Loading...
6 - City Council Study Session Material - Crestview East Annexation Options Boulder City Council Study Session August 12, 2008 8:00 - 9:0o p.m. Discussion of Crestview East Annexation Options i~~7~7 Broadway Municipal Building City Council Chambers Submit Written Comments to City Council ATTN: Alisa Lewis, City Clerk 1777 Broadway, 2nd Floor P.O. Box 791 Boulder, CO 80306 or Fax to 303-441-4478 or E-mail: council@houldercolorado.gou MEMORANDUM 'TO: Mayor McGrath and Mctnbers of City Council FROM: Stephanie A. Grainger, Interim City Manager Ruth McHeyser, Acting Planning Director Susan Richstone, Long Range Planning Manager Robert Ray, Land Use Review Manager Charles herro, Senior Planner Bev Johnson, Environmental Planner DATE: August 8, 2008 SUBJECT: August 12 Study Session -Crestview East Annexation I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The purpose of this study session is to provide City Council with an update on annexation discussions with the Crestview East neighborhood and to get feedback on some of the primary issues in the negotiations. Included in this memo are: 1) background on the city's neighborhood annexation policy; 2) background on annexation negotiations with the Crestview West and Crestview East neighborhoods; 3) issues and options for City Council discussion. At the May 20, 2008 council meeting, a group of 14 residents along Upland and Violet avenues expressed their frustration that annexation of the Crestview East enclave was not moving forward and asked for help from City Council. The residents submitted to staff and council an annexation proposal titled, "A Call for Action" (Attachment A). An annexation petition &otn the 14 residents has been filed with the city clerk; however, the required application materials have not yet been submitted to the city. Since the May 20, 2008 council meeting, staff has met three times with most of the petitioners to discuss the outstanding issues and next steps for moving an annexation agreement with the neighborhood forward. Staff also has outlined the annexation process and the requirements associated with each step. The primary issues to be resolved in the annexation discussions are: 1) up-fronting the cost for management and construction of the public improvements; 2) required annexation fees and taxes; 3) requirement for meeting the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP) community benefit policy (affordable Housing); 4) sidewalk requirement along Violet and Tamarack avenues; 5) Vine Street design and construction; 6) house sire limitations. 3 This memo includes an analysis of these issues and options for council discussion and feedback (pp. l 1-22), and a staff recommendation for each item. II. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The staff rcconunendation for each of the issues is listed below. 1. Funding for Public Improvements Option 2 -City manages installation of the improvements and up-fronts the costs. Staff believes that the city needs to take on this role in order for the group annexation to move forward successfully. From a practical standpoint it is difficult for the neighborhood to organize enough landowners to pay the up-front costs for the design and construction of the utilities. Property owners would be responsible for the costs of connecting to city utilities at the time of connection. 'this does entail costs to the city that are not currently budgeted and funds will need to be identified in the 2009 budget either by taking funds from another project or from utility reserves. 2. Annexation and Development Fees and Taxes Option 2 -Credit applicants who paid annexation application fees in 2003/ charge new participants; no waiver or financing of Plant Investment Fees. Staff believes it is appropriate to credit those property owners who have recently paid arulexation application fees and that new participants should pay their fair share of t}~e application fees. Plant investment Fees represent the capital costs of providing utility service to new customers and the beneficiaries of the service should pay those costs. 3. Community Benefit/Affordable Housing Option 1 -Affordable housing requirements consistent with established guidelines and previous annexations Staff believes it is appropriate for the affordable housing requirements to be consistent with other annexation agreements. 4. Sidewalks Option 3 -Sidewalks along Upland and Violet avenues through a Local Improvement District agreement. Staff believes that sidewalks should be required along Upland and Violet avenues through a local improvement district agreement consistent with agreements reached in earlier Crestview East and Crestview West annexations. 5. Vine Street Design and Construction Option 2 -Access street standard Construction of Vine Street according to the city's Access Street standard is a reasonable compromise between a residential street standard and a "green, skinny" street as proposed by the neighborhood. Any street narrower than an access street would not meet capacity needs at build-out. 4 6. House Size Limitations Staff recommends that house size limitations be placed on properties in Crestview East. III. QUESTIONS FOR COUNCIL: 1. lloes council have questions or comments about the options for funding the management and construction of the public improvements? 2. Does council have questions or comments about the options for payment of fees and taxes? 3. Does council have questions or comments about the options for meeting the BVCP community benefit policy? 4. Does council have questions or comments about the options for sidewalks along Violet and Tamarack avenues? 5. Does council have questions or comments about the options for Vine Street design and construction? 6. Does council have questions or comments about house size limitations for Crestview East? 7. Does council have questions or comments about the staff recommendation? IV. BACKGROUND: Crestview East is a partially developed residential enclave in the North Boulder Subcommunity (see the following map). The enclave is located in Area II of the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP) and has been part of the city's "Service Area" since 1978. Many of the existing homes, however, were built before 1960. When people talk about North Boulder's "rural character," the enclaves are typically the area to which they are referring. While they are not literally "rural" given that most of the home sites are one acre or less, they possess qualities that are generally associated with rural areas including unimproved roads with borrow ditches and few sidewalks; mailboxes placed at the end of gravel driveways, no street lighting, large setbacks, and a general sense of quiet. S I f-'~- ~ ` `6: 4i['dTi Glt,,2~~I` ]Fe(t ~i - ,F o• u t - ~ - , ~ iRr ¢ o_~ t~~ -'~,~-.'(~~s~ Cpl t 60. t~ ;.t ~.ii - _ ..l.a~i. r ;E~ ~ ` t'- - -i..., p o J I `1 q~: -QL{ tc• t~"i33~Zi ~t01 t 7 p fi~i -~.y,l Q F--~~ j "L_-~S ry 'CF O ~ _ ..I It,~' ~ ~ e j ~ ~ ~ ~1,.F9F= ~oa;~i i .ifc~.i ie~tiCa~, = ' ~ ~ _p ' , alb, o~ ..1 ~ i-}- I I ~p I IO~~ ~ty~. 71 fJ O _ ~ 9~ {t I L• 1 ~ - Ii ~~'C;i ~AT~ `iCali,?c.1pf~PP)~ r ~k t~ 1)'Il ice= is I ~ !Vote: 'rhe areas .shown ira ~vhit2 rare existing eazlnty e;~ela~~es (i.e., noP yet c~nnexecl, lials" salrrozinrlecl on call sides by city lcy;~s~%s). ~.'res~i~~ievv l~~est is the area bec'>-v~~~n ~rozlcltid~ry clracl 19`!` Street t'rrat tivas annexed ir1 the city it _197. '^'"'4,i ~!1 ~w L:%l~it l5 locata:d ad)aC+,1?% t:Xlsting ailtl i~larlil ~L~ i f~l7stt !"Ol1it;S a11t~ a rllCt~l l:i"f! C~i;wtS~~y ~1~~~_'.^r,, Clt~v~.l D the slOrth. !1'lle i~lorth :~ouldt;r si?i7C{~i1CliflLltil"Cy F'1_an rOCtlfrltflt:t~ldS G la-rlsi liS, pattt;n! that transitions iroril lnedil.lrn density residential along Viola _A_venzie io estatt~ fesiccl~iia dt;iiSltiCS to the ;0!4$12. ~S1t~iCi1S r`~Crt'.s !s iq'rlff~s,f11~3ti~ly 5C9l.ltl'! Oi~ i:ll~-: 4.~"eCSl.Vlt~b~.~ 8t slc3~l?f)aJrilOC9~ arlCl !s rt;Ct~Y,"lrflCtld(;dto fel'i2~1n li"! ll~, Ci.1Ci'Cil! put"teri2 0i i°liral Yt:sltientlal SlZ~, lots (1.C> Oi?E;-i2t;fC lots}. ~~teci3cally, the ~©llo~,~ii~g d~v~lcprez~,,~t gui~~~,li~~es ozitlii~ed ii2 the subc;oma;2unizy plan are ieleva;2t ~io ~ihis area.: 1. Create permanently afiortla~,le and diverse housing, 2. Develop rrlinimuln densities io the modiurfa density residential (ol• RVt) and low density residential (or lil?) ~o12es 3. Create llet~r developrrlent in a pattern that supports walkability and good corrlrnui2ity design. Provide connection as shown on the subcommunity Transportation Plan, plus at lease one additional north-south strt;et arld east west alleys in tht; MR (or RNl) and Lh (or RL,} zones. ~i. Consider transfers of development (TDR) from otht;r, less centrally located areas, Consider neighborhood a;onscrlsus, in balant;e with other anne~,atiol~ goals. b. Flt;lp dell"ay the p'foper'iy r~~~/Hers' costs of al~l~oxation. all of rho landowners il~ the CYOSt;iiew l;?asi ~r+_clavc sY+~ould have future si~bdivisior! aslcl developl~lel2t potential l.~nd€~r the proposed ~onll'lg of the propt;riles. (See potential redevelop+~2etlt map ii2 ~lZfochrtae;si B.) `fhe proposed initial ~ol~ing is based on the l~lorih 13ouidei- Subcornirlul2ity P1a12 ?r!d the land use designations in the ~VC1J, i~~ost properties il~ the estatc,• residential !arid List; dtst:flCt iTitOi.?lcl fit; e1lglble to SUl1diVldf; lnt0 tt~i~0 anti three lots (allowing fOf one oi- zVJJ ~?~tdiiional no~,v antis). 1'rc~perii~;U~ iz~ the split estate al~cl lo~v rlt;rlsity rzsicltyrliial a_rtra would have the ability to subdivide into three lots (allowing for two additional new units). Properties in the split medium and low density districts would be able to subdivide into at least tour lots with the potential for an additional seven or eight new units. Public Health Issues Crestview East, as well as other mostly developed residential neighborhoods in Area II of the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP), has had a growing issue with their on-site well and septic systems over the past several years. Many of the septic systems in these neighborhoods are over 35 years old and are either failing or their permits have expired. Due to the high groundwater conditions in many of these areas, the septic systems in close proximity to wells pose a serious public health concern (Attachment C~. City and county staff have been working together to try and resolve these issues for several years by encouraging annexation of the neighborhoods so that property owners can connect to the city water and sewer systems. In 1989, a groundwater contamination problem was identified in North Boulder when a sample collected from a residential well on Violet Avenue was found to contain organic solvents. The source of these solvents was traced to the former site of Centerline Circuits located at 4575 North 11`h St. The contamination resulting from the disposal of solvents on that site was found to have migrated to the southeast primarily through the Crestview West neighborhood area. Traces of the solvents were originally identified as far east as 26`h Street in the early 1990s. The best solution to the contamination problem at the time was to provide public water to properties in the area in order to reduce the public health risk. The city was identified by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), along with a number of other parties, as potentially contributing to the pollution that affected the wells of the homeowners of Crestview West. The wells in that area were polluted with organic materials, including l,l,l-trichloroethane and 1,1-dichlorethene. The pollutants for which the city would have been responsible for came from the fire training center. The other parties to the settlement agreement also had properties that potentially contributed to the groundwater pollution. The settlement prevented the properties from being listed on National Priorities List under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act ("CERCLA"). As part of the settlement, the city contributed $50,000 of the $460,000 clean-up costs. All of the funds provided by the parties of the settlement agreement were submitted to the city. The city then used the funds to design, construct and connect an extension of its domestic municipal water supply to all of the users of domestic water to the affected property owners in Crestview West. Replacing the wells with domestic municipal water eliminated the public health threat. Crestview West Annexation Agreement In 1997, after the EPA settlement, the city finalized an annexation agreement with the Crestview West neighborhood. The basic provisions of the agreement (for properties north of Tamarack Avenue) were as follows: 1. Domestic water service to existing residences was constructed and paid for through the settlement agreement between the EPA, the city, and other responsible parties at the time. Domestic water service included application fees, main front footage 7 charges, tap fees, PIFs, meter fees, and filing fees for inclusion in the Northern Colorado Water Conservation District. 2. Property owners paid all normal fees and charges for water service to new units at the time of construction. 3. 1'he city up-fronted the cost of the installation of the new sewer mains but required property owners to pay their share of the installation costs upon connection to the sewer system (either through lump sum or in 10 annual installments amortized at a rate of 6.S% simple interest per annum). 4. Property owners were not required to connect to the city's sanitary sewer system if their septic permits were current. Property owners with new units or expired septic permits were required to pay the applicable fees and assessments and connect to the city's sewer system. S. Properties were zoned in accordance with the North Boulder Subcommunity Plan. 6. Property owners signed an agreement to participate in a Local Improvement District to pay the costs of new transportation improvements once constructed. 7. Property owners dedicated various easements for right-of--way improvements. 1996-1997 Crestview East Annexation Discussions The first consideration of a group annexation of the Crestview East neighborhood began in 1995 as the Crestview West annexations were taking place. Staff held neighborhood meetings with several of the landowners in Crestview East in 1996 (during the annexation process for Crestview West) to gauge interest in annexation. Several options for annexation were discussed with the neighborhood at the time including: 1) voluntary arulexation, 2) unilateral annexation, and 3) annexation through election (see Attachment D). Approximately 23 property owners submitted an initial petition and paid the applicable annexation fee. After several months of negotiation, the city offered a package similar to that offered to Crestview West with easement dedications specific to individual properties. Water plains in Upland and Violet avenues already existed so the city offered to up-front the cost of the sewer main installation similar to the agreement with Crestview West. Many of the property owners did not wish to accept the provisions of the agreement and pulled out of the annexation process. Seven properties, however, did annex to the city in 1997 as part of that initial effort. Two additional properties in Crestview East were annexed to the city individually in April 2002. I3VCP Policies and Annexation Guidelines New annexation policies regarding mostly developed residential properties were adopted in the year 2000 major update to the BVCP. (See Attachment F,.) This includes a statement that the city "will actively pursue annexation of county enclaves." In 2002, following an economic study of the costs and benefits of annexation for property owners, Planning Board and City Council endorsed a set of guidelines for negotiating group annexation agreements with Area II residential neighborhoods (Attachment These guidelines have been the basis for staff s position in annexation discussions with Crestview East, Githens Acres, and Gapter Road neighborhoods over the past few years. The guidelines further refine the I3VCP annexation policies by specifically outlining which properties will be asked to provide community benefit upon annexation and what form of community benefit may be requested by the city, based upon how illllch, if any, additional development potential they will receive upon annexation. 8 Specially-funded Annexation Project To further implement the BVCP annexation policy to actively pursue annexation of mostly developed Area II properties, the city and Boulder County jointly funded apart-time staff position from 2004-2005 to help initiate and facilitate neighborhood annexations. The goal of the effort was to work with neighborhoods identified in the BVCP as appropriate for annexation to the city, including Crestview East, to attempt to facilitate a mutually agreeable annexation package. Staff contacted all neighborhoods, including Crestview East, to gauge interest in annexation. At that time, the landowner/developer of 2020 Upland had initiated an annexation petition with eight other landowners in Crestview East. The letter to the Crestview East neighborhood was intended to gauge whether there maybe additional interest in participating in an annexation process and determine whether this area needed special attention that the annexation project was meant to provide. However, because an annexation application was already in process, and because Crestview East properties would receive additional development potential upon annexation, it was not included in the specially-funded annexation project. Over the past four years, the primary focus for the annexation project has been the Gapter Road neighborhood (north of Baseline Road and west of Cherryvale Road) where no additional development potential is possible upon annexation and existing septic systems are in the floodway. The city has been reserving utility funds to up-front the cost of water and sewer main installation in Gapter Road if the neighborhood is annexed. The negotiations with the Gapter Road neighborhood continue to move forward; however, the neighborhood has delayed submittal of a petition and annexation documents until high hazard flood mitigation issues in the neighborhood are worked out. Kecent Negotiations with Crestview East The most recent Crestview East annexation application was processed through the city's development review process from 2003 to 2007. The primary point of contact was the landowner/developer of 2020 Upland Ave. and there was one staff planner who worked on this application. All nine petitioners agreed to most of the initial terms of the agreement; however, several signed "in protest" primarily because of a provision in the agreement for sidewalks along Upland Avenue. In July 2007, a proposed annexation agreement was taken to Plallninb Board for discussion. At the hearing, the property owner of 2075 Upland Ave. objected to portions of the agreement regarding required sidewalk construction along Upland Avenue as well as the requirement to sell all Silver Lake Ditch rights to the city. Additional petitioners also had similar objections to portions of the agreement. The Planning Board recommended approval of the annexation to City Council; however, after the meeting, the neighbors were not able to achieve consensus regarding the terms of the annexation agreement. In November 2007, the landowner/developer of 2020 Upland Ave. notified the eight other petitioners that the application would not advance to City Council unless the petitioners agreed to the annexation provisions as drafted. Recognizing their fundamental differences, the 9 landowner/developer separated himself from the other petitioners and continued with the annexation process for the, properties at 2020 Upland Ave. and 4240 19th St. That application is currently moving toward completion. Another application for annexation of the properties at 1960 and 2066 Violet Ave. has been in process since 1989. (See current status of properties below.) ° ~ 0 0. .0 APPI_ICATIOrJ IN PROCESS VIO AVENU~ - v--- ~.i ~ ~ ~ ~ ° a a 'A CALL FOR ACTION" 3 viuE srREEf ° ~ NO CURRGNI' APPLICATIONI ~ ' ~ 'a , S: ` ~ a Q • ~ ~ "'lVJ 1] „J~ ~ UWJ !JC ~ ~C ; ~ "-r ~ V' LJ C.1 4„I a tJf'LAND AVENUE ~ I APPLICATION C} + `tom o l ~ ~1- R~~~: Properties involvec± in ".~i Cn!1 for~Actio~r "petition ~~.1iae: P+•operzies pc:ri of ~~~t~ticatiora L(,'R199~-tt~00i i~reen: Proi~e;"iie: pc~r~'oj•a~plic~tion LUR2003-00069 :.i the May 20, 2008 council n~~eeting, a group o 14 residents along Upland arcd Violet: avenues ~rpressed their frustration that annexation of the larger Cresf:view East enclave was clot moving iorward and asked for help from Ciry Council. The residents submitted to staff and council members an annexation proposal titled, "A Call for Action" (~ttcschmeret ~1). Staff agreed to consider a difrerent approach Cor moving forward and to develop options for proceeding. lit this point, a.n annexation petition from the 1G• residents has been filed with the city clerk; however, the required application materials have not yet been submitted to the city. Anew application (including an improvement survey, legal descriptions of the properties, annnexation map, and current title work) from the petitioners is needed in order to move forward with an annexation agreement. Staff is working with representatives ofthe neighborhood to help them lout together the necessary materials to make a complete submittal for annexation and will schedule, a 1'lai~~ir~g )~o~.~rd date u?1c;f, the apE~licaiiorl is complei.ed. ~yincc the 'Viay 20, 200f~ cc7urlctil I>,ICC'iing, s~iail•has met. three i.in~es with some; oi~t:hc hctitianer~. to.) discuss the outstanding issl.~es (Attac•6anu~iat G) and next steps for moving an amlexation ris~recrnes~t ~.n~ith the Fzc~igh'inrhood iorward. Staff also has outlincri ih~: ati~ncxatio« f3roc;esti :a}7d. the costs associated with each step (Attachment I~. Attachment I includes a table showing the approximate costs of annexation for individual households. Staff has hired an outside facilitator to help with the Crestview East neighborhood discussions. 'T'he group is currently assembling the required annexation application materials. Staff has indicated that once the city has a complete set of application materials, a Planning Board hearing date will be scheduled. The residents of Crestview East have stated that they are in a similar "emergency" situation as the Crestview Wcst property owners in regard to groundwater contamination and have asked for Delp from the city to defray costs of the annexation and utility installation. City staff recognizes that the well and septic system issues in Crestview East (and many of the other Area II neighborhoods) are public health issues that should be addressed as soon as possible. However, staff does not agree that the groundwater contamination caused by Centerline Circuits is an emergency situation for the neighborhood. Information from the EPA from 2000 indicates that the concentrations of the two groundwater contaminants in the Crestview East neighborhood are substantially below federal drinking water standards and that further action by the federal government to protect human health in the area is not warranted. Furthermore, the remaining concentrations are expected to decrease even further iti tiie future (Attachment J). V. ANALYSIS (ISSUES AND OPTIONS): Staff has met with several of the petitioners to discuss their proposal and to move the annexation process forward. Although staff feels optimistic that an atu~exation agreement can be reached with the neighborhood, there are points of disagreement between the neighborhood and staff on some issues. The following is an analysis of those issues and options for council discussion: I. Funding for Public Improvements Does council have questions or comments about the options for funding the management and construction of the public improvements? The improvements needed in Crestview East to complete the provision of basic utility services to the neighborhood include sewer mains, water and sewer taps, water and sewer service lines to the existing Homes, and road resurfacing to bring Violet and Upland avenues up to city rural residential street standards. (A water main currently exists along Upland and Violet avenues.) A rough estimate of the total cost for the mains, taps, repaving anti service connections is roughly $300,000 per road (Violet and [Jpland avenues). This cost would be shared by the property owners along each road. In most annexations, the landowners involved in a petition take the responsibility for funding and managing the installation of public utilities in the roads. Most annexations, however, involve a sponsoring developer or a small group of residential landowners that can up-front the cost of the infrastructure. 11 "i'he city's experience with large aruiexations involving multiple homeowners at various income levels is that it is extremely difficult for all of the participants to not only agree to the terms of an annexation agreement but to organize themselves to fund the installation of the public improvements on their own. Formation of a legal organization such as an LLC is sometimes necessary to collect funds from individual property owners and pay a contractor to design and install the utilities. Even then, all landowners may not be willing to annex and the remaining participants would need to cover the funding gaps. Staff has encouraged the landowners to look into forming an LLC or other legal organization as an option for funding the cost of the public improvements. The Crestview East residents, however, are asking the city to up-front the costs and manage the installation of the public improvements in Upland and Violet avenues. They would also like the city to provide a financing package for those landowners unable to pay in full for their share of the costs prior to connection. In the past, the city has been willing to consider the financing the costs associated with water and sewer infrastructure for existing county subdivisions within Area II of the BVCP with provisions for paying the city back over time. T'he city's Utilities Division currently has capital funding in 2008 of $525,000 budgeted in the Water Fund and $718,000 budgeted in the Wastewater Fund as up-front money for the installation of water and sewer utilities associated with the possible annexation of existing county subdivisions with well and septic system issues. The intent of these funds is to provide financing to property owners who may not have another means of raising the necessary cash to fund the installation of the water and sewer utilities. The money would be lent to property owners and would be paid back with interest to the city. City staff has been in negotiations with the Gapter Road neighborhood since 2004. The city has offered to up-front the cost of public utilities in Gapter Road and to finance the cost for those landowners unable to pay-in-full at the time of connection under the condition that 95% of the neighborhood agrees to annex and 75% of the petitioners agree to connect and begin pay-back to the city soon after annexation. Because of concerns about the implications of city floodplain regulations on existing homes in the high hazard flood zone, the neighborhood has not yet been able to meet the city's 95% participation threshold. If the city up-fronts the cost of the public infrastructure in Crestview East, there would be a higher likelihood that annexation of most of the properties in the enclave would annex than if the neighborhood funded and managed the project on its own. The city's water and sewer funds, however, have no monies appropriated in 2008 or in the proposed 2009- 2014 CIP to up-front installation costs in Crestview East. The following is an outline of financing options and their implications for council to consider and provide feedback on. 12 Options for Financing Public Im rovements O lions Im lications 1. Neighborhood pays for design, • Less likelihood of annexation occurring. (The construction and connection costs neighborhood may find it difficult to organize enough landowners to pay the full costs up- front.) • The city's utility budget and staff resources would not be impacted. • Neighborhood may have to assume liability for construction costs by forming an LLC. 2. City up-fronts costs to design and Higher likelihood of most landowners construct the project using city water annexing, however, not all landowners may be and sewer funds, with the guarantee that willing to pay-in-full at the time of connection to 80% of the landowners along Upland and the water and sewer systems. Violet avenues, 1) petition to be annexed, Some landowners may need to get a loan to and 2) at the time of connection, each pay-in-full at time of connection or use the landowner would pay design, proceeds from subdivision of new lots. construction and connection (PIF, etc) . City would provide the initial up-front costs and costs. No city financing options would would probably recover most of the costs over be offered. a 5-10 year period with an 80% pay-back guarantee condition. • There is currently no money shown in the 2009-2014 CIP to up-front utility design and construction costs for Crestview East. The city would have to 1) take money from another budgeted project, or 2) take money from utility reserves to pay for the project. This would need to be determined as part of the 2009 budget discussion. 3. City up-fronts costs to design and Highest likelihood of most landowners construct the project using city water annexing. and sewer funds, with the guarantee that The city would provide the initial up-front costs 80% of the landowners along Upland and but would likely recover costs over a longer Violet avenues would petition to be duration (8-20 years). annexed. City would offer a financing The rate payers would assume the financial option for costs associated with design, risk, along with mortgage companies, if a construction and connection (PIF, etc) to landowner defaulted on the city-offered allow landowners to pay over a limited financing option. period of time (5-10 years). Staff would need guidance during the 2009 budget discussion on where the money would come from. • There is currently no money shown in the 2009-2014 CIP to up-front utility design and construction costs for Crestview East. The city would have to 1) take money from another budgeted project, or 2) take money from utility reserves to pay for the project. This would need to be determined as part of the 2009 bud et discussion. 13 Staff Recommendation: Option 2 From a practical standpoint, staff believes it will be difficult for the neighborhood to organize enough landowners to pay the up-front costs for the design and construction of the utilities. Therefore, for this annexation effort to be successful, staff is recommending that the city take responsibility for both managing the design and installation of the improvements. Staff does not, however, recommend that the city provide a financing option to the neighborhood. Property owners who do not have the ability to pay their share of the construction costs can likely secure loans through private sources. Unlike the property owners in the Gapter Road neighborhood, Crestview East property owners will realize a significant increase in property values with annexation due to the additional development potential. Therefore, city staff believes that requiring payment of all costs at the time of connection, per the city's policies and regulations, is reasonable. 2. Annexation Fees and Taxes Dnes council have questions or comments about ti:e options for payment of fees and taxes? Under the Boulder Revised Code (subsection 4-20-43b), payment of several fees and taxes are required at various points in the annexation process (Attachment I~. The primary fees associated with annexation are the annexation application fee and Planning Board administration fees, which partially pay for staff'time involved in processing the atu~exation, and the stormwater/flood, water and sewer PIFs, which are used for capital improvements of the utility systems. Several of the landowners participating in the "A Call for Action" proposal have been involved in earlier annexation application processes (Attachment Al. The landowners leave said they have paid almost $37,000 in application fees over the last several years and should not be further charged. The neighborhood is requesting that the city waive the annexation application and Planning Board administrative fee for the new group of 14 petitioners. The neighborhood also is asking the city to waive PIFs (stormwater/flood, water, and sewer) until an individual propet~ty is sold or to allow payment of the PIFs in installments over a 10-year period. The neighborhood's view is that they should receive a similar incentive package as the Crestview West neighborhood received when it was annexed in 1997. Annexation application fee: When the annexation application for nine petitioners was submitted in 2003, the applicable annexation fee was paid to the city by the landowner/developer sponsoring the application. The landowner/developer of that application has since separated himself from the other petitioners and amended the original permit application to include only his individual properties. No additional annexation fees have been paid to the city since the original submittal fee in 2003. Although several of the other petitioners helped fund the original application fee, it is not clear at this time whether or not the landowners were reimbursed by the 14 landowner/developer who collected the funds for that application. Several of the landowners also claim that they paid the city several thousand dollars in fees when they petitioned in 1996 and should be credited for those payments. (Records of individual payments to the city in 1996 are no longer available.) The new group of 14 petitioners is planning to submit an annexation application some time in the next few months. Although some of these petitioners were part of the 2003 application, they are forming a new group that will involve a new set of negotiations and more staff time. Planning and Development Services operates under a partial cost recovery policy for annexation applications where 50 percent of the city costs are covered by the application fee and 50 percent are covered by the General Fund. City costs for staff time in negotiating annexation agreement that are not covered by fees must be covered through the General Fund or by cutting staff time spent on other projects. Staff s experience with large group annexations is that significant staff time involving several departments is spent negotiating through complex issues with several landowners. Numerous hours of staff time have been spent over the past five years of work on the original application and numerous additional staff hours are expected to be spent finalizing the current application. If a single annexation agreement can be reached among all petitioners, the cost to the city will be much lower than if the agreements must be tailored to the individual interests of each petitioner. Plant Investment Fees: Plant Investment Fees (PIFs) arc collected for all new development and newly annexed properties and are used for water, wastewater, stonnwater, and flood utility capital improvements, reconstruction or expansion of the utilities, or other purposes related to the functions the city's public utilities. The city's policy regarding PIFs is to not allow defrayment, deferment or payment through installments. The city has allowed payment over time in only a few cases where there was immediate public health emergency combined with financial hardship of the landowners. Payment of these fees is required by city ordinances. To defray or finance these would bring into question defrayment and/or financing of all city fees. The expense associated with the wastewater PIF, other connections charges and service lines are much less than the cost of constructing the sewer and water mains and typically within the capability of a property owner to fund. Also, for the water system which has the highest PIF, it is optional for people to connect at the time of annexation. Five of the new petitioners are already connected to the water system (through an out-of--city agreement) and have already paid the water PIF for their existing residences. t;nder the 1997 Crestview West annexation agreement, water PIFs and water services to existing residences were paid for as part of the legal settlement. The city did not waive wastewater PIFs but allowed landowners to finance the cost through the city. At that time, the groundwater contamination in the neighborhood was considered an immediate public health issue and all efforts were made to expedite annexation and the provision of water services to the existing homes in the neighborhood. 15 O tions for Payment of Fees and Taxes Options Im lications 1. Waive annexation fees and allow payback The city would not receive $18,920 to cover of plant investment fees over a 10-year staff time and Planning Board expenses. time period. (neighborhood proposal) Costs for staff time in negotiating an annexation agreement would need to be covered through the General Fund or by cutting staff time spent on other projects. • Landowners would save approximately $1,351 per household on fees. • To cover PIFs, the city would have to either, 1) take money from another budgeted project, 2) take money from utility reserves, or 3) increase monthly utility rates. Not charging ' PIFs would set a precedent. 2. Credit landowners who contributed to the • The city would receive approximately $6,757 2003 petition their portion of the current less in annexation fees to cover staff time and annexation application fee and require expense. payment from new petitioners. No waiver Five landowners would save $1,351 each in of or payback option for plant investment annexation expenses. fees. • Petitioners would pay city PIFs. Staff Recommendation: Option 2 Staff believes it is reasonable to credit those who have paid recently for an annexation application. New participants, however, should invest in the process by paying a share of the costs. This is a normal requirement for any type of review process and also represents a degree of commitment on the part of the applicant. 3. Community Benefit/Affordable I~ousing Does council have questions or comments about the options for meeting the BVCP community benefit policy? '1'hc Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan annexation policies (Attnchrnent L~ state that the city will actively pursue annexation of county enclaves and that the terms of annexation will be based on the amount of development potential of the annexing properties. In order to reduce the negative impacts of new development in the Boulder Valley, the city will annex Area II properties with significant development or redevelopment potential only if the annexation provides a special opportunity or benefit to the city. Annexation of substantially developed properties that allows for some additional residential units or commercial square footage are typically required to demonstrate community benefit commensurate with their impacts. Annexations that resolve an issue of public health without creating additional development impacts are encouraged without 16 consideration of community benefit. For annexation considerations, emphasis shall be ' given to the benefits achieved from the creation of permanently affordable housing. The policy anti practice for the past several years has been that 45 to 65 percent of the new development resulting from annexation be permanently affordable to low and middle income households, usually split evenly between the two income groups. As little as 45 percent of the new development could be provided as housing permanently affordable to low and middle-income households if other important community benefits arc provided in the proposed development. Typically, for small, very low density residential development, the permanently affordable housing community benefit has been provided in the form of a cash-in-lieu contribution equal to twice the applicable inclusionary zoning amount for each newly constructed unit. However, the community benefit policy does not apply if the property is annexed with an initial zoning of RR-E and no additional development potential is created. The city's guidelines for annexation of mostly developed residential properties (Attachment F~, outlines proposed community benefit contributions for landowners in Crestview East specific to each land use designation. Under the city's proposal, landowners would pay approximately $50,000 cash-in-lieu for each new unit iii low and estate residential zones (under cun•ent cash-in-lieu costs). 50 percent of all new units in the medium density residential zoning district would be permanently affordable to low and middle-income households. Under the neighborhood's proposal, landowners would pay approximately $25,000 cash-in-lieu for each new unit and 25 percent of all new units in the medium density residential zoning district would be permanently affordable to middle-income households. (See specific options below.) Staff proposed a couple of alternative options for meeting the affordable housing community benefit criterion for annexation over the past several months, but no agreement was reached with the neighborhood group. As a result, staff has returned to recommending the same affordable housing annexation conditions that have been applied to other residential annexations with development potential since the year 2000. Residents have submitted a document outlining their proposed affordable housing conditions (Attachment K1. Recently, the neighborhood suggested developing an option that would base the cash-in-lieu amounts on the size of the home to be built. Staff has asked the neighborhood to submit a written proposal on this new option. Since the affordable housing contribution is required at the time of building permit for a new home and is not part of the up-front costs of annexation and service delivery to the existing homes, staff feels that the city's position as outlined in the guidelines for ~?nnexation are not an immediate hardship on the landowners and should not be waived or reduced. All of the landowners in the Crestview East enclave would have future subdivision and development potential under the proposed zoning of the properties. (See potential redevelopment map in Attachment B.) The proposed initial zoning is based on t}ie North Boulder Subcommunity Plan and the land use designations in the I3VCP. Most properties in the estate residential land use would be eligible to subdivide into two and three lots (allowitib for one or two additional new unit). 1'ropcrtics in the split estate and 17 low density residential area would have the ability to subdivide into three lots (allowing for two additional new units). Properties in the split medium and low density districts would be able to subdivide into at least four lots with the potential for an additional seven or eight new units. O tions for Meeting BVCP Community Benefit Polic Zone Option 1 Option 2 (City Annexation Guidelines) (Neighborhood Proposal) Split RM/RL 50% of any newly constructed 25% of any newly constructed (Medium and low units should be permanently units would be PA to middle density residential) affordable (PA) to low and income households and market- middle income households. rate units pay the applicable cash-in-lieu. • If a fraction results from multiplying 25% times the total number of permitted new dwelling units, the number of required PA units will be rounded up to the nearest whole number when that fraction is 0.5 or greater. Fractions less than 0.5 will pay cash-in-lieu. If a property owner has a fraction of a PA unit requirement and chooses to provide an entire unit, that additional fraction of a unit would be eligible for subsidy funds as long as it will be owner-occupied by an income-eligible household. Split RLIRE 25% of any newly constructed Market rate units permitted on (Low density and units should be PA to middle site would pay the applicable estate residential) income households; and cash-in-lieu (1x) amount required • Market rate units permitted on site by inclusionary zoning pay twice the applicable cash-in- provisions. lieu amount required by inclusionary zoning provisions. RE Payment of two times the cash • Payment of the cash contribution (Estate Residential) contribution in-lieta:of providing on- in-lieu (1x) of providing on-site site affordable housing set forth in PA units set forth in the city's the cites inclusionary zoning inclusionary zoning ordinance for ordinance for each new dwelling each new dwelling unit (prior to unit (prior to building permit). building permit). 18 Staff Recommendation: Option 1 Staff believes that the city's requirements as outlined in the guidelines for annexation agreements are consistent with other annexations. Every property owner will realize a significant increase in property values as a result of the increased development potential that annexation to the city will provide. 4. Sidewalks Along Upland Avenue Does council have questions or comments about the options for sidewalks along Violet and Tamarack avenues? The requirement to construct sidewalks along `Tamarack, Violet, and Upland avenues has been part of both the Crestview West and Crestview East annexation discussions since 1996. The Crestview West landowners sided an agreement to participate in the establishment of a Local Improvement District (LID). In the formation of tl~c I,ID, the property owner agrees to pay 100 percent of the costs of transportation improvements upon redevelopment of his or her property including road base, pavement, curb, gutter, sidewalks and drainage facilities along all of the streets including Upland, `T'amarack, and Sumac avenues. A similar offer was made to the Crestview East applicants iti 1996. Crestview East residents who annexed in 1997 signed a similar LID agreement with the city. In the annexation agreement brought forward to Planning Board in 2007, staff' and the owner/developer at that time proposed that residents along Upland Avenue build afour- foot wide sidewalk on the south side of Upland Avenue consistent with the city's Rural Residential Street Standard. The current applicants strongly oppose the construction of sidewalks along Upland Avenue. "They feel that sidewalks would be inconsistent with the North Boulder Subcommunity Plan goal to "maintain the rural character in the central part of the subcommunity to the greatest extent possible." Furthermore, they are requesting that the city provide 50 percent support for new paths anti sidewalks. "l~lic neighborhood does, however, agree that sidewalks should be constructed along Violet Avenue and Vine Street. They also agree with two of the proposed pedestrian and bike connections outlined in the subcommunity plan including a new multi-use path at the east end of Upland (connecting Upland to Vine) and a new multi-use path along Fourmile Canyon Creek. Staff acknowledges that it is not clear in the North Boulder Subcommunity Plan if sidewalks are intended for Upland Avenue in the Crestview East neighborhood because the connection is not shown on the proposed transportation plan map. However, staff s position is that sidewalks should be constructed in order to meet the intent of the subcorrununity plan as stated in Section 8 of the plan as follows: A typical North Boulder "rural" street section which features borrow ditches and no ,street lighting. On streets where densities are low and traffic is very light (in Githens Acres, for example, where the streets do not connect), pedestrians and bicycles are safe and tom%ortable walking in the street. On routes to school (Sumac and U~~land or 19 exam le _separated patios or sidewalks are essential. With the adoption of Residential Access Project (RAP) .street standards, most streets generally have enough right-of--way to install detached walks without the use of curb and gutter drainage. In other cases, such as on 19th Street, curb and gutter will be required to !rave space for detached walks along the complete stretch of the road. Additionally, sidewalks help to meet Policy 3.24 of the BVCP as stated below: 3.24 Accessibility to Schools 7'he city and county will work with the Boulder Valley School District to develop safe and convenient pedestrian, bicycle and transit access for ,students to existing and new schools. New school facilities will be located so that school-age children have the opportunity to arrive safely on their own. O tions for Sidewalk Im rovements O tions Im lications 1. No sidewalks requirement along Upland One of the primary routes to Crestview East Avenue. Sidewalks required along Violet and elementary school will not have sidewalk Vine avenues. access. 2. Sidewalks required to be constructed along Sidewalk construction would be more likely to both sides of Upland Avenue and along Viotet occur in the short-term. Avenue within six months after annexation. 3. Sidewalks required along both sides of Upland Residents would be required to construct Avenue and along Violet Avenue through a sidewalks when they choose to redevelop or local improvement district agreement. subdivide their property. Completion of sidewalk connections would occur over the long-term. Staff Recommendation: Option 3 Option 3 would be consistent with the agreements reached with earlier Crestview East and Crestview West annexations. 5. Design and Development of Vine Street Does councll'have questions or comments about Vine Sheet design and construction? The North Boulder Subcommunity Plan specifies the development of a new east-west street (Vine Street) in Crestview East just south of the properties along Violet Avenue. The purpose of the new street is to serve newly created residential lots between Upland and Violet avenues once the current lots are subdivided. (See potential build-out and lotting pattern in Attachment B.) The new lots along Vine Street would be zoned low density residential (RL). At maximum build-out of the lots, the street would serve 36 homes. The city's Residential Street Design Standards (in the City of Boulder, Design 2{) and Construction Standards) requires a street that is accessed by over 25 units to be designed according to residential street standards, which would involve a 60-foot right- of-way, a 30-foot minimum pavement section, and curb and gutter. The North Boulder Subcommunity Plan design guidelines for neighborhoods specifics streets to be as narrow as possible. In "A Call for Action," the Crestview East landowners are proposing that Vine Street be designed as a narrow, traffic-calmed (or curvy), "green" street with a 15-foot pavement area, attached and detached sidewalks, stonnwater collection swales, and angled parking (Attachment A). They feel that a narrow, bike- and pedestrian-oriented street is more consistent with the intent of the North Boulder Subcommunity Plan than the standard residential street. In the 2003-2007 annexation negotiations with some of the landowners, a compromise position was proposed that would allow development of a street according to residential access street standards. The right-of--way and pavement width standards for a residential access street (40-foot right-of--way and 26-foot pavement area) are narrower than those of a residential street. Although a residential access street likely would be under the capacity needed to serve the block when all the lots along Vine Street are built out, staff is supporting a compromise with the neighborhood for dedication of a 40-foot right-of- way at the time of annexation. Staff has indicated that it is not in support of a narrow, curved street in this location because of capacity, access, and maintenance issues. Curved streets with indistinct pavement materials are expensive to maintain and difficult for emergency vehicles to locate after heavy snowfall and at night where street lighting is minimal. Most of the right-of=way for the Vine Street improvements has been dedicated to the city (Attachment L). Four landowners along the planned street have not yet dedicated the right-of--way. Two of these landowners have indicated their interest in dedicating the right-of--way anti have signed the most recent petition. The other two landowners have not expressed interest in annexing with the group. Design and construction of the entire street will be difficult until the remaining right-of--way is dedicated to the city. In the second meeting with the neighborhood, an agreement was reached for the landowners to dedicate enough land fora 40-foot right-of--way along Vine Street and to delay design and construction on a new street until the properties apply for subdivision. Most recently, however, the petitioners have~stated that the annexation cannot move forward unless the design of Vine Street is finalized and the appropriate dedications are made prior to adoption of an annexation agreement. 21 O lions for Vine Street Desi n Options Im lications 1. Residential street standard (60 ft right-of- The street would be able to handle the way, 30 ft. pavement) anticipated capacity at build-out. • More right-of-way would be required from all landowners. 2. Access street standard (40 ft. right-of-way, The street would be somewhat under- 26 ft. pavement) capacity for the anticipated build-out of Vine Street. • New residences would be accessible by emergency vehicles. • Additional right-of-way from four properties will be needed. 3. "Green, skinny" street (40 ft. right-of-way, The street will be under the capacity for the 15 ft. pavement) anticipated build-out of Vine Street. • Additional right-of-way from four properties will be needed. • Emergency vehicles would have difficulty accessing residences. Staff Recommendation: Option 2 Construction of Vine Street according to the city's Access Street standard is a reasonable compromise between a residential street standard and a "green, skinny" street as proposed by the neighborhood. Any street narrower than an access street would not meet capacity needs at build-out. G. House Size Limitations Does council have questions or con:menu shout house size limitations for Crestview East? The North Boulder Subcommunity Plan development guidelines for the county enclaves specify that building size limitations should be developed to preserve and enhance neighborhood character. The Crestview West annexation agreements included the following floor area limitations: "Redevelopment shall be consistent with the following FARs which shall be defined as the total square footage of all levels within the outside walls of a building or portion thereof including attached and detached garages and detached accessory buildings, but which shall riot include basements, unenclosed carports, and unenclosed porches and decks. Additionally, a S00 square foot increase to the total FAR is available fa• a detached or attached garage or a detached accessory building. " 22 Maximum Floor Area Lot Size Ratio Maximum Floor Area Ranges 6,500 -15,000 s .ft. 0.30:1 1,950-4,500 s . ft. 15,001 - 29,999 s .ft. 0.25:1 3,750-7,499 s . ft. >or = 30,000 s .ft. 0.20:1 6,000+ s . ft. Staff Recommendation: Although the above house size limitations have been presented to the applicant that is currently in the review process, staff has not discussed these with the remaining landowners in the neighborhood. Staff believes, however, that house size limitations should be included in future agreements with Crestview East landowners. VI. CONCLUSION/NEXT STEPS: The issues discussed in this memo are the primary hurdles to moving forward in the near term with an annexation agreement with the Crestview East neighborhood. After receiving input from City Council at the study session, staff will resume discussions with the neighborhood based on council's input. Staff has indicated to the neighborhood that once the required annexation materials are submitted to Planning and Development Services, a Planning Board hearing date can be scheduled. The complete steps and requirements in the annexation process are outlined in Attachment F!. Approved I3y: ~ - - Stephanie A. Grainger, Interim City Manager A'tTACIIi~IF.NTS: A Neighborhood Annexation Proposal, "A Call For Action" B Redevelopment Potential in Crestview East C Health, Safety and Environmental Quality Issues Associated with Individual Sewage Disposal Systems D 1997 Crestview East Annexation History and Annexation Options F, Background on Boulder's Annexation PolicyBoulder Valley Comprehensive Plan Annexation Policies F Guidelines for Individual Annexations of Mostly Developed Residential Properties iti Area II G Neighborhood Proposal and City Staff Response H Annexation Process Steps and Requirements I Approximate Costs of Annexation Per Household J Status of Groundwater Contamination in North Boulder K Crestview East Neighborhood -Proposed Affordable Housing Conditions L Current Status of Vine Street Right-of--Way 23 ATTACHMENT A • restv1ew East AnneXing C r . orth Boulde ncla~ e in N C ountY E < < For Action' Call • the Residents s~bmltted by a 2~~ 200g My 1 ~ l99 ryoo'~ ~ E~ „ is . Sr. . ~p,,.t ~ ; x ~ r t: p ~ v~ `d~~ ' _ } ~ cr~ltaJ ~JJ 2 ..t .fir f.K tr ~ ( _ 1 .1 t r ~ _ r't_ 1-. ~ \ ` jJf777Jr 1 ~i+ ~ C` 'Far '/ir~ 1 ` t . ` } s ~ r; i,ti it > > `/F'3 \ ~^~'1~ r.} _!^~'T" t ~ 1. i p~ g~ p Uc rsr- x, fi~ 1 '...t,'+~ 1/3~ ~ I d S._.i~..._ r~..: U~. : ~,t7~ rAa~v • ......ThC ~hYl eXr~~i on C~cS'~v, ew ~A4s~(?, u% I May 20, 2008 Re: Crestview East Annexation Dear Members of Boulder City Council, Our neighborhood consists of twenty-four homes in North Boulder, between Tamarack and Violet, and 19`~ and 22°d. This area is still a County enclave, surrounded by the City of Boulder, see map in Exhibit lb. Residents of Crestview East have been attempting to annex since 1994. Our current application was filed five years ago, in 2003. Our enclave is surrounded by the City of Boulder and rather than annex these two blocks, the City has allowed annexations and developments to surround Crestview East, and has not made an effort to facilitate the annexation of this enclave in a comprehensive manner. The annexation proposal presented to you by the residents of Crestview East is based on the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan, the North Boulder Subcommunity Plan (NBPIan), and the Guidelines for Annexation of Enclaves (passed by City Council in 2002). The residents have achieved consensus -nineteen homeowners are united in their desire and need to annex. We would like to achieve a neighborhood as envisioned in the North Boulder Plan (see relevant quotes in Exhibit 7). Residents and City staffhave agreed on most annexation conditions, but there are a few outstanding issues that we have not been able to resolve. Staff has told us that they need direction from Council. We, the residents of Crestview East, are appealing to City Council, - to move our annexation application forward, and - to make a decision on the remaining unresolved issues, so that our annexation agreement can be finalized. Background and Main Concerns A. Public Health and Safety The septic fields in our neighborhood are failing. They are well beyond the typical life expectancy of a septic system; they are on average 38 years old; they are deteriorating and pose a health hazard. The Boulder County Health Department wants to condemn the septic fields and is requiring residents to either build new septic fields or annex (see letters from Boulder County Health Department, Exhibits 4,5,6). Anew septic field costs between $20,000 and $30,000. Most residents are on well water, and are very concerned that the shallow wells might be contaminated by leaching septic fields and by the same pollution that has affected Crestview West. Crestview West borders our neighborhood along 19~' street, and was annexed in 1997 because of polluted wells from industrial solvents. This groundwater pollution has been identified in residential wells in the area extending from Broadway to 26`~ Street, and from Violet to Wonderland Creek (see NBPIan, "Groundwater Quality", page 28). Many residents in our neighborhood only drink bottled water. Comprehensive flood mitigation in North Boulder is impossible because this area is not within the City limits and because the City does not have jurisdiction to construct creek and storm water improvements on County properties. The existing patchwork of County and City properties in our neighborhood is confusing and makes it difficult to provide effective police, fire, and emergency services. B. We are in an Enclave, not at the City's Ldge We are an existing enclave, and will not enlarge the city by annexing on the edge. Many neighbors have lived here for more than tlurty years, and we feel like residents of the City of Boulder. C. We are Residents, not Developers. We are long-time homeowners. We want to continue living in our neighborhood after annexation and do not want to be forced to develop our property in order to afford annexation, so that we can have access to safe drinking water. We are deeply connected to our land, and expect that the planning principles established in the North Boulder Subcommunity Plan will be followed: - "maintain the rural character in the central part of the subcommunity to the greatest extent possible" (page 23), and - "consider neighborhood consensus" when annexing enclaves (page 10). D. Changing Rules The current annexation effort has outlived three city planners assigned to work on this application. Each planner has his/her own version of what the rules for annexation are. "I'he last nine months were spent convincing the current planner to agree to the affordable housing formula provided by the previous planner who retired in August 2007. This formula had already been voted on by City Council in the "Guidelines for Annexation of Enclaves" in 2002. We have presented our transportation proposal to the Transportation Advisory Board, and received very positive feedback. The board, however, was not able to take an official vote at their last meeting on May 12, 2008, because staff told them, to our great surprise, that we don't have an "active application" anymore. E. Cost of Annexation The city is requiring us to finance all improvements to provide for new water and sewer lines. The total cost of annexation per household are between $37,000 and $60,000, see Exhibit 2. So far, the City has not made any offers to make the annexation affordable to residents, although this is called for in the NBPIan and was promised by the Planning Department: "Help defray the property owners' costs of annexation." (NBPIan, Goals for Crestview East Annexation, page 10) "We can offer some level of financial incentives to those who choose to annex as part of a group package. These incentives will be primarily in the from of waived and/or reduced costs, staff assistance, and facilitation of the annexation process." (City of Boulder, Planning Department, 1!20/2005, Exhibit 3) Annexation Conditions Agreed by Residents and Staff Staff and residents have agreed on the main conditions for annexation. All of these are based on provisions in the NBPIan: Zoning As outlined in the NBPIan, properties south of Upland will be zoned ER (allowing the creation of one additional 15,000 sq.ft. building lot); properties north of Upland will be zoned split ER & LR (allowing the creation of up to two extra 7,000 sq,ft. lots); and properties along Violet will be zoned split LR & MR (allowing a maximum of two LR units and four MR units}. See map of zoning in North Boulder, Exhibit 21. Transportation A new east-west street, "Vine Street", is proposed to serve the newly created building lots between Upland and Violet. LR zoning will be on both sides of the street. The street will go from 19`~ to 22°d, towards Violet. At maximum build-out this street will serve thirty-six homes. It is not a through-street, but will only provide access for the residents. This street has been planned in the NBPIan (see attached map of planned auto/transit improvements, Exhibit I9}. In addition, it is agreed upon to provide several more pedestrian and bike connections, as outlined in the NBPIan (see attached map of our neighborhood, Exhibit 16, and the NBPIan map, Exhibit 18): a new sidewalk along Violet; a new multi-use path at the east end of Upland, connecting Upland to Vine; a new multi-use path along Four Mile Creek; and a path connecting the west end of Tamarack with the Four Mile Creek path. Residents and staff agree on the alignment of the proposed connections in our neighborhood. 3~ We are appealing to the City to make the flood improvements along Four Mile Creek a high priority. Once the underpasses under 19~' Street and Upland (just west of 19`") are completed, the multi-use path along Four Mile Creek will provide the safest access for children to Crestview Elementary from neighborhoods to the east. Affordable Housing Residents and staff have agreed nn the basic requirements for affordable housing in the neighborhood. In split I~K&MR zoning: parcels that may be subdivided into four or more lots, shall make 25% of the total units affordable to middle-income households; and newly constructed, market-rate units shall pay twice the applicable inclusionary zoning fee ("cash-in-lieu"). In split ER&LR, and ER zoning: parcels that may be subdivided into less than four lots, all newly constructed market-rate units shall pay the cash-in-lieu. For any or all of the required affordable units, one low-income, permanently affordable unit may be used as an alternative to two middle-income, permanently affordable units. In 2003, when we initiated our annexation, the cash-in-lieu fee was $35,000 - now City staff is asking $48,000. We have made agood-faith effort in our negotiations with City staff, but have suffered an extremely long delay in our annexation process. The required cash-in-lieu fee cannot be more than the $35,000 from the time we filed our application. As long-term residents of an enclave, we asking the fee to be $24,000 -the same as for other residential homeowners who annexed in our area. Several residents in C;retview East are intei~sted in building affordable houses. In our discussion with our planner we have proposed to build one or two duplexes in the neighborhood, in order to provide affordable housing, and instead of paying the inclusionary cash-in-lieu fee. Several Council members have cautioned us to ask for such a zoning variance and complicating our annexation application. We agree to let this issue out of the annexation agreement. If the City is interested in creating affordable housing, we would like to bring up the variance at the time of site review, when properties apply for subdivision. We want to support the opportunity to provide affordable housing throughout the neighborhood, with small, well-designed and energy-efficient homes, instead of concentrating low-income housing in large, unfi-iendly developments. Annexation Conditions, to be resolved by City Council There are only a few outstanding issues on which our planner and we have not been able to agree: l . Annexation Petition 2. Vine Street right of way 3. Vine Street design 4. No sidewalks on Upland Av 5. Silver Lake Ditch water rights 6. Cash-in-lieu Fee 7. Annexation Fee 1. Annexation Petition We have just last week found out that staff considers our petition to be "inactive" - we strongly disagree. We emailed City Council copies of our response to staff, asking to be re-instated. We have been told, that staff is considering a "staff initiated annexation". We do not want to be delayed any further in our application. We are asking City Council to move our annexation application.forward as quickly us possible. 2. Vine Street ROW Only one property has not agreed to dedicate the ROW for Vine Street (2020 Violet). We have asked to staff to enforce the out-of--city water agreement with that property owner who has agreed in 1974 to annex when required to. At the time, the owner received city water, while remaining in the County, in exchange for the agreement to annex (Exhibit 9). We ask City Council to direct staff to enforce the agreement with 2020 Violet to annex, or•, at least, provide the Violet ROW, .so that the neighborhood can proceed with building Vine Street. • 3. Vine Street design We would like a narrow, traffic-calmed, "green" street, pedestrian and bike friendly (see the sketch of our proposal, Exhibit 10). Vine is proposed with a 15 feet-wide of paved section for cars, and attached and detached sidewalks. Parallel and angled parking is provided along the street. Rain and storm water runoff is collected in detention swales. This is the kind of street envisioned in the North Boulder Subcommunity Plan (Exhibit 14}. We have included a newspaper article from Seattle, describing the advantages of building sustainable streets: "Green Bulding takes to the Streets", Exhibit 15. There are several examples of similar streets in Boulder that have been approved and that work very well, see sample photos of Cottage Lane (the car lanes are as narrow as 12' in places); Iris Hollow (17' paved section, with 10' curbside parking) ; Snowberry Ct (9' drive lanes, with entry island); and Norwood Av (21' paved section, with detached sidewalks and detention swales), in Exhibits 11, 12 and 13. Cottage Lane is the most similar to our proposed Vine Street. It is located south of Utica Av and west of Broadway in North Boulder. It is not a tluough-street (connecting to a wider street grid), but only serves the residents. There are 32 homes along Cottage Lane. At maximum build-out Vine Street will serve 36 homes. A big concern of ours is that a developer wants to build an additional short street from Violet to Vine, so that he can build on his lots without waiting for the entire Vinc Street to be built. This is in violation of the NBPIan, and the neighborhood is strongly opposed. We are asking staff to deny this request. We have made a presentation before the 'T'ransportation Advisory Board, and received only positive feedback, and were encouraged to pursue our proposal. One board member said that, "this is the kind of Boulder she 33 wishes to live in". The board, however, was not able to take an official vote because they were told that our annexation application is no longer active. We are gsking City Council to approve the proposed street design for Vine. 4. No sidewalks on Upland We will build three new East-West connections in our neighborhood: a new sidewalk along Violet, the new Vine Street, and a new multi-use path along Four Mile Creek. Our section of Upland, from 19~' to 22°d, is a dead-end, low-traffic volume street and because of that it is a designated bike route. All residents feel safe to walk and bike on the street, and strongly feel that the three other new routes are of higher priority. `I1~e NBPIan map of planned Bike/Ped connections (Exhibit 18) does not include a sidewalk along Upland. We are asking City Council to follow the NBPIan guideline, and not require a sidewalk along Upland. 5. Silver Lake Ditch Water Rights The City Attorney and the SLD board have been in intense mediation, and they expect to have a legal agreement within the next month, to present to SLD shareholders and City Council. We will accept the outcome and conditions as they apply to us. We are asking City Council to allow us to keep our water rights, and to apply the outcome of the mediation retroactively to our properties. 6. Cash-in-lieu for inclusionary zoning As part of the affordable housing conditions for our annexation, we are asked to pay cash-in-lieu fees. When we applied in 2003, that fee was $35,000. City residents pay $24,000. As long-time residents in this neighborhood, we are appealing to the City to limit our cash-in-lieu fee to $24,000, the same amount city residents are charged, and the same amount required for recently annexed residential properties in Crestview West and on our block of Upland (see F,xhibit 8). All these properties were annexed after adoption of the North Boulder Subcommunity Plan in 1997. We are an enclave seeking access to safe drinking water; we are long-time city residents, not developers; and the City promised financial incentives to reduce the cost of annexation. We are asking City Council to set the cash-in-lieu fee at $24, 000. 7. Annexation Fee As the attached spreadsheet show (Exhibit 1), the residents in Crestview East have paid almost $37,000 in annexation feasibility and application fees to the City over the last several years. The current 2008 City fee for an annexation is $18,920. We are asking City Council to deny staff's request to charge any more application fees. FinancinE the Annexation in Crestview East In order to make this annexation financially feasible for us residents and in order to limit the City's expenditures, we are proposing the following financing plan. "I'he total cost of annexing is $37,000 to $60,000 (Exhibit 2). The cost depends on the number of households participating in the annexation, and whether or not the house is already connected to water service. When evaluating our proposal, please consider the desperate state of our wells and septic fields, and the danger of contamination in our drinking water from shallow wells. To finance the annexation, we are proposing the following: 1. No additional annexation application fees 2. Residents pay for new sewer and water services 3. Defrayment of PIFs 4. Cash-in-lieu of $24,000 3S 5. 50% City support for new paths and sidewalk 1. No additional annexation fees We have already paid more than our fair share. 2. Residents pay for new sewer and water services Upland needs a new sewer line, and stub-outs for the existing water line. The residents agree to finance and hire asub-contractor for this service. We have been told that this is faster and less costly than having the City commission the work. The costs were estimated to be $191,000 in 2007. AlI street and utility services in Vine and Tamarack are to be financed by those properties that are subdivided and developed. 3. Defrayment of PIFs Tn order to Lower the initial cost of annexing for individual homeowners, we are asking the City to defray PIF fees. These would became due at the time ` of sale of properties, or be paid back over a l0-year period, as is the case for residents in Crestview West. The PIFs include: Storm Water and Flood Management Utility Plant Investment Fees, and Water and Sewer PLFs. These fees amount to as much as $17,000 per home. 4. Cash-in-lieu of $24,000 That is the same fee as other annexed residential properties in the neighborhood pay. 5. 50% City support for new paths and sidewalk The proposed pedestrian & bike connections will not only be used by residents of Crestview East, but by many other residents in Boulder. Our planner suggested a possible participation from the City's "Trails and. Bikeways" program. In Crestview Nest's annexation, the City agreed to contribute 50% of the cost to bring streets to City standards: including Upland from Broadway to 19`x, sections of Tamarack and Sumac from Broadway to 19`x, and 13`4i Street from Upland to Violet. 711ank you very much for your time and effort on behalf of our 3C~ Neighborhood. Sincerely, Mitra Adams (1937 Upland), Gary Calderon (2005 Upland), Ellen Stark and Anne Hockmeyer (2010 Upland), Gary Eddleman (2090 Upland), Amy Haywood and Jan Morzel (2075 Upland), Timothy Rea (2105 Upland), Nathan, Joan and Bob Knecht (2125 Upland), Rachel Cahn (2130 Upland), Andy Malkiel and Mary Berg (2135 Upland), Rod Moraga (2155 Upland), Margaret Pilcher and Steve Ford (2160 Upland), Richard Luna (1914 Violet), Erika and Walter Bernyk (1938 Violet), and Betsy Imig (2114 Violet). 3 Petition to Annex in Crestview East, May 16, 200$ Mitra Adams (1937 Upland) ~~~~-1-~ _ I~IG~~vv, Gary Calderon (2005 Upland) - _ _ - - Ellen Stark (2010 Upland) ~i Anne Hockmeyer (2010 Upland), _ 0~ Gary Eddleman (2090 Upland)__~~ ~ ~ Amy- Haywood (2075 Upland) Jan Morzel (2075 Upland) Timothy Rea (2105 Ul _ ,I _ Nathan Knecht (2125 Upland) _ 1 ~ ~ _ _ _ _ .loan Knecht (2125 Upland)__ _ ~o,- _ _ Bob Knecht (21.25 Upland)___ ~ ~ i ~ ~ Rachel Cahn (2130 Upland) _ Andy Malkiel (2135 Uplan Rod Moraga (2155 Upland)_ _ . Margaret Filcher (2160 Upland) Steve Ford (2160 Upland) _ _ i Richard Luna (1914 Violet)_ _ l;rika and Walter 13ernyk (1938 Violet) ~ G~ Betsy lmig (2114 Violet)_ _ _ _ _ 3g 5. Boulder County health Department, second notice 6. Boulder County Health Department, septic systems are failing 7. NBPIan Guidelines for neighborhood development 8. Summary of previous Residential Annexations in CVE 9. Out-of--City Water Agreement between City and 2020 Violet 10. Vine Street, sketch of proposed street 11. Vine Street, similar streets: Cottage Lane and Norwood Av 12. Vine Street, similar streets: Cottage Lane and 23rd ollow 13. Vine Street, similar streets: Snowberry Ct, Meadow Av, Iris I 14. Vine Street, NBPIan Guidelines for narrow streets 15. Vine Street, "Green Building takes to the Strc;c;t" from Seattle 16. Map, CVE neighborhood, with proposed connections 17. Map, CVE aerial view 18. Map, NBPIan planned Bike/Ped improvements 19. Map, NBPIan planned Auto/"I'ransit improvements 20. Map, existing sidewalks in North Boulder 21. Map, NBPIan 7.oning for North Boulder .5~ Crestview East Annexation Fees, paid by residents, 1996 - 2005 Not included are individual survey costs, neighbor-to-neighbor reimbursements, and other expenses and costs related to annexation, prepared May, 19, 2008 1937 Upland Adams Paid with M. Wand in 1996, $ 1,000 Paid to Mark Youn in 2003 $ 3,330 2010 Stark & Hockmeycr Paid to Young in 2003 $ 2,880 2075 Morzel & Haywood Paid to City in 2003 $ 5,000 2090 Eddleman Paid to Young in 2003 $ 4,520 2125 Knecht Paid in 1996, $ 800 Paid to Youn in 2005 $ 1,800 2130 Cahn Paid with M. Wand in 1996 $ 1,000 2135 Malki~l Paid to City as annexation feasibility fee to be included in content annexation $ 2,000 2160 Pilcher & Ford Paid with M. Wand in 1996 $ 1,000 4240 19th Howe Paid to Young in 2004 $ 3,060 4270 Schuman Paid to City in 2003 $ 4,480 1914 Violet Luna Paid to City in 1996 $ 6,000 Total $36,870 ~C~ Total Cost of Annexation in Crestview Fast 1. Annexation Application Fec $2,000 - $4,000 2. Misc. Fees Title update, contribution to Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District, etc. $300 - $400 3. Surveying Costs $1,000 - $2,000 4. Outstanding Water Assessment $900 for existing water line in Upland. 5. Storm Water and Flood management Utility Plant $1,300 - $5,000 Investment Fee (PIF) 6. Share of Installing Sewer Lines in Upland $18,000 - 32,000 Esti- EZ Excavation in 20071ists a total $191,000 fo all improvements in Upland: - ; . ' i. -r i~w sewe i• es and new water stub-outs. 7'he total cost per household depends on number of properties annexing along Upland. 7. Engineering Fees $1,000 - $1,500 Not included in item G. ` 8. Water 1'IF $9,500 - $10,000 "Phis amount depends on the number of bathrooms. 9. Sewer PIF $1,500 - $1,900 As water PIF, depends on the number of bathrooms. 10. Sewer and Water Ilookup to House $2,000 - $3,000 I lomeowners' cost to connect to pipes in street. Total $37,500 - $60,700 yI CITY OF BOULDER ~ Planning and Deuelapment Services ` ~ 1739 Broadway, Third Floor P.O. Box 791 Boulder, Colorado 80306 Phone: 303.441.1880 Fax: 303.441.3241 January 20, 2005 As you may know, the city and county have recently jointly funded apart-time staff position to work on annexation issues. In particular, the goal of the effort is to work with neighborhoods identified in the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan as appropriate for annexation to the~city, including Crestview East, to attempt to facilitate a mutually agreeable annexation package. Annexation would allow for property owners to connect to city water and sewer services. One group of owners in the Crestview neighborhood has an annexation application pending. As such, it seems appropriate to check in with owners in the surrounding area to gauge whether there may be additional interest. There maybe advantages, in terms of lower overall costs, if we can coordinate the installation of water and/or sewer services over a broader area. We recognize that for some homeowners annexation is not an attractive option for a variety of reasons. The city's general intent in this effort is to identify a way to provide owners'the option of annexing at this time in order to address mutual concerns about septic and well systems. Because some city resources are currently allocated to this effort, we can also offer some level of financial incentives to those who choose to annex as part of a group package. These incentives will be primarily in the form of waived and/or reduced costs, staff assistance in preparing the required application materials and facilitation of the annexation process. The same incentives may not be available to properties that choose to annex individually in the future. As we consider this issue, it will be important to identify and address the neighborhood's concerns regarding the various implications of annexation. To that end, we would appreciate-your questions and comments; as well as an indication of whether you'd be interested in participating in a meeting in your neighborhood to discuss the annexation issue. Please feel free to call, write or email. I look forward to working with you and your neighbors on this issue. )3ohdy Hedgcock.-._ Planner /Annexation Project Manager hedgcockb@ci.boulder.co.us (303)44]-4293 f~ : ' Pu li H b c ea Ith March 22, 2006 Jan Morzel 2075 Upland Avenue Boulder, CO 80304-0935 RE: Onsite Wastewater System (OWS) for 2075 Upland Avenue, S I H "f IN R70W Dear Ja? ivlorzei On March 22, 2006, this Department completed a referral for annexation of the above referenced property, to the-City of Boulder. As a result of the referral, it became apparent that we have no information on the size, location or adequacy of the Onsite Wastewater System (OWS) installed on this property. The property owner must apply for connection to the City of Boulder sanitary sewer or for a permit to install ar? OWS. Cn order to minimize contamination of groundwater, current OWS regulations require that all properties not served by a municipal or district sanitation faci;ity be able to verify that sewage is being disposed crt in a sanitary manner, Permits from this Department have been issued for the installation and repair of OWS since 1959. An approved pcnnit is the mechanism by which the adequacy of scwagc disposal facilities is determined. If a permit cannot be located for a specific property, adequacy of the sewage disposal system cannot be verified. A property owner is able to apply for an OWS permit if there are no records for an existing system. "I'he verification procedures will allow a property owner to continue to use the existing OWS if it is properly sized according to the number of bedrooms in the dwelling. We would appreciate your cooperation in contacting this Deparment within one year to initiate the permit process if the property has not connected to city sewer. i`oii may contact ~~re ai (303) 44i-1167. For additional information on OWS, refer to the following website: www.houldercountywater.orQ . Sincerely, Iris Sherman-Boemker Environmental Health Specialist cc: OWS file ~3 Administration/Environmental Heatlh • 3450 Broadway • Boulder, CO 8030^_ • 303-44 ; • ; ; CC Boulder (Sundquut) • 3482 Broaowoy • Bou(c]er. CO 80304 • 303-413-7500 rn,oax~ oadress aa;~o P,x r,.•.~; i Addiction Recovery Center (ARC) • 3470 Brootlway • Bwlder, CO 80304 • 303-441.12751~~?n:r~tsr'4`,'~~~a~odv+oy~ Longmont • 529 Coriman. Suite 200 • Longmont, CO 80501 • 303-678-6166 lnfayette • 1 3 :~i PIO7a Ct. N. Sui?e 3A • Lafayette. CO 80026 • 303-666-0515 www. co. boulder. co. us!f~eelth : ' ~ P I i H Ith ub c ea April 4, 2008 Jan Morzel 2075 Upland Avenue Boulder, CO 80304-0935 RE: SECOND NOTICE: Onsite Wastewater System (OWS) for 2U75 Upland Avenue, S18 TIN R7U W Dear Jan Morzcl: On March 22, 2006, Boulder County Public Health (BCPH) sent you a letter about the above referenced property. It was the intent of the letter to inform you of the need to apply for a Major Repair Pern~it with BCI'I-i or to connect to the City of Boulder sanitary sewer system. Currently we have no information on the size, location or adequacy of the onsite wastewater system (OWS) installed on this property. This is in violation of Boulder County OWS Regulations, effective September 21, 20U4. Section 3.1 I.D states: "No person shall constrict or maintain any dwelling or other occupied structure, which is not equipped with adequate facilities for the sanitary disposal of sewage." Permit applications and fee schedules are available at Boulder County Public Health, Environmental Healtl> Program, at 3450 Broadway, in Boulder. I just became aware that you spoke to Mark Williams today, about this issue and some problems with the annexation. I hope that you are able to connect to the City of Boulder sewer system within six months. if not, please update me with your plans, or initiate the permit process to install an OWS. If you have any questions regarding this, please contact me at (303) 441-] 157. For additional information on OWS, refer to the following website: w~'<~w~.septicsmart.org Sincerely, , - ~ l~ 1 lris Sherman-Boemker Environmental Health Specialist cc: OWS file Administration/Environmentot Health • 3450 Broadwcry • Boulder, CO fl0304 303-441- 1100 Boulder (Sundquist) • 348? Broadway • Boulder, CO 80304 • 303-413.7500 (r*x+aing ocx7~ess. JnSO t<~a~~,•:,wi Addiction Recovery Center (ARCj • 3470 Broadway • floulder, CO 80304 • 303.441-1275 (marerj «+c. ~~ss::Sn:,U ia~~><:::.,.wl Longmont • 529 Coffman, Suite 200 • Longmont, CO 80501 • 303-678-b1 bb lafoyette • 1345 Ptozo Ct. N. Suite 3A • lofayette. CO 80026 • 303-666.0515 ti.,, .~a,,. r>,.,..uti Boulder County Public Health Memorandum To: Char{es Ferro From: Mark Williams Date: April 4, 2008 Re: Crestview East Septic Systems It appears that there's a consensus among Crestview East residents to seek annexation to the City of Boulder, with subsequent access to city utilities. We also understand that there is an extensive history of those residents working through annexation terms and preparing for formal application for annexation. From a Public Health perspective there is a distinct advantage to delivering sewer and water utilities to many of these residents. To that end we support the implementation of that aspect of the North Boulder Subcommunity plan as soon as possible. The homes in the area currently depend on outdated septic systems for treatment of household waste. The mean age of those is 38 years, well beyond the typical life expectancy of a septic system. Those same homes depend on shallow groundwater wells for their household drinking water. Many of those homeowners are at a key decision point with regard to replacing their septic systems. They have a vested interest in protecting groundwater resources and hope that the City will soon be able to accommodate their wastewater needs. It would be a shame for them to invest in replacement septic systems when an alternative sewage treatment option has been in the works and would provide a more viable long-term solution. Boulder County Public Health encourages the City to advance the goal of improved sewage treatment for these residents, and if there's anything I can do to assist iri that effort, please don't hesitate to let me know. y5 Quotes from North Boulder Community Plan, "Guidelines for Neighborhoods" ANNEXATION OF THE REMAINING N. BOULDER ENCLAVES SHOULD OCCUR FOR TWO REASONS: (pg.10) *The area needs public water and sewer service. Properties have shallow wells or aze served by failing septic systems. *The enclaves have been part of the city's "service area" since 1978 and have for the most part developed at urban densities. The patchwork of properties in and out of the city is confusing and inefficient for the provision of urban services such as police, fue, and environmental enforcement. • An emphasis on design quality and improved site design in new areas, including: - Beautiful, tree-lined streets that are pleasant for all modes of travel - Well-placed pedestrian and bicycle trails that connect to neighborhood amenities and make neighborhoods more walkable and interesting.{pg. 1) • Preservation and enhancement of Fourmile Canyon Creek, Wonderland Creek and Silverlake and Farmer's llitches to provide important environmental, urban shaping and bicycle/pedestrian transportation functions. 'T`hese waterways and channels will not be covered or further charuielized. (pg. 1} • Connections Encourage walking, biking and transit by providing safe, comfortable anal convenient connections. (pg. 1 j Find and pursue opportunities to improve, enhance and make our surroundings more beautiful and visually delightful. (pg. 2) *The central area east of Broadway has a somewhat rural character, emanating from its low housing density, large lots, modestly sized homes, light traffic and streets without curbs, gutter, sidewalks, or Lighting. Most of this azea is a county enclave and its rural character is valued by many of its residents. (pg. 6} North Boulder Subcommunity residents rated the overall quality of life slightly higher than the average score for all nine subcommunities. .....What they liked best about the North Boulder Community: Quiet, open space/ undeveloped park land, the rural feeling, and views were mentioned most often. Objectives For All Residential Areas (pg. 9) *Sensitive treatment ofcharacter-giving features such as creeks, ditches and distinctive terrain. *Preserved and enhanced existing neighborhood character and geographic/natural features *Appropriate house size to lot size ratio - no more big houses on small lots. *Help defray the property owner's costs of ann/eJxation. CO Annexations of Residential Properties next to or within Crestview East Crestview West, September 1997, 60 homes, Affordable housing cash in lieu is $24,000 Crestview East, November 1997, 3 homes on our block - all can be subdivided into two properties, some have already been split 2190 Upland, Michelle Ward 2198 Upland, Susan Tremaine 2160 Tamarack, Beth ad Terry Rogers Affordable housing cash in liew is $24,000 Excerpts from `out of city' water agreement signed 6y 2020 Violet on January 29`~ 1974. The original agreement is on file at central records Section 3. (h) In the event that a local improvement district is formed for the purpose of improving Violet avenue to collector street standards, the applicant agrees that the improvement, surfacing and widening of Violet avenue to collector street standards shall be of. benefit to him and his property, and he agrees to join in the petition for such improvements and not to dissent from, nor oppose, nor remonstrate against such improvements as the same may be made in the future... Section 5. The Applicant agrees to file with the City of Boulder a valid. annexation petition petitioning the above-described real property for annexation to the City of Boulder when directed to do so by tl~e City after the date that the hereinabove described real property becomes eligible for annexation to the City of Boulder - under the provisions of present or future laws of the State of Colorado, or if requested, to do all things necessary to further the annexation of the above-described real property to the City of Boulder, Colorado ~g 1~' Ro~~~,~~ ~Q?.I~ur 4Aou.~M~ ~i~C'tioMt S~aaL~e~ 0~4.! as ~Dt IWt. ~ > 11-- '1' A _ • S ~ H . _ t. L ~ rf3.7e .i~~.~, ~ • ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ "'771*r~ ~ ' , . ~?~HV~ CT" ~ _ ' r~jh, - - i '~MZ4y 1 S~.4M~ ~b~.'~~r+~t-cin S ~~~5? c.oF+~Za` ~I~ ~IDC~..~L. ~ 4Z-a aD - al~~ }r ~ '~`r ~ ' 1;~ 'I~jJ/r 1f~',~S'-• ~ J'~`'~T -7-~j t t" 'n , s M1l~, 1~ ~s~ ~ 11 I t ~ t' ~YY( A- rll ~ r tt~w',? Il.~+-. .F f- ,1 ~y ~ } r .tl't X is ~ \ r t r~ ' ti~ ~ ~ x.. ~ , ~.Y`~ F~ ~ ~ i V J~ ; '''~bl~~r.... +C ~.~.+ux> _..~.ti2+. ~lt''..h•Ir+. Y!). ~ 7 ~ i f e~ H 1 t A 9 ~i ti.5 ~ is ,°s fd ~ . ~ £r'" . . - ""'fix ' ~ , ~ < .T- _ I .FYI 1 j3 .C .I' ~:•`rt I tL' ~ ti < 1 ~s^ ~ ~Tt7 c Sit 1~-~~'~ ~sv - fir, ` ~ I -'tC ~ ~ i,. ~ . sfi ~ 9S ,r yrr ~ '~_'~."v~Tt f r .i-~-ft ~^7 aF~ ~ t - > ~ `~r3Z ~ti~ i a 3,0 L` il s r` .,r S t'S' tr . ~Fi({{rVlYt ~ i T ~ ' 'r ~L.,.. i .Y I t 1 ~~'f '}Yt_,.a r. ~ - ~ rti ~~i `tom F ~..s S'{ ~1 ~..yc Y,-.; h _ .i - - J V ~Y t ~ .yt xaV.dr t - ~ A. Y-, k r~ t,~ 1' : ,F r ~ 2 trt- ~ f ~ r .~`f ti a , t ~ k r. f e s` -tc ter` Ste} ~ fn y. ~.s~$~ i Y r``W .x. ~i~ ~ s - ~ ,.ts !i>~ LL St tip. ~~F ~~a`~~ J `i ~.4 I ~ ~ h . ' ~i+~ r ~ try - l } r ~ ~ SS tk> K. D .I r,-4 ° i. r gx• :tip r w ~ < ~rr4`~ ~ z7 X ~ '.1 I ~ s ..-..f~ } ~ _ + ~ ~ y ~ s Z t'ax'," ~t.a,~"' rf t ~ L tVOF~~i00D: 2'r" SAVING DETACHES? ;~iDE~+~`ALK I DETENTION SWALES I . `i I L.. , 1 - ~-,t, 3i ~ ~ ~ . 1"r x f ~ i. i r.~,, .r, ~r ~;1 F : 7 ~h{' ~ Ly i4~i. . t r i'~~ ~t~~ t tr h T y, ' 23rd AVENUE: 21' PAVING _ js ; -~~a -tit 1! ~ j A~~k-~!"rx'~~t~~ ~~S'~t'yt4 x y, ~ i a k_ t~ r{~ . Y, 't n ~i~ 1. ~'rti r t ~ ~ 17~y~r_X~ 3.f 'atA~~~' c ~f~~ ~1tri ~ .Ti~f~, a .~'.'f,•r~y~ ~l-w ~+f 'i µ'N~. ~ t~'~ \jf ~~i t{W~7 . t' ~ _ _ c _ ~.~'.a ~ .?y.-. _ ~ 'r~_ 3''r~ C mac` 4~+ '.;_~;~1'~;; a , , 4, COTTAGE LANE i I t N y: t J r 'CY ~t v t ' z *z r l w ti K s .r}r~ ~ Ux ~'t ~ t""I1I( {..yam 1.r' _ t ~ 1 l .WT Ct~ ter? - ~"t! i S f t 1 h 7~ SG,: ~ft~r,~J`~Y`~4.z'1F`~.x > ,r t 1 r r€~2"fv`'Y~c,„f~'i I k'~ r 7. vr° j•xc5~.,r.~,. a~. ~ ti. ~Cti 7 ~~C`.'Sr`" 3. Y-?'~fy,'t°':y .`~J4. 1w t5v~r rte- _ _ r~~{ ~ $NOWBERRY COJRT. 9 F" CRIVE LANES 4' MEDIAN - r~,~`,ir 1~'ar;,,{~~,_,-.'- nt , y ti ~ i~ y n 3 .raw ~ '-,1 c. ~ 7 b, v~ ^ i r~. ?s ~'~st d, ~ r S r,r : ~7t -iSF T r it _ ' ~ ~ \ ,fir ~ ~ ~ f: v 9 ~S_ r2gp~, tea. r W yY°~~i~~~'. SIDE PARKING iM by 1 - r*~~' yr t~ 7y K. yrt 'S'rv.li I. ~ i ~ Y a t w ~v, t r~\~,..}. ?",r-fir t,i . - _ ~ 1i... - . P~', ~ i)'vr r`,. i'tLV'.. _ fi~4?I'. _ ' 1,V~~c~ }~i{_„IP~~. - i 1 Street Design Guidelines from North Boulder Subcommunity Plan, and the Transportation Master Plan, relevant to Crestview East: North Boulder Subcommunity Plan 1. Design streets to be multi-purpose public spaces -comfortable for the pedestrian and bicyclist -not just as roads for cars. 2. Pursue aggressive strategies to reduce the number and distance of car trips. 3. Design streets to be as narrow as possible. 4. Consider traffic calming techniques. 5. Preserve and enhance existing neighborhood character and natural features. 6. No sidewalks are to be constructed within rural street sections, as proposed for Upland and Tamarack; include borrow ditches for drainage. 7. Plant street trees along all streets at the time of development or redcvelopinent of any properties. 8. Minimize surface pavement in areas of high groundwater recharge. 9. Protect surface water quality, control stormwater flow, and enhance groundwater recharge through construction of stormwater low-flow channels. Transportation Master Plan In existing residential areas, the city will identify alternative means of meeting defined pedestrian needs. If the need can be met safely within the traveled way of a rural street or access lane, then sidewalks may not need to be developed. ("Pedestrian Policies") i i 1 .~3 i r....---- . - - - --ec.-i~~-- = ~~z~~ o?v~:N~~ -o~~-- -~-o~~~~c~ J W1MIN.DJC.CQM E;l~viron>zn~nlt Adjust font size: j~ U ;arch o, 2000 Green building takes to the streets By SAM BENNETT Journal Staff Reporter It's not every day that a project breezes tiuough the Seattle Design Commission. But at [ast week's session, Design Commission members had mostly glowing things to say about a green-street proposal for a block on Second Avenue Northwest at North 117th Street. "The commission does its best work in one-block segments," joked commission chair Rick Sandberg. "We look forward to seeing first implememation of this." Developed by Seattle Public I ,K ti>_ Utilities, the Street Edge Alternative ~ I ~ 1Ei~'~t~ (SEA.} Streets Project will transform ~ : ~ • atypical north Beattie block into a it curving, tree-lined :;trip with a better stormwater management system th~it _ _ _ ' , uses swales and culverts. ~ ~ ~ . . The pilot project will be used as a _ _ model to show how impervious ; ' ~ _ ~ t surfaces can be reduced and peak _ x-~ ~ a.~ ~ stormwater flows controlled. - r ' Construction will begin in June and _r,_ y~~__, . _ - :_i°K=.~'•~~,.' be complete by August. SPU projee.t manabcr ~~Ohrl ,1r71L5i'il said the city's Street lEdge Alternatives project will reduce impervious SPU will sponsor an open house to surfaces and decrease stormwater runott: discuss the project from 7 to 9 p.m. March 8 at Broadview-Thomson Elementary School, 13052 Greenwood Ave. N. The 650-foot continuous block runs between North 117th and 120th. The area was chosen for the pilot project because it has no street improvements or drainage system..The SEA project will reduce the width of the street from 20 feet to 14 feet and add six swales on each side of the street, as well as a sidewalk on the west~side and 80 to 100 trees. The swales channel water and will be connected by 12 culverts that feed into the existing ditch and culvert system on 117th. The SEA system, according to project manager John Arnesen, will reduce peak flow volumes and increase soil infiltration. Reducing stormwater volumes is a crucial step in minimizing creek erosion and flooding. Stormwater from the neighborhood flows into Pipers Creek, and eventually into Puget Sound. With an estimated design and construction cost of $700,000 to $800,000, it's not clear whether the city will fund additional projects or whether other interested neighborhoods would have to LI pay for similar improvements, Arnesen said. "If it happens an a large scale, it's most likely gaing to involve property owner contributions," Arnesen said. 1a' roadway De#entian Swntes Angle Parkieg t_r, ; .a 1 a1 _ i- ~ t :u_ A concept drawing of the X800,000 SEA project shows l4-foot-wide curved street, swales, additional trees, vegetation and diagonal parking areas for cars. Similar green streets could be created in neighborhoods which need street improvemenis and thasc without curb, gutter and sidewalk systems, such as those between 85th Street North and 145th. The swale system is essential to improving the upper watershed flow volumes and creating a more even flow system through creeks, Arnesen said. Detaining water in the swales accomplishes that goal. "swales take the peak off the storm," he said. "The flow is more constant and over a longer ' period of time." Reducing impervious areas by narrowing the street will also minimize flows, he said. The proposal received overwhelming approval from residents on Second Avenue North. In exchange for an improved stormwater system, residents will use on-street, diagonal parking areas to make space far planting more vegetation and trees. The street wilt also be curved, which some observers see as a welcame change from the grid system. "The grid system is an American ~ - ~ L 7 ~ iV ' phenomenon done for the exclusi~ J purpose of efficiency," said Ralph ~ _ ` ~ ti-~ Cipriani, a member of the Seattle ~ ~~Vl J' Design Commission. "In residential _ neighborhoods, there is no logical ~ ~ `w l~r ~ z y, CeaSOIl fOr straight Streets." ~ .4`; 1 ~.~~T r_,~~` ~j ~ S~~ ~.j..N _~~~yY b+ Arnesen said the pilot project could ~1, ~>~^,R A r.,,.._-_ --~-r.......... ~ i also serve as a model for new residential developments. If the first SI;A project is a success, architect Rick Sundberg said ~ the city should develop an overall urban design master plan showing where other SEA projects would be most useful. 1 ~ Architect Nora Jaso called the green street a "bold change that has many implications. The big question in my mind is if this is just aone-shot deal or is it going to have long-term ~ ramifications?" At the design commission meeting, Cipriani called SEA "the most commendable project I've seen since I've been on the commission. It has potential from an environmental perspective, from a transportation perspective and from a community building perspective. We've got to ' find a way to make it flourish." © Seattle Daily Journal and djc.com. i I t r i 1 l I s~ ]LETAV CRESTVIEW EAST ENCLAVE ® a 1914 1938 1960 2066 2114 2020 2180 Luna Bernyk Young Young Imig Pellouchoud Naumann VINEYARD LN = VINE r 0 z _ I~ ter, _ _ - _ - - - - ~ - - - - ~__~..rt,~Y _ VINE ST l^ _ ! • T~ r ' J C I 1917 1937 2005 2075 2105 2i25 2155 2135 ~ 2145 Naumann Adams Calderon Morzel Rea Knecht Small Malkiel P Naumann 1~' UPLAND AV. ' 4306 2010 2090 2110 2130 2160 Stark Eddleman Cahn Pitcher ' VINCA C7 ~"4' 4220 Schuman -~e,.r. Vine Si. ~ TAMARACK AV. ~r . ~ Proposed Sidewalk ^ ci eta ~ csa Proposed Path 2130 2140 2156 ~ 2020 {I~ Existing Path ~ ~ ; Young .r err r Proposed Four ~ 4240 ` Miie Creek Path Howe ` ~ 5P075WOQ[ Crestview East Enclave \ ~r wr _ --SUMAG•AV err +rrr ~ ~ ~ ~ ~f`' ua,> 1 i.: ~ t lY ~ ~ \f t~~,~!~^~"~ Y~ F >?,~1~°L[a~ ( ~~r.mos i~-.t.~.'~.. tl~~'~~~ ~ - m _ 1^.s+ qty J ~ i ~ i I t ~ ~ - ~ . - VIgEYARD Ltl' F, ~ , t 1 ; . J~.•nS i~~~ 13'rK 'mil , f W ~ "N E YA P l a L . 1 ,t I~ ~ t • a ~q p 7, s'3`'!; f ~ r. Y ~f,~ r x.. ri a. ~L I r J ~ f ~ ~ ~ l ~ ~ .i < ~ .y_. ~ ~ C..` t .'F', 1 r i'. l - ~ -ti i~ ~ ~ .i ~w.tu ~ ,,(i ~ t , t ~ k w ^ ~'S r' t " •,.~~i~+[t t ti ~,yp , ~ ~ia. ~ ~ ,.:ai +f. ~ f l r r•~e, ; . ~ i f a;~,~sy'+s~ • _ ~ ~ 4 ~ ? se' ~i ~ ~ N,~.ti~~ 1 • w,~., ~ 'i;4. ~ ..yv.•>M ~ ,A) .9 ~ Mr.3~~ w ~ £ rd ~ _F ' .r _ ' r r y • IJ P L A N G P.,J _ . ~ ~rsi~ b, ~`!r` A - FT-- S•; iS T. 'r~yrls - Kr ~ 'r' ~ A:. ~ ~ Ty~..~ l iI -rry ~ >c' L ~r \ r,f "f i 1 1,7i ! ` , 1...~ t r-~ + ~rf ~ ~.K.e-w ! ~t ~ ,r 7 ~'!1 ~ f , + ~ - r ~ ;r> 1 ~ ' i ~y ~ , ' if ~l ~ ~-t l"^ c t ~ K., ~ a~ - 'r ~ ~ t ,i t'~ . a ~ 4 .,_l ~ + • t y~ ~ l ~ ~ r~ ~ f' c ;£S /~tp A?! 1 r ~~y" l ~ ~ II 2.' r ~,y a..~ ' tyty [ ! Il ~ J~1~ ~~~4 ~ "Tf1 tom. ` '`3.n ~ ,i ~ '.f IA - 1 .3• ~ y ~ 'f a VING•'~ GT 'Or ~ I ! l iA ~ tdY r.. 1 -.•I 3'. ~ r l ~f r t r ' r 1 ~1~ a 'Y""'~ ' v 1 - } - C. . t S ~ i'~P'f;.' g 4..~1 r~l ~Y-,,{~~ i~ ~ r s3~y + 73y~`.~'. d"?~ ~~}~s{~~(~ ;x,4}, { ~ a;~ k : ' { ti. y` ~•t ''c^ ' y , 'c~. ~ ~ ~l . ^r w, r ° ~ Y :a`;' ~~T~tAAP;~I':Y rw t~~ f k r ~ ~~.'7 ,.fFay ` ~ f ~i} e . ~ ~ ~ ~~~,YNr T~'~' 1~ Y. ' ~ Y ~ sy~,: ~ 1.'> t ~4~ i`1~- F ~ y +1 ~ S '--•~i. 1 r ~ r"r+°!' , ~ .`Y ~4 .y~ F~• ' % I` ~j ~ ~r , 4 Spq~ W~~' ~prris;,~. _ f ~ ' 1 ,t E! ...If! d6 r ~J~~."'^ _ ~ < / r r~_ - ~ 1~hA t~' rte) j' f ~ + u, ti~ 1p f _ ~ • ,'Y"s'~a~r~. ~ j ~t F t t~~'E .,>'r ,y 5r t ~ y+~• ~ , a~ i f'~VC~ y SC~,~i tw c S+ ~ Y~~I, / c ' - _ ~ fr 3?' ''t~. a '•K'~ ; l ~ ~ ~.~c ;c 'c •,.rriµ_~~~r ;y, r iM a.Tr..~ v o>,,.. ,t L > ti.. s7 , , SPQTSNrOOD PL.~.?~ L'R 1.'~•T} -•rT ti ~ ,~r~~w".'~ rye, LnL,~ -r~t~ ~ ~T' 1 r . ~ • ~ - A _ f ry*. i ~~j1~' .~,~`.t ;K~~j~y"!.. ~5~r ~r-. ~~~,rrf~'1At~• ~'l.Cr ~..Ll~ + l' ~ ,t` Vii.' t. '.'~'-'t t - ; r~~ ~t. r `x.> 4 j r~, t„J;~ l i(3~ ~ ~G. , 7i i f ~ 1 . J kx y ~ ~ F; ~ >r ~k r y ,s ~ ~r r a , SUt.9: MV 1~ _ I ,r~ - - a ~T, -'.r f, . ;i`r, - I y~. - s~ t' _ 4'i..r~a ~a. ..fir 1 7 a ~ _ RANSPORTATION PLAN: Bicycle/Pedestrian Improvements Right-of-Way Plan . - _ ~ , . - ERISTING COMORIORS PROPOSED CONDITIONS ~ lht Slreaf 83ce Rohe On-Street Hike Route it Cn-Skeet Sax lane On-Street &ko Lane 1 5dewaVJPaih - KeV Routes Sdewxlk/F'aln ~ Key Routes 1,^-:~ ~1~ -r Oa-SUeet Mua~-USe Palb OILSUOOt Muili-USe Panr OII-Street Pedanly Path t Od~Sueal Ped~Orxy Pefh r.N~~st:e CxaCl t.ricergn Uridetermined , ~ PcdlB~a Undxyass Fedr8lko Undoryass Improvxd BikePr ed Crossing ~ZZ . - ~ SuSCOnununiiV Boundary ~1\ - ~ ~ ~ - Proposed Roads ~ ~ Conceptual Road Localbn per ` R 4ntrasku¢Nre Plan (y ~ ~ I - --iY'--fir .rj.:..~ru:.,G; ~ -t Y: i -y~ 1 ILA - ~(l r 1 1 1 . ~ ~ ` - F 4eu • rtssmr t / i ~ . ~ ~ _ c+~' ~ 1 ;F. ,:vim _ ; - _ _'..F _ _ o x { J , ~ 1 , 1 ~ l I _ l - - r f=. ----r Nutc: The existing muhi-use paths east o! Wonderland Lake shall remain as soft surfaced paths. • F'/ ~i RANSPORTATION PLAN : Auto/Tran s i t Improvements Right-of-Way Plan . " fJCISTIH6 CONDTIONS PROPOSED CONDITIONS Lansd Aaule Laruil Rout ~ Exact Locatan undetermined - _ - Ciric Sile - ~ - . Bus Stop i -~t Transit S~Mer Slop v_, _ ~t ~ l-- _ Y°• Subcommunity Boundary . Proposed Roads a ~ ~ ~ Garnel Ln. 15 ebsed Io 6ulo ~i,• Y ~ auass belwaen Emerald Corrcepttral locations i , and Topaz )soo note As) m.,1 ----ii-: ".f ,^~j, !~I ~ pis __---rs-~a_r { ' ~ _ I ~ t ~ ' l:.r.r.ti>:'i tvsawa. ~ ~ ~ i 5 ~x r 1 t, ' - - .(__.-.c1CI2~-`• ~i' _ ~h 1, is 1 F' z { far _ _ d ~ 9Mt~A9 'r_ 1. I 11 ^ aYM r ~ I r... ~ ~ t ~ 4, s'r.h - - '1_"m--'.~-1F~'e. I i q 1. ~r ~-i ~ ! g i ~ ~ T.. _ r _ ° L F. NU1'FS: I. Tbrougb the Sne Revew and annexation processes, additional sues ROWS wt11 be necdW in me Yatmuudr t1oM area 2, Sucets ussralled m Ne Lee kGa Road arcs sfquld d: bulb for slow s{ceds ii e. az narrow as possible, and wish uaffre calming designs), 3. Suees alignments weu of Broadway are tnstyxkd to reflect tM previrxrsly adsKsted i1oM Boulder In(nGUUCture Plan, with the addnioa of a srn¢k north-wurb sued baween Lee Nitl Road an4 Yarmouth avenue in aPP'uxirnaarly dse llilt Street alignme!re 4. As with dre adopsai ;Jnnb Rouller Inlrassnraure Plan, streets shown on me Mann proprny and fiMplrtlls proputy arc shown az conceptual locations only. final saxes laytxns in lhcse areas should Ee coasissent wish Urc dcvcMgoxnt;uidclmu and f naliuA during sa Snc Review prac<ss ~Ir' ~X~ ~ s;~le ~vctl~5~ Dori ~ ~3o~al e 0 ~ c", ~J ~ U T W ~ r AVOCADO RD-~ ~ ~ ~ O ~.~f ~a ~w o ~ ~ - YIOLETAV ~ ~ Tye VINE. IA RD PL .N J ~ LOCO 5T%AY - UNIO~l.AV I ViNE~PI I U AN D A'J ~ J u T Ica~u x• CT 7ASvtARACK•AW J ~ TAkIRRAC K RV ~ m G SUNi,0.C p.V AW18EA P.t 5~~ uri RIVERSIDE Al! ¢ ' , p x r z r iOpAZDR REDWOODAi/ - I .QG,R T~. EMERALD RD Q U IN C E Atf 2 ~ ~ AGAi E LN ,~:w PREMIER'PL _I ~ / ~ POPLAR AV o ~•a- POPLAR AV ~~5. PAMPAS T r- _ POPLAR AV_ P RIWINKLE DR - ORGHPRDP.1f OAKLEAF•4CIR r w O = - DRIVEWAY ~Qa' ~7 OAKCIR r ~ o' p ° 1( OAK Al/ ~ O ~ ~i x ~4~' .cn _ o ~ = z r- e, ~ti m ~ i ~ •c ~ urtl4gO~G ~ l l ~ ~KELLERFARMDR 11 UTURE GROWTH: Land Use i ( i 1 . I 1. Q I; i ~1 •}'$Pr~~S, i . ~(Jl--•l - .1 i _ l ~ J.,e~zyz7~.f: i 6,"' L'kas~ ~ ~I,t m ~ I~ ~ 1 i ' .}L'am'', f?'' I ! r ~1~'- ' I T[! I :1 ~.~i. ~-~~h~. ~Lil J i,111y+,,1'~~~ j 1~21K ~ 1 ~ ~:e ~'t ~t__ :ifi~\~' i. 1 1 - ~ ._y+- - L ~ r- l' . f E _ r l'- ~ ~I ] ~ ~ rr r1 1 ~ yj'~ w., i} ~ J I~ EY ~ it' ~_li^L~ r ~L I I~L i I I~. ~ 1 ~ r Yl .i(c, \ t l: Intl y ~ _ 1 -`y'am;'. ! --~~i`--'~~`"i~R~ Lei "?R l~ I I f 1 ~1 1 ..1~~i I T ~ -1~ - 1 I .1 ~ Imp i~ ~ I Tr...rr~ _ ~ - II 7 II IC-" ?",j. T Y r'a, ~ olkr 11' ] Ih~ ~ __r ---r ~-'__-.'i. ~ I , ~ I Ik`~, 'sa J n ~ NocnDOd Ava~ l j t i ~yy r ° _i C`i I !1 ~ ~I tt_l E`i I~ ~1~. 1~-1 ~ ~ ~i9tt T~ 1 1 r°;~~~'.;:}.~..~r~~~i~.~~ I I Awl- 1~~:.: ~~'L-'~:~'' ll _ and ` =l U~I~~1~ ,-r~eY; ~ L_r a~ ~Ir ,j ~lq~ l I__ ~I I •~L~ ~ j~ _l:~(_ I 1 ; ^y _ IJ ~ f l _ r ext. ~-1 I- r# a u~r~Ct n . I- rr- ~ L - 11_i` ~ ~,~~'T r ~~jy'r1~~;1,J~ Ii 13,~a 5',,x~~ny~-T.lh 1 II 1 PROPOSED LAND USE VC VILLAGE CENTER: mixed use retaN, office, cesiderNial, park (seo p.t6 for specific densities and milt of usos). MU MIXED USE: offce and residential with some tinLiled neigt>boAtood-senring resta~uarq uses at Broadway & Vrolet (see p. 12 and P• i6) 1 INDUSTRIAL MR MEDIUM DENSfTY RESIDEN'fiAL• mixed density residential Loses at an overall averago of 6-12 dwelling unitslade MH MOBILE HOMES LR LOW DENSfTY RESIDENTIAL: densities at an overall average of approxvnately 5 dwelling urMS/acra ER ESTATE RESIDENTIAL: densities at an overall average o1 approxirnataly 2 tiwelfalg ur>&slacra RR RURAL RESIDENTIAL• dersites at approximatofy 1 dwol5rg LmNLJacre (sea p.10 for possible higher densities along Broadway corridor). ELKS ELKS CLUB SfTE: four options can be considered for this area. Appmpriata uses include: recreation, park, education andlor residential. P15 PARKSISCHOOL P PARKS Whtte areas indfr.2te no changes to ezistlng land use/ zoning ~ / pr. ATTACHMENT B Crestview East Potential Zoning and potting Pattern G .100 N ~ a500 N ! G _ `-19TH IpTH ( p e`. !b1 e e e e n e e e e e .s0o N~ e e e a N e 19M ° e 19M Violet Av „n - ..I s•1n- ~s.a:;; y..;~-.._. 'S.v2~(6::.t1~ - -Z_aiYSa•t :vas!•;,,n - - - - ~ ' .,~L'nue atulti ti b UMIt ~'?,170? Llflilt ~;6tpl.Y i ~ - j; I wu wir. r, ;n• ~ ~ a;7n~~ 2190 i ia~ _-_--1p1C"--Vi :E2":,V ._.-'Vi :a EL,.. _._y.C - - VIOLET C 7.662 sqn I_."~[i.:v N II I 1 i 9120 FVe 9.OB!!p! e.S5h~V0 eue pn'e.tW e.300 fpe 51n e.000 I 1s 15o vine 16.81 e I t9 n5 _ _ ~{I t97i5 i 11 900 1W1 11 000 ~ 10 40 11 099 fed 10 595 tall IO 909 1917 1040 10300 f1t 059 -If055D1 UPLM/D AV 1937 I 2195 2111 UPWiO AV : 2005 2071 2101 2121 2131 UPll.Ffil AV UPLAND AV ~ VPLAND AV_:_UPLAHD AV IRLAHO.AY UPLATAI AY I I UPLA3A) AV I L ~ I _ Is,oo_osgn 2o.ooosgn ta.3s7sgn 1s.71s1gn 1e.71ssgn _17.7z2sgn L 1aoe79gn _ + i Upland Av J ~ - 22.595 syn 17,120 sqn ~ 19,148 sgfl 19,997 sqn -r-- 19,168 sqn _ _ - - l9ae ~ 2190 19TH 3T UpU1N0 AV 2010 I 2090 2110. 2170 2100 _ _ _ 2198 t ~~_UPLAND_AV UP,lANO AV I UPUUID AV UPIIM),AV UPLAND AV UPLAND AV l I 2185 X270 I TAMARACK AV 19TH ST i 22,222 sqn 17,571 sqn - 19.168 sqn i 19.1ea sqn 19,122 s_qn I _ Tamarack Dr 1 - -r ~ - I 15,721 sqn 1a.357sg11 22,272 sqn I ' 2190 2160 TAMARACK AVI 2020 I I TAMARACK AV I , UPLAND AV ~ I 1sa215gn 1e.3s75gn l2.o I 2Ta0 ~ zll9-2150 ~ 19TH $T I 7A7MRACK AV TAMARACK AV 1AMAR/LCK AV I 2192 \\ll__-~ TAMARACK n'v' I I 2755 TAMARAdt AY ` ~ I 1YTH087 1955 I 15.721sgR 1 1d.357sgn _ ~ 22,272 sqn SWMC AV ~ 0 RIVERSIDE LN q lIBB ~ 2015 RNEH$IDE LN 19M ST 1190 / 19TH ST ale. , 19M 8T 1969 1957 RIVERSIDE AY RVERSIDE AV 217b / ~ . R1VER51(~ LN 2100 f Oi 9 31 / /2030 RIVERSIDE LH ` / \ _ RIVEft8tDE W RIVERBIOE LN Legend \ j ~ Easurq QwnunluU Pa•cels - ~ vWanl,ul Pa.cni Lmc: Potential Zoning F 1155 2193 R£ 1095 2125 TOPAZ DR 1 TCWA2 RL-t 0 GARNET LH TOPAZ OR 1 - RfL2 IDE AV ~ 1 ~ ~,T 1,,,,,,, 0 50 100 200 $00 4D0 58(i-feet .;.RN_ , A I°r~c~nnn~.vT c ~Iealth Safety and Environmental Quality Issues Associated with lndividual Sewage Disposal Systems (ISDS) Individual sewage disposal systems (ISDS) when sited at or near urban densities have been identified by both the county and state as being a high potential source of nonpoint contaminants in certain watersheds. The primary issue associated with ISDS is the accumulative amount of phosphorus and other nutrients reaching waterways in watersheds with high ISDS utilization. Although specific documentation and field data assessing the potential for accumulative loading of nutrients from ISDS in Arca II is lacking, a high level of concern has been raised by couizty staff because of the high number of system failures that are beginning and expected to occur in Area ii. Impacts from ISDS failures throughout the state have been highly documented by counties, local health departments and the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment since 1971. Numerous repot-ts have shown groundwater contamination and potential health risks from failed systems, particularly at the subdivision level of development. Until recently, the county did not issue permits for septic system upgrades ormajor-repairs, or new septic systems when the property is located within 40U feet of a municipality or sanitation district collecting line. The county adopted this policy as a means of implementing the BVCP Area I[ policies. However, as more septic systems on Area ll properties fail, the county feels that it is putting property owners in a difficult position by denying permits to repair failing septic systems. From a public health perspective, the county believes that the properties should be coruiected to the public sewer system, but with the current disincentives to annexation, property owners were left in a bind and septic system conditions in Arca II have continued to mount. The Boulder County Health Department is changing its previous policy and has begun to reissue permits for upgrades to septic systems (ISDS). Who pays for the costs of environmental impacts? Under the Clean Water Act a homeowner may be liable for nonpoint source contaminants resulting from a failing septic system. However, it is not typical for the federal government to pursue the source of nutrient contamination in a water system unless the problem is significant enough to cause serious water quality impacts or to trace back to a single point source. In addition, there is currently no mechanism for tracking contaminants back to single homeowners. The cumulative imp~~ct of numerous failing septic systems results in nutrient enrichment of streams and associated wetlands and consequent loss of stream life. There is also the impact on groundwater quality and the associated health risks from the close proximity of wells and septic systems in urbanizing areas. Stream water quality problems arc typically paid for through local, regional, state, or federal funds in the t~~nn of stream and habitat improvements. `I ~~~rT~c11; i1~ ~~:N~r n MEMORANDUM - TO: Benita Duran FROM: Jane W. Greenfield, Deputy Attorney - RE: Crestview Annex Memo inserts DATE: June 19, 1997 Unilateral Annexation Process: For case of reference, Sections 31-12-106 and 31-12-107 C.R.S., are attached. The annexation of an enclave may occur in one of three ways: 1. By direct action of the City Council under Section 31-12-106 (l). 2. By the filing of an annexation petition or a petition for an annexation election by a landowner as subsection 31-12-107 (5) provides that if either of these petitions is filed, the City Council "shall there upon instate annexation proceedings pursuant to the provisions of section 31-12-106 (1) or _ 3. By an annexation election, if the governing body decides to impose - additional terms and conditions upon the annexation enclave. No annexation petition is required to be filed if the City proceeds directly under 31-12- 106(1). The only requirements on the municipality are that published notice under subsection 31-12- 108(2) must be given and the fast publication of notice must occur at least thirty days prior to the adoption of the annexation ordinance. To be on the safe side legally, the City should also file an annexation impact report with the Board of County Commissioners consistent with 31-12-108.5. While it is clear that the City does not have to comply with the requirements of section 31-12-108, the law is tu~clear and there is no defining case law on whether the annexation impact report filing is required. if landowners within the Crestview enclave file annexation petitions pursuant to 31-12- 1()7 (1) or a petition for election under subsection (2) then the City is required to start the same process that the City could voluntarily initiate under 31-12-106(1). The statute provides that in the event the City fails to initiate such annexation proceedings within one year from the time any petition is filed, the petitioner may brin; a mandamus action in Boulder District Court to force the K.~~:Li'I i;\1P1.`.CU\hl-DUN.A i1.G Ylt annexation and the City must bear the court costs and the attorney's fees resulting therefrom. Having analyzed the municipal annexation laws and having consulted with other municipal government practitioners, the City Attorney's Office believes that the landowners within an enclave cannot force an election on the a~mexation question by filing a petition for annexation election which contains additional terms and conditions. Section 31-12-107(4) provides that the City Council (not the landowners) may impose additional terms and conditions on annexation and no such additional - terms and conditions are provided for its the annexation petition or petition for annexation election subsections of 31-12-197. Additionally, the ability of an enclave to condition its annexation upon an election would be contrary to the public purposes expressed in the state annexation law itself and could easily lead to absurd results. The suggested process for the annexation of the Crestview area would be for City Council to initiate annexation of the entire enclave under section 31-12-106(1). As part of the annexation ordinance Council could stipulate to entering into annexation agreements (contracts) for an annexation package for those property owners willing to be contractually bound to certain conditions, without the necessity of requiring such property owners to submit individual annexation petitions. State annexation law recognizes that there may be memorandum of agreement or escrow agreements voluntarily made by and between the annexing municipality and one or more landowners within the area proposed to be annexed. Section 31-12-112(2). Once the time period had ended for entering into such voluntary annexation agreements, the City Council would adopt the unilateral annexation ordinance and an initial zoning map which reflected the agreed-upon zoning for those properties voluntarily annexing and adesignation of RR-E for those properties which had not signed annexation agreements. Attached to this memo are draft annexation agreements for the Crestview West and Crestview East subareas. As part of stn unilateral annexation the City Council may choose to impose all laws of~general application in the City of Boulder upon the properties within the enclave. This would mean that unless Council specified otherwise in the annexation ardinance itself the following conditions would be imposed upon properties within the area annexed: • Water connection requirement • Sewer connection requirement • Payment of tap, connection and PIF fees associated with sewer connection • Payment of park fees • Payment of any applicable DET, TET, Cl-U~P, and Flood Condition PIF's "1"he imposition of these conditions are the result of pre-existing ordinances and do not impose "additional terms and conditions" in a mariner that would trigger an clcction. Y~~au~un~r~i.u ~.n~; nu~:.~;;r~ ~,~rv Co Condition Regarding Reimbursement of Annexation Fees Available as a Result of Litigation Settlements Staff has proposed a condition that any portion of an outstanding fee or assessment which a property owner may have received compensation for pursuant to an award, j ury verdict, judgement, or settlement resulting therefrom, or a payment from an insurance carrier resulting from a claim or threatened litigation shall be paid to the City in the amount and for the specific purposes to which it is reasonably attributable. Staff is aware of two lawsuits with have been filed against Centerline Circuits by the majority of property owners in the Crestview West area. One lawsuit which went to a jury verdict covered one hundred and five plaintiffs. The other lawsuit which was settled covered nine property owners. The jury verdict in the first lawsuit awarded approximately three quarters of a million dollars to the one hundred and five plaintiffs for water, sewer and annexation fees. Staff understands that this judgement has not been paid in its entirety but Centerline Circuits and these plaintiffs have settled with several of the insurance carriers for Centerline Circuits, and have received undisclosed sums of money. At the request of the insurance carriers the settlement agreements are confidential. Staff has been advised by counsel for the property owners in both lawsuits that their clients do not wish any provision regarding reimbursement of annexation fees and - costs to be included in a voluntarily annexation agreement. Their request is that the City offer them the proposed fee deferral regardless of whether they received any monies in settlement of their litigation that might have been attributable to their annexation costs. This is essentially a public policy issue for the Council to decide. If the fees are deferred they will accrue interest until paid at the rate of % or the owners will simply pay the then current fees. Ultimately, the General Funds and the restricted funds will be made whole. l0 Colorado Land Planning and Development Law § 8.3 MUNICIPAL ANNEXATION ACT OF 1965 _ § 8.3.1 Legislative Declaration - C.R.S. § 31-12-102 The Colorado Legislature has declared that Part 1 of the Municipal Annexation Act of 1965 shall be liberally construed.b In 1972, the Colorado Supreme Court relied on the liberal construction of this section to declare that the policy of the statute is to encourage natural and well- ordered development of municipalities, not to discourage it by providing for last-minute maneuvers designed only to defeat annexation.' § 8.3.2 Definitions C.R.S. § 31-12-103 Thirteen different terms are defined in C.R.S. § 31-12-103. Two of the more significant are: • Landowner: The owner in fee of any undivided interest in a parcel of land. If the mineral estate has been severed, the "landowner," for annexation petition, notice, consent, and election purposes, is the fee owner of the surface estate, not the fee owner of any undi- vided interest in the mineral estate. " • Qualified elector: A registered elector who is a resident landown- er of the area proposed to be annexed.8 0 § 8.3.3 Eligibility for Annexation C.R.S. § 31-12-104 C;.R.S. § 31-12-104 establishes the basic criteria rendering property eligible for municipal annexation. Any unincorporated territory is eligible for annexation when the governing body of the municipality finds at a public hearing that: C.R.S. § 31-12-102. ' 1?omponio v. City of Westminster, 178 Colo. 80, 496 P.2d 999 (1972). Colo. Const. art. II, § 30 uses the term "registered elector' ;this is also true of the pres- ent Municipal Election Code, Sections 31-10-10] through 31-1.0-1540. Accordingly, while a few rel'e;renccs to "qualified elector" remain in the ].965 Act, it is generally assuniccl that the terns "registered elector" should be considered to he used instead. Chapter 8: Annexation • At least one-sixth of the perimeter of the area proposed to be annexed is "contiguous" with the annexing municipality. Contiguity is not affected by the existence of streets, alleys, rights- of-way, public lands (except county-owned open space), or water bodies between the annexing municipality and the land proposed to be annexed. The one-sixth contiguity may be achieved by the annexation of one or more parcels in a series, which can be consid- ered simultaneously for the purpose of the public hearing and _ annexation impact report requirements. • A community of interest exists between the territory proposed to be annexed and the annexing municipality.i° • T'he territory proposed to be annexed is urban or will be urbanized in the near future; and the territory proposed to be annexed is inte- grated or is capable of being integrated with the annexing munici- _ pality." Existence of the one-sixth contiguity is a basis for finding that this and the prior condition exist,l2 unless the municipal gov- erning body at public hearing finds at least two of the following: o Less than SO percent of adult residents of the area proposed to be annexed use any of the recreational, civic, social, religious, industrial, or commercial facilities of the municipality and less than 2S percent of these adult residents are employed in the annexing municipality. o At least one-half of the land proposed to be annexed is agricul- tural, and landowners constituting at least one-half of the total area express, under oath, an intention to devote the land to such agricultural use for at lease five years. It is impractical to extend to the proposed area those urban services the municipality provides to all its citizens and upon the same conditions. This standard does not apply to the extent that any portion of an area proposed to be annexed is, or will be, 9 C.R.S. § 31-12-104(1)(a); Arapahoe County Commis v. Cily of Greenwood Village, 3 P.3d 846 (Colo. App. 2001). 10 C.R.S. § 31-12-104(1)(b). c.R.s. § 31-12-104(1)(h). 12 Breternitz v. City of Arvada, 174 Cofo. S6, 482 Y.2d 9SS (1971). t~ Colorado Land Planning and Development Law within the reasonably near future, be provided with service by a quasi-municipal corporation (such as a special district)." It is important that the municipal governing body make specific find- ings showing the property to be eligible for annexation.14 While the size and shape of a parcel to be annexed is immaterial, and the courts will not read into the annexation statutes limitations relating to unusual or irreg- ular shapes,'S a recitation of the absolute factual existence of the one-sixth _ contiguity requirement is mandatory.' Recent litigation between the City of Aurora and Douglas County has highlighted the role of the board of county commissioners governing the area proposed to be annexed. The annexation statute provides, inter alia, that "[c]ontiguity shall not be affected by the existence of a platted street or alley, a public or private right-of-way, a public or private trans- portation right-of-way or area, public lands, whether owned by the state, the United States, or an agency thereof, except county-owned open space, - or alake, reservoir, stream, or other natural or artificial waterway between the annexing municipality and the land proposed to be annexed."" This "skipping rule" allows the annexing municipality to ignore, for purposes of contiguity, intervening lands of the types described, with the exception of "county-owned open space." The Douglas County Board of County Commissioners, faced with a pending Aurora annexation, promptly adopted a resolution declaring two intervening county roads to be "coup- ty-owned open space," in an attempt to destroy the required contiguity. "I'he Colorado Court of Appeals held that the two roads were not open space within the meaning of C.R.S. § 31-12-104(1)(a), and that the coun- ty's designation was therefore not adequate to block the annexation.18 C.R.S. § 31-12-104 is one of two bases for the use of what have been termed "flagpole" annexations, in which a street right-of-way is used as the "pole" to reach a portion of territory not directly contiguous to the city, the "flag." Because C.R.S. § 31-12-104 allows annexations in a series, the one-sixth contiguity requirement may be achieved as the municipality C.R.S. § 31-12-104(1)(b). 1A Cesario v. City of Colorado Springs, 20U Colo. 459, 616 P.2d 113 (1980). "Adams County Commis v. City & County of Denver, 37 Colo. App. 395, S48 P.2d 922 (1976). Johnston v. Greenwood Village City Council, 177 Colo. 223, 493 P.2d 6S1 (1972). " C.R.S. § 31-12-104(1)(a) (emphasis supplied). Dou;;las County Cumn:'is v City of Aurora, E2 P-3d 1049 (C~!c~. Ahp '2(107_) Chapter 8: Annexation annexes succeeding portions of a right-of-way, ultimately reaching the areas sought to be annexed. This requires a petition from the owner of the road, if the road alone is being annexed. The second procedure for flag- pole annexation is to use the authority to annex the road along with a peti- tioned private property annexation, in which case the owner of the road - need not petition.19 The Colorado Supreme Court's decision in Jefferson County Commis v. City c~ County of Denver20 is often raised in support of argu- - ments that flagpole annexations are illegal. In fact, however, the supreme court's holding in that case was to disallow the use of a county road as a "pole" for the annexation of a municipally-owned sewer plant under the statutory provisions allowing for annexation of municipally-owned prop- erty without notice or hearing under C.R.S. § 31-1.2-106(3). The road was owned by 3efferson County, which was not a petitioning landowner. Where petitioning landowners representing ownership of the "pole" as - well as the "flag" are present, no violation of the statute occurs, and such a configuration is proper under C.R.S. § 31-12-104. The Colorado Department of Transportation has in the past established specific proce- dures that must be followed when annexing state highways, but has since repealed them. It is currently difficult to obtain CDOT approval for a roadway-only annexation. Legislation enacted in 1991 amended C.R.S. § 31-12-104 to expressly _ prohibit "satellite city" annexations, in which no contiguity whatsoever exists between the municipality and the property sought to be annexed, and where none of the statutory exceptions to contiguity is present. This change was made in response to competition between municipalities for prime annexahle 1and.21 § 8.3.4 Limitatitons C.R_S. § 31-12-105 C.K.S. § 31-12-1OS imposes an additional set of limitations on every annexation: • No land "held in identical ownership" may be divided into sepa- rate parcels for annexation without written consent of the C.R.S. ~ 31-12.-107(l)(e)(III). 2° 190 Colo. 8, S43 I'.2d S21 (1975). 2' C.R.S. § 31-12-104(2). Colorado Land Planning and Development L.aw landowner, unless the parcels are separated by a dedicated street, road, or other public way.27 'This applies even when the land is owned by the federal government,23 although as a result of the 1987 amendment to C.R.S. § 31-12-104(1)(a), federal and state public _ lands may be ignored for purposes of contiguity. • Noland in identical ownership which comprises 20 acres and which has improvements with an assessed value in excess of $200,000 for ad valorem tax purposes may be included in the annexation with- out written consent of the landowner, unless the parcel is located entirely within the outer boundaries of the annexing municipality as they exist at the time of annexation.24 • No annexation for an enclave, partly surrounded land, or munici- pally-owned land, and no annexation petition or petition for an annexation election is valid when annexation proceedings have _ been initiated for the annexation of part of that territory by anoth- er municipality.' In that case, other provisions apply. • If an annexation will result in the detachment of area from a school district and its inclusion another school district, the annexation ' petition or petition for annexation election must be accompanied by a resolution of the board of directors of the school district to which the area will be attached, approving the annexation.27 This _ requirement protects school districts from having to involuntarily undertake responsibility for providing educational services in newly annexed areas.28 An annexation ordinance is invalid if the required consent is not obtained.29 • As a precondition to any valid annexation, tl~c parcel annexed must not have the effect of extending a municipal boundary more than three miles in any direction from any point of such municipal Z~ G.R.S. § 31-12-105(1)(a). z~ Caroselli v.'Iown of Vail, 7U6 Y.2d 1 (Colo. App. 1985). 14 C.R.S. § 31-12-105(1)(b); Caroselli v. Town of Vail, 706 1'.2d 1 (Colo. App. 1985). 75 C.R.S. § 31-12-105(1)(c). L~' C.R.S. § 31-12-11.4. Z' c.lz.s. § 31-12-105(1)(4). to Jefferson County Commis v. City ~ County of Denver, 193 Colo. 211, 565 P.2d 212 (1977) C~nvcnci C,ry of Thrn-nton, 165 Colo. 18?_, 437 1'24 778 (19CR). G~ Chapter 8: Annexation boundary in any one year. There is some disagreement whether "any one year" means the calendar year or simply one year from the date of the last annexation. The three-mile limit may be exceeded if: (1) the limit would have the effect of dividing a parcel of property held in identical ownership, provided that at least 50 percent of the property is within the three-mile limit; or (2) if nec- essary to annex an enterprise zone. Within this three-mile area, the one-sixth contiguity may be achieved by annexing a platted street - or alley, right-of-way, lake, reservoir, stream, or other water body.30 The Colorado Court of Appeals has held that this latter reference does not allow annexation of a right-of-way without the necessity of compliance with the one-sixth contiguity requirement in C.R.S. § 31-12-104(1)(a)." • As a precondition to any valid annexation in the three-mile area, the municipality must have in place a plan for that area generally - describing the location, character, and extent of streets and other transportation ways, public area, public utilities, and transportation facilities. These plans are commonly referred to as "Three Mile Plans." The statute requires the plan to be updated at least once annually. It is not clear whether the statutory reference means the entire three mile ring around a municipality or "that area" pro- posed to be actually annexed. Often, the master planning process includes consideration of annexation policies and the elements of a three mile plan in a separate chapter of the plan. This approach satisfies the statute. The categories of information required for a three mile plan in compliance with the statute are relatively limit- a ed. "the statute requires a plan which "generally describes the pro- posed location, character and extent of" the following: Subways, bridges. Waterways, waterfronts. Parkways, playgrounds, squares, parks. Aviation fields. Other public ways, grounds, and open spaces. u Public utilities. "'CRS. § 31-12-1OS(1)(e). 13d- of Cr~univ ('rnri~i'i~, l.akrtvo~~d, ~1.~ P.?d 793 (Cc~l~> A~~~~ ingi} Colorado Land Plartning and Development Law Terminals for water, light, sanitation, transportation and power to be provided by the municipality (not such utilities provided by others). Proposed land uses.'Z • In establishing the boundaries of any area proposed for annexa- tion, if a portion of a platted street or alley is to be annexed, the entire width of the street or alley must be included within the area _ annexed.33 This 1987 change in the law was designed to resolve confusion over whether the municipality or the county was respon- sible for maintaining the right-of-way. Note, however, that many annexations do not involve platted streets or alleys, and in that cir- cumstance this limitation does not apply. • A municipality may not deny "reasonable access" to landowners or owners of easements or franchises adjoining a platted street or alley which the municipality has annexed but which is bounded on one or both sides by unincorporated property.34 • A 1996 amendment to C.R.S. § 31-12-105 prohibits use by a munic- ipality of a power of attorney to vote in an annexation election on behalf of the landowner.35 • In 2001, the legislature amended C.R.S. § 31-12-105(1)(e) to grant certain rights to property owners abutting the proposed "pole," giving them atime-limited opportunity to be annexed along with the "flag." This opportunity exists only until 45 days prior to the public hearing on the main "flagpole" annexation itself. The annex- ing municipality must mail notice to these abutting landowners of their right to annex. The abutting property owners must still submit an annexation petition and demonstrate the required one-sixth con- tiguity. Significantly, these owners may annex only "upon the same or substantially similar terms and conditions" as the main annexa- tion. It is not yet clear whether this change in statute will either discourage flagpole annexations or result in abutting landowners takitlg advantage of the opportunity thus presented to annex. C.R.S. § 31-12-1US(1)(e)(I). C.R.S. § 31-12-1OS(1)(f). C.R.S. § 31-12-1U5(1)(g). Chapter 8: Annexation Douglas County and the City of Aurora have also litigated the extent to which a county may use regulations enacted under the Areas and Activities of State Interest Act.' The Court of Appeals held in 2001 that the county lacked authority to require an annexing developer to obtain a county permit under such regulations before it could seek to annex to - A urora." § 8.3.5 Annexation of Enclaves, Partly Surrounded Land, and Municipally,-~wrled Land C.R.S. § 31-12-106 When an unincorporated area has been entirely contained within the boundaries of a municipality for at least three years, the municipality may annex the property by ordinance without regard to the eligibility require- ments in C.R.S. § 31-12-104, the limitations in C.R.S. § 31-12-105, or the hearing requirements of C.R.S. § 31-12-109. Natice under C.R.S. § 31-12- 108(2) must still be given.'$ This enclave annexation ability is not avail- able if any boundary of the enclave consists, at the time of annexation, of a public right-of-way that is not immediately adjacent to the municipality. Instead, the municipality must truly surraund the enclave.39 When a municipality is the sole owner of the area that it intends to annex and the area satisfies the requirements of C.R.S. 31-12-104 and 31-12-105, it may be annexed by ordinance without notice and hearing. d The annexing ordinance, however, must state that the area proposed to be annexed is owned by the annexing municipality and is not solely a public street or right-of-way.40 § 8.3.b Petitions for Annexation and Annexation Elections C.R.S. § 31-12-107 Except for the unilateral. municipal annexation authority described in the preceding section, all annexations must be requested by the owners of land that is eligible under the general annexation criteria. The statute pro- ~t' C.R.S. 24-65.1-101 through 24-65.1-502. 37 Douglas County Commis v. Gartrell lnvestmcnt Co., 33 P.3d 1244 (Colo. App. 2001). ~R C.R.S. § 31-12-106(1). C.R.S. § 31-12-106(1.1)(x). 40 C.R.S. § 31-12-106(3). Colorado Land Planning and Development Law vides two alternative procedures by which annexation may be accom- plished: (1) landowner petition; and (2) annexation election.41 a. Petition for Annexation More than 50 percent of the landowners owning more than 50 percent of an area eligible for annexation, excluding streets and alleys, may peti- tion for annexation.42 Powers of attorney may no longer be relied on for this purpose.43 The Colorado Court of Appeals recently clarified that _ "public streets, alleys, and any land owned by the annexing municipality" are to be excluded both from the calculation of the total amount of land in the petition (the area requirement) and from the calculation of the number of landowners in that area (the number requirement).44 If the governing body finds that the petition is substantially in compliance with the petition requirements set forth in the act, notice of the hearing must be published and a public hearing held. The person may attend and pres- ent evidence and testimony. If at the hearing the governing body deter- mines that the general annexation criteria have been met, it may, but is not required to, annex the property. Notice and public hearing are required for all landowner-initiated annexations.°S For the purposes of the statute, "landowner" means the owner in fee of the surface estate, not the owner of the mineral estate if severed.46 Landowner consent on an annexation petition may be withdrawn before final action; such a withdrawal deprives the municipality of power to com- plete the annexation.°' b. Petition for Annexation Election A petition for annexation election may be submitted by electors who are residents and landowners in an area eligible for annexation. "1'he peti- tionfor annexation election must be signed by at least 75 qualified electors, or 10 percent of the qualified electors in the affected area, whichever is ' " C.R.S. § 31-12-107. '12 C.R.S. § 31-12-107(1)(x). C.R.S. § 31-12-107(8). Douglas County Commis v. City of Aurora, 62 P.3d 1049 (Colo. App. 2002}. as C.R.S. § 31-12-107(1)(8). C.R.S. § 31-12-103(6). fowr. Supennr h~7iii~~i[i~>; ~ `~)i'~ P_._' ~~ab (Colo Chapter 8.• Annexation less, except that the upper number is lowered to 40 electors if the area is located in a county of 25,000 inhabitants or less.°~ If the petition is found to be in substantial compliance with the requirements of statute, the governing body publishes notice of hearing _ under C.R.S. § 31-12-108 and holds the hearing under C.R.S. § 31-12-109. _ If the petition for an annexation election is not found to be in substantial compliance, no further action is taken. If, however, the petition is in com- pliance, the governing body may pass a resolution of intent to annex the - land proposed for annexation subject to the public notice and hearing . procedure in C.R.S. 31-12-108 through 31-12-11.0, and also subject, thereafter, to an annexation election in accordance with C.R.S. § 31-12- 112.4`' It is important to recognize that the statute does not allow powers of attorney to substitute to "vote" in the election.5° The ability of a munic- ipality to decide to move forward with annexation once property is eligi- ble implies, of course, that the municipal governing body also has the authority and discretion to choose not to annex. While the procedures far a petition for annexation and a petition for annexation election are alternative to each other, a petition for annexa- _ lion election takes precedence over an annexation petition involving the same territory if the petition for annexation election is filed at least 10 days before the hearing date set for the annexation petition itself.s' When a petition for annexation or annexation election is filed by the residents of an enclave area which has been entirely surrounded by a municipality for three years, the municipal governing body is required to undertake annexation proceedings within one yeaz. If it fails to do so, annexation may be enforced by a court action in which the municipality must pay the petitioners' costs and attorney fees.52 This is the only situa- tion in which a municipality can be forced to annex territory; in all other cases, final approval of annexation is discretionary with the municipal governing bodys' 4s C.R.S. § 31-12-107(2)(x). C.R.S. § 31-12-107(2)(e). so C.R.S. ~ 31-12-105(1)(h): s' C.R.S. ~ 31-1?.-107(3). sz C.R.S. fi 31-12-107(5). 53 City of Colorado Springs v. Kitty Hawk Development Corp., 154 Colo. 535, 392 P.2d 467 (1964). r w ~ ~ C~ PROCESS -ELECTION - All petitions must be dated within 180 days prior to filing with 1 k. - No withdrawal allowed if not permitted by actual petition (which there is not) - Resolution by City Council (sets hearing) - Hearing held to make sure petition complies with 104 and 105 (can be at same time as Resolution hearing above) _ - Hearing has to be held not less than 30 more than 60 days after e ct' date of Resolution setting it. - Clerk gives notice: , - copy of petition (without signatures) - notice of hearing - publish 1 week for 4 successive weeks -Camera - publish at least 30 days prior to hearing - proof of publication required - - 25 days prior to hearing, a copy of the notice, resolution, and petition, shall be sent by registered mail by the Clerk to: - Board of County Commissioners - County Attorney - Special Districts (fire, water, etc.) - School districts - 25 days prior to hearing, Planning prepares Impact Report: - copy to be sent to County Commissioners within 5 days thereafter - map(s) of present and proposed boundaries in vicinity of proposed annexation - streets, mains, outfalls, lines and proposed extensions - existing and proposed land use patterns - copy of draft or final pre-annexation agreement, if any - statement setting forth plans for extending services, financing, identify existing districts within area, impact on school districts (number of students, capitol construction required, if any) - Anyone can attend and present evidence at hearing - All he~lring procedures recorded but not transcribed - After hearing, resolution setting forth: - whether requirements 104, 105 meet - whether election is required - should addition terms/conditions be imposed - if election: - "any landowner owning land in the area proposed to be annexed may vote, irrespective of whether he is a qualified elector. " - City of Boulder petition district court to hold election _ - "Upon receipt of such petition," court appoints 3 commissioners, one nomination by City of Boulder, one shall be a landowner in proposed annexation, third acceptable to other two - Commissioners after 3 days of appoint take oath - "Call on election of all "qualified electors" "or qualify electors and landowners," within area proposed to be annexed - Give notice one week for 4 weeks in newspaper and post at polling place (1st new published) not less than weeks prior to election. - - Natice (news and post) - time, place, description of boundaries, state plat or map is on file with Clerk of District Court - set forth all condition and requirements of annexation - Commissioners act as judges or clerks of election, take oath as such as far general election, report voting finduigs to court within 3 days of election - Ballat to state "For Annexation" "Against Annexation" - If majority are for annexation, court shall so order, adjudge and decree - All costs are paid by City of Boulder - Annexation effective date of Ordinance - After annexation: - file 1 copy of map with original annexation ordinance with office of Clerk of City of Boulder (Clerk and Recorder also?) - file 2 certified copies with Clerk and Recorder to recard. (Annexation Ordinance) (legal description and map) - Clerk and Recorder files one certified copy of both with Division of local Government of I)cpartment of Local Affairs. No annexation is effective until above is accomplished. - For zoning and land while annexation is underway and subdivision see 31-12-115. - Contest annexation see 31-12-116 + pp. INSTRUCTIONS FOR ANNEXATION ELECTION PETITION PLEASE NOTE: No person shall petition the City of Boulder fox an annexation election on any real property until he/she has first read and followed these instructions for executing the attached petition. 1. The qualified electors resident in and landowners of the area proposed to be annexed may petition the City of Boulder to commence proceedings for the _ holding of an annexation election in the area proposed to be annexed. 2. The following definitions of terms shall be applicable throughout the petition and every subsequent step of the annexation proceeding cornmenced pursuant to the petition: a. Qualified Elector: A resident landowner of the area proposed to be annexed, who is eligible to vote under the general election laws of the State of Colorado, as evidenced by the rolls of registered voters of the County of Boulder, State of Colorado. Such person must meet the following requirements: (1) Eighteen years of age; (2) Citizen of the United States; (3) Resident of the State for 30 days; (4) Resident of Boulder for 30 days; {5) Resident of the precinct for 30 days; (6) Registered to vote in the next general election. b. Landowner: Landowner means the owner in fee of any undivided interest in a given parcel of land. if the mineral estate has been severed, the landowner is the owner in fee of an individual interest in the surface estate and not the owner in fee of an individual interest in the mineral estate. In the case of multiple landowners, such as tenants in common or joint tenants, only one such landowner need petition for annexation, and the signature of one such landowner shall be sufficient, provided however, that said signing landowner has become liable for taxes in the last preceding calendar year or is exempt by law from payment of taxes, and provided further, that no other owner in fee of an individual interest of the same property objects to the annexation of the said property within 14 days after the filing of the annexation petition by submitting a written statement of his/her objections to the City Council. A purchaser of real property shall be deemed a landowner for the D~ purpose of an annexation petition if: (1) The said purchaser is purchasing the land pursuant to a written contract duly recorded, and (2} The said purchaser has paid the taxes thereon for the next preceding tax year. A corporation, whether profit or non-profit, owning land shall be deemed a landowner, and the same persons authorized to convey land for the corporation shall sign the within petition on behalf of such _ corporation. c. Nonresident Landowner: means any person owning property in the area proposed to be annexed, who is not a qualified elector as hercinbelow defined, and who is at least eighteen (18) years of age as attested to by a sworn affidavit. d. Identical Ownership: means a situation where each owner has exactly the same degree of interest in a separate parcel of two or more parcels of land. e. ti :means that not less than one-sixth of the boundary of the territory proposed for annexation and the City Limits must coincide. Contiguity as referred to in this petition or subsequent annexation proceedings is not affected by the existence of a platted street or alley, public or private right-of--way, public or private transportation right-of-way or area, public lands owned by state, US, or agency thereof, except county-owned open space, or lake, reservoir, stream, or other natural or artificial waterway between the City Limits of the City o of Boulder and the land to be annexed. As long as an annex of land will not extend the City's municipal boundaries more than 3 miles in any direction within l year, contiguity may also be established by the annexing of one or more parcels in a series either completely simultaneously and together at the same public hearing for annexation. ' 3. Petition shall be signed by at least 75 qualified electors or 10% of said electors whichever is less. 4. 1?very person signing the annexation election petition must personally insert the information required on the signature page(s) attached to the petition. 5. The person or persons who circulate the attached petition must witness the signatures of every person singing this petition and so certify by executing the affidavit attached nn the last page of this petition. g~ The petition must be filed with the City Clerk of the City of Boulder and must first comply with the following: a. All blanks herein contained should be filled out and completed; b. Each signer shall, before signing the petition, carefully read the contents thereof; e. The signatures attached to the petition must have been signed within 180 days immediately preceding the filing of the petition with the City Clerk. _ d. After filing the petition, no person having signed said petition shall thereafter be permitted to withdraw his/her signature from the petition. e. This petition for election must be filed with the City Clerk at least 10 days prior to any hearing date that is set on the initial annexation petition which concerns itself with the annexation property that is the subject of this petition. - f. This petition shall be accompanied by at least four copies of an annexation map containing the following information: (1) A written legal description of the boundaries of the area proposed to be annexed; (2) A map showing the boundaries of the area proposed to be annexed; (3) Within the boundaries of the area proposed to be annexed, the location of each ownership tract in unplatted land and, if part or all of the area has been platted, the boundaries and the plat ?iumbers of the plots or of the lots and blocks shall be shown; (4) Tlie portions of the boundaries of the area proposed to be anncxcd which is contiguous to the city limits of the City of Boulder, as the same exist at the time this annexation petition for election is to be filed, must be shown and the dimensions thereof 1IldlCated. PETITION FOR ANNEXATION ELECTION TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BOULDER, COLORADO, GREETINGS: z The undersigned hereby respectfully petition(s) the City of Boulder to commence proceedings for the holding of an annexation election pursuant to 31-12-108 to 31-12-110, as amended. In support of this Petition, the undersigned state(s) and allege(s) as follows, to -wit: 1. That this Petition for Annexation Election has been filed with the City Clerk at _ least 10 days prior to any hearing date set for the initial annexation petition; and therefore takes precedence over such aruiexation petition. 2. That the signers of this Petition are qualified electors resident in and landowners of the area proposed to be annexed. 3. That this Petition is signed by at least 75 qualified electors or 10 % of said electors of the area proposed for annexation. _ 4. That no less than one-sixth of the aggregate external boundaries of the attached described territory hereby petitioned for election to be annexed to the City of - Boulder, is contiguous to the city limits of the City of Boulder. 5. That a community of interest exists between the herein described territory and the City of Boulder, and that the same is urban, or will be urbanized in the hear future, and further that the said territory is integrated or is capable of being integrated into the City of Boulder. 6. That in establishing the boundaries of die within described territory, no land held in identical ownership, whether consisting of one tract or parcel of real estate or two or more contiguous tracts or parcels of real estate, has been divided into separate parts or parcels without the wzitten consent of the landowner of landowners thereof, except and unless where such tracts or parcels are already separated by a dedicated street, road or other public way. 7. That in establishing the boundaries of the herein described territory, no land held in identical ownership, whether consisting of one tract or parcel or real estate or two or more contiguous tracts or parcels of real estate comprising twenty acres or more which, together with the buildings and improvements situated thereon, have an assessed valuation in excess of $200,000 for ad valorem tax purposes for the year next preceding the filing of the within Petition for annexation, has heen included within the above. 8. 'I'ltat the herein described territory dots not include any area which is the Same ~r or substantially the same area in which an election for an annexation to the City of Boulder was held within the twelve months preceding the filing of this Petition. 9. That the herein described territory does not include any area included in another annexation proceeding involving a city other than the City of Boulder or the City of Boulder. 10. That at least four copies of an annexation map setting forth with reasonable certainty a written legal description of the boundaries of the area proposed to be annexed, a delineation of the outer boundaries of the above described territory, _ and the location of each ownership, tract and/or the boundaries and the plat numbers of the plats and lots and blocks, the portion of the boundary contiguous with the existing City Limits of the City of Boulder, and the dimensions of said contiguous boundary, all upon a material and a size suitable for recording or filing with the City Clerk of the City of Boulder, accompany, have been attached hereto and hereby constitute a part of this Petition. 11. That the herein described territory is not presently a part of any incorporated city, city and county, or town. 12. That the herein area described will (not) result in the detachment of area from any school district and the attachment of the same to another school district (and the resolution of the school board of the district to which the area will be attached approving this annexation request). 13. It is respectfully requested that upon annexation of said territory to the City of Boulder, that same be zoned as under and pursuant to G the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Boulder, Colorado. "INSERT A" (DESCRIPTION OF TERRITORY PROPOSED FOR ANNEXATION) ATTACH SIGNATURE, SHEETS A'1"I'ACH 11 N;N"I' l~: Background on the Boulder's Annexation -Policy The BVCI' provides a framework for annexation and urban service provision in Chapter 1 (BVCP policies 1.16 - 1.26). One of the core policies of the comprehensive plan, the Service Area concept, establishes urban growth boundaries to maintain a compact city. It also insures that annexation occurs in a logical fashion and where urban services are available. Area I is the area within the city. Area II is the area adjacent to the city limits, but now under county jurisdiction, where aru~exation to the city can be considered consistent with the growth management and annexation policies of the BVCP. Areas I and [I form the city's Service Area. In recognition of the fact that not all Area 11 parcels are the same, the BVCP annexation policy stipulates different policies fur: 1) areas with significant development or redevelopment potential (typically large, vacant parcels); 2) substantially developed areas (areas that are the subject of this discussion): and 3) Gunbarrel-Heatherwood (substantially developed properties on city water and sewer). Throughout the 1990s, there was a lack of clarity about what is reasonable and appropriate for the city to require at the time of annexation, particularly on residential parcels that are substantially developed. In many cases, there have been urgent health and environmental reasons for encouraging these parcels to annex to the city. For this reason, the BVCI' annexation lx>licies wcrc amended during the year 2000 BVCP update to fi~rthcr clarify the city's intent for t11CSe al CaS. ~Ihc policy ofrequiring community benefit from annexations with significant dc~~clopment p~~tential evolved from goals established in the Integrated Planning Project in 1993. "I'he goals adopted from the project emphasized the community's desire to reduce the negative impacts of ~~r-owth and, consequently, to annex sparingly. In 1996, the BVCP annexation policies wcrc revised to stress that Arca .II land with significant development or redevelopment potential should be annexed on a limited basis. Annexation of these lands would only be supported if the annexation resolves an issue of public health or. the annexation provides a special opportunity or benefit to the city. The 1996 BVCP policy did not require community benefit of substantially developed areas but emphasized annexation of these areas to protect the health and safety of tl~e residents. In the past, the city and the county were sometimes at odds in these situations because while both parties agreed that public water and sewer is in the best interests of all concerned, property owners often did not want to annex to the city, stalling the resolution of the health and environmental problems. Given the costs of installing a new septic system (-+-/-$15,000), }~~wever, once the county approved new septic system permits, it was unlikely that these neil;hborhoods would ever annex and connect to public water and sewer. With the 2110(1 uhdatc to the 13V('I', the annexation policies were agaiir amended to pruvide more clarity about annexations of substantially developed residential areas. "1'he amendments included addition of policy 1.25b, which generally includes: 1) Direction for the city to actively pursue am~exation of county enclaves, Area I1 properties along the western boundary, and other fully devclopcd Arca II properties; 2) Direction to the county to attach great weight to the city's input on development in enclaves and developed Area iI lands and to place emphasis on conforming to the city's standards in these areas; and 3) A policy that devclopcd parcels proposed for annexation which are seeking no greater density or building site not be required to provide the same level of community benefit as vacant parcels until more development of the parcel is applied for. In 2001, staff began file Annexation Policy Project to clarify how BVCI' policy 1.25b should be interpreted for Area II neighborhoods and to develop strategies for addressing well and septic system issues in mostly developed residential areas. The project entailed developing specific strategies and prototypical annexation conditions for different types of properties to simplify annexation, make the city's expectations clearer to property owners, and implement the BVCP annexation policies. The project included the following two phases: Phase I: Guidelines for conditions of annexation for mostly developed residential properties in Area 11. Phase II: Policy options for group annexations of mostly developed residential properties in Area tI. Phase I As a result of Phase I, a set of guidelines ibr negotiating individual annexation agreements was developed and endorsed by City Council (see Attachment ,I~ and have been used as guidance for annexation negotiations over mostly developed residential properties since 2002. The following are the basic princip}cs behind the guidelines: 1) The city has a legal obligation to annex enclaves at the request of the property owner without terms and conditions beyond that required through existing ordinances. The city may apply additional teens and conditions to enclaves only through negotiation with the property owner. 2) T'he basic costs of annexation (plant investment and impact fees) should not be reduced for individual property owners seeking annexation (although financing and payback may be negotiated). 3) Additional development potential is defined as the ability to subdivide or to build new units in addition to the existing home. Additional development potential does not include the ability to enlarge an existing dwelling unit (add-ons) or to replace an old house with a new one (scrape-offs). 4) Restrictions on house size should not be included in individual annexation agreements as a community benefit requirement unless the restriction is part of an overall zoning strategy or district. Community benef it requirements may be in one or more of the fi~llowing forms: • aflordahle hc~usinL (through on-site units or cash in lieu) • cascrnents (flood, trail, open space) • landmarking • other restrictions which help meet BVCP goals 6) In areas where new affordable units are appropriate (MR and some LR zones), restrictions should be placed on the affordability of the new units. In areas where new affordable units are not appropriate or feasible, (L,R, ER or RR -r_ones), the applicant should be requested to pay two times the cash contribution in-lieu of providing on-site affordable housing. Ytrasc lI The purpose of Phase of the Annexation Policy Project was to analyze the costs and benefits of group annexations and to develop policy options and implementation strategies for specific Area TI residential neighborhoods. The study showed that the costs and benefits of annexation varied widely among property groups because of the specific conditions associated with each group. The study also indicated a wide range of costs associated with individual annexations due to the differences among properties. These differences include front lat footage (which influences the cost of utility main and street construction), the number of properties cun-ently receiving one or two city services, and the current location of water and sewer mains. As a result of the Phase II analysis, policy options were developed for resolving well and septic issues in enclave areas (see Attachment X) and priorities established for focusing staff resources on various neighborhoods. The following issues informed the development of city objectives and policy options for group annCxat1011S: 1) "There is a significant cost disincentive for property owners in this category to voluntarily annex (primarily due to the cost of water and sewer main extensions). Consequently, it will he difficult to create enough incentive for these property owners to voluntarily annex +nd resolve public health issues through arvlcxation. 2) There arc overall costs and benefits to the city of annexing mostly developed residential properties, however, the benefits differ among enclave properties and edge properties. "I'he biggest benefit to the city would be in removing properties from well and septic and in creating more logical service area boundaries (especially in the enclaves). :3) Annexation of enclaves is different from that of edge properties in that: • There is the added benefit to the city of creating more logical service area boundaries and strearnliriing service delivery. • "These areas already use city facilities and services and appear to the naked eye to be part of the city. • Particularly for areas in the floodplain, having properties immediately adjacent to one another (one in the city, one in the county) with different regulations is a problem. • Lnclaves can be unilaterally annexed under state law. • Property owners within encl:wc areas have. the right to be annexed under state lava. As a result of the Phase I I analysis, the following objectives were developed regarding annexation of mostly developed residential properties to guide the development of policy options. 1) Address short and long-term health and environmental risks by developing and pursuing solutions that will ultimately remove developed residential properties in Area 11 from well and septic systems. 2) Improve city service efficiency and regulatory consistency by creating logical service area boundaries through aiuiexation. 3) Balance the benefits to the city of annexation with the costs and potential hurdles (disincentives to property owners, animosity toward the city) when considering areas to actively pursue annexation. • For enclaves -The primary goal is to annex enclave properties. • For edg~ropcrtics -Costs and benefits of annexation to the city should be weighed when considering various policy options. If enough incentive can not be created to make voluntary annexation more attractive to the landowner, look at alternate solutions to removing the properties from well and septic. 4) Develop strategies to remove properties from well and septic that are financially feasible for the city as well as the property owner. Helow is discussion of the policy options for group annexations as discussed with Plaru~ing Board and City Counci] at the; May 14 study session: 1) Voluntary annexation with incentives: Develop an annexation package with incentives that address the financial disincentives of individual annexation. Potential incentives include: a. reducing annexation costs by waiving or reducing certain fees. b. providing or financing utilities up-front. c. offering payment of annexation costs over time. d. annexation with phasing of municipal services (extend utilities and phase connection). c. annexing rights-of--way, extending the utility mains, and encouraging voluntary individual annexations. 2) Unilateral annexation (enclaves only): Use the city's authority to annex enclave properties that have been sun•ounded by the city for three years or more. "Phis approach would be consistent with the city policy that Area I1 should be part of the city and that services should not he provided without annexation. The following issues are associated with this policy option: a. The city may be limited in what can be required in terms of conditions or fees. h. There are substantial political issues with unilateral annexation, especially given the costs of annexation. 1 c. ('o??siderahlc staff ti?nr. and city resources would likely he involved in unilater,?I annexation of large neighborhood groups. 3) Out of city utility services: The city already supplies many Arca ll residential properties with out-ol=city utilities (Gunbac•t•cl, Orange Orchard, Palo Park). Most of these previous agreements and special districts were established in the 1960's and 1970's to h?rthcr the "spokes of the wheel" planning concept. "Phis concept was adopted by the city as part of the "The Service Area Concept" in 1965. The basic idea of this plan was to radiate city utility service mains out in several directions from the city limits and, through agreements in exchange for water, to control the quality, extent, and type of peripheral development that would he developed at the rim of the wheel. At that time, the Council sought to achieve city goals by requiring, through service agreements, out-of--city utility users to agree to meet all city standards for infrastructure and development and pay increased water and sewer charges. The Service Area Concept was not highly successful in accomplishing its goals for three primary reasons: 1) lack of city jurisdiction over the area to be regulated; 2) lack of political will to enforce the conditions of the out-of--city utility agreements, and 3) lawsuits or the threat of lawsuits. The city may still provide out-of=city utility services to properties in Area II providing they meet provisions outlined in the Boulder Revised Code. Out-of--city utility agreements typically include a provision that requires the landowner to apply for annexation once eligible (contiguous to the city). h~ the past, the city has acted upon this provisiocl by sending a letter to eligible landowners and inviting them into the city at no added cost. At the time, the city did not request added fees associated with annexation such as ll1?'I' and (loud utility fees. Today, many out-of-city utility users remain in Arca II for several reasons: 1) they arc not yet eligible for annexation, 2) the city has not made an effort to bring eligible residents into the city, or 3) additional fees and restrictions placed on landowners through the annexation process may be a disincentive. Because ofthc added costs and fees associated with annexation today, it maybe difficult to bring many of the out-of--city users into the city without reducing or eliminating annexation costs or placing pressure on the residents by discontinuing utility services. (Although water services could easily he discontinued, it would be difficult to discontinue sewer services to eligible properties). Unless the city acts upon this provision and creates financial incentives for the landowners to annex, most out-of-city utility users will remain in Area II. =I) Revisit Arca I1 policy and consider Area II to l Il conversions: ~['he city may want to revisit its BVCP Area II boundary, Area IIA/B designations, and Open Space designations in some areas in consideration of an annexation policy. Currently, BVCP policy 1.20 defines Area IIA as the area where the city will consider annexation within the first three years of the planning period. Area I1B is available to accommodate development with the balance of the placu~ing period. If the city decides that certain properties in Arca I1 should not receive city services, it may wish to restudy the Area II/III boundary in srnne locations. ~C Voluntary annex~~tion with no incentives heyonci the hasir package (do nothin};): The city will continue to consider voluntary annexations on a case-by-case basis. The county will continue to issue permits for well and septic upgrades as needed. Although Planning Board or City Council did not support this policy as a primary option, it may still be the best solution in certain areas where well and septic issues are not of immediate concern. The following actions were endorsed by Planning Board and City Council at a joint study session in 2002: I) Actively pursue group annexation agreements with city financing for utility main extension with the following property groups: • Githens Acres • Crestview East 2) Work with the county to refine a strategy in the following neighborhood: • Cherryvale Kd./Old '('ale Rd. 3) Work with the county during a future update to the BVCI' to further research issues and consider a land use designation change in the following neighborhood: • Gould Subdivision 4) Encourage voluntary annexations with no incentives on an individual basis (basc;d on the guidelines established in Phase I) for the following property groups: • Western Edge • Pennsylvania Ave./55`x' St. • Miscellaneous residential enclaves in North and South Boulder \t the; time of the Phase II study, the Crestview East neighborhood was considered 2~`' priority to completing annexation negotiations with Githens Acres. Several options for annexing Crestview Fast were developed and considered. The final plan that was endorsed by City Council was to negotiate group annexation agreements (with separate negotiations for landowners north and scnrth of Upland Ave.) and provide up-front city financing for utility main extensions. The initial offer to the neighborhood would be based on : 1) the zoning as outlined in the North Boulder Subcommunity Plan; 2) street dedications and improvements per the residential street design standards; 3) basic fees and costs as outlined in the guidelines developed in Phase I; and 4) city up-front financing of utility main extensions with an offer of payment upon subdivision or sale of~ the property. . I Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan Annexation Policy POLICY 1.25 ANNEXATION. "The policies in regard to annexation to be pursued by the City are: (a) Annexation will be required before adequate facilities and services are furnished; (b) The city will actively pursue annexation of county enclaves, Area II properties along the western boundary, and other fully developed Area II properties. County enclave means an unincorporated area of land entirely contained within the outer boundary of the city. Terms of annexation will be based on the amount of development potential as described in (c), (d), and (e) of this policy. Applications made to tt~c county for development of enclaves and Area II lands iz~ lieu of annexation shall be referred to the city for review and comment. The county shall attach great weight to the city's response and may require that the landowner conform to one or more of the city's development standards so that any future annexation into the city will he consistent and compatible with the city's requirements. (c) Annexation of existing substantially developed areas will be offered in a manner and on teens and conditions which respect existing lifestyles and densities, and the City will expect these areas to be brought to City standards only where necessary to protect the health and safety of the residents of the subject area or of the City. "the City, in developing annexation plans of reasonable cost, may phase new facilities and services. The County, which now has jurisdiction over these areas, shall be a supportive partner with the City in annexation effot-ts to the extent the county supports thr tc~7ns and conditions being proposed. (d) In order to reduce the negative impacts of~new development in the Boulder Valley, the City shall annex Arca II land with significant development or redevelopment potential only on a very limited basis. Such annexations will be supported only if the annexation provides a special opportunity or benefit to the city. For annexation considerations, emphasis shall be given to the benefits achieved from the creation of permanently affordable housing. Provision of the following may also be considered a special opportunity or benefit: receiving sites for transferable development tights (TDRs), reduction of future employment projections, land and/or facilities for public purposes over and above that required by the city's land use regulations, envirozunental preservation, or other amenities determined by the city to be a special opportunity or benefit. Parcels that are proposed for annexation that are already developed and which arc seeking no greater density or building size would not be required to assume and provide that same level of community benefit as vacant parcels unless and until such time as G~ 02.. arz application Cor greater development were submitted. (e) Annexation of substantially developed properties that allows for some additional residential units or commercial square footage will be required to demonstrate community benefit commensurate with their impacts. Further, annexations that resolve an issue of public health without creating additional development impacts should be encouraged. (f) There will be no annexation of areas outside the boundaries of the Boulder Valley Planning Area, with the possible exception of anrzcxation of acquired open space. (g) Area II is anticipated to become part of the city within the planning period. Area Ill is not anticipated to become part of the city within the planning period. However, publicly owned property located in Area III and intended to remain in ' Area III maybe annexed to the city if the property requires less than a full range ' of urban services or requires inclusion utader city jurisdiction for health, welfare and safety reasons. (h} The Gunbarrel-Heatherwood subcommunity, which is unique because of its size, developed at an urban density with city water and sewer service. The commercial and industrial portion of Gunbarrel-Heatherwood is annexed to the city, while much of the residential development is still unincorporated. The Gunbarrel-Heatherwood Subcommunity is also unique because of the shared jurisdiction for planning and service provision among the county, the city, the Gunbarrel General Improvement District and other special districts. Those areas annexed to the city are provided with city services, although deficiencies exist in developed park facilities and services. In the unincorporated area, a variety of arrangements for service provision exist. Some services, such as road maintenance, flood control, and law enforcement, are primarily provided by the county. Area residents now tax themselves through the Gunbarrel General Improvement District to pay for open space acquisitions and possible park and major roadway improvements. Fire protection is provided to the unincorporated area by Boulder Rural Fire District. Although interest in voluntary amlexation has been limited, the city and county continue to support the eventual annexation of Gunbarrel-Heatherwood. If resident interest in annexation does occur in the future, the city and county will negotiate new terms of annexation with the residents. q3 ~~~rT~~c ~un~I~;n'r H• City of Boulder Guidelines fo><• Annexation Agreements -Individual Annexations of Mostly Developed Residential Properties in Area II- Zs, 2002 I. BackKround: The purpose of these guidelines is to provide general direction for negotiating annexation agreements with individual landowners of mostly developed residential properties in Area 11. They are intended to clarify city expectations in individual annexations. These • guidelines have been endorsed by Planning Board and City Council and are a reference for city staff, landowners, Planning Board and City Council in future individual annexation negotiations. "I'hc Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan provides a framework for annexation and urban service provision. With the 2001 update to the BVCP, Annexation Policy 1.25 was amended to provide more clarity about annexations. ~'he amendments to the policy . included the following: • llirection for the city to actively pursue annexation of county enclaves, Area Il properties along the westezn boundary, and other mostly developed Area I1 properties; • nirection to the county to attach great weight to the city's input on development in enclaves and developed Area II lands and to place emphasis on conforming to the city's standards in these areas; and • A policy that developed parcels proposed for annexation that are seeking no greater density or building sire should not be required io provide the same level of community benefit as vacant parcels until more development of the parcel is applied for. In order to reduce the negative impacts of new development in the Boulder Valley, the BVCP states that the city shall annex Area II land with significant development or r-cdevclopment potential only on a very limited basis. Such annexations will be supported only if the annexation provides a special opportunity to the city or community benefit. '('here guidelines apply primarily to mostly developed residential propcrtics in Area It. In most of these cases, the city would not request a community benefit with the annexation. However, a few of the propcrtics that are currently developed in the county may have further development potential once annexed into the city. 't'hese guidelines further refine the BVCP Policy 1.25 by specifically outlining which properties wilt be asked to provide community benefit upon annexation and what form of community benefit may be requested by the city. C~r~ IL General Principles of Individual Annexations of Mostly lleveloped Residential Properties: A. In terms of the city's interests, the benefits of aru~exing mostly developed residential properties in Area II outweigh the costs. B. The city has a strong desire to annex many of the residential properties in Area II because of the potential envirorunental and health issues associated with well and septic systems. C. The basic fees associated with annexation (plant investment and impact fees) should not be reduced for individual property owners seeking annexation (although financing and payback may be negotiated). D. The city has a legal obligation under state law to annex enclaves at the request of the property owner without terms and conditions beyond those required through existing ordinances. E. The city may apply additional terms and conditions to enclaves only through negotiation with the property awner. (Use caution when applying community benefit). lll. Principles of Applying City Community Benefit Policy: A. Community benefit should only be applied to properties with additional development potential. B. For the purposes of these guidelines, additional development potential includes the ability to subdivide the property and/or build at least one additional unit on the property. Additional development potential does not include the ability to add on to an existing house or to replace an old house with a new one (scrape-offs). C. Although emphasis is placed on affordable housing, community benefit is not restricted to housing. An affordable housing benefit should be balanced with other benefits such as land or property dedications (landmarking, flood and open space easements) or other restrictions that help meet BVCP goals. D. The city should strive for consistency in applying the affordable housing requirement to properties with additional development potential. In areas where new affordable units arc appropriate (Crestview Fast}, restrictions should be placed on the affordability of the new units. In areas where new affordable units are not appropriate or feasible, (Gould Subdivision, 55`h St. enclaves}, the applicant should be requested to pay two times the cash contribution in-lieu of providing on-site affordable housing. IV. Framework for Basic Annexation Conditions for All Properties: A. Inclusion in the Boulder Municipal Subdistrict and the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District. B. Assessment for waterline and sanitary sewer along street frontage (either existing or to be constructed). C. Development Excise "Tax (DE'T). D. Storm Water and Flood Management Utility Plant Investment fees. I~. ~Vatcr and ~~'astcwatcr l;tility Plant Investment I-ce. F. Dedication to the city of right-of-way for streets, alleys, water maids, and/or fire hydrants. G. Agreement to participate in their pro rata share of any future right-of--way improvements (paving, roadbase, curb, gutter, landscaping, sidewalks, bicycle and pedestrian path coiuiections). H. Properties with Silver Lake Ditch rights: The city would ask the property owner to sell all interests in the ditch company to the city. I. Properties with other ditch rights: The city would ask for the first right of refusal for any ditch rights associated with the property. V. Application of Community Renetit A. Guidelines for properties within the flood conveyance lone or with an open space or natural ecosystem land use designations. 1. The city would request dedication of an open space conservation easement for any portion of the site with a BVCP Open Space or Natural F,cosyslem land use designation. 2. The city would request dedication to the city of a stornwater and floodplain easement for any portion of the site located within the flood conveyance zone. l3. Guidelines for properties with additional development potential. The guidelines below arc based on the definition of development potential as the potential for a property to be subdivided or for additional units to be built on Uie property. Although the terrns of the community benefit requirement maybe negotiated on a case-by-case basis, the following are the general guidelines for requc;sting conununity benefit: l . l~ comn~uttity benefit requirement in the form ~~I two tiules the cash in-lieu contribution as set tot-th in the city's inclusionary zoning ordinance to the Housing 'Trust Fund would be negotiated with property owners in ER and RR zones. 2. hoc properties in LR and MR cones, a condition would be negotiated that a certain percentage of any new dwelling units be made permanently affordable to various income groups (see specific guidelines for each property group below). hoc enclaves, the atfordable housing request should be consistent with similar aru~exations in the area (see specific guidelines for each property group below). 4. hoc edge properties, the cash-in-lieu requested would be two times that required under the inclusionary zoning ordinance. Guidelines for specific property areas. 1. Enclave -Crestview East a. A11 prc~~erties: 1 • Reyuest that the applicant demonstrate compliance with the North Boulder Subcommunity Plan Design Guidelines upon redevelopment or other applicable developed zoning district standards. b. Properties along Founnile Can cy ~n Creek: • Attempt to secure through negotiation, dedication of conservation, trail, and floodplain and drainage utility easements to the city to meet the objectives of the Greenways Master Plan and the Stonnwater and Flood Management Utility. c. Properties with subdivision~otential split MR/LR zoning: • 50% of any newly constructed units should be permanently affordable to low and middle income households. d. Properties with subdivision potential -split LR/ER zones: • 25% of any newly constnucted units should be permanently affordable to middle income households; and • Market rate units permitted on site should pay twice the applicable cash- in-lieu amount required by inclusionary zoning provisions. e. Properties with subdivision potential - ER zones: • Payment of two times the cash contribution in-lieu of providing on-site affordable housing set forth in the city's inclusionary zoning ordinance for each new dwelling unit (prior to building permit). 2. Enclave - Gitlxens Acres and other miscellaneous North 13ouldec- enclave properties. a. All properties: • Request that the applicant demonstrates compliance with the North Boulder Subcommunity Plan Design Guidelines upon redevelopment or other applicable developed zoning district standards. b. Properties along Fourmile Cannon Creek: • Attempt to secure through negotiation, dedication of conservation, trail, and floodplain and drainage utility easements to the city to meet the objectives of the Greenways Master Plan. 3. Enclave -Pennsylvania Ave. a. Three properties along the Wellman Canal (5255, 5303, and 5101): • Attempt to secure through negotiation, dedication of a trail easement to the city to meet the objectives of the city's Transportation Master Plan. b. For all properties: • Rcyucst }~aynlcnt ii)r share of sidewalk ilnhruvcrnents along Pcuusylvanla A vc. 4. Enclave - 55"' St. a. Property with an MR land use desi~rlation (1415 55`h St.): If zoned LR-U, • Payment of two times the cash contribution in-lieu of providing on-site affordable housing set forth in the city's inclusionary zoning ordinance for each new dwelling unit. (at the time of building permit) or; • Any newly constructed units must be permanently affordable to middle income households. If zoned MR-U, • 50% of any newly constructed units must be permanently affordable to low and middle income households. b. Properties with an LR land use designation and further development uotential (994, 836, 830 55t1' St. and 5495 Baseline Rd.): • Payment of two times the cash contribution in-lieu of providing on-site affordable housing set forth in the city's inclusionary zoning ordinance for each new dwcllin~ unit (at the time oChuildin~ }~cl~nit). S. Could Subdivision a. Thrce_propertics with additional development potential (2840 Jav Rd., 2818 Jav Rd., 4040 28'x' St,~: • Payment of two tunes the cash contribution in-lieu of providing on-site affordable housing set forth in the city's inclusionary zoning ordinance for each ucw dwcllulg Ulllt. ~1. ~'VCS1e1'Il 1~.d~.!e a. Two properties ta~ith a VI.R land use dcsi(;nation and devclopnlcnt p(~tcnllal (U Linden llr., and 3650 4`h St.): • Payment of two times the cash contribution in-lieu of providing on-site affordable housing set forth in the city's inclusionary zoning ordinance for each new dwelling unit. (at the time of subdivision). h. Properties at 3365 4`h St., 3047 3`d St., 2975 3"~ St., and 2835 3"' St.: • An open space conservation easement, filr the portion of the property that is west oi~tllc A131ue Line," should be dedicated to the city. 7. Old 'l'ate RdJCherrvvale Rd. a. Properties al(~ng ~(~uth 13ouldcr Creek: -1 J • Attcull~~t to secure through negotiation, dedication oi•conservation, trail, and (loodplain and drainage utility casements to the city to meet the oh•jecl.ivcs of the Grecnways Mast.cr i'lan and the Stormwater and Flood Managcnicnt i_;tility. "A Call for Action" and City Response Jrrh~ 30, 20U& "A Call for Action" City Response 1. Annexation application and 1) No additional annexation application fees. Application and Planning Board Administrative fee of fees $18,920 (S17,340 + $1,580) divided equally among ~ 2) Defrayment of PIFs (due at time of sale or applicants or $1,351 per new applicant. over aten-year payback period). Participants who contributed to the 2003 application are credited for their share of the new application fee. Stormwater and Flood PIF paid prior to 15t reading. Water and sewer PIFs paid prior to connection. 2. Financing and management Neighborhood takes the responsibility of The neigFiborhood takes the responsibility of financing and of public improvements financing and hiring asub-contractor. constructing the public improvements in Upland and Violet avenues. The design and construction needs to meet city standards (including resurfacing of the roads after utility installation). The cost of repaving the roads needs to be c included in the estimated cost of the utility construction. C~ 3. Vine Street Landowners dedicate 40 foot ROW at Landowners dedicate 40 foot ROW at annexation. Defer annexation. Defer design and construction of design and construction of Vine Street until subdivision of Vine Street until subdivision of properties. properties. 4. Sidewalks on Upland 1) No sidewalks along Upland Avenue. 1) Residents build sidewalks along Upland Avenue. (The city's interest, however, is to meet the intent of the 2) Residents build new sidewalk along Violet comprehensive plan and the subcommunity plan in ~ and Vine Street. providing safe access for students to nearby schools.) y 2) Residents build new sidewalk along Violet and Vine. ~ 5. Boulder Valley 1) Residents pay Area I inclusionary cash-in- 1) All non-permanently affordable new units on LR and ER x Comprehensive Plan lieu amounts for each new unit ($24,626.76 zoned properties pay twice the applicable cash-in-lieu Community Benefit - in 2008). amounts. ~ Permanently Affordable 2) 25% of all newly constructed units on properties with ~ Housing LRlER zonin be permanentl affordable to middle ~ income households. 3) 50% of all newly constructed units on properties with LR/MR zoning shall be permanently affordable to low and middle income households. I Crestview East Annexation Process Steps and Requirements July 3G, ZOG~ Step in Process Requirements ~ City Fees and Taxes Comments 1. Annexation Application Sign posting affidavit Application and Planning Board Reviewed with neighborhood Submittal Improvement survey ,Administrative fee of $18,920 representative in two separate • Legal Description ($17,340 + $1,580) divided meetings in July. • Vicinity map equally among applicants or • Written Statement 51,351 per new applicant. Individual annexation applications Annexation map typically cost $18,920. • Annexation petition Participants who contributed to the • Utility connections plan 2003 application are credited for Project Fact Sheet their share of the new application • Current title work fee. 2. Planning Board hearing Staff memo outlining major issues, Once complete application is areas of agreement, areas of received, staff will schedule a disagreement and staff Planning Board hearing date. ~ recommendation q~' 3. 30 days prior to 15 reading of Annexation agreements signed Group Fees: Staff will recommend waiving DET I`-' annexation and initial zoning by each landowner. Technical document application for existing houses which qualify. ordinance by City Council Updated property title work fee of $4,200 for utility plan from each landowner. review. Note that PIFs are expected to • Estimate of the cost of the increase sometime in 2009. installation of all annexation Individual Fees: improvements. Stormwater and Flood • Technical document Management PIF (varies by application submittal for the individual property based on utility installation. existing lot size and impervious • Financial guarantee for the surface with a range of $1,000 a public improvements. to $5,000) ~ • File an application and pay the ~ applicable fees for inclusion of each property in the Boulder ~ Municipal Subdistrict of the ~j Northern Colorado Water ~ Conservanc District. w • Pay fees and dedicate easements • Convey Silver Lake Ditch rights per arbitration agreement. 4. 2" reading and adoption of No additional requirements unless annexation and initial zoning requested by council at the 15C readin . 5. Prior to utility main installation Obtain right-of-way permits for Neighborhood shares cost of right- ~ construction of-way permits for utility main ~ installation (cost can ra^ge from $82 to approximately 51,000 de endin on utilit plan). 6. Prior to connection to water Individual landowners: Water {per property}: Assessment for existing water line and sewer service system Submit an application fora Permit fee (5123) along Upland Avenue is estimated permit to connect to services Meter charge ($524) at approximately 56.18 per linear • Pay the applicable fees and Tap fee ($106) foot of street frontage. charges Inspection fee (5164) o Construct individual service PIF ($9,995) Staff will propose waiving this fee V~ lines to homes for both Upland and Violet • Abandon existing septic Sewer (per property): avenues. systems Permit fee ($123) • Tap fee ($128} • Inspection fee ($164) • PIF (51910) 1 ANNEXATION REQUIREMENTS COMPLETE AT THIS POINT. THE FOLLOWING STEPS ARE INDIVIDUAL LANDOWNER INITIATED AND NOT REQUIRED AT THE TIME OF ANNEXATION. 7. Subdivision Landowner submits an application Fees associated with subdivision for development review application • Preliminary plat ($4,b80) • Subdivision agreement/final plat ($2,625) 8. Building permit for new Landonwer submits application for Stormwater and Flood residential structures building permit and meets Management PIF for ^ew affordable housing requirements development. per annexation agreement. Fees associated with buildin • All non-permanently affordable permit application new units on LR and ER zoned properties pay twice the applicable cash-in-lieu amounts. • 25% of all newly constructed units on properties with LR/ER zoning be permanently affordable to middle income households. • 50% of all newly constructed units on properties with LR/PAR zoning shall be permanently affordable to low and middle , income households. 9. Prior to final inspection for Pay all applicable fees including Development Excise Tax new construction cash-in-lieu for affordable housing ($5,579.59) as per annexation agreement. Education Excise Tax ($1.18 per sq. ft.) ~ Housing Excise Tax ($0.225 ~ per sq. ft.) Cash-in-lieu fee for affordable housing as per annexation agreement. A'I"I'ACHMENT I A roximate Costs of Annexation Per Household Upland Violet Costs at time of application Application Application fee $17,340 total) $1,238 $1,238 Plannin Board Administrative fee ($1,580 total) $113 $113 Subtotal $1,351 $1,351 Costs prior to first reading of an ordinance Stormwater and Flood Mana ement PIF $3,000 (averse $3,000 {avers e Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District $150 $150 fee Subtotal $3,150 $3,150 Costs prior to connection to public improvements Share of water system $2,484 $4,965 Water service $4,600 $4,600 Water Plant Investment Fee $9,995 59,995 Share of sewers stem $17,495 $39,139 Sewer service $2,300 $2,300 Wastewater Plant Investment Fee $1,910 $1,910 Subtotal $38,784 $62,909 TOTAL COSTS OF ANNEXATION $43,285 $67,410 (per household) ANNEXATION REQUIREMENTS COMPLETE AT THIS POINT. THE FOLLOWING STEPS ARE INDIVIDUAL LANDOWNER INITIATED AND NOT REQUIRED AT THE TIME OF ANNEXATION. Costs at time of subdivision Preliminary plat) $4,680 $4,680 Subdivision agreemenUfinal plat $2,625 $2,625 Subtotal $7,305 $7,305 Costs at time of new building permit Approximately $0.94 Approximately $0.94 Stormwater and Flood Management PIF for new multiplied by the amount multiplied by the development. amount of square feet of square feet of new of new impervious impervious surface. surface. Rates vary with value and Rates vary with value Fees associated with building permit application extent of new and extent of new development. development. Costs prior to final inspection for new construction Development Excise Tax $5,579.59 $5,579.59 Education Excise Tax $1.18 per sq.ft. $1.18 per sq.ft. Housing Excise Tax $0.225 per sq.ft. $0.225 per sq.ft. l0~ Cash-in-lieu fee for affordable housing as per $6A,000 per unit 50% of new units annexation agreement. (2x cash in-lieu per new permanently affordable to units) low and middle income >1~~, ATTACHMFN'I' J 4 • ~ ~ HARLAN & ASSOCIATE~,1Nl.;. . CONSULTING HVDROGEOLOGISTSRND ENGINEERS ~ ; ~ - ~ ~ 3900 South Wadsworth Boulevard, Sulle 155 M,. Lakewood, Colorado 80235-2211 ~ s, 'c ~ l (303) 988-7270 • Fax {303) 989-8188 s ~ , t~ x" November 29; 2002 ' ~ ` r r~, r1~;c~"~r' ~E •t~ ~s~~:~y r.i~. - Mr. Chris Rudkin t City of ~Bouldcr Public Works/Utilities r _ • Water Quality & Environmental Services ~ .x~ , 4049~North 75~' Street ~ 3~` Boulder, CO 8030] ',,i`~` ~r t ' Mr. Mike Randall City of Boulder Planning Department P.O' liox 791 Boulder, CO 80306-0791 llear Messrs. Rudkin and Randall . . Re: Crestview East Neighborhood Ground-water Issues 7~ris letter has been prepared at the request of 1vir. Chris Rudkin told specifically addresses the current status of known ground-water quality issues in the north Boulder area.. Our understanding is that the City of Boulder is reviewing possible annexation of two areas in the Crestview East neighborhood in North Boulder. Both of these areas arc located. bct.4v~cen 20"' Stx~et on the west, 2G'h Street on the cast, Violet Avenue on flhe nort}i; and.nrch~rd~: Avenue and;its cas[ward.extcnsion.on the south. As shown nn the attached Figures, portions of this area directly ovcnic, or arc located on the edL;e, of, a plume of chlorinated volatile organic constituents (VOCs) identified previously as emanating from the former Centerline Circuits manufacturing facility west of Broadway. The attached Figures depict the maxinnun historically detected concentrations of 1,1-dichlorc~ethene (1,1,DCE) and 1, 1, ] -trichloroethanc (1,1,1-TCA) in ground water and the reported concentrations in November 1998, the latest time for which we have analytical results. As shown, in the Crestview East area, i.c., east of 20''' Street, residual concentrations of l,l,l-TCA in ground water, albeit detectable, historically have been blow the Federal Drinking ~Watcr-Standard or ?~taxitnum Concentration Limits (MCLs) for public drinking water supplies, i.e., less than ?0O micrograms per liter (µg/1). 1 1-DCE. which has a MCL of 7~1., has not been detected east of 20`~ Street, i.e., within the Crestview Last area. The wells, shown on the attached higures, sampled on behalf ofthe City of Boulder in November 1998, and the analytical results for l;l,l- T('A and 1,1-ICE, the only VOCs that were detected, arc sununarized in Table 1. The analytical results for the November 1998 monitoring event are consistent with. the historical data for North Boulder. Between about 1990, when systematic ground-tivater monitoring within the Crestview Arca was begun and 1998, the extent of the contaminant plume and contaminant concentrations within the plume have remained relatively constant, indicating steady-state conditions. Although four years have elapsed since the residential wells in the - subject area wore last sampled, a SI,^_AIfICBnt change in ~ronnd-water conditions is not expected. ....._.,..V...,ti....... - . - - _ _..._-__~.,,....~..,r.. - - r . , ~ Vt ~ its;' r , - , s~ • HA.RLAN~~&~~1~~SbLYA'1~~,+Lt~C.:: > ~ ~ 3 7-. ~41css1 s R1184.1~t• end R~?nc~a)) Y " C~ity'of T~~i~icJcr ~ I~Iov~nlb~"r 29,`2Q02 ~ ~ ~ _ t _ ~ T _ F ~ ; ~ 771os~ t~clls tTiat'-~contained low coric~rltratii7n~ of VOGs (Il.~ly wtlll sttll cont'lIn dc,tectablc ;i ~cxic~ntr;lions t)t~;til~ sanje constltu~ijtc•and tlio~t: residc,ntlal.~`vllc~in ~h}1tc11 all~'o1:-~}lie ~onststu~,iits t ~I1 tic ailal~`tlcal t~irgc,t list tivere belotv;th~ ni.~thod det~~tloitxlllnlte-,ate llkelV cic,arittoclay Given ib~~tfourvc;~•lr~~iavc e,lalsed slii~~ thc~last niolutollit~ rouiid.tllo~icer, tt is poasrbl~ that ground _ ~ • l ; , ~~~ater col)dliro;ls have`c.liangrd,.partlcul•lrly,lf hCle IS a I1C,W; qr pri<vldusly,;unhllo~~,n eolrcc that is ` r adversely jcnpac,(ing ~halloly ground l;~F7tcr gliailty l~~lthrll rile Crc,<t!}t(,tiv T,ilst~lll.l~itbl)Il1oQd ~ . ~y~ k' ' • ` ~11IC(, SOIn~ rc,sld~llts within the area of i~itcr~st have, sJ?z}101' wclJ~ grid `!re'Oll sCptlC I tanks/lc,;t~h;•:flzlds;-groiirlcl ~v~lte~: qu~lJit~~ ]s ,still a ~~fentl3l i.s~uG~Vtt}1 res[~ect ib;anti4~;atlon•~iild :'°I`., possibly with ras;i~ct to,thc costs of colincctiig to City water and saver { _ , ' ~ . Aespart ofats 3tle d1)igciu,c w~itll IeSpcc.t to itt~ l 1telllnc,~alun,c,,;ul C ItyofI3oiildcr niay' a - elect ao: i ndcrta ~c: ~ .t~` i i, . n•` ~ r,-' 1, , k ~ titf ~-ss.,i ~,i,rt, ar <i al}sI, plo~,~tn to con~irl}), currc,llt .ground water' _ ~ qu~•ilit~ cor~dluolls>tivrtllyn.flle shallow;ground-~yat~,r;iclurl~f tii th^ s}?~.c.ific'aic Is of lnt~ICSt. In.t}its - ` ~ ~A~ rc,~aid wc,woilli3.ploposc that~a subset o~the wcllsInc,ludcc(~IU tlii. No~ctnb~r, l•998 nionltoring - • ~ 1)lo>;iam be lr,-salip(ed':fol tlic"~a~~lvsis of VOCs;~(I l'~~-~;tiic,t}locl'k~G{t) ` lliis lvotild r4gtiir~.. t coni~c.tlil~ ~cach ~f the affec,te.ti. rolietty owners to ohtaii their-lierinlsslen tors s~li~pl~~~tl~lr }veils : ' ~ - ~ . a ~ r t` fPh~, rc'~Idcilt131 ~~nd cicdre,atc;d' mosiitolmr tv~lls tti~t ale `t)rop~:ed foI' rc, eam})}Ing~1~c } • ~lc~f~tl•lt~,i1 by Sul astc,rlSk`(*) ii,I `TaUlc.l Of,3hc~v n)onltoririg lac~ifiorts, ftitlr arm rc.<Idt itl 11 «0115 loc;,ati;d rcltl~er clircct~y iipgrrxdiel,t 'af of 'generally wrtliin fhv;area~'b~Ing ,ron~ldcr~d for . •1nlte~tltlptl ~dn~ 1~.<a`d~tiii aced- ilonrtorlns; lvcll oil :tile (]ty` of I3giilc(cr'rigltt 9f~~xa'~ along 2G'~' a:'_ti"r ~t1' Ck; t,'171d;tllC last IS the Ilataral Seep alt t}1C'Crc.StVlc,\v"~1c,n7C111,1[y 1Cllp(11 r' l nX blldl,>Ctln~' •r~ , } k ~ piirho5c~ c~iir ~stiiiiitc ttr'~ontact tile, respcc,Li~~e owiici5 tO;r ~a~n'j)~~ tl3c; ~•li~Ij~GtlooZtt~~ts aiid~~fo 5` ' r? , ~pru,~;il~ ~ Izttet report sunulian~Rug ti}e:'results'ali{l=uj~date'f}ie III;t~s of tlle:Nortli~I3oilder Arca']fi << . attac,licd a~ T~blc'2 5, - ~ - tt ~roUt have, gttstrons on t}lc ~abov~ status ~i~port'g1 If ~tii, cful <~irovltlc any 'a~dltloal r ~;4 lnfonilatloli~nr assistal)co'<•lt t}tIS`aun~;ailea5e fc~~'#IC~.~to c.o»ta~t 3u~ ~ ' ' . V~ly`tluly yours, c • l3,'1RL<1N ~Y; E~SSQCIA'I~S, ]N('. , ~ , •z, E y (i r1 ~ ~ ~ , } , ~ ~ .t a t. • -+3 'rT + ~ ltictiard L.:Hai~laii, ~~I:v.' _ ~ d ,la.~:rt: s 1.•w;r 4 -ti ;e>,~ • T'CC51dZnt t .t, . a ' ~ ~S • r r . w~ Vi i; S R 1 1. -1.= Gd i. ~ S4 leg . , . ` . - - - HARLr~.N & ASSOCIATES, INC, - ~ ~ ~ Messrs. Rridkin and Randall ~ ~ ~ ~r ~ - , City of Boulder ~ ; November 29, 2002 ` Page..3 of 3 `ti , ' ~ ; . Table 1 - Crestview/North:Boulder Area L y Summary of November 1998 Ground-wafer Sampling Program; ~ ~ u Analytical Results, and Wells Proposed for Re=Sampling ` ~ s.-~ ~ ~ v fa ~z~"Upos~d ~ 8~ 1'~:cr~rarn r'1rtalyttc.~rl Ott-sir~t~s ~ . . l nc~tron> 1fJEll ~~©signit~on~Locatroii ' 1,1,1. `X'~'~.Il} Icy DCL'~ c /l ~ t, BLD-2 <0;5 <1.0 * Grestuic~,~Schoal Seep <0:5 <1,0 * 2145 Uplu~d <0:5 <0;1 -1377 Tamarac ~;0 <1.0 * 4405 Agate <0;3 <1.0 * 2155 Emerald 2.0 <1.0 BLD-3 NS -Destroyed NS - nestroyed 4390 - 13`~ Street NS NS 1490 Upland NS NS Notes - Proposed sampling location if confirmatory sampling & analysis to be andert,3kcn. < -Denotes constituent not deteoted at the referenced value. NS -Denotes well location not.sampled Table 2 . Crestview~East/North Boulder Area Cost'Estimate fir Confirmatory~Ground-Water Sampling and fS.nalysis Program De~cr~pUcn Units , Pre-samhling logistics 4 hrs. 5200 Sampling -Field 8 to 12 hrs. $400 to 5600 - Analytical Subcontract~~ 5 to 7 $550 to 5770 . Reimbursable Expense Mileage is $50 Equipment is S 150 to $200 Expendable Supplies is $25 Data Xnterprctation Reporting is 300 TOTAL 5.1,675 to 52;1,45 r ` t, Notes: ; "-Includes trip blank for quality control/quality assurance purposes is -lump sum ':~`5 f0~ ~"t~ UN1fiEd STATES ENVI~iC?NMEN7A.E PROTECTION AGEtJCY ~i REGIt)N~ 8 999 48~ STREET - 3017E SO@ _ aawvF~, co eon amass F10V 2 9 ~ Ref:8EPR-SR {t ,r.~« n S . Chuck Stout I . Exocutivt Diractor r W` ~ .o • _ Bouldet County Neatth 1~eparrment ` 3450 Qraadway . Boulder, Colorado 80304. _ . _ _ _ . Re: Centerline Ci.ncuiis Site Dear INr. Stout: I arrr writing to inform you that the Environmental protection Agency (EPf4) plans to take no further action at the Centerline Circuits (aka North Boulder} site. We believe that the cleanup work necessary to prt~tect human health and the environrncnt has bete completed. Recent data show that the contamination has decreased and is expected to decrease even farther in the fiituu~e. The City and County of Boulder, State of Colorado, the Colorado Department of Transportation, Centtriixu Circuits and Cencorp, Inc. are to be commended for their actions in lowering to acceptable levels the risk posed by the ground water coatarnination r 5h~ould condiliorus warrant, EFA is pn°~ared to r~ecvaluate the site to determine if the contaminatiara is significant enough for EPA invoh~erncnt. 1 am sure you arc awazo that EPA must focus its resources on those sites chat pose fhe biggest threat to public health. An ongoing, limited monitoring program may help to provide additional assurances of the success of the cleanup effort. Enclosed is a sport that describes the_ efforts made tv crate at the site, including evHluati~ns of the cleanup at the property formerly owned by Centerline Circuits, the graund~ti~a#er monitoring proErano And the provision of drinking water to the residents of the _ North Boulder enclave. The enclave includes a residential area ofNorth Boulder bounded by Broadway an the west, 19'" Street on the east, Violet Street on the north, and Tamarack Street on the south. See Figure I . s I~G - I _ i- ~I_ I - lr~ . I11 - ~ _ BAD-_ _ ti I _ --.z. { , ~ J a35p 13en Slr.ol C .o I - •,ay uolo.,a ao cos _ LEGEND NP - - lu II - _ ~ l~ _ J i tAPNrIOFING wEll - ~ f i~ .r (MNf$tK wnTfR Surp~* wfu ,s ~ ~ J ~ 4~ ~ ~`.r CFEavIEw flEMf!+tnP• SCNOOL SCE' yl ? 1 1, 1,!-7G I$D-rnll(:ENTRATIQN LINC } Ali p7.-~oKK <p,s (:W:ED UN 7A%.XIUUM HI$fQRICA:, (;pNCEN7 R~lIDN) ~-T-.-~ % ! I ~ ~ l5 ~ a~D C?i~fRVED CgNCEN7ReTh7.t NOV. I, '99P ~.<,;'L; 11 NP N07 SNI~YjED/SAA!FI_Ep _ ' I-"~=_f" I - `~I ND NJT OCTECT£D ~ ~ _ cc-- - ! I ,py `•~J t I ~ I. „ ~l _ ~ : w yuu tarn ~ ---~5'~- _t.-~~.'U~ '1_ ~ i~ ~ ~ I /~l• ~ ~CaLE w CEi.T. t' S00 _ "~j G_ ~~ij I~ l~. ~~----~~~y ` ruvrcw,v,.lc ror;rc.Wa IN7EF.yPI - IC.. ~1 ' _II_ 1 _ 4 2i os -vn..algr ..os P9ma ~ ~ _ _ I ego-: _ f~.~- ,.r _ --mod'---- ~ ! <os 1. CITY OF BOULOEP. I /-1 nOR7A BUULGEF a4E.: B~UIL n. CU~UF:.Oi, ! MP%IMUM tll`:I(yRl(.AI, r.t:U :i()': i i 159h . _ .r I J t~__zx-T== I -..L - ~~i__ ! .7 t-?G~ ,^!1v:. C:-ITfV.TfA'95 ~u4/l) .I ~I _ _ I~•R:V ELI J,C'-Ua: UdIE aUL;~)S.' :UO' I ~ ~~~11IIIr II~I (1~ 1 : 11,;A- i ln$,Dw;; f?Y. RI N C'It C4:E~ KRTi r ~I - ' _ JL~_1/_. _i'f ~ H•J/I~Jr~ .y( A~a:::~V lC1. IrIC. _ :nns:,ll:ng yaraF•iolapstz ~n.~ £n0~nrrr: I _ ( I 1 •390 IIAr Y•t~nl I J~ ~ - I~ T r. Imo- , ~ ~ II - i,.Y ua.,ro G~~ tECEroo r.ur ~ ---ABC JI ii.°o uwwe' ~ `~i t"II .nr~rcw+reu ~t~. i ~ --ms's -T - -_._~I~ _ ij J UOuE:rrC wgER Suarw wCu ~a ~ I I / r• ~~I ~ CM'ST1C.v EIEVCnTANV SfN11d 5(1a IIl r Im ra,.a.9< ~ S"a ~ r.r-a.E rsn.-~axcnrw.rrov IriE I. _ ~ <i0 \ (MSED on YN:rMW MSTpprCAL COnC(NIPA110w) ~i't i ? f ~re 6 i r? ~ o oBStavcn conafrtwvga nov , i ~~.ee twirl r NA wf1T Ntit Y~CJ/:A•IaLEO ,1 1nf 1.0 _ _ `.L./'t-. ___,..r-_J' ~ r ~ Lr. ND• MOf uCTECTt:r - ~ I~ fd--- f i~ ~ ~ ,rnr7:.uur•~,rc ca•ra:P rnrtrrvnr w L1 I Y- J ~ a.u F. _ - - -~-_-L yam. ~ I~ I - I (J wpYr tgrxcrn ute. O::v, OE!t. cc_ueuxi _ ~C: I J uw+,mru w,5roc.f.f Ant. r,c. ,ayo ~ r~~ i _ ~ .f _fX'E ..QrcCC'r kAlr:ty• ~ L. --70~~~. Tr-~_ -mss ~.•:/:1 r 1 ~ l ~r II - \ - LI ~ _ L. ~ ~ • IBC- 1 r98 L:•iG Br a~N Cr•riY.CL rk`. - li I ~J M•~f:4n AYYOCr~(r, nrt ~~-~'-'Jd~ ~ Grrr:ufhry moroS Y.+::sf, onu c.n~ew, .i~ _ _ ' ~ - - r--i~ ~ \ - _ _ ~I ^ .1` _ it y~ l,II 1l dL~-~ _ I ~ ~r'1 Nn +tas uomne LEGEND Sp ' ~ <0.5 ~r t ta90 VOlpne o NA ~ --•~I ~ ~ _ t _ _ - b ~ •I~ YQNItORING YIEiI Jp .r ~ l N DOreESnC wnTER SuPrLr wE2L ~ ' fir. \ GREiNICw EuMErITARr SCHOOL SEEP 1 ~ f • seeo ~ = I, f, l -7Cr• 56-CONGEN?Rn710N LuaC ~ r u _ ,I<0 s i (dAiEO ON w%14U4 HISTORICAL CONCENSRATIUN) ip ~.f 377 Temorec 1 .ec ~ ~ ~ \ • I r~-~ 1 40 OB`.ER•FD c.ONCCtviRaTWR NCrv 1 t t99t (uq/t ) - / ~ „ BLO-t ' - ~ I ~G _ ~ <I.O ' ~ 1- ~ NA NOT Pl1RLYi.EDIiAYIRLED L- _ ~ ~ ~ ND NOS DCTELSED ,2 ~ ~ - / ~ itaLC Irl rER t- SOD - - ~ ' - I ~4t~~ - \ IUPV4Ka+•nl_ tG1.0ux mfERVnL - ID ~`I \t - ~ I ~ 37 ~S Emotolq sa05 agore r\\-_` - ~ ~ N r y~ ~ ' `I ~ _ J' ~1 ~.I . . r..... _ _J ~ _ , l ? ~ 11 i r ~ aw_= : l - _ ~ ~ _ _ _ <os t, - CIIY OF BOULDER -1 %:i CEI I~cRLINC Pll1 A5E ~I-_~ I I NCIRTH dCULCF.R gREA. BOULDT_R. .u"LUR-DO II _ - _ - - MWf14VIA HISTORICAL I.VU I:U'J 1 t, I9~fl -I I~'J l ~ '.l.l -TCn COVCE>:T^nnpro5 Iu7/~) FROJiCt DIUS-UOC• O:•iE nVGV51 20CI /r-~ 7 f l iCt.- I I?9.(AVC F.T. Elrl Cnf~U+' C RR$ I ~I 1. li~ ~ - - - - .L~ - - - I - - - - -'1--~1 _ pr 1 cons~..lo:~on fi 0.isouatrv. Inc. _ _ _ . _ _ . l:_ ~r ~rCruY-•C/oC•sts Cna :rtcmee+r: .sw rJn, 4r.« ~ ~ ra-.:~~ ~ n. ' I I -r uwno LEOEND ~ e _ I r~e4 upaw Y _ = I I( wwTawn wL~: - - I .I n4 I ~ ~I ~~d' ' ° ocwrln: w~e[A x~'!.r Ntu f ~ I 11 s~rsn~tw u[ucnru,r ;~.rt ao • / s.w ~ ( Lra~.r la-cur«:r,wa.!rt>N !rrc I ~ ~~0 raner+r r /1, <L0 !lM?CU ON MAr MrVV a ;rnNR:+i Cor XtNrnnh Jnl J ,r ~-14 ~ 'r ~ / I r ~0 9YdpvCP SNrRVdnxln.,.r von ~~rrn I~.ui +1 1L.~ ~ -I I ' r c ru rmr aura xu: war • fr. I i"' - _~__~=.•«y~-- • tR~".c c .nV.~ ~ r`•' 'Kr NOI irnrClrh ~ ~ 111 Y w l1I _ - • aeu rl rCU, ,^xi •II ~ ~ 1f11'^. !flarYrif CCNIOI.M '1'11 n~ ~'1. i, ~1 X47 'y~ ~1 ~ ~ / + OITt' OF BOULDER IIII/SSI 1t1'{[~1(• ~ ~ YMir nl Y{ ~ :'Jdl I ~~4__ ~ ~.._J`• ~ WIWw 1~(Mf'Y AN'. N~ ~I~ Nv - 1 _ _ - i.r ~aCC cor+rcNrrunaN: II wnRrr .r~n• •q• O~rt M1 .vSr 1~ _ , _.I r 1)) ~11~1 /Y _ _ _ _ - _ _ ~ _ II `I~ 11 I 'rJ•14n dr R1!Pb Ul+J, In; •_L_ •rn~mwr Mwo:rw*i a ;^ti+..rw. A'TT'ACHMENT K Crestview >EJast Neighborhood, Affordable Housing Conditions Junc 23, 2008 The following is a summary of conditions the residents and planning staff have agreed to. It is based on emails from Charles Ferro from March 13, 2008 and from Apri14, 2008. The conditions reflect the City's "Guidelines for Annexation Agreements" (passed on June 25, 2002), and Brent Bean's "Land Use Review Results and Comments" (June 12, 2006). Annexations and Community Benefit Pz-oposed annexations with additional development potential need to demonstrate community benefit consistent with Boulder Valley Comprehensive flan (13VCP) policies in order to offset the negative impacts of additional development in the Boulder Valley. For proposed residential development, emphasis is given to the provision of permanently affordable housing. The BVCP lists the following additional benefits that may be considered as part of an annexation request: Receiving sites for transferable development rights; Reduction of firture employment projections; Land or facilities for public purposes over and above that required by the land use regulations; Environmental preservation; or other amenities detez-mined by the city to be a special opportunity or benefit. Annexation requests that do not result in additional density are not expected to provide the same level of community benefit required of vacant, developable parcels. Affordable Housing Units For"parcels that are subdivided into four or more lots (for example, in the split LR & MR zoning) 2S% of the total units shall be affordable to middle-income households; and newly constructed, market-rate units shall pay the applicable cash-in-lieu amount per Chapter 9-13, "lnclusionary Zoning," Boulder Revised Code (B.R.C.) 1981 to the City. For parcels that are subdivided into less than four lots (for example in the split LR & LR and ER zonings}, all newly constructed market-rate units shall pay the cash-in-lieu. This - requirement will also apply to a property owner in the split LR & MR zoning who subdivides into less than four lots. If a fraction results from multiplying twenty five percent tunes the total number of permitted new dwelling units on the property, the total number of required permanently affordable units shall be rounded up to the nearest whole number when that fraction is 0.5 or greater. Fractions that are less than 0.5 shall pay the cash-in-lieu. 1~~ If a property owner has a fraction of a per-~nanently affordable unit. requirement and chooses to provide an entire unit, that additional fraction of a unit would be eligible for subsidy fiands as long as it will be owner-occupied by an income-eligible household. A property owner who is required to pay cash-in-lieu may elect to instead contribute towards the building of an affordable unit in the Crestview East neighborhood. Any such unit created in addition and above tl~e 25%~ requirement described above, will account (and replace) the cash-in-lieu of four market-rate units. Several property owners may collaborate to designate an extra affordable unit, and split the resulting cash-in-lieu credits among themselves and/or with another property owner. Definition of Middle Income For detached units, permanently affordable to middle-income refers to households earning between U% and 4U% above the Department of Housing and Urban Development's (HUD) Low Income Limit for the City of Boulder. When several units are created, then for all units the average of all incomes shall be no more than 20% above the HUD Low Income Limit. For duplex or townhorne style units, middle-income refers to between 0% acid 30% above the HtJD Low Income Limit for Boulder. When several units are created, then the average shall be no more than 15%, of the IIUD Low Incornc Limit. Low Income Affordable Units For any or all of the required affordable units, one low-income permanently affordable unit may be used as an alternative to two middle-income permanently affordable units. Owner Occupancy of Affordable Units If a unit is built and occupied by a current property owner and is one where acash-in-lieu payment is required, then the cash-in-lieu amount may be deferred until it is sold or ten years, whichever comes first, and be equal to the amount effective at the that date. This deferred payment shall be secured wit11 a promissory note and deed of trust. if the owner meets the income requirements, then the cash-in-lieu payment is deferred until the property is sold. I f a unit is built and owner-occupied by a current property owner and dedicated as a permanently affordable unit, the current owner may live in it provided the income requirements are met. 1 I ~i - i, _i it f~ i! E; is ::t 1~: -i o ~ % z ~ = E N N Q ~ a ~ ~ 2~ 80 ~ ~ 1914 1938 196p 2066 2114 200 Q. ( ~ o A wired Portions of 40' Vine Street Ri ht-of-Wa 1917 ~ 1937 2005 2075 21 ~ ~ 25 2155 21 i :iil ;:i t::i:. ........t•:: L;;:,:,~ - - lJpl~n~ Av iI ( 'si% 3 Iii >i t't,. s' "]s"i$i{} s. ;i's}:}s:•t { ';i:i>%s"°"' ']•£ti''}~ E`i~ itiiij}]•:}%:{ S. t3 :3}~ ] ~ 11 ft~ ~ © ~tfJ~i(:irf ff~'(i ~ r4t;~ tf • i:t>ES'}i? }i }t;:] •ttt3tis }f ]::'t• ~f. ~ :I:1 .iii f f~.;',~j t o i ~~rn~r~ck AV i~:::ii::i:iii::::: ;j r=te `~i-~i: