[bouldercouncilhotline] Hotline: FW: comments on 2011 BVCP

[kohls at bouldercolorado.gov]

Sender: Lisa Morzel

From: lisa morzel [mailto:lisamorzel at gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2011 8:48 AM
To: Becker, KC; Council
Subject: Re: comments on 2011 BVCP

thanks, KC, for the catch--you are correct--I meant that it is unlikely that the airport will remain a use into the long term for several reasons:
1) continuing conflict over the airport surrounding residential uses--while many of the conflicts have been resolved, continued residential growth in the airport area will result into increased conflicts.

2)  we need additional residential designated areas in Boulder to resolve to some degree the incredible imbalance between jobs and housing.  We cannot ship our workers into Boulder forever and at some point, especially for our base jobs, it will not be economically feasible for individuals to commute into Boulder to earn the same wages they could in their home towns.

3)  we have a 20-yr contract with FAA and should have a long-term perspective of this important parcel.  At some point, the airport should be converted into residential use

4)  lots of other small airports exist around Boulder and there could be consolidation

Lisa
On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 8:07 AM, Becker, KC <BeckerK at bouldercolorado.gov<mailto:BeckerK at bouldercolorado.gov>> wrote:
thanks lisa.
below you say, "and it seems unlikely (to me) that an airport use in that area is time limited." do you meant that it seems likely that an airport use is time limited? or are you saying that the area will be an airport perpetually?

KC Becker
Boulder City Council Member
________________________________________
From: lisa morzel [lisamorzel at gmail.com<mailto:lisamorzel at gmail.com>]
Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2011 12:21 AM
To: Council
Subject: comments on 2011 BVCP

Dear Colleagues,

As I will not be there tomorrow evening, I have prepared a few comments on 2011 BVCP proposed changes:

1.     Area III-planning reserve:

a.     Keep 4-body review-this has served the city of Boulder well and disciplined the type and amount of growth permitted and has maintained a very high threshold for development.  Currently we have 2 developer-driven proposals that serves the particular individual's vision or monetary needs but have very little value to broad community goals.  With all the remaining underdeveloped parcels of land we have in Area 1 plus Area II, a proposal for development in Area III-PR would have to meet an extremely high threshold that would serve broad community values/needs.

b.     Establish the elements that would form the basis for the base-line study.  This is critical to understand what the real cost of growth in the Planning Reserve would cost the taxpayers of Boulder: roads, water, police and fire services, schools, additional transportation; cost and implications of expanding our current built footprint.

2.     Question on VMT:  thanks for the info on the VMT goals and the estimated VMT averages for additional year.  It's comforting to see that while the 1994 vmt model estimated was 2.44 million miles, the estimated VMT increased to 2.77 million in 2001 and decreased to 2.5 million in 2009.  Can we make any solid connection between improvements in transit, bike lanes/paths, more workplace flexibility, etc. that could be tracked with the decrease in VMT from 2001 to 2009.  How much growth in additional residential units and jobs occurred from late 2009 to 2010 that would allow a 2010 VMT estimate of 2.5 million miles?

3.     Precautionary Principle:  I personally like the idea of including this on the BVCP and would like it considered for this update.  As it has not been discussed in this go-round, how could we do that now at this late date, if there is a majority of council who would look favorably on inclusion of this fundamental and important principle?

4.     Goss-Grove:

a.     Maintain same boundary as proposed by staff.

b.     Concerned about preserving small houses along Arapahoe.

c.      Change to Mixed Density Residential to best maintain the current residential neighborhood.  Currently, most of the multi-family properties have maximized their redevelopment potential while many of the single family homes present have been or are being renovated with some expansion.

d.     Boulder still needs single family detached dwelling units and Goss-Grove is an established mixed residential neighborhood where single-family units still thrive.  We should maintain this and keep stability in this fragile neighborhood.

e.     Mixed Density Residential designation would also allow more flexibility for single family units in the ability to renovate with modest expansion and potential of OAU's.

5.     Airport:  This is in Area I and as such currently has in place along Airport Road the needed infrastructure in place that could be extended into the site.  Converting this to a Light Industrial designation without more discussion of a long-term vision is premature and something I would not support tomorrow.  I personally think it should eventually be designated residential and should actually be the place we think of as our "planning reserve" where the city, if necessary, should expand into rather than the current Area III Planning Reserve, which currently lacks the necessary infrastructure for future development.  The city at least should have a long-term vision for that property and it seems unlikely (to me) that an airport use in that area is time limited.

6.     Other properties considered for changes:  I am okay with suggested changes as proposed.

thanks

Lisa
--
please note that my e-mail address has changed to lisamorzel at gmail.com<mailto:lisamorzel at gmail.com><mailto:lisamorzel at gmail.com<mailto:lisamorzel at gmail.com>>





--
please note that my e-mail address has changed to lisamorzel at gmail.com<mailto:lisamorzel at gmail.com>