Minutes - Planning Board - 10/25/2001APPROVED JANUARY 10, 2002
~ CITY OF BOULDER
PLANNING BOARD SUMMARY MINUTF,S
October 25, 2001
Council Chambers Room, Municipal Building
1777 Broadway, 6:00 p.m.
The following are the minutes of the October 25, 2001 City of Boulder Planning Board meeting. A
permanent set of these minutes is kept in Central Records, and a verbatim tape recording of the
meeting is maintained for a period of seven years in Central Records (telephone: 303-441-3043).
BOARD PRESENT:
Macon Cowles
A1 Gunter, Chair
Thom Krueger
Tina Nielsen, Vice Chair
Beth Pommer
BOARD ABSENT:
Alan O'Hashi
Mark Ruzzin
• STAFF PRESENT:
Bob Cole, Director of Land Use Review
Steve Durian, Transportation Engineer
Don Durso, Associate Planner
Jerry Gordon, Deputy City Attorney
Neil Holthouser, Planner
Gary Kretschmer, Planning and Zoning
Maty Lovrien, Board Secretary
Cindy Pieropan, Housing Planner
Peter Pollock, Planning Director
1. CALL TO ORDER
Chair A1 Gunter declared a quorum at 6:05 p.m., and the following business was conducted.
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
There were no minutes to approve.
3. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION
Jane Monson, 721 Iris Avenue: She urged the Planning Board to accelerate the review of the
amendment to Boulder's land use regulations that addresses building setbacks when an accessory
structure exceeds a certain size threshold. She submitted pictures ofthe foundation ofthe garage that
~
s:\plan\pb-ilems~ninutes\011025 min
City af Boulder
Planning Board Minutes
• October 25, 2001
Page 2
is being built at the back of her property line. She said that the structure will be larger thau the
neighbor's house and is located only nine feet from her rear property line. She is concerned that
another adjacent lot may be redeveloped the same way. She said that her neighbors at 731 Iris
Avenue submitted a letter concerning this issue.
Bill Nagel, 711 Iris Avenue: He asked that the Planning Board accelerate the discussion of the
setback issue for accessory structures to Phase I of the Land Use Regulation revisions. He said that
nothing can be done about the accessory building being constructed adj acent to his property, but he
m•ged the Board to address this issue because the neighbors could be impacted more if another
adjacent lot is redeveloped. He suggested that in times past an accessory building was considered
to be much smaller than what is being built today, and the three-Foot setback would not have been
an impact to the neighbors.
Christian Griffith, 405 Valley View Drive: He said that he has a house that is zoned low density
residential, but properties immediately to the north and across the street are zoned high-density
residential. He said that his ability to use his property is limited--it cannot be used as a single family
residence because of the density in the area, and with the current market price for these homes and
the occupancy limit, it would not be a wise investment far an investor. He proposed that the Board
either increase the zoning so that at least fonr people could legally occupy the residence, create a
sunset clause on the surrounding non-conforming buildings to terminate the use, or terminate the use
• immediately if there are a certain number of violations that accrue against those buildings over a
certain period of time.
Deb Lavender, 1045 llth Street: She said that she agrees with what Christian Griffith said. She
said that the property in question is a six-bedroom house, but legally only three tenants are allowed.
She said that the house has a negative cash flow, and the value of the property is considerably less
than the purchase price because of the occupancy limit.
4. DISCUSSION OF DISPOSITIONS, PLANNING BOARD CALL-UPS
The Board had no comments on the Planning Board dispositions (9th and Canyon Civic Building
and the Holiday Drive-in Theater Site). M. Cowles commented on the county referrals and asked
why the city receives such referrals. B. Cole said that some county referrals may have potential
impacts because the land is adj acent to Open Space, and this gives the city the opportunity to make
comments to address these impacts, or the parcel may be annexed into the city in the future, and the
city can provide comments to the county to approve a development in such a way that when it is
annexed into the city it will not be non-conforming to the city's regulations.
5. MATTERS FROM THE PLANNING BOARD, PLANNING DIRECTOR, AND CTTY
ATTORNEY
(This item was discussed at the end of the meeting.) A. Gunter mentioned that the Board will
meet jointly with the Transportation Advisory Board on November 27 and asked that the Board give
.
s:\plan\pb-items~minutes\011025 min
City oP Boulder
Planning Board Minutes
~ OcYober 25, 2001
Page 3
him agenda items or suggestions on how the meeting should be strucriired. P. Pollock mentioned that
the celebration of the SOth anniversary of the Planning Department wi11 occur on November 7; he
distributed the final questions Yhat will be asked of applicants far the Planning Board; and he
discussed calendar issues and firture agenda itams.
6. STUDY SESSION ITEMS
A. Study session regarding 2001 and 2002 proposed Land Use Regulation
amendments.
B. Cole explained that minor changes to the Land Use Regulations are made oi~ an ongoing basis,
and major items that tend to be quite substantive in nature are brought to the Board far better
clarification. G. Kretachmer said that the purpose of the study session is to address whether the
phasing schedule proposed is satis£actory; whether there are specific amendments that shouid be
added; whether the phasing or priority of some amendments should be changed; and whether some
amendments should be deleted from the proposed list. M. Cowles suggested that in the future staff
present the context within which the change occurs, what the problems are that the change addresses,
and the solution. The bulleted items represent comments made by individual Board members on each
of the proposed Land Use Regulation amendments:
Phase I- Major Work Items
• A. Demolition of Structures (Section 10-13-2 and 10-13-23, B.R.C.) -Historic Preservation.
Present a diagram regarding the retained exterior walls to provide more description.
Change the dafinition of a demolition far a nonhistaric building that is more restrictive
(should there be a need for an allocation for a housing uniC, should Plant Investment Fees
(PIFs) be paid, and should fhere be an affardable housing payment because of the loss of the
small, affardable unit). B. Cole suggested that this amendment be treated separately; a
broader discussion about "pop-ups" and "scrape-offs" will be conducted at the November
15 Board meeting.
The 180-day stay period is unreasonable. G. Kretschmer said that the 180-day period is a
time period in which to landmark a structure; if the decision is made not to landmark a
structure, the process takes much less time.
There is a]ot of wasted energy when the structures are simply demolished and hauled to a
landSll. Place a condition on demolitions to require Yhat certain elements be recycled. G.
Kretschmer said that one of the major components of the Greenpoints Program, applicable
now to residential structures and applicable to nonresidental buildings in the future, is the
recycling of materials.
.
s:\plan\pb-items~ninutes\011025min
City of Boulder
• Planning Board Minutes
October 25, 2001
Page 4
The recycling component does not fit this particular part ofthe code for historic preservation.
P. Pollock said that the recycling of demolition materials is under study by a group
currently--in particular, whether to require recycling if there is not a market for the building
materials.
B. Transportation Related Issues
S. Durian discussed the problems that staff is trying to solve, such as ambiguous criteria for
Transportation Demand Management (TDM). He said that in some cases the ability to require a
TDM solution on a site is lost because the solutions that make sense for that site are much more in
cost than the transportation impacts of the development. He suggested that a point system ar dollar
amount be implemented that will be based on the impacts of the transportation to the site. He said
that this is a short-term solution, but a long-term, city-wide TDM solution is being shidied.
There are two kinds of problems (city-wide issue and solution to new development which
is creating a significant part ofthe need for expensive transportation improvements). We can
require things to a greater extent with new development than we can with existing
development, and we need to be much stronger with a permanant approach with any new
development to minimize the traffic.
~ • Present the tools that are being reviewed to address the small problems and present charts,
along wi~th some of Yhe community-wide TDM strategies, so that we can make sure YhaY what
we are requiring for new development is not counterproductive with respect to a city-wide
TDM strategy.
• A city-wide TDM system can be made to work better and leverage efficiencies in a way that
cannot be done when addressing a singie development.
• Require a maximum number of parking spaces instead of minimum parking requirements.
Make sure that a developer is not allowed to build more parking spaces than is required.
• Requiring a TDM for "by-right" projects is impartant.
• Be cautious about taking away so much parking that it impacts the surrounding area. Be
cautious about removing parking in all areas because there is a need for long-term parking.
B. Cole said that maximum parking might be considered for certain areas but might not be
as restrictive for short-term, retail parking.
• Be very specific about the programs that address TDMs.
•
s:\plan\pb-items~minutes\O l 1025 min
City of Boulder
~ Planning Board Minutes
October 25, 2001
Page 5
Ensure that parking spaces are not swapped for additional square footage in both residential
and nonresidential uses.
Structured parking is remarkably inefFcient, wastefi~l, and has very few redeeming values.
The city would be better of.f with less development with surface parking because eliminating
parking in many cases will not solve the problem, in particular, the short-term parking. The
goal is to reduce the percentage of trips compared to what that particular use would normally
generate (for instance, offering an amount of money to each employee to not use the space
which would require fewer parking places).
• Do not provide structured parking anywhere north of Valmont and south ofBaseline because
it would increase the density at the edge of the city instead of the middle of the city and
would create more traffic.
• Collect appropriate fees or a true cost of growth fee from developers for transportation.
• Struchired parking is one of the few tools to accommodate the driver, to the extent the car
is used, without destroying the pedestrian places.
• C. Restaurant/Tnyern Size Limitntions in BMS-X Zones (Section 9-3.1-1(b)).
D. Durso said that this change in restaurant size could potentially involve all the BMS-X zones or
it could be restricted to the Hill area. He said that prior to 1997, the Hill allowed restaurants larger
than 1,500 square feet, and an economic study recenUy conducted showed that the square footage
limitation on restaurants discourages larger, upscale restaurants because a staff level use review is
required. He said that this restriction could be changed so that restaurants of up to 5,000 square feet
could relocate Yo the Hill with only a two-week conditional review.
• The change to allow up to 5,000 square feet could lead to a variety of problems, even if the
restaurant were required to close at 11:00 p.m. The BMS-X zone was structured to be
neighborhood scale, and the 5,000 square foot restaurant would draw others from the
community.
• Address how enfarcement of the code would work with the conditional review versus a use
review.
• The Central Area General Improvement District (CAGID) lots might not be able to handle
the increased number of automobile traffic that a large restaurant would need.
• The increase of up to 3,000 square feet for a restaurant use limited to the Hill area would be
acceptable.
•
s:\plan\pb-items~minutes\O ll 025 min
City of Boulder
Planning Board Minutes
• October 25, 2001
Page 6
Reyuire a use review for any restaurant use of over 3,000 square feet and provide an
expedited process for approval.
Invoive the residents in tha area in these discussions and conduct a significant public process.
D. Inclusionary Zoning Revisions (Section 9-6.5-1).
C. Pieropan said that the changes address issues that were encountered in the first year of working
with inclusionary zoning, such as making group housing and assisted living facilities affordable,
changing Che timing of the required affordability covenants, and providing additional detail aboiit
what features must be included with permanently affordable units in arder to be priced at certain
levels, including specifying a minimum number ofbedrooms and bathrooms for each square footage
category. She explained the differences in the application of inclusionary zoning to rental and far-
sale projects. She said that in a for-sale project, at least half of the 20 percent requirement of the
affordable units is required to be provided on site; one of the options for a rental project would be
to provide the 20 percent pernianently affordable housing as far-sale condominiums, but most
lenders do not accept a project that has less than 70 percent home ownership units in the project. She
said that if developers of a for-sale project request that all of the inclusionary zoning requirement be
off-site, theyneed to provide an additiona150 percent; ifit is a rental project, they do not pay the 50
percent premium to provide all the housing off site. She addressed the problem of making sure the
• affordable units are built in a desirable or reasonable location. She discussed the formula for the
down payment requirement and the current interest rates For attached and detached units.
• Address adding "equivalent uniY' language and pay attention to pricing when permanently
affordable units are sold unfinished and the low income buyer completes the finish work.
• Requiring a difference in cash-in-lieu amounts for rental versus for-sale units drives up the
costs for the developers; instead, require a financial penalty to address this issue.
• Use whole person numbers when discussing assumed household size.
• Address the needs of families so that they can live in Boulder.
E. Title 8- Parks, Open Space, Streets, and Public Ways.
B. Cole said that several nonsubstantive Title 8 amendments need to be revised regarding how
encroachments in the public right of way and within public easements are treated.
Address areas where the streets and the rights ofway are different through town (some streets
have a 60-foot right of way and some haue 28-foot streets).
•
s: \planlpb-items~minutes\011025min
City of Boulder
• Planning Board Minutes
October 25, 2001
Page 7
Addressing a property owner's maintenance responsibility for preventing the obstruction of
public sidewalks makes sense, but there may be other specifics that might not make as much
sense.
There needs to be some exception far particular site conditions that essentially do not allow
certain things to be built in the public right of way.
Phase I- Minor Work Items
9-3.2-4 - Provide method of ineasurement for steeply sloping sites to determine
applicable height restrictions.
The Board had no comments.
2. 9-3.3-3 (b) - Landscape Regulations - alley tree location and street trees for Single
Family Detached Dwelling Units.
Address how enforcement of landscaping regulations regarding street trees and those near
the edge of an alley will be accomplished.
• 3. 9-1-3 - Definitions (new/revised) de~nitions - building envelope, open space.
The Board had no comments.
4. 9-3.1-1 - Introduction section to use charts - reference to de~nitions.
The Board had no comments.
5. 9-3.2-13 (d) - Setback Standards - change "use" to "zone."
The Board had no comments.
6. 9-1-3 (a) de~nition of "Accessory buildings" - allow "breezeways" attachments.
G. Kretsehmer addressed the issue of a separate bedroom in an accessory building as long as it is
within the setback requirements. He said that the definiYion ofbuilding and dwelling unit states that
everything is within one building connected by climate-controlled spaces. He said that if the
bedroom is connected by a breezeway, the bedroom in the accessory building would constitute a
separate dwelling unit.
•
s: \p I an\pb-i tems~ninute s\011025 min
City of Boulder
• Planning Board Minutes
October 25, 2001
Page 8
• Address opacity; it is a design issue, and it may be too prohibitive to say that a wall will not
be allowed.
• Review the definition of accessory buildings that do not allow bedrooms to detertnine what
it is accomplishing and whether it makes any difference to allow a bedroom.
• Take this item off the high-priority list and trade it with something else on the lower priority
list that should be moved up.
7. 9-3.2-1 Bulk Regulations - Minimum separation between principal and accessary
buildings.
B. Cole said that some people have wanted to build accessory structures, such as gazebos, with very
little separation from the principal shucture, and the issue is how much separation is appropriate in
those circumstances. G. Kretschmer said that a requirement of six feet far fire access, approved last
year, has worked reasonably well, but there has been one specific case where the builder thought that,
&om a design point of view, the structure should be closer to tha residence.
• Give more discretion to the Board of Zoning Adjustment and Building Appeals (BOZABA)
• so that these exceptions could be made on design considerations. G. Kretschmer said that
the BOZABA has to review objective criteria and does noY have discretion to grant a variance
based on subjective criteria.
• There is no need to rewrite this regulation except provide a maximum separation that could
be connected by a breezeway.
• Take this item off the high-priority list and trade it with something else on the lower priority
list that should be moved up.
• Regarding the example o£ the gazebo, a separation would be appropriate if the accessory
structure was higher than the principal unit; if the unit was smaller, a closer separation might
be appropriate.
Give examples of where this regulation worked and where it did not work and provide more
rationale for such a change.
8. 9-1-3 (a) Eliminate "recreation uses and bui-dings" use category from the residential
zoning districts.
Thc Board had no comments.
•
s: \p lan\pb-iYems~minutes\011025min
City of Boulder
• Planning Board Minutes
October 25, 2001 Page 9
9. 9-2.2-13 (~) Provide appendix graphic for setback aver~ging.
Provide graphics to help visualize the options that must be considered.
l0. 9-3.3-26 Pools and spas.
B. Cole said that there are two different requirements in the code for pools and spas--one requires
a fence with a locking gate and the other one requires a cover on top of the pool or spa. He said that
there is also a difference between the building code and the land use regulations in terms of which
is required, He said that staff is tiying to determine the desired solution (a cover by itself ar a fence
by itsel fl.
Staff should not be concerned with this much detail; after all, a gate on the fence might not
be closed. B. Cole said that the fence regulation does require a self ciosing and locking gate.
A fence around the spa is not needed, although a fence around a swimming pool is
appropriate.
11. 9-3.4-13 Owner Accessory Units (OAU).
• B. Cole said that there is a discrepancy between design and construction standards and land use
regulations. He said that from a utility service perspective, the desire is to have the separate utilities
for metering and billing purposes, but from a land use perspective the problem is to ensure that the
accessory unit does not become a separate dwelling unit.
Explain what the problem is, what the proposed solution is, and the rationale for a change.
12. 9-3.4-12 and 9-3.4-13 - Accessory Dwelling Units attd Owner Accessory Units.
B. Cole said that this change is to recognize other valid forms of ownership that the code does not
recognize.
Explain what the problem is, what the proposed solution is, and the rationale for a change.
13. Sign posting and public noti~cation for variances, solar exceptions, OAUs and ADUs,
sheUers and Concept Plan Reviews.
B. Cole explained that this change would clarify some inconsistencies in the code to require a 10-day
notification period.
•
s:\plan\pb-items~minutes\011025min
•
City of Boulder
Planning Board Minutes
October 25, 2001
Sign posting of 10 days is inadequate.
14. 9-1-4 Financial guarantees.
The Board had no comments.
15. 9-3.2-9, Congregate care.
The Board had no comments.
Page 10
16. 9-1-3 {a) Revise setback definition to state thlt setbacks are measured to outer
perimeter of structure whether above or below grade.
B. Cole said that a lot of setback requests are being made, particularly for parking structures and for
underground parking under new buildings that will extend out to the property line well beyond the
setbacks for the building itself. He said that this would not allow landscaping on top of the structure.
Determine the number of non-conformities that will be caused by the revision.
•
Review the access issues into the garage.
17. 9-4-8 Three year expiration vs. Revoking approval - Compliance hearing criterin and
standards for extensions.
B. Cole said that the change in this particular section of the code addresses clarification regarding
extensions of development approvals.
The Board had no comments.
18. 9-3.6-1 - Variances - revise required application materials.
The Board had no comments.
19. 9-3.3-6 - Fences and Walls.
Provide rationale for the necessity to change this provision, why a waiver would be granted,
and the criteria used to grant such a waiver.
Address solar access.
• There is a lot in the fence code that could be fixed that will solve 80 percent of the problem.
.
s:\plan\pb-items~minutes\011025min
City of Boulder
• Planning Board Minutes
October 25, 2001
20. 9-3.3-6 - Fence regulations.
Page 11
G. Kretschmer said that there have been a number of circumstances where the back edge oF the
sidewalk happened to be the property ]ine so thearetically a fence, hedge, or wall could be built or
planted right on the property line. He said that a common standard of 18 inches has been required
to accommodate bicyclists on sidewalks where reasonable separation is needed.
Consider allowing a transparent fence over 30 inches in height, such as a picket fence.
A bicyclist would be impacted by a fence under 30 inches. G. Kretschmer said that the 30
inches was selected because it is a standard maximum height of a stnicture that can project
into a vision triangle.
21. 9-12.6 (a) Wetland permits applications.
The Board had no comments.
22. 9-3.2-1 - LR-D, bulk charts revision for zero setback consideration.
• The Board had no comments.
23. 9-3.4-17 - Antenna for Wireless Communication - Rooftop antenna options.
Contact all the local providers and the leasers of the space to discuss this change.
24. 9-3.4-17 - Antenna for wireless communication.
Contact all the local providers and the leasers of the space to discuss this change.
25. 9-3.1 Administrative offices in industrial zones.
B. Cole said that there have been several examples ofpeople who want to have an office use in the
industrial zones but they were not serving another industrial facility which is required. He said that
in order to meet the definition, some people have established a vary small industrial operation, such
as a small storage facility, which technically meets the definition of the code, but it is not consistent
with the spirit of the code.
It makes sense as long as the principa] offices are in the general area; it does not make sense
when the offices are across town.
•
s:\plan\pU-items~minutes\011025min
City of Boulder
~ Planning Board Minutes
October 25, 2001
26. 9-3.6-2 (a) - Variances.
Change the zone so that alt are in the iight zoue.
27. 9-3.3-19 (b) Solar Access.
The Board had no comments.
28. 9-4-9 (d) Use Review Criteria.
Page 12
Write the code in such a way such that there is some discretion in exactly how this is applied
so that there is better criteria.
A use review for a specific proj ect that fits a specific community need might be supportable.
Phase II Major Work Items
A. Outdoor Illumination.
• G. Kretschmer said that this change would affecY private properties and may be applicable to the
illumination of signs. He said that the Transportation Department is working on a consistent lighting
program on the major arterial streets, such as 28th Street, Arapahoe, 30th Street, and Baseline Road.
He said that it is unlikely that these regulations would apply retroaetively to currently existing
situations, but it is a possibility as long as there is enforcement. He said that the ordinance coltld be
written to state that as properties redevelop the lighting would be required to be in conformance.
• Address the illumination of signs.
• When a neighborhood has chosen not to have street lighting, do not require that all streets
be lit. G. Kretschmer said that the proposal does not include residential street lighting.
• Make sure that as properties redevelop the ]ighting is in conformance; otherwise, the impact
of the ordinanca will be minimal.
• Use the American Planning Association (APA) resources because a lot of wark has already
been done on illumination issues.
~
s:\plan\pb-itemsUninutes\011025min
City of Boulder
• Planning Board Minutes
October 25, 2001 Page 13
B. 9-3.2-1- Building Coverage Limitations for the combination of Single Family Detached
Stractures and Accessory structures.
B. Cole said Yhat it would be difficult to move this item to Phase I because a lot of analysis is needed
on the number of non-conformities that will be created and ramifications for any other changes that
a property owner might want to make on that type of non-confonnity.
This solution might not soive the primary problems in siting accessory structures, particularly
whera the accessory structure is a garage. Garages present special prob3ems since they are
sited against a neighbor's property line, and it would be important to focus on accessory
stnictures that are garages.
The problem is created by the two different zones next to each other. Compare what the
setback would be ifthe accessory structure was the same size as the house and the neighbors
had the same zone.
• If there is not an alley that separates the two properties, the setback for the accessory unit is
a separate issue to the total syuare footage because it has a different impact no matter what
size it is. The setback is mare readily solved because it can be determined whether it is a
~ setback between zones or a setback to saparate accessory units which should be farther away
from the neighbor's proparty line.
• Evaluate whether trees can be preserved that might force the homeowner to site the accessory
structure diFferently.
• As the accessory structura becomes larger, increase the setback requirement.
• Address the setback requirement when there is alley access.
• Ensure that windows are directed away from the neighbors for privacy.
• Consider the size of the lots in determining setback requirements.
• Consider requiring landscaping when buildings are close to the property line.
• Open space needs to be kept in mind when discussing setbacks for accessory structures so
that the open space of the lot aud coimections it has to adjacent lots are not violated.
• Open space should be considered in mixed use developments, but it does not work in
residential areas because it would violate private property rights.
~
s:lplan\p6-itemslminutes\011025min
City of Boulder
~ Planning Board Minutes
October 25, 2001
Page 14
The accessory sTructure should be closer to the principal house than to the adjacent home if
it is over a certain size.
Phase II Minor Work Items
1. 9-3.206 and 9-3.27 - Open Space.
The current examples ofopen space, such as six-inch and oue-foot spaces between a property
line and a recessed window or the slight indentations of doorways do not conform to the
spirit or reasons or use that was desired.
2. Section 9-5, Subdivisions
B. Cole explained that the issues that have arisen are primarily in the nonresidantial arsas, such as
multiple lots in a single development.
Allow lot line adjustment flexibility in residential areas to provide consistency; streamline
the procedures to make the process simpler.
~ 3. 9-3.4-15 - Home occupations.
B. Cole said that staff is trying to provide better quantification of what are acceptable impacts for
home occupations, including traffic.
Review the impact of a business that employs one person.
Include in the analysis frequency ofUnited Parcel Service or Federal Express deliveries, size
of delivery trucks, and frequency of customers.
4. Minimum amount of open space at ground level for business/commercial uses in all
zones.
Make more clear the issue of making some portion of the building setback to accommodate
some open space.
5. 4-3.3-1 and/or 9-4-11, Landscaping plans submitted as part of a site review application.
The Board had no comments.
.
s:\plan\pb-items\minutes\011025min
City of Boulder
Planning Board Minutes
~ October 25, 2001
6. 9-31-2 - Split zoned buildings.
Page 15
Make sure that the options proposed do not include reductions in residential potential.
7. 9-3.5-3 (b)(2), Non-standard buildings (height) on non-standard lots (size).
B. Cole said that this issue was raised by the ICratovil site review that the Board just reviewed. Staff
felt that requiring such an excessive process for this kind of situation on a non-standard lot was not
necessary.
• Continue to include a public process.
• It is not worth the time required to address this issue for those Few situations that might come
forth; a simpler process might be good, but do not create unintended consequences by such
a change in the process.
8. Section 9-3.2-6, open space calculations for mixed use developments - where does
residential open space have to be located?
• Put the open space where it is supposed to be and not on the commercial side.
~ • Consider passive or contemplative open space far oid people as well as for young people.
9. 9-3.2-1, Major street setbacks.
The reason that it was not included in the "E" zone is that the idea was to match up with the
already established buildings that were thexe i ather than create the ability to build a structuxe
that was old of character with what already exists.
Look for the unintended consequences.
Phase III, Major Work Items
A. Low Density Residential Oft street Parking Reguirements.
B. Cole said that this issue is whether off-street parking requirements are needed in residential zones.
He said that the issue has been raised about existing circumstances, especially when people are trying
to expand living areas into existing garage area thereby eliminating the off-sYreet parking area. He
said that the code does not permit this because the residence is required to have an off-street parking
space which cannot be in the front yard setback.
~
s:\plan\pb-items\minutes\011025min
City of Boulder
~ Planning Board Mimrtes
October 25, 2001
Page 16
• Consider how reducing single family off-street parking requirements can be accomplished.
• Eliminate this issue as a major work item.
• Perform an analysis to determine if this should be a major work item.
• It might be betYer to prevenY the conversion of a garage to living space rather than building
up.
B. 9-3.5 - Non-conforming Regulations.
Put in stronger language that actually reduces the level of the non-conformity.
C. Jobs/Popalation Related Amendments.
Do not increase the amount of residential in BMS-X but consider changing to number of
units or specify diversity.
Evaluate the establishment of maximum floor area ratios for the TB-D zoning district.
~
Phase III, Minor Work Items
1. 9-3.3-6 - Fence regulations.
Address front yard fences, including entirely fenced yards.
2. 9-3.1-1, Create an administrative "Use Approval" process.
G. Kretschmer said that there are a lot of enforcement problems because oRentimes the first time
we see a use at a specific location is the time we get a sales tax license which means that the use has
already taken place. He said that sometimes the use is not allowed in the zone. He said that staff
would like to get approvals for a use license prior to building permit and before someone moves into
a building.
3. Add more sketches and diagrams to code.
These sketches and diagrams will make the process simpler.
•
s:\plan\pb-items~minutes\O ll 025min
City of Boulder
~ Planning Board Minutes
October 25, 2001 Page 17
4. Establish consistent call-up/appeal standards for all land use reviews and subdivisions.
Two different ways might be necessary because there is a difference between the majar and
small projects.
Make a change in the code far the site design paragraph in the site review criteria because
the current code does not address what to do in review of a development that lacks a unique
sense of place; change the sentence to read "Projects should preserve or enhance the
community's unique sense of place through creative design."
OTHER COMMENTS
Look at the land use code to review Leadership through Energy and Environmental Design
(LEED) in terms of getting this energy code in place. For instance, some things in LEED
might conflict with the land use regulations, especially in mixed use.
Consider adding some ofthe Boulder Valley Comprehevsive Plan (BVCP) language on use
reviews into the use review section of the code.
~ • Make sure the changes fit with the BVCP.
B. Study session regarding the University Hill Zoning Study concerning the area
surrounding the University Fiill commercial dtstrict
P. Pollock introduced Neil Holthouser, a new planner half time in historic preservation and half-
time in community development. N. Holthouser described the existing commercial district which
is bounded by High-Density Residential-Established adjacent to Low-Density Residential-
Established. He outlined the purpose of the study which is part of a larger, ongoing effart by the
University Hill Action Group, a group appointed by City Council. He said that this plan builds on
previous planning efforts in the University Hill area, including a marketing study that was completed
far the commercial district, a streetscape improvement plan, and a code enforcement audit to see how
well the city is responding to code issues. He stated that the zoning study seeks to deal with
perceived land use and zoning conflicts on the Hill. He said that the major themes of the study are
1) declining quality and condition ofthe properties immediately surrounding the commercial district,
2) the poor Yransition between the commercial, the high-density residential, and the ]ow-density
residential uses, and 3) a balance in the need for more student housing with the desire within the
neighborhood to manage density.
~
s: \plan\pb-items\minutes\011025min
City of Boulder
. Planning Board Minutes
October 25, 2001
Page 18
He presented the land use history from 1890 when the University Place Additian was platted to 1928
when the commercial develo~ment began to encroach into the established single-family
neighborhood. He presented ear~y neigltborhood maps that showed the development patCem with
actual building footprints from 1906 to 1962. He stated that in 1928 Boulder's firsY zoning ordinance
was drafted for University Hill to include a mixture of commercial, high-density residential,
medium-density residential, and low-density residantia] Lises. He presented maps from 1928 to 199?
thattrackad the different zoning and explained the differences for each map, which included a
signiFicant downzoning in 1974 and 1997.
He descxi6ed the fol(owing zoning trends discovered through fhe analysis: 1} the commercial districf
boundaries haue not changed at all since 1428; 2) the boundaries of the high-density residential area
defined roughly as the area north of Buclid and east of 1Qtl~ Strest have remained relatively
uncbanged; 3) the medium-densityresidential area has been giadually reduced over the years giving
way to lower-density residential zones west of 9th and south of College Avenue; 4) the 1974
downzoning dramatically reduced the permitted density wast of 9th and south of College Avenue
so that multi-family conversions that had occurred in the area prior to 1974 were all grandfathered;
and 5) the 1997 downzoning from HR-E to MXR-E fiu~ther reduced the permitted density north of
University so that existing apartment buildings and multi-family conversions were grandfathered.
He showed the current zoning map with the zoning districts outlined. He said that the zoning
~ confticts inc2ude 1) the low-density residential area that abuts a high-density residential area south
of College, west of 12th and south of Euclid lacks a madium-density buffer, 2) a high instance of
non-conformities, particularly in the HR-E and MXR-E districts and in the low-density residential;
3) Boulder's zoning philosophy has traditionally allowed far tUe continuation but not the expansion
of non-conformities; A) older hoixsing stock designed for single family use lias been converted for
multiple oceupancy; and 5) the mimber of occupants per dwelling unit exceeding the maximum
permitted under the code.
He asked the Board to give direction to staff on one of the following policy options: I} no change;
2} revise the code to allow gxeater tlexibitiry for improving, rehabilitating, and/or expanding non-
conformities; and 3) change the zoning on the ground, to try to etiminaYe tha non-conformities, to
zone them into conformity by using the existing zoning category, ar create a new zoning category.
P. Polloek explained the review process far approving an addition to anon-conformingusa (areview
process to expand the size by up Co 10 parcent, provided other criteria are met in the code which
deals with reducing the degree of non-conformity or significantly improving the appearance and
other outward impacts on the sun~ounding area).
N. Holthouser described the pros far adopting the "no change" option: 1) it does not require a code
change and there is no lengthy rezoning process; and 2) property owners do have investmant-backed
expectations based on the current code. He described the cons to this option: 1} it does not address
~
s:Aplan\pb-items~miuutes\011025min
City of Boulder
Planning Board Minutes
~ October 25, 2001
Page 19
the issue of non-conformities; 2) it does not address density and occupancy questions; and 3) it does
not pmvide for any medium density buffer. He said that Option 2 to revise the code provides greater
flexibility for dealing with non-confoimities and encourages reinvestment in these properties by
aliowing some greater and expanded use of the property. He said that the cons far this option
assumes that non-conformity is the reason why people are not reinvesting in these properties and
may result in an increased density and an increased number of occupants. He said that the pros for
Option 3 for a zoning change include 1) elimination of non-conformities by zoning into conformity,
and 2) an opportunity to create a more meaningfiil buffer between the commercial, high-density
residential, aud low-densityresidential uses. Ae said that the cons to this option are 1) it assumes that
non-conformity is the reason people are not reinvesting in their properties, 2) it may result in
increased density or occupancy, aud 3) it could allow for more intensive by-right development in
areas rezoned for greater density.
He said that additiona] analysis is needed to determine the extent aud the location of these density
and occupancy conflicts. He added that there is a need to engage neighborhood residents, property
owners, businesses, and community groups to discuss these optious, a need to understand the
economics of redeveloping non-conformities, and a need For guidance from the Planning Board in
terms of next steps in this process. J. Gordon said that two issues regarding occupancy that would
need to be addressed are determination of the legal occupancy level and enforceability of the law.
~ Individual Board members made the foliowing comments, not by consensus:
• An additional option mighY be to decide which non-COnformities should be eliminated and
change the land use regulations to do so by providing a sunset clause or not continue the
grandfathering of such uses.
• Consider suspending or retracting the grandfathered use if a certain number of occupancy
violations occur.
• Part of the low-density residential area that was downzoned actually behaves like a medium
density area and acts like the buffer zone.
• The problems on the Hill, which are long standing, are not planning problems, and it is futile
to tinker around with the zoning; it seems far less effective than some of the things that the
Hill neighborhood group has enacted.
• Bring the landlords into line and set up some regulations.
• Changing the zoning to provide more density would not help the sihtation; look at a
combination of incentives and regulations to solve the problem; look at upkeep standards for
the Hill area.
~
s:\plan\pb-items\minutes\O l 1025min
City of Boulder
Planning Board Minutes
~ October 25, 2001
Page 20
• The only kind of redevelopment that wiil reduce the impacts is scraping the multiple lots oF
dilapidated housing and putting in underground parking and new apartments on top.
• Need more detail of what kinds of non-conformities exist on the Hill because non-
conforming uses, non-standard lots, and parking non-conformities have different impacts to
the neighborhood.
• It is unclear if the density on the Hil] should be broken up through land use regulations or
incenYive based solutions. Any answer that increases density will not improve the
neighborhood.
• It would not be wise to destroy the buildings and redevelop wifh apartment buildings,
• Revitalizing the Hill by allowing nice-quality restaurant and getting rid of bars might
encourage property owners to move into their housing units.
• Landmarkingthe area gives landlords a tax incentive to rehabilitate their properties and gives
some level of oversight into what can and cannot happen to the property.
• Find out if the problems occurring on the blocks coincide in any way with the non-
~ conformities.
• Expand the groups that should be discussing this problem.
P. Pollock suggested that the zoning histoiy and other information be brought to City Council at
their study session early next year.
7. ADJOURNMENT
The Planning Board adjourned the meeting at 10:40 p.m.
~
s:\plan\pb-items~miuutes\011025min
~
Universiry Hill
2oning Study
~
Purpoee of Study
• xam~~swarwno~.uR...e~soi~i
~%ort b~ IlnMnlry Xill Mtlan Gmup
• IINIIGm~bdln.Np4mMV3000w
mammma.auen. m <~ry couMn w
Imqov M~ quYlry M IN~ md ~mu q
m~~mro. ~i m n. wn..aa xin
~d~nbo~n~er
• wna.o~w..b~.w.~m~i.xa,.,i~
uwwrYry uul, uwwlns wmmewm
muWtlnl ~wM~ ~orwunp MP~r~mm[
phn, uM.od..nlorcrmm~ ~Wk
• ZenlqSOdyx~lumtlmloppoliq
aptlm~ w mdw hM uu ~id ion~n{
.~nim.
MajorTM1emec
•
Dnllnly quJ~ry~nd ~ondltlen el proprW~
ImmeR~ph wrwnntlinl ~ ~a^mrrdY m~.
Pwr mnYtlan Gtwwn ~mmm~M~l. M1ItM1-
dmAry mWmtld uid law-0emiry mldentld
ltlmtlM ~~ ler ~wdxn Mm~n~ md M~
milM1be*wEY G~Inm m~n~{~ bn~itl.
~
~~e u.. xirc~
~
IBPo .Onimi~ry/haEdAUOnpL~¢1
~891 - IivmEmain Unircrvry XiOmmw~mtn Wleplllp
IA91 . MumSVGetrvdkWmYW~n~~iIPA6Wrn
1891 ~9hvlmicsonomi~4prtrienn~lndndopmm~
IB%. WvNoqrvuupuaopn~
IBW . limurtlim<mmpleud,linllnlt~~uoupwuEwn~nn
19A6 ~ YnlrauryNIIISAOdopmui16A6tiwdx~~
iooe. iim~~m~.iam'ae'~~c~~+~~mnnovm~~nHu
IWOr Aaibnu~Ipan~EOOminunirwvryXilptimhqe
ap~mmempuillinl~~pWr
1918~Inuon~knan~wdiSMVnQe~lunil~neApeR,wE
xdmnm0'wg<emmeru~IGrtlopmentpompnfiryio
AInI.M1hBurnenliBmkeifimmnin~wdlmnu
u:nmxun;,~wh
u~~w:nxmo.doem~~nn~,iws
I Y ~ ~ ~ i ~~}€~~
! "Sf {' {f'~, r
~ '~1 ` r.t ~ i ~ ~r~~~+.~~
~ f
I I ~ 7 ~~#).~'t
e~i ~ - ~ ~ ~~ ~
~ ~ ~..
+L _t
k yz f (e,.~irvxl 1~ i~, `~1
F -'~
' ~ ~"~'' ~1 ~ ~~~ ~
r~ V t
i w` ~ i{ ~~D Ka ~ "_-- ii
ru f ..I' ~ I ' ~ _~
a ~::; ......I
Ir-.
.._ a. ' 1._ ..'.. .,,,_~._Ei:a:
•
~
~~,,.:„~,~~~~,o.o.~,~o~e
~,t:l.~~~l b`~\~
~e1~{~~e s~l~,.E~\\
, ~
` ~ ~ F ~:y\
~1{ o ~. ~. 'c i~`~~
F~~i .~...-.i ~ ~ y~ y~\,~.1~.W ,~
iiil :L4:-. It 2i ~ ~
•
II r{ '
~i_:._~{
UnimvryNi114rMopmm~hn~m,1911
~
xt -= - ~-'~ ^i
~'h*V i Yi. ~ ~ ~~ ~'~
!~f ~ ~ wr ~ ~ b ~.'z
1 ~' k~ 1. P J..~
1 '~ ~ ~ p~ 1~Ir ~
!i~ ~~n '.Vrlj~l~~ ~~.~.`,~i~.
.,~... _..• . ... . .... ~.~
~ _..~
''~r~` ~ f1y,'~ 1 _~14 4X,~
~~ ~k~ i~.i ry~A+ I 1+.,. i1.~~
{s ~,^ y y I i'% .`qi
~ ~
~ ~ i1
fl~ sv+v ~,~~' t ~,+,,
~~I ~ wi
! ~ , ~ i _
.._ ii-._~ '~ ~~-~~1
~
u~~,.aa wu oNa~~~ nn~„ w.i on
ei_.~.=:++~..tiu_ ~-~-a~e~
i
~
~ ~~1,J 1 ~r
~t.~ijy'~~I
~
{~i~~F I,':3~~1i~ j
~
~
'~~
~ 't~
i~
I F r
F
'
~ '
y
~~~~=",
1
~
tiI
";
t~ ~w i(
IL
Y'
Ynimiry XI II Yrvtlopmni Ponm, prt~ Bd]
•
.-. ~ ... . ... ...... . ....... . _ .
QT 'I}i ftfs> ~~"~^i~~.
' a~z I(
r
~
~
f
c i
~
r ~ '
~'
,
~
I ry~
r
I
! i ~, }
~ ~
Cilu4 ~I~i 1;
~~ E i .7
I ~ ~:~a rfl~~ ~'
~~~
JI
~ «~~ ~1 i i
'
f
'' `
,y `" ' `
.
~
~
I~' j~° T t
,, }
;
f
I ~ii x, j'~.
.
4
~' Y _
q~- il W."y'?'.~I'
,~
3enln{ XI~O~ry
•
108 ~ GryMrnf.AM&ermdnl~OwWN~4rmm~in{
a~Gimm~
Wi~ervry PoII i~ wnd ko mimn elmnmuoY, ~i~M1~
Enuryrt4deeti~I.mMlurndndryinidn~iJ,xEla~
dn~iryrtJdenu~luu~
'A'4JEmn=un~hYmih
'B"AeuEma= un~le4milpnro4mil~
~rede%~~= a~U~iNry.m~m.um~h.~om~e
emm'in~no~.~
'D' 9uunm = all a:dnu~l um, plui wil,nMoue
61i~MmxuLoann~
~
•
•
_ __._.
~4~, ~,~~~,
...~.~
~.-....,._~,..,
•.rw..~er.w.r....i...~r~-.
vw.we • ~'[.r,MMw~.~M~+~v
~ ~ ~~ 19MIon~n~
-~~h`1Y.~
-~~M`OM~9~ny
- M~i...~.F.i.i. Wrabr~e.ir~~~..
19511m1n{
~
ivn zo~mi
~
ivi~ iwnna
•
weo:emne
•
~
rov~ t~im
•
:~mirn~a.
• tamnr~itleumnEeune~nn~~nmm~inMM~urdy
~en~iwM,iv~e.
• BounE~nneli~~Al~AdnurynJdmu~lnu.ddmtl
rou~I~nAUmnoMalFwldm4une110N,Arve
rcmundh~{el~un~AmpE.
• Mdlumdmuryrtvdau~I~m~nEenpndmllpdmk
orn~qun, Mrin~ rry w ~mrdnury rndm~iil wnm~
.«~ ei nn,~e,wm oi uiep.
• 1919dmm~~mingdnmmnlryMuadpmindduury
etlelfipmd wvd olfnikp;multi~Lmilymmueompnw
m1911~n~nndhiAvd.
• IWltlovrv~enin~IramXA~FmMI6tNMxMmd
~~ma a~,a n ~e~m oi um~p.r. ~um~c,v~~~~~
lulldinA~~~multi.hmill~en+erionnnqnndLtlwd.
•
~
Zaning Con0lafs
•
• InmGndM1mid~nWl.bubhl~kMnYry
mlbnWl M w~ wuM MCdL~~. rnttel
ISM W wutlr M EuAd; I.~kalmeAUm~
bnYqbuflx.
• HI~M1In~bix~elnmmseMamlW~,
pNaW1y In M~ HR~F ~M MXR{ ahokp.
• ceme.r..wu~ivhnewphrn.~
vW~duruiy db.x iw.mnnwam, art wt
..wwe~, m,~~.w~m,~,~me ~~..~a da..
• XauYn~rtxk<enY~nq~mnr4E~ln~t
l~mlh ~w~~~m ~ ~Ildlnl~ ~~~~nd lor
maltlPb a~mpmry.
• m.mm.n»~.a.numb..e1«<uwnaqr
d...mm ~~ie.....a~ n. m.dm~m p..mimd
~~a., m. wa..
u.Mbuoi.~~ie~ry
Pollcy OpNona
I. Na~M1.ne..
3. Rrvh~<ad~bYlew{marllMWllry
m, imwe.u~~. Rn.nin~n~n.~eia.
...w~am~.~<a~~~m~ a.~w.n...
e. cnmp.eni~nm.nmi~.u~eo-
<eMeimltlo, proMA ler bmr
tnn~itlon W~wxnuw:
~. Un ~tl~tlry ~anlq ~m~ery
b. 4nb mw ~onln~ [~b{ory
OpHon 1: No Change
~
~nn
• DenroupuinaoM~mmdmmtar
IrnNhYrnanln(prxm.
• RapnryewmnM1~wlnw~anmoWM~tl
up.~ntlon. b.ud on ~ummt mM ~M
noMOM1MZenlnt.
Conr.
• ow.~e~wa..~.i..wa~.eMwmia...
• ro.~~.~.m....e.~~m.~ae..~w~w
qu~~tlmt
• Uw~nMprovlGle~medlumden.lrybu~f.r.
~
•
•
Optloo2: ReviseCatle
hv.
• M1aNtle~MtlbIIMylwlmpaNM,
~n.uudu,~. ~aa.W..m~ ~~.
~^M~~M Mop~R
• homo4~m~nmqnMtlnnql«ud
~bwW~a.
~Ni:
• ~4~wn~~patGdlnlqmMHbne1
papr W~ I~ tlw nwk q iwn<oMamiq
• x.r...m~mm.~..aa~~flr,~~~wMr
OpHou3: CheogeZOning
her.
• EIImliuunem~enlom~IW~bY~~~Iwllt
..i~u~~ ~o~awo~..
• appnuMqan~ab~manmr~nN{lul
buHnb~nnm romm~rtW. m`Fd.m~ry
mltlmtlq ~M IawdmYry mlantlY mn.
fonr.
• 4wmuMrtMdlnln{aMhbnel
propntl.. I. M. nwle W iwn<onlormlry
~ MrynauUlnlnrnwdMnYry.xeuyr~eY
• fnuldtllewfermanlnuntlwbyal~M
awawm•~e i~ w... r..~.a m.~R.e.
Mmlry.
NextSteps
r,amxww .wya. n.e.e m m...mm...uur
.~a i~.ua~ a a~an.~e a«~w~q.w~nin,.
x«d m.~.p n.pnblheed ndann,
propnq ewMn~ buYM~x~ ~M <mmmunhy
poup~ m d~uun peliry eptlen~.
Xr~d m MNr uMmbM swwml~~ ol
red~r~loplni nom~anlermlN ~~n~.
}11