The URL can be used to link to this page

5A - Annexation and Initial Zoning (LUR2008-00080) - Crestview East Addition No. 1a CITY OF BOULDER PLANNING BOARD AGENDA ITEM MEETING DATE: June 4, 2009 AGENDA TITLE: Public hearing and consideration of Annexation and Initial Zoning #LUR2008-00080, Crestview East Addition No. Ia. The application proposes initial city zoning designations of Residential Estate (RE), Residential Low - 1 (RL-1), Residential Medium - 2 (RM-2), and includes the following property addresses: 1937 Upland Ave., 2005 Upland Ave., 2010 Upland Ave., 2075 Upland Ave., 2090 Upland Ave., 2105 Upland Ave., 2125 Upland Ave., 2130 Upland Ave., 2135 Upland Ave., 2155 Upland Ave., 2160 Upland Ave., 2114 Violet Ave., 1938 Violet Ave., 1960 Violet Ave. and 2066 Violet Ave. The application also includes a request to amend the North Boulder Subcommunity Plan Bicycle / Pedestrian / Auto Improvement Maps. Applicants/Owners: 1937 Upland Ave. Christine Adams 2005 Upland Ave. Gary Calderon 2010 Upland Ave. Anne Hockmeyer 2075 Upland Ave. Jan Morzel 2090 Upland Ave. Gary Eddleman 2105 Upland Ave. Tim Rea 2125 Upland Ave. Joan Knecht 2130 Upland Ave. Rachael Kahn 2135 Upland Ave. Mary and Andy Malkiel 2155 Upland Ave. Rodrigo Moraga 2160 Upland Ave. Steven Ford and Margaret Pilcher 2114 Violet Ave. Betsy Imig 1938 Violet Ave. Walter and Erika Bernyk 1960 Violet Ave. Mark Young / Gary Calderon 2066 Violet Ave. Michael Mauez REQUESTING DEPARTMENT: Ruth McHeyser, Executive Director of Community Planning David Driskell, Deputy Director of Community Planning Charles Ferro, Senior Planner Agenda Item SA Page # 1 OBJECTIVE: Define the steps for Planning Board consideration of this request: 1. Hear applicant and staff presentations 2. Hold public hearing 3. Planning Board discussion a. Does the proposed annexation comply with the provisions of the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan and annexation policies and the adopted Guidelines for Annexation Agreements for mostly developed Area 11 residential properties? b. Is the request consistent with the North Boulder Subcommunity Plan? c. Do the proposed plan amendments to the North Boulder Subcommunity Plan Transportation Network Plan maintain the intent of the original plan? d. Are the proposed city zone designations consistent with the BVCP land use designations, the North Boulder Subcommunity Plan? e. Explanation of outstanding neighborhood annexation issues. 4. Planning Board take action to recommend approval, approval with conditions or denial to the City Council regarding annexation and recommend approval, approval with conditions or denial for the proposed amendments to the North Boulder Subcommunity Plan. STATISTICS: Proposal: Annexation of fifteen individual properties located in the Crestview East enclave. The Crestview East neighborhood is roughly defined as those properties located north of Tamrack Ave., south of Violet Ave., east of 19th St., and west of 22nd St. Parcels are approximately one acre in size and upon annexation, all properties within the development would have some subdivision potential based on the existing Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP) land use map and proposed zoning designations for each property. The owners of these properties have combined to annex their properties collectively and share annexation costs. The applicants have also agreed to proportionately pay for the necessary cost of installing water, sewer and street improvements necessary to provide utilities to the properties over time. The city will fund installation of utilities. Applicants will be required to enter into a repayment agreement with the city and pay their proportionate share of the utility improvements. Repayment will be based on the frontage length of each property and the actual construction Agenda Item 5A Paae # 2 cost incurred by the city. The repayment plan will require five equal annual payments over a five year period with an annual interest rate of 5%. Tlic proposal also includes a request to amend the North Boulder Subcommunity Plan Bicycle / Pedestrian / Auto Improvement Map as discussed below under the Analysis portion of this memorandum. Project Name: Crestview East No. Ib Annexation Location: The Crestview East enclave is roughly defined as those properties located north of Tamrack Ave., south of Violet Ave., east of 19`h St., and west of 22"d St. 5~gA ` J , . J r ' ~ ~l r c I , _ 1ST i .V =_,r frl4 rtI`, rt~~ t rJ/J(///{/_f[(( .G'. . - 1 o! et-= - - -04 r', [ L 47 An- l~~ iul ,11~r~> of the Crestt,icii, Last Nc,,,hhorhood .12enda Item 5A Page 4 3 • 'dry! Y' ~L-Ql" ' - .1 s i s T, t-. _ 3 ,~~~j LC ~ iJ J r , ~_'ri-''iw - , a" 1 - y • r; ~e• i~ 1 2 71- C• Il] + y L r•, ; 210: t^i ,a. Ir 19371 2075 %1 21 35 - -acs' r 21101 r~`Z1 01i T, F . _Y k~ IAu Nrl. II ~ ~i.~ f'pFp-ti 'v L ~f i_ :.yam ` i _ I ' I ~ e ~Purti~•ipcrtin~ Prul;~•rti~.ti ~rr~• Uirllin~•~! in 1~~~1. Size of Tract: 16.10 acres (701,502 square feet) Zoning: The proposed city zone designations include Residential Estate (RE), Residential Low - 1 (RL-1), and Residential Medium - 2 (RM-2), in accordance with the North Boulder Subcommunity Plan. Refer to the proposed zoning map below. The proposed zoning structure is indicated below in the Analysis portion of this report. Comprehensive Plan: Medium Density Residential and Low Density Residential. Refer to the existing Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP) Land Use Designation Map on page severe. BVCP Planning .area: IIA. The entire Crestview East neighborhood is considered an enclave stirroutlded by exiting city botimiaries. Agenda Item 5A PafTe # 4 KEY ISSUES: Staff has identified the following key issues for Planning Board consideration. 1) Does the proposed annexation comply with the provisions of the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan and annexation policies and the adopted Guidelines for Annexation Agreements for mostly developed Area II residential properties? 2) Is the request consistent with the North Boulder Subcommunity Plan? 3) Are the proposed city zone designations consistent with the BVCP land use designations and the North Boulder Subcommunity Plan? 4) Do the proposed plan amendments to the North Boulder Subcommunity Plan Transportation Network Plan maintain the intent of the original plan? 5) Explanation of outstanding neighborhood annexation issues. BACKGROUND: Refer to Attachment A for information regarding the history of the negotiations of the Crestview East annexation. City Annexation Guidelines: Staff initiated the Annexation Guidelines Project in 2002 following the adoption of new Boulder Comprehensive Plan (BVCP) annexation policies during the year 2000 major update to the plan. The project was approved by City Council in 2002. The purpose of the annexation project was to better understand the issues and costs involved in annexation of Area II properties and to develop guidelines for annexation agreements. Outcomes of the Annexation Policy Project were: 1) Adoption of a set of guidelines for negotiating annexation agreements with mostly developed residential neighborhoods (see Attachment B). 2) To create a set of strategies and priorities for working with the individual neighborhoods. 3) Clarity about what "community benefit" the city would ask for from property owners with additional development potential. A detailed analysis of the adopted annexation guidelines is included below under the Analysis section of this memorandum. ANALYSIS: 1) Does the proposed annexation comply with the provisions of the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP) and annexation policies and the adopted Guidelines for Annexation Agreements for mostly developed Area 11 residential properties? A(,j,enda Item 5A Paae # 5 The relevant BVCP policy (1.27b) states that: 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 the county for development of enclaves and Area II lands in lieu of annexation will be referred to the city for review and comment. The county will 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 be consistent and compatible with the city's requirements. As noted above under "History of Crestview East Addition No. lb," in Attachment A, the city has been actively working with the residents of Crestview East to annex the enclave into the City since 1995. The terms of annexation (refer to the annexation agreement in Attachment C) and the amount of permanently affordable housing required is based on the amount of development potential. Staff has found the proposed annexation compliant with BVCP annexation policies and the adopted Guidelines for Annexation Agreements for mostly developed Area Il residential properties. A detailed analysis of applicable BVCP annexation policies and the adopted Guidelines for Annexation Agreements for mostly developed Area 11 residential properties can be found in Attachment D. 2) Is the request consistent with the North Boulder Subcommunity Plan? The North Boulder Subcommunity Plan (NBSP) is the primary land use policy document for the Crestview East area. The plan sets forth the official vision for the future of North Boulder and provides the basis for decisions about the long-term development and preservation of North Boulder and lists specific actions to be carried out by the City, other public agencies, and the private sector in the coming years. The plan is the result of several years of public process adopted was by Planning Board on August 31, 1995 and City Council on August 29, 1995, and subsequently amended by Planning Board and City Council in 1996 and 1997. Specifically, a Future Growth Management Land Use Map (below) was adopted with the plan to provide for specific land use patterns in the Crestview East enclave that would allow for future growth while maintaining rural neighborhood character. The concept of the land use pattern is to mirror the adjacent medium density land uses on the north side of Violet Ave. and provide a transitions or cascading reduction in density to the existing residential low density uses south of Tamarack Ave. Staff has found the proposed annexation compliant with the goals and guidelines provided in the NBSP. An excerpt from the NBSP that pertains directly Crestview East neighborhood is Agenda Item 5A Pale # 6 included in Attachment E.1 It contains specific goals and guidelines for the amlexation and redevelopment of the enclave. An analysis of specific annexation goals for the Crestview East neighborhood can be found in Attachment F. The map below indicates the BVCP land use patterns adopted by the NBSP future land use map. Medium Density Residential (MR) has been proposed along Violet St. Low Density Residential has been proposed between the proposed alley between Violet and Vine Avenues south to Upland Ave, and Estate Residential is proposed south of Upland Ave. P I 'OF. F` I I P s~ P ~ r ' RIZ 4 T Jay t1,, itI llj~ :1~ _ l~IJ 1 - l P Y P a~ r it i pl [lT1r ~I . rx fr o ~ ,;17I 1~J7ws 7;¢ lr~ 1. I~1 w.ooen. 1 ~u ~CCi7tr i r'i1ll r _ J J_jjt m_1B ~ 1 IT 1 N.t'N~r...r. y~ 17, Ic"^s L j T n i ~n v F3 "aj *Adopted NB SP 1=trttrre Land Use Wap. The Crestview Fast neig_ hhorhood is circled in red. 3) Are the proposed city zone designations consistent with the BVCP land use designations and the North Boulder Subcommunity Plan? The North Boulder Subcommunity Plan is availahlc on-line at: http:l'~aww.boul~lrrrolorado.~~r,~~in<Ic.~.hhi~'?olition com contcntMask 171 k~jcnda Item ---)a Page # 7 I~BAI . Oct o o o qua De ity ~sid ntial a Future Vine' St. - 00 o De it siden i I ❑ e, ® d~ a I D SI - I o y E Crestview Elemerdary o a 16 ck Av a a - Ful?li i o - Ell 0 SpaCZ Qt SJ' r i , 1 n. o.. The proposed zone districts are compatible with the underlying BVCP land use designations adopted in the NBSP (shown above) and Nvill be compatible with the existing zoning patterns in the surrounding area. A-enda Item 5A PaQe # 8 The existing and proposed zoning designations are indicated below: I-V FUTTURRE RM Z ` R"/I-2 a ~V/ - FUTURE RL-1 R L 1 << e s L-1 U land Av RE' - . FUTURE RE _'R 119 Taf}' AWk:AV Crestview East Boundarl c~Ea_i *Existing and Future Zoning Designation Map The proposed city zone designations include: 1) Residential Medium - 2 (R17(-2) The RM-2 zone district is described in Section 9-5-2(c)(1)(B), B.R.C. 1981 as medium density residential areas primarily used for small-lot residential development, including, without limitation, duplexes, triplexes, or townhouses, where each unit generally has direct access at ground level. Per Section 9-8, B.R.C. 1981, minimum lot size is 6,000 square feet per lot with a maximum net density of 12.4 dwelling units per acre. As noted above, the underlying BVCP land use designation for the property is Medium Density (MR) which carries a maximum gross density of 14 dwclling units per acres. 2) Residential Low - 1 (RL-1) The RL-1 zone district is described in Section 9-5-2(c)(1)(A), B.R.C. 1981 as single-family detached residential dwelling units at low to very low residential densities. Per Section 9-8, B.R.C. 1981, minimum lot size is 7,000 square feet with a maximum net density of 6.2 dwelling units per acre. As noted above, the underlying BVCP land use A(-7cnda item 55A Pate # 9 designation for the property is Low Density Residential (ILR) which carries a maximum gross density of 6 dwelling units per acres. 3) Residential Estate (RE) The RE zone district is described in Section 9-5-2(c)(1)(A), B.R.C. 1981 as single-family detached residential dwelling units at low to very low residential densities. Per Section 9-8, B.R.C. 1981, minimum lot size is 15,000 square feet with a maximum net density of 2.9 dwelling units per acre. As noted above, the underlying BVCP land use designation for the property is Low Density Residential (LR) which carries a maximum gross density of 6 dwelling units per acres. As the zoning map above indicates, the proposed zone district lines will duplicate the underlying BVCP land use designations. Each lot will have the potential for additional subdivision. A proposed subdivision map has been included below: Violet Av 17.75-7 sqi 23,434 sqR 22,629 sgfl 22,529 sqR - RM-2 5 Units 6.6 Units 6A Urits ~6.4 UNS 1914VIOLETF', _i.'IOLET AV 218) 1'JXET AV V C N i N R42CSOR ?CIM R m4sx ? _d 15.15D 10 RL-1 Vine - - 1an5 16A31 sqf 13,775 11 X300 f0 n.DDO s 70:7x0 f f/1.069 >a 10,88! 10,MV 11,0691 10.868 t 917 UPUND AV 1937 10.440 10,500 UPLAND AV .OJ; i•L-.+:J AV 2075 UPLAND AV 2105 UPUNO AV 2125 UPUND AV 2155 UPUND 4`: 1135 UFL I'll) AV- 2145 UPLAND AV L Ci Lsqq 20,000 sqR 19,397 SO IR 711 -ft 18,716 sqR 17,722 R 118087sqft ER Id Av ssoa + 9TH sr 22.595 sqft 17,120 sqft 19.397 sqR 19,168 sqR zflb UPUND AV 2198 2010 UPLAND AV 2040 UPLAND AV 2110 UPLAND AV 2130 UPLAND AV 2160 UPLAND AV UPLAND AV 2165 TAMARACK AV 427019TH ST 22,222 sgft 17 571 sqR _19,148 sqft _ _19,122 sqR_ - - - - - Tamarack Dr F\, --21607AMARACK AV 2190 *Potcntial Subdii,isicnr Rfap AtZenda Item 5A Pa2e 4 10 4) Do the proposed plan amendments to the North Boulder Subcommunity Plan Transportation Network Plan meet the intent of the originally adopted plan? Amendments to the NBSP Transportation Network Plan were approved by Planning Board and City Council in 1997 that incorporated changes to some of the roadway and multi-use trail locations within Crestview East. Upland, Vine, and Tamarack Avenues were designated residential streets (with a 60 foot required right-of-way width) to include sidewalks on both sides of Upland and Vine Avenues. The north/south multi-use trail locations were slightly shifted to preserve mature trees and minimize impacts on existing homes. A north / south right of way access (20"' St.) was proposed between Violet and Vine Avenues to allow direct access to an east / west alley that would allow rear loaded garages. The current adopted transportation network plan is as follows: roA osatred 6We Yes n Yioht Ave. ($p4isn per PlHSly 14?a~~l t 1 . Z ltilmeG`owQlMp DwWa&~- MR . IF-i 1 • ~ nn~rao ~ q'1 ~ > IY M.p Dalp.tisn i i I 1 Mdw.ac-e...ue wAwtWR.daewdw ~ . l 3 hWerlm access to Violet regaind Vebitalar cawoection to Viuy" 54 r R h' d I. m11111Y. 22nd SL eanstructed sod a"" by Qly of Boulder. then reconstructed as ped/bi&e $ od eraergawy access easement e Specific lecationhype of street(s) to be dciterim aed at Site Review: and D"-waddw 1010M A-(da'aeMmdd at) mtilnd►a¢tuq d• Colstrnedon trahfidnc= to sih from rif M__ 4 Viekt Are. y 3Vresm,cd rfatule R M n im.A Ara(ds' R" R.6h is V » aB Fatwm Growls, May Dss~ Force G.Wffi Map D"*-E m RR *Adopted 1997 NBSP Connections Plan Based on negotiations with the neighborhood, in order to preserve mature trees, minimize impacts on existing homes, and gain the participation of as many property owners as possible, staff proposes the following amend(ncnts to the NBSP Bicycle / Pedestrian / Auto Transit maps: Agenda Item 5A Page # 11 Proposed NOBO TNP Amendments • • e'-[~ o i e e • e • e e eI ~n an /e `a • e • • ~ ■ I ` ■ u a.■-.. . a ■ r a ■ ■ ■T■-t■ ■ ■ ■-■a-sa_-■-■.a ■ ■ . ■ ■ . ■ ■ Lr. ~ ~ ~ ■ ■ ~ ~ ■ i ■ t■-r•i--■-• ■ •i-■-f-.■ n - ■ _ I I ...i . I ~A'ley J N 2Dth SI i 12' Concrete I aP Rove Multi-use Path • ~ - ~ : Vine AvetROW4 1, ; r 40' ROW with & detached sidewalks on north side ~ fA 12' Concrete 12' Concrete ♦ Fire Land and Multi-use ♦ y MutU use Path Multi_-use Path ♦ L---A 0, UplandsAvetwiti . L p nru.„. ■ ♦C"I ■ ■ ■ a ra Tam?rack A%. • 12' Concrete • • Fire Land and h,u ti" Path 3mBEa• i A 1 NORTH I „R *Proposed Amendments to the NBSP Proposed amendments to the North Boulder Subcommunity Plan include: 1) Elimination of the 12' concrete north / south multimodal path between 1937 and 2005 Upland Ave. that connects Upland and Violet Avenues. Staff supports the elimination of this connection as two other mid block multimodal connections are proposed to the east and access to Vine Ave. will be provided from 19"' Ave. 2) The north / south vehicular right-of-way access (20`}' St.) between Violet and Vine Avenues has been reduced to a 40 foot wide right-of-way instead of a 48 foot right-of- way as anticipated by the plan. Staff supports this street section as it will match the proposed 40' wide Vine St. section. 3) Reduction of the Vine St. right-of-way from 60 feet to 40 feet. Staff supports this street section as it was agreed to in the previous iteration of the annexation in 2007 and will minimize pavement and encourage less cut through traffic and help reduce rates of speed in the neighborhood. Ai!enda Item 5.1 Page # 12 4) The east west alley between 19`11 and 22"d Avenues has also been reduced to 16 feet (with a 12 foot paved section) instead of a 20 feet (with an 18 foot paved section) as required by the adopted NBSP Transportation Connections plan. 5) Elimination of the north / south vehicular right-of-way access (20`h St.) between "Tamarack and Upland Avenues and a substitution of a 12' wide multimodal path / fire access. Based on the limited number of homes along Tamarack Ave., the limited subdivision potential, and the quiet, estate type setting along Tamarack Ave., staff supports the elimination of the vehicular connection between the west end of Tamarack Ave. and the replacement of the connection with a 12' wide multimodal path / fire access. 6) Elimination of the north / south vehicular right-of-way access (22nd St.) between Upland and Vine Avenues and a substitution of a 12' wide multimodal path / fire access. Staff supports the elimination of this connection as the vehicular transportation network will adequately circulate with existing vehicular connections from Upland Ave. to 19`' St. and new connections from Vine St. to 19`h St. and Vine St to Violet Ave. 7) Eliminate sidewalks on the south side of Vine St. A 5 foot detached sidewalk will be required on the north side of Vine St. Per the NBSP, Planning Board is required to approve any amendments to the NBSP. Staff finds the proposed amendments to the North Boulder Subcommunity Plan Transportation Network Plan meet the intent of the originally adopted plan. Section Eight of the NBSP specifies several goals and objectives for improvements to the transportation network in north Boulder. Refer to Attachment G for staff's analysis of the goals and objectives. 5) Explanation of outstanding neighborhood annexation issues. The only remaining neighborhood annexation issue where the neighborhood does not agree with staff is regarding sidewalks along Upland Ave. The currently adopted NBSP Transportation Network Plan calls for 5 foot wide detached sidewalks on the north and south side of Upland Ave. Additionally, the NBSP clearly states (page 21) that, "On routes to school (Sun7ac and Upland for example), separated paths or sidetiti-alks are essential. " Additionally, BVCP Policy 3.24 states that city will work to develop safe routes to schools as indicated below: 3.24 Accessibility to Schools. The city and county will work with the Boulder Valley School District to develop sqf 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. In an effort to defray the costs of annexation, per the attached Annexation Agreement found in Attacluuent C. staff has adjusted the timing for sidewalk construction. A sidewalk on the north Agenda Item 5A Page # 13 side of Upland Ave. will be required at the time of annexation and the sidewalk on the south side of Upland Ave. will be required piecemeal through the subdivision of individual lots. The neighbors would like to request that only one sidewalk with traffic calming measures (street landscape "bump-outs" and or "chokers") be built at time of annexation. Additionally, neighbors have referenced other NBSP policies that reference maintaining rural street character and exploring alternative means to allow safe pedestrian travel without sidewalks on streets that have little traffic volume. Neighbors feel that it may be feasible that a second sidewalk can be put on the city's sidewalk priority list and built by the city when funds become available (although they're preference is not to have a second sidewalk at all), however, based on the city's policies related to safe routes to schools found in the NBSP and the BVCP, staff finds that two detached sidewalks on Upland Ave. (one built on the north side at the time of annexation and one built piecemeal on the south side at the time of individual subdivisions) should be required as a part of the proposed annexation will be required to meet the city's transportation goals. TERMS OF ANNEXATION: Terms of the proposed annexation can be found in the annexation agreement (Attachment Q. Generally, applicants are required to provide the following before first reading of the annexation ordinance: 1) Dedicate necessary right-of-way and easements respectively. 2) Pay applicable Plant Investment Fees (PIFs). Within 180 days of annexation, applicants will be required to construct public improvements (sidewalks, fire accesses and multi use paths). Within 60 days of the city's installation of water and sewer stubs to the property, applicants will be required to connect to city utilities. If properties are served with a functioning septic system that is permitted by Boulder County, connection to city sewers will not be required until the time the septic system fails. Depending on respective property location, upon subdivision, additional public improvements will be required such as, the installation of sidewalks along the south side of Upland Ave., the construction of Vine St. and the associated east / west alley connection, and installation of a detached sidewalk, curb and gutter, and a bike land along Violet St. The city will fund installation of utilities. Applicants will be required to enter into a repayment agreement with the city and pay their proportionate share of the utility improvements. Repayment will be based on the frontage length of each property and the actual construction cost incurred by the city. The repayment plan will require five equal annual payments over a five year period with an annual interest rate of 5%. The city is also investigating the creation of a Local Improvement District (L.I.D.) to finance the installation of all utilities, roadways, and pedestrian improvements, however, the city has not yet been able to identify the necessary funding sources to support the creation of an L.I.D. Permanently Affordable Housing Per the adopted guidelines for the Crestview East neighborhood, properties with less than four A,-enda Item 5A Patye # 14 potential new units will be assessed a cash-in-lieu amount for all new market rate units. Properties with greater subdivision potential, i.e. those with combined RM and RL zoning, shall include 50% of the total new units as permanently affordable to low and middle income households. However, through negotiations with the property owners, the following additional provisions were included: 1) Sliding scale for cash-in-lieu of affordable housing payments. The larger the new house, the greater the cash-in-lieu payment, with the largest amount equal to three times the inclusionary zoning cash-in-lieu payment. 2) Cash-in-lieu payments applied to redeveloped units greater than 3,000 square feet. 3) A reduction in the cash-in-lieu payment for energy efficient homes. 4) Options for existing, owner occupants, including deferring a cash-in-lieu payment for up to ten years and an exemption from paying cash-in-lieu for a redeveloped unit. 5) Density bonus for additional permanently affordable homes. Duplexes would be allowed in the LR zones if both units are permanently affordable, one unit for low income households and one unit for middle income households. 6) Ability to convert, one time for each property owner, two middle income units into one low income unit. PUBLIC COMMENT AND PROCESS: On August 12, 2008, the City Council met at a Study Session to discuss the outstanding annexation issues identified by the neighbors (refer to Attachment .4 for background). Subsequent to the City Council Study Session', staff hired a professional facilitator and held regular meetings over the course of the past year with Crestview East residents to work through remaining neighborhood issues and complete negotiations related to the terms of annexation. There have been a number of issues and changes to the terms of the annexation over the past few and staff's charge has been to honor the intent of all applicable regulatory and policy documents that pertain to the neighborhood while keeping as many participants in the annexation as possible. The City Council study session memorandum and attachments are available on-line at: http://www.bouldercolorado.izov/index.plip?option=coin content&task=view&id=0710&ltcmit-l-_ X99 The City Council Study Session Summary can be found on-line at: http://www.bouldercolorado.gov/files/City%2OCouncil/Studv%2OSessions/summaries/2008/ih - motion to accept the auZust 12 2009 study session sumtrtary~reQardim, crestview east arnnc.ration options.) (if A(_,enda Item SA Pa!e 4 15 While staff made compromises that meet the intent of all applicable regulatory and policy documents, there are a few outstanding neighborhood issues related to the required mid-block multi modal pedestrian connection between Tamarack and Upland Avenues, flag lots, and affordable housing (for split RM / RL lots) that remain concerns for the neighborhood that staff was not willing to support. While the neighbors would prefer that staff reconsider the terms of annexation to address these concerns, the neighborhood does not consider these items barriers to the completion of the annexation. Please refer to Attachment H (email transmittals from Nathan Knecht, neighborhood representative dated May 27, 2009 and Jan Morzel, neighborhood representative dated May 29, 2009) for correspondence from the neighborhood related to remaining concerns. Required public notice was given in the form of written notification mailed to all property owners within 600 feet of the subject property and a sign posted on the property for at least 10 days. All notice requirements of Section 9-4-2, B.R.C. 1981 have been met. All neighborhood correspondence has been included in Attachment H. STAFF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION: Planning staff finds that this application for annexation is consistent with state statues and city policies supporting annexation. Therefore, staff supports a Planning Board recommendation to City Council that this area be annexed, subject to the terms and conditions of the draft annexation agreement attached to this report. Additionally, staff supports a Planning Board recommendation of approval of the proposed amendments to the North Boulder Subcommunity Plan as summarized on pages 11 and twelve. Approved By: Ruth McHeyser, tx"ecutive Director of Community Planning" Planning Department Atienda Item 5A Paae 4 16 ATTACHMENTS: A: History and Background of Crestview East B: Adopted Annexation Guidelines for Properties in Area II C: Annexation Agreement / D: Staff Analysis of BVCP Annexation Policies and Adopted Annexation Guidelines for Properties in Area II. E: North Boulder Subcommunity Plan Excerpts F: Staff Analysis of NBSP Annexation Goals and Objectives G: Staff Analysis of NBSP of Transportation Goals and Objectives H: Neighborhood Correspondence I: Letter from Harlan and Associates / Environmental Protection Agency dated November 2002 A,aenda Item 5A Pa,2e # 17 ATTACH LIEN FA BACKGROUND: History of Crestview East Addition No. Ib: As a result of the Annexation Policy Project, annexation of the Crestview East neighborhood was considered a top priority (second to Githens Acres) for the staffs work plan because of the pressing well and septic issues on several properties in the area and because of its location as an enclave within the city. ;although Crestview East was considered a top priority for investing city resources in negotiating a group annexation agreement, staff did not take the lead in the project because a landowner/developer and eight other property owners in the neighborhood initiated an annexation petition (and paid the required application fees) in 2003. (New applicants have paid lair share portions of the annexation fees). Consideration for the annexation of portions of this area began in 1995 when the Crestview West annexations were reviewed. 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. Many of the property owners did not wish to accept the provisions of the agreement and removed themselves from 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. In 2003, the landowner/developer of 2020 Upland Ave. submitted annexation application LUR2003-00069 as well as the required annexation application fee. The petition included a total of nine property owners in Crestview East. Staff worked primarily through the landowner/developer over four years to develop a proposed group anmexation agreement. All nine petitioners agreed to most of the initial terms of the agreement, however, several signed the agreement "in protest" primarily because of the provision in the agreement for sidewalks along zw~ Upland Ave. The annexation proposal advanced to Planning Board on July 5, 2007 for a recomrriuldation to City Council. At the hearing, the property owner of 2075 Upland Ave. objected to portions of the annexation agreement regarding required sidewalk construction along Upland Ave. as well as the requirement to sell all Silver Lake Ditch rights to the city as required by the land use code. 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 terns 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 the fundamental differences in intent, timing, and available financing, the landowner/developer separated from the other petitioners and continued forward with the annexation process for the properties at 2020 Upland Ave. and 4240 19th St. The annexation application was approved by city council in December, 2009. Another application for annexation of the properties at 1960 and 2066 Violet avenues has been in process since 1989 and has been combined with the current application. J u , t! ~ - 1 1-' 1„_i"1 'i'ii •I) ~J ~ . ari -f U land Av - , I Tamarack Av -s gyp + - .i 1 ff/ 1 *Participatin , properties are indicated by the hatched pattern. Properties in yellow are alreadt• part of the city's boundary. Staff has sent written correspondence to all property owners within Crestview East that are not participating in the annexation encouraging their annexation. Although most properties are served by individual aging well and septic systems, some properties that have elected not to move forward with annexation are currently served with out of city utility permits from the 1970's. The out of city utility agreements require annexation once eligible (1/6 contiguous to the city's boundary), meaning that the city can require annexation upon eligibility. At the May 20, 2008 City Council meeting, a group of residents along Upland and Violet Avenues expressed their frustration that annexation of the larger Crestview East enclave was not moving forward quickly enough and asked for assistance from City Council. The residents submitted to staff and council members an annexation proposal titled, "A Call for Action" 3. This new group of 15 residents includes six of the petitioners that were separated from the original 2003 annexation application and nine new landowners along Upland and Violet avenues. Although the new group has submitted an updated petition to the city, there was no active annexation application for those properties. A new application (including an improvement 3Available on-line at: httl2://www.bouldercolorado.ttov/files/City%20Couiicii/Study%2OSessioiisi2008/08-12- 08/crest attach a.ndf n survey, legal descriptions of the properties, annexation map, and current title work) from the petitioners was submitted in late August, 2008 with additional property owners. The residents of Crestview East have stated that they are in a similar "emergency" situation as the Crestview West property owners in regard to groundwater contamination and have asked for help for 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 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 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 to protect human health in the area is not warranted. Furthermore, the remaining concentrations are expected to decrease even further in the future (see Attachment ,n. In June and July 2008, city staff met three times with several of the property owners in the neighborhood to begin identifying and working through the outstanding issues with the proposed annexation. On August 12, 2008, the City Council met at a Study Session to discuss the outstanding annexation issues identified in the neighbors "A Call for Action" document and provide feedback regarding the outstanding issues.4 Staff has continued to have regular facilitated meetings with the neighborhood group in order to complete negations related to the terms of annexation. Existing Site / Site Context The Crestview East neighborhood is an existing, single-family detached residential enclave in the North Boulder Subcommunity and is completely surrounded by the city's boundary with all surrounding properties annexing into the city between 1980 and the mid 1990's. The enclave has been part of the city's "Service Area" since 1978, however, many of the existing homes were built before 1960 and are mostly comprised of one story ranch style homes with the exception of a few larger two-story homes that have recently been constructed. Newer residential development has also occurred to the east of the area in the early and 1990's when the Wellington Gardens and Violet Gardens subdivisions were developed. Lots are relatively flat and the Slier Lake Ditch and Four Mile Canyon Creek both run through Lhe neighborhood. Although some city utilities exist in the area (as indicated below), a majority of the homes in Crestview East are served by individual aging well and septic systems. When residents refer North Boulder's "rural character," the enclaves located in North Boulder are typically the areas that serve as the points of reference. While the enclaves 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 a The City Council Study Session Summary can be found on-line at: http://www.bouldercolorado.gov/files/City%20Council/Studv%20Sessions/summaries/2008/3b - motion to accept the august 12 2009 study session summary regarding crestview east annexation options.p df side~~alks; mailhoxcs placed at the end of gravcl drivem-ays; 110 street li~lhting, large unbroken blocks, large setbacks, and a general sense ol'cluiet. ATT.kCHIt1EN'r B Guidelines for Annexation Agreements -Individual Annexations of Mostly Developed Residential Properties in Area II- June 25, 2002 I. Background: The purpose of these guidelines is to provide general direction for negotiating annexation agreements with individual landowners of mostly developed residential properties in Area Il. 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. The 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. The amendments to the policy included the following: • Direction for the city to actively pursue annexation of county enclaves, Area II properties along the western boundary, and other mostly developed Area II properties; • 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 • A policy that developed parcels proposed for annexation that are seeking no greater density or building size should not be required to 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 redevelopment 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. These guidelines apply primarily to mostly developed residential properties in Area II. In most of these cases, the city would not request a community benefit with the annexation. However, a few of the properties that are currently developed in the county may have further development potential once annexed into the city. These guidelines further refine the BVCP Policy 1.25 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. r : r 1 II. General Principles of Individual Annexations of Mostly Developed Residential Properties: A. In terms of the city's interests, the benefits of annexing mostly developed residential properties in Area II outweigh the costs. 13. The city has a strong desire to annex many of the residential properties in Area II because of the potential environmental 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 tinder state law to annex enclaves at the request of the property owner without terms and conditions beyond those required through existing ordinances. I. The city may apply additional terms and conditions to enclaves only through negotiation with the property owner. (Use caution when applying community benefit). III. 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 are appropriate (Crestview East), 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 (DET). D. Storm Water and Flood Management Utility Plant Investment fees. E. Water and Wastewater Utility Plant Investment Fee. F. Dedication to the city of right-of-way for streets, alleys, water mains, 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, bl-ycle arid pedestrian path connections). 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. 1. 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 Benefit A. Guidelines for properties within the flood conveyance zone or with an o.)en space or natural ecosystem land use designations. I . The city would request dedication of an open space conservation easement for any portion of the site with a BVCP Open Space or Natural Ecosystem land use designation. The city would request dedication to the city of a stormwater and floodplain easement for any portion of the site located within the flood conveyance zone. B. Guidelines for properties with additional development potential. The guidelines below are based on the definition of development potential as the potential for a property to be subdivided or for additional units to be built on the property. Although the terms of the community benefit requirement may be negotiated on a case-by-case basis, the following are the general guidelines for requesting community benefit: I . A community benefit requirement in the form of two times the cash in-lieu contribution as set forth in the city's inclusionary zoning ordinance to the Housing Trust Fund would be negotiated with property owners in ER and RR zones. 2. For properties in LR and MR zones, 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). 3. For enclaves, the affordable housing request should be consistent with similar annexations in the area (see specific guidelines for each property group below). 4. For edge properties, the cash-in-lieu requested would be two times that required under the inclusionary zoning ordinance. C. Guidelines for specific property areas. 1. Enclave - Crestview East a. All properties: • Request 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 Fourmile Canyon Creek: • Attempt to secure through negotiation, dedication of conservation, trail, and floodplain and drainage utility casements to the city to meet the objectives of the Greenways Master Plan and the Stormwater and Flood Management Utility. C. Propcrties with subdivision potential - 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 constructed 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-lice of providing on-site affordable housing set forth in the city's inclusionary zoning ordinance for each new dwelling unit (prior to huil(1ing permit). 2. Enclave - Githens Acres and other miscellaneous North Boulder enclave properties. a. All properties: Request that the applicant demonstrates compliance with the North Boulder Subcommunity Plan Design Guidelines upon redevelopnicnt or other applicable developed zoning district standards. b. Properties along: Fourmile Canyon Creck: • Attempt to secure through negotiation, dedication of conservation, trail, and iloodplain 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: • Request payment for share of sidewalk improvements along Pennsylvania Ave. 4. Enclave - 55`h St. Z1. Property with an MR land use designation (1415 55`h St.): If zoned LR-D, • 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 cf building permit) or; • Any newly constructed units must be permanently affordable to middle income households. If zoned MR-D, • 50% of any newly constructed units must be permanently affordable to low and middle income households. b. Properties with an LIZ land use designation and further development potential (994, 836, 830 55'h 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 dwelling unit (at the time of building permit). 5. Gould Subdivision a. Three properties with additional development potential (2840 Jay Rd., 2818 Jay Rd., 4040 28`' St.): • Payment of two times the cash contribution in-lieu of providing 011-site affordable housing set forth in the city's inclusionary zoning ordinance for each new dwelling unit. 6. Western Edge a. Two properties with a VLR land use designation and development potential (0 Linden Dr., and 3650 4lh 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). b. Properties at 3365 4`h St., 3047 3rd St., 2975 3`d St., and 2835 3~d St.: • An open space conservation easement, for the portion of the property that is west of the "Blue Line," should be dedicated to the city. 7. Old Tale Rd./Cherryvale Rd. a. Properties along South Boulder 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 Stormwater and Flood Management Utility. 11SHART\IIIIS\NI31Hrn,sineAI'LF~NNII~'GU3VCY\(~uidelines fur Annexation .1greemeni~ of Dc%elopcd.doc ATTACHMENT(-' ANNEXATION AGREEMENT THIS ANNEXATION AGREEMENT, made this day of 200_, by and between the City of Boulder, a Colorado home rule city, ("City"), and the property owners of 1937 Upland Ave., 2005 Upland Ave., 2010 Upland Ave., 2075 Upland Ave., 2090 Upland Ave., 2105 Upland Ave., 2125 Upland Ave., 2130 Upland Ave., 2135 Upland Ave., 2155 Upland Ave., 2160 Upland Ave., 1938 Violet Ave., 1960 Violet Ave., 2066 Violet Ave. and 2114 Violet Ave. (In6ix idually referred to as "Property Owner" and collectively referred to as "Applicant"). The Citv and the Applicant are referred to as the "Parties." RECITALS WfILRLAS, the Parties recite the 101lowint' facts related to the annexation of the 1'roperty described in this Annexation Agreement under Exhibit A. The Applicant is the owner of the real property described in the attached Exhibit A ("Crestview East Addition No. 1A Annexation Property"). A Property Owner owns an individual property ("Property") within the Crestview East Addition No. 1 A Annexation Property, including 1937 Upland Ave., 2005 Upland Ave., 2010 Upland Ave., 2075 Upland Ave., 2090 Upland Ave., 2105 Upland Ave., 2125 Upland Ave., 2130 Upland Ave., 2135 Upland Ave., 2155 Upland Ave., 2160 Upland Ave., 1938 Violet Ave., 1960 Violet Ave., 2066 Violet Ave. and 2114 Violet Ave. Each address represents a separate Property and Property owner. B. The Applicant is interested in obtaining approval from the City for annexation of each Property in order to provide adequate urban services to said area, particularly Citv water, drainage and sewer utilities with initial zoning designations as follows: • RM-2 for the northern 140 feet and RL-1 for the southern 140 feet oi'1935 Violet Ave.. 1960 Violet Ave., 2066 Violet Ave., and 2114 Violet Ave.; • RL-1 for the northern 140 feet and RE for southern 140 feet of 1937 Upland Ave., 2005 Upland Ave., 2075 Upland AN e.. 2105 Upland A\ c., 2125 Upland Av c... 2135 Upland Ave., 2155 Upland Ave.; and • RE for 2010 Upland Ave., 2090 Upland Ave- 2130 Upland Ave. and 2160 Upland Ave.; C. Consistent with Policy 1.27 (b) of the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan, the City finds it desirable to actively pursue annexation of county enclaves in order to provide adequate urban services to the Crestview East Addition No. 1 A Annexation Property; and D. The City is interested in insuring that certain terms and conditions of annexation he met by the Applicant in order to protect the public health, safety and welfare and prevent the hlaec111C11' 01 -all L111rC',1Sonable burden oil the 1)11%'SIC~11. social, economic, or cnvlronniental resourccs of the City. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the recitals, promises and covenants herein set fiort}l, and other good and valuable consideration herein receipted for, the Parties agree as follows: COVENANTS 1. Definitions. "Annexation Improvements" means the improvements which are fully described and shown on Exhibit B. ":Newly Constructed Unit" means either a new dwelling unit constructed on a vacant Marcel or a redeveloped dwelling unit that is greater than 3,000 square feet of total floor area as defined by Section 9-16, "Definitions," B.R.C. 1981. "Redevelopment" means the subdivision of a Property to create a new lot or the addition ofa dwelling unit to an existing lot. "Redevelopment Improvements' means the improvements which arc fully described and shown on Exhibits C, D and E. 2. Requirements Prior to First Reading?, of the Aruiexation Ordinance. a. Thirty days prior to scheduling the first reading of the annexation ordinance, each Property Owner shall: 1. Provide title work current to within '0 days of signing the Annexation Agirccment; ii. I~ilc all application, and hay the applicable Ices t' r inclusion of each Property in the Boulder Municipal Subdistrict of the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District; iii. Pay the fees and convey the Property specified on Exhibit F; iv. Provide a written description of any non-confonning use or structure existilg on each Property, if any; V. Prepare an estimate for the cost of the installation of all Annexation lmprovcnlcnts, subject to the review and apl)roval of the Director of Public Works. The estimate shall serv e as the basis tur a financial guarantee for the .lnneration improvements; V1. Provide the City with a financial guarantee, in a form acceptable to the Director of Public Works in an amount sufficient to secure the installation or completion of all of the Armexation Improvements plus an additional 20% which shall serve as a contingency. The financial guarantee shall meet the requirements of Section 9-12-13, "Subdivider Financial Guarantees," B.R.C. 1981, together with a public improvement warranty that meets the requirement of Section 9-12-14, "Public Improvement Warranty," B.R.C. 1981, and vii. Submit individual warranty deeds for each individual property owner dedicating new ri~,Jlt of ay as required by I:xhihit I". viii. Submit legal descriptions in a tOrni acceptable to the Director of Public Works for any right of way to be vacated pursuant to this Agreement. b. Regarding interests in the Silver Lake Reservoir and Ditch Company, the Applicant shall: i. Prior to first reading of the annexation ordinance, sell to the City, at its fair market value, any and all water and ditch rights, except for rights associated with wells, available for use on each Property, including all shares in the Silver Lake Reservoir and Ditch Company. Applicant shall abandon and transfer to the City all shares of the Silver Lake Reservoir and Ditch Company associated with the Property at the price of $25.00 per share; or ii. Execute an agreement to abide by the outcome of the pending negotiations and mediation between the City and the Silver Lake Reservoir and Ditch Company. The Applicant shall then execute all documents required to be a party to such an outcome within 30 days after a request by the City. In the event that the City declares an impasse in the negotiations and mediation, if the Applicant fails to join in the outcome of the negotiation and mediation, or at the Applicant's discretion, the Applicant shall sell said shares to the City as provided above within 30 days of a request by the City. 3. Applicant Responsible for Construction of Sidewalks, Fire Access, and Multi-use Paths. Within 90 days of the installation of water and sewer stubs by the City to each Property, unless extended at the sole discretion of the Director of Public Works, the Applicant shall submit a technical document review application for engineering plans for the Aiunexation Improvements described on Exhibit B for review and approval by the Director of Public Works. The Applicant shall construct and complete all of the Annexation Improvements in a manner that meets all City requirements. If it is anticipated that the construction of public. improvements Cannot be Completed within 90 days ofthe installation of water and sevv-er stubs by the City to each property, the Applicant shall submit, subject to the review and approval of the Director of Public Works, a development schedule ensuring that the public improvements will be constructed as soon as thereafter practical. If the construction or installation of the Annexation Improvements is not completed by the Applicant according to the requirements of this Annexation Agreement, the City may, in its absolute discretion, complete the construction or installation of the Annexation Improvements or cause the same to be done and pay outstanding claims and bills incurred in such Completion from the escrow fund or guarantee furnished. The Applicant shall pay any amount above the amount provided in the guarantee required to complete the construction or installation of the improvements. 4. City Responsible for Construction of Water and Sewer Utilities. The Applicant agrees that water and sewer main improvements will provide a special benefit to the Property. The City will initially fund installation of the water and sewer mains. Each Applicant is required to comply with the following: a. The Applicant agrees to: i. Pay, when billed, its proportionate share of the cost of such improvements; or ii. Enter into a repayment agreement with the City and pay its proportionate share of the City utility improvements. The repayment amount will be based on each property frontage on the improvements and the actual construction costs incurred by the City. The repayment plan will require 5 equal, annual payments over a 5 year period at an annual interest rate of 5%. Payments will begin upon connection to City water and/or sewer. Full repayment of an individual landowner's share of the costs shall occur within 30 days prior to the recording a final plat for subdivision or sale of the Property. b. In the alternative to paragraph 4(a). above, if the City determines that it is appropriate to create a local improvement district for the purpose of assessing the costs of the above-referenced public improvements, the Applicant, agrees to join in a petition to establish a local improvement district to construct such improvements and not to dissent therefrom or oppose or remonstrate against the. Cstablishment of suCh a district. 5. 1Vater and Sewer Connection Requirenicrnts. within 90 days ofthe installation of vVatcr and sewer stubs by the City to each property, the Applicant agrees to perform the following as is applicable to each Property: a. Connect all existing structures to the City's water and sewer system as required by the Boulder Revised Code. b. Submit an application that meets the requirements of Chapters 1 1-l, "Water Utility," and 11-2, "Wastewater Utility," B.R.C. 1981 and obtain City approval to connect to the City's water and sewer mains; C. The Applicant is responsible for all costs and installation associated with the connection of a service line from the utility mains to the building. Cl. The property owners shall pay applicable fees and charges associated with a service line connection to a water and sewer main, including right of way, water, and waste water fees, for permits, inspection fees, installation fees, tap fees, and all plant investment fees associated with the Property prior to connection to the City's water or sewer system. The property owners shall be subject to the Water and Wastewater Plant Investment Fees effective January 5, 2009 for dwelling units in existence at time of annexation if connection is made prior to December 1, 2009. 6. Septic System Abandonment. Upon connection to the City's sewer system, each Property Owner shall abandon the existing septic system in accordance with Boulder County I iealth Department and State of Colorado re,-,ulations. 7. Floor Area Ratios. The parties agree that nolliim-, in this Aoreenient shall be construed as any type of waiver of any regulations adopted or associated with the City's pending study regarding Compatible Development in Single Family Neighborhoods. 8. Calculating Density. a. Areas dedicated as right-ol-way by a Property Owner to serve; as area tier new streets, emergency, or pedestrian connections may be included in the overall lot size for the purposes of calculating density by such Property Owner. b. At the time of redevelopment, the Property shall be developed and planned to accommodate the maximum practical density that is consistent with the zoning. Subdivision of the Property may not reduce the density bCloly that allowed by the Property's square footage. 9. Design Guidelines. The Applicant agrees that the following desi~-,n "uidclines will be applied to each Property. a. Front doors and front yards shall face the street. b. Garages shall be alley loaded where an alley exists or is proposed. Where alleys do not exist, structures should be designed so that garage doors do not dominate the fi•ont facade of the building. Garage doors shall be located no less than 20 feet behind the principal plane of the building. C. Properties located at 2105, 2125, 2155 Upland Ave. may reduce the front yard setback of the rear lots that front Vine St. from 25 feet to 15 feet to accommodate an offset in the Vine Street dcsi~~n. If a straight road alignment is proposed for Vine St. subscqucnt to annexation but bclirn-c building permits fur structures are obtained, the required front yard setback shall meet the requirements of the zone district. I G. Requirements Prior to Redevelopment for 1937, 2005, 2075, 2105, 2125, 2135, and 2155 Upland Ave. Each Property generally described as 1937, 2005, 2075, 2105, 2125, 2135, and 2155 Upland Ave. has specific requirements that will need to be satisfied prior to redevelopment as shown on Exhibit C. 11. Requirements Prior to Redevelopment for 1938, 1960, 2066, and 2114 Violet Ave. Subdivision Requirements. Each Property generally described as 1938, 1960, 2066, and 114 Violet Ave. has specific requirements that will need to be satisfied prior to redevelopment as shown on Exhibit D. Upon subdivision, a property owner may develop one unit accessed directly from Vine St. without constructing the alley or North 20"' St. as required by the redevelopment requirements shown in Exhibit D. Upon development of a second unit fronting Vine St., redevelopment requirements shown in Exhibit D must be satisfied prior to issuance of a building permit. Parking and access must be provided from the required alley. In the event a Local Improvement District is formed and the alley is installed prior to construction, access is to be taken from the alley. 12. Requirements Prior to Redevelopment for 2010, 2090, 2130 and 2160 Upland Ave. Each Property generally described as 2010, 2090, 2130 and 2160 Upland Ave. has specific requirements that will need to be satisfied prior to redevelopment as shown on Exhibit E. 13. Existing Non-conforrnin~, Uses. Existing, legal non-conforming uses will be allowed to continue to be operated in the City of Boulder as legal non-conforming uses and to be modified and expanded under the provisions of Chapter 9-10, "Non-Conforinance Standards," B.R.C. 1981, as that section may be amended from time to time. The only non-conforming uses that will be recognized by the City will be those reported to the City pursuant to Paragraph ? of this Annexation Agreenicnt. 14. Reirtal Property Rcquirements. Any Property that is used as rental property at the tlmc of annexation shall be brought into compliance with Chapter 10-3, "Rental Licenses," 13.R.C. 1981, within 90 days of the effective date of the annexation ordinance. 15. Existing Wells. The City agrees that it will not prohibit Property Owners from using existing wells for irrigation purposes. Under no circumstances may existing wells be used for domestic water purposes. No person shall make any cross connections to the City's- municipal water supply system. 16. Lease of Ditch Shares. the City Property owners scllin-, abandoning or trans(cn-ing ditch rights pursuant to Paragraph 2(b)(1) may lease these ditch rights from the City on an annual bads subject to the followino terms: a. Property Owner shall notify the City by April 1 st of each year of its desire to lease the water for the upcoming year. 11). The determination regarding availability of the water for lease shall be solely in the City's discretion and may be communicated to the Property Owner by April 15th of any year in which the City has been properly notified of a desire to lease water. C. The cost of the lease shall be equal to the ditch company annual assessment, plus 10%, plus any special assessments or fees of any kind of the ditch company assessed by the ditch company during the tenn of the water lease. d. No future leasing of the water to the Property Owner will occur following any year in which the lease option is not exercised or following the closure of the lateral. C. No lcasing of the water to the Property ner III occur ti,lloWiIW~ suhdiVision or redevelopment of the property subject to the lease. 17. Hitch Lateral. Property Owners shall not relocate, modify, or alter the ditch or lateral without obtaining any necessary approvals fi-onr ditch companies or lateral users or through judicial approval. 1 Permanently Affordable I iousin~~. The ~~pplicant agrees that the fi)llo« ing requirements shall apply to the Property and that no additional dwelling units shall be approved for any individual parcel unless the following requirements have been met: a. Required Documents and Paymments. Prior to the application of a building permit for any newly constructed dwelling unit on the Property, the applicant shall provide the following to the city manager: i. Covenants or deed restrictions, in a form acceptable to the city manager, to secure the permanent affordability of dwelling units shall be signed and recorded with the Boulder County Clerk and Recorder prior to application iiu- any residential building permit. ii. Any applicable cash-in-lieu of permanently affordable housing payments. l he city manager may delay such payments to a time prior to the issuance ol'such building permit. b. Properties with Combined RM and RL Zoning. Each Property generally described as 1938, 1960, 2066, and 2114 Violet Ave. shall provide 50% of the total newly constructed dwelling units as pennanently affordable. No pennanently affordable units shall be accepted until the location, size, type, fixtures, finish and other fir- y Z leatures are approved by the city ►nanagcr. The distribution of unit types f)r the permanently affordable units shall reflect the distribution of the market rate unit types. The city manager is pennitted, at the manager's sole discretion, to accept alternate distributions and locations of pennanently affordable units if such alternatives result in additional permanently affordable housing benefits to the Oty. The following conditions shall apply: i. At least twenty-five percent (25%) of any newly constructed dwelling units on the Property shall be permanently affordable consistent with Chapter 9-13, "Inclusionary Zoning," B.R.C. 1981. If a fraction results from multiplying twenty-five percent (25%) times the total number of permitted new dwelling units on the Property, the total number of such permanently affordable units shall be rounded up to the nearest whole number. ii. At least twenty-five percent (25%) of any newly constructed dwelling units on the Property shall be pennanently affordable to middle income households consistent with the following: A. Detached single family units shall be permanently affordable to households earning between the Department of Housing and Urban Development's (HUD) Low Income Limit for the City of Boulder and 40% more than the I-IUD Low Income Limit for and shall be distributed such that the average price of the single family detached units is based upon a household income that is 30% more than the HUD Low Income Limit. B. Duplex or town-home style units shall be pennanently affordable to households earning between the HUD Low Income Limit and 30% more than the HUD Low Income Limit for and distributed such that the average price of the duplex or townhome style units is based upon a household income that is 25% more than the HUD Low Income Limit. C. A permanently affordable middle income dwelling unit shall be either a detached dwelling unit, duplex unit or townhouse unit. D. If a fraction results from multiplying twenty-five percent (25°/x) times the total number of pennitted new dwelling units on the Property, the total number of required middle income pennanently affordable dwellingT units shall be rounded down to the ncarest whole nLunbcr. Properties with ('ombincd Rl, and Rl: Zornin. Each Property generally described as 1937 Upland Ave., 2005 Upland Ave., 2010 Upland Ave., 2075 Upland Ave., 2090 Upland Ave., 2105 Upland Ave., 2125 Upland Ave., 2130 Upland Ave.. 21 5 Upland Ave., 2155 Upland Ave., 2160 Upland Ave. shall pay a cash-in-lieu of permanently affordable housing for each newly constructed dwelling unit on the Property. The payment will be a percentage of the cash-in-lieu payment required by the City's inclusionary zoning program or an equivalent amount determined by the city manager at the time of building permit application. The payment amount will be based upon the total floor area of the dwelling unit as follows: i. 2,499 square feet or less of floor area, the cash-in-lieu payment shall be equal to that required by Chapter 9-13, B.R.C. 1981; ii. 1,500 square feet to 3,499 square feet of floor area, the cash-in-lieu payment shall be 50% more required by Cliapter 9-13, B.R.C. 1981; iii. 3,500 square feet to 3,999 square feet of floor area, the cash-in-lieu payment shall be 100% more than that required by Chapter 9-13, B.R.C. 1981; iv. 4,000 square feet to 4,499 square feet of floor area, the cash-in-lieu payment shall be 150% more than that required by Chapter 9-13, B.R.C. 1981; v. 4,500 square feet to 4,999 square feet of floor area, the cash-in-lieu payment shall be 200% more than that required by Chapter 9-13, B.R.C. 1981; i. 5,000 square feet to 5,499 square feet of floor area, the cash-in-lieu payment shall be 250% more than that required by Chapter 9-13, B.R.C. 1981; and vii. 5,500 square feet of floor area or greater, the cash-in-lieu payment shall be 300% more than that required by Chapter 9-13, B.R.C. 1981. d. Exceptions, Bonuses and Alternatives. i. Energy Efficient Homes. Newly constructed dwelling units that have a Home Energy Rating System (HERS) rating of 0 (zero) and which incur a cash-in-lieu of permanently affordable housing payment may have that cash-in-lieu payment reduced by fifty percent (50%). ii. Current Owner Occupants. The bllowing conditions apply to the 601lowing existing Property Owners that are owner-occupying an existing dwelling unit on the following Properties: 1938 Violet Ave., 2075 Upland Ave., 2105 Upland Ave., 2125 Upland Ave., 2135 Upland Ave., 2010 Upland Ave., 2130 Upland Ave., and 2160 Upland Ave. Each such property owner may use one of the provisions below one time only: A. An existing property owner occupant whose household income does not exceed forty (40) percentage points more than the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development's (HUD) Low Income Limit for tile ('Itv of Boulder may construct and occupy a deed restricted, permanently affordable dwelling unit constructed under this Agreement. B. An existing property owner occupant who converts an existing dwell 111 unit to a newly constructed dwelling unit and owner-occupies the converted dwelling unit for at least one year following the final inspection for that unit r' shall be exempt front the requirements for a "newly constructed dwelling unit" in this Agreement. C. An existing property owner occupant who owns, constructs and owner- occupies a newly constructed dwelling unit that is subject to a cash-in-lieu of permanently affordable housing payment may defer that payment for a period of time not to exceed ten years or until the title to the property is transferred, whichever is less. This deferred payment shall be secured by a deed of trust and promissory note with an interest rate equal to the average of the past increases in the cash-in-lieu amounts as determined per Chapter 9-13, "hnclusionary Zoning," B.R.C. 198 1. iii. Density Bonus for Pennanently Affordable Dwelling Units. A duplex dwelling unit shall be pennitted on an LR zoned parcel where only one dwelling unit would be allowed as long as one of the duplex dwelling units is permanently affordable to low income households as defined above and the second duplex dwelling unit is permanently affordable to middle income households as defined above. If such permanently affordable units are to be rented, the Applicant agrees to execute any agreements necessary to have rent controlled units that meet state law requirements prior to the rental of such units or an application for a rental license. iv. Conversion of Middle Income Permanently Affordable Units. On an RIM zoned parcel on the Property where two (2) middle income permanently affordable dwelling units would be required, a property owner may substitute, one time only, a single permanently affordable low income single family detached dwelling unit for two permanently affordable middle income dwelling units. v. Concurrent Construction. On an RM zoned parcel on the Property, the first newly constructed dwelling unit may be a market rate dwelling unit. Thereafter, the second newly constructed dwelling unit shall be a permanently affordable dwelling unit and all subsequent pennanently affordable dwelling units shall be constructed concurrently with the niarket rate dwelling units. e. Standard Conditions. i. Any pennanently affordable units produced under this Agreement uui_y not be used to satisfy other permanently affordable housing requirements located on property other than the Property. ii. Permanently affordable dwelling units shall be constructed at least concurrently with the market rate dwelling units except as described in paragraph 1 8(d)(v) above. iii. Any newly constructed dwelling unit produced under this Agreement and subject to a cash-in-lieu of permanently affordable housing payment that is constructed with less than 5,500 square feet of floor area and subsequently increases the original floor area shall be subject to a cash-in-lieu of permanently affordable housing payment that is equal to the difference between the previous cash-in-lieu payment and the applicable cash-in-lieu payment for the new total floor area of the dwelling unit. 19. Deeds. other Documents and Public Improvements. All deeds and other documents that are required by this Annexation Agreement are subject to the prior review and approval of tile city manager to ensure consistency with this Annexation Agreement and City standards. All public improvements shall be constructed to City standards applicable at the time of construction, and shall be subject to the review, approval, and acceptance of the Director of Public Works. 20. Ncw Construction - Rules and Fees. All new construction commenced on the Property after annexation shall comply with all City of Boulder laws, taxes, and fees, except as modified by this Annexation Agreement. All conditions contained in this Agreement are in addition to any and all requirements of the City of Boulder. Except as expressly provided herein, all City ordinances, regulations, codes, policies and procedures shall be applicable to the use and development of the Property. Nothing contained in this Annexation Agreement shall constitute or be interpreted as a repeal of existing codes or ordinances, or as a waiver or abrogation of the City's legislative, governmental, or police powers to promote and protect the health, safety and general welfare of the City or its inhabitants. 21. Conveyance of Drainage. Each Property Owner shall convey drainage from each Property in all historic manner that does not materially and adversely affect ~ohuttin!l Property Owners. 22. Waiver of Vested Rights. The Applicant waives any vested property rights that may have arisen under Boulder County jurisdiction. This Annexation Agreement shall replace any such rights that may have arisen under Boulder County jurisdiction. The Applicant acknowledges that nothing contained herein may be construed as a waiver of the City's police powers or the power to ?one and regulate land uses for the benefit of the general public. 21. Binding Agreement. (fan individual Applicant or a 1'1-0pert}` OWncr breaches this Annexation Agreement in any respect, the City may withhold approval of any buildin1-1 pennits and other development applications requested for a respective property within the Crestview East Addition No. IA Annexation until the breaches have been cured. This remedy is in addition to all other remedies available to the City at law and equity. 24. Breach of'A'-rcemcnt. In the event that the Applicant breaches or [ails to perform any required action under or tails to pay any fee specified under the Covenants of this Annexation Agreement, the Applicant acknowledges that the City may take all reasonable actions to cure the breach, including but not limited to, the filing of an action tin- specific performance of the obligations herein described. In the event the Applicant fails to pay any monies due under this Annexation Agreement or fails to perform any affirmative obligation hereunder, the Applicant agrees that the City may collect the monies due in the manner provided for in Section 2-2-12, " "City Manager May Certify 'Faxes, Charges, and Assessments to County Treasurer for Collection," B.R.C. 1981, as amended, as if the said monies were due and owing pursuant to a duly adopted ordinance of the City or the City may perform the obligation on behalf of the Applicant, and collect its costs in the manner herein provided. The Applicant agrees to waive any rights he may have under Section 31-20-105, C.R.S., based on the City's lack of an enabling ordinance authorizing the collection of this specific debt, or acknowledges that the adopting of the annexation ordinance is such enabling ordinance. Future Interests. The agreements and covenants as set forth herein shall run with the land and shall be binding upon the Applicant, its heirs, successors, representatives and assigns, and all persons who may hereafter acquire an interest in the Crestview East Addition No. 1 Annexation Property, or any part thereof If it shall be detennined that this Annexation Agreement creates an interest in land, that interest shall vest, if at all, within the lives of the undersigned plus twenty years and three hundred and sixty-four days. 26. Annual Appropriations. The City's financial obligations under this Agreement in future fiscal years are subject to annual appropriation by the Boulder City Council in accordance with Colorado law. 27. Right to Withdraw. A Property Owner retains the right to withdraw from this Agreement up until the time that final legislative action has been taken on the ordinance that will cause the Property to be annexed into the City. The final legislative action will be the vote ofthe City Council after the final reading of the annexation ordinance. The Property Owner's right to withdraw shall terminate upon the City Council's final legislative action approving the aruiexation. If one or more Property Owner withdraws from this Annexation, the city manager may in the discretion of the Boulder City Council, terminate armexation proceedings on this Annexation. In the event that a Property Owner withdraws from this Agreement in the manner described above, this Agreement shall be null and void and shall have no effect regarding such Property Owner. The City agrees, within thirty (30) days of a request by a Property Owner after a withdrawal, to return all previously submitted stormwater/flood management PIF, NCWCD fees and application, and easement andior rights of way dedication documents which the Property Owner submitted pursuant to this Agreement to the Propert%! Owner. !:'Xi"C'U R'D on the clay and year first above written. [SIGNATURE PAGES FOLLO iV CITY OF BOULDER, COLORADO BY: City Manager Attest: City Clerk on behalf of the Director of Finance and Record Approved as to form: Ciiy Attorney - Dated: Exhibits Exhibit A Legal Descriptions Exhibit B Annexation Improvements Exhibit C Redevelopment Improvements for Properties on North Side of Upland Avenue Exhibit D Redevelopment Improvements for Properties on South Side of Violet Avenue Exhibit E Redevelopment Improvements for Properties on South Side of Upland Avenue Exhibit F Additional Dedication. Improvements, and Requirements for Individual Lots Prior to Annexation EXIIIBIT A LEGAL. DESCRIPTION "Cl-cstview East Addition No. IA Annexation Property" Refer to the attached legal description. LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF A PARCEL OF LAND LOCATED IN THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 18, TOWNSHIP 1 NORTH, RANGE 70 WEST OF THE 6TH P.M., COUNTY OF BOULDER, STATE OF COLORADO SHEET 2 OF 2 PARCEL DESCRIPTION (CONT.) SAID POINT ALSO BEING THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN DOCUMENT RECORDED AT REC. NO. 1301652 IN THE RECORDS OF BOULDER COUNTY; THENCE ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID PROPERTY SOUTH 89'50'00" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 139.35 FEET TO THE SOUTHWESTERLY MOST CORNER OF SAID PROPERTY; THENCE ALONG A WESTERLY LINE OF SAID PROPERTY NORTH 00'16'47" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 203.11 FEET TO A POINT ON A NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID PROPERTY; THENCE ALONG SAID NORTHERLY LINE NORTH 89'17'20" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 30.19 FEET TO A POINT ON A WESTERLY LINE OF SAID PROPERTY; THENCE ALONG SAID WESTERLY LINE NORTH 00'18'26" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 100.34 FEET TO A NORTHWESTERLY CORNER OF SAID PROPERTY, SAID POINT ALSO BEING A SOUTHWESTERLY CORNER OF SAID PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN DOCUMENT RECORDED AT REC. NO. 1830871 IN THE RECORDS OF BOULDER COUNTY; THENCE ALONG A WESTERLY LINE OF SAID PROPERTY NORTH 00'19'37" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 100.02 FEET TO A POINT ON A SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID PROPERTY; THENCE ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY LINE AND THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN DOCUMENT RECORDED AT REC. NO. 1005904 SOUTH 89'57'00" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 188.14 FEET TO A POINT ON THE EAST RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF NORTH 19TH STREET; THENCE ALONG SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY NORTH 00'05'30" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 200.33 FEET TO A POINT ON THE SOUTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF VIOLET AVENUE, SAID POINT ALSO BEING THE POINT OF BEGINNING. SAID PARCEL CONTAINING 701,502 SO FT OR 16.10 ACRES MORE OR LESS. I, JOHN B. GUYTON, A LICENSED LAND SURVEYOR IN THE STATE OF COLORADO, DO HEREBY STATE FOR AND ON BEHALF OF FLATIRONS, INC., THAT THIS PARCEL DESCRIPTION WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY RESPONSIBLE CHARGE AT THE REQUEST OF THE CLIENT AND IS NOT INTENDED TO REP,O~7ppa?lo,,4, MONUMENTED LAND SURVEY OR SUBDIVIDE LAND IN VIOLATION OF STATE STATI'* •SlF , •'eRl1CE•. ;moo: o 16406 • _1 • • 4t, COLORA 0 P.L.S. #16406 S19 ''p•cJ DA JOB NO. 08-55,432 CHAIRMAN/CEO, FLATIRONS, II'T,4??L?L A Flatirons, Inc. Surveying, Engineering & Geomatics 3825 IRIS AVENUE, 1100 655 FOURTH AVENUE BOULDER, CO 80301 LONGMONT. CO 80501 PH: (303) 443-7001 PH: (303) 776-1733 FAX. (303) 443-9830 FAX. (303) 776-4355 w w m% FI a 1 u'o n s!n c. con? --yl ? ! l,, X 1-1 l B lT B Annexation Improvements All public improvements shall meet all City requirements. 1. Detached sidcn alks on north ~iclc ol'Upland from 19`x' St. to 22nd St. 2. Altilt] -usc path;fire ~Icccss Line in the Vine St. right-of-way and the existing deeded property along the east hropcrty line of-21?5 Upland Ave. (Relcr to F'xhibit B Map on Next Pagc) J Exhibit B - Crestview East Annexation Improvements 12' multi-use path/fi re access concrete lane (20' clear of obstruction) along the east property T line of 2135 Upland. 2145 -0- 2005 2075 2105 2125 2155 2135 1917 1937 Calderon Morzel Rea Knecht Small Malkiel Naumann Naumann Adams 5' detached sidewalk on°y north side of Upland from 19th to 22nd. r= 2160 fig. 2090 2110 2130 2010 PilcheNFord Stark Eddleman Hasenack Cahn 4220 Schuman o,G A Legend +I a i sa , yy1 y Py ■ ■ Detached Sidewalk ■ ■ MuttFUse Path A Annexation Parcels 2020 C City Limits h Young 2130 2140 ? 2156 I Location: Crestview Area Neighborhood otyof Project Name: Crestview East Addition 2 Boulder The hformilb- gmmnntaatlWnonotlNtlay.TM mapCnlrypa or~r BouOUtdx Review Type: Annexation/ Initial Zoning NORTH "p rap pNcalNcWrepndided q Review Number: LUR2008-00080 pmvltleenhere-. ,s~nsgtlorImplied. uto he accurery ardor camploteren or tM Wcemetion 1 inch = 150 feet oontaln.a Mason. EXHIBIT C Redevelopment Improvements for Properties on North Side of Upland Ave. 1. Vine St. to be constructed as a 22 foot wide pavement section and a 5 foot wide sidewalk on the north side. zAn}' draina1~e and ulility improvements as necessary to meet City standards. (Refer to Exhibit C Map on Next Page) Exhibit C - Redevelopment Improvements For Properties on the North Side of Upland Ave. 1o ve Vine Street Improvement - _ 22 ft wide pavement section and a Hlb:e 14 Pe°~a 5 ft wide sidewalk on the north site. Any drainage or utility improvements as necessary to meet City Standards. a NONE f 2155 2135 2145 2005 deron 2075 2105 2125 Malkel Naumann {-W 1937 Cal 1917 Adams Morzel Rea Knecht Small Naumann -r+ ~o Legend 4306 ■ ■ Detached Sidewalk Dean 2160 Vine Street Improvement 2010 2090 2110 2130 Pilcher/Ford Stark Eddleman Hasenack Cahn 0 Annexation Parcels 0 City Limits w 4220 Location: Crestview Area Neighborhood Cityof ~k Project Name: Crestview East Addition 2 Boulder i pr yreplicrernlafnnodp. The City of Review Type: Annexation/ Initial Zoning NORTH m~m~nepmem~bTep~ty~a~ heevy,e~nero or YnpIMlMd, ulo Meeaurecyndlorwnpieterorof Ne lnformeWn contained no Review Number: LUR2008-00080 1 inch = 150 feet mmeiroo hereon. EXHIBIT D Redevelopment Improvements for Properties on South Side of Violet Ave. A 5 foot bike lane beyond the existing I l foot eastbound travel lane, 2 foot curb and gutter, 8 foot landscape buffer, and 6 foot wide sidewalk on the south side of Violet Ave. for the entire frontage. 2) Vine St. to be constructed as it 2-1 loot wide pavcmcrnt section and it 5 loot wide sidewalk on the north side. 12 foot wide alley between Violet and Upland Avenues to be constructed. 4) North 20'x' St. to be constructed as an access street per City standards, Table 2-12 Design & Construction Standards with 5 foot wide sidewalks. 5) Any drainage and utility improvements as necessary to meet City standards. (Refer to Exhibit U Map on Next ['a(,c) Exhibit D - Redevelopment Improvements For Properties on the South Side of Violet Ave. e 7 ° ° e e A Violet Street Improvement - A 5 ft wide bikelane south of the the ° existing 11 ft eastbound travel lane; 2 foot curb and gutter; 8 ft landscape buffer, ° ° © e 6 foot wide sidewalk on the ° ° south side of Violet Ave. 'North 20th Street Improvement with 5' sidewalk - Access Street per City Standards N ■■■■■~i....~.~u-■-■-~■-■-■ - Alley will be a 12' paved section within a 16' public access easement. 1914 1938 1960 Luna Bemyk 2066 2114 2020 +p Calderon Higbee Imig Pellochoud 2180 y t - - ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Naumann 1 Legend ■ ■ Detached Sidewalk Vine Street Improvement - X ■ Alley 22 ft wide pavement section and a 2005 2075 2105 2125 2155 2135 = 20th Street 5 ft wide sidewalk on the north site. Calderon Morzel Rea Knecht Small Malkiel -Vine Street Improvement _ Violet Street Improvement Utility and drainage improvements as Annexation Parcels ne-essary to meet City Standards. City Limits Location: Crestview Area Neighborhood City of E Project Name: Crestview East Addition 2 Boulder 'd The nformetion dapi=d an MI map ie provided p Review Type: Annexation/ Initial Zoning NORTH aapmphlca rap eeematlon only. The City olBoulder F pmvldee no wananry, e>peeeaed or Implied, ee to Review Number: LUR2008-0080 encilor cample<enaaea the info matlon 1 inch = 150 feet aoMalned heleonan EXIIIBIT E Redevelopment Improvements for Properties on South Side of Upland Ave. 1. 't'amarack Avenue to be constructed as a 30-foot wide and 60 foot wide right-of-way as generally shown on the 1997 North Boulder Subcommunity Plan amendment, to include a turnaround, as generally shown on the attached exhibit map. The 30 foot wide section must meet the access lane standard in §2.09(D)(5) of the City of Boulder Design and Construction Standards, including a turnaround and drainage. improvements within the Tamarack Avenue right of-way; 2. A sewer main extension within Tamarack Avenue right of way from the existing sewer main near 22"d Street to the required turnaround on the western end of Tamarack Avenue; 3. A fire hydrant and an extension of the existing water main near 22"d Street in the Tamarack right of way to 19"' Street 4. Construct a detached 5 foot wide sidewalk on the south side of Upland Ave. 5. Any drainage and utility improvements as necessary to meet City standards. (Refer to Exhibit l' Map on Next Page) Exhibit E - Redevelopment Improvements - Tamarack Properties 1937 2005 2075 2105 2125 2155 2135 2145 Adams Calderon Morzel Rea Knecht Small Malkiel Naumann a~ C9 4- 5' detached sidewalk. 2010 2090 2110 2130 2160 Stark Eddleman Hasenack Cahn Pilcher/Ford Approximate location of Turnaround Sewer main extension -A to be built per City Standards W = Tamarack Ave Proposed Fin Hydrant I 2020 Water main extension Upland 4240 19th Legend cve trans TYPE ■ ■ Detached Sidewalk r ■ ■ Multi-Use Path C rn1je ' ¢hyOjt Annexation Parcels Utilities e e k Sewer a~ Water Tamarack street All Pu lic Improvefients shall be improvements l h cons acted per CiStaTdards. City Limits Location: Crestview East Neighborhood City of 1r Project Name: Crestview East Addition 2 A Boulder i The information depicted on this map Is provided Review Type: Annexation/ Initial Zoning NORTH as graprycal representation orgy. The City of Boulder Oe=mcy and/or completer- of the information Review Number: LUR2008-00080 pNVldeanowarranty, e~mseed orimplied. aato 1 inch = 200 feet mntaird hemen. EXHIBIT F ADDITIONAL DEDICATIONS, IMPROVEMENTS, AND REQUIREMENTS PERTAINING TO INDIVIDUAL LOTS PRIOR TO ANNEXATION Dedication of the un-annexed portion of Upland Ave. to create a complete 60 foot wide right- of-way between 19`x' St. and 22"d St. In instances where multi-use path easements split property lines, the first property redeveloping is required to escrow one half of the construction costs of the multi-use path. The development of the second property shall be the trigger for path construction and that development shall use the escrowed monies and their own to construct the path. 1937 Upland Ave. 1. A 5 foot wide sidewalk along the lot's frontage with Upland Ave. 2. The northern 20 feet of the lot must be dedicated as public right-of-way for Vine St. 3. Pay a Storm Water and Flood Management Utility Plant Investment Fee of $1,381.80. 2005 Upland Ave. 1. A 5 foot wide sidewalk along the lot's frontage with Upland Ave. 2. Vacate southern 9.52 feet of unneeded Vine St. right-of-way to property. 3. Pay a Storm Water and Flood Management Utility Plant Investment Fee of $2,726.00. 2010 Upland Ave. 1. Dedicate the west 10 feet of the lot as a public access and utility easement for a 12 foot wide concrete multi-use path and fire access to be constructed when the property at 4220 19'x' St. is arinexed. 2. Pay a Stonn Water and Flood Management Utility Plant Inycstmem Fee o1-S3.196.00. 2075 Upland Ave. 1. A 5 foot wide sidewalk along the lot's frontage with Upland Ave. 2. Vacate southern 9.52 feet of unneeded Vine right-of-way to property. 3. Pay a Stonn Water and Flood Management Utility Plant Investment Fee of $5,311.00. 2090 Upland Ave. 1. Pay a Storm Water and Flood Management Utility Plant Investment Fee of $3,440.40. 2105 Upland Ave. 1. A 5 foot wick sidewalk along the lots frontage with Upland Ave. 2. East 7.5 feet of lot dedicated as a public access easement for a 12 60ot wide concrete multi-use path. An alternate multi use path alignment and 15 foot wide easement may be dedicated to protect mature landscaping if both adjoining property owners agree to the design of the path. 3. Pav a Stonn Water and Flood Management Utility Plant Investment Fee of 53.957.40. 4. If the property at 2020 Violet Ave. annexes, dedicates right-of-way and realigns Vine St. to a straight alignment, the southern 9.52 feet of Vine right-of-way can be vacated and returned to the property through the administrative utility easement vacation process. 2125 Upland Ave. I . A 5 foot wide sidewalk along the lot's frontage with Upland Ave. West 7.5 feet of lot dedicated as a public access easement for a 12 foot wide concrete multi-use path. An alternate multi use path alignment and 15 foot wide easement may be dedicated to protect mature landscaping if both adjoining property owners agree to the design of the path. 3. Pay a Stonn Water and Flood Management Utility Plant Investment Fee of $3,243.00. 4. If the property at 2020 Violet Ave. annexes, dedicates right-of-way and realigns Vine St. to a straight alignment, the southern 9.52 feet of Vine right-of-way can be vacated and returned to the property through the administrative utility easement vacation. process. 2130 Upland Ave. 1. West 7.5 feet of lot dedicated as a public access easement for a 12 foot wide concrete multi-use path. An alternate multi use path alignment and 15 foot wide easement may be dedicated to protect mature landscaping if both adjoining property owners agree to the design of the path. 2. Pay a Storm Water and Flood Management Utility Plant Investment Fee of $3,460.14. 2135 Upland Ave. 1. A 5 foot wide sidewalk along the lot's frontage with Upland Ave. 2. Pay a Storm Water and Flood Management Utility Plant Investment Fee of $2,024.76. 3. The northern 20 feet ofthe lot must be dedicated as public right-ol-way for Vine. 2155 Upland Ave. I. A 5 foot wide sidewalk along the lot's frontage with Upland A% c. 2. Pay a Storm Water and Flood Management Utility Plant Investment Ice of S2,254.12. 3. If the property at 2020 Violet Ave. annexes, dedicates right-of-way and realigns Vine St. to a straight aligmnent, the southern 9.52 feet of Vine right-of-way can be vacated and returned to the property through the administrative utility easement vacation process. 2160 Upland Ave. 1. Pay a Storm Water and Flood Management Utility Plant Investment Fee of $2,453.40. 1938 Violet Ave. 1. The southern 20 feet of the lot must be dedicated as public right-of-way for Vine St. 2. 16 foot wide access easement running east-west and north-south through the property as shown on the 1997 North Boulder Subcommunity Plan amuldment for a future alley. A dead end alley extending to the western property line with a turnaround meeting City standards, its associated easement and no connection to Vine is acceptable as well. Pay a Storm Water and Flood Management Utility Plant Investment Fee of $3,004.24. 1960 Violet Ave. 1. Vacate northern 9.52 feet of unneeded Vine St. right-of-way to property. 16 foot wide access easement running east-west through the property as shown on the 1997 North Boulder Subcommunity Plan amendment for a future alley. Dedicate the eastern 20 feet of the property as right-of-way for North 20`1' Street. 4. Pay a Storm Water and Flood Management Utility Plant Investment Fee of $1,833.00. 2066 Violet Ave. 1. Vacate northern 9.52 feet of unneeded Vine right-of-way to property. 16 foot wide access easement running east-west through the property as shown on the 1997 North Boulder Subcommunity Plan amendment for a fixture alley. Dedicate the western 20 feet of the property as right-of-way for North 20`x' St. 4. Pay a Stor n Water and Flood Management Utility Plant Investment Fee of $2,068.00. 5. Pay a Development Excise Tax (DET) based on the existing development on the property of $643.80. 21 14 Violet Ave. 1. The southern 20 Icct of the lot must be dedicated JS public 1-11-Ilit-of Way }or Vine St. Vacate southern 10 feet of unneeded Violet St. right-of-way to property owner. 16 foot wide access easement running east-west through the property as shown on the 1997 North Boulder Subcommunity Plan amendment for a future alley. 4. Pay a Storm Water and Flood Management Utility Plant Investment Fee of $778.32. Annexation Map Notes. II MIS MAP WAS FFEPAREi Mllf,"lT THE OLNUll DC A RRLNI RILE LAND ,7(1MIAI TIALNT AND P(I.S NOT rCt;9PUl- A IIR FX..4RC•'H Nf FI.aTIRCNS OF 1 P,IRCEL OF LAND I,OC.47'FD IN THE N0k1'HEAsT OLIA Vf'R OF ;uF~„NC.INC.rEEErRVINEMILExLA~MrnISEFre_DRD.IR SEMOA 18, TOWNSHIP 1 NORTH, RANGE 70 WEST OF' 7 'HE 61111 P.11., YAP UCES ";Or F4N?CRT it PC-:-C, ADIY OF TI-EFxLUWINQ n"K:4 1 JAY FE AP'-f"BLE TO rr;F. i;Ud3C- REA_ F.STAT- nxMEFIIS. O' HFR COUNTY OF BOULDER, STV'TE OF COLORADO 'HA,N Pull OLE EA'L%'EN INA? 151 RE VS78LE 47 HE T.4E OF Nll'NC ''HIS SUIZV2E BLIN01NG %E RIACK LINE;, R!=S iRICTII: COIRNANTS; SUI~- N'oSS VIOLET AVENUE N8953'00'E 1321.71• (P) SHEET z 01' ? ru F$TPICS'N AN V HF LAND U REG Snot nNn -1 Nr On.c~ 1 TI AN IZ R O THE L LJtrIENI N. SE 3'H Ma" 580170' (C) , N89-53-WE 110.00' (C) t ORDIJ • Tr T~FAaJ LAW Y~J MUS? ptMENC ANY AL AcTrN NI vg 1489'3!'00'[ 1' % i / gA.FD IFOV -ANY I)E EtT IN THIS vAP e, 6114 HPEE PEARY AFTFF `(A: - Ew5'Im'L ] xo' !PI I •M553 ont u3.U !PI - - N995ti 0 c'w.0^ //i L/ FIRST CIS,.O,r. J 1{ DFFCt Iv tn) -_v H- uar 4J. ,Ci tO1 6;SiD 5]'OQ'F 1512T f^I V19'S1'X 1/000' (D) N~'5122'E HJ.AI 0 95552) E 1.0 C1 srw'E Ie7 v' IDI N39v'r.•E •wm' ,=T Legend ON w. OEF 1 N 7nS 1: RE C AKH.EO `.TORE THAN .E1+ lEtPS ;I, e9 327E Iw03' ;C} F6M 1,'L ^AI C IN .kRll11 A.I'14 N0,VT4 HEREON. 5 s. SIS -,EAR UP t Th ;x S a AS, LJNC THE BEST LINE CF v. 4 AU(LOf MO'IAIEN7 A E A;I 5ECIIONI L - + / o i/ MF 4 SHOWN ON TIE LAnP SLRF3 PLFY VLUAM STENCEL DATM i,1Dp(R. ~q'. y-44 I' 99r RECORDED A. 9_-C(II 4L. 6EARINC9 SH01WJ HEREON hkE (D) AS PER RFC)RDEO 2ELAnyE •^LRE D IV/ DEED OC RPI ON a 'HE FLR?C5E (N' I!S 410 'E 'J CRA'NIC_cY PC'PTRAY THE R'LARON;"HIP . -I MpEr A4 a A - ^ v / AS PER LAN) JR5£Y _HE I?NO PP.CP1ECSEE FOR ANNCXAIIQN 17 THE CURRENT CITY OF pu neofw - n o ° - ` PLAT S 9l 1;013 901J Xr LIMITS. ° 1.?.L uol(7 t•4 vS lP) RECORCED It' -HE n/ FOe~ .mac. nrw I~ ~a - - - gn _ R I•,' RECORDS OF BOULDER :j ANY LERS•xJ W-10 rNCJ+u!LY f,EM9vl5, ALTERS OR DEFACES ANY 2066 sMFI AK 'n .0'.0 : tEi Aw'. 2137 41lP,Et A9E CODUtt o Ac 1 ° If60,.ET.1% 'z +v9LE7 A, .0 r UOUC LANG WRYLY MONUMLYT AN3/Oft 00Ur DAfEY MONUMENT OR / s d t Iqe "umn u 1[e RErw]]]. nc n.l'm / Mc fnk]•q ° I - . - + PofrnT ,.s 3 ^ALCULATF3 PDSITION AGLL55('+RY, "CAW 4 [.ASS YA M190ENEANX+ PJRjI,'AN7 TO t. = _ a STATE T47(.T' fR.. V; 1 4 I ? N / (C) EASED ON RECCRDEO Pyi I pn i.i INFORMATION LE A- L 171' IJ pA .1 C N IILt LFW X TION OF '.URVFl, _ ° CURRENT fItt OF VCNUMFNT~ I'1 nFr. F T A7 F PCOInST r IF R CLI"w{ N OES.RIP N J T TEN, E TD PLBP' 1 E LAND n CF 5855 39 "07111550 PJ C LyJELE Lk115 TAIF 1Txll,v ANN •Inxn (IN INF(RM4.nwa1. cvRPO5E5 OWL" '0011 le Y iU1 a (npP) _ I I,' r LAND TO BE ~,j/, 1' ' / _ I ✓ ANNEXED 13Y THIS . 'ARC CESCRIPTIOHS NLREON %PC .11IC'ALLY CCDICTEO BASSO DN , LLIAd -ATE S89-57.00'00 18814' (C) n3 3 - MAP 7ENCELS LANE 4frt£t. PL411 MARCH 15 l)93 AND RECORLEC• N T4E 3v - I / 4tCR'1 DF BRA LEtR CClfti f L.. Nt-'1513. W / a 7 x9931'Aet AJ.S iP) ne39 P'E u0o`(r) 1489-51'44'E 139.93* (C) o E +273 P• V N89'511VE 27911 (C) N % VINE AVENUE to vA,nv PM .E i NW s; OC'[ &b' 3762'(P xl9DI P-E I.: H o)' R iZ - .7t 589514YIf -0N LO ;'f71T4 w IC3&! •7 Ne.. ALE •]M C Nd9 A C N W' (Il 895 t CU ) - - Nd9 E 10.40' (0) Pvir'Y P9 L-EU - 1 ; V ^ j '10967451 ^ClT^Y PER i hT!~ -TP9 RW'gl PEA .{F3 t CKL'rN PJ11M. DEED PER lp :K" pfiASN PER DIED I Z o MM / I ;3931 E I<0.0' (P)L x007517e4T 1A000' (P) E9't u (H0,00' ry'1 I NM9'S 'N'E IAOS VP) I Jn9•.1'~CE IW 07 (YIN n'B951'AI E IIp:I(, il'1 1.111'LAV11 Aff. vR _ 89720EpS I Ii / t qa prmfl 141 I 10.19' (C) (n ~.K I _ - 0 I I / ; m n Y/ A A $ b cf 193] UPL-O AI[ I Cnn ~ zOr~ LRA'In ATE. • ^ z o Ow, O 4 ions urt,NC A t n3s u Mro nh W ° ° " n'+ n. l 9]9ti zln ,PL.w c FnA vn•am A E Q n ft3 1'kxfU' uu (kC At]wMl - nffXel - itt .?'rn n.wYal - q, o la[ 1]1nJer1 , ^ ^2 R gah.. i ~i 1 e la<W+:1f> I. . +yJ ''y NQ n .n I aA Po n%0. IRN ~eI p(: vR :O N~ / ~88 a 8 Contiguity TOTAL PE^'Ed -Ea .;.2tri 69, 1 1 ~ r' "q6 I' l ~ un,I'ERMt h eDDat g FEMML FR CC4To-: 1 : . 01), IaI T.. ...2:)90.17 N35 nBS~1 f.0 00 ?T 1 NITS 50 M" 411 fA1 (P) (P) x9930'lNlE -I0.0 J'lp). N995emE 1(010' (P} h35P'+CZ 10.0.7 ) N 95. W'[ HO.EG (Pj 9x'Y'ul! 000 '1. 0.' 14093090E a0 / 58951100'00 119 JS (C)/// nat DEED 4^ EXCEPTED +7r - - CA"EPIED PX,"m PEA O.[O 9-,, 589'50'00•W 330.05 (C) / _u°.Prt0 roA PEXCEPTED ranm rte Ixa u.-ED ~plia PER c EcCfi TEO PO- N R o(ED LY°.PIEU PrRIA3v [x DEFI R R" ~I IRS wascaok )An 00 L JE0-E 1-iY^JmrE3 SEED (0) wt la - nq (r/ 1i 7 -I ,00('' 40)~ 77 - 4er:.1 B0s I . iM %ef'wE'w.5o' - xe35o'ao' (o) cso[ I.i 750 ,E ; 7 8g UPLAND AVENUE ' zcrrrtn .N [LrD E1 =2u P na, rFR nM, S8950'00 w 140.0)(C) /i NB3'51+0.'C 'c)P: :`I 6' .)C'.t•~ v { 91.'biE nI'l•) - NeN'37cat uo.o5 (r) S9950'00'W 140(C) 4305 191!1 SIxECT / ( In< m'fw1 I f I I U v / / S. B 8, S v1m,AN0 . ° 4.° t6 rz 1010 YL 11 NYC, 111: NP,,AN a :TLC ".dL ) r. n / '!JJ//!//.1L//1L/t; f~/J.t~~c 2010 AxO A,c ilwfnit YC 3 Ixr lf.+.Y al W rt-na,' F..1 9V /3 1 73 g fig. S o$ 'OOl N Q - DRAFT COPY ;0 F OF,, I .=VII-W 7,nf) CadINEN V w 41]0 IWN SMEEr i I 3 z 1 j GRAPHIC S(-AlY a ,N If60Ei (Vl E95004'E I ^OJ' ~Yj - Iwc0'(P) N395709'F 14001• (Pl. N89-60' I T- r CEPrFS PT.flA:X .n p(En 1 KQPt"P RwIG! A 0EEp gam. d73 NMI HSS,0E 144 TAMARACK AVENUE I i / RYMER m ro3o1 rIP9'S6E I+o (c) (o) _ x53 a •IeJ'so'E vo 5 1 IN FEET i n.a. (s J w 50950'DO'w 280.00' (C) t mqN - 50 rl ] ! aA pos7 :r3-9It FIMm... IM. EPb) 00-56A32 b;.va4a* F : 'm m.rx n n 58950'00'00 280.00 C C0PI"R6rfF 100.7-7009 Fl.ARRONS. r~l rcwtw wn ' ATTACHMENT D It is in the interest of both the city and county to consider the annexation of properties that could benefit from urban services, because of the reduction of the public health threat that can occur from failing independent sewer and water systems. The subject property is within Area IIA, which are areas that are available to accommodate urban development or incorporation into the city during the planning period. In this case, staff finds that the request to annex to the city can be supported based on the proposal's consistency with the BVCP policies (and other policies as discussed below) related to annexation: 1.22 Definition of Comprehensive Planning Areas I, 11 and III. The Boulder Valley Planning Area is divided into three major areas. Area I is that area within the city of Boulder, which has adequate urban facilities and services and is expected to continue to accommodate urban development. Area II is the area now under county jurisdiction, where annexation to the city can be considered consistent with Policies 1. 18, 1.20, & 1.27. New urban development may only occur coincident with the availability of adequate facilities and services and not otherwise. Departmental master plans project the provision of services to this area within the planning period. Area IIA is the area of immediate focus within the first three years, and Area JIB is available to accommodate development within the balance of the planning period. Area III is the remaining area in the Boulder Valley, generally under county jurisdiction. Area III is divided into the Area III-Rural Preservation Area, where the city and county intend to preserve existing rural land uses and character and the Area III-Planning Reserve Area, where the city and county intend to maintain the option of future Service Area expansion. (See Area I, II, 111 Map and Policy 2.10 Delineation of Rural Lands.) The Crestview East Neighborhood is defined by Chapter 1 of the BVCP Planning Area HA making the enclave eligible for immediate annexation. 1.23 Preclusion of New Incorporated Places. The city and county will oppose the establishment of new incorporated communities within the Boulder Valley. The proposed annexation will be annexed into the City of Boulder boundary not result in the establishment of new incorporated communities within the Boulder Valley. 1.24 Definition of New Urban Development. It is intended that `new urban development,' including development within the city, not occur until and unless adequate urban facilities and services are available to serve the development as set out in Section D Urban Service Criteria and Standards. 'New urban development' is defined to include: a) All new residential, commercial and industrial development and redevelopment 11 - i 4A rx_ lt within the city; or b) Any proposed development within Area II subject to a county discretionary review process before the Board of County Commissioners, provided the county determines that the proposed development is inconsistent with the land use projections, maps or policies of the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan in effect at that time. Since the area is currently unannexed and served by individual well and septic systems, new urban services such domestic city water and sanitary sewer will be required. Per the draft annexation agreement, additional residential units will not be added unless adequate access and utilities are provided. 1.25 Over-Intensive Rural Development. The Area III-Rural Preservation Area is that portion of Area III where rural land uses and character are to be maintained and preserved. A variety of land use activities are permitted by county zoning pursuant to examination through one or more of the review processes enumerated in the Boulder County Land Use Code. A preliminary analysis may conclude that an otherwise penmitted land use proposal would have an impact of urban intensity and thus be considered an over-intensive rural development. Criteria to be examined in making an over-intensive determination may include, but are not limited to traffic, structure size, number of users, hours of operation, outside lighting, water needs and wastewater flows, impacts extending outside of the property boundaries, compatibility with surrounding land uses, and the availability or lack of other more appropriate sites for the proposed activity. Any application for a land use that triggers an over-intensive rural development analysis will be referred to the city of Boulder for comment. Not applicable, the area is considered BVCP Planning Area IIA making the enclave eligible for immediate annexation. 1.26 City Service Provision/Location of Urban Facilities. The city is an adequate provider of facilities and services. These facilities and services will continue to be supplied to Area 1, and the city will make them available to Area II within the planning period pursuant to the city's annexation policies and Capital Improvements Program. Due to size, location and other unique requirements, some city facilities that do not require the full range of urban services will be located in Areas 11 and III, subject to county review. (See Policy 3.02 Definition of Adequate Urban Facilities and Services.) Staff has allocated funding through the Utilities Department who will finance sewer main installation in Upland and Violet along with stubbing water and sewer service to property line at an annual interest rate of 5%, payable in equal payments over a 5 to 10 year period. 1.27 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. Per the attached annexation agreement, utilities will not be installed until after the properties are annexed. 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 the county for development of enclaves and Area 11 lands in lieu of annexation will be referred to the city for review and comment. The county will 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 be consistent and compatible with the city's requirements. As noted above under "History of Crestview East Addition No, lb," the city has been actively working with the residents of Crestview East to annex the enclave into the City since 1995. c) Annexation of existing substantially developed areas will be offered in a manner and on terms and conditions that respect existing lifestyles and densities. 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, will be a supportive partner with the city in annexation efforts to the extent the county supports the terms and conditions being proposed. The proposed annexation conditions offered are compliant with the densities of the BVCP land use designations for the area. Additionally, the land use pattern is compliant with the densities and development patterns specified in the North Boulder Subcommunity Plan to help maintain the rural character of the area. d) In order to reduce the negative impacts of new development in the Boulder Valley, the city will annex Area II land with significant development or redevelopment potential only if the annexation provides a special opportunity or benefit to the city. For annexation considerations, emphasis will 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 rights (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, environmental 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 are 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 an application for greater development is submitted. Redevelopment and subdivision potential will be based on the densities of the BVCP Land Use designations specified in the NBSP. The primary benefit associated with the proposed annexation is the provision of affordable housing as well as cash-in lieu contributions for affordable housing upon subdivision - ,_7 and redevelopment of each property. Specific information regarding permanently affordable housing provisions may be found in the draft annexation agreement in Attachment C. The permanently affordable housing conditions as drafted are considered compliant with the city's annexation policies for properties with significant development / redevelopment potential. 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. The areas of annexation are considered to have significant development / redevelopment potential. Please refer to staff's finding of subsection d above. f) There will be no annexation of areas outside the boundaries of the Boulder Valley Planning Area, with the possible exception of annexation of acquired open space. Not applicable, the proposed neighborhood is an enclave surrounded by existing city boundaries. g) Publicly owned property located in Area III and intended to remain in Area III may be annexed to the city if the property requires less than a full range of urban services or requires inclusion under city jurisdiction for health, welfare and safety reasons. Not applicable, the properties are privately owned and considered Area IIA. h) The Gunbarrel Subcommunity is unique because the majority of residents live in the unincorporated area and because of the shared jurisdiction for planning and service provision among the county, the city, the Gunbarrel Public Improvement District and other special districts. Although interest in voluntary annexation has been limited, the city and county continue to support the eventual annexation of Gunbarrel. If resident interest in annexation does occur in the future, the city and county will negotiate new terms of annexation with the residents. Not applicable. The Crestview East enclave is not located in Gunbarrel. Guidelines for Annexation Agreements: Mostly Developed Residential Properties in Area II located in Crestview East C. Guidelines for Specific Property Areas 1. Enclave - Crestview East a. All properties: • Request that the applicant demonstrate compliance with the North Boulder Subcommunity Plan (NBSP) Design Guidelines upon redevelopment or other applicable developed zoning district standards. The proposed annexation will be compliant with a number of the design guidelines specified in the NBSP. The annexation agreement requires front loaded garages to be setback at least 20 feet from the primary front fagade. b.-Properties along Fourmile Canyon 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. Not applicable. None of the proposed properties are directly adjacent to Fourmile Canyon Creek. c. Properties with subdivision potential - split MR/LR zoning: • 50% of any newly constructed units should be permanently affordable to low and middle income households. The proposed affordable housing strategy will be equivalent to the subject standard. d. Properties with subdivision potential - split LR/ER zoning: • 25% of any newly constructed 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. The proposed affordable housing strategy will be equivalent to the subject standard. e. Properties with subdivision potential - ER zones: • Payment of two times the cash-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). The proposed affordable housing strategy will be equivalent to the subject ~~y7 ATTACHMENT E Approved as an administrative regulations pursuant to Section 9-3.3-14 (c)(3), which also states that amendments to the ROW Plan can also occur through Site Review process. AMENDMENT PROCESS FOR NORTH BOULDER RIGHT-OF-WAY PLAN 1. Amendment to the North Boulder Right-of-Way Plan is required for: A. Deletion of any street, or portion thereof, or intersection on the Plan. B. Addition of any streets not created as part of a subdivision or annexation. C. Relocation of roadways more than 50 feet in any direction. D. Deletion of any trail or pedestrian connection. E. Relocation of trail and pedestrian routes if connection points are changed. F. Relocation or reconfiguration of any intersection unless moved less than 50 feet, and determined, per 4.A., not to constitute an amendment. G. Establishment of defined roadway systems where conceptual road locations are now depicted unless established pursuant to B. above. H. Rerouting of Fourmile Canyon and Wonderland Creek drainages other than as shown in the Plan. 1. Relocation of roadways that have the effect of changing the basic intent of the Plan or modifying the Plan's goals. 2. Addition of bike paths and pedestrian connections, which are consistent with the Plan's goals and intent, shall not be considered amendments to the Plan. 3. If staff determines that a Plan amendment is required, applicant has the opportunity to appeal the determination to the Policy Resolution Group (PRG), to modify the project, or to proceed with an amendment request. To request an amendment, the applicant submits a letter to the city requesting a Plan amendment. 4. If the applicant appeals staff's determination that a Plan amendment is required, the City's PRG would discuss, debate, and determine if the proposed project is consistent with the Plan or if an amendment to the Plan is required. Then, A. If the PRG finds the proposal is consistent with the Plan, and no amendment is required, no Planning Board or City Council review is required. B. If the PRG finds that Plan amendment is required, the staff develops written findings in support or opposition to the proposed amendment based upon the goals and intent as listed in the North Boulder Subcommunity Plan, and forwards its comments to Planning Board for review, as described in 6. below. 5. Amendments to the Plan will be considered by the Planning Board at a noticed public hearing and the Board will make a decision, subject to call-up by the City Council. Amendments to the Plan must still be consistent with the Plan=s intent and goals as identified in the North Boulder Subcommunity Plan. 6. Staff will prepare a report and description of the Planning Board action and send it to City Council in Council=s WIP. Council will decide whether to place the item on T,,~e its agenda. If Council does not, the Planning Board decision will be considered final. 'JIA Development Guidelines RECOMMENDATIONS County Enclave for All Neighborhoods The key development sites in North Boulder Development Guidelines are shown on the map on page 9. New development in the Enclaves roust Building and Site Design New residential areas must comply with the meet the Guidelines for All Neiglrbor- Development Guidelines listed on the left, hoods, as well as those listed below. ♦ Locate compatible building as well as those listed in the gray boxes for hypes to face one another each area. All Enclave Areas across streets. Change design ♦ Develop building size Ihnitations.for rules at rear or side property the area to preserve and enhance lines rather than down the neighborhood character County EnC1RV8S features and middle of the street. The North Boulder Subcommunity includes # Preserve cevelirtitrarr»opmentreinntahl aft tunes flood several large residential County enclaves (i.e., m,oid ♦ Position houses so that their areas in the County completely surrounded by areas, front doors and front yards land in the City). The bulk of the area is Githens Acres and food face the street. shown on the map below. constrained areas The enclaves should annex to the City for two ® Preserve the rurab emi-rural chdrac ♦ Leave front yards open wher- main reasons: ter in this area with a very low density ever possible. 'hen front The area needs public water and sewer land use pattern. yflyd fences are provided, They service: some properties have groundwater ♦ Preserve rural street character by should be low and open. contamination, and/or shallow wells, and maintaining borrow flitches and rural are served by failing septic systems. mailboxes, i ♦ Design houses so that garage The enclaves have been part of the City's Crestview. West Annexation door's do not predominate the "Service Area" since 1978 and have devel- Goals front facade. Locate garage oped at urban densities. The patchwork of doors no less than 20' behind properties in and out of the City is confus- ♦ Preserve the rural character, particu- ing and inefficient for the provision of urban lardy in flood-constrained areas. the principal plane of the front services such as police, fire, and environ- ♦ Allow possible higher densities along of*the houses; detached mental enforcement, the 13roadway corridor to achieve garages are preferred When people talk about North Boulder's affordable and diverse housing close to rural character, the enclaves are typically the transit. ®Except in areas recommended area of which they speak. While they are not ► Provide public water scrvicc toproper- for low density rural-t),pe literally rural in that most of the homesites are ties with contaminated wells. Character, position buildings one acre or less, they possess qualities that are with oth ohtheer onrtntir com consensus, . close to the street to create a generally associated with rural areas includ- balance Consider ing: unimproved roads with barrow ditches nity goals. i more pedestrian friendly (no curb and gutter or "hard edges"); mailbox- # Help dt fray the property owners 'costs atmosphere.' Rather than a es placed at the end of gravel driveways; farm of annexation, conventional 'setback'; create animals; equipment stored on the property; no ` street lighting; large setbacks; modestly scaled Crestview East Anti exation a "build-to" line. residential and accessory buildings; and a gen- Goals ♦_Provide high quality building eral sense of quiet. # Create permanenihy affordable and design with attention to detail. From the perspective of the enclave landown- diverse housing. Avoid monotonous building ers, the desire for the future ranges from keep- ♦ Develop minimum densities in the AIR ing the area "the way it is now" to establishing and LR zones, designs: include human scale City zoning that would allow additional homes ♦ Create new development in a pattern features such as porches, var- to be built. Through the public hearing that supports walkobility and good ied budding elevations, and process on the Plan, different goals/ objectives community design. Provide connec- varied sizes and stvles. emerged for each of the areas and are listed in tions as shown on the Transportation the box on the right. Plan, plus at least one additional ® Plant street trees along all Githens Acres and portions of Crestview West north-south street and east-west alleys streets at the time of f •develop- are not appropriate for further development, in the AIR and LR zones. for they are located in flood zones and possess # Consider transfers of development ment of redevelopment of any, a rural character worth of reservation. eel , y p (I'DR) _flom other, less centr•all}) located pt'Op } ~ Crestview East and other portions of areas. Crestview West, on the other hand, are located Consider neighborhood consensus, . ♦ Design streets to be as narrow adjacent to planned transit and a higher densi- # in as possible. ty neighborhood to the north, and are appro- balance with ether annexation goals. f priate for higher densities for affordable and # Help defray the property owners'costs j ♦ In higher densiy% areas where diverse housing. The land use pattern to sup- of annexation, parking lots are needed, port the goals for each area is shown on the map below. design the lots so that they are sinall and clustered. Locate - - : parking to the back o build- ings, not in the front, ce-D MH-E ♦ Use alleys wherever possible \•\X to provide a service side to P-E properties. Reduce curb cuts and sidewalk interruptions on the 'public" side of lots. _ RR s RR i r'anspo'r"talion Connections 71 FR ♦ Comply, at a minimum, with the Transportation Plan in - a - 1 Section 8. I y f ~ _ r ♦ Design streets to be I--~ multi-purpose public spaces-- `R L{~ 1t 1i r ; . r r- comfortable for the pedestrian , and bicyclist--not just as roads h; t_R_n fin- cars. L.. _ ♦ Avoid using flag lots or ± E .....1..._......... J~ 'curs de sac. This map illustrates the recommended land use pattern in the County enclaves. Crestview West is the area between Broadway and 19th Street, Crestview East is the area between 19th Street C' , and 261h Streets north of Sumac, and Githens Acres it located south of Crestview Last. 10 N.B.S.P. Reprinted August 2001 ATTACHMENT F Crestview East Annexation Goals: 1) Create permanently affordable and diverse housing. The attached annexation agreement will provide for permanently affordable single and multi family homes consistent with the amounts and percentages adopted Guidelines for Annexation Agreements Mostly Developed Residential Properties in Area II located in Crestview East (see Attachment D). 2) Develop minimum densities in the MR and LR zones. Minimum lot sizes specified in the MR and LR zone district will be required, however, in an effort to provide for more permanently affordable and diverse housing, the annexation agreement permits duplexes in the LR zone. 3) Create new development in a pattern that supports walkability and good community design. Provide connections as shown on the Transportation Plan, plus at least one additional north-south street and east-west alleys in the MR and LR zones. The development pattern will support walkability and improved community design. The proposed transportation connections will meet the intent of the adopted NBSP Transportation Connections plan and will provide significantly improved pedestrian and vehicular access in and through the neighborhood. A new north/south street between Violet Ave. and Vine Ave. is proposed as well as an east/west alley between 19°i and 22i0 Avenues. Sidewalks are also proposed along Violet and Upland Avenues. 4) Consider transfers of development (TDR) from other, less centrally located areas. Transfer of development rights have not been proposed as a part of the negotiations. 5) Consider neighborhood consensus, in balance with other annexation goals. Staff has worked closely with a large neighborhood group through the course of the annexation to negotiate a balanced annexation agreement that neighbors are comfortable with. 6) Help defray the property owners' costs of annexation. In an effort to defray the cost of annexation, the city will install all required utility mains and will require payback over a ten year period rather than requiring neighbors to pay for services up front as required by most other annexations. Staff is also pursuing establishment of a Local Improvement district to install streets and alleys up front for neighbors. ATTACHMENT G GOALS • Encourage walking, biking, and transit use by providing safe, comfortable and convenient pedestrian and bicycle path connections. The proposed annexation will incorporate four new north /south multi modal pathways in the Crestview East neighborhood as indicated by the map above titled "Proposed NOW TNP Amendments. " • Determine locations for future transit centers. Determine methods to calm traffic speeds on neighborhood streets. New vehicular rights of way will be designed to a smaller, narrower specification to help calm traffic. Additionally, detached sidewalks will be required to help separate pedestrians from vehicular traffic. OBJECTIVES • Slow cars, especially on high-volume residential streets near schools and where cars consistently exceed speed limits. New vehicular rights of way will be designed to a smaller, narrower specification to help calm traffic. Additionally, detached sidewalks will be required as well. • Develop physical improvements, such as narrowing existing streets. New vehicular rights of way will be designed to a smaller, narrower specification to help calm traffic. • Consider traffic slowing techniques on North Boulder streets as part of the Neighborhood Traffic Mitigation Program, which will prioritize streets to receive mitigation measures, based on City-wide needs and cost/benefit assessments. Provide recommendations to the program for highest priority improvements in North Boulder. • Test mitigation solutions first with temporary structures, before more expensive, permanent solutions are installed. • Examine problems and issues associated with poor east-west circulation in the central part of the subcommunity, including traffic flow and volumes, air quality, and safety. Identify solutions that would be most appropriate and effective. Consider alternative solutions including: • creating more street connections, • improving pedestrian/bicycle system, • calming traffic, • encouraging school children to walk, bike and take the bus to school, and • locating any new school where traffic will be reduced. Crestview Elementary is located at l9'1' St. and Upland Ave. making the Crestview East neighborhood heavily traveled by elementary school students The proposed amendments to the NBSP connections plan will require four new north /south multimodal pedestrian connections as well as two new east/west vehicular connections with detached sidewalks. Streets will be designed to a narrower standard to help calm traffic, detached sidewalks and new multimodal path connections will help encourage walking and will improve the pedestrian and bicycle system. • Inter-connect the street network in new neighborhoods, both internally and with existing streets, so that the traffic load on residential streets is equitable, car trip distances are minimized, and walking and bicycling are convenient. The proposed street network will be well connected to the existing surrounding street network. The proposed amendments to the NBSP will eliminate two vehicular north /south vehicular connections, between Tamarack Ave. and Vine Ave., however, the vehicular network will circulate well and serve a minor amount of new residences. • Increase opportunities for safe and efficient pedestrian and bicycle travel throughout the subcommunity by: • developing long, continuous routes within the subcommunity and connecting to existing or future routes in adjacent subcommunities (Central Boulder and Palo Park); • identifying and resolving missing links, both on-street and off-street, so that systems are complete; • providing and enhancing bike lanes on collector and arterial streets for cyclists seeking direct, high-speed routes; • installing sidewalks on school routes; • not allowing future street closures or right-of-way/ easement vacations in areas where bicycle or pedestrian access might be appropriate in the future. • Elevate the quality of street design, so that streets are more attractive and inviting for pedestrians, bicyclists, bus riders, and drivers. ATTACHMENT H Ferro, Charles From: Jan Morzel Sent: Friday, May 29, 2009 12:28 PM To: Ferro, Charles Cc: Mitra Adams; Amy; Anne Hockmeyer; Joan & Bob Knecht, Ellen Stark; Rachel Cahn; Shane Higbee; Nathan Knecht; Richard Luna; Shari Moraga; Rodrigo Moraga; Betsy Imig; Kevin Byrne; Jeff Pincus; Andy & Mary Malkiel; Peggy & Steve Steve; Timothy Rea; Young, Mark,- gary@accentproperties.net Calderon Subject: CVE outstanding issues Charles, Here's a summary of the outstanding issues. Please incorporate in your memo to Planning Board. Thanks, Jan PS: in addition, I understand that Mark Young will also present an alternative for affordable housing conditions for Violet properties. 1. LID Before any property in Crestview East (CVE) can be subdivided, new streets and water and wastewater utilities need to be installed. For properties between Upland and Violet, this requires the construction of of the new Vine Street, with all new utility lines from 19th tyo 22nd street. The total project cost is estimated to be $600,000. The proposed annexation conditions require the entire street to be built by the first property owner who applies for subdivision. This financial burden is too big for any single resident in the neighborhood. Therefore, the likely outcome will be that no subdivision will be possible. The city has set aside funds to help with the formation of a Local Improvement District (LID) to provide water and wastewater access. There are currently two neighborhoods where these funds could be used: Gaptor Road in southeast Boulder and CVE. There is, however, only enough money in this year's budget to fund one project. Currently, only about 60% of the residents in Gaptor Road are interested in connecting to the city's utilities. While in CVE, over 80% of the residents in the enclave are on the current amrexation application. Any funds provided by the city to construct the utility improvements in CVE, would be paid back over time with interest. At the time of connecting to city water and wastewater from a newly built home, the balance for that property would be due. Investing in new utility improvements in CVE would have many benefits to the residents and the city: - Several property owners in CVE will not be able to annex, and pay for the very high annexation costs, without the ability to pay for these fees with the proceeds from the sale of a newly created building lot. - The city would ensure that the development in CVE would happen in a comprehensive and timely manner. - City funds will be repaid with interest - most likely, at a quick recovery rate for the city. - New construction will generate badly needed economic stimulus in the city, and provide fees and taxes for the city. - New homes will contribute taxes to the city. - Affordable homes would be built and cash contributions to the city's affordable housing program would be made possible. The residents of CVE ask members of Planning Board for a recommendation to city council to provide funds for the formation of an LID. 2. Flaglots In case there are no funds available to finance an LID in CVE, the residents ask for the ability to develop one flaglot on individual properties. In July 2007, a smaller group of applicants from CVE was before Planning Board. At that time city staff supported this option, and the board approved it as part of the annexation agreement, as long as any new homes would be designed with a front entrance facing future Vine street, and as long as utilities would be connected to lines in Vine, once those were available. The residents in CVE ask members of Planning Board for a one-flaglot allowance in case an LID cannot be formed to construct Vine street. 3. Sidewalk on Upland Residents in CVE are committed to providing safe transportation for pedestrians and bicyclists in our neighborhood. We will build and pay for many new pedestrian connections: a sidewalk along Upland, a sidewalk along Violet, a sidewalk along Vine, a multi-use path between Upland and Tamarack, a multi-use path between Upland and Vine, and a multi-use path between the west end of Tamarack and 19th. This will create a comprehensive and safe network for pedestrians. In the long term, we strongly support the construction of a pedestrian underpass under 19th street and Upland (west of 19th), when flood improvements are constructed along File-Mile Creek. School children from our neighborhood and adjacent areas to the east will then be able to use the safest access to Crestview Elementary School via Tamarack and the new underpass under 19th. The city has developed a robust metric to determine the necessity for improving missing sidewalks. In the "Sidewalk Priority" list, missing pedestrian links have been identified by a consideration of mainly two factors: pedestrian needs (closeness to destinations and pedestrian activity centers), and traffic volume. Based on these criteria, the Upland section from Broadway to 19th ranks as number 17 near the bottom of the list, based on very little traffic and its vicinity to Crestview east. Our section of Upland, between 19th and 22nd, would not be listed at all, because there is even less traffic on our culs-de-sac than further west, and because we are further away from the school. During our last attempt to annex in July 2007, there was a discussion among Planning Board members whether there is a need for one sidewalk on Upland or none City staff did not even present the two- sidewalk option, and supported the one-sidewalk option. We realize that there is enough support for one sidewalk, though we residents feel completely safe walking on our street as is, that we are willing to build a sidewalk. In order to improve bicycling safety (our street is a designated bike route), and to visually narrow the street section (as called for in the North Boulder Subcommunity Plan), we are proposing to build traffic calming measures ("bump-outs"). Most of the school children on our street use bikes to get to school. The residents of CVE ask Planning Board to support the one-sidewalk option with traffic calming. 68 4. North-South path Our neighborhood is in need of more east-west connections for pedestrians, as most of the pedestrian volume is directed from east of us to Crestview east Elementary west of us. In addition we will be adding a north-south pedestrian and bicycle connection by building a multi-use path from Upland to Tamarack, and from Upland to Vine. Additional north-south connections are not necessary. Those paths would be "dead-end" paths, as there are no connecting path north or south of our neighborhood. On the north, there are no paths leading into the mobile home park along Violet; and on the south, Four-Mile Creek presents barrier to pedestrian crossings. The residents of CVE are asking Planning Board not to approve the proposed additional north-south path through existing residential properties. Ferro, Charles From: Nathan Knecht Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2009 92:00 PM To: Ferro, Charles Cc: McHeyser, Ruth; Pieropan, Cindy; Buckbee, Steven Subject: CVE Hi Charles, The outstanding issues presented by our neighborhood are not meant to be 'deal breakers'. But represent issues our negotiations with staff could go no further. We are asking only that planning board hear and consider our concerns. We don't feel we need more time to negotiate with staff. We are asking planning board to simply direct a recommendation to council and allow council to decide the outcome of these concerns. However, we both know that the affordable housing/community benefit requirements for properties zoned RM/RL may prove to be 'deal breakers' for a number of property owners along Violet, including Richard Luna who has already decided to withdraw. Let me know if you have any further questions, I'll do my best to draft our argument for the affordable housing conditions as soon as possible. Nathan BARRETT STUDIO architects 1 1944 20th Street Boulder, CO 80302 (ph)303.449.1141 I (f)303.449.9320 I www.barrettstudio.com Neighborhood outstanding issues: 1). The N/S mid-block connection. To maintain the rural character of the RE zoned south side of upland we ask that the N/S mid-block path be eliminated from the transportation plan. To acknowledge the concerns and wishes of the existing neighbors we ask that the surface standard and width of the N/S mid-block path from Upland to Vine be changed to a 6' wide pedestrian path with crusher fines similar to existing paths in our neighborhood. 2). Given the difficulty of cooperation and unpredictable economy. We ask that should the LID not become available for utilities and transportation improvements that Flag Lots be granted to properties that border the future Vine Street ROW. 3). Affordable housing conditions for properties zoned RM/RL. Conditions appear too restrictive. Wording for this still to come. 70 Ferro, Charles From: Jan MORE' it Sent: Thursday, zo, 2009 12:20 PM To: Ferro, Charles Cc: Mitra Adams; Amy; Anne Hockmeyer; Joan & Bob Knecht; Ellen Stark; Rachel Cahn; Shane Higbee; Nathan Knecht; Richard Luna; Shari Moraga; Rodrigo Moraga; Betsy Imig; Kevin Byrne; Jeff Pincus; Andy & Mary Malkiel; Peggy & Steve Steve; Timothy Rea Subject: CVE draft memo to planning board Hi Charles, Thanks for sending out the draft memo. It was agreed that our neighborhood would have the chance to have an input in the wording on issues important to us. It is unfortunate that the draft has been delayed until now, so that we don't have much time. We would like to send you a few changes/additions by the end of tomorrow. Nathan already mentioned the outstanding issues, which are, unfortunately, more than just one issue. When you describe the one-sidewalk issue, you quote from the North Boulder Subcommunity Plan (NoBoPlan), that "On routes to school (Sumac and Upland, for example), separated paths or sidewalks are essential". This reference is misleading. Sumac and Upland are long streets, from 4th to 26th. This sentence clearly refers to those sections next to the school, between 15th and 19th. It would be worth noting that within existing city limits, the city has chosen to build a sidewalk on Sumac only along the school property, from 19th to what would be about 17th, and none on Upland, including the section bordering the school property. Upland is classified a rural street, and our section is a culs-de-sac. You could have also quoted from the NoBoPlan the mandate to "Preserve rural street character" (page 10), "on streets where densities are low and traffic is very light, pedestrians and bicycles are safe and comfortable walking in the the street" (page 21), "Develop physical improvements, such as narrowing existing streets" (page 20), and to pursue "Calming traffic" (page 20). In addition, the Transportation Master Plan states under "Pedestrian Policies": "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". Finally, the "neighborhood consensus is to be considered" (page 10), when addressing annexation requirements. Our reference to the city's "Sidewalk Priority List" is meant to prove that our section of Upland would not belong on the list (for any sidewalk because the very low traffic volume, and our relative distance to the school and other pedestrian destinations. We have realized, however, that it's not worth opposing the one sidewalk on the north side any longer, but we oppose the additional sidewalk on the south side. 7~ 7 We have dropped our opposition to one sidewalk because of the overwhelming push for it from some transportation planners, not because we have been convinced of the need for it. Regards, Jan Ferro, Charles From: MaryBeth Appel Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2008 6:39 PM To: Charles Ferro Subject: 2020 Upland development Charles, Thank you for taking the time to talk with me today. We live at 2190 Tamarack and very interested in the development being proposed in our neighborhood. We would like to be added to the e-mail list for updates about this proposed development as it moves forward. As mentioned today we are concerned about the added traffic and density being proposed mainly with regards to the already busy corner we live on. There are many small children who live in the area and traffic already moves too fast around this blind corner. Best, Jim and Mary Beth Appel Ferro, Charles From: I Sent: Monday, September 22, 2008 8:17 PM To: Charles Ferro Subject: Crestview East Annexation Charles: Thank you for returning my call. We do want to be on the notification list. We are concerned about the possible requirement to construct sidewalks on Upland. As it is, the street pavement on the south side is about 15 feet from property lines so that means the streetscape would become about 30 feet wider if the plan to construct sidewalks and street improvements is instituted. The current relatively narrow (existing trees help decrease the apparent width) "no outlet" street keeps traffic speed down. We asked one mom about sidewalks as she was walking along Upland with her small children riding bikes, and she said that she was not in favor of the plan since the current arrangement means her children are able to directly participate in an interactive learning experience about dealing with cars and driveways in a low-traffic environment. We are concerned that sidewalks will mean removal of existing trees and landscaping that emphasize a rural character and soften the effects of traffic. Loss of landscaping would make this neighborhood appear like a typical Denver suburban neighborhood, an appearance we hoped to forever avoid. We are concerned that sidewalks and attendant streetscape improvements will actually increase speeds and geometrically increase the danger of crossing the street since drivers will feel more separate from pedestrians and bicycles (the street is an access for the Four Mile Creek trail). Please consider not requiring sidewalks and streetscape improvements for Upland. Thank you. Susan Tremaine & David Shade boulder, CO 80304 ~_a ATTACHMENTI HARLAN & ASSOCIATES; tiNu. CONSULTING HYDROGEO[OGISTS AND ENGINEERS 3900 South Wadsworth Boulevard, Suite 155 f V S, Lakewood, Colorado 80235-2211 (303) 988-7270 • Fax (303)-989-8188 hYP November 29, 2002 Mr. Chris Rudkin City of Boulder Public Works/Utilities Water .Quality &Environmental Services 4049North 75's Street Boulder, CO 80301 Mr. Mike Randall City of Boulder Planning Department P.Oi Box 791 Boulder, CO 80306-0791 Dear Messrs. Rudkin and Randall: Re: Crestview East Neighborhood Ground-water Issues This letter has been prepared at the request of Mr. Chris Rudkin and 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 offwo areas-in the Crestview East neighborhood in North Boulder. Both of these areas are loc;tted bettseen 2,0'" Street on die west, 2€i h Street on the cast; Violet Avenue on the north :ab OtOja:rd 17 Avenue and its eastward,cxtension on the south. As shown on the attached Figures, portions of this area directly O'vt;riie, or are located on the edge of, a plume of chlorinated volatile organic constituents (VOCs) identified previously as emanating froln,-the,foriner Centerline Circuits manufacturing facility west of Broadway. The attached Figures depict the maximum historically detected concentrations of 1,1-di6hl6roeihene (I,I;DCE) and 1;1,1-triehloroethane (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.e., east of 20'" Street, residual concentrations of l;l,l-TCA in ground water, albeit detectable, historically have been below the Federal Dmllcirig Water~ Aandari or Maximum Concentration Limits (MCLs) for public drinking water supplies, i.e., less than 200 micrograms per liter (µg/I). 1 1-DCE Ahi~ D4CL of 7 ijg/l, has not been defected east of 20 Street _c, within the Gestview fast area. The wells, shown on the attached Figures, sampled on behalf of the City of Boulder in November 1998, and the analytical results for t;1,1- TCA and 1,1-DCE, the only VOCs that were detected, are summarized in Table 1. The analytical results for the November 1998 monitoring event are consistent wttli t}~e historical data for North Boulder. Between about 1990, when systematic .ground-water monitoring within the Crestview Area was begun and 1998, the extent of the contaminant:plyme and contaminant concentrations within the plume have remained relatively. constant,indicatutg steady-state conditions. Although four years have elapsed since the residential wells in the subject,arca were last sampled, a significant change in ground-water conditions is not expected- 67 - 75~ . ASSr1CIAS?'C' rsndt !R and Randall lvte$s City o£Eoutdo ~~02 detectable vember 29~ tdl contain No, ttk4lY. will s he coristttuents Page 2'bf 3 or VOCs 1cU all b£ t today Cirven conccntratlons idopual ~vvlts wU clean ronnd d those n s n hni iis; cry 11ke1J wells° that colcan}c dotuents an rt rs pbsstUlc"that" g U Tli°se below the method.dctectto however, o`vn source taf?5 ebneenifr bons of tho - were unkn list man AOnrig round, r, Ddd al' Ucal target since eta sed the last if the;e i5 t ircvtot Bast hz!$ on the an . ors have p IY a nc z Crestvtc hbo that foury cd, }tatticillat ty w ilun ik tie ndittops hav0 diang are °n sep water rA ; Shallow &91111 ter y uah v wells and. nz -atior, crs a of mtzr,st Uavo-shallOV eGt to ab advcly'itnpa0iliig. resp, within the are otenhat issue with residents a dity is sti11 a p erwer. ; Sin0e. some to City Nvater a+til, odtder, may ch fields, grou n d water "costs q connectutg pl'e Ctty o tan hea f T; ks to the of lunle> routed water possiblywtttrrespecttoW Conte'linepcotlftr! Current 6- In this" with re sp rani`to AS part of 't"' ue di trtplI and analysis prog ectfic areas of rn4 ~ nonitoring ligence 9 uire. oat0raquifer ut the sp vembcr 19 d q ,rridettakz a" ill tl This t* ottl rc elect to 1110 WUVls uieludmctlrod 82fT4) Te-samPle ilic`t ditions within th, shallow. grout ~rniisston.to C. (EPA " quality zon osc that a subset Of VOS, regard, we: would proed for the a ralysis of to oUtatr ahett li - e-sanlp erty owners ° t be r ecied r°P ark prgran cacti of the a camplut&: . ing osed for Tz d ntral tells . contact p, fora are rest £oq, wept wells;that are pro locattosts bcmb+ ¢onstdered" Pte residUntial and:dedtcated mOfihcscmondonnf, areas aY nlon$,20 mated Y' +Sk f*) ~a e~Ulc 1 enerally Gtf in the rt ltt,j.Q U air aster of or S of Moulder g> f bi~dbetins tle4?,. it ~g well on theElztnentary SeUog is and io 140atecl etcher drrectly l , inbnitor+ng ~ct•jacatsot Lea is If . j- oite'1a a dedicated i1 thc,Cr tvtew. }e'th0 subs. LhG natural "seep rc satttl? rth liouider A anne?la~tbn Nners, t9. s of tlieNo zctive d the .last is o, the tnaB re p fo"contact tlrc no date ee an p tl}z results and.np 113 oses, oor'estnital additional prepare a letter re ort summarizing we can prov%tle any fort or tf w attached a's'palile'2. If'yati hay,"9uestions-on the above Status rto, inform' If asstsiatire at this time, pleas e feel free 'coutact:me V ry truly .yours, FS,;IlIC. SSOClr IIARLAt~l ~'tc~ gichard L: Har12n; ph president ~,y(dlt Enclosures HARLAN & ASSOCIATES, INC. Messrs, Rudkin and Randall City of Boulder November 29, 2002 Page 3 of 3 Table 1 Crestview/North Boulder Area Summary of November 1998 Ground-water Sampling Program; Analytical Results, and Wells Proposed for Re-Sampling PFOpos~d 199F'Program z , ; : , Analytical Results`;: Location "Well Dest~ri'auon/Loc~[ion 1,I;~'I~A trug/1} s', , l,,l 1)'.CE. (ttg11) ,'i * BLD-I <0.5 <1.0 BLD-2 <0.5 <L0 * Crestview School Seep <0.5 <1.0 * 2145 Upland <0.5 <0:1 1377 Tamarac 1.0 <1.0 * 4405 Agate <0.5 <1.0 * 2155 Emerald 2,0 <1.0 BLD-3 NS - Destroyed NS - Destroyed 4390 - 13" Street NS NS 1490 Upland NS NS Notes: * - Proposed sampling location if confirmatory sampling & analysis to be undertaken. Denotes constituent not detected at the referenced value. NS - Denotes we] I/location not sampled Table 2 CrestviewEast/North Boulder Area Cost Estimate for Confirmatory Ground-Water Sampling and Analysis Program `Dcscrtption Unu$ ?EsumaiBd4Cast Pre-sampling logistics 4 hrs. $200 Sampling -Field . 8 to 12 hrs. $400 to $600 Analytical Subcontracts 5 to 7 $550 to $770 Reimbursable Expense Mileage Is $50 Equipment Is $150 to $200 Expendable Supplies is $25 Data Interpretation & Reporting Is $300 TOTAL $1;675 to $2,145 Notes: v - Includes trip blank for quality control/quality assurance purposes Is - lump sum 77 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY t~ err REGION 8 ass 18PISTREET - SUITE 509 - DENVER, CO 80202-2488 4,flV 2 9 20M Ref- 8EPR-SR P11e ~ ~ Chuck Stout / t rv, Lo { / Executive Director { W Ia .o • - ~ iu R.4e Boulder County Health Department 3450 Broadway Boulder, Colorado 80304 Re: Centerline Circuits Site Dear 11r. Stout_ J am writing to inform you that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) plans to take no further action at the Centerline Circuits (aka North Boulder) site. We believe that the cleanup work necessary to protect human health and the environment has been completed. Recent data show that the contamination has decreased and is expected to decease even furiber in the f ttum The City and County of Boulder, State of Colorado, the Colorado Department of Transportation, Centerline Circuits and Ccncorp, Inc. axe to be commended for their actions in lowering to acceptable levels the risk posed by the ground water contamination _ r Should conditions warrant, EPA is prepared to reevaluate the site to determine if the contamination is significant enough for EPA involvement. I am sure you are aware that EPA must focus its resources on those sites that pose thebiggest 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 report that describes the efforts made to dale at the site, including evaluations of the cleanup at the property formerly owned by Centerline Circuits, the groundwater monitoring program and the provision of drinking water to the residents of the North Boulder enclave. The enclave includes a residential area of North Boulder bounded by Broadway on the west, 191^ Street on the east, Violet Street on the north, and Tamarack Street on the south. See Figure 1.