examples of native
species
2. Preservation of water resources in their natural or traditional state, scenic areas or
vistas, wildlife habitats or fragile ecosystems
3. Preservation of land for passive recreational use such as hiking, photography or nature
studies, and if specifically designated; bicycling, horseback riding or fishing
S:~PLAMUseis\Gaap~BVCP~MP&ProgSummaziesWew Polder~osmps,doc
Agenda ltem # .`~/~ Page # L - /
4. Preservation of agriculturai uses and land suitable for agricultural production
5. Utilization of ]and for shaping the development of the city, limiting urban sprawl and
disciplining growth
6. Utilization of non-urban land for spatial definition of urban areas
7. Utilization of land to prevent encroachment on floodplains
8. Preservation of land for its aesthetic or passive recreational value and its contribution
to the quality of life of the community.
Open space land as defined in the City Charter may not be improved after acquisition
unless such improvements are necessary to protect or maintain the land or to provide for
passive recreational, open agricultural, or wildlife habitat use of the land.
The Open Space Boazd of Trustees reviews and makes racommendations concerning
open space-related acquisition and management activities. The Board vigorously pursues
implementing open space goals within the comprehensive plan and the acquisition of
properties required to ful£ill the goals of the Open Space and Mountain Parks Program.
Means of implementation may include: land or development right acquisition, density
transfer and gifts of land or development interests.
Open space lands provide an important framework for land use planning within the
Boulder Valley. Acquired open space, privately owned land with conservation easements
or other development restrictions, and proposed open space provide the basic structure
for the comprehensive plan. Today, 102 yeazs after the Chautauqua acquisition, Boulder
has approximately 3~;999 42,000 acres of open space land in and around the city. The
mountain backdrop has largely been preserved and an expanding buFfer keeps Boulder's
identity distinct from neighboring communities. The city works closely with the Boulder
County Parks and Open Space Department on cooperative projects to maximize these
efforts in the region.
The Boulder Valley planning area has several significant natural features: Marshall Mesa
to the southeast, Davidson Mesa to the east, Gunbarrel Hill to the northeast, Boutder
Reservoir to the north, the Dakota Ridge to the northwest, a~ the mountain backdrop to
the west, and Shanahan Sl~ae~a4~ae Ridge and South Boulder Creek to the southwest,
that form the boundaries of influence and planning for the Valley. In addition, there aze
other features within the Boulder Valley that have been designated as open space in order
to protect them from future development and to provide community separation, including
major entryways to the city, certain agricultural areas, natural ecosystems, and the creeks
and ditches. Open space provides the environmental and recreational values of open land
within and around the city.
Future Programs
S:~PLAN~Users\Gatzp~BVC%MP&ProgSummariesWew Folder\osmps.doc
Agenda Item # 5A Page # L-a
The Open Space and Mountain Parks Program ~rae-~eases increased in extent and
complexity with the integration of the Open Space and Mountain Parks goals and criteria
for land protection, preservation, and acquisition. In 1995, City Council adopted the
Open Space Long Range Management Policies (LRMP). The LRMP sets the framework
and provides direction for the open space planning process and subsequent management
decisions. The LRMP planning horizon is 20 years, and the document will be revised
every five years to account for changing conditions. Other, more specific resource or
area plans supplement the LRMP. The Boulder Mountain Parks Resource Protection and
Visitor Use Plan (RPVUP) was adopted in 1999 by the Parks and Recreation Advisory
Board and by the Open Space Board of Trustees in 2000. The RPVUP combines the
broad view of the LRMP with the more specific management direction of a resource or
area plan.
Future planning for Open Space and Mountain Parks will combine landscape level
planning with protecting or restoring native ecosystems, maintaining viable and
functional plant and animal communities and habitats, and maintaining sustainable
historical land uses in the Boulder Valley. A balanced, interdiscip]inary team approach to
planning and management, drawing upon varied expertise will continue. Priorities will
be consistent with the purposes of open space as specified in the City Charter.
S:\PLAN~Usere\Gatzjl\BVCP~MP&ProgSummaries\New Folder\osmps.doc
Agenda ltem # _~ ~ ag~ #_ L-3
Z. Parks and Recreation Master Plan
An update to the Parks and Recreation Master Plan is anticipated to begin in 2002.
Background Information
The first Parks and Recreation Master Plan was adopted in 1980 and revised in 1988.
The current master plan was adopted in 1996 to guide development of programs and
facilities through 2010. A Recreation Facilities Needs Assessment was completed in
2002. A major update to this plan is projected to be completed in ~ 2003-2004. The
1996 master plan revised, updated and expanded the base of information needed to make
program, facility and funding decisions. The plan calis for the Parks and Recreation
Department to meet its mission and goals by:
• furnishing the citizens of Boulder with broad opportunities for creativity, physical
fitness and mental well-being
• developing programs and facilities to meet the needs of a changing population
• preserving and protecting natural ecosystems
• acquiring land for new parks and recreation facilities
• improving the city's ability to maintain and renovate its inventory of parks and
recreation facilities
Service Standards
Level of service standards are measures of the amount and/or quality of a public service
which must be provided to meet a community`s basic needs and expectations. The
purpose is to:
provide a benchmark for evaluating deficiencies in existing neighborhoods
define needs for new facilities to serve areas of new development
monitor progress toward meeting goals and provide an opportunity for coordination
with neighboring jurisdictions to assure consistency
Standards also form the basis for determining a fee structure to equitably fund services
required by new development.
Neighborhood Parks
• a minimum of five acres in size
• located within one-half mile oF the population to be served, taking into account major
barriers to access
• 1.5 acres per 1000 on a subcommunity-wide and city-wide basis
The minimum size of a neighborhood park is based on the amount of land required to
provide the typical elements of a park, which generally include a playground, an open
grass play azea suitable for games as well as team play, picnic tables, benches> a~
landscaping which preserves and enhances the natural character of the site, and possibly
neighborhood-scale play courts. A five acre park makes it possible to buffer more active
Agenda Item # ~SA Page # L- y
uses from the surrounding neighborhood and provides the opportunity to incorporate
more natural areas.
The desired acreage in neighborhoods and subcommunities is determined, in part, by
population density and factors such as proximity to other recreational opportunities. In
general, more densely populated neighborhoods require more park ]and to provide
density relief. Where possible 1.5 acres of parks per 1000 residents is achieved within
each service radius.
A pocket park is any pazk under five acres in size but will generally fall at the lower end
of the range. While smaller pocket parks cannot meet needs for open grass play areas for
team sports, they do provide neighborhood gathering places and can usually
accommodate a children's play azea. Parks between three and ~ve acres would generally
be viewed as substandard size neighborhood parks.
Where feasible, park sites larger than five acres are pursued. Pazks under the five acre
staadard may be acquired to help meet neighborhood pazk needs where no other suitable
alternatives exist. Pazks smaller than five acres in size (pocket parks) will have a service
radius of one-quarter mile. When pocket parks are used as a mitigation measure, an
aggregate total of five acres of park land should be encouraged, even when faced with a
high cost per acre of land. Areas where smaller park sites, in addition to the
neighborhood park site, may be incorporated to serve a new or redeveloping
neighborhood, aze encouraged through the city's development review process. W ithin a
subcommunity, the number of acres of neighborhood and pocket parks are determined by
the population and distributed such that the entire subcommunity is covered.
Community Pazks
• a minimum of 50 acres in size
• located within three and one-half miles of the population to be served
• 1.5 acres per 1000 population on a city wide basis
Typical elements of a community park generally include a playground, group picnic
facilities, open grass play areas, active recreation facilities such as tennis, basketball
and/or volleyball courts, formal playfields and other specialized facilities depending on
community needs and the site characteristics. Community parks also meet the
neighborhood park needs of residents within a one-half mile radius. There are three
existing wmmunity park sites (Harlow Platts Community Park, Bast Boulder Community
Park and Foothills Community Park). With the exception of the addition of a city park to
address primarily high use recreational needs, no further community park sites are
proposed.
City Park
A city park provides a location appropriate for high use recreational facilities. Based on
current needs and projected build-out population, one or two ]arge parcels totaling at least
100 acres are needed to meet the current standard for community park acreage and to
accommodate cunent and future demand for recreation facilities. Two city park sites
Agenda Item # 5~ Page # L-5
were purchased between 1996 and 1999 (Valmont City Park and a site in the Area III-
Planning Reserve) totaling 329 323 acres. The Valmont City Park iv~ikl-!3e is being
constructed in phases, starting in 2001. Public-private partnerships will be pursued to
help develop recreational facilities at this site. The Area III - Planning Reserve site is to
be held to meet future recreational needs,
Playgrounds
• Play areas with facilities appropriate for toddlers, pre-schoolers and school-age
children through age 12
• located within one-quarter to one-half mile of residents.
Playgrounds located in neighborhood parks that meet minimum size standards serve a
one-half mile service radius. Playgrounds in smaller pazks will have a one-quarter mile
service radius.
Where park playgrounds are not available, agreements are pursued with the Boulder
Valley School District (or private schools) for joint development, expansion or upgrade
of playgrounds located at elementary and middle school sites. School playgrounds have a
one-quaRer mile servica radius due to the limited hours of access for younger children.
Similar agreements at~e could be pursued with churches, child care centers, homeowner
associations, etc.
Specialized Facilities
T6e need for recreation centers, athletic complexes or other specialized facilities is
program-based and is documented in the needs assessment and addressed by
recommendations. Given changing trends in participation levels in various sports over
time, as well as changes in community demographics and desires, a standard based on
facilities per 1000 population or the maintenance of a fixed service level based on past
experience is too restrictive to respond to future needs.
Future Programs and Projects
A series of planning recommendations were developed in conjunction with the Parks and
Recreation Advisory Board and the citizens of Boulder based on the needs assessment
included in the Technical Appendix of the master plan. For a detailed listing of
recommendations please refer to the master plan, (Many of the recommendations have
been implemented in €}ve years since the adoption of the plan.)
(1) Planning and Program Initiatives
A high priority that emerged from the master plan was the need to expand programs and
develop recreational facilities for childran, teens and families. This would be
accomplished in collaboration with the BVSD, other city departments (particularly
Housing and Human Services) and community agencies. Other recommendations
focused on expanding the environmental education program as part of the Mountain
Parks Division, now merged into the Open Space and Mountain Parks Department.
Agenda Item #~_ Page # L - !o
(2) I.evel of Service Standards
A backbone for many of the recommendations in this plan is the effort to implement new
service standards in order to bring pazks and recreation facilities closer to more residents.
(See the discussion above.) Based on these standards, specific underserved areas were
identified where new parks should be acquired, and over the past five years, new pazk
land has been obtained in many of these neighborhoods.
(3) Parks
The master plan recommended the acquisition of 100 to 300 acres to develop one or more
city parks to serve the entire community. Valmont City Pazk and 191 acres north of U.S.
36 were purchased to accomplish this goal. These pazk sites are intended to provide
space for playing fields, courts, trails, picnic areas, lazge playgrounds, indoor recreation
facilities and open landscaped areas. Areas where additional neighborhood and pocket
parks are needed were also identified, and sites have been located and acquired to serve
many of these areas, The plan also identified the need for accelerated development of
existing neighborhood and community pazk sites and the need for new playgrounds in
existing parks and near recreational faci]ities.
(4) Renovation, Operations and Maintenance
The department has historically lacked adequate funding for maintenance, repair and
major renovations. With the passage of the sales tax increase and bonding authority in
1995, more of these needs can be addressed. Areas of focus include upgrading landscape
designs, updating and expanding playgrounds, remodeling facilities and refurbishing
swimming pools. Playgrounds in 15 parks as well as the outdoor pools at Scott Carpenter
Park and Spruce Pool were specifically identified as needing renovation. The renovation
of the South Boulder Recreation Center was completed, and the renovation and
expansion of the North Boulder Recreation Center ~° °~"°-'°'~a '^ "°e°~ '~ ^nn' will be
completed in 2002. The department will also focus on identifying maintenance funding
as new parks and recreational facilities are proposed and developing on-going funding
sources to help support necessary maintenance and refurbishment of existing facilities
once the 20 year term of the 1995 sales t~ increase expires.
(5) Recreational Facilities
Sased on the master plan needs assessment, new data from the 1996 and 2001 Parks and
Recreation Survey and the 2002 Recreation Facilities Needs Assessment, the department
will determine which additional recreational facilities are of most interest to the
community. Funding for new facilities will need to be generated through public-private
partnerships and other sources since the departmental budget will not be sufficient to
meet the needs for capital investment. The Management
Planning and Assistance Team (MPAT), an independent consulting group, has been
charged with developing and overseeing a process to generate partnerships between the
city and non-profit groups, businesses and others who would be interested in developing
programs and facilities at the Valmont City Park. In the ftve years since the plan was
Agenda Item #_S~_ Page # L_ 7
adopted, the department has completed additional fields at the StaZio Ballfield Complex
and at Pleasant View Sports Complex as well as in-line hockey couRS at Foothills
Community Park and a new skate park at ScoU Carpenter Park. The ~Ean Parks and
Recreation Master Plan recommended that the following facilities be considered for
development as needs and funding are identified: Little League/softball fields; adult and
junior soccer fields; indoor aquatic complex; pottery lab; indoor tennis
complex/additional outdoor tennis courts; in-line skating paths; outdoor amphitheater;
indoor running track; disc golf course; indoor ice-skating rink; bowling lanes; nordic ski
track; additional combined indoor basketball/volleyball courts; gymnastics facility
expansion; outdoor water park; nine-hole golf course/driving range/teaching facility. The
2002 Recreation Facilities Needs Assessment recommends a different group of new and
additional facilities to be considered in the Master Plan update.
(6) Maintenance and Administrative Facilities
. The plan
recommends that the maintenance facility be expanded, perhaps in conjunction with a
relocation to a new site at the Valmont City Park. The plan also recommends that the Iris
Center be expanded and remodeled to better accommodate Parks and Recreation
administrative staff, resolve crowding and comply with ADA requirements.
Presently owned park lands are shown on Map 9. An inventory and map of all parks and
recreation facilities are included in the Parks and Recreation Master Plan and updated in
Che 2002 RecreaCion Facilicies Needs Assessment.
Age--da Item # .~ Page # L - ~
3. Fire / Emergency Medical Service Program Summazy
An update to the Fire and Emergency Medical Service Master Plan is anticipated to
begin in 2002.
Background Information
The e City of Boulder Fire Department is responsible for the protection of life and
property through fire prevention, education, fire suppression and emergency medical and
rescue services. The Fire Department has 112 full-time employees. Ninety-five fire
fighters work out of seven fire stations strategically located around the city. Each station
operates 24 hours per day, seven days per week and is equipped to respond to fire,
medical and other emergencies.
• Station One (Central Station) - 2441 13th Street
• Station Two - 2225 Baseline Road
• Station Three - 1580 30th Street
• Station Four - 4100 Darley Avenue
• Station Five - 4365 19th Street
• Station Six - 5145 North 63rd Street
• Station Seven - 1380 SSth Street
The Fire Department a2so participates in a countywide joint training center. The cunent
facility is at 960 Lee Hill Road.
The annual number of calls for service has increased an average of six percent per yeu
for the last three years. Medical calls accounted for 64 percent of the ~43; 8370 calls in
~89A 2001.
The Fire Master Plan Service Standards (standard changed to be in line with national
standard)
The master plan outlines the following set of service standards to guide cuttent and future
operations and capital development.
• Arrival on-scene of the first unit to a all reported emergenc~ies within si~ seven
minutes 90 percent of the time.
• ' Arrival on scene of all
dispatched units to aIl reported emergencies within 6 eleven minutes 90 percent of the
time.
• Meet the above two service standards with less than one fire fighter per 1000
population.
Departmental Philosophy
The following €'rve seven philosophies provide general direction when establishing goals
and objectives for fire protection in the city of Boulder.
Agenda Item # r Page # L- ~/
1. Shared Responsibility for Fire Protection.
The city emphasizes private sector self-protection through code regulations and design
incentives. Installation of automatic fire sprinkler systems is now required by ordinance
for many uses.
2. Balance Between Built-in Fire Protection and Public Fire Protection Service
Municipal fire protection requires a balance between services provided by the city
through fire stations, apparatus and personnel and that provided by built-in automatic fire
systems. Automatic systems offer a high degree of protection from fire originating in
those protected proparties. City-provided protection supplements the built-in systems and
is designed to handle fires in non-protected buildings, outside fires, medical emergencies
as well as non-fire emergencies and events.
3. Generalist Theory of Operation
The Fire Department believes that each fire apparatus should have diverse equipment and
that the fire fighters should be generalists rather than specialists. Every front line fire
truck has fire fighting and rescue equipment along with emergency medical supplies.
Each fire fighter must pass a comprehensive training program that suppoRS that generalist
approach. State of Colorado Emergency Medical Technician certification is required and
every fire fighter's skill leve] training includes fire fighting, hazardous materials response,
and training for rescues involving vehicle accidents, fires, water and ice incidents.
4. Basic Level of Emergency Medical Service
The Fire Department provides Basic Life Support (BLS) services. The emergency
medical care system in the city is a multi-tiered system involving: 1) The city Fire
Department, 2) ~ Public/private partnership with a private ambulance service and 3) Area
hospitals, each providing a respectively higher degree of inedical support.
The time between the beginning of a medical emergency and the start of life support
activities can often make a diffarenca in the outcome. WitU 6re stations strategically
located around the city, the fire department is often first to arrive on the scene of an
emergency. The Fire Department provides BLS care until the ambulance attives.
Paramedic level treatment is then available until arrival at the hospital where definitive
care is given.
5. Specialist Capabilities
In addition to the general capabilities, the Fire Department does provide more
specialized services.
Dive Team - provides swift water rescue and water rescue ! recovery
services for accidents in ]akes and ponds.
Agenda Item #~ Page # L -%!~
Hazardous Materials Team - provides environmental protection by
containment and control of hazardous substance releases.
Wildland Fire Team - provides added response capability to wildland fires
that occur on and around City lands.
Public Education Team - provides fire and life safety education to schools
and other at risk groups throughout the City.
3.6. Training
The Fire Department offers a wide variety of services to the citizens of the Boulder. To
maintain an adequate level of proficiency in many azeas of emergency service, the Fire
Department conducts extensive training in all service areas including fire fighting, fire
prevention, emergency medical, hazardous materials, rescue and public education. Joint
training exercises are conducted with other county agencies.
6: 7. Impact of Infill
City fire stations are strategically located to meet the emergency response service
standards. As population within service area increases, the number of calls for fire and
emergency service will increase. When one fire response unit in a station exceeds 1,500
calls per yeaz, additional apparatus and staffing need to be provided.
Traffic congestion and various traffic mitigation measures have impacted the
department's ability to continue to meet the emergency response service standards. To
ease the impact, the fire department activated traffic control devices that were installed at
signaled intersections around the city. The Fire Department has also initiated an
aggressive public education program funded by the Public Safety tax of 1997. One
purpose of the public education program is to reduce the demand for service by
promoting a higher awareness of personal safety. As traffic congestion and the number of
service calls increase, the addition of new fire stations ~ay will be necessary in areas
where the response times ~~a are adversely impacted.
Future Service Projections and Programs
Fire Station # 6 Reptacement
Fire Station # 6 at 5145 North 63rd Street presents ongoing and extensive maintenance
problems. The replacement of this building is a priority for the Fire Department.
Fire Training Center Relocation
The current fire-training center at 960 Lee Hill Road was originally built in 1974 with
some additions over the years. It provides a training location for the city Fire Department
as well as other county agencies. Because of annexations and encroaching development,
many of the props, such as a flammable Iiquid burn pit can no longer be used. Noise and
light pollution have raised complaints from the naw neighbors. Classroom and
Agenda Item # _Sf} _ Page #_~
administration buildings are showing signs of the considerable wear and will require
more than routine maintenance to continue to be useable.
The Public Safety Tax approved by voters in 1997 provided funding for the purchase of
only land, for the relocation of the fire-training center. In 2000, that land was purchased
in the area of 63rd Street and Valmont Road.
. A Countywide sales tax passed in 2001 will fund
construction of new training facilities. The main training center will be on the 63rd and
Valmont site. Two satellite facilities will be in Longmont and the Nederland area.
Apparatus Replacement
The DepaRment does not have a funded fire apparatus replacement plan. Due to the high
cost of fire trucks funding replacement vehicles is difficult. Currently, if available, money
must be bonowed from the Fleet Replacement Fund when it is necessary to purchase a
fire truck.
Communications Center
The city contracts emergency dispatching services from Boulder County
Communications. Until recently, both city Police and Fire Departments participated in
one dispatch center with the county. Police sepazated and went on their own in 2000. The
Fire Department will consider which communications center will best meet its needs for
the present and future. Operational and financial concerns will be considered when
making the decision.
Wildland Facilities
The Public Safety Tax approved by voters in 1997 added seasonal personnel to conduct
wildland fire mitigation, forest thinning and prescribed burning. That crew is also
available to respond to wildland fires occurring on and around Boulder's open lands. The
Fire Department's wildland resources aze currently housed in severa] sepazate facilities
around the city. To ensure a more efficient operation of wildland protection, all wildland
resources need to be consolidated. The Wildtand Division is developing a master plan to
address this need.
Agenda Item # `~fj Page #~~
11. Library Master Plan Summary
Background Information
The Boulder Public Library ($PL) has grown from the original Camegie Branch location
on Pine Street, constructed in 1907, to four branch facilities totaling 115,314 square feet
today, serving an estimated service area population of 114,854. The library provides a
variety of circulating materials available for borrowing, including books, tapes, videos,
compact discs, DVD's and books on tape. It provides a variety of reference services, both
print and electronic, on line access, librazy catalogs for Colorado and the nation, and
many CD-ROM databases.
The extensive BPL Web Site includes on-line access to patron card account information.
The ]ibrary offers a Specia] Services department for the hearing and visually impaired as
well as a homebound delivery service, a child and adult literacy program, and free
concerts and films in the auditorium throughout the year. It also provides governmental
and community information resources, rotating displays of art and materials for special
populations (ethnic, low-income, disabled, foreign language speakers). The Boulder
Public Library strives to be a vital center for intellectual and cultural resources in
downtown Boulder and in the surrounding branch locations.
The most recent Boulder Public Library Master Plan was approved in 1996. The plan
was broadly based on the results of an extensive public survey, which is included in the
appendix of the plan. The first significant update and revision of the master plan is
scheduled to begin in late 2001 and to be completed in 2002.
Copies of the 1995 master plan are available from the reference desk at the Main Branch
or at any of the other three branches.
Mission and Policy Statements
Mission
The Boulder Public Library has developed and refined a mission statement over the
years, called the 'Purpose and Policy Statement of the Boulder Public Library.' T6is
statement was first adopted by the Library Commission on February 2, 1972, and has
been either amended or reaffirmed six times since then, most recently in 1994.
The purpose of the $oulder Public Library is to enhance the personal development of
Boulder citizens by seeking to meet their informational needs, recognizing the benefzts to
the community of a welLinformed citizenry, the individual's capaciry for self-
improvement, the worth of each person, and the need for human digniry.
Policies
The second portion of the Purpose and Policy statement is a list of policies, also
reaffirmed by the Library Commission in 1994. Specific goals and objectives for the
future must conform to these broader policy statements. These policies have served the
Boulder Public Library well over the past two decades and have been instrumental in
Agenda Item # 5/A Page # L-/,3
achieving the support that the library has earned from the community. The policy
statement follows.
To accomplish its purpose, the library shall:
• Seek to understand the informational needs and desires of all citizens and attempt to
satisfy them in accordance with guidelines stated in the American Library
Association Librazy bill of Rights, Freedom to Read and Freedom to View
statements, within the limits imposed by budget and space;
• Extend Library resources into the community to assist individuals and groups with
special needs and interests;
• Work cooperatively with other libraries and agencies, such as the University of
Colorado and Boulder Valley Public Schools, in providing information to the public;
• Pursue opportunities through new technologies to deliver information more
efficiantly and more quickly;
• Maintain a non-partisan and objective atmosphere;
• Safeguazd the privacy of each user, without disclosure oF information about, or
surveillance of, patrons and their use of the Library.
Goals and Objectives
• Many of the objectives from the 1995 master plan have been accomplished. The
ongoing ones, plus some of the ones likely to be included in the next update, are:
• Continue to actively pursue and offer new information technologies to the public,
while maintaining free access to developing information resources to everyone in our
community.
• Increase and improve training opportunities for:
]) The public, in the use of the library, particularly computerized services
2) The library staff, particularly in skills needed to take advantage of the Information
Superhighway
3) Children, in the basics of library use
4) Teachers, in the use of remote computer access
5) Volunteers, who make many of the libtary programs
possible.
• Maintain an environment for children that is exciting, interesting, safe, unbiased, fun
and encouraging of education and imagination. Improve child literacy. Strive to
make a major impact on their lives.
Agenda Item # 5fI Page # L-/
• Adjust the collection to accommodate the needs of students in traditional and non-
traditional schools to supplement their standazd texts and materials.
• Provide improved, more specialized services to the public such as, but not limited to,
tax and employment information resoarces, through on-line resources.
• Provide popular materials in a way that is sensitive to patron demand, but does not
detract from the remaining roles of the ]ibrary.
• Insure that the library maintains an image as a place of human interaction, even as we
offer more resources from, and compete with, the less personal Information
Superhighway.
• Preserve the library as a place where a record of the history of Boulder is maintained
for future generations and where intellectual and cultural, as well as informational,
resources are available. Make community information easily availabte and
accessible.
• Improve library services to ethnic populations by identifying unmet needs and
improving staff training and by increasing the quantities of foreign language
materials.
• Continue and enhance the extensive library Volunteer Program to provide
opportunities for people to serve their community.
• Continue to serve low-income populations by maintaining no-fee access to basic
library services.
• Actively pursue new technologies to assist the disabled in using the library.
• Add needed archival space at the Carnegie Branch.
• Improve the service at the main librazy by automating functions.
• In order to spread the cost of library operations to users beyond the city ]imits,
continue to gather information on county revenue sharing options. Initiate
discussions with appropriate library and government officials throughout the county
on this issue.
• Evaluate, on a continuing basis, the short-term and long-term library facility space
needs.
• Provide program planning and information to the Library Commission and the City
Council for a voter initiative to fund the fi~a] expansion of the main library to the
west for an expanded Children's Services Department, more seating, meeting rooms
and other service improvements.
Agenda Item # .S~ Page # L `/5
~ a .
fl~:
Future Service Projections and Programs
The Boulder Public Librazy must constantly reevaluate its options for basic service
delivery in an environment of rapid change in information technology. This is, perhaps,
the overriding consideration for all other futur~ programs and facilities. Some additional
goals include
........ ............ _.....-•• _..,....,, .........,..,,.....,...,..,...,...r..,...,.. .., .,.,.,_....,...,
a +
~~
. , o .
>
«ti.. ,.~.,,~1",.' vvticr -
.
~
• B~2005, obtain voter approval for remainin fundine for the North Boulder Branch
Library and open to the public by 2005/06.
• Obtain voter a~proval of a ballot initiative in 2005 for the finalphase of expansion of
the main branch.
• Continue to find ways to implement the laying of fiber optic cable to connect all
Librarv facilities.
• Continue to explore options for reeional librarv services. Work with other municipal
Iibraries in Bouider Countv to find an eguitable way to fund library services in areas
not currently taxed. Then expanded service to areas like Gunbarrel, where 20% of
rasidents are in the Citv and 80% are in the unincomorated Countv, wouid be
ossible, and demand for services
• Pursue ]aasin~~space at, or purchase of, the Masonic Lodge building on Pine Street at
Broadwa~to increase needed archival space and allow other city uses as well. The
Laser property on the other side of the Carnegie Branch has been sold, and archival
space is bein~used in the 11 `h & 3pruce parking structure.
Agenda Item # ~Sf~ Page # L -/!o
13. Environmental Program Summary
Background Information
The city of Boulder has a long history of working to protect the natural environment.
Current city policies and programs preserve open space and natural habitat, manage
transportation needs, facilitate recycling, protect clean air and water and promote
sustainable practices. The city's environmental agenda continues to expand to meet the
strong citizen interest in sustaining Bou]der's natural beauty, conserving resoarces and
preventing pollution. During the 2000-2001 budget cycle, City Council has adopted a
goal of environmantal sustainability, with priority actions that include sustainability
measures, energy efficiency and recyclingheuse initiatives. The programs outlined below
represent those sponsored primarily by the Office of Environmental Affairs and Planning
and Development Services organization. Other city offices including Water Quality and
Open Space/Mountain Parks sponsor additional environmental programs.
Air Quality
The city of Boulder's actions to improve air quality are guided by the Air Quality Action
Plan, developed in 1994. The city and its residents are particularly concerned about the
health and environmental impacts caused by air pollution. In August 2002, the Demer
metro area was dasignated as an "attainment area" by EPA, returning to full compliance
with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. R~..,a°-:° :° •'~° ^°°°°-'°~..,-'°~ ~~~
~ However, due mainly to the increase in vehicles and vehicle miles traveled, the
region will continue to experiences air pollution both in the winter and summer; °~-~, '~
. City of Boulder staff
will continue to work with the Regional Air Quality Council on regional programs to
reduce summer ozone and improve visibility.
To furthar address air pollution concerns, the city of Boulder is a member of the
Department of Energy's Clean Cities program. The city's Fleet Servicas Division is
committad to purchasing
~eHase-alternate fuel vehicles (AFVs) when available and is actively working to find
suitable vehicles and applications. An Employee Trip Reduction Program seeks to
reduce traffic congestion and pollution by encouraging city employees to commute to
work via bus, bike, carpool or foot, The ci[y is a member of Commuter Choice, an EPA
program that encourages [eleworking. Finally, the city's Transportation Division includes
Go Boulder, an organization chazged with promoting alternatives to single-occupant auto
travel (see Transportation Master Plan Summary for more information abouY the city's
goals and strategies). Go Boulder is piloting an Employee Transportation Allowance
program in 2002, which raised parking fees in downtown city employee lots and provides
a monetary incentive for employees to take alternate modes or carpool. The results of the
pilot program will be available in 2003.
Partners for a Clean Environment (PACE)
Agenda Item #~-ri/3 Page # L- i
Partners for a Clean Environment is a voluntary pollution prevention program that
provides technical assistance and recognition to Boulder County businesses interested in
pollution prevention and waste reduction. PACE is a communiry resource for pollution
prevention, waste reduction, energy efficiency and hazardous waste. The PACE program
began certifying businesses in 1994. Currently, certification is available in the following
business sectors: auto body shops, auto repair shops, printers, dental offices, restaurants
and manufacturers. PACE program staff work with several lazge Boulder businesses to
review annual pollution prevention reports and provide technical assistance for reducing
hazardous air pollutants and hazardous waste.
Integrated Pest Management
The city of Boulder has an Integrated Pest Management (IPM) policy, developed in 1993
and revised in 2002. The policy emphasizes selection of the most environmentally sound
approaches to pest management, with the overall goa] of reducing, and where possible
eliminating, dependence on chemical pest control strategies. An annual IPM repon is
presented to City Council, that outlines all pest management strategies and actions
implemented by city departments during the previous year. Community outreach
includes IPM tips for homeowners, information on reducing pesticide use in landscaped
areas, and information on the city's Pesticide Ordinance, that requires notification of
pesticide application. In 2000, the City Council revised the noxious weed ordinance and
established the City Council as the Weed Control Advisory Board. The city recognizes
its responsibility for noxious weed control and will be developing a formal Weed
Management Plan. In 2002-2003, ciYy depanmeats will be developing Integrated Pest
Management Plans and utilizing an IPM task force to review Best Management Practices.
Waste Reducfion and Recycling
The city of Boulder requires ,
iec~e that all trash haulers in the city charge volume-based rates for trash collection to
reward individual's recycling and waste reduction activities. Additionally, ~~
~e~e-all trash haulers in the city Ee-provide unlimited curbside recycling to all their
residential trash customers
,
~99~. Residential curbside materials include newspaper, office paper, junk muil,
corrugated cardboard, and single-tayer paperboard, as wetl as cans, glass and plastic
bottles and aseptic caftons. All of these materials are delivered to the Boulder County
Recycling Center.
Other recycling and waste reduction programs include year-round yard waste and wood
waste drop-off ~regrt+~ centers, a"Center for Hard-to-Recycle Materials" for televisrons,
computers and other electronic scrap, textbooks, and plastic bags, a spring cleanup
organic collection program, a fall leaf drop-off and extensive waste reduction education
programs. These programs are funded by an occupation tax on the trash haulers. Other
city-sponsorad recycling programs include a backyard composting education program
and a procurement policy to promote city purchase of recycled and recyclable products
and products with minimal environmental impact. The city, the county, and other cities in
the area co-sponsor a household hazardous waste facility. The center accepts a wide
Agenda Item # Sfj Page # L-/5~
range of materials.and is free to the public. Materials are recycled and reused wherever
possible.
Energy
Energy conservation and the use of alternative energy resources have long been priority
goals for the city. Since the adoption of its 1980 Energy Action Plan, the city has
developed programs such as energy education, the Green Points program (which requires
residential builders to earn points from a menu of energy and resource efficiency
alternatives in order to obtain a building pernut), and retro6ts of city buildings. The city
also seeks to reduce dependence on fossil fuels through hydroelectric power generation,
co-generation and the purchase of wind power.
' , ' .Over the next few
years, Council will also be considering the following energy conservation programs:
continued updates to the ~e-a~eg~ie~te~International Energy Conservation Code which
was adopted in 2001, a commercial Green Points Program, and the (LEED) L,eadership
through Energy Efficient Design standard for all future city facilities and retrofit or
remodeling projects.
Environmental Management System
In 2000, the city of Boulder began investigating an Environmental Management System
(EMS), which would enable city staff to evaluate and quantify the impacts city operations
have on the environment and ultimately lessen environmental impacts. E't6y-Ea~ra~
_...._........~ _.......... ~.'.,~"'.. ...... ....._."' Y'..'".,' ' "'"" "'_ t""... r_,.~...."" "~' '__"'
~egart~exis: Environmental Servicas departments (Public Works, Planning, Parks and
Recreation, Open Space and Mountain Parks and Environmental Affairs) established
environmental goals and action items. The city's EMS activities have been renamed
"City PACE" to give a!1 environmental sustainability actions a common connection.
Wetland Protection
In Februazy 1992, the Boulder City Council adopted the following goal: "protect all
wetlands in the Boulder Valley". This goal aims to ensure 'no net loss' of wetland
acreage or function. Since the city does not have the ability to protect all wedands outside
the city limits, at a minimum, significant wetlands outside the city and inside the Boulder
Valley should be protected. The city of Boulder will be held to the standard of 'no net
loss' on city lands and for city projects both inside and outside the city limits. A wetland
Agenda Item #. SA Page #~- ~ v
protection ordinance that requires a permit for ceRain activities in and around wetlands
went into effect in 1993.
The implementation techniques listed below all contribute to the no net loss goal of the
wetlands protection program:
• A local wet]and permitting program
• Negotiated agreements with other governmental entities to protect wetlands
• Acquisition of significant wetlands
• Public education and technical assistance to encourage property owners to preserve,
enhance, and restore wetlands through voluntary compliance
• Preservation, restoration, and enhancement of wetlands in conjunction with the
development and maintenance of capital facilities
• Preservation, restoration, and enhancement of wetlands on city-owned or managed
land.
Future 5ervice Projections and Programs
The city continues to expand its environmental efforts. Activities planned for the next
few yeazs include review of
~ City PACE goals and actions, report achievements, development and
implementation of departmental IPM plans as well as an overall ~Weed Management
Plan, continual review of the Environmental Purchasing Policy, adoption of Waste
Reduction Policies for Construction, and development of guidelines/policies regarding
demolition recycling and reuse, .
Agenda Item # . ~ ~} Page # L -,~C~
14. Greenways Program Summary
Background Information
The city of Boulder Greenways System is a series of riparian corridors, including Boulder
Creek and six of its tributaries, which in[egrate the multiple city objectives of habitat
protection, water quality enhancement, storm drainage and floodplain management, trails,
recreation and cultural resources protection, The Greenways Capital Improvements
Program budget is currently funded at $450,000 per yeaz, with equal contributions made
from the Transportation Fund, Flood Control Fund and the Lottery Fund. The activities
of the program are coordinated by the Greenways Coordinator who works under the
direction of the Utilities Project Coordinator in the Public Works Department.
History
In 1984, the city adopted the Boulder Creek Corridor Plan wfiich recommended
development of a continuous path and other improvements along the entire length of
Boulder Creek. These improvements provided flood hazazd mitigation, a]inear urban
park for recreational and transportation use, and restoration and enhancement of wetlands
and fish and wildlife habitat. Design guidelines were established to set standards for
appearance, quality and placement of elements which were incorporated in the Boulder
Creek corridor.
When completed in 1987, the Boulder Creek wrridor provided recreational and
transportation opportunities, as well as a buffer zone between the stream channel and
nearby development. Wetlands were restored along the corridor to provide stormwater
and flood retention and filtering. The Boulder Creek project also restored the riparian
habitat along the creek, which had become considerably degraded. Natural vegetation
was planted and corridor use was redirected to the Boulder Creek path to reduce on-going
damage. Aquatic habitat, which had been severely affected by diminished stream flows
and creek channelization was restored. A self-sustaining creek channe! and healthy
aquatic habitat were established with the implementation of minimum stream flow
agreements for Boulder Creek.
The Greenways Program was an outgrowth of the Boulder Creek Corridor Project. The
basis of the program is the understanding that stream corridors are a vital link in the
]arger ecosystem and that each stream is an important natural and cultural resource in the
community. The public support of the Boulder Creek Project led to an interest in
expanding the program to include six additiona] tributaries within the city.
The city designated over 20 miles of stream corridors along the following tributaries of
Boulder Creek for inclusion in the original Greenways Program:
South Boulder Creek
Bear Canyon Creek
Skunk Creek
Goose Creek
Agenda Item # S~ Page # ~ -~
Wonderland Creek
Fourmile Canyon Creek
Elmer's Twomile Creek was later added as a tributary to Goose Creek because it was
considered an important transportation corridor.
Greenways Master Plan
Funding for a Greenways Master Plan was approved by City Council in December 1987.
The plan was developed by staff from the Planning, Public Works, Parks and Recreation,
and Open Space and Real Estate departments and adopted by City Council in January
1989. A refined master plan, design guidelines, a capital improvement program and a
more detailed reproducible map were approved by Counci] in September 1990.
An interdepartmental sStaff ~roup, under the direction of the Greenwavs Coordinator
u~dated , the Greenways Master Plan in December
2001. The updated Master Plan includes ~°'~°~~b ~ ~'°~°a ~° «w.se ..w..,.,.,. nti,,.~ r
an evaluation of the program to date and
historical information about the program~. an
identificadon and evaluation of projects and opportunities for each of the Greenways
objectives, and . ,
a maintenance strategy, organizational structure, procedures and
processes for project planning and public involvement and a proposed financing plan.
As a part of the Master Plan Update, a less cumbersome process for Greenwa~project
review and approval was developed. The new process involves the establishment of a
Greenw~s Advisor~Committee (GAC). The GAC is made up of one representative
from the Water Resources Advisorv Board (WRAB). Transportation Advisory Board
(TAB1. Parks and Recreation Advisory Board (PRAB). the O~n Space Board of
Trustees (OSBT) and Plannine Board, designated by the chair of each of the boards. The
mem6ers of the GAC act as the representative and liaison for their respective board on
Greenwavs issues and interests. The Committee nrovides a sinele noint of contact for the
public to brin~ comments and allows an opportunity for discussion where all of the
Greenwavs Pro ram objectives are represented.
Agenda Item #~ Page # L ~a~
ATTACHMENT M
Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan
Plant and Animal Species of Local Concern in the Boulder Valfey
Draft ol November 2002
Background
The loss of species can occur when habitat is lost, fragmented or degraded and when natural
processes aza disrupted or discontinued. Ecosystem and habitat conservation practices act as a
coarse filter to address the decline of species and ecological systems by considering system levei
interactions, structure and processes. Coarse-scale conservation, however, does not preclude the
need to identify and protect individual species. "Fine filter" or spacies-based approaches are
often used to complement ecosystem conservation. Thesa species-based techniques are meant to
address the conservation needs of species that aze especially rare or sensitive to some human
activity and therefore not necessazily conserved by habitat or ecosystem level strategies. Fine-
filter conservation has been used to avoid the decline of species to threatened or endangered
status. Some uncommon and raze species of the Boulder Valley, especially plants, occur in
restricted and unusua( habitats, Because they aze localized, they could be destroyed quickly by
incompatible human activities, land uses, or natural catastrophes.
Purpose and Goals
Policy 4.06 expresses the city's intent to protect local spacies diversity and natura] ecosystems.
The purpose of creating the Boulder Valley Species of Special Concern List is to support this
policy by refining federal and state lists of species of concern to reflect the uniqueness of ]ands
within the Boulder Valley.
Boulder faces unique challenges in managing its wildlife and plant resources, due to its location
at the urban/wildland, the diversity of habitats, the variety of recreational uses, and the amount of
community involvement. The Boulder Valley Species of Special Concern List is intended as a
supplement to the Critical Habitat and Species section of the Boulder County Comprehensive
Plan Environmental Resources Element.
The Species of Special Concern List complements the Natural Ecosystem designation in the
Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan by serving as a reference for the protection and management
of sensitive species and their habitat. The list is a guide for developing departmental
management plans and for making citywide policy, land use, and regulatory decisions. The list
will be updated as the status of species changes and as data gaps are filled.
The following goals guided the development of the Species of Special Concern List:
. Recognize sensitive plant and animal species currently unrecognized through regulatory
programs;
Agenda Item # .`!~ Page # /fI `/
. Integrate locally significant ecological features of the Boulder Valley as part of the spectrum
of species of concern;
. Establish local responsibility for species of concern;
. Provide updated and Boulder Valley specific guidance for city policies, regulations, programs
and plans;
. Recognize the intrinsic value of local flora and fauna;
. Instill community awazeness of species protection issues and the cumulative impacts of
habitat loss and fragmentation; and
. Create a living record for future monitoring and study.
Planning and other city and county practices to help implement policy 4.06 include the following:
(1) public land management; (2) public acquisition; (3) purchase of development rights or
conservation easements; (4) promotion of private land conservation practices; (5) land use
designation changas and rezonings; (6} annexations and initial zonings; (7) service azea boundary
changes; (8) mitigation of impacts through development review; (9) subcommunity and
departmental master planning.
Criteria
State, and faderal species of concern lists were used to create the Boulder Valley List of Species
of Spacial Concern. Information was collected from the United States Fish and Wildlife Service,
Coiorado Division of Wildlife, and Colorado Natural Heritage Program. At least one of these
agencies recognizes each species on the list as having a global, federal, or state ranking of
concern. The criteria for including a species on the Boulder Valley list is as follows:
The species is listed under the provisions of the federa] Endangered Species Act
as;
. LE - Listed Endangered;
. LT - Listed Threatened;
. PT - Proposed threatened or
. C - Candidate for listing
2. The species is listed by the Colorado Department of Natural Resources, Division
of Wildlife as
. Threatened or;
. Endangered
3. The species is listed by the Colorado Natural Heritage Program as
. Gl - Globally critically imperiled; typically 5 or fewer occurrences;
. G2 - Globally imperiled; typically 6 to 20 occurrences;
. S 1- State critically imperiled; typically 5 or fewer occurrences or;
Agenda Item # ~/~ Page # 1'~-~
. S2 - State imperiled; typically 6 to 20 occurrences.
In the future, this list may be expanded to include species that meet the following additional
criteria, listed in order of precedence:
. The species is endemic to this area;
. The species is critical to ecosystem function or ecosystem processes are diminished
enough to require intervention;
. The species habitat is isolated, at the edge of it range, or declining in Boulder County;
• The species habitat or population is threatened by adjacent land uses, recreationai
uses, invasive weed species, wildlife influence or wllecting activities;
• The species habitat is limited or the species is a member of a relictual community;
• Information or professional data on this species is lacking;
. The species is extirpated in Boulder County; or
. The species requires special management or monitoring actions related to public
safety or federal/state protection
For plant species, the following criteria may be used in addition to the above to further refine the
list as needed:
• The species is ]imited to uncommon successional stage(s);
. The species has a high sensitivity to fire or other disturbance;
. The number of pollinators of the species is limited;
. The species is a critical food source, etc., for rare animal species; or
. The species is threatened by the high degree of reproductive or genetic isolation.
Agenda Item #~_ Page # ~'1~ -3
Plant Species of Local Concern
Common Name Scientific Name Criteria for listing
Utes Ladies'-[resses Spiran[hes diluvialis LT, G2, S2
Colorado Bu[terfly Plan[ Gaura neomexican ssp. coloradensis LT, S 1
Dwarf I.eadplant Amorpha nana S2
Chaffweed Anagallis minima Sl
American Groundnat Apiosamericana S1
Fork-tip Three-awn Aris[ida basiramea Sl
Black Spleenwort Asplenium adiantum-nigrum S I
Paper Birch Be[ula papyrifera S 1
Rattlesnake Fern Botrypus virginianus ssp. Europaeus Sl
Rocky Mountain Sedge Carex saximontana Sl
Sprengel's Sedge Carex sprengelii S2
Torrey Sedge Carex toneyi Sl
Yellow Haw[hom Crataegus chrysocarpa Sl
Smal]-headed Rush Juncus brachycephalus Sl
Gay-feather Liatris ligulistylis Sl, S2
Broad-leaved Twayblade Listera convallarioides S2
White Adder's-mouth Malaxis monophyllos ssp. Brachypoda S 1
Wavy-leaf Stickleaf Nuttallia sinuata S2
Bell's'lrvinpod Physaria bellii G2, S2
Westem Polypody Polypodium sa~cimontanum 51, S2
Toothwp Rotalaramosior Sl
PrairieViole[ Violapedatifida S2
Agenda Item #~ Page # /~ -N
Animal Species of Local Concern
Common Name
American Peregrine Falcon
American Reds[art
Argos Skipper
Bald Eagle
Banded Physa
Black-[ailed Prairie Dog
Blue-Ringed Dancer
Bunowing Owl
Ches[nut-sided Warbler
Colorado Blue
Common Shiner
Cylindrical Papershell
Great Egret
Greenback cutthroat trout
Hops Azure
Lake Chub
Lake Damer
Long-billed Curlew
Moss's Elfin or Schryver's
Elfin
Mottled Duskywing
Mountain Plover
Northern Goshawk
NoRhern Redbelly Dace
Ottoe Skipper
Ovenbird
Plains sharp-tailed Grouse
Plains Topminnow
Preble's Meadow Jumping
Mouse
Regal Fritillary
Rhesus Skipper
Rocky Moun[ain Arc[ic Jutta
Scientific Name
Fa(co peregrinus anatum
Semphaga ruticilla
Atrytone argos
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Physa utahensis
Cynomys ludovicianus
Argia sedu(a
Athene cuniculana
Dendroica pensylvanica
Euphilotes rita coloradensis
Notropis cornutus
Anodontoidesferussacianus
Ardea alba
Oncorhynchus clarki
virginalis
Celastrina humulus
Couesius p/umbeus
Aeshna eremita
Numenius americanus
Callophrys mossii schryvert
Erynnis martialis
Charadrius montanus
Accipiter gentilis
Phoxinus eos
Hesperia attoe
Seiurus aurocapi!!us
Tympanuchus phasianellus
jamesi
Fundulus sciadicus
Zapus hudsonius pre6lei
Speyerba idalia
Polifes rhesus
Oenees jutta reducta
Criteria for Listing
LE, S2
S1
S2
LT, Sl, sta[e [hreatened
Gl, Sl
C
S2
s[a[e threatened
S2
S2
S2
S2
S1
LT, S2, state threatened
G2, S2
LE, S 1
S1
S2
C,S2
S2
S2
S2
Sl, state endangered
S2
S2
S 1, state endangered
C,S2
LT, Sl, s[ate threa[ened
C, S 1
S2
S1
Rocky Mountain Capshell
Sharp Sprite
Short-eared Owl
Stonecat
Two-spo[ted Skipper
White-winged Crossbill
Extirpated species
American Bison
Black-footed Fercet
Grizzty Bear
Northern River Otter
Pronghorn Mtelope
Timber Wolf
Acrolaxus coloradensis
Promenetus ewcuous
Asio flammeus
Noturusflavus
Euphyes 6emacula
Loxia leucoptera
Bison bison
Mustela frenata
Ursus arctos horribilis
Lutra canadensis
Antilocapra americana
Canis Zupus lycaoro
S2
S2
S2
SI
S2
SI
Gl, LE, SI, state endangered
LT, state endangered
s[ate endangered
Agenda Item # ~r~ Page # {~ - ~i
~ ^ _ '
~`i
FW~yy LenKn,Crw ~
/ ~' ~./` ~~ ^ ~
i \ _.
•
J ~>
\
11
\
~~
_ ~ \
1 L_ ~~
I ~
C t
~ '
' a~,, :s ~
~S ~~J.
~.
`°' ` ~
7 4" b ~
` ~ ~ ~
~ \
r
4 e ~
Q
~
• ~G
-~ P
/ ~
n
n
0
~~
R.._.~Fe
r~_
E
4
~~ ~6
Q,p 3e O savr~sid.y~'~
° o ~~
a . °, x
~~ ,/~
e~a o Q ~ OPf,o, ,
, ' H~,; . ~.r
""""' SPECIAL NOTE •••••••'••
Thie mep ahowe the approximete locetione of many wetlantls in the Bouldar Velley
Comprehenaive Planning Area (BVCPA) beaed upon field viaita to each aite.
Inbrmefion regerding hydrology, vegatetion end aoile hea been reeorAetl for each _
wetlentl. Tha meppi'g rypieally reflxU conAitiona tluAng the apeoific yeer antl
seaeon when the feltl work wec conductetl. Wetlentla exiet thraughoulthe BVCPA
thatare not ahown beeaueecertain ereea have not been aurveyed. Some wetlanEs
ahown in thia mapping may no longerexiat.
Thia mepping ie NOT meam to tlalineafe wetlantl bountlaries far re9utatory
purpoeea. Fetleral, State antl loml regulelory agencies with jurisdiction over
weNantls may tlefine antl tlescribe wetlentla in a tliHerent manner than uaed to
produca thia mep. There ia no ettempt in the tleai9n of thie mep to tlefine the limifa
oi proprietary jurisdietion ot arry Fetleral, Stete or loeal regulatory govemment, or
to tlefine the geagrephieal ecope ot the reguletory progrome of govemmem
egenciea. Peraona intentling to engage in ectivitiee involving motlilications within
or etljatent to wedantl areas ahoultl seelc Iha atlvice of aOPropriete Fetlarel, State or
locel agenciee conceming apecHic agency regulation Ihat mey eHect such eotivitiea.
For more informatian regerding the Ciry of Boulder Wetlande Protection Progmm =
oontectthe P~anning Deperlmentat(303)441-3470. Far moreinfortnation ebout _
wetlantls on CIN ol Boulder Opan Spece, comact the Open Spece Oepenment at ;
~
L7
LEGEND:
^ °'
~ NAREA III - PLANNING BOUNDARY
c~
~ ~ INVENTORIED WETLANDS
,
~
~ ~
c~
Map is not to scale
. I'b
~ ~
~
~
~
~`
~ ,
r .~
~
1 ~
~ ~.....~e
_ O
( ~
cY~
f+,J ~
~~~ µ
/ ~ m
f~ m
~
~
y
~
r~"
C~J
z
~
z
~
~
~
~a
~
~
c
~
~
~
~
.^
i
~
~
~
~
~
Open Space, Acquired ~ Parks, Urban and Other
Open Space, Development Rights /yArea III - Planning Boundary
Open Space, Other
° Boulder City Limits
Not all open space is open to public access. For more intortnation contacl ihe Open Space and Mountain Parks Depanment.
~V
~ ~
~
Map is not to scale
~
y
~
W7
F~
~
z
~
0