City Council is now executing a land grab by proposing the elimination of the four-party review-and-approval requirement for Area II land use.This is not a small change when City Council may allow itself to change Area III territory to Area II. Compromises proposed lead to the same loss of power for two of the four current partners, giving all voting rights to City Council and the city Planning Board. The county is pushed aside. Do we smile and say welcome to the wild, wild west, citified?
After reading Dinah McKay’s exposé of the theft of the Twin Lakes open space property from us Boulder citizens, “Help save Twin Lakes open space” (Daily Camera, March 12), I have become increasingly angry with our elected officials! It seems to me it’s about time to get rid of those people who supposedly work for us, but refuse to consider our needs and opinions.
At Twin Lakes, public scrutiny and action is needed. Do you know how Boulder County Housing Authority developers became owners of the 10-acre public property adjacent to the Twin Lakes open space at 6655 Twin Lakes Road? Was there any public review process preceding the transfer of this public land to BCHA developers? Was it a legitimate arm’s length real estate transaction?Boulder County purchased 6655 Twin Lakes Road on May 30, 2013, with public funds for $470,000. There was no public review process, public involvement or any public comment allowed before county commissioners deeded this publicly-owned property to BCHA developers on Oct. 1, 2015 for zero dollars down and a zero-interest promissory note due in 2025.
Description: Upcoming meetings regarding a proposal to annex and develop the 22-acre Hogan-Pancost properties at 5399 Kewanee Road and 5697 South Boulder Road with Residential Low – 2 (RL-2) zoning. A revised Concept Plan (LUR2016-00076) was received this week by the Department of Community Planning and Sustainability and includes an updated layout and proposal to build 115 attached and detached units (50% as permanently affordable housing) served by new streets and alleys (see weblink below).
A previous annexation request was submitted by the applicant in 2006, but was withdrawn. The previous Site Review (submitted in 2012) did not proceed to City Council following a recommendation of denial by Planning Board and considering the 2013 flood event in Boulder. The latest annexation application, LUR2015-00093, was submitted in 2015 and is still active despite no action by Planning Board in 2016. The applicant has requested Planning Board and City Council consideration of the Annexation and Concept Plan applications in coming months. The tentatively scheduled public meetings are listed below.
Meeting Location: City Council Chambers, Municipal Building
1777 Broadway, Boulder, CO 80306
- Thursday, May 4, 2017– 6 p.m.: Planning Board consideration of the Annexation and Initial Zoning application as well as the latest version of the Concept Plan.
- Tuesday, June 6, 2017- 6 p.m.: City Council consideration of the first reading of an ordinance to annex the properties. This is not a public hearing item; however, interested parties may address City Council at the beginning of the meeting under “Public Participation.”
- Tuesday, July 18, 2017- 6 p.m.: City Council public hearing on the Annexation and Initial Zoning application. The public will be invited to address the City Council as a part of the hearing. City Council will render a final decision on whether the property should be annexed.
Applicant: East Boulder Properties, LLC
Zoning: Boulder County ( RL-2, Residential Low- 2, proposed)
More Information: Questions or comments related to the project and process should be sent to Karl Guiler at email@example.com or 303-441-4236.
Questions or comments related to the project and process should be sent to Karl Guiler firstname.lastname@example.org or 303-441-4236.
Boulder County has been breaking Colorado open-records and open-meeting laws, a Gunbarrel resident alleged in a lawsuit she filed this week.
Kristin Bjornsen charged in her Boulder District Court complaint that Boulder County commissioners have engaged in a “persistent pattern of conducting improper closed-door discussions of public business, violating the procedural requirements for conducting an executive session.”
Bjornsen’s lawsuit accuses the county commissioners of “holding unauthorized executive sessions and then retroactively authorizing them after the closed-door meetings have occurred.”