Map / Planning Board / ← 2024-08-20 · 2024-09-03 →
Planning Board · regular
8-27-24 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 · unreviewed36 mentions; quotes verbatim from the captions or agenda, chosen by a model, unchecked by a personrecommendation on a petition to annex an approximately 4.8 6 acre area of land
this proposal involves 2 review processes which are the Bvcp land use map change and the annexation
This requires review of State statutes and Bvcp. Policies.
On the right you can see some of the existing and proposed transportation connections near the site.
a planned multi-use path is identified in the transportation master plan that's intended to connect to that future park space
The city is currently in the process of performing an urban services study, which is a preliminary step
The density bonus requires the Site Review criteria to be met, and for increasing percentages of affordable housing to be provided
So I'm going to move through some of these annexation agreement terms, and I have 3 slides like this.
provides for the future multi-use path consistent with the transportation master Plan
connections to the city's wastewater utility and payment of standard stormwater plan investment fees
So cash in lieu is not an option for meeting this requirement.
the requirements of the Rmx. 2 zoning district, which require certain affordable housing percentages to be met to achieve a higher overall density
The Bvcp land use map change is proposed to Update the existing land use map designation from public to Mxr.
our discussions on planned Area 3, was the bordering properties in that discussion
we would be conveying it to an affordable housing provider like Bhp habitat someone like that
we did an update to the inclusionary housing requirements last year, and as part of that
and it allows what is, you know, being touted as a middle income housing project
it is not a by right density. it's a density bonus that may be provided.
are all these, then, based on the transportation, master plan, or what?
The affordable housing is required as part of the site review for them to get the density bonus period.
The annexation requires 30% deed, restricted middle income units and will need another 10% to meet the requirement
This is our conceptual grading plan from the Annexation Review, and we drainage considerations were studied with respect to the available space
Going back to the Concept Plan Review, we looked at how we would fit stormwater features in around the perimeter of the site
There isn't even a Rec center in East Boulder.
Well, unfortunately, we know that planning area 3 may never be developed.
But the current inclusionary housing ordinance requires the developer to donate and then pay a differential
4 major issues this intersection, the density the annexation agreement and utilities, and the Boulder Valley comp plan.
Wastewater developed into or sent into the farmers, ditch
would increase capacity, which would induce more traffic and make it a yet more carbon area
we were just here with all of you talking about the access management parking parking project
Reviewing the proposed changes to the parking code and the neighborhood parking program.
trying to play that role on the airport working group
I'm not sure that the airport working group was the best example to use
and the Amps topic is quite different the same way that the East Boulder subcommunity plan process
and his role there was was quite different because he was being asked to provide his individual opinions
you did a great job of how you summarized the comments that we gave in that East boulder sub community plan working session.