Map / Planning Board / ← 2024-06-18 · 2024-07-23 →
Planning Board · regular
7-16-24 Planning Board Meeting
- Date
- Series
- regular
- Status
- past
- Sources
- YouTube, via the Woven archive; YouTube's automatic captions
Agenda
No agenda items read for this meeting.
Excerpts by topic
AI-read · unreviewed44 mentions; quotes verbatim from the captions or agenda, chosen by a model, unchecked by a personSo I do need to read each of the call up items in full, correct or not.
The property is just under 1.9 acres. It's located just north of Glenwood Drive, between Folsom Street and 28.th
The site is well connected with the adjacent multi-use path shown in green that runs through the site
Here you can see the site is impacted by floodplains and wetlands of Elmer's 2 Mile Creek
Staff found the proposal was consistent with the Bvcp.
If it's supported by an appropriate Tdm proposal to potentially help reduce the impact of the parking on this site.
Staff would also like to see how the proposal could be adjusted to preserve additional trees on the site.
The application is a staff level review. subject to call-up by the planning board, unless the parking reduction
I think we have specific metrics when it comes to our form-based code.
It would be a staff level review, and it would be subject to call-ups, so the Board could consider calling it up
they're not permanently deed, restricted as they are today, but they they do kind of fill in
what are we required for our 22 units? And that's how we arrived at a total parking requirement of 70.
But obviously we'd be implementing, you know, Tdm, policies and those kinds of things as well.
Maybe there is an opportunity to move trash and recycling to being closer to the the street itself.
So I think that we cannot underscore the importance of those significant trees on the site.
preserving an existing building that has embodied carbon in it that is relatively affordable.
putting a couple of ground floor units there potentially, that could be Ada accessible for one thing
the area 3, planning reserve urban services, study, update draft scenario evaluations
in 2022 City Council identified the initiation of a baseline urban services study for the area 3 planning reserve as a priority project
The Bvcp or Boulder Valley comp plan states that adequate urban facilities and services are a prerequisite for new development.
analysis specifically of water supply and infrastructure to ensure an inclusive decision-making process
Boulder does not have wastewater infrastructure within the planning reserve, and there's no existing stormwater master plan
So additional analysis is really required to understand on site and off site improvements as it relates to water, wastewater, etc
this effort does not identify the impacted flood plains and has not also identified wildlife and vegetation resources
And then, as we mentioned earlier stormwater and flood mitigation.
So my preliminary evaluations indicate on and off site improvements to the transmission and distribution.
it will help us determine if the existing water supply is sufficient to meet the needs of both the existing area
We have had initial conversations about the need to deal with wildfire risk on the fringe.
the incremental tax revenues to be most likely property tax, but also sales tax
it would convert either all or a portion of the planning reserve to Area 2, meaning that it is then eligible for annexation
what we thought the you know, the property tax revenue implications could be
Are you also looking at other models of how dry cities around the country currently conserve their water
identify some strategies related to energy, water, mobility, greenhouse gas, emission reductions
So is it right to assume that this whole, the way this process works is annexed.
But if the area were identified as area 2 and then eligible to be annexed into the city.
particularly based on some of the the recent State legislation changes and other code updates
when the city owns the land, that's an opportunity to do something that with affordable housing that you can't do on private property
We haven't expressly, you know, gotten into a lot of detail about funding mechanisms
It's probably not part of this urban services study because a lot of that would happen outside the boundaries of this area.
using our city-owned parcels when it is residential to obtain affordable housing outcomes that simply are not possible on private property
and I think the the transportation master plan
when I think about using the Tmp as kind of a baseline for how we would evaluate and put fiscal numbers on roadways
The Bvcp. I think, is a masterpiece, and it was unanimously adopted by the Council and the county.
the Tmp. Was unanimously adopted by Council. The Bvcp. I think, is a masterpiece