5A - Recommendation to City Council on rezoning 3003 Valmont, the 27 acre Orchard Grove Mobile Home Park (LUR2008-00069) CITY OF BOULDER
PLANNING BOARD AGENDA ITEM
MEETING DATE: August 7, 2008
(Agenda Item Preparation Date: July 25, 2008)
AGENDA TITLE:
A. Public hearing and consideration of a recommendation to City Council on re-roving of the
property located at 3003 Valmont, the 27-acre Orchard Grove Mobile Home Park from
Residential Medium 1 (RM-1) to Mobile Home (MH), LUR2008-00069.
B. Additionally, City Council reyucstcd that the Planning Board make a recommendation to
the City Council on whether to initiate a Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan land use
change for the five-acre vacant Medium Density Residential (MDR) immediately adjacent
to the site to the northeast.
Applicants: City of Boulder
Owner: Orchard Court Development Company
REQUESTING DEPARTMENT:
Ruth McHeyser, Acting Planning Director
Robert Ray, Land Use Review Manager
Llaine McLaughlin, Planner
OBJECTIVE:
Define the steps for Planning Board consideration of this request:
1. Hear staff presentation
2. Hold public hearing
3. Planning Board discussion:
¦ Does the proposed rezoning comply with the relevant Rezoning criteria of
Section 9-2-1$, B.R.C., 1981.?
4. Planning Board take action to recommend to City Council to approve, approve with
conditions or deny the request.
A. REZONING PROPOSAL:
Project Name: Orchard Grove Mobile Home Park
Location: 3003 Valmont Road
Size of Tract: 27 acres (1,167,431 square feet)
I.oning: Residential Medium - 1
Comprehensive Ptan: Manufactured Housing
Agenda Item # 5A Pa~c # 1
KEY ISSUE:
Does the proposed rezoning comply with rezoning criteria of Section 9-2-18, B.R.C.1981?
BACKGROUND:
The draft minutes of the July 7, 2008 City Council meeting reflect that vote was taken on the motion
to direct staff to initiate rezoning of the property located at 3UU3 Valmont, the Orchard Grove Mobile
Home Park, to Mobile Home Zone (MH-Z) and submitting the rezoning to the Planning Board for its
Aug. 7, 2008 meeting. The motion carried 7:2; Ageton and McGrath opposed. The process for
initiation of a rezoning is described in section 9-2- l 8(a), B.R.C. 1981 as follows:
"An amendment to rezone any urea of the city may be initiated by the City Council, the
Planning Board, or a person with an ownership interest in property proposed for rezoning."
Existing Site Context. The Orchard Grove Mobile Home Park is comprised of a slightly less than 27-
acre parce} and 216 mobile home units currently zoned RM-1 (Residential Medium - 1), with a
Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP) land use designation of Manufactured Housing (MH).
The 27-acre Mobile Home Park land is owned separately from the 216 individual homes that are each
located on "pad" sites within the park and in nearly all cases all of the homes are resident-owned.
Located at the northeast corner of 30~' Street and Valmont Road, the 27-acre property has operated as
a mobile home park for approximately 40 years. The ~ five acre parcel northeast of the subject
property is undeveloped except for community gardens for the Orchard Grove Community, but owned
by the same company (Orchard Court Development Company). The Boulder and Whiterock Ditch
roughly bisects the subject property diagonally from southwest to northeast. The existing mobile
homes are of varying ages and sizes and there is mature vegetation throughout the property including
numerous existing trees. The existing utility system is aged with a private utility distribution system
within park. Sewer lines consist of vitrified clay pipes and city water is brought into a cistern in the
park, augmented by well water then distributed to homes. Figure 1 below illustrates an aerial view of
the Orchard Grove neighborhood.
fit;, ~ ~ / _
A ( I n
'1' ~ ~i r Wit,:k : •_`.r u r ~ j _ i' t
a ~ tl ~a c,' ,a ~ R nue
fig„ .f, ~.k f t+ ; _
i ~ ' ~ I`
.1
+ !
Figure 1: 5ubiect Property and Surrounds
Agenda Item # 5A Page # 2
Existing Surrounding Context. The site is situated among a diverse residential neighborhood on
three sides, with medium to high density residential surrounding the property to the west (across 30~'
Street) as well as to the north and east -neighborhoods not expected to change significantly in the near
future. Howard Heuston Park, a largely undeveloped seven and a half acre neighborhood park, is
located northeast of the site along the Boulder and Whiterock Ditch that also traverses the mobile
home park.
Across Valmont Road to the south are a variety of service commercial and industrial uses within the
Transit Village Area Plan (TVAP) boundaries, an area that is expected to change over the next ten to
twenty five years. The Transit Village Area Plan encompasses 160-acres around the future regional
rail and bus rapid transit planned as a result of the passage of FASTracks. The plan, adopted by
Planning Board and City Council last year, envisions preservation of the existing service commercial
uses along Valmont and the existing Steelyards neighborhood, but a change in character and mix of
uses in much of the rest of the area. This includes a new system of connected streets and paths, new
inviting public spaces, buildings ranging in height from two to four stories, and a mixture of uses,
predominantly residential. Anew north-south street will connect the bus facility with the future rail
platform and plaza and serve as a spine for the area. The land use map adopted in the plan is shown
on the map below. Plan implementation is still in progress and BVCP land use map changes and
rezoning are expected to be carried out in 2009. Redevelopment of the area is likely to take many
years, with the first ten to fifteen years focused on the area west cif the railroad tracks.
Figure 2 on the following page illustrates the land use and boundaries of'1'VAP. Attachment B
illustrates photos of the site and surrounds.
Existing 7..oning. As noted above, the existing zoning both the 27-acres as well as the five-acres is
Residential Medium - 1. According to section 9-8-1, B.R.C. 1981, the purpose of the RiV1-1 zone
district is, "Medium density residential which have been or are to be primarily used for attached
residential development, where each unit generally has direct access to ground level, and where
complementary uses may be permitted under certain conditions. "Figure 3 on page 5 illustrates the
existing zoning map for the subject property along with the surrounding area.
Existing BVCP Land Use Designation. As noted above, the existing BVCP land use designation for
the subject property is "Manufactured Housing." On page 63 of the BVCP it states that the intent of
the Manufactured Housing land use designation is to "preserve the affordable housing provided by the
existing mobile home parks." The only compatible zoning for the Manufactured Housing land use
designation is MH {Mobile Home). The five acre parcel has a land use designation of Medium Density
Residential. Figure 4 on page 5 illustrates the existing BVCP Land Use Designations.
Proposed Zoning. The proposed Mobile Home (MH) zoning has a defined purpose under section
9-8-1, B.R.C. 1981 as follows, "Mobile home parks primarily used and developed at a medium
residential density where complimentary uses may be allowed under certain conditions. "
Regarding proposed zoning at its Aug. 12, 2008 study session, City Council will be analyzing options
for potential redevelopment of the Orchard Grove Mobile Home Park and the vacant five-acre parcel
that housing and long range planning staff prepared.
Agenda .Item # SA Page # 3
27-acre ; ~ ,~~~,•ti,-,~ _~=d ~ .1 ~ai
Orchard ~ ~ • ~ ~ , b ~ , s,. ~
Grove ~ ; ~ - w ~ 1
Mobile ,~;t•; •:.•~rE ~~+L jaw ~ ~s• ~`~h~~r
Home Park 1 , ~t ' ~ , : - ~ ~ r ,v,,' ! ;k
FIb S ~ + .14~'`~ T ~ ~ ~.1 i't ~1~~1111
.y t' l . l Y 7i1~ ~ . .r _ ~ ~~I CCC -I.~ 1
~ t I ~ . ~ K'3
valr,uri n~
S0 VAL • ONT ROA i
HDR1
;
' ~ OI
.
tllun.St ~ P
MUD:
1 ' ' IMt)f
~ ~ ~
~ . . .
1.. ~ tNt12 ; HDR2 ~ IMU~
,
HOR2 _
- a
~ 03 Ca°se C~apy
_ f-- i
Transit N r ' ~
Village ^ Iw+ui
Area Y,,,.S. # ~ ~
Plan ~ t Mug •.,_,,.,4~ . y.~ ,
i I Jos 1'
V a O~lGM1 ~ : : S .
cm
i `
~lA t'~ltsiittrT'~-1~,1~.~~-F - '•,T ~w:~
1 ~ ~ ~ - --'-i'-'
Hlgh Densay Resdenna! t lnduslrial Mixed Use 1 ~ Service Commercial
® Hlgh pnns•ty Rrsaa^tril z ®~nduslrial h~ixed Use 2 ~ Park t Public Plaza
Office k+d~stnal ~ Mixed Use 1 ~ Greenway !Open Space
Mixed Use 2
Figure 2: Transit Village Area Plan in Context to Subject Property
Agenda Item # SA Paee # 4
~ ~ - ~ r
I ~
RH-4 IrJ `~qq
...a. ~ ~ r" i
~ I .
~ ~ ~ RM-1 - r'~
I ~ it
- ~I~ ~ RM-1 ~ ! ~ , 9
® ~ ~
~_r~ - _ ((/.~~-.c-~.. ;~r., ~ _ 1, i
BV~
- IS-1~ ;
. •
~
~
1'I~UY~ ~\ISU11~ JOIllIlr;
~ l /
~Y~~~
CamnwmN Business ~
~~~,r, r~,,~~,,I: ~;,.s.,,~l.,~~~
~ Fs I ~~v
IA e.f ur. Gr•r~~~ly tie.. •1 er!~N I'~ ~ ~ 1'
- McAMnn Genflry Ne)Fid111Y ~J/~ r
LLf1119 ~ ~ _ 7`• /
~ I ~ 1
- _ ~ 1
j
i - ((Zm~ ~donufachiredHouslnp ~ A
y e
~ ' I~, - -
lIIIIII ~i • ,
u,~
. ® t'
_ ~ ~ r, -
~ ~ ~r Mu4 •
I ' IMU1 --j
- HDR2 ` l ~ WlU2 ' At ~ l ~ -
• 08 Gcor I:1
1•'i~ure 4: C,xistin~ .6~'CP La>I~d Gse A;~;enda Item # SA Page # 5
Background on Zoning and Land Use Designation. In 1985, the city developed the MH-E (at the
time "Mobile );Iome -Established) zoning district as a means to retain existing mobile home parks.
The city then applied this zone to the existing mobile home parks in the city with two parks, Boulder
Meadows and Vista Village, receiving the MH-E zoning. The owners of the Orchard Grove,
Mapleton, Branding Iron and Boulder Mobile Manor mobile home parks requested that the city not
rezone their properties to MH-E. Except for the Branding Iron Mobile Home Park, the city did not
apply MH-E zoning to these remaining parks. Orchard Grove maintained the medium density
residential zoning and a medium density land use classification under the BVCP. Then, in 2000, a
new "Manufactured Housing" land use was added to the BVCP and was applied to the city's existing
mobile home parks with the stated purpose to "preserve affordable housing provided by existing
mobile home parks."
Planning Board Action in Rezoning. Section 9-2-18(d}, B.R.C. rcquir~s that the Planning Board
hear a request far rezoning at a public hearing, and make a recommendation for approval or denial to
the City Council. Section 9-2-18(e) establishes the criteria by which a rezoning maybe established
within the city. As noted in this section,
"The city's zoning is the result of a detailed and comprehensive appraisal of the city's present
and future land use allocation needs. In order to establish and maintain sound, stable, and
desirable development within the city, rezoning of land is to be discouraged and allowed only
under the limited circumstances herein described. Therefore, the City Council shall grant a
rezoning application only if the proposed rezoning is consistent with the policies and goals of
the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan "
REZONING ANALYSIS:
Key Issue: Does the proposed rezoning comply with rezoning criteria of Section
9-2-18(e), B.R.C. 1981?
As stated in section 9-2-18(e), B.R.C. 1981, City Council shall grant a rezoning application only if the
proposed rezoning is consistent with the policies and goals of the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan
and, for an application not incidental to a general revision of the zoning map, meets one of the
following criteria:
(1) 1'he applicant demonstrates by clear and convincing evidence that the proposed
rezoning is necessary to come into compliance with the Boulder Valley
' ~ Comprehensive Plan map;
The BVCP map gives the land use designation of "manufactured housing "for the Subject
Property. MII-E (Residential Mobile Homes-Established) is the only zoning district
available that complies with this land use designation.
(2) The existing zoning of the land was the result of clerical error;
Not applicable.
(3) The existing zoning of the land was based on a mistake of fact;
Not applicable.
(4) The existing zoning of the land failed to take into account the constraints on
Agenda Item # SA Page # 6
development created by the natural characteristics of the land, including but not
limited to, steep slopes, floodplain, unstable soils, and inadequate drainage;
Not applicable.
(S) The land or its surrounding environs has changed or is changing to such a degree
that it is in the public interest to encourage a redevelopment of the area or to
recognise the changed character of the area; or
Not applicable.
(6) The proposed rezoning is necessary in order to provide land for a community need
that was not anticipated at the time of adoption of the Boulder Valley
Comprehensive Plan.
Not applicable.
Relevant BVCP Policies. In accordance with section 9-2-18(e), the following provides a statement of
consistency of the proposed rezoning with each of the following relevant BVCP policies:
Policy 2.14 Preservation of Community Character. On page 17 of the BVCP, under Policy
2.14, it states,
"The city will encourage the preservation of community character as reflected in the
development pattern and relative affordability orthe existing housing stock in
Boulder's varied neighborhoods. "
The proposed rezoning to Mobile Home (MH} will help to n:eet the intent of Policy 2.14 by
encouraging the preservation of the existing Orchard Grove community character.
Policy 7.07 Preserve Existing Housing Stock. On page 49 of the BVCP, under Policy 7.07 it
states,
"The city and county, recognizing the value of their existing housing stock, will
encourage its preservation and rehabilitation through its land use policies, regulations
and incentives. Special efforts will be made tv preserve and rehabilitate existing low
and moderate income units in order to meet the needs of all residents in the
community. "
The proposed rezoning to MH is partially consistent with this policy in that it does represei:t
a special effort tv preserve Orchard Grove Mobile Home Park that currently provided lnw
and moderate income units. However, the rezoning will not guarantee that the private
ownership of the park will ensure "rehabilitation "of tl:ese units.
Policy 7.08 Preservation and Development of Manufactured Housing. On page 49 of the
BVCP, under Policy 7.08 it states,
"Recognizing the importance of manufactured housing as an option.for many households, the
city and county will encourage the preservation of existing mobile home parks and the
development of new manufact:ered home parks, including increasing opportunities for
resident-owned parks. Whenever an existing mobile home park is found in a hazardous area,
Agenda Item # 5A Page # 7
every reasonable effort will he made to reduce or eliminate the hazard, when feasible, or to
help mitigate for the loss of housing through relocation of affected households, development of
additional rnanufactured housing capacity in the county. "
The rezoning to MH directly encourages the preservation of the Orchard Grove Mobile
Home Park.
PUBLIC COMMENT AND PROCESS:
Required public notice was provided in the form of written notification mailed to all property owners
within 600 feet of the subject property, and a sign posted on the property for at least 10 days. During
preparation of this Planning Board memo, a number of emails and letters were received that are
provided in Attachment C. in addition, there have been two to three dozen residents and other
Boulder citizens that have spoken against redevelopment of the mobile home park and/or in favor of
the rezoning at the City Council meetings of June 3 and July 8, 2008.
STAFF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION:
Planning staff finds that the proposed rezoning application meets the rezoning criteria of Section 9-2-
3(d) B.R.C., 1981 and finds the proposed rezoning request to be in compliance with the BVCP.
Therefore, staff recommends that Planning Board recommend approval of Rezoning Review
#LUR2008-00069 incorporating this staff memorandum and the above review criteria checklist as
findings of fact.
B. BVCP LAND USE DESIGNATION CHANGE INITIATION:
Project Name: Five Acre Vacant Parcel
Location: 3003 Valmont Road
Size of Tract: 5.25 (229,034 square feet)
Zoning: Residential Medium - I
Comprehensive Plan: Medium Density Residential
KEY ISSUE:
Does the Planning Board recommend that City Council initiate a change to the BVCP land use
designation of the vacant five-acre parcel?
BACKGROUND:
At its July 29, 2008 meeting City Council asked staff to request that Planning Board make a
recommendation to the City Council on whether to consider initiating a change to the BVCP land use
designation of the vacant five-acre parcel located to the northeast of the subject property.
The parcel is under the same ownership (Orchard Court Development Company) but with an existing
BVCP land use designation of Medium Density Residential. The five-acre parcel, as it is referred
herein, is slightly larger Phan five acres (5.25 acres or 229,034 square feet) per GIS data, and currently
undeveloped with the exception of a community garden used by the Orchard Grove community. As
shown in the aerial photo based on GIS data, Figure 5 on page 9, there may approximately seven
Agenda Item # SA Pale # 8
homes that overlap slightly into the five-acre parcel but which are accessed tluough the existing
Orchard Grove community.
- / ~ ,
r~~.
- •
, ~
` ..jay; , ' < ~ ~ Y ~ • l~. t ti~" ~ ~ F
i r,.~ by
v ~
•y ~
It ~,t.'
_ r _ Y
¦R r
Kai
~ <
rigure 5: Aerial I'liuto ~I~'ivc-,4cre Parcel
With the BVCP Land Use Designation of Medium Density Residential, the density ranges from six to
14 units per acre. Currently, the BVCP Land Use designation is compatible with the Residential
Medium - 1 (RM- 1) zoning that allows 7.3 dwelling units per acre, with uses described in section 9-
5-2, B.R.C. 1981 as follows,
":1.leditrrrt density residential areas tit~lriclt have beat or are to be printaril~}% used, for attached
residential development, where each turn generally has direct access to ground level, and
tii~lter~e corttplcntentarv arses rnati> be permitted snider certain conditions. "
Under the provisions of the BVCP, (section II.1 on pages 56 and 57) a land use map change can be
considered at any time and can occur concurrent with a rezoning application. The city may initiate
land use map changes. For a change that can be considered at any time, the process requires both
Planning Board and City Council approval, subject to county referral if it is related to rezoning, and
meets criteria. If the county deternines that the proposed change does not meet the criteria, then the
requested change will be processed at the time of the next mid-term or five-year review and will
require four body review and approval. The criteria for eligibility for changes that may be considered
at any time are provided in Attachment E.
Agenda Item # SA Pa~c # 9
ANALYSIS:
Key Issue: Does the Planning Board recommend that City Council initiate a change to the
BVCP land use designation of the vacant five acre parcel?
Staff points Planning Board to the eligibility criteria for BVCP Land Use Map changes that maybe
considered at any time, found in Attachment E. if Planning Board and City Council arc interested in a
potential land use map change from Medium Density Residential (MDR) to Manufactured Housing
(MH) that would lay the groundwork to rezone the property consistent with the BVCP land use
designation, Plaruiing Board should recommend to City Council to make motion to direct staff to
analyze the change for consistency with BVCP goals, policies, and eligibility criteria.
PUBLIC COMMENT AND PROCESS:
Required public notice was provided in the form of written notification mailed to all property owners
within 600 feet of the subject property, and a sign posted nn the property for at least 10 days with
regard to the rezoning. During preparation of this Planning Board memo, a number of emails and
letters were received that are provided in Attachment C. In addition, there have been two to three
dozen residents and other Boulder citizens that have spoken against redevelopment of the mobile
home park and/or in favor of the rezoning at the City Council meetings of June 3 and July 8, 2008.
STAFF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION:
Because City Council will be exploring long range options for the entire site comprised of both the 27-
acre parcel and the f ve-acre parcel at its Aug. 12, 2008 study session, staff notes that it might be
premature for Planning Board to make a recommendation to City Council to initiate a change to the
BVCP land use designation of the five-acre parcel. However, staff recommends that if Planning I3oard
and City Council are interested in a potential land use map change to lay the groundwork to rezone the
property to Mobile Home (Ml i), that Planning Board recommend the following:
City Council direct staff to analyze the BVCP land use designation change from MDR (Medium
Density Residential) to Manufactured Housing (MH) for consistency with BVCP goals, policies, and
eligibility criteria.
Approved By:
~ith McHeyscr, Acting Plannin Director
Planning Department
S:\PI,ANIPB-ITEMS\MEMOS\EM.Orchard Grove Rezoning.doc
Agenda Item # 5A Page # 10
ATTACIIMF,NTS:
Attachment A: Vicinity Map
Attachment B: Images of Subject Property and Surrounds
Attachment C: Correspondence Received
Attachment D: Draft Rezoning Ordinance
Attachment E: BVCP Eligibility Criteria for Land Use Map Changes Considered at Any Time
Agenda Item # 5A Page # 11
Attachment A
Vicinity Map
City of Boulder Vicinity Map _
r r 11
C ' - ~J_G2Q[(S!C((~,D'J~_-,_~~ , ti=p
B ~ i ~ t~ i ~ ~ 1'~' MMMMM~ i
R H,~ 4°~
~
_ P
.-T--- C
Five Acre ± .1
- Parcel
I Subject Area
r Q ~ , ~ ~ 3003 Valmont Rd `
\
~ ® ~ "
~ -
i~ ~
i BT- 1
. ~ 1.--
Valmont Rd E;I~___
I~~~~, irs-7, ~ BCSI
I f ~ ( I G
BIM 5 :1 BMB_
J ~ - 0
- j t - - _ ~ Subject
- - 1, B~- a ~C ~-M-S /
- ,
;i ..l p i I i' ~ ~ 11
J-BT-1 - t I -
F.: , l
Location: 3003 Valmont Rd ~
Project Name: Orchard Grove Clay of ~rr~~~
Mobile Home Park Rezoning Boulder
Review Type: Rezoning N 0 RT H frc ui4xmation depkaed on lhiG maF is Dtcwided
as graphiglreprc5enla:uxi only the Cty of 9ou:dr.
Review Number: LUR2008-00069 Grov:desr.owananty,expressedcr'mplied,asio
1 inch equals 400 feet '~,~~`~9e'~'hc~~~t`"r gmptetcress otine intimation
Applicant: City of Boulder
Agenda Item # 5A PaEe # 12
Attachment B
Images from Subject Property
1 ~ i ~
it c ,.i+-~~us - _ 'i~q~
w fit. ~ ~ x rr ti{y.Y ~:!i~l
~~;ri! ~ n,~J
,i~ ~ i ~~1f.:
ti , ,
,
r .'~r '.AI r1 f~~ript~~ l
~ f•
J 'i i
• l.. r
T ~ `i
~ 1~1 ` _
~1
~~3
_a~~ -
Agenda
Item # 5A
Pale
# 13
Attachment B (cont.)
Images from Subject Property
L~. ~ rL~:~rs ~ r
y~
•r, ti,~Y.-~
4C ' • t~
. .
r~~:
~ „ ~ k;:,
-
_ - _
s "V°
1~~~_ _
< r
_ ~ ~ _ R
.t' .~~M.
•
r~"~' V~ ~
-
Agenda Item # 5A Page # 14
Attachment B (cont.)
Images from Subject Property
~
j. ~
- .
.;S-
M ~ ).f~T' ~ V~
u
_ _ ; ~ ~ illl
.~1t .i ice. _ r' ~ r , ,7 ~'.'i'.-~ . , _ ~ - _ I
y
, ~ ..fir
.•3, ~ ' tom,,
.•s~
r-- ~'~s'-''__
Agenda Item #
SAItem
# SA Ya =e 15
Attachment B (cont.)
Images Surrounding Subject Property
_ { .
pro
_ -y
al; ,r .
-
_ T , _
~ ~ ' ~ ~
i ~r' s • 1.
`t
'1 A
.''Yi' ~ 1.., } -
. ~
~
~ ' ~ -
~ ,
't ~
1~ , V ~
'+Y ~
~ ` ~
:i~l~,~ t
Agenda Item # 5A PaQe # 16
Attachment B (cont.)
Images Surrounding Subject Property
" -
~,.,.7,~-;, .
j- L,. v
~ ~
• _ L F7 .tl •
111
r _ ~
_ f~'
Service Commercial Across Valmont Rd. to South
t a
~ r k{ r
r • a ~
~ ~t~~,
Medium Density Residential outparcel along Valmont Rd.
Aeenda Item # SA Page # 17
Attachment B (cont.)
images Surrounding Subject Property
~ h ~
i R{ .
~ . y `.~r. ~ ' yn:.
j ~ -
~ ~ Q:
. - ~'t~ -
i, -
- - ~
s~
High Density Residential North of Subject Property
~V~ 1 1
~ ;Y`
1~, 1
Li , ~
. r
. _ ~ t -
J~~
.r e
High Density Residential North of Subject Property
Hgenna stem ~ ~H rake 18
Attachment B (cont.)
Images Surrounding Subject Property
ti _
Medium t ~ -
Residential , _ ~
to the East•,~ ~ , ~I~
...rr- _ . - - _
}
~ \~l.llt.
1 •1 f
r .
A ~
Medium
Density
Residential
to the West
_
i
I ~ ~
,
Medium
Density _
- .
Residential _ ~ s" -
~ - .
to the West
N
_ _ :?T~-;
Agenda Item # 5A PaQe # 19
Attachment C Correspondence Received
19 July 2008
Planning Board
City of Boulder CO
Attu:- Mr Phil Shull -Planning Boazd Chairman et all
Subject:- Orchard Grove Mobile Home Park
30`~ and Valmont
Again it seems that the wrong person and/or organization was given me to contact on this
matter as I was directed to contact the City Manager. Why Mr Valenti should be involved
I do not know.
Having spoken twice before the City Council it surprises me that the matter~is now before
the Planning Board which seems to imply that the fate of the pazk is settled and what is to
be done is being planned.
It goes without saying that the person or persons who own the park land are entitled to do
what they want with it. The person or persons who self the park will have a good after tax
amount to show. However, the city does not share in this. The new owner(s) will also be
dealing with some real numbers. One figure sighted was some fifteen million
(15,000,000.00) purchase offer. But this figure is not an orphan as there are at least a few
others of importance.
A guest speaker at the last City Council meeting was experienced in land use and he
showed two plan view representations of the park's land -one as is and the other a max
density plan view of a proposed development. The new plan was very little better than
what the land use is now as it is difficult to have housing density greater than a mobile
home park. Also the loss of trees, bushes, plants, animals and birds would be
considerable. But, let us back up to the previous paragraph.
If there are some two hundred and fifty mobile homes (this figure is an approximation) -
then each unit has an economic impact of some $60,000.00 against the purchase price.
The clean-up of the land on a per lot basis is another figure. To tear out and replace
sewer, water, power and communication interface is another figure. At today's cost per
square foot of housing construction each replacement would probably run about
$50,000.00 (based upon the square feet in an average mobile home -aka manufactured
housing). There are other ancillary expenses but this shows that some $120,000.00 to
$150,000.00 at a realistic minimum must be realized per unit based upon what is here
now. So how many yeazs are involved in recovering just the initial investment?
Perhaps a wise move is to zone this park land for "manufactured housing" (aka mobile
homes). After all, if it works why fix it.
Several sources have spoken of "low income housing" to replace what would be lost if
the park is liquidated. Obviously these people have never tried to live in them. They are
not affordable to me and I am sure not to most of the others involved.
Perhaps there are those that figure the close proximity to the proposed "Transit Village"
will enhance an investment here that I am sure will never be realized. At least not in my
lifetime. In fact this would seem to be a direct conflict of interest depending upon ones
point of view.
S~ a0
Again it is most important to point out that the few may benefit greatly from the
misfortune of the many. Any increase in revenue for the city is to my mind far
outweighed by the cost to many people. People that in one way or another impact the city
as a labor source and a source of revenue to the city and its businesses.
Thank you for your consideration and taking the time to read this.
Jim Paton 3003 Valmont # 123 Boulder CO 80301-2147 303 444 5515
CC:-file
1VQw>~c E~ #~Pape
SC'0TT A. ST. CLA I R
1RA N.GRESCI fLI~~R
:~~c°,~nF,~S t,< July 24, 2008
City of Boulder
Planning Board
P.O. Box 791
l 739 Broadway, third floor
Boulder. CO 80306-0791
RE: ORCHARD GRUVE
llear Members:
The purpose of this correspondence is to briefly address the issues presented to
Orchard Court Development Company ("Company") by the City of Boulder's
expressed intent to rezone its property located at 3003 Valmont, Boulder,
Colorado, to "manufactured housing".
Back rg
ound. For approximately the past forty (40) years, the Company has
operated twenty-seven (27) acres of its properties as a mobile home park. The
parcels currently used in the park were acquired in 1963. A five (5) acre parcel,
to the northeast, was acquired in 1972 and remains undeveloped and designated as
medium density residential under the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan.
Originally, the properties were located in the County of Boulder with City utilities
provided by ordinance. Subsequent City annexations were made in 1967 and
1978. Since annexation, the properties have been zoned medium density
residential. Over the past four (4) decades, the Company has generously charged
its tenants substantially less than the market rate for its spaces, foregoing rental
income in anticipation of eventual future development. Cun•ent park rates range
from $300.00 to $385.00 per month, including water, while comparative market
rates are approximately $500.00 per month plus utilities. Accordingly, the
Company has essentially subsidized an affordable housing component for the
Boulder community without any credit or recognition. Currently, the Company's
investors are in their retirement years and seek to dispose of the property and
liquidate their affairs. As with the investors, the infrastructure of the park is aging
;3,00 ~~~~~~,~<,)~oc.sufce603 and will soon require substantial renovation at great expense, currently estimated
rsoti)aer.cososo3 at seven million five hundred thousand dollars ($7,500,000.00}*. Coupling the
Phone (303) 440-7600
F~~:: (303)4-~O-13708
[i:~lciil:
~~)~„~cc~a9rgresc),~er.coi»*This estimate is provided Uy the developer, Chapin Development, Inc., through its consulting
contractor, Wyatt Construction).
reduced rental income with the need for substantial capital infusion has convinced the investors
that a new owner is appropriate at this time.
Initial Due Diligence. Initially, the Company retained the services of St.Clair & Greschler, P.C.
to conduct preliminary due diligence on its properties. At that time, beginning in the fall of
2007, title work was reviewed, the utilities were investigated and recently, surveys were
completed. During its evaluation process, it became readily apparent that the interests of the
City of Boulder needed to be determined, as the properties were observed to be unique both with
respect to their size and location, and especially given their proximity, to the south, to property
planned for major redevelopment. Inquiries were made both through the Company's consultant,
Vince Porecca, and through its counsel's attempted contacts with the City Manager's Office,
none of which resulted in any discourse as intended. In sum, at no time has the Company sought
to proceed without City participation in its platming process.
Contracting. Having not received any response from the City of Boulder, the Company
proceeded to have its properties valued in the open market, listing its properties for sale though
. its broker, Marcus & Millichap. Excluded from the listing agreement were various parties who
had formerly expressed some interest in acquiring the property, including the current buyer,
Chanin Development, lnc., as well as the City of Boulder itself.* Eventually, the properties were
placed under contract with Chanin Development, only to hear, subsequently, of an offer to
purchase from the Boulder Housing Partners, d/b/a the Housing Authority of the City of Boulder,
for fourteen million dollars ($14,000,000.00). The Company responded to the Housing
Authority's broker, Dean Callan & Company on April 29, 2008, referring the offer to the
Company's broker. Apparently no progress has been made to secure the backup position, as
requested by the Housing Authority. The Company has been recently advised that the Housing
Authority remains interested in acquiring part or all of the properties, but how their interests will
be compromised by any rezoning remains unclear.
Chanin's Plans. The current buyer's plans for development include, per the Company's
understanding, maintaining affordable housing for the current tenants, together with a mixed use
re-development of the remaining property. These plans also include a substantial cash infusion,
so as to rebuild the infrastructure of the park's utilities, something that will need to be done in
any case and regardless of the eventual use of the property. Consideration has also been given to
an optional cash buyout for existing mobile home tenants. Plans have also been discussed with
respect to the development of the Boulder White Rock Ditch flowing through the property from
the southwest to the northeast, to include same as an integral part of the properties' development.
The Company supports the plans and significant concessions proposed by Chanin Development
as being in the interests of the Boulder community as a whole and the tenants.
*Sometime prior; the City had contacted the Company's principal, Lu Nuttall, inquiring as to whether the City could
obtain an "Option"' to acquire the properly.
~~a~`~~~~~3
Tenants' Position. It is the current wish of perhaps a vocal minority of the tenants in the park
that redevelopment not occur and that the status quo remain so as to preserve the community.
While understandably desirous, the pragmatics of the situation dictate otherwise. The current
use of the park will have to be substantially interrupted so as to effect reconstruction of the
infrastructure, to include waterlines, sewer lines and gas lines. As those lines currently pass
under each site's concrete pad, those pads will have to be disrupted and re-laid in order to effect
a complete rebuilding of the utilities systems. All of this can only be done at great expense, the
burden of which will either fall upon the tenants themselves in increased rent or upon a
developer willing to invest in the park. Minimal rent increases to finance the rebuilding of the
utilities infrastructure will come to approximately $270.00 per unit per month.
Recommendation. We fail to see the benefit or any need whatsoever for a rash decision to
quickly rezone a parcel of this size. As the City's counsel has advised, the fact that the property
is under contract does not impact the City's position whatsoever. Additionally, further time is
needed for review and calm discussion as to everyone's needs. Rezoning the property
compromising the park at this time (i} effectively prohibits consideration of any alterative use
options and will bind the particular property to being solely a mobile home park; (ii) eliminates
any meaningful options for fixed affordable housing as any future owner will operate the park
solely as an economic enterprise; (iii) will inevitably burden the tenants with all costs associated
with the reconstruction of the failing infrastructure and, further, will probably delay the initiation
of the rebuilding process; (iv) will substantially hinder the development of the five (5) acre
parcel to the northeast which will remain medium density residential; *(v) will probably curtail
any development of the creek area as a community pathway and; (vi) will negatively impact any
opportunities to coordinate the development of the park property with the projects to the south.
Meaningful discussion with the recently formed tenants' homeowner association needs to occur
outside of the context of heated political demands. Investigation of all options for improvement
of the property should be made. Both the Company and the proposed buyer remain ready and
willing to participate in these discussions and planning processes going forward.
Sincerely,
ORCHARD COURT DEVELOPMENT COMPANY
By:
Lu Nuttall, President
Scott A. St.Clair, Esq.
Counsel for Orchard Court Development Company
* It is assumed that the City Council is not contemplating the re-zoning of this parcel as the Boulder Valley
Comprehensive Plan does not include this acreage in its "MH" designation. See also B.R.C. § 9-2-18(e)(i)
From: Ken Bonetti
Date Received: 07/28/2008
Please respond by: 08/02/2008
Response Key: Z 1550
Respondents sent this email:
Jann Oldham in HHS sent an FYI only.
John Pollak in Housing sent an FYI only.
Ruth McHeyser in Planning sent an FYI only.
Ruth McHeyser in Planning asked to respond.
Council Correspondence:
July 28, 2008
Dear Council members:
I would like to express my concern over the proposed redevelopment of the Orchard Grove Trailer Park. As you know,
affordable housing whether rental or owner-occupied is scarce in this city. Real Estate speculation, up-scale residential
redevelopment and speculative new un-affordable and overly dense infill are exacerbating an already bad housing situation
in Boulder. Incredibly, under the cover of providing ?affordable housing,? another speculator/developer hoping to reap high
profits wants to oust a large group of low-income households.
While I appreciate some council members initial desire to preserve Orchard Grove, I am concerned that some city staff
apparently sympathize with the speculator/developer?s position. Some apparently support a ?compromise? that would split
off the parcel?s five-acre open space to build a {arge condo complex next to the trailer park. This ?solution? would destroy a
wildlife area, generate a large amount of additional noise and traffic and ultimately ruin the neighborhood?s character.
Unless rent controls were instituted, lot fees would rise as the landowner seeks to increase rents in a rising market that will
likely be stimulated by the planned transit village.
The real issue is the social cost of dispossessing and displacing 400 mostly low- or fixed-income Boulder residents and
destroying an open space supporting an array of wildlife. The value of residents? mobile homes would immediately go to
zero and some could be pushed into homelessness. Many Orchard Park residents would be forced to locate outside the
City. Also, development of the five-acre open space would wipe out a riparian wiidlife area contradicting the City?s policy
protecting significant wildlife habitat within the city.
While an apparent desire of some on the City staff and perhaps some City Council members is to increase the density of
land use, raise property values and augment tax revenues, the underlying responsibility of government is to consider a
much broader range of impacts arising from such a development. These impacts affect values external to the profit calculus
of speculator/developer and the expected additional tax revenues some city bureaucrats seem to crave. Unlike a business, a
city government is expected to consider the full range social impacts of development, not merely pecuniary details.
In your capacity as City Councilors, you have the power to rezone the parcel to help preserve the Orchard Grove community
and protect the attached open space. You can also act to help keep the housing affordable. Real estate speculation is
diminishing the Botalder?s quality of life, threatening to push low-income residents into the streets, making the city
unaffordable even for those once thought to be middle class and gentrifying residential neighborhoods and commercial retail
markets. It is time to emphatically deny this project and to look more broadly at how this community can increase the share
of affordable housing and shopping opportunities so that people at all income levels can live and work in Boulder. Further,
City Council should rethink the implicit sanctioning of endless real estate speculation and population growth in the guise of a
policy ostensibly intended to increase urban density for environmental and efficiency reasons.
I would appreciate a response detailing how you will address the Orchard Grove and larger real estate development issues
raised by this unseemly project proposal.
Sincerely,
Ken Bonetti
To respond to this correspondence, please use the following link
http;//intraweb.ci,boulder,co,us/CouncilCorr/pages/email/respond_link.jsf?respKey=QXJDbi=NjU2NT
about:blank 7/31/2008
From: Clint Folsom
Date Received: 07/28/2008
Response Key: 21569
Respondents sent this email:
Ruth McHeyser in Planning sent an FYI only.
John Pollak in Housing sent an FYI only.
Jann Oldham in HHS sent an FYI only.
Council Correspondence:
Dear Boulder City Council,
As a past member of the City Manager's Task Force that worked to re-write
the rental housing inspection protocols (January -October 2001), I wanted
to state my recollection of our conclusions surrounding the issue of whether
an owner's transfer of ownership to an affiliated LLC would trigger the
requirement for a new baseline inspection. It is my recollection that the
members of the committee unanimously agreed that if a property owner
transferred their ownership of a property to a closely held LLC for estate
planning or asset protection reasons, that was considered more of an
internal transfer since the parties to the transaction were the same.
Basically if no money changed hands during the transaction, the committee
did not believe that such a transfer should trigger a baseline inspection.
Thank you,
Clint Folsom
1605 S. Elbert Ct.
Superior, CO 80027
303-499-9944
If you would like to respond to this correspondence, please use the following link
http://intraweb.ci.boulder,co.us/CouncilCorr/pages/email/respond_link.jsf?respKey=QXJDbFNjVGINbg_
~
~hrn~t:h]ank 7/31/2008
From: Ann Hunter
Date Received: 07/28/2008
Response Key: 21595
Respondents sent this email:
Ruth McHeyser in Planning sent an FYI only.
John Pollak in Housing sent an FYI only.
Jann Oldham in HHS sent an FYI only.
Counci? Correspondence:
Dear Council Members,
I am a property owner in Stratford Park West, just north of the
Orchard Grove trailer park. It does not make sense to me that the
trailer park is not zoned as a trailer park. It also makes no sense
to tear down this affordable housing in order to create more
expensive "affordable" housing. In addition it`s obvious that the
woods and fields on the property are a wildlife corridor. I see
deer and racoons in and near the property on a regular basis. It
also is obvious that the ditch and the area around it provide wetland
benefits, including flood control, whether or not they are legally
wetlands.
Please re-zone the Orchard Grove property as a trailer park with a
requirement that the area consisting of woods and fields that is
presently in a natural condition be preserved that way rather than
developed.
Thank you for taking my views into consideration.
Sincerely,
Ann Hunter
3035 O'Neal Parkway T-38
Boulder CO 80301
If you would like to respond to this correspondence, please use the following link
http://intrawe_b.ci.boulder.co_us[CouncilCorr/pages/email/re__spond link.jsf?respKey=QXJDbFNjTWSTYw==
ahc~ut:hlank 7/3 ] /2004
From: Sandhya Luther
Date Received: 07/29/2008
Response Key: 21610
Respondents sent this email:
Ruth McHeyser in Planning sent an FYI only.
Jann Oldham in HHS sent an FYI only.
John Pollak in Housing sent an FYI only.
Council Correspondence:
I am writing in support of re-zoning all 32 acres (including the disputed 5 acres). This is a wonderful and strong community.
We must do everything to save this community from being destroyed by greed.
Let's use our land fairly. Let's treat ALL citizens equally and with respect.
. Thank you for your attention,
Sandhya Luther
Assistant Dean of Students
Diversity Student Advocate
Student Affairs
Naropa University
303-546-3570
Fax: 303-245-4795
sluther@naropa.edu
www.naropa.edu
1-800-772-6951
If you would like to respond to this correspondence, please use the following link
http;//intraweb.ci.boulder.co.us/CouncilCorr/pages/email/respond link.jsf?respKey=QXJDbFRpQ2xT
l~ger~fe AI>~~
~~1 ~e~ °2
about:blank 7/31 /2008
From: Denise Mercelli
Date Received: 07/29/2008
Response Key: 21613
Respondents sent this email:
Ruth McHcyser in Planning sent an FYI only.
Jann Oldham in HHS sent an FYI only.
John Pollak in Housing sent an FYI only.
Council Correspondence:
bear City Council Members,
I have lived in Orchard Grove for almost 10 years now. If it was not here, I would not be able to live in such a beautiful city.
It is not our fault, the park, ALL 32 acres of it, was not rezoned in 1985, when the rest were. Please finally make this right
for you, the city and us.
There is a lot of community support and eyes on this issue. These are our homes, our lives. We should not have to live in
fear of the developer, for what should have been done 20+ years ago, Please do what is right NOW, ?and save our homes
and this beautiful community.
Thank you
Denise Mercelli
If you would like to respond to this correspondence, please use the following (ink
http://intraweb.ci.boulder.co.us/CouncilCorr/pages/email/respond_link,jsf?respKey=QXJDbFRpQ2xL
ahnnt~hlank 7/31 /2OnR
From: Denise Mercelli
Date Received: 07/29/2008
Response Key: 21613
Respondents sent this email:
Ruth McHeyser in Planning sent an FYI only.
Jann Oldham in HHS sent an FYI only.
John Pollak in Housing sent an FYI only.
Council Correspondence:
Dear City Council Members,
T have lived in Orchard Grove for almost 10 years now. If it was not here, I would not be able to live in such a beautiful city.
It is not our fault, the park, ALL 32 acres of it, was not rezoned in 1985, when the rest were. Please finally make this right
for you, the city and us.
There is a lot of community support and eyes on this issue. These are our homes, our lives. We should not have to live in
fear of the developer, for what should have been done 20+ years ago, Please do what is right NOW, ?and save our homes
• and this beautiful community.
Thank you
Denise Mercelli
If you would {ike to respond to this correspondence, please use the following link
http_/(intraweb.ci.boulder.co.us/CouncilCorr/pages/email/respond_link.jsf?respKey_=QXJDbFRpQ2xL
~
ahrnit•hlank 7/31/2008
From: Richard Carey
Date Received: 07/29/2008
Response Key: 21617
Respondents sent this email:
John Pollak in Housing sent an FYI only.
Ruth McHeyser in Planning sent an FYI only.
Jann Oldham in HHS sent an FYI only.
Council Correspondence:
My Dear Council Members,
Just trying to lighten things up around here a bit. Please, do
chuckle.
Richard
> scroll down, please
> On Jul 29, 2008, at 2:18 AM, Ava & Lisa Goodheart wrote:
» Additional Chanin statement:
» (excerpt from attached pdf)
» "The neat thing for us, and what's so inspiring to me,
» is adaptive redevelopment of real estate," said Chanin.
» "Breathing new life into old spaces is important,"
» he commented.
> or,
> Additional Carey statement:
> (excerpt from self)
» "The neat thing for them, and what`s so inspiring to Jim,
» is the destruction of homes, the murder of an old neighborhood,
» and the displacement of real people," thought I.
» "Sucking the breathe out of lives must be refreshingly
» profitable,"
» I thought.
» On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 3:02 PM, Ava wrote:
» Boulder's leaders listen to pleas
» http;/[www,dail_ycamer_a.com1news/2008J~u~04~boulders-leaders-
» listen-to-pleas/
» The developer explained to a frantic group of residents during the
» meeting how he'd keep a section of affordable housing on the lot.
» "It isn't functioning as a subdivision right now," Chanin said.
» "We want to redevelop something that makes sense for the city and
» the community."
> or
ah~»>t•hlank 7/31 /2008
» "It isn't functioning for me right now," Chanin said. "We want to
» redevelop something that makes sense for my pockets, not other
» people."
If you would like to respond to this correspondence, please use the following link
http://intraweb.ci.boulder.co.us/CouncilCorr/pages/email/i espond_link.jsf?respl<ey=QX)DbFRpQ2xW
~ ~
ahc~ut:hlailk 7/3I/20U8
From: G D
Date Received: 07/29/2008
Response Key: 21623
Respondents sent this email:
John Pollak in Housing sent an FYI only.
Ruth McHeyser in Planning sent an FYi only.
Jann Oldham in HHS sent an FYI only.
Council Correspondence:
Dear City Council Members,
Thank you for all the support you have shown for the residents of Orchard
Grove. Your decisions impact the lives of over 200 families, and I see you
do care about saving their homes.
I heard that the S acres of open space (which some homes do reside on) may
still be developed, which worried me greatly, since I am a resident and I
have a plot in the community garden on those S acres.
Surely nobody except the developer wants to see a 4-level building fill that
field! Please act with the interests of the majority of Boulder at heart,
and rezone all 32 acres.
Thank you for your time,
-Gabriel DiGiacomo
If you would like to respond to this correspondence, please use the following fink
http://intraweb,ci,boulder,co,us/CouncilCorr/pagesJemal/respond_lnk jsf?respKey=QX]DbFRpQX..]L
ahnnt•hlank 7/~ ~ ~7nOR
From: LUCIA T
Date Received: 07/29/2008
Response Key: 21626
Respondents sent this email:
Jann Oldham in HHS sent an FYI only.
Ruth McHeyser in Planning sent an FYI only.
John Polak in Housing sent an FYI only.
Council Correspondence:
HELLO CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS,
I AM A RESIDENT OF ORCHARD GROVE MOBILE HOME PARK THAT WAS ABSOULTELY SHOCKED TO HEAR ABOUT THE
POSSIBILTY OF OUR BEAUTIFUL 5 ACRES OF OPEN SPACE OF BEING DEVELOPED INTO A HORRIBLE HIGH RISE.
I JUST CANNOT STRESS ENOUGH HOW IMPORTANT THAT LAND IS FOR ALL OF U5, FOR THE WILDLIFE THAT WE SO
ENJOY, FOR OUR COMMUNITY GARDEN, FOR THE FEELING OF A LITTLE PIECE OF WILDERNESS OUT HERE AMONGST
THE hiIGHWAY AND CONDO'S AND BUSY STREETS.
I MEAN LETS FACE IT, A TRAILOR PARK IS NOT THE MOST IDYLLIC ENVIROMENT,AND IT CERTAINLY HAS ITS
STEREOTYPES IN THE MEDIA, BUT THANKS TO THAT BEAUTIFUL PIECE OF LAND AND ALL THE GREAT BIG ANCIENT
TREES THAT LINE OUR STREETS, THIS PLACE HAS TRULY BECOME AN OASIS FROM CONCRETE THAT I AM PROUD TO
BE RAISING MY CHILDREN IN.
THIS AREA CANNOT HANDLE 200 MORE PEOPLE LIVING HERE, AND IF THE DEVELOPER GETS HIS WAY IN THIS IT WILL
BE POINT"LESS WE WERE RE-ZONED, THIS WILL BECOME AN AREA NOBODY CHERISHESD ANYMORE.
I AM ALSO CONCERNED ABOUT THE THREAT (ALREADY ON PAPER AS FAR AS I HAVE HEARD)OF OUR RENTS BEING
RAISED OUTRAGEOUSLY. IF ALL THIS TAKES PLACE THIS DEVELOPER WILL HAVE SUCCEDED IN DESTRYING OUR WAY
OF LIFE ALTOGETHER.
PLEASE I BEG YOU TO REZONE ALL OF OUR PRECIOUS LAND.
THANK YOU SO VERY MUCH
SINCERLY,
LUCIA FRANCIS AND HER FAMILY
Keep your kids safer online with Windows Live Family Safety.
http://www.vvindowslve.com/family_safety/oyerview.html?ocid=TXT_TAGLM WL family_safety_072008
If you would like to respond to this correspondence, please use the following link
http://intraweb.ci.boul_der.co.us/CouncilCorr/pages/email/respond_link.jsf?resPKey=QXJDbFRpQXJUaQ==
ahrnit:hl~nk 7/3I /2008
From: Rex West
Date Received: 07/29/2008
Response Key: 21630
Respondents sent this email:
John Pollak in Housing sent an FYI only.
Jann Oldham in HHS sent an FYI only.
Ruth McHeyser in Planning sent an FYI only.
Council Correspondence:
Dear Council Members,
My name is Rex West. I am a Boulder native and an eight year resident of the Orchard Grove Mobile Home Park. I am also
a long-time public school teacher here in Boulder. Currently, Iteach afourth/fifth grade combination at Horizons K-8
School. Added to this, I am a graduate student in the Masters of Transpersonal Psychology Couniling program at Naropa
University. My wife is the Chair of the Visual Arts Department at Naropa. We feel that we are important and virbrant
members of the Boulder community. As educators who want to life in Boulder (all of my family is here), Orchard Grove is
one of the few places that we can actually afford to own a home.
, We love living in Orchard Grove for many reasons, but the peace and quiet, the natural beauty, and the neighborhood
feeling help to make this a wonderful place to live and raise our six year old son. We are also very aware that we are some
of the more fortunate members of this community in terms of finances and support. Many of our neighbors are retired on
fixed incomes, immigrant families working several jobs, physically or mentally handicapped, etc. Orchard Grove is truly a
' last hope for marry of these folks. We also believe that Orchard Grove has a unique character that is all too lacking in
Boulder these days. My opinion is that this is due to the stuningly high cost of living here.
My wife and I feel that you, as our elected representatives (Yes! We vote!), have not only the opportunity, but the
responsibility to help preserve this oasis for many by ensuring not only that Orchard Grove is correctly zoned as a mobile
home park, but that those who choose to live here and those who cannot afford to live anywhere else in Boulder can do so
for the foreseeable future! Any other option is a blow to the diversity of our community, a misuse of our trust in you, and a
tragedy for all who live here.
Please vote to rezone Orchard Grove and to assure that we may all live here in peace!
Thank you for your time and consideration!
Rex D. West
3003 Valmont Rd. #256
Boulder, CO 80301
3.415-1533
Explore the seven wonders of the world
http~/search.msn.com results.aspx?q_~+wonders+world&mkt=en-US&form=QBRE
If you would like to respond to this correspondence, please use the following link
h_ttp://intraweb.ci.boulder.co,us/CouncilCorr/pages/email/_respond link.jsf?respKey=QXJDbFRpS.1M=
about:blank 7/31 /2008
From: Bill Sompayrac
Date Received: 07/30/2008
Response Key: 21660
Respondents sent this email:
Jann Oldham in HHS sent an FYI only.
John Pollak in Housing sent an FYI only.
Ruth McHeyser in Planning sent an FYI only.
Council Correspondence:
I am a volunteer, since 1980 I deliver meals on wheel's, deliver groceries for RSVP (retired senior's volunteer program) also
do the Boulder Community Hospital 2-3 day's a week. I do deliver groceries to people in Orchard Grove mobile home park,
I've met some of the Best senior citizen's of Boulder that are living in that Park. We moved to Boulder in 1956 we love living
here but the growth of this city has hurt so many GOOD working class and retired people. I would love to see "Care" over
rule money and Orchard Grove rezoned as a manufactured home's Park. It's really a shame that when people get up in age
all of a sudden their Jive's and good neighbor's arc disturbed. Thank you for your consideration.
William T Sompayrac
3134 10th St. Boulder Colorado 80304
Earthl_ink Revolves Around You.
If you would like to respond to this correspondence, please use the following link
http://intraweb.c.i.boulder.co,usJCoun_cilCorr/pages/email/respond_link.jsf?respKey=QXJDb_FRpVGIT
li~~ ~ ~'t alb;
»hc~iit:hlank 7/31/2008
From: Henry Tanner
Date Received: 07/30/2008
Response Key: 21662
Respondents sent this email:
Jann Oldham in HHS sent an FYI only.
Ruth McHeyser in Planning sent an FYI only.
John Pollak in Housing sent an FYI only.
Council Correspondence:
Dear Sirs,
I am a past resident of Orchard Grove. I lived there approximately 12 years. I was saddened to learn of its impending sale
and the eviction of all the residents. I know many elderly people whose lives would be shattered by this. I have lived in
Boulder for over 40 years and I have watched it gradually become a city of ghettos for students, hangers on who stay a few
years and have no roots, and homes for the rich and non-famous. Most of the families have left and now Boulder is ready
to kick out the elderly and those who do the menial tasks required by those who have the luxury to afford them. It is
becoming a white bread city-plenty of starch and carbohydrates but no spice or soul. It there is anything you can do to
save Orchard grove, I urge you to do so.
Respectfully,
Henry Tanner
If you would like to respond to this correspondence, please use the following link
http://intraweb.ci.boulder.co.us~CouncilCorr/pages/email/respond_link,jsf?respKey=QX~DbFRpVGIBcg-
~h~irt:hlank 7/31 /2008
From: Lori feddersen
Date Received: 07/30/2008
Response Key: 21665
Respondents sent this email:
John Pollak in Housing sent an FYI only.
Ruth McHeyser in Planning sent an FYI only.
Jann Oldham in HHS sent an FYI only.
Council Correspondence:
I write to implore that each and every one of you,
you the elected officials of Boulder City Council, make a decisive decision and rezone our beloved park and homes to be
permanent and affordable, manufactured housing.
You know in your hearts that it is the right thing to do.
You have heard testimony after testimony from dedicated citizens of this Boulder Community as to the very reasons why this
rezoning must take place.
The consequences of your decisions are enormous.
Do you really wish to be the flood, the fire, the hurricane, the tornado, the tsunami, the earthquake?
Do you really wish to be those horrible natural disasters that displace hundreds of citizens from their homes destroyed.
Those natural disasters which inspire us all to compassion and donation to our local Red Cross?
Who will be our Red Cross?
You will ultimately be responsible for the homeless, for the tears, the sorrow and the madness which will ensue if the plans
of the owner and builder have their way.
It is also vital that you immediately zone the 5 acres to the northeast to be permanently attached to the rest of Orchard
Grove, as it is indeed part of Orchard Grove.
What can be built there anyway?
Fancy condos?
NOT!
Across the street is low income housing projects with known gang activity!
No one would move into condos with the projects across the street for fear of vandalism.
And then there is the traffic issue!
Please, don't continue this dance with city planning. )ust do it!
Rezone complete and the rest will work itself out,
trust me.
lori feddersen
PeoplePC Online
A better way to Internet
http;j/www.peoplepc.com
If you would like to respond to this correspondence, please use the following {ink
http;//intraweb.ci.boulder.co.us/CouncilCorr/pages/email/respond_link.jsf?respKey=QXJDbFRpVGITYw=_=
L~
ah~ut:blanlc 7/31 /2008
From: Dr. Paul Katsampes
Date Received: 07/31/2008
Response Key: 21668
Respondents sent this email:
John Pollak in Housing sent an FYI only.
Ruth McHeyser in Planning sent an FYI only.
Jann Oldham in HHS sent an FYI only,
Council Correspondence:
I support the rezoning of Orchard Park to ensure the availability of
low cost housing in Boulder.
Dr. Paul Katsampes
Box 367
Eldorado Snrinnc, CO 80025
303.817.8236 cell
303.284.9921 home
?Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does
not become a monster. And when you look into the abyss, the abyss
looks into you.?
?Friedrich Nietzsche, Thus Spake Zarathustra
If you would like to respond to this correspondence, please use the following link
http://intraweb.ci.boulder.co,us/CouncilCorrJpages/ertiail/respond link.jsf?respKey=QXJDbFRpVGIDcg==
ah~iit~hl»nk 7/31/2008
From: Hope Robertson
Date Received: 07/31/2008
Response Key: 21670
Respondents sent this email:
Ruth McHeyser in Planning sent an FYI only.
John Pollak in Housing sent an FYI only.
Jann Oldham in HHS sent an FYI only.
Council Correspondence:
Dear City Council,
It has come to my attention that a travisty is about to take place at the
lovely orchard grove trailer park with plans of it being developed into condos.
PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE step up to the plate as our council members and stop
this development from happening. Low and moderate income housing in Boulder is
difficult to find for struggling families and Orchard Grove not only offers
families this help but it is also an extremely lovely park like setting. With the
building of the condos are we not only loosing important housing for low
income families but also disturbing more wildlife sanctuaries and areas.
Please rezone the park to manufactured homes, retain its 32 acres and stop
this development from happening.
Thank you
Hope Robertson
**************Get fantasy football with free live scoring. Sign up for
FanHouse Fantasy Football today.
(http://www.fa nhouse.com/fa ntasyaffair?Held=aolspr00050000000020)
If you would like to respond to this correspondence, please use the following link
htfip://intraweb.ci.t~oulder.co..us/CouncilCon~/pages/email/respon_d_link,jsf?respKey=QXJDbFRpVIM=
ahn~it •hl ank 7/3 ] /208
From: Melba Shepard
Date Received: 07/31/2008
Response Key: 21677
Respondents sent this email:
Ruth McHeyser in Planning sent an FYI only.
John Pollak in Housing sent an FYI only.
Jann Oldham in HHS sent an FYI only.
Council Correspondence:
Members of the Boulder City Council,
I want to express my interest and concern regarding the proposed
re-development of the Orchard Grove Mobile home Park, I am acquainted
with the community, and I believe it is exemplary in the attitudes and
relationships of the tenants toward their community and their care and
concern for one another. This is a rare phenomenon in our culture, and
it is fragile in a situation causing the stress of uncertainty and
perceived threat.
It is my understanding that the planning staff is in support of the
proposed development of the park. It may be that those young
professionals have never experienced a close neighborhood such as the
one in jeopardy at Orchard Grove, and are not aware of the possible
devastation of the lives of the four hundred or so Boulder residents who
reside there. And perhaps it is not planning staff responsibility to
consider these potential consequences of development. I encourage you,
as council members, to consider carefully, the social impact of the
dislocation of tenants in the proposed development, and to look for a
solution that would preserve the peaceful existence of the community.
The City is to be congratulated on the handling of the Mapleton Mobile
Home Park. With the upgrading that has been done by Thistle, it would
seem to be a model that might be adapted for other older parks. There
must be public funding that could be secured for such affordable housing
projects. And I hope that all of the options are being considered in
order to preserve the unique low-income neighborhood that exists at
Orchard Grove in Boulder.
Melba Shepard
Retired Director
Department of Housing and Human Services
If you would like to respond to this correspondence, please use the following link
http://intraweb.ci.boulder.co.us/CouncilCorr/pages/email/respond_link,jsf?respKey=QXJDbFRpVIY=
g~
ah~uthi ank 7/3 l /2008
ORCHARD GROVE
SITUATIONAL SUMMARY
This Orchard Grovc Situational Summary has been prepared for the City of
Boulder staff- namely Long Range Planning and Housing and I lumart Services.
The information presented herein is intended to offer City Council members ad-
ditional input on the Orchard Grove situation currently in front of Council.
DILEMMA:
The Orchard Grovc community is at a crossroads and change is inevitable for a
continued future. With functionally obsolete infrastructure requiring a significant
c;thital need on the immediate horizon, what options exist for Orchard Grove that
prr,vide feasible solutions to the challenges ahead and that complement the growth
hlanncd (ur the immediate surrounclin~; ~rca%
~yY y4
''t .
d~(`t ~ `ski r ~ ~
' . ~
„ ~ a... ~ ~ `j 1
4„ ~ ,
y
'1
S
!e r~
rTl r
- , m;~tY'~, - . s.r, . }v~H:~=f? rat
r i:: ~
w
RESOLUTION POSSIBILITIES FOR
ORCHARD GROVE SCENARIO 1
Status Quo, no redevelopmenr, replacement of infrastructure only
The ability to address challenges at Orchard Grove is predicated Capital is generated from increased rent.
on securing capital investment to assist in funding infrastructure
improvements to the property. SCENARIO 2
Plan A, redevelopment of Orchard Grove property
Potential goals for addressing challenges facing Orchard Grove Capital is generated from redevelopment.
As expressed by City Council on June 24, 2008 SCENARIO 3
• Preservation of existing community Plan B, development of vacant area at Orchard Grove
• Preservation of housing type on site (mobile homes) Capital is generated from increased rent and
• Protect affordability of housing for residents limited development.
STATE OF THE INFRASTRUCTURE -,~.r:~;t, : ~
Orchard Grove residents face significant challenges pertaining to the ~.,...r.~` v, v:~~~~
.~~Z ~.y
' ~ NORTH 't ` "
existing infrastructure serving the park. Because the park was devel- ~ 30.4 Untts Per Acre 1`~~ ,
oped in the early 1960's, the useful life of the water, sewer and road 4 t.
systems within Orchard Grove has expired. Already, repeated repairs '
WEST ~ ~y,T
have been performed to keep the systems operating and it is estimated ~ 25.7 Units Per Acre
that within the next Eve to seven years the existing infrastructure will ~ EAST
see failures beyond the level of feasible spot repair. ~ ORCHARD 13.7 units Per Aue "
~ GROVE
t'.; 8 Untts Per Acro
lstimates provided by Wyatt Construction indicate acost of approxi- i ',..li,....
mately $32,000 per unit for replacement of existing infrastructure ,y ~ ' `
f , .
,lac I
(based on ex erience with Ma Teton Mobile Home Park infrastruc- 1;=~; ~1,: , ' ' ' • ' ii.. t F; , ~,~'-~r!
P P I • a ~ ~ ~i E~'F'J ~ti~ kril Q~~' r ~ r , y~'~ ti1k'+as'v.
ture replacement project.) Specific infrastructure issues include: g '~~tx ?I" i t~~ , ~ ~ 7 ~ ~i `!`~''~'i`"
a--~; r ~ ' ,
? TRANSIT VIItAGE
~omestiC Water System ~ ' ~ AREA PIAN
• Typically, similar iron pipe has an expected design life of 30 to ~,.t j., + )1 ' ~
50 years, depending on soil types, before strucrural and corrosion _ ~ ~
problems require fitll replacement (Orchard Grove is 45 years old) 1~ ~ ; j h ,
• Size ofpipc and non-looping system do not meet current 1OR1}, ,x~, - r'.y- ~,t_ t -
I,. • .
city standards - j ~--t~ ~ '
VACANT AREA ~ \ ~ 1
Souris: Google Ranh y{,• ~ • _
Sanitary Sewer System
• Size of pipe and non-looping system do not meet current CONTEXT M A P
city standards In recent years, many new developments have occurred in the area
• Sewer system in place is undersized to carry peak loads and surrounding Orchard Gruvc, such as the redevelopment of Cross-
bare(y capable of handling daily flows roads Mall into the new Twenty Ninth Street shopping center and the
Steel Yards infil! project. Beyond These recent redevelopment projects,
urbanization of this area is expected into the future with the proposed
changes for the adjacent Transit Village Area Plan and the anticipated
redevelopment of the retail center at 28th Strecr and Iris Road. These
changes add to the social and economic sustainabiliry for residents
through enhanced connections co transit.
App
SCENARIO l: Status Quo, no redevelopment, replacement of infrastructure only
Monthly Sutnmd • Premise: Chan es ro osed arc inde endent of ownershi arran ement.
Current Rent $350 er unit
Proposed Rent lncrease
Ad'ustment to Market Rate o $525 $175 per unit
Infrastructure Improvements
Fundinggenerattd by assessmenu $560 to $710 per wait
$G to $7.5 million, S- ear ayo at 8%
Utilities P.x ense $100 cr unit, aver e
New Monthl Pa ment $1,185 to $1,335 er unit, not includin mort a e a menu
SCENARIO 2: Plan A, redevelopment of Orchard Grove property
Monthl Summa • Premise: New deeded affordable units, for saIc and for rent, are available for Orchard Grove residents.
Mortgage For Affordable Unit Assumptions:
Salesprice - $90,000 to $1511000 $510 to $870 per unit Credit for equity in mobile home: $5>000
Financin throu h A~ordable Housing Program Estimated air market value
Utilities Ex ense _ $50 er unit, avera e for ever efficient units
' I-IOA Fee
Minfmal or residents in affordable units $25 per unit
New Monthly Payment (mortgage payment} $585 to $9/t5 er unit, lower rates expected for rental units
SCENARIO 3: Plan P, development of vacant area at Orchard Grove (see Context MapJ
Monthly Summary • Premise: Mobile homes remain at Orchard Grove, no increase in deeded affordable units.
Currem Kent $350 er unit
Proposed Rent Increase
Ad'ustment to Market Rate o $525 $175 per unit
Infrastructure Improvements
Stebsidized by redr, vcloprnera revenues $235 to $330 per unit
$2.5 to $.3.5 million, S-year fiayo~'at 8%
ltilities Ex ense $l0U cr unit, avera e
New Monthl Payment $860 in $955 er unit, nor includin T mort a e a meets
SUMMARY TabteA
The scenarios outlined offer a snapshot of the financial consider- Council GOta1s (6/24/08)
ations pertinent to potential changes at Orchard Grove. However, Scenarios Community Housing Type Affordability
many qualitative factors should be evaluated to ensure the best solu- 1 Status Quo See Below x
tion is identified to address the challenges at Orchard Grove. Each
scenario presented results in a r<inge of different outcomes for the 2 A: Redevelopment See Below x
residents of Orchard Grove and the City of Boulder. 3 B: Limited See Below x
development
1 . STATUS QUO
• Cost of infrastructure likely results in displacement of residents Increased connectivity between surrotutding neighborhoods
• llisplacement of residents results in breakup of community and vansit
• No net increase in affordable housing inventory for Ciry A portion of existing residents may prefer relocation
of Boulder
3. PLAN B, LIMITED DEVELOPMENT
2. PLAN A, REDEVELOPMENT Mobile home housing type is preserved and community
• Protection from infrastructure failures remains in place
• Increase in affordable housing inventory for City of Boulder Cost of infrastructure improvements for residents reduced
• Permanent affordability, nor mazket affordability No net increase iu affordable housing inventory for Ciry
• Appreciaring ownership opportunities for residents of Boulder
• Increased sustainability- energy efficient units, transit-oriented Mobile homes remain as market affordable units
• Enhanced amenities -new parks and trails, preservation of trees A portion of existing residents may prefer relocation
~I~i ~ 1~ ~ P+~g~ #___r1_
~i'- t , t
PARK HISTORY ~ ~ Y
Development of the Orchard Grove mobile home park began in ~ ' ~ - -
~ . 1~'~ • + ~
1960, prior to the property being located within the city's• incorpo- ~ ~ ~
rated boundaries.loday, the property remains mostly in its original ~ t ~ "'r~~sY ~
state - wich the original water and sewer system and a number of the ~ ~ ~ y ~,t;• . 41~'s '1
first homes still on the property. ,
,~tt ~.'i
k ,f yam` ^~~t ~1'. I.~t.:r. ~ ` i ~
1960 First phases of Orchazd Grove development begin ~ t",;~b~'-;, r• .s~.... ' r , .
Orchard Court Dcvdopment Company (Nuttall) `~a "`ry~~~ ~ ~ ~ •
acquires the 27-acre Orchard Grove property, and has ~ ~ • j `•~/fi'~• ~ . ~ ' `
1963 ~ ~ t ~ y ~ -w• / ,
operated the property as a mobile home park since '•~,;~t•. - f ~
this time -1~ y ;
,`Ali, rJ~' ,lyw• ~t
1965 Improvements added to property, recreation center ~~~?;~'i~'`~ w~' 1 ~ ,.~I~~N't~'
r -n it 1 .~rf'f
Annexation of a portion of the property into City r':;'~-~"' r ' i - • . ~ ~j~' j~ i~~ 1.'~ •
1967 ~ .,t; , ' .
of Boulder ~ :~.;'~'a1~r•j'~';%}" ~ t:
, k~,};_,,. ~ is .!~r;.~ `~r ° J
" 7r .
Additional five acres at northeast corner are purchased, 'yt` ~;~r~~.~~'~. - { ~ ~.''r;~ •
1972
never developed ~,i
t r
, ?
-'ti
1976 HUD standards addressing mobile homes are created
_ f~.i~ ~ y;i~ A
1978 Annexation of remaining porcions of property into City K~r.~, VV t
of Boulder, zoned )ZIvI-1 J
~ ~C
, ~
i 985 City of Boulder's mobile home zone, MH, is created t - ~ . R
outlining development standards ti'
Potential purchase of Orchard Grove by Chapin '
2008 Development
i,
REFERENCES
Countryside Asset Management Corporation )uly 25.2008
Drexel Bartell ~'j. ~
I lousing and Human Services, Ciry of Boulder Provided by: ~''N . '
Long Range Planning, Ciry of Boulder ( C~13f1lfl _
Transit Village Area Plan, September 2007, Ciry of Boulder ~
Wyatt Construction 2005 10th St., Suite A
Boulder, CO 80302 '
DESIGN~GOHKSI ~nP
1390 tawrence SL, Suite 200
Denser, CO 80204
t www.desigmvorkshop.com '
Attachment D
Draft Ordinance
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE RE"CONING 27 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED AT
3003 VALMONT ROAD AND GENERALLY LOCATED NORTHWEST OF THE
INTERSECTION OF FOOTHILLS EXPRESSWAY AND VALMONT ROAD AND
NORTHEAST OF THE INTERSECTION OF VALMONT ROAD AND 30TH STREET,
COMMONLY KNOWN AS ORCHARD GROVE MOBILE HOME PARK FROM
RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM - 1 (RM-1) TO MOBILE HOME (MH) ZONING
CLASSIFICA"TION AS DESCRIBED IN CHAPTER 9-5, "MODULAR ZONE
SYSTEM," B.R.C. 1981, AND SETTING FORTH RELATED DETAILS. `
WHEREAS THE CITY COUNCIL FINDS AND RECITES THE FOLLOWING:
A. A public hearing before the Planning Board of the City of Boulder was duly held on August
7, 2008, in consideration of rezoning approximately 27 acres of land from Residential Medium - 1 (RM-1)
to Mobile Home (MH), that is a parcel of land generally located at 3003 Valmont Road, City of Boulder,
County of Boulder, State of Colorado, as shown on Exhibit A attached to this ordinance (the "Property");
B. The Planning Board found that the rezoning of the Property from RM-1 to MH is consistent
with the policies and goals of the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan; is necessary to bring the Property
into compliance with the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan; and meets the criteria for rezoning as
provided in Chapter 9-2, "Review Processes," B.R.C. 1981;
C. The Planning Board recommended that the City Council amend the zoning district map to
include the Property in the MH zoning district as provided in Chapter 9-5, "Modular 7,one System,"
B.R.C. 1981;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
BOULDER, COLORADO:
Section 1. Chapter 9-5, "Modular Zone System," B.R.C. 1981, and the zoning district map forming
apart thereof are amended to include the Property within the Mobile Horne (MH) zoning district.
Section 2. The City Council finds that the rezoning of the Property from RM-1 to MH is consistent
Agenda Item # 5A Paee # `t
with the policies and goals of the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan, is necessary to bring the Property
into compliance with the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan, and meets the criteria for rezoning as
provided in Chapter 9-2, "Review Processes," B.R.C. 1981. The City Council adapts the recitals as a part
of this ordinance.
Section 3. The City Council has jurisdiction and legal authority to rezone the Property.
Section 4. This ordinance is necessary to protect the public health, safety, and welfare of the
residents of the city, and covers matters of local concern. The rezoning of the Property bears a substantial
relation to, and will enhance the general welfare of, the Property and of the residents of the City of
Boulder.
Section 5. The City Council deems it appropriate that this ordinance be published by title only and
orders that copies of this ordinance be made available in the office of the city clerk for public inspection
and acquisition.
INTRODUCED, READ ON FIRST READING, AND ORDERED PUBLISHED BY TITLE ONLY this
19th day of August, 2008.
Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk on behalf of the
Director of Finance and Record
READ ON SECOND READING, PASSED, ADOPTED, AND ORDERED PUBLISHED BY
TITLE ONLY this i day of , 2008.
Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk on behalf of the
Director of Finance and Record
Agenda Item # SA Page ~ ~
Attachment E
BVCP Criteria for Land Use Map Changes that May Be Considered at Any Time
lb) Criteria for Eligibility: The Land Use Map is not intended to be a zoning map. It is intended to
provide policy direction and definition for future land uses in the Boulder Valley. Thus, a change to
the land use designations may be considered at any time, if it is related to a proposed change in zoning
or proposed annexation and meets all of the following criteria:
(a) The proposed change is consistent with the policies and overall intent of the comprehensive
plan. (BVCP);
(b) The proposed change would not have significant cross jurisdictional impacts that may affect
residents, properties or facilities outside the city;
i
(c) T he proposed change would not materially affect the land use and growth projects that were
the basis of the comprehensive plan;
(d) The proposed change does not materially affect the adequacy of availability ofurban facilities
and services to the immediate area or to the overall service area of~the city of Boulder;
(e) The proposed change would not materially affect the adopted Capital Improvements Program
of the city of Boulder; '
(f) The proposed change would not affect the Area II/Area III boundaries in the comprehensive
plan
Agenda Item # 5A Pa~c #