Annexation by Vote
The Initiative
Fact Sheet
Affected Parcels
Parcel Map
BVCP Q&A
Council Positions
2006 Initiative Effort
Affected Parcels | Show Menu |
Home >> Annexation by Vote >> Affected Parcels
At the March 20, 2006 City Council meeting, the City staff presented a very detailed discussion of the potential effects of the Annexation by Vote Initiative, including a discussion of the specific parcels affected. We then analyzed the Staff’s list of “impacted properties”. They are listed in Attachment F of the Agenda Item from the 3/20/06 Council meeting (PDF).
Based on the Staff’s discussion, we amended our original proposal to exempt additional properties from the Initiative's vote requirement, including those that filed annexation petitions between January 1, 2000, and January 1, 2006. This significantly reduced the number of affected parcels. The Staff’s list and our discussion of these properties as well as some others is below.
Summary of Discussion on Specific Parcels Affected by the Initiative
Based on the information on the specific parcels that is summarized below, we have tried to assign some probability to each parcels on the City's list ever ending up on the ballot:
- 2 are highly likely (CU South, Hogan-Pancost),
- 2 are likely or possible in the near future (Palmos, 3017 Kalmia), and
- 4 are unlikely or in the distant future (4929 N. Broadway, 0 Twin Lakes Road, 3016 Kalmia, 6400 Arapahoe).
The rest of the parcels identified by the City staff should not have to be voted on, for the reasons we outline below in the discussions about the individual parcels, unless some Council decides to promote more development in what are now predominantly rural areas, in which case a vote would be appropriate.
The only major immediate uncertainty is whether the Council will want to annex portions of Area III Planning Reserve (some hundreds of acres east of US 36 and north of Jay Road) or Valmont Butte, and whether the County Commissioners, County Planning Commission and the City Planning Board will agree to this. If that happens, the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan encourages that such annexations to be over 40 acres, which would limit the votes to a very few in number, though of great significance.
Video overview of major affected parcels
Detailed Analysis of Specific Parcels on the City's List
| Parcel 1 |
CommentThis is a restaurant, parking lot, and warehouses, with rental cubicles for small businesses. The owners were approached (apparently a number of times) by Staff during the North Boulder annexation in the early 90’s to request that they annex, and they declined. There is no good reason for them to annex unless they desire a more intense use, which apparently they don’t. | ||||
| Parcel 2 |
CommentThis is a church built on 4.78 acres, per the County Assessor’s records, and so would be exempt from the requirements for a vote. | ||||
| Parcel 3 |
CommentThis property does not have contiguity with the City limits, and thus at the moment does not meet state requirements for annexation. It would make more sense to allow this property to develop in the County and sign an agreement to annex if requested, consistent with the neighboring area, unless a more intense use is proposed. | ||||
| Parcel 4 |
CommentThis property is just west of the Harper Hollow 30 acre annexation that occurred a few years ago, had the opportunity to annex at that time and declined. Apparently, the owners have now decided to pursue annexation, but are only at the concept plan stage. Conceivably, it could be annexed by this November. | ||||
| Parcel 5 |
CommentThere is no reason that the City should annex this cemetery and its office, a converted residence. Apparently there is some undeveloped land to the east of the actual cemetery that might be annexable. | ||||
| Parcel 6 |
CommentThis property submitted an annexation petition since January 1, 2000, and thus would be exempt from the requirement for a vote. | ||||
| Parcel 7 |
CommentThis property submitted an annexation petition since January 1, 2000, and thus would be exempt from the requirement for a vote. | ||||
| Parcel 8 |
CommentThis property submitted an annexation petition since January 1, 2000, and thus would be exempt from the requirement for a vote. | ||||
| Parcel 9 |
CommentThis is the BMC building material store and yard. There is no reason that this would come to a vote unless a major change of use was desired, and the location is so remote that an increase in intensity of use is most likely undesirable from a planning perspective. | ||||
| Parcel 10 |
CommentThis is a residence on the North side of Baseline, just east of some Open Space, with llamas on their property. There is no reason that the City would want to annex this property for development. If the owners wanted City utilities because of water table concerns, they could annex via Gapter Road immediately to their east. If the City required, as a condition of annexation, a conservation easement that would prevent additional development, this property would be exempt from the vote requirement. | ||||
| Parcel 11 |
CommentThese are a number of large houses on the south side of Baseline whose huge back yards extend south toward the East Boulder Community Center. The back yards are in Area III, and the Planning Board recently turned down a III to II change request. There is no reason for the City to annex these properties without requiring conservation easements that would prevent additional development; if this occurred, these properties would be exempt from the vote requirement. | ||||
| Parcel 12 |
CommentThis is the Hogan Pancost project. This would be major new development at the edge of the City. It has numerous environmental concerns and would significantly impact the surrounding properties. We feel that it should go to a vote of the citizens. | ||||
| Parcel 13 |
CommentThis property has huge implications for the future of Boulder, and whatever arrangements the City works out with CU should meet with voter approval before proceeding. | ||||
| Parcel 14 |
CommentThis mobile home park is already fully developed, as far as we know. There have been discussions in the past about the City providing utility service to this property. If it were annexed at current use and density, it would be exempt under our proposed language. |
Detailed Analysis of Parcels Not on the City's List
CommentThe Area III Planning Reserve (east of US 36 and north of Jay Road) is some hundreds of acres north of Jay Road and east of US 36, but was not included on the City’s list. Opening this area up for development (e.g. the Palmos proposal) is a major land use decision, and we feel that the citizens should have a direct say via a vote. At least for the moment, it would require four body review under the BVCP for any portion of it to moved into Area II and be eligible for annexation, but that could change. The City owns a large area in the Planning Reserve that is intended to be used for a park sometime in the future. The City's parcel would be exempt from the requirement for a vote under the Initiative. | |||||
CommentThis parcel of 23 acres, located at 2815 Jay Road, is in the Area III Planning Reserve, and has been proposed by the owner as a site for a big box retail development and some housing. As it is in the the Planning Reserve, it would require four body review under the BVCP to be eligible for annexation, and a vote under the Initiative to approve such an annexation. | |||||
CommentValmont Butte is a group of parcels of over 100 acres, with address at 3000 63rd Street, just south of Valmont Road, east of Butte Mill Road and north of the Valmont power plant lake. It is owned by the City and is in Area III, but is not in the Planning Reserve. Because the Council recently abandoned its proposed uses of this parcel for a fire training center and bio-solids composting facility in the face of opposition to such industrial uses, we feel that it would be completely inappropriate for the Council to then pursue annexation for private sale for similar uses without a citizen vote. The City staff memo of March 20, 2006 indicates that the City is pursuing a sale that would have the property stay unincorporated, i.e. would not be annexed to the City. If this occurs, presumably it would develop in the County (or possibly be preserved), which would eliminate it from any requirement for a vote. | |||||
CommentThe proposed Gapter Road annexation consists of approximately 28 homes on the north side of Baseline, just west of Cherryvale, and just east of Parcel #10. These properties are pursuing annexation to get City utility service because of water table concerns. They would be exempt from the Initiative vote requirement presuming they were annexed at current density, both because they are fully developed and because they have submitted a petition within our proposed time frame. |
| ||||||
Last Modified 10/5/06 7:08 PM