Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout5 - Discussion, 2000 update to the BVCPMEMORANDUM TO: Members of Pianning Board FROM: Peter Pollock, Planning Director Ruth McHeyser, Acting Director of Long Range Planning Susan Richstone, Comprehensive Planner Louise Grauer, Long Range Planner DATE: Apri120, 2001 SUBJECT: Follow up to the April 12 discussion between the Board of County Commissioners and City Council regarding policies being considered as part ofthe Year 2000 update to the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP). Discussion ofrevisions to the BVCP policies related to jobs:housing balance, annexation, and transportation for later consideration by the County Commissioners. This item will be discussed under Items from the Planning Director. BACKGROUND On April 12, 2001, Council and tfie Board of County Commissioners had a dinner discixssion about the Commissioners' concems regazding the Comprehensive Plan policies and possible options for resolving them. There were three areas of concern: • Jobs: housing policies, • Annexation policies, and • Transportation policies. The specific concerns expressed by the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) prior to the April 12 dinner are summarized below. Jobs: Housing Balance The Commissioners concur with the city that some acYion needs to be taken to manage the existing and projected jobs:population imbalance. They feel that in particular, the excess employxnent opportunities within Boulder coupled with a tight housing market have spurred extensive residential development in other municipalities which in many cases do not have a concomitant jobs base. The county has seen significant traffic increases on arterials as well as on some collector streets, with the noise, air quality, and safety issues that accompany such growth, as commuters look for different and less congested access routes to Boulder. The Board believes a commirinent to some numeric jobs ceiling, range or ratios in a jobs:population policy will be more effective in driving implementation than policies that address the issues in descriptive terms only. Annexation The BOCC generally supports the proposed policy that the city more actively pursue annexation o£ fully developed Area II properties, but expressed concern regarding the conditions of annexation that the city has required for properties that do not gain development potential upon annexation. While the current policy clearly requires community benefit for properties with additional development potential, it does not apply to "substantially developed areas." What constitutes "substantially developed areas" is at issue. The Commissioners believe that in some cases the city asks for an incommensurate amount in exchange for annexation; in particular in cases where annexatiott does not increase the development potential (eg., vacant single family lots). The affordable housing benefit described as a positive for annexation consideration could discourage those owners from annexing and lead them to pursue development in the county. The Commissioners feel that parcels that aze fully developed under county zoning where the owner does not propose greater density or parcels that have the potential for only a single unit (either in the city or in the county) should be able to annex without having to provide an affordable housing component. In the future, if subdivision or greater density is proposed, the affordability factor could be required at that time. Regarding the proposed policy that, "Until such Area II properties have been annexed to the city, the county shall apply the city's development standards related to easement dedication, right-of-way dedication, and floodplain and wetlands regulations." The Commissioners feel there should be more flexibility to consider variations on a case-by-case basis. Transportation The Commissioners did not approve the City's 1996 Transportation Master Plan (TMP) summary as part of the last BVCP major update. They do not agree with some of the plan's fundamental assumptions and directives calling for decreased infrastructure and capacity improvements while at the same time facing a growing influx of automobile traffic from outside ofthe Valley. Because the TMP provides the direction for many of the proposed policy changes in Section b. Transportation, the Commissioners do not support several of the proposed changes. While they actively participate in and support efforts to expand citizen and employee use of altemate modes, they believe some of the numbers and projections presented in the 2000 Update suggest that several policy targets are going to be hard if not impossible to achieve. Potential Solutions As a result of the discussion, the Council and Commissioners conceptually agreed upon mutually acceptable policy revisions. These include: • Jobs: HousingBalance: Craft a new policy that establishes a numeric jobs: population goal. The number that was acceptable to the Commissioners was approximately 1:1. They agreed that Area III should be included in the calculation. 2 • Annexation: The annexation discussion was not quite as clear to staff as the discussions about jobs: housing and transportation. County staff checked in with the BOCC on annexation issues to get more clarity, and they stated the following: 1) developed parcels seeking annexation at no greater density than that allowed by the currant county zoning should riot have to provide the public benefit provisions unless and until such time as an application for greater development were submitted. 2) the county supports the annexation of "existing substantially developed parcels" (those parcels having no more development potential in the city than they do under their county zoning) to the extent the county supports the terms and conditions being proposed. 3) the county will attach great weight to the city's response to referrals for development of Area II lands in lieu of annexation, and may require that the landowner conform to one or more of the city's development standazds so that any future annexation will be consistent and compatible with the city's requirements. 4) vacant western fringe lands - more discussion is needed. • Trans~ortation: Agree to disagree. Remove reference to the county where the policy clearly is a city, not a county policy. RECOMMENDED POLICY REVISIONS The purpose of this discussion item is to refine the options outlined on Apri112 and develop specific policy language for Council to consider and forward to the County Commissioners. Below are the currently approved policies that relate to the issues followed by recommended changes. A. Jobs: Housing Balance Below are the three policies related to jobs: housing balance as currently approved by Planning Board and Council. The bold and strike-out sections compare the currently approved policies to the existing policies. Bold means language has been added; strike-out means it has been deleted. POLICY 1.13 GROWTH PROJECTIONS. In order to ensure that past and projected growth impacts can be better mitigated or avoided, and to maintain a desirable community size, the city shall set projections for population and employment a~&~ae}lirx~-tinits for the yeaz 2020. , , . Projected growth will be limited unless sufficient progress is made in reducing the cumulative negative growth impacts to an acceptable level and other significant community benefits can be achieved. POLICY 1.14 GROWTH REQUIREMENTS. The overall effect of urban growth must add significant value to the community, improving quality of life. The city will require development and redevelopment as a whole to provide significant community benefits and to maintain or improve environmental quality as a precondition for further 3 housing and employment growth. The large growth in employment relative to housing in recent years has led to a signiCcant imbalance between jobs and housing in the community and has resulted in increased in-commuting, traffic congestion and housing prices. Therefore, the city shall increase the amount of housing in the community by encouraging significant affordable housing bene£-ts at the time of annexation and encouraging mixed-use redevelopment that includes housing, and shall consider options to reduce future projected empioyment growth inciuding the substitution of affordable housing for non-residential growth where possible. POLICY 5.02 BALANCE OF EMPLOYMENT AND HOUSING. The city and county recognize that there is an imbalance between population and emplayment in the Boulder Valley, with jobs significantly exceeding the workforce residing in the Valley. Projections of future growth in the Boulder Valley indicate an increasing imbalance between population and employment. In order to reduce the magnitude of this imbalance in the future, the city intends to reduce potential nonresidential development while maintaining the city's economic ~n~ttstt~; base;-n~~ . It is the city's intent to accomplish this through a combination of changes to the Comprehensive Plan land use map, possible land acquisitions, regulatory incentives to develop housing in non-residential zoning districts , possible revisions to the city's nonresidential zoning categories, and rezoning appropriate areas. Recommended chanee: Set a jobs:housing ratio as a goal - delete proposed changes from Policy 1.14 (in bold) and add the following new policy: JOBS:HOUSING BALANCE. The large growth in employment relative to housing in recent years has led to a significant imbalance between jobs and housing in the community and has resulted in increased in-commuting, daytime population and a corresponding increase in traffic congestion and housing prices. As of 2000, the jobs: population ratio in Areas I and II of the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Pian was approximately .96:1 (105,700 jobs: 110,000 population). If tBe trends were to continue, the ratio was projected to worsen to 1.25:1. It is the city and county's intent that the jobs:population ratio shall not exceed 1:1. This will be accomplished through a combination of actions that will increase the amount of housing in the city and reduce the amount of potential commercial growth. Implications of Prouosed Policv Chanee: Attachment A contains a chart showing various combinations of decreases in the amount of projected job growth and increases in projected housing growth that would be required to achieve a jobs: population ratio of 1:1. 4 B. Annexation Below are the policies related to annexation as currently approved by Planning Board and Council. The bold and strike-out sections compare the currently approved policies to the existing policies. Bold means language has been added; strike-out means it has been deleted. POLICY 1.20 ANNEXATION. The policies in regard to annexation to be pursued by the city are; (a) Annexation will be required before adequate facilities and services are furnished; (b) The city will actively pursue annexation of county enclaves, Area II properties along the western boundary, and other fully developed Area II properties. "County enclave" means an unincorporated area of land entirely contained within the outer boundary of the city. Terms of annexation will be based on the amount of development potential as described in (c) and (e) of this policy. Until such Area II properties have been annexed to the city, the county shall apply the city's development standards related to easement dedication, right-of-way dedication, and floodplain and wetlands regulations. ~ (c)(~Annexation of existing, substantially developed areas will be offered in a manner and on terms and conditions which respect existing lifestyles and densities, and the city will expect these azeas to be brought to city standacds only where necessary to protect the health and safety of the residents of the subject area or of the city. The ciry, in developing annexation plans of reasonable wst, may phase new facilities and services. The counry, which now has jurisdiction over these azeas, shall be a suppor[ive partner with the city in annexation efforts. (d)(e) In order to reduce the negative impacts of new development in the Boulder Valley, the city shall annex Area II land with significant development or redevelopment potential only on a very limited basis. Such annexations will be supported only if the annexation provides a special opportunity or benefit to the city. For annexation considerations, emphasis shall be given to the beneflts achieved from the creaHon of permanently affordable housing. Provision of the following may also be considered a special opportuniry or benefit: , receiving sites for transferrable development rights (TDRs), reduction of future employment projections, land and/or facilities for public purposes over and above that requued by the city's land use regulations, environmental preservation, or other amenities determined by the city to be a special opportunity or benefit. (e)(~ Annexation of substantially developed properties that allow for some additional residential units or commercial square footage will be required to demonsnate community benefit commensurate with their impacYS. Further, annexations that resolve an issue of public health without creating additional development impacts should be encouraged. (~~ There will be no annexation of areas outside the boundaries of the Boulder Valley Planning Area, with the possible exception of annexation of acquired open space. (g)(fj Area II is anticipated to become part of the city within the planning period. Area III is not anticipated to become part of the city within the planning period. However, publicly owned property located in Area III and intended to remain in Area III may be annexed [o the ciry if the property requires less than a full range of urban services or requires inclusion under ciry jurisdiction for health, welfaze and safety reasons. Recommended chanaes: Recommended changes provided by County staff are shown below in bold. (b) The city will actively pursue annexation of county enclaves, Area II prope[ties along the western boundary, and oUter fully developed Area II properties. "Counry enclave" means an unincorporated areaoflandentirelycontainedwithintheouterboundaryofthecity. Termsofannexationwillbebased on the amount of development potential as described in (c) and (e) of this policy and will strive to provide services at costs considered reasonable by both the city and property owner. Applications made to the county For development of enclaves and Area II lands in lieu of annexation shall be referred to the city for review and comment. The county shall attach great weight to the city's response and may require that the landowner conform to one or more of the city's development standards so that any future annexat3on into the city will be consistent and compatible wtth the city's requirements". (c) (b) Annexation of existing, substantially developed areas will be offered in a manner and on terms and conditions which respect existing lifestyles and densities, and t}te ciry will expect these areas to be brought to city standards only where necessary to protect the health and safety of the residents of the subject area or of the city. Existing, substantlally developed areas are those areas having no more development potential in the city than they do under their county zoning designation. The city, in developing annexation plans ofreasonable cost, may phase new facilities and services. The county, which now has jurisdiction over these areas, shall be a supportive par[ner with the city in annexation efforts to the extent the county supports the terms and conditions being proposed. (d)(e) In order to reduce the negative impacts of new development in the Boulder Valley, the city shall annex Area II land with significant development or redevelopment potential only on a very limited basis. Such annexations will be supported only if the annexation provides a special opportunity or benefit to the city. For annexation considerations, emphasis shall be given to the benefits achieved from the creation of permanently affordable housing. Provision of the following may also be considered a special opportunity or benefit: receiving sites for transferrable development righu (TDRs), reduction of future employment projections, land and/or facilities for public purposes over and above that required by the city's land use regulations, environmental preservation, or other amenities determined by the city to be a special opportunity or benefit. Parcels proposed for annexation that are seeking no greater density than that allowed by the current county zoning designation would not have to provfde the public benefit provisions unless and until such time as an application for greater development were submitted. C. Transportation The transportation policies currently approved by Planning Board and City Council are completely new. They would replace the existing BVCP transportation policies. Below aze the currently approved policies with reference to the county removed (strike-out) where the policy clearly is a city, not a county policy. POLICY 6.01 ALL-MODE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM. The Boulder Valley will be served by an integrated all-mode hansportation system. The ciry ~p shall work together ro develop a balanced transportation system including completed ne[works for each mode and safe and convenient connections between modes. The network of public rights-of-way and easements that create travel corridors are the primary infrastructure for allmodesandwillbemanagedandexpandedtobalancetheiruseamongallmodes. Pedestrianffavelisinvolved in every trip and is the basis for all other modes of travel. Improvements to the travel comdors network will be made in a manner that preserves or improves [he capacity or efficiency of all modes. POLICY 6.02 REDUCTION OF SINGLE OCCUPANCY AUTO TRIPS. The ciTy ~ will pursue the quality of life goals of residents by promoting greater use of altematives to single occupancy automobile travel, with the objective of achieving "no long-term growth in traffid' through the yeaz 2020 within the Boulder Valley, while providing for increased mobility. POLICY 6.03 SYSTEM COMPLETION. The city and county will sirive to make bicycling, walking, and transit more convenient and safe by completing th8 systems for these modes and providing seamless connections between the systems developed in the city and counry. The city will provide a combination of on-street and off-street bicycle and pedestrian facilities to accommodate a variety of user types and to provide users with a choice of the type of environment in which to walk or bike. The city will seek to cooperate with RTD to incrementally increase the community-based, high-frequency transit system in the designated multimodal corridors. The city and county will seek to cooperate with RTD to develop high quality, high frequency transit service between the communities of the region and between centers of employment and housing. POLICY 6.04 MULTIMODAL STRATEGIES. The city ~ will work cooperatively with neighboring communities and other entities such as the University of Colorado, Boulder Valley School District, and private employers to design collaborative multimodal shategies for achieving the desired objective of limiting traffic growth while accommodating increases in anticipated traveL This will include developing and implementing travel demand management programs reflecting an integrated approach including marketing, education, pass programs, improved facilities and new services. As part of the city~s shategy For growth to pay its own way, new developments will be required to consider and include travel demand management approaches such as the Eco Pass, pazking cash out, pazking pricing, employer trip reduction programs, flex-time and telecommuting in their efforts ta reduce the Vehicle Miles of Travel (VMT) produced by the development. POLICY 6.05 ACCESSIBILITY. The city and county will develop a balanced all-mode uansportation system that provides transportation choices, services and facilities for mobility-impaired persons, as well as youth, elderly, and low-income persons. POLICY 6.06 MUI,TIMODAL INVESTMENT. To protect previous investments and ensure efficient use of existing travel corridors, the city axd-eennfp shall prioritize their investrnent first to maintenance and safety improvements of the existing modal systems. Seeond priority is given to capacity additions for the non-automotive modes and efficiency improvements for existing road facilities such as adding signals, turn lanes, and signage that increase levels of service without adding iluough-lanes. The ciry will focus its efficiency and capacity invesiment within the identified multimodal corridors of the TMP and this plan. The city will work cooperatively with the county and neighboring communities to create multimodal corridors linking the communities and linking Boulder County to the region. POLICY 6.07 CONGESTION. The city will increase the efficiency of the travel corridor system, develop the non-automotive systems, promote innovative shategies and implement travel demand management strategies to limit the increase in congestion while accommodating the expected increase in uavel. The city ~ shall promote the greater use of alternatives to single-occuQancy automobile travel with the objective of limiting the extent and duration of congestion to 20 percent of the roadway system within the Boulder Valley while providing for increased mobility. POLICY 6.08 TRANSPORTATION IMPACT. Traffic impacts from a proposed development that cause unacceptable community or environmental impacts or unacceptable reduction in level of service shall be mitigated. All development will include strategies to reduce the vehicle miles traveled (VMT) generated by the development. New development will be designed and built to be multimodal and pedestrian-oriented. Strategies to reduce the VMT generated by new development will include all modes of travel as well as travel management programs such as the Eco Pass. The design of new development will especially focus on pcoviding continuous modal systems through the development, on connecting these systems to those surrounding the development and on providing connections between the modes. POLICY 6.09 MULTIMODAL DEVELOPMENT. The Vansportation system will accommodate the planned land use pattern, which includes higher densities and mixed use in the core area and activity centers, a variety of densities in the fringe azeas, compact community size, and the possibility of one or more city auto-free zones in the future. Three intermodal centers will be developed or maintained in the downtown, tbe Boulder Valley Regional Center, and on the university's main campus to anchor these three activiry centers to regional transit connections and to serve as hubs for connecting pedesirian, bicycle and local transit to regional services. The land along multimodal corridors will he designated as multimodal transportation zones when uansit service is provided on that comdor. The ciry sha11 consider parking maximums in multimodal transportation zones which aze expected to provide a higher level of design, accommodation for non-automotive modes and travel management programs such as the Eco Pass in exchange for parking requirement reductions and incentives for mixed use development. POLICY 610 MANAGING PARKING SUPPLY. The city will actively manage parking supply in the community consistent with the desire to reduce single-occupant vehicle travel and limit congestion. Parking needs will be accommodated in the most efficient way possible wi[h the least number of new parkatg spaces. The city will promote parking reductions through pazking ma~cimums, shared parking, pazking districts and parking management programs where appropriate and taking into account impacts to surrounding areas. POLICY 6.11 NEIGHBORHOOD INTEGRATION. The city and county shall sirive to protect and improve the quality of life within neighborhoods while at the same time facilitating the movement of vehicular, bike and pedestrian traffic. Improving access and safety within neighborhoods by controlling vehicle speeds wil( be given priority over vehicle mobility. Transportation actions will not be implemented solely to shifr a problem or impact from one location to anothec Neighborhood needs and goals will be balanced against the community benefit of a transportation improvement. POLICY 6.12 INTEGRATED DESIGN. The city and counry shall design all transportation facilities to contribute to a positive and attractive visual image and the desired community character. POLICY 6.13 IMPROVING AIR QUALITY. The ciry will develop a highty connected and continuous transportation system for all modes, including a grid-based transportation pattern allowing for convenient and efficient travel by all modes. The city will look for opportunities to complete missing links of the current transportation grid through the use of area transportation plans and at the time of parcel redevelopment. The city and county shall design the transportation system to minimize air pollution by promoting the use of non-automotive transportation modes, reducing auto traffic, maintaining acceptable traffic flow, and siting facilities so they do not block air drainage corridors. The city and county will cooperate with other entities that make transportation decisions to achieve these ends. POLICY 6.14 NOISE ABATEMENT. The ciry and county shall design and conshuct new hansportation facilities so as Co miuimize noise levels. NEXT STEPS Planning Board's recommended policy changes will be forwarded to the City Council for their discussion on the item on May 1. The results of Planning Board's and Council's direction on policy changes will be forwarded to the County Commissioners. The Commissioners will consider policy revisions when they hold their public hearing on the BVCP policies. Following this, public hearings befare the other three signatory bodies- Council, Planning Board, and County Planning Commission- will be scheduled to consider any changes approved by the Commissioners. ATTACHMENT A Jobs: Poputation Ratio Under Different Build-out Scenarios Current Comp Plan compared to Further Reducing Projected Jobs Pro osed Com Plan Chai es Year 2000 Current Proposed Low Job Medium Job Htgh Job Policy and Comp Plan Reduction Reduction Reduction Trends 2020 2020* 2020** 2020*** 2020 TotalJobs 105,740 151,270 147,038 142,959 137,720 134,018 New Jobs 45,530 41,298 37,219 31,980 28,278 Dwelling Units 45,880 50,740 52,348 52,348 52,348 52,348 Total 110,080 121,500 125,279 125,279 125,279 125,279 Population New 11,420 15,199 15,199 15,199 15,194 Popularion ~ .tvlalPop Itat~o 9~z ':: I~5 , i: J a7 J I4 ': t t~i 1~7 ;; `~aT&7I ' Area III pop. 4500 4500 4500 4500 4500 4500 Total 114,580 126,000 129,779 t29,779 129,779 129,779 Popularion Areas I, II, III Jobs area III 1334 1334 t334 1334 1334 Total jobs, 152,604 148,372 144,293 139,054 135,352 Areas I, II, III .Te~bs~o~ i~it~o ~~ :,;: 12;1 ~ 1A~ i 11; '? ~ A7 l~14 `; (fu~~ ~ ~~, ITL) For jobs: population ratio of 1:1, additional population and ~ Nelling units wo uid need to increase by: Population 26,604 18,593 14,514 9,275 5,573 needs to be increased by: Dwelling Units 11,321 7912 6176 3947 2372 need to be increased by: * Further reduces 4,079 projected jobs from proposed Comp Plan ** Further reduces 9,318 projected jobs from proposed Comp Plan **' Further reduces 13,020 projected jobs from proposed Comp Ptan S:~PLAN~PB-ITEMS~IvIEMOS~xnbocc comp plan policies.wpd 10 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Board FROM: Peter Pollock, Planning Director Ruth McHeyser, Director of Long Range Planning DATE: Apri120, 2001 SUBJECT: April 26 Planning Board meeting - Agenda Item 6A City Council held a public hearing on the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan on April 17 and continued the item to Apri124 for deliberation and decision. Therefore, there are no advanced materials for this item. At the Apri126 meeting, staff will provide a presentation summarizing City Council's actions.